![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
@ HappyWaldo: Why haven't you started a discussion about this?
I have multiple problems with this line.
For one, I don't see any real benefit to including Yiannopoulos's off-hand comment about his role in the alt-right in the lead. This is one of countless opinion pieces he's written, and stumbling around for sources which call him a ringleader or spokesperson or figurehead or whatever only to immediately refute that in the same sentence isI sloppy.
It also seems like it's an excuse to include yet more of Yiannopoulos's self-aggrandizement in the article. J.D. Salinger he ain't. He loves to talk about himself, to the point of self-parody, so finding quotes where he describes himself in flattering terms isn't difficult or noteworthy. Some sort of secondary sources would be needed for this kind of fluff. If all these sources have commented on his role in the alt-right, haven't any of them commented on his response to that?
Additionally, the lead is supposed to summarize the body, and none of this is in the body. The lead should not be the only place a significant issue is discussed, and if it's not a significant issue, it probably shouldn't be in the lead. Grayfell ( talk) 22:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree- it wouldn't be that important for your average minor celebrity. It's just that Yiannopoulos is primarily notable for being banned from Twitter, so it's probably something we should mention in the lede. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 21:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Two months ago, user TheTruthiness ( talk) made the following edit:
"In July 2016, Yiannopoulos panned the Ghostbusters reboot as "a movie to help lonely middle-aged women feel better about being left on the shelf."[63][64] After the film's release, Twitter trolls attacked African American actress Leslie Jones, in ways that included racial abuse. Yiannopoulos wrote three public tweets about Jones, saying "Ghostbusters is doing so badly they've deployed [Leslie Jones] to play the victim on Twitter", before describing her reply to him as "Barely literate" and then calling her a "black dude".[65][66][67] Critics of Yiannopoulos allege that his tweets encouraged third parties to abuse Jones.[68][69]
Yiannopoulos was then permanently banned by Twitter, which released a statement saying that "no one deserves to be subjected to targeted abuse online, and our rules prohibit inciting or engaging in the targeted abuse or harassment of others. ... We know many people believe we have not done enough to curb this type of behavior on Twitter. We agree." but did not specify which tweet or tweets they felt violated this policy.[70] Critics noted that Jones herself directly violated those same rules by asking her followers "I hope y’all go after them like they going after me" and "get her [a 17 year old Twitter user]" yet was actively courted by Twitter's CEO Jack Dorsey to return to the platform.[71][72]" https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Milo_Yiannopoulos&diff=732585583&oldid=732577606
For some reason, three editors opposed his edit. What I don't understand is why is "Critics of Yiannopoulos allege that his tweets encouraged third parties to abuse Jones." not considered WEASEL, but "Critics noted that Jones herself directly violated those same rules by asking her followers "I hope y’all go after them like they going after me" and "get her [a 17 year old Twitter user]" yet was actively courted by Twitter's CEO Jack Dorsey to return to the platform." is.
I do not see anything wrong w/ TheTruthiness' edit and the sources he used. Why only mention what critics of Yiannopoulos said about his behaviour? Israell ( talk) 17:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Μίλω Ιαννόπουλοσ is wrong, the "σ" is never used in the ending and the "ς" is used instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.71.151.53 ( talk) 14:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
"Do not include foreign equivalents in the lead sentence just to show etymology"seems to apply. We don't know if he speaks Greek, or if he has been written about in Greek publications or similar. By including the Greek spelling, the article is implying that it's more relevant than is supported by sources. Since we don't have a source for that spelling, and it's apparently wrong, there is more than one reason to remove it. Grayfell ( talk) 04:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
here tis: " https://yiannopoulos.net/" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.91.215 ( talk) 01:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
"..university president Dennis H. Holtschneider issued a statement reaffirming the value of free speech and apologizing for the harm caused by Yiannopolous's appearance on the campus..."
Is the above a neutral point of view? What is the "harm" that is alleged? Shouldn't there be a reference to the original statement? 136.162.2.1 ( talk) 15:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Milo Yiannopoulos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
i would like to add that his mother is an English Jew and so is he Jewish by ancestry and culturally.
source: https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-america-divided/milo-yiannopoulos/
Ronron251 ( talk) 19:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I've taken the time out to wade through past revisions for birthdate. I found that originally the entry just said "British journalist, October 1984". I note that the first edit giving Crunchbase as a source for birthdate was made by a a now blocked IP on 10 October 2014. The birth date of 18 Oct 1984 was not in the reference provided, and this was not picked up by other editors at the time of editing. Whilst Crunchbase appears to be a wiki-style profile, not necessarily created or edited by the person themselves, we can see from its edit history that the subject of this bio eventually registers an official profile and therefore can be assumed to have control over its content, and it seems likely that at least some of the previous edits were also made by the subject before registration at Crunchbase. Later on wikipedia, after what seems like a lengthy edit war which began in December 2014 by Gibbets, some AGF edits in January 2015 by Malfuron4, and some very silly IP edit wars in August 2015, the subject's birthdate was changed by an editor from 1984 to 1983 to reflect the info on the Crunchbase source.
Given the nature of the Crunchbase source, partly a self-published source, (see WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:SELFPUB, WP:BLPSELFPUB), and think some due diligence is required, since there is, as will be demonstrated in the next paragraph, reasonable doubt as to the birthdate authenticity. However, due to the subjects control over the information contained on Crunchbase, "it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object" to the inclusion of 18 October 1983 as their WP:DOB.
The UK Companies House lists the subject's birthdate as 18/10/94 for three limited companies which are mentioned in reliable secondary sources (Hipster Ventures, Sentinel Media, Caligula): https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/Ok_73a89ZK4v5il-7NckmFS4nUU/appointments A fourth company Counterknowledge also has the birthdate/year of 18/10/94 for "British Writer". Counterknowledge is also referenced by the nom de plume Milo Andreas Wagner on their personal website. A fifth company Wrong Agency shows a birthdate for 18 Oct 1983, yet it is clearly the same "British Journalist" as the other four companies. These Companies House sources I consider to be WP:BLPPRIMARY, since they're public records.Please correct me if I'm wrong.
It seems unlikely that the subject has started four limited companies using the wrong birth data. It does appear that the Wrong Agency Limited company lists an incorrect year of birth, but that the Crunchbase wiki and the wikipedia autobiography for his nom de plume Milo Andreas Wagner, ( WP:BLPSELFPUB?), may have intentionally given an incorrect year (1983).
Two more primary sources corroborate the four WP:BLPPRIMARY sources which establish the basic biographical fact of birthdate - his first stint as a director for his father's company whilst a student in 2003, and his birth certificate.
With six primary sources for the 1994 birth year incl. birthcert, and three (two secondary, one primary) for what appears to be a fictitious year of 1993, we ought to be able to make a judgement call and edit the entry to reflect these basic biographical facts:
I have set out concrete but primary proof that the birthyear is not 1983. This evidence cannot be included in the BLP, but proves the contentious nature of a 1983 birthyear. If the above changes are acceptable, then I suggest that current birthyear/birthname/nationality be altered to reflect the =source consensus, else, perhaps the best solution (given the amount of edit warring over this issue) is to remove the birthdata altogether. What do other editors think? -- Luther Blissetts ( talk) 07:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
This sentence in the leads BEGS to be answered "because ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE95:57B0:D9E8:8AB4:72C9:DF3E ( talk) 04:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
This sentence does not make sense. What provision was opposed, what does it say about Milo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE95:57B0:7DAB:F42C:5D99:BA0F ( talk) 18:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Milo Yiannopoulos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please correct the last line in the start of the article to: Yiannopoulos was permanently banned from Twitter in July 2016 for what the company cited as “participating in or inciting targeted abuse of individuals.” [source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/07/20/twitter-bans-milo-yiannopoulos-for-good-while-cracking-down-on-abuse/?tid=a_inl] 2602:306:CE95:57B0:7DAB:F42C:5D99:BA0F ( talk) 04:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC) p.s. The references there support this but I cited a direct source for the company's own wording``` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE95:57B0:7DAB:F42C:5D99:BA0F ( talk) 04:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
10:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Given Milo is such a controversial figure it is not too hard to imagine there being an edit war of sorts that could erupt over this page, or that the writing of the article may favor certain opinions. I noticed this when I corrected (attempted to, rather;my edit was undone along with accusations that I was making "false claims" despite providing sources, which just illustrates my point) claims in the article that he was a "spokesperson" for the alt-right, with sources from Guardian.com opinion pieces (which were very anti-Milo) used as sources to justify. Likewise, I can see that other instances of this sort of sourcing exist, such as the source for Milo being a "critic of third-wave feminism" using an opinion piece with clear bias accusing him of "misogyny" rather than an example of his criticisms. Given what happened during the Gamergate scandal and the realities of agenda driven editing, I think it a good idea to take steps to ensure neutrality is being maintained. 2601:191:100:FE63:5996:B7A9:13AB:E782 ( talk) 06:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
From what I understand, Milo cultivates being flamboyantly homosexual as part of his persona and is one of the reasons his campus speech circuit is called the "Dangerous F----t" tour. However, the article doesn't mention this as far as I can see. Also, why is his Twitter ban mentioned in the lede? TariqMatters ( talk) 17:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Why is this page written in American English? He's British, so it should be in UKEng. Also, his old Wikipedia userpage ( User:Milo Andreas Wagner) says he was born in 1983. Heepman1997 ( talk) 03:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
One can of course go roundabout searching for disrupting and twisting excuses to sabotage proper Wikipedia editing. The most valid and orthodox source for establishing who is Jewish is the Halacha ; and that's final. WringIng out any half baked obstreperous rationalisation is totally inexcusable and unwanted on Wikipedia. Of course proper sources are warrented and must be in place. RudiLefkowitz ( talk) 00:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Milo Yiannopoulos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Alt-right should be in quotes or preceded by "so-called" as per AP style guide. Mflsviolin ( talk) 16:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
When I first read this article I saw that his mother is Jewish. I am not sure why it was taken off and it is important to his biographical information, because by Jewish law this makes him Jewish, regardless of if he identifies as Catholic.
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-america-divided/milo-yiannopoulos/ http://www.salon.com/2016/09/29/alt-right-catfight-daily-stormer-wages-holy-crusade-on-breitbart-because-milo-yiannopoulos-is-part-jewish/ https://idledillettante.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/380a6-screenshot2013-01-15at21-50-07.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.66.31 ( talk) 16:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Sir Joseph, I'm sorry I didn't sign earlier. I am new to Wikipedia Talk 65.51.66.31 ( talk)avr1891 —Preceding undated comment added 21:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
"...he likes to mention that his maternal grandmother was Jewish when he’s accused of anti-Semitism". This isn't saying his grandmother was Jewish, it's saying that he likes to say she was in certain situations. As was already discussed above in #Persondata set, this is a passing mention which was phrased to imply skepticism or doubt. There are at least a couple of sources saying that his claims are questionable, or only used by him when it's convenient to deflect criticism. As far as I know, there are no reliable, independent sources supporting his Jewish ancestry without these caveats. We can either try and figure out some way to include this point, or we can wait until a more reliable source is found. Needless to say, The Daily Stormer's opinion on who is or isn't Jewish is total garbage as far as reliable sources go (even if repeated by Salon), and a screenshot of a couple of tweets taken out of context isn't any good, either. Grayfell ( talk) 02:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
For something contentious like this, we'd really need to stick to firmly reliable sources (not social media, not a passing half-mention.) PeterTheFourth ( talk) 11:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
There's as much evidence that he's Greek (or that he's gay, or that he's Catholic) as there is that he is Jewish. And project-wide, wikipedia almost always follows self-reported identity. So there is no reason for the removal of this. Avaya1 ( talk) 18:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Why is such material even considered relevant enough for inclusion? It's barely mentioned, highly contentious, and ultimately doesn't matter in the BLP. Why bother with all this edit warring to include it? PeterTheFourth ( talk) 03:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I still haven't seen anyone try and answer the question of why this is important for the article. Saying over and over again that primary sources are good enough seems like its avoiding the main objection. Even the articles and social media being cited for this support that it's only brought-up to deflect accusations of bigotry. There is no requirement for this to be included, and many top-quality bio articles leave out heritage of one of the grandparents, even when it's not controversial. Grayfell ( talk) 07:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
The only relevant question is whether reliable sources describe him or his mother as "Jewish" frequently. That's it. Secondary reliable sources. All your speculation and theorizing is completely irrelevant. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
And in regard to this [3], there's obviously no consensus to include this. And if controversial material is challenged it should not be restored. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
There are many many sources which are reliable for Milo saying he is Jewish. And wikipedia is deep into people being able to self identify. This has been pounded to death in Bernie's article, King's, many others. VM, you know you are jerking the chain here. Do you really want to make this the hill you die on for AE/Arbcom? ResultingConstant ( talk) 22:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
"[Generation Trump, the alt right people,] don't care about Jews. I mean, they may have some assumptions about things, how the Jews run everything; well, we do." — Milo Yiannopulous [4] [5] [6]
Not sure if there's a reason to mention his Jewishness, though
-- Distelfinck ( talk) 22:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Could someone support Milo's Catholicism with a source where he explicitly self-identify as Catholic? You know, just a simple, "I am Catholic" will do. WP:BLPCAT anyone? A simple report about his being a member of that institution is not enough. Blue sphere 16:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I reverted this edit which changed Yiannopoulos' description from "conservative" to "far-right." I checked the first half of the article's cited sources to be sure (59) and not one used the term "far-right" (I suspect because most coverage preceded Trump's campaign, where it became fashionable to associate conservatives with nazis.) I am however open to convincing, if the majority of sources do in fact use "far right." James J. Lambden ( talk) 05:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
First of all "far right" or "alt right" and "conservative" aren't necessarily exclusive. If reputables sources describe or label differently than he does himself, then simply state both labels properly attributed.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 11:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
For BLP reasons, we generally defer to either self-descriptors or mild categories. "Conservative" is a descriptor Yiannopulous uses and adequately conveys whatever point is being made about political leanings. No need for anything that will be perceived as a pejorative or inaccurate or disputed. -- DHeyward ( talk) 11:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment - As Volunteer Marek pointed out in the second comment above, The sources listed below use the term "far-right" in describing Breitbart News*, not Yiannopoulos. Though this discussion indicates that the term was applied to Yiannopoulos, the edit which was initially reverted to provoke the discussion applied the term to Breitbart News, not to Yiannopoulos.*some of the sources listed do not use the descriptor for either Yiannopoulos or Breitbart News, and should probably be struck through. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC) updated Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Characterizing this as a BLP issue is understandable, but dicey. This is about the publication, not him directly, and "far-right" isn't an attack on him, it's a well-supported description of reason he's notable. It's contentious in that some editors don't like it or agree with it, but we need more than that, otherwise anything unflattering-but-true becomes "contentious". BLP is important, but it's a way to preserve neutrality, not to undermine it. Grayfell ( talk) 00:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Clearly Breitbart needs to be described as far-right, based on how it is described by reliable sources and as thoroughly established in many previous related discussions. Also, MPants at work is entirely correct that far-right is a descriptive term, and not pejorative in any way, particularly not for a website which emphasizes its position to the far-right of conservatism in the United States and which calls itself the platform of the alt-right. -- Tataral ( talk) 12:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
same set of standards are not used to describe Salon or MotherJones as being far left, which is the polar opposite of what is found on Breitbart. Different standards is a clear sign of bias. 68.2.53.158 ( talk) 05:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
References
Rainey_20120801
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Freedlander
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Weigel
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This
edit request to
Milo Yiannopoulos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Milo is owner of www.PizzaGateGear.com WikiWhoYou ( talk) 02:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Milo Yiannopoulos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The source used for his Early and personal life ( http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-milo-yiannopoulos-gamergate-feminists-20151028-story.html) specifically states that he was born in Greece and raised in Kent. Seems like his birth place is as much of a fact as him being raised in Kent based on the same source but has been removed without good reason.
I suggest the two following changes
Please change from
| birth_place =
to
| birth_place = Greece
Please change from
Yiannopoulos was raised in a small town in Kent in southern England. His mother is British. His father is Greek.
to
Yiannopoulos was born in Greece and raised in a small town in Kent in southern England. His mother is British. His father is Greek.
Monokunny ( talk) 14:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion concerning this article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Milo Yiannopoulos's alleged transphobia. Input from contributors here would be welcome. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Based on the above linked discussion, which includes an analysis of available sources, the following change is proposed:
The citations can later be neatly formatted to {{
citation}}
. For reading convenience they are:
1
archive1 and
2
archive2
To test concensus on this change, please add your aye or nay below, along with any comment you feel would be helpful. If longer discussion is needed, such as on alternative text, please add a new subsection for it. -- Fæ ( talk) 15:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
"The Advocate and Pink News, two LGBT publications, have expressed concerns over the content of his speeches, describing them as transphobic."or similar. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
An alternative formulation, based on the guidance in WP:LABEL:
Rivertorch has also proposed an alternate wording which replaces the word "transphobic" with "anti-transgender". I would equally support that wording. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Where in the article would this be added? Is this still part of the Dangerous Faggot tour?-- Trystan ( talk) 18:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Milo Yiannopoulos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Yiannopoulos has been called a spokesperson for the alt-right, [THEN ADD:] a group that he describes as "inclined to prioritise the interests of their tribe, [while] they recognise that other groups – Mexicans, African-Americans or Muslims – are likely to do the same." According to Yiannopoulos, the alt-right are those who "doubt that full 'integration' is ever possible." [1] Hellpuppy ( talk) 22:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. I'm not sure if this is the correct place for adding this. That article which you've linked has been co-authored by him, not authored entirely by him. Seek some consensus on the talk page about whether this should be added/the location for it. If no-one responds or if there is consensus for adding it, reopen this edit request.
st
170
e
23:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)References
![]() | This
edit request to
Milo Yiannopoulos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Addition of information that while Milo reports on the Alt-Right movement, he has specifically stated, in addition to many other prominent Alt-Right leaders, that "[he] is not part of the alt-right". [1] Cynicalhistorian ( talk) 00:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. The article already reflects his tepid repudiation of the label. also.
Grayfell (
talk)
01:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)This sentence appears to be a bad edit. It makes no sense in English.
173.20.35.53 ( talk) 18:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
This edit was revert-warred so instead of revert warring back, let's have a straw poll. Should mention be made that Yiannopoulos was named 2016 Person of the Year by LGBTQ Nation?
After a concerted effort to drum up votes via social media...,
Yiannopoulos' fans didn’t just flock to the site from his Facebook page though...and
Yiannopoulos made the news throughout 2016 and always for truly awful reasons. This is not positive information, and should not be misrepresented as such. Grayfell ( talk) 21:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to it being somewhere more appropriate, I guess, but only with independent sources. Otherwise this was just a goofy PR game he played and won, and so what? The LGBTQ Nation article seems a little embarrassed they got played like that (the user-comment screenshot, for example), so its encyclopedic significance seems minimal, but outside sources would clear that up. Grayfell ( talk) 21:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
As I have several friends as eyewitnesses who documented the UC Davis cancellation, the sentence supported by source 126 needs to be amended. This is lifted straight from a tweet made by Milo Yiannopoulos himself, and unsubstantiated by any other news source than Breitbart. This is shoddy content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Davis ( talk • contribs) 05:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Milo Yiannopoulos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
According to the Associated Press, there was no violence or property destruction at the UC-Davis protest: https://www.yahoo.com/news/protests-shutdown-far-speaker-uc-davis-053553008.html 104.162.225.58 ( talk) 08:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Due to the highly controversial nature of the subject of this article and the multiple BLP issues which have arisen, coupled with sometimes heated content disputes, I am imposing Discretionary Sanctions on this article per this ARBCOM decision. Specifically WP:1RR is now in effect. Thank you for your cooperation in abiding by this editing restriction. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
One can of course go roundabout searching for disrupting and twisting excuses to sabotage proper Wikipedia editing ( WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:CHERRYPICKING). The most valid and orthodox source for establishing who is Jewish is the Halacha ; and that's final. Wringing out any half baked obstreperous rationalisation is totally inexcusable and unwanted on Wikipedia. In any other Wikipedia article known/repeatable newspapers or magazines are used as valid sources and can be only countered by other sources claiming otherwise. The Forward Yiannopoulos’s maternal grandmother is Jewish, so according to Jewish law, he is, too, but he was raised Catholic.(January 3, 2017 By Daniel J. Solomon) http://forward.com/fast-forward/358909/milo-yiannopoulos-slams-thick-as-pig-st-media-jews/) RudiLefkowitz ( talk) 13:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, again I want to remind you that there is a difference between ethnicity and religion. He is already identified as a (self-proclaimed, but still) person of Jewish heritage. He is (correctly) also identified as a practicing catholic. You are literally arguing that this article should lie because the truth offends your religious sensibilities. Fuck. That. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
There was a request for a Third Opinion in this dispute, but I have removed the request as there are already more than two people involved. If this discussion is still going strong it may be a better candiate for an RFC or the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Brad v 19:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC) |
Observing this Rudi, I got to admit, I'm amused. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 00:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
@ Ad Orientem: Further, no conclusion was reached at ANI on what is a content decision, despite the suggestion at DRN. James J. Lambden ( talk) 00:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Shooter sent Facebook message to Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopoulos before gunfire at UW protest, police say Originally published January 23, 2017 Seattle Times Suspect Facebook page indicates he is a supporter of Trump, Yiannopoulos and the National Rifle Association. Victim is Seattle computer-security engineer and a member of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) General Defense Committee, which describes itself as an “anti-racist and anti-fascist organization.” an early opponent to the appearance of Yiannopoulos at the UW and worked to organize a resistance among a number of groups, Bachcell ( talk) 18:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
http://crosscut.com/2017/01/uw-shooting-milo-yiannopoulos-how-it-happened/ I've also been tracking the book controversy and responses on the Simon & Schuster page--so there are plenty of citations there with new information about that. Jaldous1 ( talk) 15:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Mr. Yiannopoulos has been sponsored by College Republicans and Turning Point USA. [1] [2] 96.93.147.49 ( talk) 22:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
I updated the information. We know the victim and the suspect. The suspect is a Trump supporter, the honorable victim, Josh D., is a computer engineer and is active in a labour union. The suspect claims self-defense and has not been arrested. The brave Josh D. wants to talk to the suspected shooter to de-escalate the situation.-- Élisée P. Bruneau ( talk) 20:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
The validity of the content under the "DePaul University" sub-heading is questionable. Much of this section is generally irrelevant and the specifics regarding the protest of the speaking event at the University come from un-reliable sources. Using Breitbart as a source to provide information about an editor of the newspaper exhibits a conflict of interest and many of the other citations are not to reputable sources but rather to think-pieces or small, independent news outlets, displaying significant bias. Wordsmithone ( talk) 07:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Milo Yiannopoulos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the discussion of the University of Washington incident, the assailant is referred to as a former student of Washington University. This is not correct -- the assailant is a former student not of Washington University (which is a school in St. Louis, MO. He is a former student of The University of Washington. Jay Kelner ( talk) 15:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Done All taken care of. Good catch.
MjolnirPants
Tell me all about it.
15:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
This should be included in the article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/us/university-california-berkeley-free-speech-milo-yiannopoulos.html 71.182.241.125 ( talk) 06:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The wikipedia article claims the victim, Dukes, was the one firing pepper spray into the crowd.
"Information about the incident came to light through witness Samie Frites' testimony, who recalled seeing Dukes spray "little projectiles into the crowd," later confirmed by law enforcement to be pepper spray. At this point the shooter confronted Dukes and shot him, forcing him to cease spraying."
But the Seattle Times article that is cited seems to contain the opposite -- that the shooter was pepper spraying the crowd and the victim was attempting to stop him. (Pronouns are confusing in this passage. I added an (A) for when the victim is the "he" and (B) for the shooter)
"Samie Frites, a nursing assistant who said he had gone to the protest “to make sure nobody got hurt,” said he saw a man (B) pull “something out of his coat and started firing these little projectiles into the crowd.”
The law-enforcement source said it was pepper spray.
“I yelled at him (B) to stop,” Frites said. “That’s when this other guy (A) came out of the crowd and went after him.”
Frites said he grabbed him (A) to try to prevent a confrontation. That’s when Frites said he heard a “muffled noise,” which he is now sure was the gunshot.
“The guy I was holding looked back (A) at me over his shoulder. He looked bad. He was really scared,” said Frites, who said he lowered the wounded man (A) to the ground."
Frites says he was holding back the victim when he was shot. And he wasn't holding back the pepper sprayed, he was holding out the person who was attempting to confront him.
Could someone with editing privilege change the article to better fit with the cited source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.97.112.65 ( talk) 00:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
References
It should be noted that the Berkeley College Republicans, a club on the UC Berkeley campus, invited Milo Yiannopoulos to speak at the Paulley Ballroom of the student union center named after Martin Luther King Jr. The Daily Cal, [1] USA Today, [2] and East Bay Times [3] note this.
Ejlauren121 ( talk) 08:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
References
The WordsmithYour revert-revert was a DS violation (see the top of this page). That being said, I agree with your edit, which is why I'm posting here instead of asking you to self-revert at your talk. Regardless of source word choice (which remains a valid argument when sources all use the same word), the different between a violent protest and a riot is fairly semantic. Maybe one could argue that looting or extensive property damage is a defining characteristic of a riot, but one could just as easily argue that they're not. I prefer "rioting" because using the other term implies a difference that I'm just not seeing.
Ad Orientem or anyone else, if you're not satisfied with the new source or my reasoning above, let us know, so we can continue to discuss it here. Otherwise, I think it's fine to 'retroactively' apply my support and the lack of dissent to say there's a consensus for the Wordsmith's change.
There's a part of my wikisoul that hurts a little every time I see admins edit warring (or maybe edit-battling when it's this brief?) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has an article called riot which says:
"A riot is a form of civil disorder commonly characterized by a group lashing out in a violent public disturbance against authority, property or people. Riots typically involve vandalism and the destruction of property, public or private. The property targeted varies depending on the riot and the inclinations of those involved. Targets can include shops, cars, restaurants, state-owned institutions, and religious buildings."
This is exactly what reliable sources have reported as having happened at UC Berkeley.
71.182.241.125 ( talk) 06:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I've just edited the "UC Berkeley" section to mention that there was a peaceful protest before it was interrupted by violence, as reported by the university itself. Although some news outlets have focused their reporting on the property destruction and violence, it is not controversial that a large peaceful protest took place beforehand, and that the violence was instigated by a separate, masked group of agitators. The cited UC Berkeley news article draws its facts from the UC Police Department itself and is a reliable source. If you have concerns or objections regarding this edit, please discuss here on the talk page before reverting. Thanks. — Ka-Ping Yee ( talk) 19:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Milo Yiannopoulos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Huffington Post is described as, "...is a left-leaning..." while Breitbart news is described as "far-right"? Please remove the bias from this article by returning the description back to "conservative", or attribute HuffPo as being "far-left". 216.194.43.66 ( talk) 18:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
According to England & Wales Civil Registration Birth Index 1916-2005 he was born on 18 October 1984 in Chatham, Kent, England as Milo Hanrahan. His father had Irish and Greek ancestry (hence Yiannopoulos) but went by Hanrahan and his name was registered as such at birth. For accuracy the current birth name/birth place (i.e. Milo Yiannopoulos, born in Greece) should be updated. Res554743 ( talk) 17:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Is a list of individuals who are of Jewish descent, but not Jewish (ex. David Beckham )...even if Mr. Yiannopoulos is Jewish according Israeli law - Who is a Jew? + Matrilineality in Judaism + Source http://forward.com/fast-forward/358909/milo-yiannopoulos-slams-thick-as-pig-st-media-jews/). I am not representing or advocating some obscure or even a certain Jewish denominations view on who is Jewish. All Jewish religious movements consider univocally everyone automatically as a Jew trough matrilineal blood affinity. The before mention is not only just the majority opinion in Judaism, but, the general scholarly verdict shown in any good in-depth encyclopedia. Ask any scholar or even a rabbi or a Israeli immigration official. The only difference is that Reform Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism accept even the patrilineal descent i.e. a even broder definition that is more like self-identification. So adding category "Jewish descent" should at least be no problem, until we can get some proper Jewish scholars on Wikipedia to verify the Jewishness of Milo Yiannopoulos. Shalom. RudiLefkowitz ( talk) 21:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
The close disregarded the question and the discussion. He was not asking to add "British Jews" as a cat, he was discussing "British of Jewish descent" which should not be a problem, since his mother is Jewish and therefore is of Jewish descent. Why is that category not allowed? As I posted on Rudi's talk page, I do understand that Wikipedia has an issue with Jews and especially with Jews who don't fit into the stereotypical mold. The sources say Milo is of Jewish descent, but nothing short of Moses coming down from Sinai proclaiming that would be good enough for some of the editors here. Read the links above, he clearly identifies as a Jew. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
That his grandmother or mother is Jewish is not in question,Yes, it is. That was the whole point of my response. Please read comments before you reply to them. The majority of sources question whether his mother or grandmother really is Jewish, referring to the claim as "convenient" or pointing out that he only does so when accused of antisemitism. See [7] and [8] MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Milo self-identified as Jewish, that is good enough for Wikipedia.Not according to WP:BLPSELFPUB (specifically points 1 and 4) it isn't. I mean, this is the exact situation that policy was written to address. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
*Suggestion Is it perhaps time to post an RfC to try and get a broader pool of editors involved and maybe (hopefully) establish a definitive consensus on this issue? Reminder I'm taking no position on this subject. My role here is to prevent edit warring and any other disruptive editing. If I can help facilitate a constructive discussion I'm happy to do so. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
List of quotes & sources
|
---|
|
Would someone who is able to change the picture to one that is accurate. GuysIJustEditedThis ( talk) 07:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Emir of Wikipedia restored some content that I removed with the comment, "WP:NOTCENSORED. Just because the content is sexually contreversial it does not mean we should remove it." The user is confused. I did not remove the content - including Yiannopoulos's claims about how he supposedly lost his virginity and how he would supposedly like to try conversion therapy - because it is sexual or controversial. I removed it because it is trivial. WP:NOTCENSORED does not mean that Wikipedia must include every claim made by an article subject in a biographical article. It is up to those who consider these two claims by Yiannopoulos non-trivial to make a case for including the information. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 22:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Incidentally, Emir of Wikipedia, you also reverted this completely uncontroversial formatting change. Could you please be more careful? There was no need to revert absolutely all my edits simply because I made some changes you disagreed with. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 23:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I recently added a descriptor "anti-fascist" to group that started the recent riots in Berkeley, which was contested by Ad Orientem. These sources clearly label the rioters as "anti-fascist activists" from the group "Antifa" or "AntiFA": The Guardian, Vocativ, IBTimes, etc. I fail to see how this is POV, and it's more specific than what we currently have ("masked agitators"). Some sources describe them as "anarchists," but that's just one part of their philosophy, at least according to the IBTimes article. Falling Gravity 01:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
...it shows the agitators were likely protesting Milo's connections to the alt-right.Indeed, it does show that. But do you (or I, or indeed, anyone aside from each of those individual protesters) know that for a fact? No. As I mentioned, some may have (read: almost certainly did) come just to engage in activities with their friends in the group. Some may have felt uncomfortable coming, but came along due to peer pressure. Some were possibly not there from the anti-fascists groups at all, but got caught up in the energy of the crowd. We don't know. We can reasonably infer that the protest was organized by the anti fascist groups due to that. Since this edit has been challenged, and the proposal I made above is dryer and less provocative, yet at least equally (almost certainly more, but again: I don't know either) true, shouldn't we use that? I'm literally looking at an option that addresses your concerns (this detail does change the narrative, and since it's true it should be included) and equally addresses Ad Orientem's concerns (it doesn't portray the protesters as overtly noble). It even implies a motive to the groups in organizing the protests. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 06:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Breaking news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia, than to help spread potentially false rumors.
My issue is not with Breitbart being called right-wing, it is with adding unnecessary info to the article, given we have a link to the article on Breitbart and this is the article on Yiannopoulos. It's insertion looks like there has been an editing dispute and it has been added for that reason. An edit dispute is never a good reason to add content, especially non-notable content. BTW it is also unsourced content, restoring unsourced content that has been removed from a WP:BLP article is always dubious. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 12:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Milo's a firm believer of Brexit as he stated here: [9] [10], just wondering why it isn't mentioned in the article. Blue sphere 04:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
The first sentence in the lede states "Milo Yiannopoulos is a British journalist, entrepreneur, public speaker, and technology editor for Breitbart News, a far-right news and opinion website based in the United States. Breitbart is not considered " far-right" but rather, " alt-right". According to the lede in the Wiki on the far-right: "Far-right politics often involve a focus on tradition, real or imagined, as opposed to policies and customs that are regarded as reflective of modernism. Many far-right ideologies have a disregard or a disdain for egalitarianism, even if they do not always express overt support for social hierarchy, elements of social conservatism and opposition to most forms of liberalism and socialism. The term is commonly used to describe right-wing populist ideologies which is known for its espousal of extreme nationalism and its opposition to immigration, as well as its advocacy of Nazism, neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies or organizations that feature extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, or reactionary views, which can lead to oppression and violence against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority, or their perceived threat to the nation, state or ultraconservative traditional social institutions." This description does not apply to Breitbart, which, AFAIK has never expressed support for Nazism, neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism, nor violence against groups. Indeed, Jewish groups have praised Breitbart for defending against anti-Semitism (which rather discredits the "Nazi" or "neo-Nazi" notions). There are plenty of legitimate criticisms to be made about Breitbart, but any article that calls them "far-right" undermines its own credibility, and leaves no room for describing the position of truly far-right media, such as Stormfront. Breitbart is "alt-right"; there's no reason to exaggerate their position on the spectrum. Bricology ( talk) 06:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Great post. My comment was about the reason for no editing on the Milo page is simply that the individual who does not know the difference between alt and far is more interested in preventing corrections or maybe he thinks that people who correct him are vandals. Tonertee ( talk) 05:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm surmising from the discussion here and the discussion/source analysis at Breitbart News that "far-right" would be the most accurate descriptor to use in this situation. Lizzius ( talk) 17:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
'far-right' is a subjective term and should not be used in the context of an encyclopedic article. Nothing more needs be said on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.56.154 ( talk) 14:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I was posting info about his websites and I had used WHOIS creation date to indicate some rough order of events. It was undone twice with comments "whois services... not reliable sources" and "the WHOIS result is iffy at best". While WHOIS#Accuracy_of_information doesn't specifically deal with creation date, it does say "In cases where the registrant's (Domain Owner) identity is public, anyone can easily confirm the status of a domain via WHOIS." A Quora answer said, "The creations date is the date the domain name was registered although it could have dropped and been re-register. This information is accurate and cannot be changed." [11] A Stackoverflow answer said, "You cannot change the creation date for your domain." [12] Is there some decision on Wikipedia relating to WHOIS or which website to use for WHOIS? There are hundreds of articles that use the creation date and reference WHOIS, including History of Wikipedia. Ironically, the article on Wikipedia doesn't use WHOIS, but it doesn't have any references that support the January 15, 2001 date. StrayBolt ( talk) 21:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
in first paragraph insert far-right news to provide context thanks ScotKreek ( talk) 12:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm a newb. I've read the guidelines carefully, but I apologize if this post is nonconforming.
I propose to update the "biographical summary" for this person, to reflect the facts that he did not graduate from University of Manchester, nor from Cambridge. These facts are contained in the body of the Wikipedia entry ("He attended the University of Manchester, dropping out without graduating.[20]"), but they are not contained in the biographical summary.
I refer to the top right of the Wikipedia entry for this person as the "biographical summary" (it has a light blue background). The biographical summary also appears in Google search results for this person:
CURRENT: Education: University of Manchester, Wolfson College, Cambridge
REQUESTED CHANGE: Education: University of Manchester (did not graduate), Wolfson College, Cambridge (did not graduate)
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.235.197 ( talk) 17:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Milo Yiannopoulos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Over 1,000 people gathered to violently protest the event on the steps of Sproul Hall." This line is incorrect. The source article does not say that 1000 people gathered to violently protest the event. They gathered to protest the event. (Also it was 1500, not 1000.) The source article also says that 150 people joinedwho may have been violent. But the 1500 people gathered did not do so to _violently_ protest and as such this article is incorrect. Please change it to say 1500 and please remove the word "violently". Thank you. Steveinphilly ( talk) 18:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Currently the section Relationship with Donald Trump and the alt-right reads:
(...) In a Breitbart article, he and a co-author championed the movement and its intellectual backers, whom he described as "dangerously bright". Tablet noted that many of these intellectual backers write for publications Tablet describes as racist and antisemitic, like VDARE and American Renaissance.[18] The article was criticised by opponents of the right-wing for excusing the extremist elements of the alt-right, and also by neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer who claim that racism and antisemitism are pillars of the movement.[86][87] A Daily Beast article in September 2016 suggested that Yiannopoulos has received funding from virtual reality tycoon Palmer Luckey.[88]
Which article is this section talking about? Did it have any notoriety? Isn't a post entitled "Donald Trump’s Little Boy Is a Gay Half-Jew With Jungle Fever" from a certain Tablet (Magazine) WP:UNDUE? Furthermore what does it mean to "champion the movement and its intellectual backers" - WP:UPE? And the last part:
A Daily Beast article in September 2016 suggested that Yiannopoulos has received funding from virtual reality tycoon Palmer Luckey.[88]
Not knowing who Palmer Luckey is (not such a notable person), what relation does this bare with either Donald Trump or alt-right for it to be in this section? I feel like there should be a better explanation of the article cited in this sentence such that the relation with Trump is clearer. Saturnalia0 ( talk) 00:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Would there be a decisive problem using the interview as source and mentioning it in the the article? ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HexaNYw_O-4)- Lähdeluettelo ( talk) 11:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Milo Yiannopoulos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please edit it to state "former senior editor for Breitbart News, who resigned after controversy from his positive views on underage boys having sex with older men brought extreme negative attention to the outlet. 184.70.154.6 ( talk) 19:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Under "Early and personal life" it currently states: He is a practising Catholic; he has said that his mother or maternal grandmother is Jewish,[22][23] which has put him at odds with neo-Nazi elements of the alt-right.[24] While it is uncontroversial that Mr. Yiannopoulos has stated himself that his maternal grandmother, the citations do not actually reference any evidence that these are truthful statements. The wording of the article makes no reference to this uncertainty. --Mattomynameo ( talk) 08:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
his mother has Jewish ancestors. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 11:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
his maternal grandmother was Jewish. I think the controversy is the reason it should be included, as notable sources have picked upon it. If it was something like the case of Hitler where it was more of a passing accusation without a self claim then I would obviously reject its inclusion, unless it is a prominent piece of information like with Hitler where his lawyer claimed it and research has taken place. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 18:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes He lost most he had built to this point--his Breitbart gig, his 250k book deal, and a sizable share of social media fans--because of the scandal. Focus on the scandal is therefore not presentism. It is a seminal part of his life, and has been covered endlessly by all major RS over the past 48 hours. Steeletrap ( talk) 19:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Milo Yiannopoulos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The section on Milo Yiannopoulos' pedophilia controversy describes the relevant video as "an old interview." The word "old" denotes bias. Please replace "an old interview of Yiannopoulos, from a YouTube-based talk show" with "a January, 2016 episode of "The Drunken Peasants" podcast".
The word "old" denotes bias.Ahh, damn! Ageism strikes again! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Milo Yiannopoulos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change: "Yiannopoulos resigned from Breitbart in February 2017 following the resurfacing of video in which he asserted that, . . . ."
to: "Yiannopoulos resigned from Breitbart in February 2017 following the resurfacing of comments he made on the Drunken Peasants podcast on January 4, 2016 in which he asserted . . ."
This makes it more accurate and actually fairly attributes the source of the comments. XyZero ( talk) 21:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Proposal: Put "Greece" in the birth_place infobox field, as this BBC News article describes MY's early life: "Born in Greece to a Greek father and British mother, he grew up in Kent in the south of England." Arbor to SJ ( talk) 20:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
This should be adjusted for accuracy. Instead of "founded 'The Kernel'" I think it should say he "co-founded 'The Kernel' in November 2011" 2602:306:CE95:57B0:B16B:F04E:351D:3553 ( talk) 06:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Milo has attracted major coverage by reliable sources over this. There is no doubt that this is notable enough for inclusion. This is not just some controversy that will blow over in one day and lose all encyclopedic value. Coverage by CBS, Haaretz, the Independent, the Guardian, Politico, the Hill, NY Mag, Huff Po, Vox, Seattle P-I etc. in the last few hours, and more is certainly imminent. It is therefore notable enough for the lede. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Hah, no, this should not be swept under the rug in a single sentence.That sounds an awful lot like a value judgement, to me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I edited this section yesterday to reflect that the interview he gave was in 2015 and I don't think should be simply characterized as "old". It is located here. [1]. Why not cite the original interview? Anyhow, I leave it to all of you who wish to explore all things Milo in detail. Dharmabum ( talk) 16:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
In this edit, [19], the section was essentially watered down to nothing. I had already restored the old title earlier but want to err on the side of caution with the one revert rule in place so I undid myself. But I object strongly to wholesale changes like this when there's no discussion on this page about it, and would like to see the status quo restored pending such discussion. ValarianB ( talk) 18:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
In the interests of having this section be as unbiased as possible, here are the transcripts for his actual words with a video of the actual podcast: heavy.com/news/2017/02/milo-yiannopolous-pedophilia-transcript-pederasty-video-full-sex-boys-men-catholic-priest-cpac-quotes/ Meskarune ( talk) 22:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
We need to be careful about blaming the victim. Recall Mary Kay Letourneau's relationship with her 12 year-old student, Vili Fualaau. She was convicted of a crime but the two later married. Fualaau describes their relationship but it would be quite the leap to say that his consent means that he condones or approves of pedophilia. He obviously doesn't consider himself as a victim and relaying personal experience of being in a relationship shouldn't result in attributing a societal view. No one should claim Fualaau condones child/adult relationships based on his particular experience. -- DHeyward ( talk) 05:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with DHeyward's reasoning as well. And if any of this crap is to be included, WP:ATTRIBUTION should be used to make it clear that it is the opinion of RS and not state it in WP's voice. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Milo Yiannopoulos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Larmardillo ( talk) 15:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Why do we have 4,500 words on this publicity-seeking individual, much of it relating to transitory events? Seems a clear case of WP:UNDUE. – Sca ( talk) 16:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
the appropriate length for all our articles is: bigger.I am so stealing that line. I love it! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Milo states twice that his mother is a German native in this video of the press conference (at 3m6s and 19m42s). Milo is therefore a British national of German and Greek descent. [21] [22] 84.132.37.150 ( talk) 03:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
His paternal grandparents were Andreas I. Yiannopoullos born 1937 in Marylebone, London, and Petronella T. Hanrahan born 1933 in Medway, Kent according to (a not so reliable source? [23]. Apart from his mother's maiden name being "Baker", little else seems known about his parentage (no first name for his father? mother? why he took his grandmother's maiden name at birth?).--Artaxerxes 17:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Pedophilia The RS accuse him of condoning pedophlia; this is the allegation at the heart of the scandal. Using the clinical definition of pedophilia (which excludes post-pubescent children), and ignoring RS, would be WP:SYN.
The definition of words, it should be noted, depends on context. In a clinical context, a person who is sexually attracted to a 13 year old may not be a pedophile. But he is a pedophile is in common parlance. It is also worth noting that under the law (which prohibits sex with post-pubescent children of 14-15, and (in some states) 16-17, and makes offenders register as pedophiles) pederasty is synonymous with pedophilia and often treated with equal contempt. Steeletrap ( talk) 04:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
It went from "talking about his experience when a young boy" to "condoning pedophilia" to "he is a pedophile" pretty quickly. Saturnalia0 ( talk) 08:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)a person who is sexually attracted to a 13 year old may not be a pedophile. But he is a pedophile
Pedophilia because that's what sources use. Not the past to be pedantic about pedophilia, ephebophilia, hebephilia, and pedarastry. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Pederasty would be accurate according to his description [24] but we need to follow the sources. With that said, his response needs to be included as well [25] -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 07:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Pedophilia as that is what the sources say. A minor is a minor, pubescence has nothing to do with the matter at hand. ValarianB ( talk) 12:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Words can have colloquial meanings...As I said before: You read my comment but you just don't understand it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
competing facts for the two sides of the case. In this (non-legal) case the argument for the term "pedophile" is to follow the reliable sources, and the other case is to ignore the reliable sources and instead use the correct term as per Wikipedia:Truth, not verifiability. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 17:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Pedophilia as the most widely used accurate term. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 19:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
News outlets **are** making allegations of pedophilia advocacy, but in truth Milo discussed age of consent and underage/overage relationships. The scientific term would be pederasty but most people are unfamiliar with that term. I think "Statuatory Rape Controversy" or "Age of consent Controversy" might be the most accurate terms to use. Meskarune ( talk) 22:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The sources say pedophilia, so that is what we must say per verifiability. Both terms can also be synonymous with each other anyway. Keiiri ( talk) 02:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
This has obviously been a controversial point. I would suggest that the current text also suffers from the technically correct but misleading problem it refers to. It is quite right that the term pedophila is used commonly in colloquial language to involve attraction to post pubescent children. Thus, using the clinical definition can communicate the wrong idea to the audience (perhaps the intended effect of his remarks). However, it is a real and important distinction. pedophilia is considered a psychiatric disorder and is defined as such the the APA's Diagnostic and statistical manual. Attraction to post pubescent people is not considered a psychiatric disorder in and of itself. distinguishing pedophilia to hebephilia without comment suggests both are psychiatric disorders. This is a common view of non psychiatrists, but it is not the mainstream view of psychiatry. It does not mean that hebephilia is acceptable behaviour, or shouldn't be opposed. Those are separate issues. To resolve this in the article, I think this should be inserted into this section. Something along the lines of "...pedophilia, a well accepted psychiatric disorder, and hebephilia which is not a considered psychiatric disorder, though it may still be unacceptable behaviour." This is a real question. The age of consent in the US varies from 14 to 18, and 16 is commonly used in the US, Europe and other developed countries. Pedophiles have a high rate of recidivism, while it is common for those who are attracted to post pubescent teenagers to not show the same compulssion. Not making the distinction ignores the real differences between the two types of attraction and behaviour. Ignatios2000 ( talk) 19:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
-He resigned from Breitbart after a video of him appeared defending sexual relationships between boys as young as 13 and adults (both gay men and straight women) in their 20s resurfaced.
-Pederasty or paederasty (US /ˈpɛdəræsti/ or UK /ˈpiːdəræsti/) is a (usually erotic) homosexual relationship between an adult male and a pubescent or adolescent male.
-Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.
they really mean "sexual contact with people under 18". Riley Cohen ( talk) 08:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
@ HappyWaldo: Why haven't you started a discussion about this?
I have multiple problems with this line.
For one, I don't see any real benefit to including Yiannopoulos's off-hand comment about his role in the alt-right in the lead. This is one of countless opinion pieces he's written, and stumbling around for sources which call him a ringleader or spokesperson or figurehead or whatever only to immediately refute that in the same sentence isI sloppy.
It also seems like it's an excuse to include yet more of Yiannopoulos's self-aggrandizement in the article. J.D. Salinger he ain't. He loves to talk about himself, to the point of self-parody, so finding quotes where he describes himself in flattering terms isn't difficult or noteworthy. Some sort of secondary sources would be needed for this kind of fluff. If all these sources have commented on his role in the alt-right, haven't any of them commented on his response to that?
Additionally, the lead is supposed to summarize the body, and none of this is in the body. The lead should not be the only place a significant issue is discussed, and if it's not a significant issue, it probably shouldn't be in the lead. Grayfell ( talk) 22:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree- it wouldn't be that important for your average minor celebrity. It's just that Yiannopoulos is primarily notable for being banned from Twitter, so it's probably something we should mention in the lede. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 21:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Two months ago, user TheTruthiness ( talk) made the following edit:
"In July 2016, Yiannopoulos panned the Ghostbusters reboot as "a movie to help lonely middle-aged women feel better about being left on the shelf."[63][64] After the film's release, Twitter trolls attacked African American actress Leslie Jones, in ways that included racial abuse. Yiannopoulos wrote three public tweets about Jones, saying "Ghostbusters is doing so badly they've deployed [Leslie Jones] to play the victim on Twitter", before describing her reply to him as "Barely literate" and then calling her a "black dude".[65][66][67] Critics of Yiannopoulos allege that his tweets encouraged third parties to abuse Jones.[68][69]
Yiannopoulos was then permanently banned by Twitter, which released a statement saying that "no one deserves to be subjected to targeted abuse online, and our rules prohibit inciting or engaging in the targeted abuse or harassment of others. ... We know many people believe we have not done enough to curb this type of behavior on Twitter. We agree." but did not specify which tweet or tweets they felt violated this policy.[70] Critics noted that Jones herself directly violated those same rules by asking her followers "I hope y’all go after them like they going after me" and "get her [a 17 year old Twitter user]" yet was actively courted by Twitter's CEO Jack Dorsey to return to the platform.[71][72]" https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Milo_Yiannopoulos&diff=732585583&oldid=732577606
For some reason, three editors opposed his edit. What I don't understand is why is "Critics of Yiannopoulos allege that his tweets encouraged third parties to abuse Jones." not considered WEASEL, but "Critics noted that Jones herself directly violated those same rules by asking her followers "I hope y’all go after them like they going after me" and "get her [a 17 year old Twitter user]" yet was actively courted by Twitter's CEO Jack Dorsey to return to the platform." is.
I do not see anything wrong w/ TheTruthiness' edit and the sources he used. Why only mention what critics of Yiannopoulos said about his behaviour? Israell ( talk) 17:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Μίλω Ιαννόπουλοσ is wrong, the "σ" is never used in the ending and the "ς" is used instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.71.151.53 ( talk) 14:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
"Do not include foreign equivalents in the lead sentence just to show etymology"seems to apply. We don't know if he speaks Greek, or if he has been written about in Greek publications or similar. By including the Greek spelling, the article is implying that it's more relevant than is supported by sources. Since we don't have a source for that spelling, and it's apparently wrong, there is more than one reason to remove it. Grayfell ( talk) 04:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
here tis: " https://yiannopoulos.net/" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.91.215 ( talk) 01:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
"..university president Dennis H. Holtschneider issued a statement reaffirming the value of free speech and apologizing for the harm caused by Yiannopolous's appearance on the campus..."
Is the above a neutral point of view? What is the "harm" that is alleged? Shouldn't there be a reference to the original statement? 136.162.2.1 ( talk) 15:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Milo Yiannopoulos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
i would like to add that his mother is an English Jew and so is he Jewish by ancestry and culturally.
source: https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-america-divided/milo-yiannopoulos/
Ronron251 ( talk) 19:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I've taken the time out to wade through past revisions for birthdate. I found that originally the entry just said "British journalist, October 1984". I note that the first edit giving Crunchbase as a source for birthdate was made by a a now blocked IP on 10 October 2014. The birth date of 18 Oct 1984 was not in the reference provided, and this was not picked up by other editors at the time of editing. Whilst Crunchbase appears to be a wiki-style profile, not necessarily created or edited by the person themselves, we can see from its edit history that the subject of this bio eventually registers an official profile and therefore can be assumed to have control over its content, and it seems likely that at least some of the previous edits were also made by the subject before registration at Crunchbase. Later on wikipedia, after what seems like a lengthy edit war which began in December 2014 by Gibbets, some AGF edits in January 2015 by Malfuron4, and some very silly IP edit wars in August 2015, the subject's birthdate was changed by an editor from 1984 to 1983 to reflect the info on the Crunchbase source.
Given the nature of the Crunchbase source, partly a self-published source, (see WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:SELFPUB, WP:BLPSELFPUB), and think some due diligence is required, since there is, as will be demonstrated in the next paragraph, reasonable doubt as to the birthdate authenticity. However, due to the subjects control over the information contained on Crunchbase, "it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object" to the inclusion of 18 October 1983 as their WP:DOB.
The UK Companies House lists the subject's birthdate as 18/10/94 for three limited companies which are mentioned in reliable secondary sources (Hipster Ventures, Sentinel Media, Caligula): https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/Ok_73a89ZK4v5il-7NckmFS4nUU/appointments A fourth company Counterknowledge also has the birthdate/year of 18/10/94 for "British Writer". Counterknowledge is also referenced by the nom de plume Milo Andreas Wagner on their personal website. A fifth company Wrong Agency shows a birthdate for 18 Oct 1983, yet it is clearly the same "British Journalist" as the other four companies. These Companies House sources I consider to be WP:BLPPRIMARY, since they're public records.Please correct me if I'm wrong.
It seems unlikely that the subject has started four limited companies using the wrong birth data. It does appear that the Wrong Agency Limited company lists an incorrect year of birth, but that the Crunchbase wiki and the wikipedia autobiography for his nom de plume Milo Andreas Wagner, ( WP:BLPSELFPUB?), may have intentionally given an incorrect year (1983).
Two more primary sources corroborate the four WP:BLPPRIMARY sources which establish the basic biographical fact of birthdate - his first stint as a director for his father's company whilst a student in 2003, and his birth certificate.
With six primary sources for the 1994 birth year incl. birthcert, and three (two secondary, one primary) for what appears to be a fictitious year of 1993, we ought to be able to make a judgement call and edit the entry to reflect these basic biographical facts:
I have set out concrete but primary proof that the birthyear is not 1983. This evidence cannot be included in the BLP, but proves the contentious nature of a 1983 birthyear. If the above changes are acceptable, then I suggest that current birthyear/birthname/nationality be altered to reflect the =source consensus, else, perhaps the best solution (given the amount of edit warring over this issue) is to remove the birthdata altogether. What do other editors think? -- Luther Blissetts ( talk) 07:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
This sentence in the leads BEGS to be answered "because ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE95:57B0:D9E8:8AB4:72C9:DF3E ( talk) 04:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
This sentence does not make sense. What provision was opposed, what does it say about Milo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE95:57B0:7DAB:F42C:5D99:BA0F ( talk) 18:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Milo Yiannopoulos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please correct the last line in the start of the article to: Yiannopoulos was permanently banned from Twitter in July 2016 for what the company cited as “participating in or inciting targeted abuse of individuals.” [source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/07/20/twitter-bans-milo-yiannopoulos-for-good-while-cracking-down-on-abuse/?tid=a_inl] 2602:306:CE95:57B0:7DAB:F42C:5D99:BA0F ( talk) 04:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC) p.s. The references there support this but I cited a direct source for the company's own wording``` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE95:57B0:7DAB:F42C:5D99:BA0F ( talk) 04:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
10:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Given Milo is such a controversial figure it is not too hard to imagine there being an edit war of sorts that could erupt over this page, or that the writing of the article may favor certain opinions. I noticed this when I corrected (attempted to, rather;my edit was undone along with accusations that I was making "false claims" despite providing sources, which just illustrates my point) claims in the article that he was a "spokesperson" for the alt-right, with sources from Guardian.com opinion pieces (which were very anti-Milo) used as sources to justify. Likewise, I can see that other instances of this sort of sourcing exist, such as the source for Milo being a "critic of third-wave feminism" using an opinion piece with clear bias accusing him of "misogyny" rather than an example of his criticisms. Given what happened during the Gamergate scandal and the realities of agenda driven editing, I think it a good idea to take steps to ensure neutrality is being maintained. 2601:191:100:FE63:5996:B7A9:13AB:E782 ( talk) 06:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
From what I understand, Milo cultivates being flamboyantly homosexual as part of his persona and is one of the reasons his campus speech circuit is called the "Dangerous F----t" tour. However, the article doesn't mention this as far as I can see. Also, why is his Twitter ban mentioned in the lede? TariqMatters ( talk) 17:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Why is this page written in American English? He's British, so it should be in UKEng. Also, his old Wikipedia userpage ( User:Milo Andreas Wagner) says he was born in 1983. Heepman1997 ( talk) 03:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
One can of course go roundabout searching for disrupting and twisting excuses to sabotage proper Wikipedia editing. The most valid and orthodox source for establishing who is Jewish is the Halacha ; and that's final. WringIng out any half baked obstreperous rationalisation is totally inexcusable and unwanted on Wikipedia. Of course proper sources are warrented and must be in place. RudiLefkowitz ( talk) 00:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Milo Yiannopoulos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Alt-right should be in quotes or preceded by "so-called" as per AP style guide. Mflsviolin ( talk) 16:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
When I first read this article I saw that his mother is Jewish. I am not sure why it was taken off and it is important to his biographical information, because by Jewish law this makes him Jewish, regardless of if he identifies as Catholic.
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-america-divided/milo-yiannopoulos/ http://www.salon.com/2016/09/29/alt-right-catfight-daily-stormer-wages-holy-crusade-on-breitbart-because-milo-yiannopoulos-is-part-jewish/ https://idledillettante.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/380a6-screenshot2013-01-15at21-50-07.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.66.31 ( talk) 16:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Sir Joseph, I'm sorry I didn't sign earlier. I am new to Wikipedia Talk 65.51.66.31 ( talk)avr1891 —Preceding undated comment added 21:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
"...he likes to mention that his maternal grandmother was Jewish when he’s accused of anti-Semitism". This isn't saying his grandmother was Jewish, it's saying that he likes to say she was in certain situations. As was already discussed above in #Persondata set, this is a passing mention which was phrased to imply skepticism or doubt. There are at least a couple of sources saying that his claims are questionable, or only used by him when it's convenient to deflect criticism. As far as I know, there are no reliable, independent sources supporting his Jewish ancestry without these caveats. We can either try and figure out some way to include this point, or we can wait until a more reliable source is found. Needless to say, The Daily Stormer's opinion on who is or isn't Jewish is total garbage as far as reliable sources go (even if repeated by Salon), and a screenshot of a couple of tweets taken out of context isn't any good, either. Grayfell ( talk) 02:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
For something contentious like this, we'd really need to stick to firmly reliable sources (not social media, not a passing half-mention.) PeterTheFourth ( talk) 11:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
There's as much evidence that he's Greek (or that he's gay, or that he's Catholic) as there is that he is Jewish. And project-wide, wikipedia almost always follows self-reported identity. So there is no reason for the removal of this. Avaya1 ( talk) 18:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Why is such material even considered relevant enough for inclusion? It's barely mentioned, highly contentious, and ultimately doesn't matter in the BLP. Why bother with all this edit warring to include it? PeterTheFourth ( talk) 03:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I still haven't seen anyone try and answer the question of why this is important for the article. Saying over and over again that primary sources are good enough seems like its avoiding the main objection. Even the articles and social media being cited for this support that it's only brought-up to deflect accusations of bigotry. There is no requirement for this to be included, and many top-quality bio articles leave out heritage of one of the grandparents, even when it's not controversial. Grayfell ( talk) 07:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
The only relevant question is whether reliable sources describe him or his mother as "Jewish" frequently. That's it. Secondary reliable sources. All your speculation and theorizing is completely irrelevant. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
And in regard to this [3], there's obviously no consensus to include this. And if controversial material is challenged it should not be restored. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
There are many many sources which are reliable for Milo saying he is Jewish. And wikipedia is deep into people being able to self identify. This has been pounded to death in Bernie's article, King's, many others. VM, you know you are jerking the chain here. Do you really want to make this the hill you die on for AE/Arbcom? ResultingConstant ( talk) 22:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
"[Generation Trump, the alt right people,] don't care about Jews. I mean, they may have some assumptions about things, how the Jews run everything; well, we do." — Milo Yiannopulous [4] [5] [6]
Not sure if there's a reason to mention his Jewishness, though
-- Distelfinck ( talk) 22:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Could someone support Milo's Catholicism with a source where he explicitly self-identify as Catholic? You know, just a simple, "I am Catholic" will do. WP:BLPCAT anyone? A simple report about his being a member of that institution is not enough. Blue sphere 16:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I reverted this edit which changed Yiannopoulos' description from "conservative" to "far-right." I checked the first half of the article's cited sources to be sure (59) and not one used the term "far-right" (I suspect because most coverage preceded Trump's campaign, where it became fashionable to associate conservatives with nazis.) I am however open to convincing, if the majority of sources do in fact use "far right." James J. Lambden ( talk) 05:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
First of all "far right" or "alt right" and "conservative" aren't necessarily exclusive. If reputables sources describe or label differently than he does himself, then simply state both labels properly attributed.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 11:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
For BLP reasons, we generally defer to either self-descriptors or mild categories. "Conservative" is a descriptor Yiannopulous uses and adequately conveys whatever point is being made about political leanings. No need for anything that will be perceived as a pejorative or inaccurate or disputed. -- DHeyward ( talk) 11:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment - As Volunteer Marek pointed out in the second comment above, The sources listed below use the term "far-right" in describing Breitbart News*, not Yiannopoulos. Though this discussion indicates that the term was applied to Yiannopoulos, the edit which was initially reverted to provoke the discussion applied the term to Breitbart News, not to Yiannopoulos.*some of the sources listed do not use the descriptor for either Yiannopoulos or Breitbart News, and should probably be struck through. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC) updated Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Characterizing this as a BLP issue is understandable, but dicey. This is about the publication, not him directly, and "far-right" isn't an attack on him, it's a well-supported description of reason he's notable. It's contentious in that some editors don't like it or agree with it, but we need more than that, otherwise anything unflattering-but-true becomes "contentious". BLP is important, but it's a way to preserve neutrality, not to undermine it. Grayfell ( talk) 00:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Clearly Breitbart needs to be described as far-right, based on how it is described by reliable sources and as thoroughly established in many previous related discussions. Also, MPants at work is entirely correct that far-right is a descriptive term, and not pejorative in any way, particularly not for a website which emphasizes its position to the far-right of conservatism in the United States and which calls itself the platform of the alt-right. -- Tataral ( talk) 12:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
same set of standards are not used to describe Salon or MotherJones as being far left, which is the polar opposite of what is found on Breitbart. Different standards is a clear sign of bias. 68.2.53.158 ( talk) 05:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
References
Rainey_20120801
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Freedlander
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Weigel
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This
edit request to
Milo Yiannopoulos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Milo is owner of www.PizzaGateGear.com WikiWhoYou ( talk) 02:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Milo Yiannopoulos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The source used for his Early and personal life ( http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-milo-yiannopoulos-gamergate-feminists-20151028-story.html) specifically states that he was born in Greece and raised in Kent. Seems like his birth place is as much of a fact as him being raised in Kent based on the same source but has been removed without good reason.
I suggest the two following changes
Please change from
| birth_place =
to
| birth_place = Greece
Please change from
Yiannopoulos was raised in a small town in Kent in southern England. His mother is British. His father is Greek.
to
Yiannopoulos was born in Greece and raised in a small town in Kent in southern England. His mother is British. His father is Greek.
Monokunny ( talk) 14:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion concerning this article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Milo Yiannopoulos's alleged transphobia. Input from contributors here would be welcome. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Based on the above linked discussion, which includes an analysis of available sources, the following change is proposed:
The citations can later be neatly formatted to {{
citation}}
. For reading convenience they are:
1
archive1 and
2
archive2
To test concensus on this change, please add your aye or nay below, along with any comment you feel would be helpful. If longer discussion is needed, such as on alternative text, please add a new subsection for it. -- Fæ ( talk) 15:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
"The Advocate and Pink News, two LGBT publications, have expressed concerns over the content of his speeches, describing them as transphobic."or similar. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
An alternative formulation, based on the guidance in WP:LABEL:
Rivertorch has also proposed an alternate wording which replaces the word "transphobic" with "anti-transgender". I would equally support that wording. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Where in the article would this be added? Is this still part of the Dangerous Faggot tour?-- Trystan ( talk) 18:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Milo Yiannopoulos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Yiannopoulos has been called a spokesperson for the alt-right, [THEN ADD:] a group that he describes as "inclined to prioritise the interests of their tribe, [while] they recognise that other groups – Mexicans, African-Americans or Muslims – are likely to do the same." According to Yiannopoulos, the alt-right are those who "doubt that full 'integration' is ever possible." [1] Hellpuppy ( talk) 22:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. I'm not sure if this is the correct place for adding this. That article which you've linked has been co-authored by him, not authored entirely by him. Seek some consensus on the talk page about whether this should be added/the location for it. If no-one responds or if there is consensus for adding it, reopen this edit request.
st
170
e
23:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)References
![]() | This
edit request to
Milo Yiannopoulos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Addition of information that while Milo reports on the Alt-Right movement, he has specifically stated, in addition to many other prominent Alt-Right leaders, that "[he] is not part of the alt-right". [1] Cynicalhistorian ( talk) 00:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. The article already reflects his tepid repudiation of the label. also.
Grayfell (
talk)
01:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)This sentence appears to be a bad edit. It makes no sense in English.
173.20.35.53 ( talk) 18:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
This edit was revert-warred so instead of revert warring back, let's have a straw poll. Should mention be made that Yiannopoulos was named 2016 Person of the Year by LGBTQ Nation?
After a concerted effort to drum up votes via social media...,
Yiannopoulos' fans didn’t just flock to the site from his Facebook page though...and
Yiannopoulos made the news throughout 2016 and always for truly awful reasons. This is not positive information, and should not be misrepresented as such. Grayfell ( talk) 21:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to it being somewhere more appropriate, I guess, but only with independent sources. Otherwise this was just a goofy PR game he played and won, and so what? The LGBTQ Nation article seems a little embarrassed they got played like that (the user-comment screenshot, for example), so its encyclopedic significance seems minimal, but outside sources would clear that up. Grayfell ( talk) 21:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
As I have several friends as eyewitnesses who documented the UC Davis cancellation, the sentence supported by source 126 needs to be amended. This is lifted straight from a tweet made by Milo Yiannopoulos himself, and unsubstantiated by any other news source than Breitbart. This is shoddy content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Davis ( talk • contribs) 05:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Milo Yiannopoulos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
According to the Associated Press, there was no violence or property destruction at the UC-Davis protest: https://www.yahoo.com/news/protests-shutdown-far-speaker-uc-davis-053553008.html 104.162.225.58 ( talk) 08:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Due to the highly controversial nature of the subject of this article and the multiple BLP issues which have arisen, coupled with sometimes heated content disputes, I am imposing Discretionary Sanctions on this article per this ARBCOM decision. Specifically WP:1RR is now in effect. Thank you for your cooperation in abiding by this editing restriction. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
One can of course go roundabout searching for disrupting and twisting excuses to sabotage proper Wikipedia editing ( WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:CHERRYPICKING). The most valid and orthodox source for establishing who is Jewish is the Halacha ; and that's final. Wringing out any half baked obstreperous rationalisation is totally inexcusable and unwanted on Wikipedia. In any other Wikipedia article known/repeatable newspapers or magazines are used as valid sources and can be only countered by other sources claiming otherwise. The Forward Yiannopoulos’s maternal grandmother is Jewish, so according to Jewish law, he is, too, but he was raised Catholic.(January 3, 2017 By Daniel J. Solomon) http://forward.com/fast-forward/358909/milo-yiannopoulos-slams-thick-as-pig-st-media-jews/) RudiLefkowitz ( talk) 13:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, again I want to remind you that there is a difference between ethnicity and religion. He is already identified as a (self-proclaimed, but still) person of Jewish heritage. He is (correctly) also identified as a practicing catholic. You are literally arguing that this article should lie because the truth offends your religious sensibilities. Fuck. That. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
There was a request for a Third Opinion in this dispute, but I have removed the request as there are already more than two people involved. If this discussion is still going strong it may be a better candiate for an RFC or the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Brad v 19:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC) |
Observing this Rudi, I got to admit, I'm amused. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 00:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
@ Ad Orientem: Further, no conclusion was reached at ANI on what is a content decision, despite the suggestion at DRN. James J. Lambden ( talk) 00:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Shooter sent Facebook message to Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopoulos before gunfire at UW protest, police say Originally published January 23, 2017 Seattle Times Suspect Facebook page indicates he is a supporter of Trump, Yiannopoulos and the National Rifle Association. Victim is Seattle computer-security engineer and a member of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) General Defense Committee, which describes itself as an “anti-racist and anti-fascist organization.” an early opponent to the appearance of Yiannopoulos at the UW and worked to organize a resistance among a number of groups, Bachcell ( talk) 18:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
http://crosscut.com/2017/01/uw-shooting-milo-yiannopoulos-how-it-happened/ I've also been tracking the book controversy and responses on the Simon & Schuster page--so there are plenty of citations there with new information about that. Jaldous1 ( talk) 15:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Mr. Yiannopoulos has been sponsored by College Republicans and Turning Point USA. [1] [2] 96.93.147.49 ( talk) 22:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
I updated the information. We know the victim and the suspect. The suspect is a Trump supporter, the honorable victim, Josh D., is a computer engineer and is active in a labour union. The suspect claims self-defense and has not been arrested. The brave Josh D. wants to talk to the suspected shooter to de-escalate the situation.-- Élisée P. Bruneau ( talk) 20:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
The validity of the content under the "DePaul University" sub-heading is questionable. Much of this section is generally irrelevant and the specifics regarding the protest of the speaking event at the University come from un-reliable sources. Using Breitbart as a source to provide information about an editor of the newspaper exhibits a conflict of interest and many of the other citations are not to reputable sources but rather to think-pieces or small, independent news outlets, displaying significant bias. Wordsmithone ( talk) 07:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Milo Yiannopoulos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the discussion of the University of Washington incident, the assailant is referred to as a former student of Washington University. This is not correct -- the assailant is a former student not of Washington University (which is a school in St. Louis, MO. He is a former student of The University of Washington. Jay Kelner ( talk) 15:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Done All taken care of. Good catch.
MjolnirPants
Tell me all about it.
15:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
This should be included in the article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/us/university-california-berkeley-free-speech-milo-yiannopoulos.html 71.182.241.125 ( talk) 06:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The wikipedia article claims the victim, Dukes, was the one firing pepper spray into the crowd.
"Information about the incident came to light through witness Samie Frites' testimony, who recalled seeing Dukes spray "little projectiles into the crowd," later confirmed by law enforcement to be pepper spray. At this point the shooter confronted Dukes and shot him, forcing him to cease spraying."
But the Seattle Times article that is cited seems to contain the opposite -- that the shooter was pepper spraying the crowd and the victim was attempting to stop him. (Pronouns are confusing in this passage. I added an (A) for when the victim is the "he" and (B) for the shooter)
"Samie Frites, a nursing assistant who said he had gone to the protest “to make sure nobody got hurt,” said he saw a man (B) pull “something out of his coat and started firing these little projectiles into the crowd.”
The law-enforcement source said it was pepper spray.
“I yelled at him (B) to stop,” Frites said. “That’s when this other guy (A) came out of the crowd and went after him.”
Frites said he grabbed him (A) to try to prevent a confrontation. That’s when Frites said he heard a “muffled noise,” which he is now sure was the gunshot.
“The guy I was holding looked back (A) at me over his shoulder. He looked bad. He was really scared,” said Frites, who said he lowered the wounded man (A) to the ground."
Frites says he was holding back the victim when he was shot. And he wasn't holding back the pepper sprayed, he was holding out the person who was attempting to confront him.
Could someone with editing privilege change the article to better fit with the cited source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.97.112.65 ( talk) 00:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
References
It should be noted that the Berkeley College Republicans, a club on the UC Berkeley campus, invited Milo Yiannopoulos to speak at the Paulley Ballroom of the student union center named after Martin Luther King Jr. The Daily Cal, [1] USA Today, [2] and East Bay Times [3] note this.
Ejlauren121 ( talk) 08:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
References
The WordsmithYour revert-revert was a DS violation (see the top of this page). That being said, I agree with your edit, which is why I'm posting here instead of asking you to self-revert at your talk. Regardless of source word choice (which remains a valid argument when sources all use the same word), the different between a violent protest and a riot is fairly semantic. Maybe one could argue that looting or extensive property damage is a defining characteristic of a riot, but one could just as easily argue that they're not. I prefer "rioting" because using the other term implies a difference that I'm just not seeing.
Ad Orientem or anyone else, if you're not satisfied with the new source or my reasoning above, let us know, so we can continue to discuss it here. Otherwise, I think it's fine to 'retroactively' apply my support and the lack of dissent to say there's a consensus for the Wordsmith's change.
There's a part of my wikisoul that hurts a little every time I see admins edit warring (or maybe edit-battling when it's this brief?) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has an article called riot which says:
"A riot is a form of civil disorder commonly characterized by a group lashing out in a violent public disturbance against authority, property or people. Riots typically involve vandalism and the destruction of property, public or private. The property targeted varies depending on the riot and the inclinations of those involved. Targets can include shops, cars, restaurants, state-owned institutions, and religious buildings."
This is exactly what reliable sources have reported as having happened at UC Berkeley.
71.182.241.125 ( talk) 06:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I've just edited the "UC Berkeley" section to mention that there was a peaceful protest before it was interrupted by violence, as reported by the university itself. Although some news outlets have focused their reporting on the property destruction and violence, it is not controversial that a large peaceful protest took place beforehand, and that the violence was instigated by a separate, masked group of agitators. The cited UC Berkeley news article draws its facts from the UC Police Department itself and is a reliable source. If you have concerns or objections regarding this edit, please discuss here on the talk page before reverting. Thanks. — Ka-Ping Yee ( talk) 19:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Milo Yiannopoulos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Huffington Post is described as, "...is a left-leaning..." while Breitbart news is described as "far-right"? Please remove the bias from this article by returning the description back to "conservative", or attribute HuffPo as being "far-left". 216.194.43.66 ( talk) 18:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
According to England & Wales Civil Registration Birth Index 1916-2005 he was born on 18 October 1984 in Chatham, Kent, England as Milo Hanrahan. His father had Irish and Greek ancestry (hence Yiannopoulos) but went by Hanrahan and his name was registered as such at birth. For accuracy the current birth name/birth place (i.e. Milo Yiannopoulos, born in Greece) should be updated. Res554743 ( talk) 17:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Is a list of individuals who are of Jewish descent, but not Jewish (ex. David Beckham )...even if Mr. Yiannopoulos is Jewish according Israeli law - Who is a Jew? + Matrilineality in Judaism + Source http://forward.com/fast-forward/358909/milo-yiannopoulos-slams-thick-as-pig-st-media-jews/). I am not representing or advocating some obscure or even a certain Jewish denominations view on who is Jewish. All Jewish religious movements consider univocally everyone automatically as a Jew trough matrilineal blood affinity. The before mention is not only just the majority opinion in Judaism, but, the general scholarly verdict shown in any good in-depth encyclopedia. Ask any scholar or even a rabbi or a Israeli immigration official. The only difference is that Reform Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism accept even the patrilineal descent i.e. a even broder definition that is more like self-identification. So adding category "Jewish descent" should at least be no problem, until we can get some proper Jewish scholars on Wikipedia to verify the Jewishness of Milo Yiannopoulos. Shalom. RudiLefkowitz ( talk) 21:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
The close disregarded the question and the discussion. He was not asking to add "British Jews" as a cat, he was discussing "British of Jewish descent" which should not be a problem, since his mother is Jewish and therefore is of Jewish descent. Why is that category not allowed? As I posted on Rudi's talk page, I do understand that Wikipedia has an issue with Jews and especially with Jews who don't fit into the stereotypical mold. The sources say Milo is of Jewish descent, but nothing short of Moses coming down from Sinai proclaiming that would be good enough for some of the editors here. Read the links above, he clearly identifies as a Jew. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
That his grandmother or mother is Jewish is not in question,Yes, it is. That was the whole point of my response. Please read comments before you reply to them. The majority of sources question whether his mother or grandmother really is Jewish, referring to the claim as "convenient" or pointing out that he only does so when accused of antisemitism. See [7] and [8] MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Milo self-identified as Jewish, that is good enough for Wikipedia.Not according to WP:BLPSELFPUB (specifically points 1 and 4) it isn't. I mean, this is the exact situation that policy was written to address. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
*Suggestion Is it perhaps time to post an RfC to try and get a broader pool of editors involved and maybe (hopefully) establish a definitive consensus on this issue? Reminder I'm taking no position on this subject. My role here is to prevent edit warring and any other disruptive editing. If I can help facilitate a constructive discussion I'm happy to do so. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
List of quotes & sources
|
---|
|
Would someone who is able to change the picture to one that is accurate. GuysIJustEditedThis ( talk) 07:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Emir of Wikipedia restored some content that I removed with the comment, "WP:NOTCENSORED. Just because the content is sexually contreversial it does not mean we should remove it." The user is confused. I did not remove the content - including Yiannopoulos's claims about how he supposedly lost his virginity and how he would supposedly like to try conversion therapy - because it is sexual or controversial. I removed it because it is trivial. WP:NOTCENSORED does not mean that Wikipedia must include every claim made by an article subject in a biographical article. It is up to those who consider these two claims by Yiannopoulos non-trivial to make a case for including the information. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 22:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Incidentally, Emir of Wikipedia, you also reverted this completely uncontroversial formatting change. Could you please be more careful? There was no need to revert absolutely all my edits simply because I made some changes you disagreed with. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 23:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I recently added a descriptor "anti-fascist" to group that started the recent riots in Berkeley, which was contested by Ad Orientem. These sources clearly label the rioters as "anti-fascist activists" from the group "Antifa" or "AntiFA": The Guardian, Vocativ, IBTimes, etc. I fail to see how this is POV, and it's more specific than what we currently have ("masked agitators"). Some sources describe them as "anarchists," but that's just one part of their philosophy, at least according to the IBTimes article. Falling Gravity 01:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
...it shows the agitators were likely protesting Milo's connections to the alt-right.Indeed, it does show that. But do you (or I, or indeed, anyone aside from each of those individual protesters) know that for a fact? No. As I mentioned, some may have (read: almost certainly did) come just to engage in activities with their friends in the group. Some may have felt uncomfortable coming, but came along due to peer pressure. Some were possibly not there from the anti-fascists groups at all, but got caught up in the energy of the crowd. We don't know. We can reasonably infer that the protest was organized by the anti fascist groups due to that. Since this edit has been challenged, and the proposal I made above is dryer and less provocative, yet at least equally (almost certainly more, but again: I don't know either) true, shouldn't we use that? I'm literally looking at an option that addresses your concerns (this detail does change the narrative, and since it's true it should be included) and equally addresses Ad Orientem's concerns (it doesn't portray the protesters as overtly noble). It even implies a motive to the groups in organizing the protests. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 06:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Breaking news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia, than to help spread potentially false rumors.
My issue is not with Breitbart being called right-wing, it is with adding unnecessary info to the article, given we have a link to the article on Breitbart and this is the article on Yiannopoulos. It's insertion looks like there has been an editing dispute and it has been added for that reason. An edit dispute is never a good reason to add content, especially non-notable content. BTW it is also unsourced content, restoring unsourced content that has been removed from a WP:BLP article is always dubious. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 12:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Milo's a firm believer of Brexit as he stated here: [9] [10], just wondering why it isn't mentioned in the article. Blue sphere 04:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
The first sentence in the lede states "Milo Yiannopoulos is a British journalist, entrepreneur, public speaker, and technology editor for Breitbart News, a far-right news and opinion website based in the United States. Breitbart is not considered " far-right" but rather, " alt-right". According to the lede in the Wiki on the far-right: "Far-right politics often involve a focus on tradition, real or imagined, as opposed to policies and customs that are regarded as reflective of modernism. Many far-right ideologies have a disregard or a disdain for egalitarianism, even if they do not always express overt support for social hierarchy, elements of social conservatism and opposition to most forms of liberalism and socialism. The term is commonly used to describe right-wing populist ideologies which is known for its espousal of extreme nationalism and its opposition to immigration, as well as its advocacy of Nazism, neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies or organizations that feature extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, or reactionary views, which can lead to oppression and violence against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority, or their perceived threat to the nation, state or ultraconservative traditional social institutions." This description does not apply to Breitbart, which, AFAIK has never expressed support for Nazism, neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism, nor violence against groups. Indeed, Jewish groups have praised Breitbart for defending against anti-Semitism (which rather discredits the "Nazi" or "neo-Nazi" notions). There are plenty of legitimate criticisms to be made about Breitbart, but any article that calls them "far-right" undermines its own credibility, and leaves no room for describing the position of truly far-right media, such as Stormfront. Breitbart is "alt-right"; there's no reason to exaggerate their position on the spectrum. Bricology ( talk) 06:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Great post. My comment was about the reason for no editing on the Milo page is simply that the individual who does not know the difference between alt and far is more interested in preventing corrections or maybe he thinks that people who correct him are vandals. Tonertee ( talk) 05:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm surmising from the discussion here and the discussion/source analysis at Breitbart News that "far-right" would be the most accurate descriptor to use in this situation. Lizzius ( talk) 17:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
'far-right' is a subjective term and should not be used in the context of an encyclopedic article. Nothing more needs be said on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.56.154 ( talk) 14:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I was posting info about his websites and I had used WHOIS creation date to indicate some rough order of events. It was undone twice with comments "whois services... not reliable sources" and "the WHOIS result is iffy at best". While WHOIS#Accuracy_of_information doesn't specifically deal with creation date, it does say "In cases where the registrant's (Domain Owner) identity is public, anyone can easily confirm the status of a domain via WHOIS." A Quora answer said, "The creations date is the date the domain name was registered although it could have dropped and been re-register. This information is accurate and cannot be changed." [11] A Stackoverflow answer said, "You cannot change the creation date for your domain." [12] Is there some decision on Wikipedia relating to WHOIS or which website to use for WHOIS? There are hundreds of articles that use the creation date and reference WHOIS, including History of Wikipedia. Ironically, the article on Wikipedia doesn't use WHOIS, but it doesn't have any references that support the January 15, 2001 date. StrayBolt ( talk) 21:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
in first paragraph insert far-right news to provide context thanks ScotKreek ( talk) 12:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm a newb. I've read the guidelines carefully, but I apologize if this post is nonconforming.
I propose to update the "biographical summary" for this person, to reflect the facts that he did not graduate from University of Manchester, nor from Cambridge. These facts are contained in the body of the Wikipedia entry ("He attended the University of Manchester, dropping out without graduating.[20]"), but they are not contained in the biographical summary.
I refer to the top right of the Wikipedia entry for this person as the "biographical summary" (it has a light blue background). The biographical summary also appears in Google search results for this person:
CURRENT: Education: University of Manchester, Wolfson College, Cambridge
REQUESTED CHANGE: Education: University of Manchester (did not graduate), Wolfson College, Cambridge (did not graduate)
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.235.197 ( talk) 17:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Milo Yiannopoulos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Over 1,000 people gathered to violently protest the event on the steps of Sproul Hall." This line is incorrect. The source article does not say that 1000 people gathered to violently protest the event. They gathered to protest the event. (Also it was 1500, not 1000.) The source article also says that 150 people joinedwho may have been violent. But the 1500 people gathered did not do so to _violently_ protest and as such this article is incorrect. Please change it to say 1500 and please remove the word "violently". Thank you. Steveinphilly ( talk) 18:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Currently the section Relationship with Donald Trump and the alt-right reads:
(...) In a Breitbart article, he and a co-author championed the movement and its intellectual backers, whom he described as "dangerously bright". Tablet noted that many of these intellectual backers write for publications Tablet describes as racist and antisemitic, like VDARE and American Renaissance.[18] The article was criticised by opponents of the right-wing for excusing the extremist elements of the alt-right, and also by neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer who claim that racism and antisemitism are pillars of the movement.[86][87] A Daily Beast article in September 2016 suggested that Yiannopoulos has received funding from virtual reality tycoon Palmer Luckey.[88]
Which article is this section talking about? Did it have any notoriety? Isn't a post entitled "Donald Trump’s Little Boy Is a Gay Half-Jew With Jungle Fever" from a certain Tablet (Magazine) WP:UNDUE? Furthermore what does it mean to "champion the movement and its intellectual backers" - WP:UPE? And the last part:
A Daily Beast article in September 2016 suggested that Yiannopoulos has received funding from virtual reality tycoon Palmer Luckey.[88]
Not knowing who Palmer Luckey is (not such a notable person), what relation does this bare with either Donald Trump or alt-right for it to be in this section? I feel like there should be a better explanation of the article cited in this sentence such that the relation with Trump is clearer. Saturnalia0 ( talk) 00:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Would there be a decisive problem using the interview as source and mentioning it in the the article? ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HexaNYw_O-4)- Lähdeluettelo ( talk) 11:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Milo Yiannopoulos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please edit it to state "former senior editor for Breitbart News, who resigned after controversy from his positive views on underage boys having sex with older men brought extreme negative attention to the outlet. 184.70.154.6 ( talk) 19:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Under "Early and personal life" it currently states: He is a practising Catholic; he has said that his mother or maternal grandmother is Jewish,[22][23] which has put him at odds with neo-Nazi elements of the alt-right.[24] While it is uncontroversial that Mr. Yiannopoulos has stated himself that his maternal grandmother, the citations do not actually reference any evidence that these are truthful statements. The wording of the article makes no reference to this uncertainty. --Mattomynameo ( talk) 08:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
his mother has Jewish ancestors. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 11:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
his maternal grandmother was Jewish. I think the controversy is the reason it should be included, as notable sources have picked upon it. If it was something like the case of Hitler where it was more of a passing accusation without a self claim then I would obviously reject its inclusion, unless it is a prominent piece of information like with Hitler where his lawyer claimed it and research has taken place. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 18:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes He lost most he had built to this point--his Breitbart gig, his 250k book deal, and a sizable share of social media fans--because of the scandal. Focus on the scandal is therefore not presentism. It is a seminal part of his life, and has been covered endlessly by all major RS over the past 48 hours. Steeletrap ( talk) 19:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Milo Yiannopoulos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The section on Milo Yiannopoulos' pedophilia controversy describes the relevant video as "an old interview." The word "old" denotes bias. Please replace "an old interview of Yiannopoulos, from a YouTube-based talk show" with "a January, 2016 episode of "The Drunken Peasants" podcast".
The word "old" denotes bias.Ahh, damn! Ageism strikes again! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Milo Yiannopoulos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change: "Yiannopoulos resigned from Breitbart in February 2017 following the resurfacing of video in which he asserted that, . . . ."
to: "Yiannopoulos resigned from Breitbart in February 2017 following the resurfacing of comments he made on the Drunken Peasants podcast on January 4, 2016 in which he asserted . . ."
This makes it more accurate and actually fairly attributes the source of the comments. XyZero ( talk) 21:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Proposal: Put "Greece" in the birth_place infobox field, as this BBC News article describes MY's early life: "Born in Greece to a Greek father and British mother, he grew up in Kent in the south of England." Arbor to SJ ( talk) 20:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
This should be adjusted for accuracy. Instead of "founded 'The Kernel'" I think it should say he "co-founded 'The Kernel' in November 2011" 2602:306:CE95:57B0:B16B:F04E:351D:3553 ( talk) 06:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Milo has attracted major coverage by reliable sources over this. There is no doubt that this is notable enough for inclusion. This is not just some controversy that will blow over in one day and lose all encyclopedic value. Coverage by CBS, Haaretz, the Independent, the Guardian, Politico, the Hill, NY Mag, Huff Po, Vox, Seattle P-I etc. in the last few hours, and more is certainly imminent. It is therefore notable enough for the lede. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Hah, no, this should not be swept under the rug in a single sentence.That sounds an awful lot like a value judgement, to me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I edited this section yesterday to reflect that the interview he gave was in 2015 and I don't think should be simply characterized as "old". It is located here. [1]. Why not cite the original interview? Anyhow, I leave it to all of you who wish to explore all things Milo in detail. Dharmabum ( talk) 16:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
In this edit, [19], the section was essentially watered down to nothing. I had already restored the old title earlier but want to err on the side of caution with the one revert rule in place so I undid myself. But I object strongly to wholesale changes like this when there's no discussion on this page about it, and would like to see the status quo restored pending such discussion. ValarianB ( talk) 18:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
In the interests of having this section be as unbiased as possible, here are the transcripts for his actual words with a video of the actual podcast: heavy.com/news/2017/02/milo-yiannopolous-pedophilia-transcript-pederasty-video-full-sex-boys-men-catholic-priest-cpac-quotes/ Meskarune ( talk) 22:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
We need to be careful about blaming the victim. Recall Mary Kay Letourneau's relationship with her 12 year-old student, Vili Fualaau. She was convicted of a crime but the two later married. Fualaau describes their relationship but it would be quite the leap to say that his consent means that he condones or approves of pedophilia. He obviously doesn't consider himself as a victim and relaying personal experience of being in a relationship shouldn't result in attributing a societal view. No one should claim Fualaau condones child/adult relationships based on his particular experience. -- DHeyward ( talk) 05:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with DHeyward's reasoning as well. And if any of this crap is to be included, WP:ATTRIBUTION should be used to make it clear that it is the opinion of RS and not state it in WP's voice. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Milo Yiannopoulos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Larmardillo ( talk) 15:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Why do we have 4,500 words on this publicity-seeking individual, much of it relating to transitory events? Seems a clear case of WP:UNDUE. – Sca ( talk) 16:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
the appropriate length for all our articles is: bigger.I am so stealing that line. I love it! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Milo states twice that his mother is a German native in this video of the press conference (at 3m6s and 19m42s). Milo is therefore a British national of German and Greek descent. [21] [22] 84.132.37.150 ( talk) 03:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
His paternal grandparents were Andreas I. Yiannopoullos born 1937 in Marylebone, London, and Petronella T. Hanrahan born 1933 in Medway, Kent according to (a not so reliable source? [23]. Apart from his mother's maiden name being "Baker", little else seems known about his parentage (no first name for his father? mother? why he took his grandmother's maiden name at birth?).--Artaxerxes 17:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Pedophilia The RS accuse him of condoning pedophlia; this is the allegation at the heart of the scandal. Using the clinical definition of pedophilia (which excludes post-pubescent children), and ignoring RS, would be WP:SYN.
The definition of words, it should be noted, depends on context. In a clinical context, a person who is sexually attracted to a 13 year old may not be a pedophile. But he is a pedophile is in common parlance. It is also worth noting that under the law (which prohibits sex with post-pubescent children of 14-15, and (in some states) 16-17, and makes offenders register as pedophiles) pederasty is synonymous with pedophilia and often treated with equal contempt. Steeletrap ( talk) 04:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
It went from "talking about his experience when a young boy" to "condoning pedophilia" to "he is a pedophile" pretty quickly. Saturnalia0 ( talk) 08:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)a person who is sexually attracted to a 13 year old may not be a pedophile. But he is a pedophile
Pedophilia because that's what sources use. Not the past to be pedantic about pedophilia, ephebophilia, hebephilia, and pedarastry. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Pederasty would be accurate according to his description [24] but we need to follow the sources. With that said, his response needs to be included as well [25] -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 07:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Pedophilia as that is what the sources say. A minor is a minor, pubescence has nothing to do with the matter at hand. ValarianB ( talk) 12:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Words can have colloquial meanings...As I said before: You read my comment but you just don't understand it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
competing facts for the two sides of the case. In this (non-legal) case the argument for the term "pedophile" is to follow the reliable sources, and the other case is to ignore the reliable sources and instead use the correct term as per Wikipedia:Truth, not verifiability. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 17:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Pedophilia as the most widely used accurate term. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 19:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
News outlets **are** making allegations of pedophilia advocacy, but in truth Milo discussed age of consent and underage/overage relationships. The scientific term would be pederasty but most people are unfamiliar with that term. I think "Statuatory Rape Controversy" or "Age of consent Controversy" might be the most accurate terms to use. Meskarune ( talk) 22:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The sources say pedophilia, so that is what we must say per verifiability. Both terms can also be synonymous with each other anyway. Keiiri ( talk) 02:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
This has obviously been a controversial point. I would suggest that the current text also suffers from the technically correct but misleading problem it refers to. It is quite right that the term pedophila is used commonly in colloquial language to involve attraction to post pubescent children. Thus, using the clinical definition can communicate the wrong idea to the audience (perhaps the intended effect of his remarks). However, it is a real and important distinction. pedophilia is considered a psychiatric disorder and is defined as such the the APA's Diagnostic and statistical manual. Attraction to post pubescent people is not considered a psychiatric disorder in and of itself. distinguishing pedophilia to hebephilia without comment suggests both are psychiatric disorders. This is a common view of non psychiatrists, but it is not the mainstream view of psychiatry. It does not mean that hebephilia is acceptable behaviour, or shouldn't be opposed. Those are separate issues. To resolve this in the article, I think this should be inserted into this section. Something along the lines of "...pedophilia, a well accepted psychiatric disorder, and hebephilia which is not a considered psychiatric disorder, though it may still be unacceptable behaviour." This is a real question. The age of consent in the US varies from 14 to 18, and 16 is commonly used in the US, Europe and other developed countries. Pedophiles have a high rate of recidivism, while it is common for those who are attracted to post pubescent teenagers to not show the same compulssion. Not making the distinction ignores the real differences between the two types of attraction and behaviour. Ignatios2000 ( talk) 19:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
-He resigned from Breitbart after a video of him appeared defending sexual relationships between boys as young as 13 and adults (both gay men and straight women) in their 20s resurfaced.
-Pederasty or paederasty (US /ˈpɛdəræsti/ or UK /ˈpiːdəræsti/) is a (usually erotic) homosexual relationship between an adult male and a pubescent or adolescent male.
-Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.
they really mean "sexual contact with people under 18". Riley Cohen ( talk) 08:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)