Removing expired RFC template. |
M2sh22pp1l (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 125: | Line 125: | ||
This article reads like a diatribe. A "hit piece," basically. I'm more than prepared to believe he deserves every last bit of it and then some, but seriously? There have got to be as many reasons he is liked by many who aren't (known) alt-right or KKK. No? Just putting it out there. If Wikipedia aspires to be, well, Wikipedia, I'm not sure an article such as this helps. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.29.63.96|24.29.63.96]] ([[User talk:24.29.63.96#top|talk]]) 04:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
This article reads like a diatribe. A "hit piece," basically. I'm more than prepared to believe he deserves every last bit of it and then some, but seriously? There have got to be as many reasons he is liked by many who aren't (known) alt-right or KKK. No? Just putting it out there. If Wikipedia aspires to be, well, Wikipedia, I'm not sure an article such as this helps. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.29.63.96|24.29.63.96]] ([[User talk:24.29.63.96#top|talk]]) 04:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:Couldn't agree more, I've been arguing the case for ages. Heaps of undue detail aimed at presenting the fella in the worst possible light. I also am not a fan, but this article is a shocker. [[User:Bacondrum|Bacondrum]] ([[User talk:Bacondrum|talk]]) 07:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC) |
:Couldn't agree more, I've been arguing the case for ages. Heaps of undue detail aimed at presenting the fella in the worst possible light. I also am not a fan, but this article is a shocker. [[User:Bacondrum|Bacondrum]] ([[User talk:Bacondrum|talk]]) 07:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC) |
||
==RFC general improvement== |
|||
{{rfc|pol|soc| |
|||
I understand why editors stay away from contentious articles like this, but it really needs cleaning up. Like many recent "culture wars" articles it is the result of a [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] between detractors and supporters. While I'm no fan of the subject I believe the article is barely legible and biased - due to endless tendentious editing form both supporters and detractors it's a real mess of clunky prose, [[WP:BIAS|bias]], [[WP:RECENT|recentism]] and [[WP:UNDUE|undue]] content. How can this article be improved? I'd particularly like to hear from experienced editors. [[User:Bacondrum|Bacondrum]] ([[User talk:Bacondrum|talk]]) 00:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
See here for recent, detailed discussion regarding the lede: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Milo_Yiannopoulos#RFC_-_Improving_the_lede |
Revision as of 00:06, 6 December 2019
| |||||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 24, 2012. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Milo Yiannopoulos arranged a moonwalking flash mob at Liverpool Street station as a tribute to Michael Jackson shortly after his death? |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Milo denies that "Dangerous" was ghostwritten
"Dangerous" is obviously written by Milo. It is written in the same style he speaks in. Nevertheless, it is not his best writing. He addresses this at 1:57 in this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAiGoWnsVXE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myatrrcc (talk • contribs) 06:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
RFC - Improving the lede
I'm interested in improving the lede, but there's been a fair bit of argy bargy around this subject, so I would like feedback from other editors interested in improving the article through consensus. Bacondrum (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
The current lede contains clunky prose, a lot of WP:RECENT and WP:UNDUE detail as per WP:LEAD, in my opinion.
I propose changing the lede from this (A):
Milo Yiannopoulos (/jəˈnɒpələs/;born Milo Hanrahan, 18 October 1984), or pen name Milo Andreas Wagner, is a British far-right political commentator, polemicist, public speaker, and writer. Yiannopoulos is a former editor for Breitbart News who describes himself as a "cultural libertarian". Through his speeches and writings, he ridicules Islam, feminism, social justice, and political correctness. Leaked emails have shown that Yiannopoulous's book, Dangerous, and many of his Breitbart articles were ghost-written by a Breitbart colleague.
Yiannopoulos worked for Breitbart from 2014 until 2017. During his time at Beitbart Yiannopoulos rose to prominence as a significant voice in the Gamergate controversy. In July 2016, he was permanently banned from Twitter for harassment. He was permanently banned from Facebook in 2019.
According to hundreds of emails by Yiannopoulous leaked by Buzzfeed in late 2017, Yiannopoulos repeatedly solicited white nationalists, such as American Renaissance editor Devin Saucier, for story ideas and editing suggestions during his tenure at Breitbart. The emails show that this was an effort to appeal to a racist readership through dog-whistling.
Yiannopoulos has been accused of being an apologist for or supporting paedophilia. The allegation arose from several video clips in which he said that sexual relationships between 13-year-old boys and adult men and women can be "perfectly consensual" and positive experiences for the boys. Following the release of the video, Yiannopoulos was forced out of his position at Breitbart, his invitation to speak before the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) was revoked, and a contract to publish his autobiography with Simon & Schuster was cancelled. Yiannopoulos has said that he is not a supporter of paedophilic relationships and that his statements were merely attempts to cope with his own victimhood, as an object of child abuse by unnamed older men.
To this (option B):
Milo Yiannopoulos (/jəˈnɒpələs/; born Milo Hanrahan, 18 October 1984), also known by the pen name Milo Andreas Wagner, is a British far-right provocateur. Yiannopoulos is a former editor for Breitbart News who describes himself as a "cultural libertarian". Through his speeches and writings, he ridicules Islam, feminism, social justice, and political correctness.
Yiannopoulos worked for Breitbart from 2014 until 2017. During his time at Beitbart Yiannopoulos rose to prominence as a significant voice in the Gamergate controversy. According to hundreds of emails leaked by Buzzfeed in late 2017, Yiannopoulos repeatedly solicited white nationalists for story ideas and editing suggestions during his tenure at Breitbart. Leaked emails have shown that Yiannopoulous's book, Dangerous, and many of his Breitbart articles were ghost-written by a Breitbart colleague.
In July 2016, Yiannopoulos was permanently banned from Twitter for harassment, he was permanently banned from Facebook in 2019.
Yiannopoulos has been accused of being an apologist for paedophilia. The allegation arose from several video clips in which he said that sexual relationships between 13-year-old boys and adult men and women can be "perfectly consensual" and positive experiences for the boys. Following the release of the video, Yiannopoulos was forced out of his position at Breitbart and a number of speaking and publishing contracts were cancelled. Yiannopoulos has said that he is not a supporter of paedophilic relationships.
Reasoning for changes:
- "or pen name Milo Andreas Wagner" sounds clunky should be reworded to "also known by the pen name"
- I believe "political commentator, polemicist, public speaker, and writer" is too long winded and vague, delete and replace with "provocateur" or "troll" - most RS refer to him as a provocateur or a troll (this covers his journalism, commentary, polemics, public speaking, and writing). He describes himself as a "troll".
- I believe all details about Breitbart should be in one paragraph, it's messy as is.
- "Yiannopoulos worked for Breitbart from 2014 until 2017. During his time at Beitbart Yiannopoulos rose to prominence as a significant voice in the Gamergate controversy. In July 2016, he was permanently banned from Twitter for harassment. He was permanently banned from Facebook in 2019." Why are Gamergate (which is part of his career at Breitbart, not part of a paragraph dedicated to Breitbart and why is his social media ban in this paragraph, they're not related.
- Clunky prose "According to hundreds of emails by Yiannopoulous leaked by Buzzfeed in late 2017" should be rephrased
- "such as American Renaissance editor Devin Saucier" should go, we can discuss the particular white nationalists he worked with in the body of the article, he worked with a number of them this is undue detail for the lede
- "for story ideas and editing suggestions during his tenure at Breitbart." Should be part of the Breitbart paragraph.
- This is opinion/original research "The emails show that this was an effort to appeal to a racist readership through dog-whistling." and must be removed. While I personally agree with the assertion, this doesn't sound encyclopedic, is an opinion and it's uncited.
- "Yiannopoulos has been accused of being an apologist for or supporting" This needs to be cleared up, is he an apologist or a supporter? Sounds weird - clunky prose
- Much of the last paragraph is undue detail, who cancelled contract, details of his attempts explain his child abuse comments can be found in the body, the lede is supposed to summerise.
All with relevant citations retained or improved, of course. Thanks in advance. Bacondrum (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- Support proposed text as much more concise, sharper, and focusing on WP:DUE statements. — JFG talk 11:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- "In July 2016, Yiannopoulos was permanently banned from Twitter for harassment, he was permanently banned from Facebook in 2019." I object to the repetition of 'permanently' and doubt if it needs to be used even once (to me, a ban is permanent; if it were temporary, it would be a suspension). I suggest "Yiannopoulos was banned from Twitter in July 2016 for harassment, and from Facebook in 2019."
- Similarly amend "Yiannopoulos worked for Breitbart from 2014 until 2017. During his time at Beitbart Yiannopoulos rose to prominence as a significant voice in the Gamergate controversy." to "Yiannopoulos worked for Breitbart from 2014 until 2017. During his time there, he ..." Nedrutland (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- Support with one suggestion Let's retain
such as American Renaissance editor Devin Saucier,
and otherwise it's fine. Simonm223 (talk) 12:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose both. I have made a post [1] at WP:BLPN raising my concern that the current and proposed leads do not approach this BLP in a professional manner. As I pointed out in my BLPN post, our lead for Donald Trump — who has politics very similar to Yiannopoulos — is by contrast restrained. And our article for Rocky Suhayda, the leader of the American Nazi Party and someone who is significantly closer to (indeed, is himself) the extreme right, is also restrained. It is inappropriate to have a lead that consists, paragraph by paragraph, of (1) ridicule, plagiarism, (2) harassment, banning, (3) racism, dog-whistling, (4) and paedophilia. Why is Yiannopoulos so popular? What is "his side?" You really get no idea of this from reading the lead of this article. Whatever you think about Yiannopoulos — and I don't think much — this is a shameful way to approach a biography. @Bacondrum, Flyer22 Reborn, Simonm223, JFG, and Nedrutland: and Markbassett. -Darouet (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Darouet: I don't necessarily disagree. What do you propose as an alternative?
- Oppose removal of "and that his statements were merely attempts to cope with his own victimhood, as an object of child abuse by unnamed older men.". This is for reasons I mentioned in the #The lede section above. In that section, Nedrutland also supported retaining the content. Nedrutland, is this still the case? Bacondrum has dropped that disputed aspect into this RfC which includes actual proposed improvements and therefore muddies things. Yes, the lead is supposed to summarize. The "Yiannopoulos has said that he is not a supporter of paedophilic relationships" piece is only summarizing that aspect of his statement. The above proposal is deliberately leaving out a significant aspect of his response to the allegation. And, in the "The lede" discussion, Bacondrum has provided his personal feelings as to why he wants that piece out of the lead. It has nothing to do with summarizing. This is a BLP. It matters not if an editor thinks Yiannopoulos is lying. We are supposed to provide his defense with regard to allegations, and not just a piece of it that we find acceptable. If Yiannopoulos were convicted of child sexual abuse or statutory rape or found to possess child pornography, things would be different. But he is not a convicted child sexual abuser or statutory rapist. Nor has he been found to possess child pornography. I was going to state "Support except for the removal of 'and that his statements were merely attempts to cope with his own victimhood, as an object of child abuse by unnamed older men'.", but Darouet has made me consider that although the fact that Yiannopoulos is controversial and controversial aspects should be covered in the lead, there may be more that should be in the lead as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- Details of his explanation for those comments are in the body of the article. My proposal isn't hard and fast, we are discussing the changes. please feel free to propose keeping the sections you think should be retained. And please focus on the content, not me - I'm not willing to get into another endless squabble with you. Bacondrum (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, details are. The summary should still be in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- Details of his explanation for those comments are in the body of the article. My proposal isn't hard and fast, we are discussing the changes. please feel free to propose keeping the sections you think should be retained. And please focus on the content, not me - I'm not willing to get into another endless squabble with you. Bacondrum (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- This looks like an improvement to me. Guy (help!) 23:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- Support. (Summoned by bot) The current inclusion of a ghostrwiriting allegation in the lead paragraph is especially undesirable. Coretheapple (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- Support with the caveat that the word ridicules in the last sentence of the first Lede para. be changed per WP:NPOV. Note: I had contemplated performing a non-admin closure and assessing consensus, but didn't want to do that with my objection to the word ridicules. I don't think that should stand in the revised revision. Also, do we know the social media bans are permanent? Even Wikipedia bans are not permanent. Suggest rephrasing to indefinite. Similar, also suggest spelling "paedophilia" as "pedophilia" per, I'm assuming, WP:MOS. --Doug Mehus (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- Pedo / Paedo; a reminder that "This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions" among which is paedophilia etc. Nedrutland (talk) 08:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- Procedural Comment: Adding an RfC tag to this to boost its awareness and build consensus, and because subsequent comments to this one on this talk page have outlined WP:NPOV issues in Lede. In short, we need to action this. To non-involved editor/admin RfC closer: please close with the optional closure tags when consensus has been attained. Thanks. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- Follow-up to Procedural Comment: THIS is why we should make it mandatory to use RfC closing tags. Legobot removed my added RfC tag as this has already been closed, apparently, but not indication of consensus. Moreover, there is an outstanding request for closure Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Milo_Yiannopoulos#RFC - Improving the lede --Doug Mehus (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2019
Change Milo Yiannopoulos' political alignments to right-wing.
Milo Yiannopoulos is not far-right and further is not associated with the alt-right. In his book, there is an entire chapter titled "Why the Alt-Right Hates me" where he ridiculed white supremacists and Neo-Nazis at length. Its matilda (talk) 10:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- Not done - Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources say about a subject.
- Yiannopoulos is not an independent source for information about himself. Yiannopoulos is not a reliable source for information about anything.
- Multiple independent reliable sources cited in the article say that he is far-right, so Wikipedia says that he is far-right.
- Please do not edit others' comments on this talk page, as you did here. Additionally, please note that direct quotes must say what the source says and may not be "corrected", whether you feel they are correct or not. - SummerPhDv2.0 12:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Update Website URL
Please update the webiste to https://milo.net/. He has moved his website content to https://milo.net/ after selling the dangerous.com domain [1]
Holy Mackerel
This article reads like a diatribe. A "hit piece," basically. I'm more than prepared to believe he deserves every last bit of it and then some, but seriously? There have got to be as many reasons he is liked by many who aren't (known) alt-right or KKK. No? Just putting it out there. If Wikipedia aspires to be, well, Wikipedia, I'm not sure an article such as this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.63.96 (talk) 04:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Couldn't agree more, I've been arguing the case for ages. Heaps of undue detail aimed at presenting the fella in the worst possible light. I also am not a fan, but this article is a shocker. Bacondrum (talk) 07:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
RFC general improvement
{{rfc|pol|soc| I understand why editors stay away from contentious articles like this, but it really needs cleaning up. Like many recent "culture wars" articles it is the result of a WP:BATTLEGROUND between detractors and supporters. While I'm no fan of the subject I believe the article is barely legible and biased - due to endless tendentious editing form both supporters and detractors it's a real mess of clunky prose, bias, recentism and undue content. How can this article be improved? I'd particularly like to hear from experienced editors. Bacondrum (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
See here for recent, detailed discussion regarding the lede: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Milo_Yiannopoulos#RFC_-_Improving_the_lede
- ^ https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/milo-yiannopoulos-sold-website-dangerous/.
{{cite web}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help)