M2sh22pp1l (talk | contribs) →RFC - Improving the lede: Remove personal attack as per WP:PERSONAL please focus on the edits, not me. |
Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) Undid revision 915380999 by Bacondrum (talk) This is not a personal attacks. You stated what you stated, and pointing that out is fine. If you think you have case, take me to WP:ANI. Tag: Undo |
||
Line 398: | Line 398: | ||
*'''Oppose both.''' I have made a post [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=915377335] 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. {{ping|Bacondrum|Flyer22 Reborn|Simonm223|JFG|Nedrutland}} and [[User talk:Markbassett|Markbassett]]. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 22:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose both.''' I have made a post [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=915377335] 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. {{ping|Bacondrum|Flyer22 Reborn|Simonm223|JFG|Nedrutland}} and [[User talk:Markbassett|Markbassett]]. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 22:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC) |
||
::{{ping|Darouet}} I don't necessarily disagree. What do you propose as an alternative? |
::{{ping|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, [[User:Nedrutland|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. 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 [[User:Darouet|Darouet]] has me made consider that although the fact that Yiannopoulos is controversial and controversial apsects should be covered in the lead, there may be more that should be in the lead as well. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 22:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC) |
*'''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, [[User:Nedrutland|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 [[User:Darouet|Darouet]] has me made consider that although the fact that Yiannopoulos is controversial and controversial apsects should be covered in the lead, there may be more that should be in the lead as well. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 22:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:31, 12 September 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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Citing Breitbart
I attempted to cite a Breitbart article and wasn't able to because the website is blacklisted. I understand that Breitbart is not considered a reliable source but I was simply using it as a reference to an addition I was trying to make involving things that Milo had said within the article. In other words, it was the fact that Milo wrote the article that I was attempting to demonstrate by citing it, not that the information in it was necessarily accurate. Is there a way around this or do we just have to avoid quotes from his Breitbart articles that haven't been quoted by a secondary source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Fifth Dwarfer (talk • contribs) 11:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- IMO, the issue here is (essentially) cherry-picking and the technical issue (not being able to cite Breitbart) is a side point.
- Notable people generally have said a lot of things that are easily available from primary sources. If Wikipedia were to allow editors to pull whatever quote they would like from a primary source (interview with the subject, speech they gave, article they wrote, etc.), some articles would quickly be overrun by attempts to build up or tear down the subject. Pick a notable politician and you can make them sound like the savior of the word or the destroyer by selectively quoting how thrilled they were the time they saved a child from certain death or how thrilled they were to kick a child in the face.
- The solution to the cherry-picking problem also avoids the technical issue in this case. If Yiannopoulos said something (in an article he wrote, a speech, whatever) that is a meaningful part of his biography, an independent reliable source will discuss it. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Added Milo's statements on trans into the article
Hello.
In an earlier section that I made [[1]], I brought up that the section on his views regarding gay, bi and trans lacked mentioning of his speech at the university of Delaware that caused quite a ruffling of feathers. I therefore now added this information as no one else had. Okama-San (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, I removed your recent addition, I get why you added it and thank you for your contribution, but we are not reporters, we don't need to report every obscene or stupid thing the man says, it's all undue. The endless quoting and reporting on this article should be pruned back to the most notable and widely reported, not expanded to include everything he has ever said that caused offense...we'd be here forever. I hope you understand where I'm coming from, his list of offensiveness is endless, it's his stick to offend people. Bacondrum (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- Display name 99Hi, here's my reasoning for removal of what I consider to be undue detail. Bacondrum (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Removal of material
Grayfell, I am troubled by your recent removal of quotes from Yiannopoulos. Your edit summary does not make things any clearer. You refer to these quotes as "political hot takes," even though one of them is a quote about himself and his own sexuality, which clearly has nothing to do at all with politics. You also say that "because he is not an expert on anything in particular," the quotes "need context from reliable, independent sources." All of them are covered already in reliable sources. Furthermore, I wonder what him supposedly not being an expert on anything means for the other quotes. Are you saying that we should not represent his views because he is stupid and ill-informed? If so, this would be a clear case of POV-editing. Display name 99 (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith and don't accuse other editors of POV-editing - focus on content. I personally agree with the removals. There is so much undue detail on this page, and those quotes were undue IMO. They are "political hot takes" being a gay homophobe and a Jewish antisemite is all part of his shtick. I personally think more than half the article is undue detail, removing excessive and undue quotes is a good start. This article suffers from the kind of back and forth left-right editing that many alt-right and related articles seem to suffer from, it needs substantial pruning. Bacondrum (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- This seems like a discussion worth having, so I have no problem explaining why I made this edit. This isn't about other articles, although it's not a unique problem. This edit was specific to this topic:
- Xtools gives a prose estimate of 46k, which seems far too long for the depth of available sources. We don't need to talk about splitting the article or anything, but if average readers spend a full half-hour reading this article from start to end, (per WP:LENGTH) are they going to get a better understanding than if the article were tightened up and some of these details were omitted?
- As for more specific reasons, he is uncontroversial a pundit, not a topic expert. By his own admission he was unqualified to write on technology, and since then none of his work has been published as journalism by any reputable outlets. As a political pundit and social media personality, he is prolific in stating things about politics, and details about himself. There are no lack of sources for his opinions, but verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion. We do need to evaluate why a source is mentioning these details. If it is to establish context for some detail which the article already explains, we don't need to gild the lily by expounding on it. If multiple sources repeat different quotes to explain the same point, we don't need to compile all of them just to be sure.
- As for his own sexuality, the part I removed says nothing of substance which wasn't already explained in the same paragraph. He would choose not to be gay if he could -that's really all this amounts to, so why expand on it? What information does this provide to readers? His elaboration on how hypothetical, some non-existent treatment might possibly influence his career sure seems like trivia. Does that make sense?
- His comments as "grand marshal" are literally an attention-seeking PR stunt, since he was speaking on behalf of the parade. He says lots of things, after all. If there is some reason why this particular statement is encyclopedically significant, let's hear it.
- Regarding his Zionism, this is about WP:DUE more than anything. I'm not really sure why his position on this matters either way, but I am curious to hear explanations why this is encyclopedically significant. Grayfell (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- Grayfell, I am willing to accept removal of the statement about his own homosexuality after checking and realizing that a similar statement already existed in the article, especially considering the fact that the LGBT views section is easily the longest under the "Political views" section. Concerning his comments on straight pride, if that is a PR stunt, and PR stunts don't deserve extensive discussion, then just about anything that a political pundit or politician says in public would also be a PR stunt. The straight pride march is something that received substantial coverage in the media, and so I think that quoting Yiannopoulos's thoughts on being named as one of the featured speakers is worthwhile, although I'm willing to discuss shortening the quote if that will lead to consensus. His comments on Zionism are encyclopedically significant because they were quoted and discussed in context by a reliable and independent source, and are worthy of inclusion because there are no other instances in the article where similar sentiments from him are represented. If it's worth including that Yiannopoulos supports Israel and favors the assassination of Hamas leaders, why should we ignore him when he is shown in the exact same source to have criticized Israel for certain things? Display name 99 (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- Bacondrum, this is certainly a substantial change from your views six months ago. I did not accuse someone of POV editing. I only said that it would be POV editing if their edit summary meant what I thought it might. I'm still not convinced that most this detail is undue. The removal of the quotes about Israel and anti-Semitism are the most blatantly unjustified in my opinion, because for all of the other quotes, we at least record him expressing somewhat related opinions elsewhere in the article, but the parts of the Zionism section which were removed contained the only criticisms of Israel or criticisms of those making anti-Semitic allegations that we had in the entire article, and the result of their removal is that the article represents Yiannopoulos's views less fully and well-balanced than it otherwise would. The length of this article in prose size is 44 kB. WP:Article size caps articles at 99 kB. We have plenty of space left until this article becomes longer than Wikipedia standards would permit. It's divided up into sections so that the prose are manageable. Display name 99 (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- And Bacondrum, what's wrong with discussing his views on Trump's ban of transgenders in the military? That's certainly important enough for inclusion in the article in my opinion. Display name 99 (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- We're not here to discuss me or what stupid thing I said six months ago - I acknowledge that he is known for making controversial and obnoxious statements, that still doesn't mean it's due to list and quote every offensive or stupid thing he says. Again, it's undue detail, we are not reporters, we are not here to report every thing the subject says. He is not an expert on Israel, he is not an expert on transgenders in the military - he's a prominent online troll, a self published author and a discredited journalist - the article should describe him and what he does, it should summarise the key points regarding the subject and reflect his notability, not go into every detail of everything he ever says. So much of this article is undue, IMO. Bacondrum (talk) 00:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- And Bacondrum, what's wrong with discussing his views on Trump's ban of transgenders in the military? That's certainly important enough for inclusion in the article in my opinion. Display name 99 (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- I think we should at least attempt to summarize why he is notable, which is largely because of his offensive opinions and statements. Figuring out how to do that in a proportional way is very difficult, as this talk page and its archives shows.
- If sources don't indicate why an interview statement is significant, then they aren't really independent. A transcription of an interview is (depending on perspective) a WP:PRIMARY source. We shouldn't build articles on these kinds of sources alone. Instead, we must evaluate the context which is provided by reliable sources, and summarize accordingly. If the interview on Zionism doesn't explain why his opinion is significant, it shouldn't be used to imply that it is anyway. So, again, why are sources reporting on his opinions about Zionism? I think you have a point about his mild criticism of Israel, but again, he is not a political expert, so what context does the source provide for this?
- When I updated the paragraph on the "straight pride parade" (which happened today) I found that most sources didn't even mention Yiannopoulos, or only briefly mentioned that he was the grand marshal and nothing else. Perhaps this will change as more reports come in, but right now, it doesn't look like there is any lasting significance to this. What, precisely, does the line about "burn your briefcases" tell readers? When I said this was a PR stunt, I wasn't disparaging the comment (at least, not for that reason). I was saying that his role, as grand marshal, is similar to a spokesman. In fact, this quote was just part of a longer press release repeated by The Hill. So why was that specific quote important, but not any of the rest of the press release which was quoted? Hopefully this demonstrates the problem, as this is selectively highlighting one part of a longer source which was written for promotional purposes. You selected this one quote out of many for a specific reason, but neither the source, nor you, have given a reason why this perspective needs special emphasis.
- Think of it this way: There are, on cable news and elsewhere, many people who are interviewed multiple times a week for their opinions. It would be absurd to try and compile every opinion of David Brooks (commentator) (as a random example of a pundit). Brooks is far, far more prolific, spanning decades longer than Yiannopoulos, but his article is less than half the byte-count. I know this is a flawed comparison. I think this article is bogged down with gossip. I think we both know why the article is as long as it is, but hopefully we can both also accept that it has problems stemming from this. Grayfell (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- There was a much longer press release from The Hill, but only a fraction of the quotes in it came from Yiannopoulos. This quote sums up what Yiannopoulos felt about the event better than anything else. In fact, he repeated bits of it practically verbatim at different points during his speech today, which he didn't do with the other quotes that are found in the article. Surely if anything can cause a quote to stand out, that would be it.
- Personally, I don't consider Yiannopoulos an expert on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict either. But my personal views on this, or yours, don't matter. He, a political pundit, offered an opinion on something, which was quoted and discussed in context by a reliable source, which means that a case can be made for its inclusion in the article. Where's the rule that says that we can't quote from people in their biographies unless they're experts on the topics on which they speak? The simple fact of the matter is that pundits and politicians, and people in general, make statements on things that they aren't experts on or don't know anything about all of the time. It's nothing extraordinary. Our job is not to censor people by only representing what they say where we feel they have proper authority, but to provide as broad a representation as possible of the variety of things on which they might speak. After all, we already have plenty of cases in the article of Yiannopoulos mouthing off and saying things far less informed than in these comments about Israel and anti-Semitism. Display name 99 (talk) 03:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, for the Brooks article, the amount of space dedicated to discussing his views seems like it's actually slightly longer than the "Political views" section of the Yiannopoulos article. The reason why the Yiannopoulos article is so long is because there's a rather long "Career" section narrating things that he did before he became very famous, and an inflated "Controversies" section. If you want to reduce the size of the article, you should start chipping away that the "Career" and "Controversies" sections first. Yiannopoulos' statements on issues are what actually make him famous, which is why discussing them is the most important part of the article. Display name 99 (talk) 03:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- No, sorry, I absolutely do not accept you position that Yiannopoulos repeating his semi-pithy talking points at a public appearance elevates a quote to encyclopedic significance. This is an absurd standard which would make any article open to abuse. If you have a reliable source commenting on this line, or mentioning that he used it multiple times, or in any other way highlighting this specific quote, use that, instead. We are not a platform for regurgitating press releases, no matter how many times they are repeated. Your subjective opinion that it stands out is not relevant. Go ahead and take this to WP:RSN if you disagree.
- The "rules" you're asking for are WP:DUE, WP:PRIMARY, WP:SOAP, and WP:NOTGOSSIP.
- Comparing him to a politician is a severe mismatch, but the process is the same. When a politician's comments are discussed in sources, it is usually because this might in some way connect to their actions. When Ilhan Omar says something significant, there are almost always reliable and independent sources reporting it, and also sources which explain why it was significant. When pundits like Brooks are invited to discuss something, it is because there is some outside indicator that either they have specific insight into the topic, or they are topic experts for some reason. How does the source indicate that Yiannopoulos's specific views on Zionism are significant? How about his views on Omar, or Israel? Did no other source bothered to comment on his "assassinate all Hamas leaders" comment? Why would that be?
- As I said, Brooks is a flawed comparison, but anyone who's read or seen Brooks knows he babbles a bit and gives opinions that don't belong in an article. This isn't because they're not interesting enough to editors, it's because there is no indication that they matter to Brooks as a topic. The way to differentiate between substantial, encyclopedically significant information on one hand, and Brooks' filler or Yiannopoulos's controversy-baiting hot takes on the other, is through independent sources.
- We cannot catalog all of Yiannopoulos's opinions, so why does it seems like every interview he does gets the juiciest blurb sampled in this article? This isn't a partisan thing, either, as I think both fans and detractors rush to include this stuff, ironically for the same reasons. Based on sources, it's usually indistinguishable from gossip, so it doesn't belong.
- To put this another way, Yiannopoulos is not a "get" for any serious interviewer. He seeks attention and everyone knows it. We are not a platform for promotion, so that's not enough. Having an opinion doesn't justify including that opinion. Grayfell (talk) 05:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- Grayfell and Bacondrum, because it's obvious that we aren't going to agree here, I intend to start an RfC sometime soon on the article. I will withdraw if it is obvious that there is a strong consensus in your favor, but I think that it's best to let the wider Wikipedia community have a look at this issue. Display name 99 (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- I share similar concerns to those expressed above, Dn99. After you start the RfC, be sure to include multiple sources discussing the subject's statements. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- Grayfell and Bacondrum, because it's obvious that we aren't going to agree here, I intend to start an RfC sometime soon on the article. I will withdraw if it is obvious that there is a strong consensus in your favor, but I think that it's best to let the wider Wikipedia community have a look at this issue. Display name 99 (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
RfC August 2019
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Should any or all of the content in this diff, as well as these paragraphs, be included in the article? Display name 99 (talk) 13:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- Include all-All of this content is supported by reliable sources and relevant to establishing the subject's viewpoint on various topics. Concerns about the article's length are unfounded. WP:Article size caps prose text size at 99 kB; this article is less than half of that. Yiannopoulos's quote on being named grand marshal of the straight pride parade is significant because the parade received substantial coverage in the media, and so it is worth including Yiannopoulos's comments on being named as one of the speakers, especially since he repeated those comments almost verbatim at different points during the speech. His statements on Zionism are significant because they are quoted and discussed in context by a reliable source, and because we do not quote him as having expressed similar sentiments elsewhere in the article. Editors have objected to the inclusion of that content on the basis that Yiannopoulos is not an expert on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, none of them have voiced any objections to discussing his support for Israel, which comes from the exact same source. Furthermore, people give opinions on things that they are not experts on all of the time. On Wikipedia, it's not our job to censor people when we believe that they do not have sufficient expertise to give remarks on a topic, but to represent the attitudes that people express when their statements are reported on by reliable sources, as they have been in this case. The same goes for the paragraph on Yiannopoulos's comments on transgenders in the military (second diff), for which a similar explanation was provided for removal. The paragraph discussing Yiannopoulos's stance on mocking and criticizing transgender people deserves to be included because the content forms an important basis for his overall rhetoric towards transgenders. Display name 99 (talk) 13:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- None - The "Men, bring your...Not Queer." quote cites two sources. The second does not include the quote. The first includes it as part of a longer quote, but is not discussed by the source. The selection of that piece is cherry picking.
- The second section ("'I'm perfectly happy...biggest stick,' said Yiannopoulos.") is a complicated piece of cherry picking to focus on one aspect of a single article from a lesser source. In an article citing Bloomberg, The Guardian, The Atlantic, CBS, CNN, Rolling Stone, etc. we can't really consider a topic covered only by the The Jewish Journal to pass the WP:WEIGHT bar. Significant aspects of the subject's public persona (and life) will be discussed in multiple independent reliable sources. It's hard to imagine a significant, relevant aspect of the subject that has not been discussed in several.
- The final bits: "In October 24, 2016,...may save their life." Yes, The Advocate published a quote by the subject. Thousands of quotes from the subject exist. Your selection here does not demonstrate that this is a meaningful part of the subject's story. If it is, other sources will discuss it. The school's response cites "delaware online (part of the USA Today network)" but misidentifies it as USA Today, a significant distinction. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- None - it's all massively undue detail, as with about half the article As per SummerPhDv2.0 - This article suffers from the same problems many articles on alt-right and related subjects suffer from, tit-for-tat right-left editing that leads to clunky prose, contains loads of undue detail and far too many cherry picked quotes...IMO Bacondrum (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- It's complicated but also none. First, I think this RFC was a good idea, because this is a recurring issue which should be discussed.
- Sources from a broad range of ideologies frequently describe him as a "provocateur". His output is provocation, and we do not list every example of a creator's output just because we can find a source. There is a value in explaining how he is a provocateur, and examples of his inflammatory statements are the obvious way to do this. The only way we can differentiate between significant opinions or examples and random intentional provocations is with reliable, independent sources. If his provocations fail to draw a substantial response, they do not belong, and if they do, we should reflect that response according to reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- None, at least with those sources. The sourcing there isn't sufficient to indicate that these quotes are noteworthy aspects of his bio; and the purpose of the article isn't to become a WP:QUOTEFARM of every random quote by him that we can source to anything. We already have enough in the article to establish his general perspective on all of these topics - going into more depth (and especially including more quotes) should require specific sourcing indicating that those quotes are important and why. --Aquillion (talk) 04:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- None - The process through which both supporters and detractors feel like adding more and more details to the page, particularly inflammatory quotes on pretty much every subject he ever mentioned lead to a weird and undesirable effect, in which this page has ballooned to a staggering size for someone of his profile. He's a mostly-Internet-famous commentator who visibly goes out of his way to make controversial (and often contradictory) remarks. He is essentially a YouTube celebrity with an occasional book tour, but his page reads like he is one of the central voice of contemporary political discourse, with his opinions on anything under the Sun being carefully recorded and dissected. Not only should the proposed paragraphs not be added to the article, but a lot of stuff should be taken out, especially since there are many redundant and superfluous bits. Do we really need a 12 paragraph section about his career which details every publication he ever wrote for? The whole damn things reads like a resume. PraiseVivec (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- None - this rfc seems a bit vague, but there seems no reason given to have these particular speeches. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Starting to remove undue detail
Hi, I feel that this article is full of undue detail and cherry picked quotes. I understand that the subject is contentious and there are many editors with strong views about him (myself included). I believe the entire article needs to be gone through.
First off, his tours that are listed are cherry picked and I think they should all be removed, none of them are particularly significant, the guy does heaps of tours making inflammatory statements and promoting himself and his self published books. It's not encyclopedic to include a list of every tour he does, nor to include a cherry picked sample. Maybe a section covering the fact that he tours and these tours often attract protests and that he has had visa issues, that's enough.
Second, I'll start with the LGBT issues section (all of them need to be gone over, I just chose this section because of a recent addition) This section should summerise his views, not give a running commentary on every offensive thing he has said. Rather than reading like this, I propose that the section be reduced as such:
Despite marrying his same sex partner in October 2017, Yiannopolous opposes same-sex marriage.
Yiannopolous has described being gay as "a lifestyle choice" and stated that "If I could choose, I wouldn't be a homosexual."
Yiannopolous has described transgender people as mentally ill, stating that "It is our job to point out their absurdity, to not make the problem worse by pretending they are normal".
Obviously this is just a suggestion/example of how a long winded section with excessive undue detail and cherry picked quotes could be reduced to an accurate summary of his views, I'm not saying it has to be done my way, but the article needs pruning, serious pruning, IMO. (And the relevant citations would need to be included) The LGBT Issues section contains extensive quotes from Youtube, interviews with fringe broadcasters etc, it's a bit of a dogs breakfast, to be honest.
Keep in mind that we are working towards an FA quality article (at least I hope we are) as it stands this is a C: "The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup."
As Grayfell has pointed out already - we should summarize why he is notable and present it in a proportional way. Indeed this is difficult, but the article reads terribly at the moment and it keeps being expanded with random quotes and events of often dubious notability. Bacondrum (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- Summaries of the major tours that Yiannopoulos has gone on form an important part of his history as a political commentator and I oppose their removal. With all due respect, three sentences about Yiannopoulos's views on LGBT issues is horrendously superficial. If you carry out your intended plan on the article, I expect that it would fail as an FAC due to a lack of comprehensiveness. I personally would be sure to vote against it if it were nominated. How is it not undue weight to have three sentences explaining the numerous comments that Yiannopoulos has made in speeches and interviews about LGBT issues while devoting six full paragraphs to his single comment on pedophilia? If it's true that we don't need running commentaries on every offensive thing that he's said, you'd do more good by reducing some of that material. Display name 99 (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- I have a lot to say about this, but lack time. Many sources have commented on Yiannopoulos's views on LGBT issues, starting with "not your shield" Gamergate junk and extending to very recent sources. His comments on pedophilia, however, have completely dominated all significant contemporary coverage of his career, so that will need to be discussed in some detail. As I said above, it's complicated. Grayfell (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not even saying that we should shorten the discussion of the pedophilia comments. But I am saying that if we are going to be consistent about reducing coverage of the many controversial things that Yiannapoulos has said, it would be worth looking into whether SIX full paragraphs for one comment (no matter how important) compared to three sentences for all of the different things that he has said about LGBT issues is really a proper weight. If someone wants to argue that we don't need to summarize every controversial thing that he's said, the should at least be consistent. I'm for keeping it all, but if we are going to get rid of something, I'd look under the sections for his early career and controversies, not under "Political views." Display name 99 (talk) 00:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- It's not about what the subject has said or how provocative it is. It's about coverage in independent reliable sources. If coverage in independent reliable sources was dominated by his favorite kind of cheese and ignored everything else, this article would be all about his choice of cheeses. - SummerPhDv2.0 00:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- And Yiannopoulos's statements on LGBT issues and other subjects have garnered substantial media coverage, so people should stop trying to remove them. Display name 99 (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Display name 99 The section on pedophilia probably needs pruning, as does nearly every other section. I'm just starting on LGBT Issues section which contains a lot of irrelevant detail, cites youtube videos, fringe commentators, piles of undue detail etc. Obviously it doesn't necessarily need to be cut back to the point that I'm suggesting, but I think there's obviously excess and undue detail that needs to be pruned. Bacondrum (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- As for major tours, why just those tours? Why focus on Glasgow, DePaul University, University of Washington, UC Berkeley and his tour of Australia? He's had more notable tours and the list would be exhausting if we included them all. This stuff is all undue. A section that discusses his tours and controversies more generally and issues relating to denial of visas etc would be more encyclopedic. At the moment there's undue weight given to particular tours, etc. As a citizen and resident of the "arse end of the world" I find it very hard to believe that the Australian tour is one of the most notable, but it has a whole section dedicated to it, for example. Bacondrum (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- It's not about what the subject has said or how provocative it is. It's about coverage in independent reliable sources. If coverage in independent reliable sources was dominated by his favorite kind of cheese and ignored everything else, this article would be all about his choice of cheeses. - SummerPhDv2.0 00:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not even saying that we should shorten the discussion of the pedophilia comments. But I am saying that if we are going to be consistent about reducing coverage of the many controversial things that Yiannapoulos has said, it would be worth looking into whether SIX full paragraphs for one comment (no matter how important) compared to three sentences for all of the different things that he has said about LGBT issues is really a proper weight. If someone wants to argue that we don't need to summarize every controversial thing that he's said, the should at least be consistent. I'm for keeping it all, but if we are going to get rid of something, I'd look under the sections for his early career and controversies, not under "Political views." Display name 99 (talk) 00:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'm fine with revising the tour section. I agree that the weight given to the Australian one in particular, including the one that never happened, is undue. I think that in the end we should still end up with at least a few paragraphs here. Even reducing it by half would be fine. But I don't want it cut down to just a few sentences. Display name 99 (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Removing significant amounts of undue detail
I actually don't know where to begin with this article, it's busting at the seems with undue detail and reads terribly. It's been a bit of a bugbear for me as it is full of dubious sources, endless quotes and opinion...but I've struggled to figure out how to improve it and to go through it bit by bit would be more work than I have time for. It reads like supporters and detractors have been, as PraiseVivec pointed out, adding "particularly inflammatory quotes on pretty much every subject he ever mentioned" and it has indeed led to a highly "undesirable effect, in which this page has ballooned to a staggering size for someone of his profile". He is an internet troll. He is not a psephologist, a political scientist, an academic, an expert on Islam, feminism or much else to be completely honest...maybe he has some expertise regarding tech?
I've tried to summarise why I think much of it should be removed or reworded below, but there's just so much wrong with the article that I've not discussed every change. I have no intention of acting alone. I ask that editors interested in improving the article have a look at this version and discuss my suggestions/make further suggestions. I've given it a red hot go, pruning, rearranging etc.
The following are my thoughts on some sections I believe should be removed:
I started by going through the sources that I'd never heard of and removing claims that relied on student/local papers, claims that were not widely reported.
Gamergate - One of the first to cover Gamergate? Who cares? Did he break the story? If not it's undue detail, thousands of reporters covered the story.
Alt-right - He is not a psephologist or a political scientists, his personal thoughts and analysis of the movement is undue. Who cares what he thinks about a subject that he has no particular expertise in?
Career - No need to go into this much detail about his "career" as a journalist, he is not notable for this (at least not prior to Breitbart), in-fact I doubt other journalists would regard him as such, maybe a former journalist. This is undue, as demonstrated by the quality of the sources. The Gamergate info is undue, the only mainstream/major outlet to provide coverage of his opinions on the matter cited is CNN and it barely mentions Yiannopoulos.
Breitbart - The Breitbart section of his career is all over the place, should all be in one section and clearly needs further editing. His views on Israel/Palestine are from an op-ed and are completely undue, he is no expert on the issue his views were not widely reported. Taunting some random Jewish journo is undue detail. There's so much detail here, why do we need to know that the bar tender that kicked him out had support from her co workers? For example.
Protests and talks - It's completely undue to list individual events and people booing etc...unless they were widely reported. Most of these rely on minor reports in local and student papers.
Political views
Trump - Yianopolous is no psephologist, or political scientist, he is not an expert on Islam either, these long-winded sections regarding his views on subjects that he has no expertise on, basically just has an opinion about are undue. A paragraph is too much, but I can deal with that.
Islam - Milo is no expert on Islam, who cares what he said once about something he has no expertise on? The widely reported and highly offensive claims are almost alright, but the spurious quotes? We are just giving air to his views, repeating these offensive and hurtful views, they are undue. We can summerise his views, no need to expand on them.
LGBT - An obscure debate with a musician about the word "gay" is undue. We are discussing Milo's views here, no? Who cares what Kevin D. Williamson thinks about Hugo Boss making SS uniforms? An interview that was not accepted for publication and was posted to Yiannopoulos's personal website is not notable. Marshaling a tiny stunt rally is not noteworthy, we are not here to list his stupid pranks. Who cares what he said in some interview with some random church newspaper? Undue.
Glasgow University - Who cares if he was nominated for rector of Glasgow University? Was he appointed? If not this is a complete non-event, an absolute irrelevance.
Debt - As for his debt, his fundraising efforts on Patrion are obviously completely undue detail, why not mention that he got a loan from his mum and borrowed a ten bucks from his mate while we are at it?
IMO There's heaps more that should go, but this version would include much of the relevant detail and give us something we can work to improve. As it stands it is such a mess, it's hard to figure out where to start. Bacondrum (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding the lead proposed in your sandbox, it's too drastic of a cut for the size of this article. It does not adequately summarize the article. As seen at Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos/Archive 4#Due weight and lede length, we recently went over this. So I don't agree with that drastic cut. Yes, I know you want to drastically cut the size of the article, but we also went over that: Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos/Archive 4#The article is way too long for a person whom history will likely forget in a few years. I feel the same way I felt then about WP:Due weight, cutting, and notability. I agree that we shouldn't be adding any and everything about Yiannopoulos and excessive detail. This is why, as seen at Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos/Archive 4#Recent expansions, I stated, "Display name 99, I see that you've been adding material to the article. Per what has been stated above, make sure that you are not going overboard with material. The article already has lot in it, and there are WP:Due weight, WP:DIARY and WP:SIZE matters to consider with expansions. If text can be summarized without cutting out important detail, we should do that." So I am for cutting unnecessary and excessive material, but I am also for keeping in mind what WP:Preserve states.
- Cutting anything that is the subject of the #RfC August 2019 discussion probably should not be done until that RfC is over. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- I have closed the RfC as consensus was clearly in favor of the removal of the material in question. I have taken out the paragraph on Yiannapoulos's comments on transgender people, as that formed part of the content in the RfC. I am not sure that I will have any significant role here in the future, as my ideas for what the article should look like are apparently considerably out of step with those of everyone else. But I agree with Flyer22 Reborn that at the very least caution should be used when deciding to take information out of the article. Display name 99 (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- I will add one more thing however. Removing content because you deem it "offensive and hurtful" violates Wikipedia policy with regard to neutrality and unbiased editing. Please do not do it. Display name 99 (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- If the content is "offensive and hurtful" it should be treated carefully, and only added when completely necessary. Publishing racist, homophobic, sexist and other offensive material should only be done when absolutely essential to presenting the subject views. I will be removing undue additions of hate speech as this is 100% inline with wikipedia policy: "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." WP:GRATUITOUS End of story. Bacondrum (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- You are not simply removing excessive detail. You are rearranging material. Furthermore, cutting material can be subjective, as it has been with you in the past; others, including me, have been against you cutting a lot based on your personal opinion. We have asked you to first discuss potential large deletions because others may disagree, and this article is under WP:1RR. So edit warring at this article can have consequences. I don't see that anyone agreed to your sandbox version. If there are no objections to your changes, you are in the clear, though, obviously. I've already objected to the lead version in your sandbox. And regarding this revert by me, that is another objection thus far. We have already been over this. It is consensus material. It is included because, with regard to Yiannopoulos's comments and some commentators accusing him of endorsing pedophilia, other commentators did take note of what pedophilia is and isn't.
- If the content is "offensive and hurtful" it should be treated carefully, and only added when completely necessary. Publishing racist, homophobic, sexist and other offensive material should only be done when absolutely essential to presenting the subject views. I will be removing undue additions of hate speech as this is 100% inline with wikipedia policy: "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." WP:GRATUITOUS End of story. Bacondrum (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- I will add one more thing however. Removing content because you deem it "offensive and hurtful" violates Wikipedia policy with regard to neutrality and unbiased editing. Please do not do it. Display name 99 (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- As for your comments about WP:Offensive material, we include racist, homophobic, sexist and other offensive material when it is relevant to the topic, as it is in this case due to the substantial controversy and/or criticism. The WP:Not censored policy is tempered with the WP:Offensive material guideline. We only omit offensive material when it "would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate." Leaving out relevant and/or prominent controversy and/or criticism (which is also obviously relevant) with regard to Yiannopoulos because it may be hurtful (to Yiannopoulos or to others) is not supported by the WP:Offensive material guideline. What is supported by Wikipedia is not including excessive material on whatever matter that has received significant controversy and/or criticism. Summarizing where possible is best. Consensus, however, may determine what is or isn't excessive. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- You're entitled to your opinion. This is a direct quote from the guidelines: "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." Seems like a fair and reasonable standard for measuring the value of republishing anything a reasonable person would consider to be offensive material. Bacondrum (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'm used to endorsing and employing the WP:Offensive material guideline, usually with regard to images (which is what "no equally suitable alternative is available" more often applies to), and have weighed in on matters concerning it on its talk page. I'm informing you of how it is and isn't supposed to be used. What I stated is correct. And if you want more opinions on that matter, we can ask at the guideline's talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- You're entitled to your opinion. This is a direct quote from the guidelines: "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." Seems like a fair and reasonable standard for measuring the value of republishing anything a reasonable person would consider to be offensive material. Bacondrum (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding this, it seems like some Gamergate material should be in the "Women and feminism" section. Not necessarily the content you removed. We mention Gamergate in the lead because it was covered lower. And removing the section on it should not be used as an excuse to remove mention of it from the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Why is Gamergate mentioned at all? Did he break the story? Did he reveal something of note? Or did he just report about it, like thousands of other journalists? Bacondrum (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- This has been answered in the #Breitbart seciton below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- Why is Gamergate mentioned at all? Did he break the story? Did he reveal something of note? Or did he just report about it, like thousands of other journalists? Bacondrum (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- As for your comments about WP:Offensive material, we include racist, homophobic, sexist and other offensive material when it is relevant to the topic, as it is in this case due to the substantial controversy and/or criticism. The WP:Not censored policy is tempered with the WP:Offensive material guideline. We only omit offensive material when it "would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate." Leaving out relevant and/or prominent controversy and/or criticism (which is also obviously relevant) with regard to Yiannopoulos because it may be hurtful (to Yiannopoulos or to others) is not supported by the WP:Offensive material guideline. What is supported by Wikipedia is not including excessive material on whatever matter that has received significant controversy and/or criticism. Summarizing where possible is best. Consensus, however, may determine what is or isn't excessive. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Looking at this version of the article, it appears to me that you've cut enough. There is a little bit of material that can be summarized instead of including quotes. But you have significantly downsized the article. The goal certainly should not be what the goal was in the "The article is way too long for a person whom history will likely forget in a few years" discussion. And this is for reasons stated in that discussion. And by "goal," I obviously mean downsizing the article because of what one personally feels about Yiannopoulos's noteworthiness or relevance. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Undue levels of detail included within the section on pedophelia remarks
This seems undue to me:
Matthew Rozsa of Salon.com wrote that although Yiannopoulos is technically correct in distinguishing between paedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia, "it is still illegal in most parts of the Western world for an adult to have sex with a minor." Margaret Hartmann of New York magazine additionally acknowledged the definitions for hebephilia and ephebophilia, but stated, "The lowest and most common age of consent across the U.S. is 16."
- The section on pedophilia comments is already way too detailed, IMO. Two op-eds discussing the distinction between paedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia doesn't belong in this article, maybe the articles about paedophilia, hebephilia, or ephebophilia. It seems pretty obviously undue to me that this is completely undue, but I've been wrong before. Any thoughts? Bacondrum (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- My thoughts are above. I stated, "[R]egarding this revert by me [...] We have already been over this. It is consensus material. It is included because, with regard to Yiannopoulos's comments and some commentators accusing him of endorsing pedophilia, other commentators did take note of what pedophilia is and isn't."
- The arguments you made above were already made. Almost everyone who voted in that RfC was for inclusion. I can ping them for a reassessment of their views.
We have commentators inaccurately speaking on pedophilia and related matters in the section.It makes sense to have commentators accurately speaking on pedophilia and related matters in the section. You titled this discussion section "Undue levels of detail," but have criticized a WP:Due aspect that already went through discussion. Is your rationale not based on WP:IDON'TLIKEIT because commentators are pointing out that Yiannopoulos is technically correct about what pedophilia is? We have had editors at this article strongly wanting to present him as a supporter of pedophilia. And, no, per WP:MEDRS and those pieces specifically being about Yiannopoulos's statements, those pieces don't belong in the articles about Pedophilia, Hebephilia, or Ephebophilia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- The arguments you made above were already made. Almost everyone who voted in that RfC was for inclusion. I can ping them for a reassessment of their views.
- Yes, consensus changes, but it hasn't yet changed in this case. I struck through the "we have commentators inaccurately speaking on pedophilia and related matters in the section" part of my comment. When the section in the article noted that some commentators accused Yiannopoulos of endorsing pedophilia, the Matthew Rozsa paragraph was more relevant and didn't come across as some unnecessary piece. The "some commentators accused Yiannopoulos of endorsing pedophilia" aspect was removed when you made this edit. Part of the content stated, "Editorials in conservative media, including National Review, The Blaze, Townhall, and The American Conservative have characterised his comments as supportive of paedophilia or pederasty." As seen at Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos/Archive 4#Okay, that's not getting anywhere, I criticized some of the removals. I feel that we should re-dd that Yiannopoulos's comments were widely characterized as endorsing paedophilia or pederasty, since that was what the controversy was about. MrX agreed that "characterised his comments as supportive of paedophilia or pederasty" and "widely criticised" are fine for the section. But without that aspect, the Matthew Rozsa paragraph isn't needed and I understand your point about removing it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, lets see what other editors think and go from there. Bacondrum (talk) 04:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'll revert myself until the "Yiannopoulos's comments were widely characterized as endorsing paedophilia or pederasty" aspect is added back. If no one else adds it, and appropriately of course, I'll get around to adding it. Anything else in the section you think needs cutting? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- I would support that, the recent removal would be relevant in that context. I reckon that section would be fine at that point, that's one section where most the detail is due IMO, after all those comments are one of the only reasons anyone has ever heard of him. Bacondrum (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'll revert myself until the "Yiannopoulos's comments were widely characterized as endorsing paedophilia or pederasty" aspect is added back. If no one else adds it, and appropriately of course, I'll get around to adding it. Anything else in the section you think needs cutting? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, lets see what other editors think and go from there. Bacondrum (talk) 04:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, consensus changes, but it hasn't yet changed in this case. I struck through the "we have commentators inaccurately speaking on pedophilia and related matters in the section" part of my comment. When the section in the article noted that some commentators accused Yiannopoulos of endorsing pedophilia, the Matthew Rozsa paragraph was more relevant and didn't come across as some unnecessary piece. The "some commentators accused Yiannopoulos of endorsing pedophilia" aspect was removed when you made this edit. Part of the content stated, "Editorials in conservative media, including National Review, The Blaze, Townhall, and The American Conservative have characterised his comments as supportive of paedophilia or pederasty." As seen at Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos/Archive 4#Okay, that's not getting anywhere, I criticized some of the removals. I feel that we should re-dd that Yiannopoulos's comments were widely characterized as endorsing paedophilia or pederasty, since that was what the controversy was about. MrX agreed that "characterised his comments as supportive of paedophilia or pederasty" and "widely criticised" are fine for the section. But without that aspect, the Matthew Rozsa paragraph isn't needed and I understand your point about removing it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Feminism, Privilege Grant
There are two chapters about feminism. Is it really necessary? The page is very voluminous, rehashed info, and very difficult to read. Privilege Grant was not explained (the nature of the grant, who gave him money, fans or Mercer family; who won the grant?). Moelscene (talk) 08:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- I have expanded the Privilege Grant section. Nedrutland (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, it's much better. Moelscene (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- yes, thanks for improving the grant section. And yes, the feminism sections should be merged and undue detail removed. I agree, for someone of such little note, the article is far too voluminous, I've been saying this for ages - way too much undue detail! I'll suport any move to remove undue detail and improve the prose and flow of the article. Bacondrum (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2019
Please change the descriptor of Milo from "Far-Right" or "Alt-Right" as that is not what he is, or represents at all. Wikipedia describes "far-right" as "politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of extreme nationalism,[1][2] nativist ideologies, and authoritarian tendencies,[3] all sustained by an organicist vision of the world.[4]Used to describe the historical experiences of fascism and Nazism,[5] it today includes neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, Third Position, the alt-right,[6] and other ideologies or organizations that feature ultranationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, anti-communist, or reactionary views."
This could not be further from the truth with Milo Yiannopoulos. He is a gay, Jewish man, married to a black man. How can you even imagine he is a neo-nazi or "far-right"? Azzaln007 (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{edit protected}}
template. Simonm223 (talk) 13:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)- But in answer to your question, I invite you to read Ernst Rohm. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- I thought the two were synonymous? GMGtalk 13:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- He is gay and also a homophobe, it's paradoxical, but it's also a fact. He claims to be a Jewish man, but that's actually never been confirmed, he has also claimed to be Catholic. He married to a black man, and he also throws Roman salutes and sings songs with Nazi's, again perplexing and paradoxical, but 100% true. "How can you even imagine he is a neo-nazi or "far-right"?" We don't imagine he is, hundreds of reliable news reports have told us that - read the sources, what you and me think of him is irrelevant, we look to reliable sources, not the editors opinion. Bacondrum (talk) 04:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- Milo is a self proclaimed provocateur who made outrageous claims about his family, education, wealth, friends, etc. I really want to see his (Hawaii) marriage license (or certificate) since he claimed he married an "Afro-American" man, but he recently attended "Straight Pride" in Boston as a marshal, and once again made a very inflammatory statements about gay community. His hypocrisy, cognitive dissonance are fascinating. Moelscene (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
The Kernel
There seems to be a low key edit war regarding how much information should be given about Yiannopoulos' work with The Kernel...it gets added in, it gets taken out, etc. Can we get any agreement on how much information to include? Liz Read! Talk! 01:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- I personally think it's okay as it is now. As with most of the article and most articles relating to the Alt-right, there's a tendency to add excessive detail. Naming co-founders, excessive details about its management etc are undue, it's a footnote in a largely discredited and short career as a journalist. Breitbart, his tours (the protests they received), some of the most outrageous claims he has made and his trashy book are the parts of his career that are noteworthy, IMO. Bacondrum (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
The lede
So, working toward lifting this to a B-class article (or better). looking at the content assessment criteria I think the problems with this article are reasonably clear. I don't believe this article is still missing important content, the problem is that it contains too much irrelevant material. The article has references to reliable sources, but still has some problems and requires substantial cleanup. It has some gaps, needs editing for clarity and flow. It also contains policy violations in the form of undue detail and original research.
The body of the article has been cleaned up, still needs more cleaning, but I'm not willing to cut much more without input from other editors.
Can we start by addressing the lede? I accept that I may have gone a bit hard on pruning it, but I believe some of the detail is undue in the lede and should be left to the body of the article.
My thoughts on removing undue detail from the lede (parts I propose deleting are in bold):
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 I beleive this is too long winded, delete and replace with "provocateur" - most RS refer to him as a provocateur or a troll (this covers his commentary, polemics, public speaking, and writing). 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 2015 until 2017. In July 2016, I believe this should be cut, no need to mention that he worked for Breitbart twice, it's already mentioned in the first paragraph. he was permanently banned from Twitter for harassment. He was permanently banned from Facebook in 2019. This could be merged into the first para (prose needs improving
According to hundreds of emails by Yiannopoulous clunky prose leaked by Buzzfeed in late 2017, Yiannopoulos repeatedly solicited white nationalists, such as American Renaissance editor Devin Saucier, we can discuss the particular white nationalists he worked with in the body of the article, this is undue detail for the lede, IMO 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. While I personally agree that the subject is a dog-whistling racist, this doesn't sound encyclopedic, reads like 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 appologist or a supporter? Sounds weird - clunky prose 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. This is undue in the lede, this level of detail should be gone into in the body of the article
So, I'd be interested to hear from other editors on improving the lede. Cheers Bacondrum (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- Like I stated to you before, the pedophilia/child sexual abuse stuff is prominent, as made clear by the section on it the article. Like the lead states, "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." That is a huge impact. The matter is without a doubt the most controversial and prominent matter regarding him at this point in time. It cost him his job. All of that is why it deserves a spot in the lead as opposed to most of his other controversies. And per WP:Lead, his controversies should be summarized in the lead. The most significant ones anyway.
- And like I stated of reverting you here, "we also obviously should not simply state that the was accused of supporting pedophilia and child sexual abuse without including his statement on the matter. This a BLP."
- I have nothing else to state on the matter. Follow WP:Lead appropriately. This article's length is in accordance with its size. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I disagree though. The lede should summarise and not go into so much detail, that should be saved for the body, as per MOS:INTRO. I can see the value of a bit more detail than I'm suggesting in the paedo bit, but the article is classed as a C for a number of reasons that need addressing - clunky prose and undue detail are obvious problems with the article, IMO Bacondrum (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps something like this: "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." Bacondrum (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- The lead, per WP:Lead, is supposed to "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Given the fallout from the "pedophilia/child sexual abuse" aspect and the size of the "Remarks on paedophilia and child sexual abuse" section, what is currently in the lead on the matter should be there. As for your latest proposal for that content, I would support it if it mentioned that "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." Why do you think that we shouldn't include his statement that he's not a supporter of pedophilic relationships and why he says he made the comments? Per WP:BLP, it should be there. We shouldn't leave the accusation there unchallenged. WP:Lead also states, "As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." It also has a MOS:LEADLENGTH section that can be helpful. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough, You're correct, I think his attempts to blame his remarks on vague unverified/unproven claims that he was abused are undue in the lede though. The paragraph could be reduced to: "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." Also, verifiable is informed by many other guidelines including, but not limited to WP:UNDUE and vice versa, content must be due and verifiable, not just one or the other. Bacondrum (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- I appreciate that your latest proposal is a compromise with regard to Yiannopoulos's response, but the "and [says] that his statements were merely attempts to cope with his own victimhood, as an object of child abuse by unnamed older men" does seem due to me in a BLP context because he's explaining himself. Whether editors or readers believe him is irrelevant. It's covered in detail below and the lead should adequately summarize the "pedophilia/child sexual abuse" matter. We can wait and see if anyone else weighs in on this. I agree with how you have changed the wording for that paragraph. I just disagree with not including all of the "Yiannopoulos's response" sentence. As for people saying that they were sexually abused, there often is not evidence that the abuse took place. It's partly why the Me Too movement is so powerful -- because people decided to believe those who say they are victims. Furthermore, false allegation of child sexual abuse is rare, especially when coming from the person who says they were abused. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that his defence should be in the lead but would amend "that his statements were attempts to cope with his own sexual abuse as a child." which is briefer and summarises the para in the body. Nedrutland (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- Nedrutland, are you saying that you would change it to "Yiannopoulos has said that he is not a supporter of paedophilic relationships and that his statements were attempts to cope with his own sexual abuse as a child."? If so, I can support that, although I think that the "older men" aspect is relevant. We should definitely retain "Yiannopoulos has said that he is not a supporter of paedophilic relationships." I don't think that the entire sentence should be shortened to just "Yiannopoulos said his statements were attempts to cope with his own sexual abuse as a child." No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- Correct Nedrutland (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- For the record, I believe women and I believe survivors. It is not fair to equate a habitual liar like Yiannopoulos' desperate backpedaling from claims that it's okay to sexually abuse children to legitimate claims about abuse - they are not the same. I support Nedrutland's or my own version. He has denied he supports paedophelia, 'nuff said...no need to go into the detail of his backpedaling which is an insult to survivors, IMO. Verifiable claims matter, and the veracity matters tens times more when the subject is a proven habitual liar who has repeatedly claimed that child sex abuse is perfectly fine and claimed he can't stop himself from making fun of rape survivors. Mentioning that he backpedaled is enough for the lede, if people want to read his excuses for the vile things he has said then it's in the body of the article. Bacondrum (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- At the end of the day, he is a
pathologicalliar. I wouldn't be surprised if we find out down the track that he is a protestant heterosexual with no Greek ancestry. He is completely unreliable and therefor any claim he makes needs to be either verified or taken with a grain of salt. Bacondrum (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- At the end of the day, he is a
- For the record, I believe women and I believe survivors. It is not fair to equate a habitual liar like Yiannopoulos' desperate backpedaling from claims that it's okay to sexually abuse children to legitimate claims about abuse - they are not the same. I support Nedrutland's or my own version. He has denied he supports paedophelia, 'nuff said...no need to go into the detail of his backpedaling which is an insult to survivors, IMO. Verifiable claims matter, and the veracity matters tens times more when the subject is a proven habitual liar who has repeatedly claimed that child sex abuse is perfectly fine and claimed he can't stop himself from making fun of rape survivors. Mentioning that he backpedaled is enough for the lede, if people want to read his excuses for the vile things he has said then it's in the body of the article. Bacondrum (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that his defence should be in the lead but would amend "that his statements were attempts to cope with his own sexual abuse as a child." which is briefer and summarises the para in the body. Nedrutland (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- I appreciate that your latest proposal is a compromise with regard to Yiannopoulos's response, but the "and [says] that his statements were merely attempts to cope with his own victimhood, as an object of child abuse by unnamed older men" does seem due to me in a BLP context because he's explaining himself. Whether editors or readers believe him is irrelevant. It's covered in detail below and the lead should adequately summarize the "pedophilia/child sexual abuse" matter. We can wait and see if anyone else weighs in on this. I agree with how you have changed the wording for that paragraph. I just disagree with not including all of the "Yiannopoulos's response" sentence. As for people saying that they were sexually abused, there often is not evidence that the abuse took place. It's partly why the Me Too movement is so powerful -- because people decided to believe those who say they are victims. Furthermore, false allegation of child sexual abuse is rare, especially when coming from the person who says they were abused. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough, You're correct, I think his attempts to blame his remarks on vague unverified/unproven claims that he was abused are undue in the lede though. The paragraph could be reduced to: "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." Also, verifiable is informed by many other guidelines including, but not limited to WP:UNDUE and vice versa, content must be due and verifiable, not just one or the other. Bacondrum (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- The lead, per WP:Lead, is supposed to "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Given the fallout from the "pedophilia/child sexual abuse" aspect and the size of the "Remarks on paedophilia and child sexual abuse" section, what is currently in the lead on the matter should be there. As for your latest proposal for that content, I would support it if it mentioned that "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." Why do you think that we shouldn't include his statement that he's not a supporter of pedophilic relationships and why he says he made the comments? Per WP:BLP, it should be there. We shouldn't leave the accusation there unchallenged. WP:Lead also states, "As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." It also has a MOS:LEADLENGTH section that can be helpful. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that this is a BLP. So, per WP:BLP, comments like "a habitual liar like Yiannopoulos," "desperate backpedaling from claims" and "he is a pathological liar," and other derogatory personal opinions on Yiannopoulos, should be avoided. As for "an insult to survivors," some survivors of child sexual abuse, especially male survivors of child sexual abuse, have tried to downplay such harm, whether with regard to themselves and/or others. So Yiannopoulos's claim that his "statements were merely attempts to cope with his own victimhood, as an object of child abuse by unnamed older men" does align with that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, except Yiannopoulos has lied repeatedly about his past and his claims are not verifiable. He only made the claims after getting fired and losing millions of dollars worth of contracts for indefensible comments regarding child abuse. He has mocked survivors in the past and all other arguments aside, it's an unverifiable claim. I'll be more careful about the language I use in the future. Bacondrum (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that this is a BLP. So, per WP:BLP, comments like "a habitual liar like Yiannopoulos," "desperate backpedaling from claims" and "he is a pathological liar," and other derogatory personal opinions on Yiannopoulos, should be avoided. As for "an insult to survivors," some survivors of child sexual abuse, especially male survivors of child sexual abuse, have tried to downplay such harm, whether with regard to themselves and/or others. So Yiannopoulos's claim that his "statements were merely attempts to cope with his own victimhood, as an object of child abuse by unnamed older men" does align with that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- And as for the cutting of the article, I was clear above that although there is a little bit of material that can be summarized instead of including quotes, I feel that you have cut enough. I'm not sure what undue detail and original research you are speaking of. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough, that's why I'm here discussing changes. Once we are done with the lede, I'll move onto discussing the original research and excess quotes, detail etc. This article is a C-class which means it need significant improvements. Bacondrum (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- You have significantly improved it, and it does seem to live up to C-class. But I'm willing to listen to what other cuts you are aiming for and what WP:OR you are speaking of. I just ask that you propose the cuts here on the talk page first. There is no rush, and you've already significantly downsized the article. I'm fine with you summarizing quoted material without discussion.
- Fair enough, that's why I'm here discussing changes. Once we are done with the lede, I'll move onto discussing the original research and excess quotes, detail etc. This article is a C-class which means it need significant improvements. Bacondrum (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- And as for the cutting of the article, I was clear above that although there is a little bit of material that can be summarized instead of including quotes, I feel that you have cut enough. I'm not sure what undue detail and original research you are speaking of. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- On a side note: Per WP:TPO, be careful about breaking up a comment. I duplicated my signature above so that it's clear that I made that comment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- And regarding this, it might be best to note there that the article is under discretionary sanctions. Given that it's under discretionary sanctions and the recent discussions on this talk page, it doesn't seem like it's an article you should have listed at Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Nominations. See what Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Nominations#Instructions says about controversy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hey, sorry I didn't mean to break up the comment, my mistake. Yes, I will discuss any other changes and I'm glad we are working together rather than fighting, I hope you can see that I've learnt from past mistakes. I know it's been controversial, but as Yiannopolous' public profile has fizzed out I feel like the debate around him has too, I just thought it would be good to get some fresh eyes on the article, it's only a nomination after all and may well be disregarded, but worth a try. The article gets a lot of traffic and it is lacking in many regards, I'd like to at least improve it to a B-class article level. Bacondrum (talk) 08:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- Whether or not Yiannopolous is as talked about as he was before, he's still a controversial figure. That will never die. This article is still a controversial topic as a result. And even today, editors are still having disagreements about what to include in the article, how to include it, and how much to cut. So I don't think this article should have been listed at Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Nominations. It cautious against listing articles like these for a reason. But, yeah, we can see what happens with the nomination.
- Hey, sorry I didn't mean to break up the comment, my mistake. Yes, I will discuss any other changes and I'm glad we are working together rather than fighting, I hope you can see that I've learnt from past mistakes. I know it's been controversial, but as Yiannopolous' public profile has fizzed out I feel like the debate around him has too, I just thought it would be good to get some fresh eyes on the article, it's only a nomination after all and may well be disregarded, but worth a try. The article gets a lot of traffic and it is lacking in many regards, I'd like to at least improve it to a B-class article level. Bacondrum (talk) 08:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- And regarding this, it might be best to note there that the article is under discretionary sanctions. Given that it's under discretionary sanctions and the recent discussions on this talk page, it doesn't seem like it's an article you should have listed at Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Nominations. See what Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Nominations#Instructions says about controversy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- I also appreciate that we are working together. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- Once again, there is an unsubstantiated claim (lede) that Milo was abused as a child (playing victim card), and he recently supported convicted pedophile cardinal George Pell who abused little boys. How sick is that? He lied many times about his family, birth place, education, wealth, friends...there are no witnesses, evidence, etc. Can you find such biased, unsubstantiated, "controversial" claims in Encyclopedia Britannica, Larousse? Moelscene (talk) 06:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. He has lied repeatedly about his past, as such any claims he makes need to be verified by a reliable secondary source. He has demonstrated repeatedly that he cannot be taken on his word - Yiannopoulos is essentially an unreliable source. Bacondrum (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that this is a BLP. So, per WP:BLP, comments like "he's playing the victim card" and other derogatory personal opinions from editors about Yiannopoulos on this talk page should be avoided. If we are discussing what reliable sources have stated about him, that's different. And to repeat what I stated above, "Whether editors or readers believe him is irrelevant. It's covered in detail below and the lead should adequately summarize the 'pedophilia/child sexual abuse' matter. [...] As for people saying that they were sexually abused, there often is not evidence that the abuse took place. It's partly why the Me Too movement is so powerful -- because people decided to believe those who say they are victims. Furthermore, false allegation of child sexual abuse is rare, especially when coming from the person who says they were abused." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, except this is a man who has repeatedly mocked rape and abuse survivors, including claiming he can't help but make fun of rape survivors. And only made his own claims when defending indefensible statements and losing millions in contracts and future earnings as a result. I believe it is reasonable to question his claims and motives in light of his behavior. The claims are unverifiable. Bacondrum (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that this is a BLP. So, per WP:BLP, comments like "he's playing the victim card" and other derogatory personal opinions from editors about Yiannopoulos on this talk page should be avoided. If we are discussing what reliable sources have stated about him, that's different. And to repeat what I stated above, "Whether editors or readers believe him is irrelevant. It's covered in detail below and the lead should adequately summarize the 'pedophilia/child sexual abuse' matter. [...] As for people saying that they were sexually abused, there often is not evidence that the abuse took place. It's partly why the Me Too movement is so powerful -- because people decided to believe those who say they are victims. Furthermore, false allegation of child sexual abuse is rare, especially when coming from the person who says they were abused." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. He has lied repeatedly about his past, as such any claims he makes need to be verified by a reliable secondary source. He has demonstrated repeatedly that he cannot be taken on his word - Yiannopoulos is essentially an unreliable source. Bacondrum (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yiannopoulos defends convicted pedophile cardinal George Pell, but Flyer22 Reborn constantly wants to find excuses for his toxic behavior, that he was a sexual abuse victim as a teenager. He called Harvey Weinstein's accusers a greedy sluts, liars, misandrists. He supported Brigitte Bardot, Catherine Deneuve (she retracted her statements after the backlash) when they attacked #meetoo movement. He is sexual abuse apologist and was (is) a member of Proud Boys, self proclaimed male chauvinists (they participated in "Straight Pride" in Boston). He frequently collaborated with Gavin McInnes, rape apologist Mike Cernovich. Moelscene (talk) 11:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- Moelscene, keep stating things like "Flyer22 Reborn constantly wants to find excuses for his toxic behavior," and I will report you for thinly-veiled personal attacks. Whatever odd notion you have of me being some apologist is absurd. My record here at Wikipedia on child sexual abuse, statutory rape and topics such as pedophilia speaks for itself. I do not need to justify myself to you. I'm also quite certain that you don't know what pedophilia actually is. Indeed, I got involved with this article because of all the laypeople talk about pedophilia. But that is the beside the point. 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. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Breitbart
Yiannopoulos started writing for Breitbart in 2014 - the oldest article by him currently on Breitbart is dated 28 April 2014. After his coverage on GamerGate, in October 2015 Bannon created a Breitbart Tech section and placed Yiannopoulos and Dulis in charge, but by that time Yiannopoulos had been writing for the publication for about 18 months. - Bilby (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- Bilby, thanks for re-adding some Gamergate material back to the article. This answers Bacondrum's following questions at the end of the #Removing significant amounts of undue detail discussion above: "Why is Gamergate mentioned at all? Did he break the story? Did he reveal something of note? Or did he just report about it, like thousands of other journalists?"
- Do you think anything should be re-added about it to the lead? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
-
- I think Bilby has made the case for a paragraph in the body of the article by adding RS's/explaining why it's of some significance to his career, but it's not what he is known for more generally. I don't think it's due in the lede, it already contains too much undue detail, IMO. Bacondrum (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
-
- One may not think it belongs in the lead now because of all the material you removed on it. Another may think it belongs in the lead, given its importance to his career and influence. The current four-paragraph lead is due. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- Absolutely, and one may think it belongs in the lead. Another may not think it belongs in the lead, given its lack of importance to his career and influence. I disagree that all the detail in the four-paragraph lead is due. Bacondrum (talk) 05:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- Given what the article states about the Gamergate aspect with regard to Yiannopoulos's career and his influence on Gamergate, how do you figure that it lacks importance to his career and influence? I've addressed the lead matter before, including in the #The lede section above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- Absolutely, and one may think it belongs in the lead. Another may not think it belongs in the lead, given its lack of importance to his career and influence. I disagree that all the detail in the four-paragraph lead is due. Bacondrum (talk) 05:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- One may not think it belongs in the lead now because of all the material you removed on it. Another may think it belongs in the lead, given its importance to his career and influence. The current four-paragraph lead is due. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
RfC Sept 2019
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.
Is Yiannopoulos' reporting about Gamergate (A) significant enough to be included in the lede or should it (B) simply be addressed in the body of the article.
Cheers Bacondrum (talk) 06:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: Editors should look at this section in the article for context. See the #Breitbart section above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- Comment, called by bot: does someone who supports inclusion have proposed text for the lead? A long sentence or two would be clearly inappropriate, whereas "...and was involved in the Gamergate controversy..." would not be. -Darouet (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Concur with Darouet. I feel uncomfortable supporting or opposing this RfC without some proposed text. Simonm223 (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- Flyer22 Reborn If Gamergate was to be added to the lede, do you have any text in mind? Bacondrum (talk) 23:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- NOT LEAD - per guide WP:Lead, there’s not enough in the body to deserve being in lead. Not sure it deserves body content - depends on content and cites. I’d suggest have the content (if any) in body be settled a bit before asking further. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- Markbassett, Bacondrum cut all of the material on it that was in the article. As noted in the #Breitbart section above, an editor had to re-add some very relevant material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- Flyer22 Reborn No one has to do anything, can you please lay off. It's been re-added to the body with improved prose and citations. If Gamergate was to be re-added to the lede, do you have any text in mind? Bacondrum (talk) 07:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- Markbassett, Bacondrum cut all of the material on it that was in the article. As noted in the #Breitbart section above, an editor had to re-add some very relevant material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- Simonm223 Darouet Okay, so in the section above there's been a debate about whether it should be mentioned in the lede, mostly between me and Flyer22, I just want some outside views to put it to bed either way. This was what was there a week or so ago: "Yiannopoulos was one of the first journalists to cover the Gamergate controversy." I removed it because it seemed like trivia to me, I personally thought that it was undue as all it was saying is that he covered a story, as did thousands of journalists. It's not saying he broke the story or anything like that, not saying that it was really important to his career. A third editor has added a small well written and and cited section about it and made it clear why it's worth including in the article. But I still think it doesn't warrant mentioning in the lede, after all, all he did was do his job and make some inflammatory comments. Flyer22 disagrees...so I just wanted to see what other editors think, get consensus. Sorry, I'm still learning. Bacondrum (talk) 12:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Considering the significance of Yiannopoulos to Gamergate, a short mention in the lede is probably due, although I don't think the previous version fully captures his involvement. I'd suggest Yiannopoulos rose to prominence as a significant voice in the Gamergate controversy. Simonm223 (talk) 12:47, 11 September 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 [2] 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 me made consider that although the fact that Yiannopoulos is controversial and controversial apsects 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)