Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos

Alt-right in lede (revisited)

Since the Wikipedia article on alt-right now basically equates it with white nationalism, and Yiannopoulos does not acknowledge himself as the former, nor does the AFD acknowledge him as such (see Political views), nor do any other sources in our article make this accusation, it seems improper to describe him as "associated with the alt-right" (wikilinked) in the lead, at least without making the distinction and without clear attribution. Moreover, it seems that the neologism does not mean necessarily the same today as it meant a year ago, which only makes things more confusing. Saturnalia0 (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

He is widely regarded as a champion/icon/provocateur of the alt-right [1][2][3]. The content of another Wikipedia article has no bearing on the properly sourced use of the term here.- MrX 02:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

It's strange that "the alt right champion" does not fit in the description from the alt-right article. I can agree if what you're suggesting is that the alt-right article should be changed. But we both know that is not going to happen. So, at the very least the distinction should be made here - as it is made by the AFD and by Milo himself - and attribution is due. Saturnalia0 (talk) 03:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you throw up a link to the AFD source? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Based on a quick search for "anti-defamation league milo yiannopoulos", I think it's likely to be this: [4] - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 05:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

That's enough to write that Milo has also been called alt-lite.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

We have a sentence about that in the article already. Milo Yiannopoulos#Relationship with the alt-right. I agree that this is a bit of a conundrum. Gay Jews are not the alt-right's favorite sort of people. The identification of Milo with the alt-right came about during the early times, when the definition was more nebulous. Maybe we should be looking for sources discussing the same exact thing as us. There might be some out there, so we could cover this discrepancy, instead of trying to "fix it" ourselves. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

"The identification of Milo with the alt-right came about during the early times, when the definition was more nebulous." - right, but what this basically means is that this identification came when they thought the alt-right was hip and cool (see Milo's article on alt-right in Breitbart) and the links to white supremacy were funny jokes or something that should be tolerated for the sake of the general movement. Now, after Charlottesville, they're trying to jump ship and pretend they had nothing to do with it. Which isn't true.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you hear that? That pervasive, overpowering sound? That's the sound of me not arguing with you. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Come on man, sometimes I just need to agree with somebody somewhere on Wikipedia. Just for a change of pace.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

No! Zis is ze Vikipedia!! You vill argue or you vill be shot!!! (Ignore the fact that my previous comment was basically just me saying "I agree with everything VM said" because I was sufficiently snarky about it to avoid the Wiki-SS.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Err, not really, no, the interview to Channel 4 dates back to the first reports crowning him king of the alt-right, and I haven't heard Milo trying to distance himself from anything lately. It's mostly about making a distinction between what is defined in Wikipedia as alt-right and what the sources actually meant when attributing the label to Yiannopoulos. Saturnalia0 (talk) 06:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course he's trying to distance himself now that the alt-right movement has been cast into complete mainstream disrepute. If there are reliable sources that say that he's trying to distance himself, we can certainly include that, but it doesn't erase the fact that many sources have already explicitly linked him to the alt-right movement.- MrX 11:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

He has been referred to by others as alt-right; something he, himself refutes extensively. It's fair to say that journalists and commentators have called him alt-right while he himself denies it. Scbritton (talk) 02:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

So what? Reliable sources call him alt-right. We've already been over this multiple times. Reliable sources win. Grayfell (talk) 06:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

And yet again, we see how people cherry-pick their "reliable sources" to serve their own personal ideologies and political agendas. You want a reliable source about his political affiliations? Read his book. Think about this logically for a second: A homosexual guy with Jewish heritage and engaged to be married to a black guy affiliated with the white supremacist - no, sorry, "white nationalist" "alt-right" movement? Nice try, though. Scbritton (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Find a reliable source (that isn't his own writings: people lie about themselves all the time. Hell, Rush Limbaugh has claimed to be a liberal more times than I can count, ffs) that says he's not part of the alt-right and we will happily add it. Until then, keep your bad faith accusations to yourself, lest an admin notice then, go on to notice that you spend most of your time arguing on talk pages instead of editing articles and then decide that you need to be blocked for not being here to contribute to the project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

But what if they notice that you noticed them noticing? PackMecEng (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I think I would notice them noticing me noticing. If it's a problem, we could always put them on notice. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I think you just did PackMecEng (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Ahhh, you noticed. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Well. Given I made a fairly small change to the entry which got reverted by someone who simply said, "no" without any additional explanation, and given that someone also suggested to me that the change wasn't from a "neutral point of view" (how can "several journalists and publications have claimed him to be associated politically with the alt right" be NOT "from a neutral point of view????" I think you can understand why I am a little cynical about the editorial slant of many of the people who contribute to Wikipedia and then revert the entries of others when they disagree with them.

So, instead of reverting the reversion (and getting into an edit war) I chose to head over here to actually try to talk about the issue and changes - and all I found was a bunch of opinion-based discussion about the nature of what "alt right" means now, what it meant when Breitbart posted the article (co-written by Milo) about Alt-right, and how it has changed now. Milo has explained, frequently, what has happened - and he's right - if you look at the BEHAVIOUR of those who now self-identify as alt-right, and contrast them with the behaviour of Milo, the difference is plain to see.

So what this seems all seems to say to me is (a) there seems to be an anti-milo slant to the editorial content which violates the neutral point of view policy which is being, deliberately or not, overlooked, and b) anyone who mentions anything contrary to this narrative in the talk gets threatened with being blocked. I am attempting to improve the quality of the entry with accurate detail without losing the original text - that yes, people have said he is associated with the alt-right, but he himself disputes that. In fact, nowadays, if a news agency makes such a claim, he gets his lawyers involved. No, I can't cite that (other than by direct quotes of Milo himself) so I'm not going to suggest it get added to the main entry, but it is definitely something to think about.

As for your claim about his book not being a reliable source - ultimately, actions themselves speak louder than words, but you have to take into account how a person self-identifies as well. If he identifies as a cultural libertarian with classical liberal attitudes, then you can examine his behaviour, and say, "yes, his behaviour is consistent with his claim" or "his behaviour is inconsistent with his claim."

Either way, the alt-right label, as it is defined and understood at this time, does not fit with Milo's attitudes, nor does it fit with his behaviour, and numerous sources regarding his homosexuality, Jewish background, and black fiancé backs that up. Scbritton (talk) 03:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

You would do better to learn how Wikipedia works with regards to secondary sources and then work within that framework to achieve your goal rather than casting aspersions. Just FYI.--Jorm (talk) 03:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

His attitude is only relevant to the extent it's covered by reliable sources. His behavior is his writing and commentary. This is the only thing he's even remotely notable for, and this behavior is what's been linked to the alt-right. Maybe he wasn't truly alt-right, even when he was dubbed the alt-right's poster-boy by other media outlets, but that's not for us to say. He was, for a time, a very, very sympathetic "fellow traveler" and "explainer" of the alt-right. Well, now it has been "explained", and his explanation isn't the one that stuck. The idea that he couldn't be alt-right because he's a target of the alt-right is utterly silly, and is a non sequitur as well. There is no logical reason he cannot champion a movement that hates him, and we know this because it already happened. Certainly not the first time this has happened, either. Him and his followers really, really love to point out, at every opportunity, his 'outsider' status (#notyourshield indeed) but it doesn't matter, and it never did. Whoever he's seen as to them, he rushed to defend literal neo-Nazis by calling them "ironic" and misunderstood. Everyone saw this happening and many people pointed out how questionable this was, even his colleagues at Breitbart.[5][6]

So his behavior and attitude have already been evaluated by reliable sources, not by us. We, as editors, only evaluated what is verifiable. That means sources. If you have sources about his newly litigious anti-alt-right stance, or any reliable sources about this at all, bring them forth for discussion. Otherwise, don't let the door hit you on the way out. Grayfell (talk) 07:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Grayfell...on the way out. You might have meant: "on the way to another Wikipedia article where you will be fully appreciated for contributing your time usefully on creating and editing informative articles." Edaham (talk) 07:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I actually just mean "on the way out of this discussion", but that works too. I appreciate your willingness to assume good faith in me and the other editor, sincerely. That said, bypassing reliable sources to add personal research and opinion is never welcome. It should not be encouraged, even when presented in civil language. Anyone who wants to contribute constructively first has to understand that. Pretending otherwise is just playing a cynical game. Grayfell (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Alright. You win. Congratulations. I have far more important things to do than waste my time trying to constructively improve articles on Wikipedia only to see the changes reverted with little or no explanation. And since there is no literal door, I don't need to worry about it hitting me as I leave, however you should know that your attitudes and approach to me in this discussion, as well as the arrogant, "no" comment in reverting my edit has cast into doubt the credibility of the entire Wikipedia organization - because the attitude you approached me with here, with the aggressive invitations for me to leave etc., is quite likely the attitude of Wikipedia as a whole. And if I can't trust the validity of one article because people refuse to allow edits to make them more neutral, then I cannot trust the validity of anything I find on Wikipedia at all.

All in all, it just goes to show that Wikipedia has gone down the same road as Twitter, Facebook, and Google. Scbritton (talk) 00:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

You're raising issues that have already been discussed and dismissed multiple times, so please forgive us for being brusque. If you believe that your personal assessment is more neutral than our interpretation of sources, then your edits are not "more neutral". That's what we're trying to explain. If you've already decided that sources are mistaken and that we're policing the article by not allowing that to be changed, then you're already prejudiced yourself against what those sources have to say. Where are we supposed to go from there?

Again, if you have any reliable sources at all, I encourage you to bring them forth. I genuinely want to change how this article handles "alt-right" to explain that it was an ephemeral cultural moment, but I haven't seen the sources to support this. It doesn't matter if we agree with each other or not, what matters is WP:V. Grayfell (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

WP has an obvious and readily identifiable single "voice". That voice espouses whatever view the dominant group of experts in any given field espouse. If you think, for one second that Twitter, Facebook or Google speaks in a single voice, then you know absolutely nothing about any of those services, or how they work. I'm sorry, but that's just an incredibly uninformed comparison. It does, however, raise an interesting issue, because FB, Twitter and the big G all speak with a variety of voices, all freely generated by a significant portion of the population in a way that's representative of society as a whole. In effect, they speak with the uncounted voices of society itself. This means that any perceived shift towards disagreement with your own views that you see in them is a shift towards disagreement with your own views by society itself. And if society itself disagrees with your views, then perhaps you should give some serious thought to what your views are and why you hold them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Scbritton:, If you "have far more important things to do than waste your time trying to constructively improve articles on Wikipedia", (except for this one), are you sure you need to maintain an account here? Hopefully you didn't sign up just to edit this one article and are also interested in other areas of encyclopedic knowledge. I believe, for example, there's an open competition to photograph monuments at the moment. Edaham (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay - rebutting some of the points made here - first, I don't "maintain an account here". I registered back in 2011 and made an edit to an entry. I believe it remained or was tweaked. I don't really recall. That said, I did look at deleting my account last night, but discovered Wikipedia doesn't allow you to delete your account.

Next - regarding Facebook, twitter, et. al, I'm not talking about the users, but about the administration of those services. Just ask Jame Damore about the editorial and ideological slant of those in charge of the operation of Google, for example. I, personally, am perfectly at ease with my own opinions and ideology, whether it is in line with "general society" or not. Either way, that is largely irrelevant here, as Greyfell has indicated. - and thank you for de-escalating the tone, by the way.

Now, I think the key elements of the issue are these: the media has labeled Milo as Alt. Right. He, himself, disputes and refutes this. I think, because this entry is specifically about Milo, and that he disagrees with the labels given to him, that deserves some treatment. I also think it is reasonable to show that the media has labeled him alt-right, which is why my original edit left it in. If it was totally up to me, I'd leave it out entirely, but that would go against the whole idea of neutrality here on Wikipedia. Then, with that in mind, perhaps it needs to say this:

"... claimed by the media to be politically associated with the alt-right, a claim he personally disputes." And then provide verifiable citations to him personally disputing the claims - after all, if the entry indicates he personally disputes it, it would make sense to cite where he has disputed it. If a YouTube video of him giving a talk where he corrects an introduction of him, or a news video of him disputing the alt-right label, then I can provide that with some time to search it out, or, otherwise, I can search out some printed sources, all depending on what you will accept as "verifyable sources." Scbritton (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I thought you said "Alright. You win. Congratulations. I have far more important things to do than waste my time trying to constructively improve articles on Wikipedia." So why are you still here? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I did; and I noticed there had been a reply when I clicked a link to another Wikipedia entry by mistake, so I read it, and decided that greyfell had de-escalated the tone. That said, how does your latest response to me actually serve to advance the discussion in any way, other than an attempt to make yourself feel good with a cheap shot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scbritton (talk • contribs) 14:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

By reminding you that you had already agreed to stop arguing about the subject in the (faint) hopes that you would decide to stand by your word and move on to better things. How does your response do any of that? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Is it your intention to just drive people you don't like off the site? That's rather unbecoming. Look - if you want to be an ass about things, that's up to you, and in that case, I'll govern myself accordingly by ignoring you. If you want to return to discussing what changes can improve this entry on Milo, then there is something worth discussing. But if you continue to make this about me, rather than about Milo, you're just wasting space. Scbritton (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Addendum - it seems that I (and you) violated the tenets of this. Scbritton (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

If my comment about a drinking game is enough to drive you off the site, then I suspect the problem isn't me. I've already given you the "serious" response above, as have others. No-one has accepted your argument. If you want to storm off in a tizzy, that's your right. If you want to announce that you're going to storm off in a tizzy, that's also your right. But if you're going to announce that you're storming off in a tizzy, then stick around to keep applying wood to horse carcass because someone had the temerity to introduce a little levity into the thread, then you're just plain being disruptive, and that's a no-no. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Read up above. I have made a new, revised proposed change. If you think that I'm engaging in a case of applying wood to horse carcass, while Grayfell has indicated a strong desire to actually improve this section, then that's your problem. Scbritton (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Anyway... Your proposed change is not substantially different from those which have already been proposed multiple times before, so this is beating a dead horse. The use of passing mentions or his own self-published social media to dispute reliable sources is false balance. Evading reliable sources by using words like "WP:CLAIMed" is non-neutral for multiple other reasons as well. WP:WEASEL comes up a lot, also. Examples of him disputing the label are not what I meant, and are of limited value. We already have those, and they are not sufficient to undermine the large volume of reliable sources making the connection.

What I would like to see is reliable, independent sources about his usage of the term alt-right, or independent sources specifically about the shift in usage and perceived meaning that coincides with his de facto embrace of the term. I don't think it's a controversial opinion that there was a shift in usage and perception of the term, even if its core meaning was always tied to race and neoreactionary nonsense. I would like to see reliable sources supporting this. For this article, those sources would need to mention Yiannopoulos by name. Without those sources, I don't see any reason to change this, and so far no new reason has been proposed. Grayfell (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

You are setting the bar impossibly high, either unconsciously though bias you're unaware of, or otherwise. You're asking for credible sources based on an interpretation of behaviour seen through the observer's own biases and filters. That's inherently non-neutral. A neutral point of view would be to present the facts of the case - what commentators say about him, what he says himself, what the alt right says about him, and what his actions themselves indicate. That would be far too much to include in the abstract, which is what we are talking about here, so it clearly needs to be pared down to something more concise. This is why I sugggested "claimed by some" (or something like that) as a wording. This change doesn't remove the alt-right suggestions - which should keep his critics happy, while it does cover off the fact that he (and the alt-right as well, including The Daily Stormer) denounces and disavows them. If this was in the main text of the article, where more detail and information is provided to expand on the points, I would agree with you that it is weasel words - but an abstract is there to give an overview rather than the full detail and information; and that is why I think you are setting the bar impossibly high. Scbritton (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Some of your ideas on neutrality
  • "A neutral point of view would be to present the facts of the case" - this is correct. Review the linked guideline on "facts"
  • "what commentators say about him" - we prefer secondary sourced commentary from mainstream sources.
  • "what he says himself" - it is possibly to include information from primary sources within the guidelines set down in due weight. Granted the subject of the article does talk about himself a lot, but coverage on him by secondary sources outweighs this and is preferentially included when available - as is the case here. The subject of this article disagrees with almost everything reliable sources say about him, and to add his commentary after each sentence, besides being unduely weighted, would make for a tedious and confusing article.
  • "what the alt right says about him". - The inclusion of commentary by sources which identify as "alt-right" is covered by the above. Mainstream sources are preferential to fringe sources set up to support or provide forums for specific ideologies.
  • "and what his actions themselves indicate." - wp:synth and wp:or apply here. We shouldn't infer or attempt to speculate what his actions indicate. This might seem counterintuitive in this case, but it's how we've decided to undertake the Wikipedia project. Ideally none of the text in the project should be indicated, it should be sourced or excluded. This isn't always the case, but it is what we are aiming for and it is among the reasons that we open the project to anyone to edit, so they can quickly fix parts of the project which have been invented by our editors or incorrectly or inadequately sourced.
    • in summary, the editor you are talking to isn't biased, he's following a set of guidelines or policies, the net result of which is a conflict with what you wish to write in the encyclopedia. A firm grasp of these policies will either a) enable you to introduce content into the encyclopedia without being reverted or b) bring you to the realization that certain editing practices are unfit for the project. To cite a personal example, I hold a religious belief and the Wikipedia article on that faith says things in it I "know" to be fundamentally untrue or negatively biased. I don't try to alter the parts of the article I personally disagree with though because the only things I have to contradict what the article says are from my own experience or from written material by members or advocates of the church. In either case an understanding of the highlighted policies and guidelines will help you distinguish between your editorial colleagues and your political opponents, which is something you seem to be having trouble with per your previous post. Always happy to help!

Edaham (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Everyone - that's 100% of the population - is biased one way or another. I wasn't accusing the other individual of being a political opponent, I was indicating that he was setting the bar impossibly high. Note as well the line, from above: "...setting the bar impossibly high EITHER unconsciously through bias you're unaware of, OR otherwise." The "or" before "otherwise" and the clause "through bias..." comes as a complete unit after "either". Suggesting that "bias" is not included with "otherwise." It therefore could be be a different interpretation of the rules, or could be overt gaming the system to ensure that a certain perspective gets advanced. It isn't my intent to ascribe motivation, just to point out that the bar is being set impossibly high. Scbritton (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

As for the comment about "what his actions themselves indicate." On that, I take your point - you're right. It shouldn't be what his actions themselves indicate, but, rather, "his actions themselves" [and documented with secondary, independent source material.]Scbritton (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

How many experienced editors have told you that you are wrong? If you can't stop pushing this, you're going to end up blocked, because this nonstop arguing is growing disruptive. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Please stop threatening me with being blocked. I'm not arguing, I'm discussing the issue. I'm attempting to improve the article on Milo within the guidelines that have been set forth. In the process, we clearly are involved in a disagreement over the interpretation of these guidelines. Obviously until we can agree on a wording, nothing is going to get changed; but continually threatening me with "being blocked" when I'm attempting to (a) understand how you are interpreting the guidelines and (b) work within them to improve the article, and (c) discuss the interpretation of the guidelines so we can accomplish what we are trying to accomplish, is counterproductive.

Scbritton (talk) 00:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reading some of the words I wrote. You need to read the highlighted links in blue also. It might help if you imagine that you've just joined a theater company, where lots of the actors have spent many years rehearsing their lines. Now imagine that you start scrawling notes on their manuscripts with a magic marker and telling them (repeatedly in a shrill voice) that they have got it all wrong. Look at their faces. What expressions are they wearing? Read the links in blue. Thanks. Edaham (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Already have. Just because I've only replied to some of what you've written doesn't mean I haven't gone through everything you've provided. Thanks. Scbritton (talk) 00:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

"claimed by the media to be politically associated with the alt-right, a claim he personally disputes." And then provide verifiable citations to him personally disputing the claims - after all, if the entry indicates he personally disputes it, it would make sense to cite where he has disputed it. If a YouTube video of him giving a talk where he corrects an introduction of him, or a news video of him disputing the alt-right label, then I can provide that with some time to search it out, or, otherwise, I can search out some printed sources, all depending on what you will accept as "verifyable sources.

Scbritton talk, [7]

For the love of god don't feel you have to reply to everything I have written. Your having read and understood Wikipedia's core policies, will be evident in your future posts on talk pages, in which you hopefully either, supply reliable sources or reason from a policy based stand point about why the article needs to change. You came closest in the quoted text to the right ->

When you suggested an edit, and noted the fact that the change requires a source. We'd really really prefer a wp:secondary source for this. The subject of this article generally prefixes interviews by reeling off an interleaved bullet list of rejections of the various ways in which he was introduced by the person interviewing him. As I mentioned before, citing all of his personal rejections of the way he is characterized by the sources we use would be 1)wp:primary, 2)wp:undue 3)bloody tedious. It is not outside the realm of possibility to make this edit stick and there are cases where you know something to be a fact and need to trawl up a source for it, but please actually do the spade work and don't rely on your prowess on redit and other forums to wp:bludgeon the point into the article because it won't work. Please address the tags I've placed on your proposal and consider sourcing it as recommended. Edaham (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Edaham, I think we've approached WP:SHUN time. Scbritton is just not getting what either of us (or any of the other experienced editors at the top of this giant thread) is telling him. There's no point in further engagement, because we're not going to be able to explain anything to their satisfaction. So let's just stop. If they start edit warring in the article, an admin will deal with them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• MjolnirPants, I tend to agree, but despite the manner in which the editor is comporting him or her self, the proposal is relatively reasonable and could be made to stick if properly sourced. I'll leave the info, with all of my wikilinking to the PAGs there for any other interested editors who want to have a knock at the subject. Also it is a good opportunity for me to practice some advanced formatting. Did you like my quote box? Edaham (talk) 02:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. The problem is that whole ...if properly sourced. bit. And it's a huge problem. I actually agree in principle with the statement "Milo has disassociated himself from the alt-right" because of course the gay guy with a Jewish mother would distance himself from the alt-right. I also agree that the alt-right has distanced itself from Milo because of course the alt-right would distance itself from a gay guy with a Jewish mother. But without those sources...

Oh, and it's a very nice quote box. Maybe you should make a dedicated template out of it, like {{quote-float}} or something. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

How can liberal lunatics here still call him alt-right? Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8OcCLV-IEI&feature=em-uploademail and tell us again how he is "alt-right"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobman84 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

People who look at Wikipedia and see political adversaries, as opposed to editorial colleagues, and make editorial judgments based on this misconstruction of the situation (rather than policy) are typically the people who are actually pushing a POV. That being said you might want to reassess your approach if you want to have your contributions weighed against those from editors who are engaging in the project with Wikipedia's core interests in mind.

Milo Yiannopoulos says, as a gay Jew married to a black man, he hates the alt-right movement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YylNZwsFwpU

All mention of alt-right should be removed from this article. He is not alt-right.Neutralmind (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with all references being removed from the wikipedia page about Alt-Right and Milo, but I do think he should not be considered Alt-Right because both himself and the more influential people in the Alt-Right both say they Milo isn't part of the Alt-Right. I don't see how people outside of the Alt-Right gets to define what the Alt-Right is, especially the massive lack of due diligence in understanding what they are reporting on in mainstream journalism these days. C.D. Random (talk) 09:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Whether he "should" be considered alt-right is a moot point and completely irrelevant to this discussion. Wikipedia does not consider him to be alt-right. Reliable sources say he is alt-right. Wikipedia reports that reliable sources say he is alt-right.

The alt-right does not get to say who is and who isn't alt-right for several reasons. First, if only the alt-right gets to say who is alt-right, who decided who is alt-right enough to define who is alt-right?

Next we have the "True Scotsman" situation -- anything disreputable seen among the alt-right, the alt-right simply defines as something the alt-right does not do.

Finally, there's press release syndrome. Every organization defines itself in glowing terms. Pick a group -- any group. Their stated mission is, essentially, to make the world better. From your local charity comforting dying children to that despotic regime killing millions of people in horrible ways, they all define themselves as trying to make the world a better place. Independent reliable sources clarify who is doing what and why. Wikipedia calls it "verifiability". It's a significant aspect of the project that you have been arguing against for quite some time now. You cannot upend part of the basic structure of the project because you do not like what it says about one person. Independent reliable sources say he is alt-right. Wikipedia will continue to say he is alt-right. If you cannot accept that, you will need to either start a discussion to change WP:V or find a project other than Wikipedia to work on. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• "I don't see how people outside of the Alt-Right gets to define what the Alt-Right is" - For the same reason we don't let racists define what racism is. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Confirmation of Mercer funding, Mercer now apparently cutting ties

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/nov/02/billionaire-trump-donor-robert-mercer-breitbart

Turning to notorious former Breitbart provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, Mercer reportedly added: “I supported Milo Yiannopoulos in the hope and expectation that his expression of views contrary to the social mainstream and his spotlighting of the hypocrisy of those who would close down free speech in the name of political correctness would promote the type of open debate and freedom of thought that is being throttled on many American college campuses today.

“But in my opinion, actions of and statements by Mr Yiannopoulos have caused pain and divisiveness undermining the open and productive discourse that I had hoped to facilitate. I was mistaken to have supported him, and for several weeks have been in the process of severing all ties with him.”

Article currently mentions Brietbart but not Mercer. Artw (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I think this definitely belongs in the article now. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/robert-mercer-i-regret-supporting-milo-yiannopoulos-and-im-cutting-off-his-funding/article/2639401 Are015 (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2017

I think this article is biased aginst Milo "He has described being gay as "aberrant" and "a lifestyle choice guaranteed to bring [gay people] pain and unhappiness."[75]" has no basis in fact. I do not bereave he said this. Treydaprogdude (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

2017 11 05 Reversions

This series of reversions seem to be related to the addition of text based on two editorial sources, which:

• 1) Looks to be adding up sources (SYNTH)
• 2) Have gone through some confusing reversions with non minor edits being marked as minor etc. The edit summaries also leave things a bit confused.

Strongly suggest we follow BRD for this inclusion. (We're at the "D" stage now - in case it's not clear) Edaham (talk) 12:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

That's not how it works and I'm taking it to ANI, clear violation of 1RR and edit warring. As for the content dispute, I don't see how it's synth, the academic refs are not being used in the same sentence as the commentary - it follows a sentence explaining a definition related to, but not explicitally from the commentary. In fact, the refs about the comments are separated precisely in that regard: but wrote that... which are defined in literature..., the academic refs begining w the latter. There's a clear separation of what is commentary and what is academic definition and which sources are used for each, would you disagree? Saturnalia0 (talk) 13:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I can't see a reason not to follow BRD here, further more, it looks like we are following it. We're here having the discussion aren't we? If the academic texts aren't being used in conjunction with the sourcing, may I ask why expounding on the academic veracity of the terminology is useful outside of a medical article? There should be some reason for it. If I say something like, John says "the ball is heavy", This is true as according to ~some text~ balls don't weigh more than 5.25 ounces, then the academic text would be useful if the article were about baseballs. Why's it useful here if not to add weight to a specific understanding of the editorial text of the authors who wrote the pieces from which the article text is sourced? There may be something I'm overlooking of course, but I think it deserves a brief explanation. bear in mind that BRD is not the same as deleting or blanking the text, it's just something to follow if there's a question as to the value of the text in the article. Edaham (talk) 13:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not talking about your edit when I complain about the dispute. As for the content, if you think the explanation was unnecessary why simply not remove it? It's a small part of what was removed, and mostly independent from it - in which the academic commentary could be removed and the rest could stay on its own. It seems to me that the definition of "ephebophilia" and "hebephilia" is not as clear cut as that of a ball, and it's not unusual in articles in this website for one to find something like "... scientific term, which means X<ref>" in non-scientific articles. But even if we disregard all that and conclude that the academic definition was problematic, then the problem is not OR/SYNTH, or is it? As I understand it, the problem is, then, just unnecessary text. And even if it was OR/SYNTH, what about the other 90% of the removed text? Saturnalia0 (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I could have done that yes. I'm considering that option now. It would read better. Whether or not it is Synth, depends largely on why it's there. It could as you say, simply be superfluous. I removed it all because of the confusing edit summaries and the above reason regarding the possible SYNTH/TMD/FORKED content - for the purpose discussion prior to reintroduction of relevant material. I'm a relatively new user so sometimes I need to be reminded to keep other options in mind. I'll consider partial removing rather than reversion next time I encounter a similar situation. Thanks for the heads up. Edaham (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Saturnalia, if anyone is edit warring it's you. I am sorry if you don't understand what SYNTH means, but that's not my fault. What this content does is add commentary by way of inserting content that while possibly reliably sourced is not related to the subject--except for in the mind of the person adding it. It seems to me that this discussion about the meaning of this word or that is meant to somehow mitigate what sources have said about your subject--that is a textbook example of "SYNTH". It's really essential stuff here on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Right, I'm edit warring... You removed the content with a provocation, I restored it. You reverted me claiming OR/SYNTH, I politely asked for an explanation, and after a day without one, Marek simply removes the content again without any explanation. Another editor restores it and self-rvs as a joke, to which I actually restore it - because no one explained why it was being removed, except some vague claim about OR for which further explanation was requested. So we have this: A long standing version of the article, well sourced content, opposition by two editors for the removal, an explanation was asked for, none was provided, but editors insist on having the article without the content - not the long standing version - before the dispute is discussed on the talk page... And I'm the one on the wrong? lol. I thought you had violated 1RR on that revert and that's why I said I'd bring it to ANI no matter who is edit warring the content out of the article, but it seems that I was mistaken and there was no actual 1RR violation. That being said, as for the actual content dispute,

You're saying it's SYNTH because I don't understand what SYNTH is. That's... not very helpful. You're saying it's reliably sourced but unrelated, and regarding our discussion about it being an explanation you say: It seems to me that this discussion about the meaning of this word or that is meant to somehow mitigate what sources have said about your subject--that is a textbook example of "SYNTH". Now I really don't know what you're talking about. Which subject of mine? Milo? What did the sources say about him that would be mitigated by an explanation of what the terms "hebephilia" and "ephebophilia" mean? Again, even if we were to accept that was a case of SYNTH, why remove the rest? Saturnalia0 (talk) 02:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

"Another editor restores it and self-rvs as a joke" - this is actually what was confusing me into reverting and brining this edit through to the BRD process. Also one of those back and forth "joke" edits was marked minor, when it obviously wasn't. In future (no names mentioned) please don't make any joke edits on this page. There's enough back and forth here without compounding the confusion. If there's any material which needs restoring (there was quite a lot) can we bring it up here piece by piece with sources/reasons for inclusion. Thanks, this is a text book example of why we use BRD rather than edit war. Edaham (talk) 02:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

My undo of Marek's removal was mistakenly marked "minor" by a misclick on my part while using the "Twinkle" gadget, and was not part of a joke or an intentional misuse of the "minor" flag. Twinkle can be config'd to automatically mark certain reverts as "minor" and give no option of including and edit summary (used for vandalism). It was a mis-click and it was not my intent to treat Marek's removal in that way, so I went to self revert. While self-reverting, I came to my senses, realized I was diving into a drama involving Marek, reconsidered whether that was something I wanted to do, thought "no way" and said as much in my edit summary. So although my edit summary of my self-revert could be read as a joke, my marking of anything as "minor" was a genuine mis-click and I apologize for the confusion. Marteau (talk) 03:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok no worries, happens. Would be happy to get the thread back onto the discussion of content rather than meta-level debates about the nature of editing Edaham (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Not to side with Cali Saturnalia0, but I'm wondering how WP:SYNTH is being argued here. With regard to the content in question, I see appropriate use of WP:INTEGRITY (meaning source-ref integrity). If one wants to argue that the "Colloquially, the term paedophile is commonly used interchangeably with child molester" part that is supported by a scholarly source is WP:SYNTH because it's not about Yiannopoulos and/or is off-topic, there is still the fact the other text is about Yiannopoulos. If we are going to include sources/material arguing that Yiannopoulos was supporting child sexual abuse and pedophilia, and note that Yiannopoulos disagrees with the characterization, we should include the sources/material that note that he is technically correct about pedophilia. Right now, the article makes it seem like it's only Yiannopoulos's claim as to what pedophilia is (although readers can click on the Pedophilia article for a clue), when, really, he is technically correct about that disorder and some sources have noted that he is. At Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos/Archive 2#RfC: Should 'the scandal' be referred to as 'allegations of pedarastry' or 'allegations of pedophilia'?, we can see that editors like Only in death and MjolnirPants were concerned about use of the word pedophilia. And at Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos/Archive 3#Pedophilia content, we can see that ResultingConstant was concerned about the "he endorses pedophilia" side only being represented. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

So, Edaham, per what I stated above, are you going to restore the on-topic material, or should I? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

not in full, no. The segment that belongs in the article per due, pertains to the notable issue of his creating a lot of fuss for appearing to support something controversial. That seems to have been made abundantly apparent in the article already. A portion of the removed text is related to the subject of pedophillia but not really related to the subject of the article. If a preponderance of sources dwelt on his exact wording and the potential pathological/medical fidelity of what he said it might be worth inclusion. I will have a closer look at the source material today and consider reinclusion of info based on the source text if you don't beat me to it, but if you do reinclude it, I'd suggest not rewriting it as before it seemed to take the author's words out of context so as to appear unduely supportive of the subject's efforts to wriggle out of an awkward situation. Edaham (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Flyer22 Reborn: "we should include the sources/material that note that he is technically correct about pedophilia"...no, we should not. That is the essence of editorial commentary and we just cannot do that. If another reliable source says that, that's different. But if you want to exercise editorial control here, you can: you can, or we all can, judge whether one source or another uses a term incorrectly, improperly, etc. and then decide to not use that source. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Edaham and Drmies, I am quite clearly talking about the portion of the text that relates directly to Yiannopoulos, and there are no WP:SYNTH or off-topic arguments that can justify exclusion in that regard. At all. We have one part of the text stating the following: "Media personalities across the political spectrum condemned Yiannopoulos's original comments, and interpreted them as an endorsement of sexual abuse; CPAC withdrew Yiannopoulos's invitation to speak at their annual event because he had 'condoned pedophilia' through his comments, stating that his apology was inadequate. Editorials in conservative media, including National Review,The Blaze, Townhall, and The American Conservative have characterised his comments as supportive of paedophilia or pederasty." Contrasting that, we have the argument that the following should be restored: "Commentators such as Matthew Rozsa of Salon.com and Margaret Hartmann of New York magazine criticised Yiannopoulos for condoning sex between adults and 13-year-olds, but wrote that Yiannopoulos is technically correct in distinguishing between paedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia. They also noted, however, that the term paedophilia is colloquially used to describe and denounce relationships of the sort promoted by Yiannopoulos."

So we Yiannopoulos stating that he did not endorse pedophilia, and he goes about doing this by explaining what pedophilia technically is, and we have one set of commentators and "editorials in conservative media" stating that Yiannopoulos endorsed pedophilia. And we have commentators/so-called editorials also criticizing Yiannopoulos but noting that he is technically correct about pedophilia despite the colloquial usage of the term. And yet you two are arguing that we should exclude the latter, despite it being very on-topic and relevant and supported by WP:Reliable sources? Why is that exactly? Editors familiar with my work on child sexual abuse and pedophilia topics should know that I don't condone Yiannopoulos's views, except for his definition of pedophilia, which is correct and not merely a view. And many editors know that I am not conservative. So I am not arguing for inclusion of the material because of some absurd or political beliefs or because I like Yiannopoulos. I am arguing for inclusion because there is no solid basis for exclusion, and excluding the fact that some sources have noted that Yiannopoulos's pedophilia definition is not his own, which means that his "I wasn't speaking of pedophilia" argument has some validity, while only presenting the side stating that he was speaking of pedophilia is inherently biased. What makes Salon.com and New York any less reliable or on-topic than National Review, The Blaze, and so on? Yeah, I don't like misuse of the term pedophilia since it stifles people understanding the topic of pedophilia and child sexual abuse (such as the fact that a child sexual abuser can be one's uncle and not some rare pedophile stranger, considering that child sexual abuse is a lot more prevalent than people realize and is not committed solely by pedophiles). But this is not about me.

We can resolve this via a RfC, which I will start if the aforementioned material continues to be excluded. I'm not spending days or weeks debating this. On a side note: No need to ping me to this talk page since it's clearly on my watchlist. I won't ping you two to this section again either. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC sounds good. The thread is getting a bit long anyway. Why not introduce the RfC as a sub thread of this one. Be sure to be specific about the included text, as I'm not sure what precisely what to include from the sources which are under question. Edaham (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

References

RfC: Should the article include text/sources analyzing Yiannopoulos's statements on pedophilia? #0

Collapsed first RfC attempt

On the article's talk page, editors have expressed concern about whether or not a specific piece of text is WP:Synthesis, off-topic and/or editorial commentary. The original piece (seen here) includes text and sources that are and are not about Yiannopoulos. A proposal has been made to only include the text and sources that are specifically about Yiannopoulos. The proposal has been made because the article includes Yiannopoulos stating that he did not endorse pedophilia and elaborating by commenting on the technical definition of pedophilia, and some commentators charging that he did endorse pedophilia. As a result, it has been argued that we should additionally include commentators stating that his definition of pedophilia is technically correct, but also that the term colloquially equates to adults engaging in sexual activity with minors (or specifically committing child sexual abuse), as this analysis relates to Yiannopoulos's pedophilia and child sexual abuse arguments. So should the proposed material be included? For the original and proposed text, see the collapsible templates below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC) Original content Commentators such as Matthew Rozsa of Salon.com and Margaret Hartmann of New York magazine criticised Yiannopoulos for condoning sex between adults and 13-year-olds, but wrote that Yiannopoulos is technically correct in distinguishing between paedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia, which are defined in the academic literature in line with the Tanner stages. They also noted that the term paedophilia is colloquially used to describe and denounce relationships of the sort promoted by Yiannopoulos. Colloquially, the term "paedophile" is commonly used interchangeably with "child molester". Proposed content Commentators such as Matthew Rozsa of Salon.com and Margaret Hartmann of New York magazine criticised Yiannopoulos for condoning sex between adults and 13-year-olds, but wrote that Yiannopoulos is technically correct in distinguishing between paedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia. They also noted that the term paedophilia is colloquially used to describe and denounce relationships of the sort promoted by Yiannopoulos. Survey Yes. Include proposed content. It's not WP:Synthesis and is directly relevant to Yiannopoulos's claims. The article includes Yiannopoulos stating that he did not endorse pedophilia and citing the technical definition of it. It also includes commentators stating that Yiannopoulos endorsed pedophilia. I see no valid reason to exclude sources (seen here and here) that took the time to analyze the definition of pedophilia, and the associated chronophilias called hebephilia and ephebophilia, in relation to Yiannopoulos's statements, and note that, although he is technically correct about the definition, the term is also used broadly to include statutory rape and child sexual abuse. In fact, this other aspect should be included. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2017‎ (UTC) No. Sources that do not discuss the subject do not belong in the article. Including the sources to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source is the very definition of WP:SYN. A source that says absolutely nothing about the subject is being included to imply that it says something about the subject. It does not. - SummerPhDv2.0 19:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC) SummerPhDv2.0, the two sources in question (seen here and here) for the proposed text are specifically about Yiannopoulos. The proposed text is not WP:Synthesis. Like I stated above, what makes Salon.com and New York any less reliable or on-topic than National Review, The Blaze, and so on? Why should we only include the commentators stating that he was endorsing pedophilia, while excluding the ones stating that although he is technically correct about the definition of pedophilia, the term is also used broadly to include statutory rape and child sexual abuse? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC) I might be a bit confused here. I'm looking at "Sexual Offending: Predisposing Antecedents, Assessments and Management", 2015 (cited twice) and "Commentary: Hebephilia", 2011; cited in the "before" text here which clearly are not discussing the subject, his 2016 comments or the 2017 controversy. Sources that do not discuss the subject are clearly off-topic. Reliable sources, OTOH, headlined as being about the subject are certainly not "off topic". I can't imagine why they would be. Is that the question? - SummerPhDv2.0 22:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC) SummerPhDv2.0, yeah, that's the question. The text you were looking at is the original text. I'm not arguing to include the original text. I'm arguing to include the proposed text. The text I proposed above leaves out the "Tanner stages" and "paedophile is commonly used interchangeably with child molester" material that is sourced to academics. It's not even needed. Like I stated below, I tried to include sources in the templates above, but it was messing up the setup. If someone can include the sources in the above templates without it messing up the thread, then please do. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC) oppose - with caution! To arriving editors. This RfC needs to be rewritten. Currently it presents two options, neither of which have yet been added to the article and both of which currently lack consensus. Please add the original text as an option A, B or C if there are three proposed texts. Will assume good faith for now, but there's a good chance someone could be misled into simply thinking that they are being asked to pick one of these options. Please rectify. Please note (if replying) that I intend to redact this comment (and the vote) with strike through once this RfC has been worded correctly. Thanks. Edaham (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC) Edaham, I'm not sure what you mean. There is no proposal to add the original text. So why do I need to frame the RfC so that there is an option to add the original text? The original text includes what you and another editor argued as WP:Synthesis in the initial discussion. A different editor proposed to add the material without the supposed WP:Synthesis. I proposed that as well. That is what this RfC is about. As for discussion, we discussed above, and I asked you why the proposed text should be excluded. The answer you gave was to go ahead with an RfC on the matter. This RfC is the next step in discussion. And you still have offered no solid reason for opposing the proposed text. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC) That's quite alright, if you don't know what I mean I will briefly explain to you, and to other editors. Some text was added to the article and reverted in full several times. The article at present does not contain any of the reverted text. You have opened an RfC and presented two options, both of which include some of the reverted text. This is incorrect. There should be an option which contains the present text as it is now, and before the reverted edits were made. You are sort of saying here, do you want to buy five of my apples or just two, where simply not buying apples might be an option. I hope this is clearer and I'll be happy to produce "solid reasons" pursuant to a correctly formed request for comment. Edaham (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC) Edaham, your interpretation of the RfC is incorrect, which might be my fault. I did not present two options, which is more than clear by simply reading what the RfC states and what I stated to SummerPhDv2.0 above and Kendall-K1 below. Below, I clearly relayed the following: "I'm asking if the proposed text should be included. This is why I stated, 'A proposal has been made to only include the text and sources that are specifically about Yiannopoulos.' I've made the above RfC wording clearer in this regard. The original text is only included in the above template for comparison." I'm going to close this RfC and start a new one. The new RfC, just like this one, will be about whether or not the proposed text should be included or excluded. I repeat: The only text being proposed for inclusion is the text without the supposed WP:Synthesis. No, I am not going to frame the RfC to ask whether or not we should include the version that has been challenged on WP:Synthesis grounds. No one is asking for that version to be included. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC) Discussion I'm sure we have editors who like and/or prefer the term pedophilia for all adult-underage person sexual activity accusations, especially when it comes to how repugnant the term is with regard to labeling someone or their views, but that is no solid reason to forgo noting that sources acknowledged that Yiannopoulos is technically correct about the term. Like a colleague once stated, "While it is true that 'pedophile' has stigma attached to it that many would rather distance themselves from, it is patently absurd to attempt to contradict decades of research and clinical work just so you can plaster the nastiest label possible on someone." The sources are not endorsing Yiannopoulos's views on adults being sexual with minors as young as 13. They are clear that they don't condone those views, and they also note that the term pedophilia is used more broadly than the technical definition. So I stand by my arguments that this material is not only relevant, but should be included. Except for WP:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, which is inactive, I'll alert the WP:BLP noticeboard and WikiProjects this article is tagged with to this discussion for more input. WP:Law as well. If the WP:Synthesis claims continue regarding the proposed text, I'll alert the WP:Original research noticeboard. I might also alert the WP:Neutral noticeboard. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC) I think you need to make the rfc more clear because I can't tell what you're asking. Neither the "original" or the "proposed" text are currently in the article. The two sources you've listed do not support the "original" text so per BLP there is no way you can put that in without additional sources. The "proposed" text seems fine to me except I would remove "such as" (too weasely). Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC) Hi, Kendall-K1. I'm asking if the proposed text should be included. This is why I stated, "A proposal has been made to only include the text and sources that are specifically about Yiannopoulos." I've made the above RfC wording clearer in this regard. The original text is only included in the above template for comparison. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC) Also, the original text was supported by different sources and the two sources I noted above. But the original text has been argued as WP:Synthesis. As seen here and here, I tried including the references in the templates for both versions above, but the references kept messing up the setup. I decided not to spend any more time trying to figure out why. If someone knows how to fix that issue so that the references can be added to the templates without the setup being messed up, they are obviously free to do so. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC) RfCs need to be clearly worded in brief non persuasive language and present all of the options, including the existing/uncontested versions of the text. Typically a sentence, is all that is required to introduce the options as in, "based on the following sources (external links) which of the following texts should be placed in the article a)text b)text c)text" - and that's it. This isn't a street market and you are not selling onions ten for a pound. You also appear to be bludgeoning a point by replying to each of the votes in the RfC. These comments will probably be discounted by editors reviewing the votes and the closing editor, should one be required.Edaham (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC) See what I stated above. What other options are you speaking of? The only text being proposed for inclusion is the text without the supposed WP:Synthesis. No, I am not going to frame the RfC to ask whether or not we should include the version that has been challenged on WP:Synthesis grounds. No one is asking for that version to be included....unless you are. And there is no "c" option. The options are "include" and "exclude." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC) And you might want to actually read WP:BLUDGEON since clarifying matters in the Survey section does not fit that definition. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC) Great, thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, happy editing! Edaham (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

If you start a new proposal, do not collapse the proposed text, and add {{Reflist-talk}} at the end to get the refs to show up. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Kendall-K1, I know how to get the refs to show up, but there were issues, which is why I asked for Johnuniq's help. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I fixed one ref problem, and that left a total of two references on this entire page, although the references are broken because they assume the reference is defined elsewhere. If there is still a problem, please spell out the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I didn't test out your fix to see if the references would then work in the templates. A preview could carry out the test, but, before your edit, some previews came out fine while the live versions did not. So testing your fix might require a live version edit. Either way, I decided to forgo the templates this time, mainly because of Kendall-K1's request. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article include text/sources analyzing Yiannopoulos's statements on pedophilia?

On the article's talk page, there was concern about whether or not the text seen here was WP:Synthesis. The text was considered WP:Synthesis because it included this, this and this source, which are not about Yiannopoulos. A proposal was made to only include the text and sources that are about Yiannopoulos instead. Because existing content in the article includes Yiannopoulos stating that he did not endorse pedophilia (elaborating by commenting on the technical definition of pedophilia) and some commentators charging that he did endorse pedophilia, it has been stated that we should also include commentators acknowledging that Yiannopoulos definition's of pedophilia is technically correct, but also that the term colloquially equates to adults engaging in sexual activity with minors (or specifically committing child sexual abuse). Below is the proposed content:

Proposed content

"Matthew Rozsa of Salon.com and Margaret Hartmann of New York magazine criticised Yiannopoulos for condoning sex between adults and 13-year-olds, but wrote that Yiannopoulos is technically correct in distinguishing between paedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia. They also noted that the term paedophilia is colloquially used to describe and denounce relationships of the sort promoted by Yiannopoulos." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Matthew Rozsa of Salon.com wrote that although Yiannopoulos is technically correct in distinguishing between paedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia, the practice he was accused of promoting "is still illegal in most parts of the Western world." 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." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Include proposed content. Like I argued above, this version is not WP:Synthesis and is directly relevant to Yiannopoulos's claims. The article includes Yiannopoulos stating that he did not endorse pedophilia and citing the technical definition of it. It also includes commentators stating that Yiannopoulos endorsed pedophilia. I see no valid reason to exclude sources (seen here and here) that took the time to analyze the definition of pedophilia, and the associated chronophilias called hebephilia and ephebophilia, in relation to Yiannopoulos's statements, and note that, although he is technically correct about the definition, the term is also used broadly to include statutory rape and child sexual abuse. In fact, this other aspect should be included. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• oppose Neutral, per rewording - the following applies to the struck version inclusion of content as worded above. I'm not opposed to the use of these sources, however there are problems with the wording.
  • 1. The attribution at the beginning suggests that the criticism originates with the authors of the cited editorial pieces and that they were written in alliance or as part of a group indicative of wider support for their position, neither of which is true. Those editorials are pretty straight forward reporting with little to no editorial opinions
  • 2. The word "but" in the proposed article text looks like it is being attributed to the authors of the cited material, implying that the authors disagreed with him on one point, but upheld him on another. This is also not the case. The authors did not use this conjunction, neither did they compose their articles to personally criticize the subject of this article with caveats regarding a portion of his views. The proposed text needs to be more carefully worded to not give the appearance of combining sources, and synthesizing concepts which were not intended by the sources. Edaham (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: Taking a closer look at the sources, I changed the proposed wording, per below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Include Either way is fine. Saturnalia0 (talk) 12:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Include text, since it can be cited to reliable sources. Though I am a bit puzzled by the relevance of the age of consent in the United States. Yiannopoulos is not an American citizen. The age of consent in his native United Kingdom is currently set at 16. According to the article on Ages of consent in Europe, there is currently no European country where the age of consent is lower than 14. The United Kingdom has apparently signed the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse (which criminalizes coerced relationships with minors), though it remains one of the few countries to have not ratified it. See: https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/201/signatures Dimadick (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Include per nom. (Summoned by bot) L3X1 (distænt write) 04:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Edaham, your oppose rationale is somewhat odd. The initial proposed text is straightforward. Stating that two authors criticized Yiannopoulos for condoning sex between adults and 13-year-olds, but wrote that he is technically correct in distinguishing between paedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia is not suggesting that the criticism originates with the authors. How can it be suggesting that when the article is already very clear that many people share that same criticism? All the initial proposed text is doing is noting that these two authors also criticized Yiannopoulos, but that they additionally noted that while his definition of pedophilia is the medical definition of pedophilia, the term is also used broadly to include statutory rape and child sexual abuse. We could have easily amended the text to include "also" after the authors names in response to true concern about readers thinking that the criticism originated with them. You stated, "The word 'but' in the proposed article text looks like it is being attributed to the authors of the cited material, implying that the authors disagreed with him on one point, but upheld him on another." If we look at the sources, we see that the first author states "Yiannopoulos' terminology is technically correct" and "Nevertheless, it is still illegal in most parts of the Western world for an adult to have sex with a minor, a practice that Yiannopoulos was accused of defending in the clips." The words but and nevertheless are often used as synonyms and they mean the same thing in the case of this author. The second author simply acknowledges the definitions for hebephilia and ephebophilia. I don't see explicit criticism of Yiannopoulos in that source.

So, taking all of this into account, the text could be worded as follows: "Matthew Rozsa of Salon.com wrote that although Yiannopoulos is technically correct in distinguishing between paedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia, the practice he was accused of promoting 'is still illegal in most parts of the Western world.' 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.'" I'll propose this instead above. You are obviously more than free to suggest alternative wording. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to refrain from entering into further discussion as I'd prefer my comments to be directed to other editors (or a closing official, should it be necessary to review the survey results), who can make their mind up about my assessment and whether or not it contributes toward a consensus. I don't think a discussion between the two of us will bear further fruit, as I can't really address your above comment without simply finding different ways to say what I've already said. I thus hope my lack of a response to your question (assuming it was not rhetorical) will not be construed as impolite. Thanks again for your contributions and discussion. I'd welcome any outside discussion you have regarding the topic in general or my handling of it on my talk page. Edaham (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

You are obviously free to refrain from commenting further (in response to me or otherwise). But given that I reworded the text after your initial comment in this RfC and that the rewording is directly supported by the sources, I fail to see what you are still opposing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes I can see now that you changed the wording, which "edit conflicted" with my reply, which was to the previous (struck out) version of the text. I do appreciate that the changes made address both of the issues I raised. Based on that change I am now neutral as to the inclusion of this material. My lack of opposition can be noted. I hope you can see how the separation of the two attributions and the rewording of the conjunction has an effect on the reader, which may have suggested more weight and support for their comments, than if their comments were separated. I don't want you think I'm just whining about nothing. Matthew Rozsa did indeed actually write that himself rather than just reporting on someone else having said it and that distinction is also important. The new text focuses more on what was actually sad by those reporter without combining them. Whether or not they should now be included is probably a mater of DUE. Thanks. Edaham (talk) 06:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The wording was not mine to begin with. It was wording taken from what was already in the article and tweaked just a bit. If both authors had essentially stated the same thing, then, no, I wouldn't agree that we need to split the sentences so that the authors are not noted in the same sentences. We summarize all the time on Wikipedia. For example, current text in the article states, "Editorials in conservative media, including National Review, The Blaze, Townhall, and The American Conservative have characterised his comments as supportive of paedophilia or pederasty." There is no need to split all of that into individual sentences. Similarly, if Rozsa and Hartmann endorsed the same exact views, there would be no need to state "Matthew Rozsa of Salon.com wrote that although Yiannopoulos is technically correct in distinguishing between paedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia, the practice he was accused of promoting 'is still illegal in most parts of the Western world.'", and then, right after that, "Margaret Hartmann of New York magazine wrote that although Yiannopoulos is technically correct in distinguishing between paedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia, the practice he was accused of promoting 'is still illegal in most parts of the Western world.'" That would be unnecessary redundancy. Instead, we would write, "Matthew Rozsa of Salon.com and Margaret Hartmann of New York magazine wrote that although Yiannopoulos is technically correct in distinguishing between paedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia, the practice he was accused of promoting 'is still illegal in most parts of the Western world.'"

As for WP:Due, I obviously argue that it is WP:Due since the article includes Yiannopoulos stating that he did not condone pedophilia and citing the technical definition to support his comment. The text in question is specifically about that and notes that the definition he is citing is correct. There is no valid reason to exclude this material while retaining the other material. The only reason I can see for someone opposing the material is because they don't want it noted in the article that Yiannopoulos is correct on the pedophilia definition. But again, it is not like these two sources are condoning Yiannopoulos's views. Rozsa acknowledges "still illegal in most parts of the Western world" and Hartmann notes "The lowest and most common age of consent across the U.S. is 16." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I hope it's clear from my approach, that I don't want anything other than a good article on the subject. Edaham (talk) 06:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Since the discussion above where this was first brought up is collapsed I ask it here. Why is Editorials in conservative media, including National Review,[124] The Blaze,[125] Townhall,[126] and The American Conservative[127] have characterised his comments as supportive of paedophilia or pederasty. included at all? If it were any other article it would be promptly excluded with grounds of "who cares about fringy conservative media?". Saturnalia0 (talk) 12:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Yiannopoulos is a conservative and he is being denounced by fellow conservatives over his comments. It matters. TheBlaze may be on the fringe side, but The American Conservative seems to have a decent reputation and does not simply push conspiracy theories. Dimadick (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you can dismiss The National Review as fringy. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

____

References