Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos

Disappointed to see my edits all reverted

I made a series of edits the other day only to see all of them reverted. For example, this article tries to imply that Milo's book "Dangerous" is ghostwritten based on a single sentence from a Buzzfeed that was not documented in any way. Anyone who has actually read the book can attest to the fact that this is obviously not true. The book is written in the same style that Milo talks in. At bare minimum, it should be mentioned that this allegation is based on a Buzzfeed article. After all, Buzzfeed is not exactly the most reputable source. Furthermore, I linked to an interview in which Milo denies these allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myatrrcc (talk • contribs) 04:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

RFC - Improving the lede

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.

---

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)

100% in agreement with those suggestions. Thanks Bacondrum (talk) 21:25, 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)

Alright, we'll retain that. Bacondrum (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose both. I have made a post [1] at WP:BLPN raising my concern that the current and proposed leads do not approach this BLP in a professional manner. As I pointed out in my BLPN post, our lead for Donald Trump — who has politics very similar to Yiannopoulos — is by contrast restrained. And our article for Rocky Suhayda, the leader of the American Nazi Party and someone who is significantly closer to (indeed, is himself) the extreme right, is also restrained. It is inappropriate to have a lead that consists, paragraph by paragraph, of (1) ridicule, plagiarism, (2) harassment, banning, (3) racism, dog-whistling, (4) and paedophilia. Why is Yiannopoulos so popular? What is "his side?" You really get no idea of this from reading the lead of this article. Whatever you think about Yiannopoulos — and I don't think much — this is a shameful way to approach a biography. @Bacondrum, Flyer22 Reborn, Simonm223, JFG, and Nedrutland: and Markbassett. -Darouet (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Darouet: I don't necessarily disagree. What do you propose as an alternative?

• Oppose removal of "and that his statements were merely attempts to cope with his own victimhood, as an object of child abuse by unnamed older men.". This is for reasons I mentioned in the #The lede section above. In that section, Nedrutland also supported retaining the content. Nedrutland, is this still the case? Bacondrum has dropped that disputed aspect into this RfC which includes actual proposed improvements and therefore muddies things. Yes, the lead is supposed to summarize. The "Yiannopoulos has said that he is not a supporter of paedophilic relationships" piece is only summarizing that aspect of his statement. The above proposal is deliberately leaving out a significant aspect of his response to the allegation. And, in the "The lede" discussion, Bacondrum has provided his personal feelings as to why he wants that piece out of the lead. It has nothing to do with summarizing. This is a BLP. It matters not if an editor thinks Yiannopoulos is lying. We are supposed to provide his defense with regard to allegations, and not just a piece of it that we find acceptable. If Yiannopoulos were convicted of child sexual abuse or statutory rape or found to possess child pornography, things would be different. But he is not a convicted child sexual abuser or statutory rapist. Nor has he been found to possess child pornography. I was going to state "Support except for the removal of 'and that his statements were merely attempts to cope with his own victimhood, as an object of child abuse by unnamed older men'.", but Darouet has made me consider that although the fact that Yiannopoulos is controversial and controversial aspects should be covered in the lead, there may be more that should be in the lead as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Details of his explanation for those comments are in the body of the article. My proposal isn't hard and fast, we are discussing the changes. please feel free to propose keeping the sections you think should be retained. And please focus on the content, not me - I'm not willing to get into another endless squabble with you. Bacondrum (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, details are. The summary should still be in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• This looks like an improvement to me. Guy (help!) 23:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support. (Summoned by bot) The current inclusion of a ghostrwiriting allegation in the lead paragraph is especially undesirable. Coretheapple (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support with the caveat that the word ridicules in the last sentence of the first Lede para. be changed per WP:NPOV. Note: I had contemplated performing a non-admin closure and assessing consensus, but didn't want to do that with my objection to the word ridicules. I don't think that should stand in the revised revision. Also, do we know the social media bans are permanent? Even Wikipedia bans are not permanent. Suggest rephrasing to indefinite. Similar, also suggest spelling "paedophilia" as "pedophilia" per, I'm assuming, WP:MOS. --Doug Mehus (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Pedo / Paedo; a reminder that "This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions" among which is paedophilia etc. Nedrutland (talk) 08:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Procedural Comment: Adding an RfC tag to this to boost its awareness and build consensus, and because subsequent comments to this one on this talk page have outlined WP:NPOV issues in Lede. In short, we need to action this. To non-involved editor/admin RfC closer: please close with the optional closure tags when consensus has been attained. Thanks. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Follow-up to Procedural Comment: THIS is why we should make it mandatory to use RfC closing tags. Legobot removed my added RfC tag as this has already been closed, apparently, but not indication of consensus. Moreover, there is an outstanding request for closure Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Milo_Yiannopoulos#RFC - Improving the lede --Doug Mehus (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Update Website URL

Please update the webiste to https://milo.net/. He has moved his website content to https://milo.net/ after selling the dangerous.com domain — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.197.159.34 (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Holy Mackerel

This article reads like a diatribe. A "hit piece," basically. I'm more than prepared to believe he deserves every last bit of it and then some, but seriously? There have got to be as many reasons he is liked by many who aren't (known) alt-right or KKK. No? Just putting it out there. If Wikipedia aspires to be, well, Wikipedia, I'm not sure an article such as this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.63.96 (talk) 04:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, I've been arguing the case for ages. Heaps of undue detail aimed at presenting the fella in the worst possible light. I also am not a fan, but this article is a shocker. Bacondrum (talk) 07:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Independent reliable sources have a lot to say about the subject. Most of it isn't material most people would want written about them. That doesn't mean the material is any less accurate. Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources say about a subject. Sometimes it isn't pretty.

If you feel there are sources used that aren't reliable, please point them out specifically.

If you feel there is material that is given too much WP:WEIGHT, please point it out.

If you feel there is material that does not accurately reflect what the source says about the subject, please point it out.

If you feel there is complementary material on the subject in independent reliable sources, please point it out.

If you feel we should present "both sides" equally, please see WP:FALSEBALANCE. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

PLEASE.... Update Website URL

Disappointed to see my earlier recommendation ignored. So I will repeat it. Please update the webiste to https://milo.net/. He has moved his website content to https://milo.net/ after selling the dangerous.com domain There is another company using the old domain so in the interest of accuracy, please update this urgently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.197.159.34 (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

This has been done. I don't think this was really urgent, though. This site seems semi-dormant. It has only one or two updates a month, and has only had one update since dangerous.com was sold. Further, milo.net prominently links to several dead websites, including one for milo-inc.com. According to archive.org, that one has been down for over a year, since around Dec. 22, 2018. If there is anything of encyclopedic value buried in this site, it's buried very deep.

In future, if you have any urgent requests, consider Template:Request edit. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Re-added his view on trans

Hello

I had forgotten about this page and that I had added material about his views on trans last year, which I did as I saw no mention on them; only his views on homosexuality, which was a bit odd, not the least as his views on trans have been even more condemning than his views on homosexuality. However, when recalling and re-checking the page today, I noticed that it had been removed by Bacondrum with the explanation that; 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.) [to talk section]

Which is however not a good enough reason, as, as I stated above, his statements on homosexuality are duly reported in the section, so why not then give his views on trans got even the slightest mention? After all, the section is named "LGBT Issues", not G Issues, no? Which by the way also means that mention on his views on lesbians should be added, too. To my knowledge, he hasn't said anything on Bisexuals,otherwise that, too, had of course likewise deserved mention.

In any case, I therefore decided to be dold and re-added the material. If it is removed again I will then let it remain removed, however if so I think there needs to be a better reason for that removal than what Bacondrum gave.

Sincerely Okama-San (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

It appears this content has been removed again. I agree with this removal, as this information was not summarized in a neutral way. Yiannopoulos says many things which are intentionally inflammatory. Wikipedia is not obligated to repeat any of it just because it can be sourced, and we must look at context and due weight. Per WP:BRD, please gain consensus before restoring this a third time. Grayfell (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, however I am afraid that the explanation that the 'information was not summarized in a neutral way' is not a very valid reason, as the text regarding his views on trans merely repeats his own non-neutrality and statements, which as far as I am aware is what Wikipedia do regarding articles on controversial individuals; repeating what they said that was deemed controversial and gained much attention (in this specific case his speech at Delaware University regarding trans). In short, Milo is the person making non-neutral' statements, not the sources merely repeating his views. If repeating of non-neutral statements are however a no, then the current text in regards of his views on gay people is certainly not very neutral, either and is as such worthy of removal.

Quote; "Yiannopoulos says many things which are intentionally inflammatory. Wikipedia is not obligated to repeat any of it just because it can be sourced"

Following that logic, however, his views on gay individuals may as already mentioned be removed, too. For, if the section currently titled "GLBT issues" is intended to in actuality solely focus on the "G", that is his views regarding gay people, while ignoring his likewise stated and higly inflammatory views on LBT, too, then the honest thing would obviously be to rename the section to either "Views on gay people" or "Gay issues" as that is its sole focus. GLBT does after all not equal solely gay people, as the "umbrella" is a bit more diverse than such (although I am aware that many people, including Milo, holds the view that GLBT = Gays only).

Sincerely - Okama-San (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Is your goal to add inflammatory quotes, or to summarize what reliable sources actually say?

This is now about multiple related-but-separate issues.

You're right that there are too many badly-sourced details in that section. I have removed those which lacked WP:SECONDARY sources. The sole exception was his commentary on his own sexuality, as this can be supported by a primary source.

The section title should, generally, follow the contents of the section, not the other way around. Otherwise, we could name it whatever we wanted as an excuse to include info we personally found interesting.

The proposal about trans issues was this:

In October 24, 2016, Milo held a speech at the university of Delaware during which he described trans people as mentally ill and, among other things, stated that “Trannies can never be women, or men for the small slice of women insane enough to desire to give up female privilege”. He further claimed that he spoke in the best interest of trans people when he additionally encouraged the audience to “never feel bad for mocking a transgender person...It is our job to point out their absurdity, to not make the problem worse by pretending they are normal. Much like fat-shaming, if our mockery drives them to get the help they need, we may save their life.”.[] The administrators and college Republicans were harsly condemned by students, alumni and state GOP leaders for hosting Milo, as well as by other LGBT Republicans who slammed Milo for alienating them as fellow Republicans with his statements.[]

This was a bad summary of these sources. Both of these sources could be used, but not like this. A neutral summary would mean that we would use the Advocate source to mention that, in 2016, his college tour included transphobic slurs and rhetoric, and and endorsement of North Carolina's "Bathroom bill".The Delaware Online source is primarily about the backlash to his comments, not the comments themselves, so it would also have to be proportionately summarized.

Using these sources as an excuse to cram in more of his own blather won't fly. Grayfell (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Just reverted edits to the lead by GergisBaki. Reasons given in my edit summary. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC) ____

References