Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos

Alt-right in lead

@HappyWaldo: Why haven't you started a discussion about this?

I have multiple problems with this line.

For one, I don't see any real benefit to including Yiannopoulos's off-hand comment about his role in the alt-right in the lead. This is one of countless opinion pieces he's written, and stumbling around for sources which call him a ringleader or spokesperson or figurehead or whatever only to immediately refute that in the same sentence isI sloppy.

It also seems like it's an excuse to include yet more of Yiannopoulos's self-aggrandizement in the article. J.D. Salinger he ain't. He loves to talk about himself, to the point of self-parody, so finding quotes where he describes himself in flattering terms isn't difficult or noteworthy. Some sort of secondary sources would be needed for this kind of fluff. If all these sources have commented on his role in the alt-right, haven't any of them commented on his response to that?

Additionally, the lead is supposed to summarize the body, and none of this is in the body. The lead should not be the only place a significant issue is discussed, and if it's not a significant issue, it probably shouldn't be in the lead. Grayfell (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

It's strange not to have alt-right in the lead, given how often Yiannopoulos is called a leader/spokesperson/figurehead/ringleader of the movement. If someone is labelled something persistently, that's noteworthy. If that someone disagrees with said label, that's also noteworthy. HappyWaldo (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

He is connected to the alt-right, so I see what you're saying, but there's more to this. His tepid disagreement in one primary source is at odds with the large number of sources which link him, in some way, to the alt right. Even so, it still doesn't belong in the lead before it's in the body. That some sources have called him, in passing, an important figure in the alt-right, as opposed to commentator on the alt-right needs context.

Summarizing source which uses 'spokesman' in passing isn't a justification for including a longer direct quote based only on a primary source. The source itself is a response to an article by Jack Hunter, but absolutely none of that context is included or would belong in the lead if it were. (That he says "he's understandably jumpy about me coming for him" seems telling regarding the above discussion, as well). He later goes on to mention his "alt-right explainer" where he "differentiated between the hateful and non-hateful components of the alt-right movement." That flies in the face of claims that he's not a spokesman for the alt-right, doesn't it? That's why a secondary source is needed. We can't summarize his position based on one part of an article while ignoring the rest of the article.

It's also an odd choice for a quote because it's not obvious what it means. "Fellow traveller" has several meanings, and none of them are a clear fit here. It suggests that he acts as a member but is not a formal member. Nobody is a formal member in the alt-right, because it's not a formal organization. It's also a pejorative which is mostly used in reference to communism, which means he's either being "ironic" (yet again), or that he doesn't know what the term means. If a secondary source emphasized this quote as being informative, that might be different, but it's still weird and adds more confusion than is helpful. Grayfell (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Points taken. I tried to cover his links to the alt-right as succinctly as possible, given it's the lead, but perhaps more qualifiers are needed. Indeed a section with subsections should be created to flesh out his views and associations. - HappyWaldo (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Without relitigating the issue of whether this belongs in the lead: assuming this belongs in the lead, doesn't it make more sense just to include the short quotation rather than a disputable interpretation of it? Knowitall369 (talk) 02:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, but what does it explain? Since, as I mention above, the claim that he's not a spokesperson is contradicted later in the same source, it's inappropriate to highlight that aspect of it. Since the quote isn't particularly clear in meaning, what does it actually accomplish? It's just adding yet more of Yiannopoulos talking about himself, and readers can go to Breitbart if that's what they are looking for. If we quoted someone as specifically calling him a "ringleader" (which would benefit from secondary sources, for weight etc.) this would be appropriate as a response, but this article is just saying he's a more generic 'spokesperson' of the movement. He supports that description in the source by promoting his "explainer" article and his speaking roles, so it's not going to work to pick the one sentence of the source where he says otherwise. I don't love it, but the current wording explains that he hasn't entirely embraced the term for himself, without ignoring the larger picture. Grayfell (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Birthdate

I've taken the time out to wade through past revisions for birthdate. I found that originally the entry just said "British journalist, October 1984". I note that the first edit giving Crunchbase as a source for birthdate was made by a a now blocked IP on 10 October 2014. The birth date of 18 Oct 1984 was not in the reference provided, and this was not picked up by other editors at the time of editing. Whilst Crunchbase appears to be a wiki-style profile, not necessarily created or edited by the person themselves, we can see from its edit history that the subject of this bio eventually registers an official profile and therefore can be assumed to have control over its content, and it seems likely that at least some of the previous edits were also made by the subject before registration at Crunchbase. Later on wikipedia, after what seems like a lengthy edit war which began in December 2014 by Gibbets, some AGF edits in January 2015 by Malfuron4, and some very silly IP edit wars in August 2015, the subject's birthdate was changed by an editor from 1984 to 1983 to reflect the info on the Crunchbase source.

Given the nature of the Crunchbase source, partly a self-published source, (see WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:SELFPUB, WP:BLPSELFPUB), and think some due diligence is required, since there is, as will be demonstrated in the next paragraph, reasonable doubt as to the birthdate authenticity. However, due to the subjects control over the information contained on Crunchbase, "it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object" to the inclusion of 18 October 1983 as their WP:DOB.

The UK Companies House lists the subject's birthdate as 18/10/94 for three limited companies which are mentioned in reliable secondary sources (Hipster Ventures, Sentinel Media, Caligula): https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/Ok_73a89ZK4v5il-7NckmFS4nUU/appointments A fourth company Counterknowledge also has the birthdate/year of 18/10/94 for "British Writer". Counterknowledge is also referenced by the nom de plume Milo Andreas Wagner on their personal website. A fifth company Wrong Agency shows a birthdate for 18 Oct 1983, yet it is clearly the same "British Journalist" as the other four companies. These Companies House sources I consider to be WP:BLPPRIMARY, since they're public records.Please correct me if I'm wrong.

It seems unlikely that the subject has started four limited companies using the wrong birth data. It does appear that the Wrong Agency Limited company lists an incorrect year of birth, but that the Crunchbase wiki and the wikipedia autobiography for his nom de plume Milo Andreas Wagner, (WP:BLPSELFPUB?), may have intentionally given an incorrect year (1983).

Two more primary sources corroborate the four WP:BLPPRIMARY sources which establish the basic biographical fact of birthdate - his first stint as a director for his father's company whilst a student in 2003, and his birth certificate.

With six primary sources for the 1994 birth year incl. birthcert, and three (two secondary, one primary) for what appears to be a fictitious year of 1993, we ought to be able to make a judgement call and edit the entry to reflect these basic biographical facts:

• birth year 1994;
• nationality British;
• names: name: Milo Yiannopoulos; [don't include until verified by secondary source:birthname: Milo Hanrahan]; noms de plume: Milo Andreas Wagner, [don't include until birthname verified by reliable secondary source] Milo Yiannopoulos.

I have set out concrete but primary proof that the birthyear is not 1983. This evidence cannot be included in the BLP, but proves the contentious nature of a 1983 birthyear. If the above changes are acceptable, then I suggest that current birthyear/birthname/nationality be altered to reflect the =source consensus, else, perhaps the best solution (given the amount of edit warring over this issue) is to remove the birthdata altogether. What do other editors think? -- Luther Blissetts (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I have found an article from September 2012 from a secondary source which states: "Yiannopoulos, 27". As the subject was 27 years of age in Sept 2012, and their birth month is October, then the subject's 28th birthday is October 2012. It's then easy to deduce from this source that the subject was born in 1984. This source will now be used as an inline citation for birthyear. Luther Blissetts (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I have found a tweet by the subject from December 2015, saying (to Ben Shapiro): "I know you know I was born in 1984, not 1983". Luther Blissetts (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

MILO HANRAHAN (his real name) was definitely born in 1984 in Chatham in Kent (not in Greece). You can prove this by searching the UK's official register of Births, Deaths and Marriages. It's simpler to search at Genes Reunited http://www.genesreunited.co.uk/search/results?sourcecategory=birthsutf002c%20marriages%20utf0026%20deaths&collection=births%20utf0026%20baptisms&firstname=milo&firstname_variants=true&lastname=hanrahan&birthyear=1984&birthyear_offset=2&region=great%20britain Milo's unmarried grandparents were Andreas I Yiannoppoullos and Petronella T Hanrahan. Milo's father (who was also born in Chatham, in 1953) changed his name to use his mother's surname, ie he became Nick Hanrahan. Milo was born Hanrahan and changed his name back to Yiannoppoulos (dropping one l), which is why people can't find his birth records. Milo's unmarried mother was called Maria Jane Baker. I don't have any evidence that she was Jewish, but nor do I have any evidence that she wasn't Jewish. Same goes for Petronella T. Hanrahan (geboren worden im Monat 1933, in Geburtsort, zu Breaden https://archive.is/xykD4#selection-649.0-594.3) but it's not a Jewish-sounding name. Scholia (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Persondata set

I have concerns about the Persondata set for this page. For example. Here, User:RaphaelQS added dual nationalities, British and Greek:

• | nationality = British, Greek

We only have verification of British nationality - by way of birth certificate and various companies data records e.g. Sentinel, Hipster, Caligula. Taking a look at Caligula's incorporation document, we can see both nationality (British) and date of birth (18 October 1984).

A minute later, User:RaphaelQS changed nationality to citizenship:

• | citizenship = British, Greek

As with nationality above, we have no verification for Greek citizenship. British citizenship is automatic (lex soli) by either his birth in Britain or if (without any other evidence other than possible circular reporting taken from his student-era persona/nom de plume 'Milo Andreas Wagner' by LATimes) IF he was born abroad, his citizenship of UK/Britain is automatic (lex soli) by virtue of having been born after 1983 to at least one British-born parent. The assumption that he holds Greek citizenship has not been verified by the subject themselves, and is in fact negated below.

A minute later, the same user added residence.

• | residence = United States

On 16 August 2016, Breitbart reported that "Twitter tried to dodge Milo's data request by falsely claiming that he lives in the United States of America". The subject's response was: "I do not live in the United States. I am a permanent UK resident at the address listed on my letter, and a citizen of the United Kingdom."

A few minutes later, the same user adds native name.

• | native_name = Μίλων Γιαννόπουλος

The subject is Milo Yiannopoulos. His native name is not a Greek language version of this name. He never writes in Greek, and he has not written about being a native speaker of Greek (only of German and English by his former nom de plume and German-oriented persona, Milo Andreas Wagner). The first instance of a greek version of MY's name was made by IP 90.211.39.208 on 31 March 2015: [1]. On 8 April 2015 IP 108.48.36.210 added adding category British People of Greek Descent, which is not a problematic category, as the subject has described themselves as "part Greek".

I have therefore been bold and will make edits to match the verifiable, reliable sources linked to above. Luther Blissetts (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

This is nice original research on your part, but it does not correspond to the reliable sources. Until you have reliable sources to back any of this up, wee need to go with what they say. -- GB fan 13:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

1) To quote User:Grayfell:

• "Some facts are so basic to a biography that primary sources work (schools attended, birthdays, etc.)"

The most reliable sources for name, birthdate, birthyear are contained in those WP:BLPPRIMARY documents, and as far as I am aware, these are considered to be RS, verifiable, and NPOV for any WP:BLP. Luther Blissetts (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Find a secondary reliable source that ties the Yiannopoulos to Hanrahan. This is all based on that assumption. The birth certificate that has been shown does not say this and I have not seen anything that ties the two names together. -- GB fan 14:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

2) It's not original research. The 'reliable sources' you refer to are not verified by the companies documents, all of which, except the April Fool's Day company 'Wrong Agency', show the correct birth details and nationality for the subject. Therefore the companies data can be considered reliable. Since the Crunchbase site can be edited by anyone, the information could have been taken from anywhere (likely the subject's Wagner nom de plume). The LA Times site could have taken their information from the same unreliable source, a sort of journalistic Chinese whispers. For something so basic as birthdata and nationality it is perfectly acceptable to use WP:BLPPRIMARY sources. I would have preferred that you and other experienced editors discussed this at length, with some actual good reasons as to why you don't feel that this basic data (it's not original research) can be included, rather than a fast reversion with a claim that this basic data is unreliable. Luther Blissetts (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

3) In a world of puffed-up CVs, opinion blogs, lazy journalism, and badly researched articles, there is no more reliable source for birthdata and nationality than the documents cited above.Luther Blissetts (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

4) I did not, in my edit of persondata and corresponding text, add any data about Hanrahan being the birth name, so there's no need to provide any secondary evidence that ties the two names together at this juncture. The primary evidence for birthdata and nationality comes from the company data for the subject's company Caligula, which gives a birth date of 1984 and a nationality of British. As a legal document, this is infinitely more reliable and verifiable and NPOV than any multi-editor profile or student-journalist puff-piece on wikipedia. Even though the companies data it is a primary source, it can be used as a reliable source. Luther Blissetts (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The subjects birth year of 1984 has now been corroborated by the subject: "I was born in 1984, not 1983" Luther Blissetts (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

When I said that about primary sources, the unwritten caveats where that the content was uncontroversial (which this is, a bit), and that it wouldn't require interpretation (which this does, a lot). From past experience, these kinds of documents tend to be misused more often than not, and they also turn out to be wrong or totally lacking some important detail fairly often. That he reported "British" as his nationality on a few brief government forms says nothing relevant about his early childhood, and he doesn't list any former names on them, either. The claim that Hanrahan is Yiannopoulos needs more. It may be true, but without a reliable source specifically saying that they are the same person, it's still absolutely WP:OR. That you didn't mention Hanrahan in the article is irrelevant, because you are accepting that name as used on a birth certificate without a clearly documented connection. Combining two sources to come to a third conclusion is WP:SYNTH. Looking over those links, I still don't get where the connections between the two names comes from. This is also getting into WP:BLP territory, so secondary sources would be much, much better for multiple reasons. Grayfell (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Grayfell, it is a bit controversial, I agree, which is why I think we ought not to mention unverifiable information in the article, even if from a secondary source, especially as it's contradicted by the details given by MY across the majority (bar one) of limited companies that he started.

I agree that the Hanarahan-Yiannopoulos connection needs more than his father's company data that lists a 19-year old person called Milo with a different surname but the same birth date. I realise the birthcert as provided by another user above is WP:OR. Thanks also for posting a link to WP:SYNTH - I'd not read that before. Is it also WP:SYNTH to use the Charles Arthur article in The Guardian that mentions a 27-year old Milo, from which one can work out the birth year to 1984? I know the birthyear is on the OR/Primary instructions to set up the companies mentioned in various Kernel-related Secondary RS. MY himself mentions his birthyear as 1984 on twitter - from the horse's mouth so to speak, but as I understand it, not necessarily acceptable to link to. I looked into the birth year because I noticed there'd been a previous edit-war, and I would never have know about the Hanarahan controversy if it hadn't already been mentioned on this talk page and in yet another edit-war.

I realise a lot of people use Wikipedia to get information about people from, so when Twitter wrote back to MY saying that as he was resident in the US (someone had, only a few days before the deadline, added 'Resident: United States' to the MY template), Twitter refused his data access request, and MY had to tell them their information was incorrect; that he lived in the UK and was a UK citizen. I know it's all highly controversial, but it's better to have a reliable article, even if it that means it doesn't include birth data, or nationality data. Personally I'd prefer removing all contentious data until proven without a shadow of a doubt. To my mind that includes sourcing info to multi-edit profiles like Crunchbase, and avoiding inclusion of controversial identity politics (that often appear to excuse bigotry - "I'm part-Greek" [I don't always pay my debts]; "I'm part-Jewish [so I can't possibly be anti-Semitic], "I'm Gay" [so I can't be a homophobe]).

I'm completely happpy for all data that can't be verified by multiple reliable sources - excluding puff-pieces, promotional pieces, self-pub pieces, multi-user-edited profiles, etc - to be removed entirely until such time as verifiable RS appear. What are your thoughts on that, should we remove birth date, nationality, etc? Luther Blissetts (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm okay with using the primary documents for his birthday. I don't think it's controversial, so this is the kind of thing primary sources are good for. (As an aside, the Arthur article would be usable for this point if nothing better could be found. Template:Age as of date is handy for infoboxes and similar in this situation). What concerns me is claims about his nationality and ancestry. Simply put, Wikipedia takes people at their word for this kind of thing. If Yiannopoulos has unambiguously said he's gay/Greek/Jewish/Catholic, we accept that, and if it meets due weight, we report that. If it really is truly controversial, we'll know, because sources will be loud and clear. (I'm thinking this would be level of controversy comparable to Jamake Highwater's false claims of Cherokee ancestry. You might say it has to reach... the Jamake Highwater mark.) I don't see anything close to that here yet. Passing mentions, jokes, or cryptic asides don't necessarily cut it, which is a problem with Yiannopoulos, but we need a very good reason to doubt someone about this kind of thing otherwise, per WP:BLP. WP:CAT/EGRS and MOS:ID are a couple extra links that come to mind regarding this. Grayfell (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Grayfell, I'll take on board all your guidance and advice. Luther Blissetts (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Grayfell:, A new article in Bloomberg, just added to the article states: A practicing Catholic (though he likes to mention that his maternal grandmother was Jewish when he’s accused of anti-Semitism). An editor has just re-entered Category: British people of Jewish descent; and made reference to his being of Jewish descent using Bloomberg article. The editor didn't include the context that MY mentioned his Jewish ancestry (i.e. when accused of antisemitism). Bizarrely, from this same article we can also now say that MY earned $20,000 over two nights as a prostitute in Los Angeles. Whether we can believe MY's identity politicking is another matter. Do we just accept the personas people build for themselves when they're reported in the press, or should we be more cautious about including it in this BLP article? Luther Blissetts (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

This is regarding this source. Hmm... I've removed the line and category about being of Jewish ancestry. The only line from the source mentioning it is the one you quote, which is pretty thin. This is a lengthy profile, but this is only a parenthetical mention used in a context which suggests either insincerity on Yiannopoulos's part, or doubt on Bloomberg's. I don't think this is compelling enough to include. Considering the context, I guess this could be presented as "he's said his maternal grandmother was Jewish", but that seems slightly weaselish, so I would just assume leave it out until something more substantial is found. If the only time he mentions his Jewish grandma truly is to deflect accusations of antisemitism, then that detail should be included. Otherwise, my take is that we should either leave it out, or find sources explaining this in more neutral terms.

As for the paid sex thing, the article should not be used as a platform for his own self aggrandizement. If this is supported by more than just his own bragging, then we could reassess, but otherwise it's too gossipy and unverifiable to be encyclopedic, in my opinion. The word prostitution (which isn't used by the source) has legal implications also, which complicates things. Grayfell (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what or what not he's trying to "deflect", he has stated multiple times that he has Jewish ancestry. As for the Tablet citation, it is hardly an independent source, since it is extremely "anti-Milo". — Confession0791 ^talk 06:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

How is the Tablet not independent? Not independent of what? Grayfell (talk) 06:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The word he is looking for is 'unbiased'. It arguably isnt unbiased when related to Breitbart/Milo, which wouldnt be a problem for basic statements, it would be for opinions in a BLP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay. So there are a handful of otherwise unreliable sources where he says it himself in passing. Normally that would be barely acceptable, but there are also a couple (at least) very critical sources specifically saying he's only mentioning it to deflect criticism. While they may or may not be biased in some way, they both seem generally like WP:RS, which is what matters. Still, I'm still inclined to leave it out if that's the best we've got. Grayfell (talk) 09:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Normally there would not be an issue with a primary (the subject themselves) self-identification. However given Milo has constructed a number of personalities over the years there is significant doubt in a few of the self-descriptions he has made both in motivation and in factuality. 'Milo has stated he is of Jewish heritage' is about as far as you can take the conversation without running into a)opinion pieces that expose doubt or negatively imply ulterior motive, b)the BLP, c)resorting to original research into his family history to get clarity on the matter. Personally since at various times he has adopted German & Greek (and according to some of the OR performed above, his birth name is basically Irish) personas, I am of the opinion we should just leave anything related to his family history out unless it has the strongest of sourcing. He is British and a British citizen and leave it at that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Breitbart

Since no doubt someone there is watching this talkpage, perhaps someone could give them some lessons in how to read an edit history - namely who it was who *removed* the vandalism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that sterling example of Breitbart investigative journalism too, Only in death does duty end. I also found it mildly amusing that they missed months of previous edits on both Breitbart's and Yiannopoulos' page, all of which were rather swiftly reverted. Luther Blissetts (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Just for information, the now infamous Whitehall Edits appears to have made a brief yet similar point earlier this morning. Luther Blissetts (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

how did he become rich?

A recent newspaper article refers to him running up a huge bill while shopping -- clearly, he has a lot of discretionary cash. This wikipedia article nowhere explains where his money came from.2602:304:CDA0:9220:8824:2C14:EBDB:B9FE (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of him being rich, just spending some money in preparation for his upcoming tour. 213.205.251.19 (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

"People to unfollow"

Yes, such sections shouldn't be hagiographies, but I don't think this is important enough to note, it's a light-hearted list. The fact that Beyonce is listed higher for being inactive, and Obama is listed higher for being less interesting than eight years ago proves that. This wouldn't be put on either of their articles, and for good reason.

Also consider Mo Ansar at number 2. Ansar is another person who divides opinion on the web, but is unknown to people without a Twitter account. His Wikipedia page history seems to be a battle between two camps, and if I saw this reference be put on there, I would revert it straight away for its controversial/BLP nature. I'm going to be bold and remove the "people to unfollow" reference, but no water off my back if people disagree. Valentina Cardoso (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It's a listicle which doesn't provide any real substance. Maybe, but only maybe, it would belong if there were other sources commenting on it or explaining why the list matters. Grayfell (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Removing twitter ban from lede

I agree- it wouldn't be that important for your average minor celebrity. It's just that Yiannopoulos is primarily notable for being banned from Twitter, so it's probably something we should mention in the lede. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

OK. If it is going to remain in the lede I think a brief clarification to introduce it is needful. And Grayfell, I think you'll find it takes two people to engage in edit warring, so I find it insensible of you to try to exclusively pin it on me, especially when you started the first revert and have history in reverting this very sentence. Inswoon (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2016 (GMT)

It's currently misplaced; it stands out like the proverbial. If it is retained, suggest a move to the end of the second paragraph, after the "vocal critic" information. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

It is indeed misplaced, I made the initial edit to highlight that point, but an explanation of its presence would be more suiting. Inswoon (talk) 01:43, 28 September 2016 (GMT)

See WP:BRD regarding edit warring. I have no problem moving it down a bit. While it does at first appear to be an over-emphasized point, many reliable sources highlight this as being significant, so we should reflect sources. Grayfell (talk) 02:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Twitter controversies

Two months ago, user TheTruthiness (talk) made the following edit:

"In July 2016, Yiannopoulos panned the Ghostbusters reboot as "a movie to help lonely middle-aged women feel better about being left on the shelf."[63][64] After the film's release, Twitter trolls attacked African American actress Leslie Jones, in ways that included racial abuse. Yiannopoulos wrote three public tweets about Jones, saying "Ghostbusters is doing so badly they've deployed [Leslie Jones] to play the victim on Twitter", before describing her reply to him as "Barely literate" and then calling her a "black dude".[65][66][67] Critics of Yiannopoulos allege that his tweets encouraged third parties to abuse Jones.[68][69]

Yiannopoulos was then permanently banned by Twitter, which released a statement saying that "no one deserves to be subjected to targeted abuse online, and our rules prohibit inciting or engaging in the targeted abuse or harassment of others. ... We know many people believe we have not done enough to curb this type of behavior on Twitter. We agree." but did not specify which tweet or tweets they felt violated this policy.[70] Critics noted that Jones herself directly violated those same rules by asking her followers "I hope y’all go after them like they going after me" and "get her [a 17 year old Twitter user]" yet was actively courted by Twitter's CEO Jack Dorsey to return to the platform.[71][72]" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Milo_Yiannopoulos&diff=732585583&oldid=732577606

For some reason, three editors opposed his edit. What I don't understand is why is "Critics of Yiannopoulos allege that his tweets encouraged third parties to abuse Jones." not considered WEASEL, but "Critics noted that Jones herself directly violated those same rules by asking her followers "I hope y’all go after them like they going after me" and "get her [a 17 year old Twitter user]" yet was actively courted by Twitter's CEO Jack Dorsey to return to the platform." is.

I do not see anything wrong w/ TheTruthiness' edit and the sources he used. Why only mention what critics of Yiannopoulos said about his behaviour? Israell (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Sourced to Breitbart and someone at IBTimes whose qualifications include 'social science student'. If I have to explain why that is inappropriate on this topic I will go totally bursar. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh god. Yeah, it was a bit of a weasel. It's not just "Critics of Yiannopoulos", it's either strongly implied or explicitly stated by the majority of reliable media outlets that bothered covering it. If it was just some unnamed 'critics' it probably wouldn't even belong. I've changed the wording to more clearly explain this. Grayfell (talk) 05:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Greek-writen name

Μίλω Ιαννόπουλοσ is wrong, the "σ" is never used in the ending and the "ς" is used instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.71.151.53 (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I've removed it. Is there a specific guideline in the WP:MOS for this? I couldn't find one. MOS:FORLANG suggests that this should only be used for topics which are closely associated with a region or language, but the article only says that Yiannopoulos's father is from Greece. "Do not include foreign equivalents in the lead sentence just to show etymology" seems to apply. We don't know if he speaks Greek, or if he has been written about in Greek publications or similar. By including the Greek spelling, the article is implying that it's more relevant than is supported by sources. Since we don't have a source for that spelling, and it's apparently wrong, there is more than one reason to remove it. Grayfell (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

his official site: external links

here tis: "https://yiannopoulos.net/" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.91.215 (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

DePaul University

"..university president Dennis H. Holtschneider issued a statement reaffirming the value of free speech and apologizing for the harm caused by Yiannopolous's appearance on the campus..."

Is the above a neutral point of view? What is the "harm" that is alleged? Shouldn't there be a reference to the original statement? 136.162.2.1 (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Milo's mother and maternal grandmother are Jewish

When I first read this article I saw that his mother is Jewish. I am not sure why it was taken off and it is important to his biographical information, because by Jewish law this makes him Jewish, regardless of if he identifies as Catholic.

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-america-divided/milo-yiannopoulos/ http://www.salon.com/2016/09/29/alt-right-catfight-daily-stormer-wages-holy-crusade-on-breitbart-because-milo-yiannopoulos-is-part-jewish/ https://idledillettante.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/380a6-screenshot2013-01-15at21-50-07.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.66.31 (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

In short - Jews tend to get treated as a special case due to being both a religion and an ethnicity. Most Jews (although not all) do hold that if you mother was Jewish, so are you. This however is an ethnicity issue, not a religious issue. As a self-identified Catholic if we discussed his religion he would be 'Catholic' not Jewish. As an ethnicity issue we would say (assuming the correct sources) he is of Jewish descent etc. By current practice, Religion shouldnt be in the infobox unless its relevant to the subjects notability/a significant factor. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

It should still be in the article though. We have the fact that his father is Greek, it would benefit the article to mention there that his mother is an English Jew, especially because the article is about Milo. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 19:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I added that his mother is of Jewish descent, which is sourced and neutral. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Sir Joseph, I'm sorry I didn't sign earlier. I am new to Wikipedia Talk 65.51.66.31 (talk)avr1891 —Preceding undated comment added 21:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I've removed it, yet again. The Bloomberg piece (which is already cited in the article, btw) only says, in parenthesis, "...he likes to mention that his maternal grandmother was Jewish when he’s accused of anti-Semitism". This isn't saying his grandmother was Jewish, it's saying that he likes to say she was in certain situations. As was already discussed above in #Persondata set, this is a passing mention which was phrased to imply skepticism or doubt. There are at least a couple of sources saying that his claims are questionable, or only used by him when it's convenient to deflect criticism. As far as I know, there are no reliable, independent sources supporting his Jewish ancestry without these caveats. We can either try and figure out some way to include this point, or we can wait until a more reliable source is found. Needless to say, The Daily Stormer's opinion on who is or isn't Jewish is total garbage as far as reliable sources go (even if repeated by Salon), and a screenshot of a couple of tweets taken out of context isn't any good, either. Grayfell (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if this helps resolve the issue, but Milo replied to a comment on Facebook earlier today asking him this exact question (why are you sometimes Catholic and other times Jewish?) to which he replied: "Jewish by birth, raised Catholic by my grandmother." Why is it such a problem that he can't be listed as both? Mushh94 (talk) 05:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I have a feeling this has come up again thanks to antisemitism accusations circling around his boss at Breitbart. Regardless, we should not ignore context because it's convenient. In the Bloomberg article he implies, without actually saying, that his dad's a mob boss, that he's dabbled in prostitution, that he's got a payroll of a million dollars to pay his large staff (none of those thirty paid staff-members reminded him to file paperwork for his scholarship on time?) and several other wild stories. Unusual claims require strong sources, not offhand brags in an interview. Bloomberg doesn't take him at his word in reporting these claims, it passes them along filtered though the journalist's skepticism, which is appropriate. If Wikipedia accepts his claims based on a skeptical article, it makes Wikipedia look like a patsy to Yiannopoulos's angsty self-aggrandizement. Is he Jewish? Is his dad really a "Greek Tony Soprano"? Is that or anything else he's said about himself true? It absolutely could be true, but let's hold off until better sources can be found.

So, should we explain that multiple sources have described him as using his Jewish grandma as a way to deflect accusations of antisemitism? That seems to be the sole reason any reliable, non-ephemeral sources have mentioned his Jewishness at all. We could, as I said above, say that "he has said that his grandmother was ethnically Jewish", but if we have to hedge and qualify that to such a stilted degree, why bother? Why do so many editors work so hard to include this otherwise relatively minor point? Jewish identity and the question "Who is a Jew?" aren't simple questions. So is the former religion/possible-ethnicity of his grandmother worth including based on these flimsy sources? None of his other three grandparents are even mentioned. The article cites multiple lengthy pieces about him from reputable outlets. None of them explain this clearly, much less place any emphasis on it, so I don't think we should either, at least not yet. The handful of passing mentions in social media don't help much, since I don't think anybody is denying that he has occasionally said it. Grayfell (talk) 07:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter when or why Milo likes to bring up that he is part Jewish, all that matters is that we have sources stating that Milo's mother is Jewish. This is what matters. — Confession0791 ^talk 08:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Which reliable sources actually say that, though? Passing mentions in social media which are mixed in with jokes, half-truths and pure BS are not reliable. We don't have to stick our heads in the sand about context, either. Not everything that can be sourced belongs. Grayfell (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

For something contentious like this, we'd really need to stick to firmly reliable sources (not social media, not a passing half-mention.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

That is why I wrote that he is of Jewish descent from his mother's side. That is not contentious. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Strange that when he says he's Greek we take his word, when he says he was raised Catholic we take his word but when he says he's "Jewish" that's apparently "contentious." Troubling (and unsupported) double standard. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Theres a difference between 'taking his word' and being able to prove otherwise. There has been quite a lot of original research done which sheds quite a bit of doubt on many of his statements, however since it is not covered by reliable sources, it cannot be used. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Strange that when he says he's Greek we take his word - do you honestly think it's "strange" to think his father was Greek? But if you want to remove that, be my guest.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

There's as much evidence that he's Greek (or that he's gay, or that he's Catholic) as there is that he is Jewish. And project-wide, wikipedia almost always follows self-reported identity. So there is no reason for the removal of this. Avaya1 (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Riiiiggghhhhttt. What is this evidence? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

So did you actually read anything I wrote? What reliable sources say he's Jewish? Sources do say he's Greek, gay, and Catholic. None of them clearly say he's Jewish without adding the qualification about it being a deflection, which strongly indicates that it's insincere or exaggerated in some way. Even the Facebook comment used earlier was in this context. Grayfell (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Even if it's a deflection, it's still a RS that his mother is Jewish. Why the need to not include that he is of Jewish ancestry? 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 21:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, always. I don't accept that it is RS in this case, but even so, why is including it so important? Basic biographical details, such as name, birth-date, and birth-place should use primary sources when nothing better is available. This isn't the case, though. This is the ethnicity/religion of one of his four grandparents, which is being added with no context of any kind. Stripping facts of their surrounding context is the opposite of neutral. Including the context provided by sources, on the other hand, seems undue and likely a BLP issue. He's free to say he has a Jewish grandmother all he wants in whatever context he wants, but that goes both ways. Biographers are free to point out that it appears to be self-serving and only when politically convenient. Likewise, Wikipedia is free to ignore both of these. He writes about himself a lot, and for that and several other reasons, we need to be cautious of using his own writing to imply that this is a routine fact. Grayfell (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

You're imposing requirements not supported by policy. It doesn't matter why or when he mentions he's Jewish. He is by the only test of Judaism, Jewish, so we say he's Jewish. Other than a drive-by reverter who thinks Judaism is "contentious" you're the only editor arguing against it. If you feel strongly about it WP:BLPN is the way to go; edit-warring against consensus (passing 3RR with your last revert) is not acceptable. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

He identifies as Jewish and he identifies his mother as Jewish, and this is repeated in reliable sources. There's no less evidence for this, than for his being half-Greek, being gay, being Catholic (all of these are based on his statements). The removal of this content makes no sense, as wikipedia almost always allows self-identification project-wide. Your claim that he is lying is the unsourced part here. Avaya1 (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Mostly correct however that is not the whole of it: For BLP's which generally have higher sourcing requirements, the subjects are (most of the time) reliable sources for information about themselves if uncontentious, so primary sources (the subject) is usually fine for things like sexual orientation, religion etc. In Milo's case, he has specifically been called out for bringing up his Jewish heritage as a defense against anti-semitism. Which makes (in his case) his claims less reliable and more contentious than they would otherwise. Since reliable sources do discuss his Jewish ancestry in the context of anti-semitism, that should be the context in which it is covered. There are plenty of examples of subjects who strech the truth regarding themselves... actors and age for example. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Why is such material even considered relevant enough for inclusion? It's barely mentioned, highly contentious, and ultimately doesn't matter in the BLP. Why bother with all this edit warring to include it? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty clear by the sources that this mother is Jewish, which is the determinate by Jewish heritage conventions that he is indeed Jewish. It is immaterial whether he uses this identity as some kind of "deflection" or "shield". It's not like he's coopting or appropriating a Jewish identity; it's there regardless by means of Jewish heritage conventions. — Confession0791 ^talk 08:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Its actually not that simple. Not all Jewish communities consider Matrilineality automatically conferring membership. If we could reliably source his mother and grandmother being orthodox Jews it wouldnt be a question. I did point this out much earlier, however the erroneous 'common knowledge' that if your mother is a Jew, you are a Jew rarely gets corrected.Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

It's a complicated question. If we're identifying his (or her) religion as Jewish I'd agree it depends. When we're talking ethnicity, which is implied when it follows "his father is Greek" it gets fuzzier. Ethnically his mother is half Jewish but ethnically Obama is as much white as he is black. I don't think we can devise a consistent rule beyond self-identification within reasonable bounds. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

That's why in my edit I just wrote that his mother is of JEwish ancestry. And BTW, I know of no Jewish group who denies Jewish membership from the mother's side. Only from the father's side is there a difference between the demonstrations. Regardless, he himself wrote it and that is good enough for a mention in the article. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 18:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I still haven't seen anyone try and answer the question of why this is important for the article. Saying over and over again that primary sources are good enough seems like its avoiding the main objection. Even the articles and social media being cited for this support that it's only brought-up to deflect accusations of bigotry. There is no requirement for this to be included, and many top-quality bio articles leave out heritage of one of the grandparents, even when it's not controversial. Grayfell (talk) 07:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Because, to many, the fact that someone is of Jewish decent is noteworthy, particularly since Jews are a very small cultural as well as religious minority. Mushh94 (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Do we have some sort of policy for why somebody's ancestry is more notable if it contains Jewish people? PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• Why is being jewish ""controversial"".. what is wrong with being jewish? are you anti -semitic? KMilos (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from playing bad faithed games.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The only relevant question is whether reliable sources describe him or his mother as "Jewish" frequently. That's it. Secondary reliable sources. All your speculation and theorizing is completely irrelevant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

And in regard to this [2], there's obviously no consensus to include this. And if controversial material is challenged it should not be restored.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Why is it controversial that Milo is Jewish? He has repeatedly spoke about his Jewish ancestry and he self-identified and RS published it as well. It is also notable and should be included. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. Since you guys insist on playing these WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games, let me explain this carefully. I don't know, nor care, whether "Milo is Jewish" is controversial. That's not the issue. What *IS* controversial is that Milo claims he is Jewish. Given that he's a, to quote LA Times "glorified internet Troll", it's unsurprising that sources don't actually back that up and don't take these claims at face value, instead only quoting his claim. There are NO SECONDARY SOURCES which make this claim. You CANNOT put this claim in Wikipedia voice.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The claim made by the subject is uncontentious except among a handful of wikipedians, some of whom (oddly enough) argued self-identification was the only requirement for Shaun King's ethnicity. I notice Marek imposed a new requirement with "frequently" which I'm unable to find in policy. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

If it's uncontentious (sic) then let's see the sources. I don't know anything about Shaun King's article, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. I am not imposing any "new requirement", just the most basic one - we need secondary reliable sources to back it up. You provide these sources, you're good. You don't, it doesn't go in. This isn't my invention. This is how Wikipedia works. Since you are unable to find this Wikipedia policy, allow me to provide you with a link: WP:RS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

There are many many sources which are reliable for Milo saying he is Jewish. And wikipedia is deep into people being able to self identify. This has been pounded to death in Bernie's article, King's, many others. VM, you know you are jerking the chain here. Do you really want to make this the hill you die on for AE/Arbcom? ResultingConstant (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't just assert. Prove. Show us the sources. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's see these sources. And drop the inane threats please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• I have fully protected the article for BLP reasons. One can make certain claims about one's own identity, but not about someone else's. Reliable sources should decide what goes in the article, and you all have a week to find them and make the case. Possibilities here run the gamut from "his mother is Jewish" to "he claims his mother is Jewish", and lots of possible modifications are conceivable. This is an encyclopedia: please take your responsibilities seriously. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
• It has long been accepted practice on Wikipedia that we accept certain things at face value from the subject of BLPs. Sexual orientation and religious affiliation are high on that list. If he says he is Catholic then barring some VERY compelling evidence to the contrary from multiple reliable sources, that's the end of it. The argument that he is Jewish because of ancestry is the same sort of argument I have seen employed by fringe nut jobs who argue that President Obama is Muslim because his farther was. That is in fact correct under certain interpretations of Islamic Law. But he self identifies as Christian and again, that is the end of it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

No, the long accepted practice on Wikipedia is that we rely on reliable secondary sources. If you can provide these then we can include it. If not, then not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

"[Generation Trump, the alt right people,] don't care about Jews. I mean, they may have some assumptions about things, how the Jews run everything; well, we do." — Milo Yiannopulous [3] [4] [5]

Not sure if there's a reason to mention his Jewishness, though

--Distelfinck (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2016

i would like to add that his mother is an English Jew and so is he Jewish by ancestry and culturally.

source: https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-america-divided/milo-yiannopoulos/

Ronron251 (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Partly done: I have added that his mother is of Jewish descent, that is really all the source says and we can publish. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Reverted again, per above. Grayfell (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

According to Halacha Mr. Yiannopoulos is Jewish - It's quite simple

One can of course go roundabout searching for disrupting and twisting excuses to sabotage proper Wikipedia editing. The most valid and orthodox source for establishing who is Jewish is the Halacha ; and that's final. WringIng out any half baked obstreperous rationalisation is totally inexcusable and unwanted on Wikipedia. Of course proper sources are warrented and must be in place. RudiLefkowitz (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

As for as I know, nobody is specifically saying that his granny was definitely not Jewish, we're just debating if and how to include this otherwise relatively minor point about his heritage in the article. Wikipedia doesn't concern itself with how orthodox a source is, and as has already been mentioned, it's just not that simple. If you know of a reliable source stating that he is Jewish according to halakha, bring it forth for discussion. Without such a source specifically supporting that point, mentioning halakha would be original research. Grayfell (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Again. Secondary, reliable, sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Ugh. Lokal, really? So soon? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

What is his maternal grandmother's name? What was her mother's name? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Why? He was permanently banned from Twitter in July 2016

This sentence in the leads BEGS to be answered "because ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE95:57B0:D9E8:8AB4:72C9:DF3E (talk) 04:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

"He opposed the provision of "Soho masses""

This sentence does not make sense. What provision was opposed, what does it say about Milo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE95:57B0:7DAB:F42C:5D99:BA0F (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the article on Soho Masses, and at the source referenced here, this appears to be an opposition to segregated Catholic mass services for members of the LGBT community only - on the basis that he believes it is contrary to the point of mass, which he suggests is to bring people together.[6] Some expansion for clarity might be advised. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Off-page discussion

There is a discussion concerning this article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Milo Yiannopoulos's alleged transphobia. Input from contributors here would be welcome. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed text 1

Based on the above linked discussion, which includes an analysis of available sources, the following change is proposed:

The Advocate and Pink News, two LGBT publications, have expressed concerns over the transphobic content of his speeches.<ref>http://www.advocate.com/transgender/2016/10/26/milo-yiannopoulos-takes-transphobia-tour</ref><ref>http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/10/31/gay-internet-troll-milo-yiannopoulos-goes-on-transphobic-tour-of-america/</ref>

The citations can later be neatly formatted to {{citation}}. For reading convenience they are: 1 archive1 and 2 archive2

To test concensus on this change, please add your aye or nay below, along with any comment you feel would be helpful. If longer discussion is needed, such as on alternative text, please add a new subsection for it. --Fæ (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• Y As proposer and the previous views given at the LGBT studies noticeboard. --Fæ (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
• Y I have seen no objections to this wording that bear any merit, however, see my comments below. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
• ? Support an inclusion documenting the expressed concerns; but, as per the discussion here, I believe that the language suggested above presupposes the "transphobic content" as an objective truth and couches it in Wikipedia's voice; which we cannot do, based solely on opinion sources or original research, per WP:NPOV. Suggest "The Advocate and Pink News, two LGBT publications, have expressed concerns over the content of his speeches, describing them as transphobic." or similar. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 20:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Or even more concisely, "... have described his speeches as transphobic."--Trystan (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

He apparently called transgender people "mentally ill" (sic). How is that not a transphobic speech act?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

? How about "alleged"? Does Wikipedia really need to ascribe "phobic" or "isms" to people? Or just state what the sources say? I say the latter. — Confession0791 ^talk 09:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

We had quite a long discussion about this at WikiProject LGBT Studies. We've come to the conclusion that we don't know if he is transphobic or making fun of transphobes as a camp performance artist, but that his speech acts are performatively transphobic. So we won't ascribe anything to him as a person, but simply repeat what The Advocate and Pink News (reliable third-party sources) say--that the content of his speeches, like calling transgender people "mentally ill" (sic), is transphobic. That's not an opinion; it's just a fact, because we know that transgender people are not mentally ill.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:LABEL suggests that value-laden labels should be presented with in-text citation. That guideline includes the example racism, and I think transphobic falls under the same umbrella.--Trystan (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

It looks like that citation is there already.

Hi User:Trystan: It looks like WP:LABEL would be relevant if we were to call him "transphobic", but we won't. There is a difference between the individual and the speech acts performed by the individual.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there is a meaningful difference between a value-laden label of an individual, and a value-laden label of an individual's speech. Both are most neutrally presented with in-text citation. I've created a second option below.--Trystan (talk) 03:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Why not? Individuals, especially public figures, can say certain things and not mean them at all (for shock value, to get more clicks and ad revenues, etc.). The problem I have with saying that LGBT publications describe the content of his speeches as transphobic is that it implies that the content might not be transphobic. That seems inherently transphobic to me. I don't think we want Wikipedia to take an anti-LGBT stance, do we?Zigzig20s (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia is equipped to be an arbiter of what is transphobic and what is not. Even when it seems like a clear case, it's better to use a neutral presentation that attributes the label to a source.--Trystan (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• N It would be better to reformulate to avoid applying the WP:LABEL transphobic in Wikipedia's voice.--Trystan (talk) 03:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• I have see two lines of argument against this proposal here. First, that "transphobic" is a value-laden term that is discouraged (not prohibited) from use. The second is that calling Milo's speech "transphobic" is equivalent to calling Milo "transphobic".

I reject the second one out of hand. There is a clear conceptual distinction between a person's actions and that person them-self. This is covered in WP policy ("Focus on content, not on contributors."), folk wisdom ("You are more than the sum of your mistakes."), idioms ("I'm not the same person anymore.") and countless principles of law that I'm not even going to bother listing or giving examples of. That argument is completely spurious.

The first has more merit, but it relies on a personal interpretation of what "transphobic" means. There is a well-accepted 'proper' definition, as well as a well accepted common usage of the word. Milo's performance itself fits either one, quite well. I'm not denying that anyone who finds the word to be emotionally charged has cause to do so, but I would like to point out that words like "liberal", "religious", "conservative" or "atheist" can be emotionally reactive to many people. To still others, words like "redhead", "cancer", "foot" or "cucumber" seem emotionally charged, due to some experience of theirs. In fact, I would be shocked if there were a single word in any common language such as English that did not appear emotionally charged to someone.

Conversate.

I know somebody ground their teeth a bit on reading that.

So my point is that this isn't a catch-all argument, either. It ceases to be relevant the moment you agree that we are trying all just to be objective. After all, no-one has put forth an argument that his speech was not transphobic.

Now, I see "anti-transgendered" or "anti-trans" as equivalent terms to "transphobic". So I don't care which term is actually used. But if we are trying to inform, then saying as little as possible is not the best way to do it, is it? Shouldn't we concisely communicate some information about the content of Milo's speech without implying that it may or may not actually be so? There's a good use for wikivoice, and I think this is one of them. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 05:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed text 2

An alternative formulation, based on the guidance in WP:LABEL:

The Advocate and Pink News, two LGBT publications, have described his speeches as transphobic.<ref>http://www.advocate.com/transgender/2016/10/26/milo-yiannopoulos-takes-transphobia-tour</ref><ref>http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/10/31/gay-internet-troll-milo-yiannopoulos-goes-on-transphobic-tour-of-america/</ref>

• Y As proposer and flowing from above discussion.--Trystan (talk) 03:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• This would be my third choice, but it's still not too bad. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 05:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
• I prefer this version and suggest "transphobic" be linked if appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE95:57B0:8033:AFBD:D378:1967 (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Rivertorch has also proposed an alternate wording which replaces the word "transphobic" with "anti-transgender". I would equally support that wording. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Just checking the two citations; Pink News uses transphobic in the headline but then does use anti-trans in the text, while The Advocate uses transphobia in the headline and then a mix of trans people, trans women and transgender women in the text. On this basis we may be able to justify anti-trans. However if anti-transgender is used in a wider range of sources (as was indicated in the earlier discussion) then I suggest a few of those other sources are added before adopting the term.

I would rather stick to transphobic, mainly because social media widely ran with the term "transphobic tour" and this is what made most of the headlines (the Washington Blade is one exception, using anti-trans). --Fæ (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I prefer "transphobic" too, because it's the most commonly used word in academic journals/books.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Where in the article would this be added? Is this still part of the Dangerous Faggot tour?--Trystan (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that adding it to the end of the first paragraph of that section makes most sense. --Fæ (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 November 2016

Please correct the last line in the start of the article to: Yiannopoulos was permanently banned from Twitter in July 2016 for what the company cited as “participating in or inciting targeted abuse of individuals.” [source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/07/20/twitter-bans-milo-yiannopoulos-for-good-while-cracking-down-on-abuse/?tid=a_inl] 2602:306:CE95:57B0:7DAB:F42C:5D99:BA0F (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC) p.s. The references there support this but I cited a direct source for the company's own wording``` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE95:57B0:7DAB:F42C:5D99:BA0F (talk) 04:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

How can I do that if no one bothers to say anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE95:57B0:8033:AFBD:D378:1967 (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I've made this edit. Without a brief indication as to why he was banned from Twitter, the sentence doesn't really carry any significance.--Trystan (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE95:57B0:8033:AFBD:D378:1967 (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Far right?

I reverted this edit which changed Yiannopoulos' description from "conservative" to "far-right." I checked the first half of the article's cited sources to be sure (59) and not one used the term "far-right" (I suspect because most coverage preceded Trump's campaign, where it became fashionable to associate conservatives with nazis.) I am however open to convincing, if the majority of sources do in fact use "far right." James J. Lambden (talk) 05:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

1. This wasn't a description of Yiannopoulos but of Breitbart.

2. There's plenty of sources:

3. Your hyperbole/strawman about "it became fashionable to associate conservatives with nazis" is WP:SOAPBOXING and a clear statement of your POV. Nobody's comparing anyone to Nazis. Nobody's talking about "conservatives". Please pontificate somewhere else. Those kind of slurs are not constructive or conducive to a rational discussion.

4. You're pretty well aware of 1-3 above, so it's hard to believe you're acting in good faith here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

This is the same problem that was over at the Christina Hoff Summers article, too. Milo calls himself a conservative, but when other people call him far-right that make his self-description invalid? Sethyre (talk) 10:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

We don't go by self descriptions, we go by reliable secondary sources (especially in this topic area as there's an obvious incentive/marketing reasons for groups and individuals to misrepresent themselves).Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

First of all "far right" or "alt right" and "conservative" aren't necessarily exclusive. If reputables sources describe or label differently than he does himself, then simply state both labels properly attributed.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

For BLP reasons, we generally defer to either self-descriptors or mild categories. "Conservative" is a descriptor Yiannopulous uses and adequately conveys whatever point is being made about political leanings. No need for anything that will be perceived as a pejorative or inaccurate or disputed. --DHeyward (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I think you might be missing point 1 above, that is this was not used as a description of Yiannopulous, but rather as a description of Breitbart News. Having read the discussion about the use of "conservative" vs "far-right" in the survey on the talk page over there, policy supports using the description "far-right". Lizzius (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

"For BLP reasons, we generally defer to either self-descriptors or mild categories" - this is not true. We defer, as always, to secondary reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

This was my mistake. I disagree that Breitbart should be described as far-right but at the time I reverted I believed I was reverting a description of Yiannopoulos, not Breitbart. My mistake. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

BLP however does not overrule what the majority of reputables states, even if it is not mild. Even more so letting in particular promiment actors in the political sphere merely describing themselves (no matter what reputable the sources say) is outright ridiculous and violates a bunch of other project rules (WP:Sources, WP:NPV, ...). Now having said that we shouldn't artificially hype criticism based on a few critical sources, but we certainly downplay or tone down critical descriptions found in larger number of reputable (mainstream) sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The term is often used as an insult, so we need to tread carefully. I've just read far right and it is somewhat vague. Yiannopoulos might be "reactionary" (or even "neo-reactionary"); not too sure about far right. Journalists, who write reliable third-party sources, are not political scientists.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Almost anything can be read as an insult or turned into one. Let me reiterate again that the measuring stick for description/labels/categorization is the use in reputable sources at large and not perception or abuse of the term by individuals or individual Wikipedians.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I know. I just don't think this is an appropriate term, and I am not surprised that journalists are confused about it. They are not political scientists. We could say, "several media outlets [or, insert newspapers/magazines] have described him as "far right" (sic), while he describes himself as conservative."Zigzig20s (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

But that's exactly the point if WP has to choose between your (or my) assessment and that of reputable journalistic sources, it goes wit the journalistic sources. However if we have a reputable scholarly sources, they of course take priority over the journalistic ones. Are their any scholarly sources dealing with Yiannopoulos? Unless there are any describing him differently I really don't see any reasonable grounds to drop the "far right" label. It doesn't have to be in the lead necessarily, but at least somewhere the article should state that reputable sources consider him as "far right".--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment - As Volunteer Marek pointed out in the second comment above, The sources listed below use the term "far-right" in describing Breitbart News*, not Yiannopoulos. Though this discussion indicates that the term was applied to Yiannopoulos, the edit which was initially reverted to provoke the discussion applied the term to Breitbart News, not to Yiannopoulos.*some of the sources listed do not use the descriptor for either Yiannopoulos or Breitbart News, and should probably be struck through. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 03:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC) updated Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

This is also part of the point. This isn't about how MY should be described, it's about how the outlet he writes for is described.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, no matter whether it is about him personally, his writings or the outlet he works for, essentially the same reasoning as stated above applies, that is we go with what reputable sources at large use. In addition the (not really valid) BLP argument that was made above, would only apply to first case but not so much for the second and not at all for the third.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Yiannopoulis is a gay, "race-mixing", self-described Jew. Yes, I know several sources say that he is "far-right". The fact of the matter is that the "far-right" and the alt-right both loath him and say that he does not represent them. I think it would be constructive to include those sources as well. — Confession0791 ^talk 08:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

What sources? We're not going to include a Daily Stormer attack article or anything like it in a BLP just to prove a point about how there are people even further right than he is. The phrase in question (regarding his employer, not him as a person) is 'far right' not 'farthest right'. It's not like these far right groups can agree on something like this, anyway. There's no official boss for the far right who get's to decide who's in and who's out. Grayfell (talk) 09:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

It's just a click-baiting conservative news website. They have outrageous headlines because they want us to click on their links from our Facebook newsfeeds. Anyway, since we don't do guilt by association on Wikipedia, if you want to talk about Breitbart, could you please take it to Talk:Breitbart News?Zigzig20s (talk) 09:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Accurately labeling the reason he is notable isn't guilt by association. Yiannopoulos is notable primarily because he is an editor for Breitbart, so we should explain what that is as part of the lead. Breitbart's motives for being outrageous are irrelevant. Clickbait or not, sincere or not, the end result is the same, and it is very useful to a biographical understanding of Yiannopoulos. It is a far right outlet as a consequence of its behavior, and pretending otherwise would be euphemistic. There's irony here, as artfully choosing the least offensive possible term in spite of evidence and clarity seems like the definition of "political correctness", which he so often complains about. Grayfell (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessarily far right. I strongly disagree with this edit.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Editor bias?

Given Milo is such a controversial figure it is not too hard to imagine there being an edit war of sorts that could erupt over this page, or that the writing of the article may favor certain opinions. I noticed this when I corrected (attempted to, rather;my edit was undone along with accusations that I was making "false claims" despite providing sources, which just illustrates my point) claims in the article that he was a "spokesperson" for the alt-right, with sources from Guardian.com opinion pieces (which were very anti-Milo) used as sources to justify. Likewise, I can see that other instances of this sort of sourcing exist, such as the source for Milo being a "critic of third-wave feminism" using an opinion piece with clear bias accusing him of "misogyny" rather than an example of his criticisms. Given what happened during the Gamergate scandal and the realities of agenda driven editing, I think it a good idea to take steps to ensure neutrality is being maintained. 2601:191:100:FE63:5996:B7A9:13AB:E782 (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)