Jump to content

Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 49.207.61.24 (talk) at 04:10, 16 September 2017 (→Peadophila acusation: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 10, 2010Articles for deletionDeleted
July 25, 2012Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 24, 2012.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Milo Yiannopoulos arranged a moonwalking flash mob at Liverpool Street station as a tribute to Michael Jackson shortly after his death?

He is not alt right

The only relationship Milo has with the alt right is that they hate each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.200.122 (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS say otherwise. ValarianB (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's go with the RS
-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is an entire section in Milo's book (starting from page 39) where he repeatedly denounces the alt-right and refutes numerous articles written about him that associate him with the alt-right (including some publications which ForbiddenRocky has linked to). The Daily Stormer, which the "Alt-Right" Wikipedia page draws numerous references from to define the movement, wrote an article specifically denouncing Milo, called for a "Holy Crusade" against him, and referred to him as "the single greatest threat this movement has had at this time", "our archnemesis", and a "kike". In multiple instances in Wikipedia's article on the Alt-right, the movement is described as being antisemetic. This all despite the fact that Milo himself is Jewish. I would argue that it is improper to characterize a Jewish person as being involved with a movement that is clearly antisemetic, especially when this person has repeatedly denounced and distanced himself from this movement.

The linked BBC article describes the alt-right as antisemetic and acknowledges that Milo has distanced himself from the movement without dispute. The Haaretz article is clearly an opinionated hit piece on Milo and for the sake of an unbiased encyclopedia article, should not be used as evidence that he is part of an antisemetic group. Finally, the Vanity Fair article merely uses the adjective "alt-right" to describe Milo in passing and does not provide any reasons for associating him with this group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.243.123 (talk • contribs)

If he's written a book which has been published, then that's a reliable source from which to quote in context and with due weight. It is not against policy, but you should use a high level of discretion when judging whether or not to quote from a primary source in a BLP. There's lots of sources tying him into the alt right. There's not as many distancing him from it. A sentence such as, "In his book <title> Milo denounces...etc". If it is included verbatim and cited, would probably be allowed in. Entire paragraphs or multiple references detracting from the currently cited sources, using a self-serving autobiography by the subject of the article, would probably not be acceptable due to wp:due. For people who don't own a copy of his book, you'll need to make your quote verifiable and properly cited if you are using a hard copy. Note that such material would be included in addition to, not to replace the existing text, which is also verifiable and well sourced. The fact that they conflict can be mentioned in the article, but avoid language such as "although", "despite" and "in spite of" when including the text you want to suggest as this can give the article an unwarranted POV tone. All of the links in this article relate to what you want to include and you should familiarize yourself with them so as not to find yourself in an argument where other editors keep quoting policy at you. Please sign your talk page posts with four tildes every time you make a reply. Many thanks. Edaham (talk) 04:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
     Exactly. Read the book, Milo himself refutes all the points made that call him "The face of the Alt-Right." JNozza (talk) 04:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This does not satisfy the notability guidelines

Please place a notability tag on this article, I can not find one single article or document that warrant's this person inclusion in Wikipedia, this is ego stroking at it's worst, why not include my next door neighbour, or his next door neighbour. Think seriously about what value including this strange person will contribute to society, unless of course Wikipedia does want to include every human being in the planet.

don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes when you leave comments on talk pages. Also, Wikipedia has a page here, which will help you understand the requirements for inclusion in the encyclopedia based on notability. Edaham (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter."

Could someone set out the thinking that makes this character notable in Wikipedia? Reading the guidelines at page here I do not see it. Is this not a failure with a chip on his shoulder who now promotes ignorance and incites hatred against universities? The universities where he failed spectacularly are good ones, Cambridge and Manchester, but he has done nothing notable. His article is far longer than many significant people who are not Zeroes. If the subject is deemed notable does it require such a lengthy treatment? EDLIS Café 19:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

He's notable for promoting ignorance and inciting hatred against universities, to borrow your own words. Please actually read the comment above, sign your posts (~~~~) and read the link Edaham gave you. There is no real question of Milo's notability except in your opinion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You would do better to add additional commentary in a new comment, in case your edit isn't the most recent one when the others involved in the discussion check their watchlists. To answer your question, article length is generally held to be determined by the amount of significant coverage the subject has received in reliable sources. Since there are no sourcing problems here, pointing out how long this article is really underscores your assertion that Milo is not a notable individual. You can read WP:BIO for more information on our notability guidelines as they apply to individuals. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alt-Lite association

Recently, there has been an increasing distinction drawn between "alt-lite" and "alt-right" (closely related concepts, but with the former defined by civic nationalism, the latter by white nationalism). The Anti-Defamation League now uses this distinction (https://www.adl.org/education/resources/backgrounders/from-alt-right-to-alt-lite-naming-the-hate), and includes Milo, as do various media outlets - I will not list them here, but greater detail can be found on the alt-lite article.

I think a mention of Milo's categorization as "alt-lite" by the ADL (and others) should be mentioned in the section "Alt-Right". I think this also goes a long way to clarify things DoctorPaveleer (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with that. Got a proposed sentence? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps something like this? "More recently, Yiannopoulos has been identified with the alt-lite, a term used to distinguish individuals sometimes associated with the alt-right from openly white nationalist and anti-semitic factions." DoctorPaveleer (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, with only one source, we should definitely use attribution. How about:
The Anti-Defamation League has more recently identified Yiannopoulos as part of the alt-lite, a term used to distinguish individuals sometimes associated with the alt-right from openly white nationalism and anti-semitism.
? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, ideally I will try to find more sources, but for now looks like it would work DoctorPaveleer (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would think that it needs a qualifier to explain what the right/lite have in common, as that is a huge chunk of the point being made at the ADL page cited. The passages "The alt lite embraces misogyny and xenophobia...", "Many within the alt lite sphere are virulently anti-Muslim..." in particular. The way it reads now, it characterizes the alt lite as a better version of the alt right, much the same way as lite beer is marketed as being better for you than regular beer, when it reality it is just slightly less worse. ValarianB (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying, but you're basing it on a value judgement of the alt-right. We'd do best to present the facts and leave the value judgements (as obvious as they may be) to the reader. The addition currently states "associated with the alt right, but not white nationalist or antisemitic," which is an accurate description. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. There is no need to go overboard. I think the article as a whole covers the accusations of misogyny, xenophobia, etc quite well; the reference to the alt-lite is itself a "qualification". (Although, while I am here, I would like to point out that there is a grammar error in the newly added sentence.) DoctorPaveleer (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There was more than one. What nincompoop wrote that sentence? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure I based what I said on the contents of the article, but, ok.... ValarianB (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You described the alt-lite as being "...marketed as being better for you... when in reality is is just slightly less worse." That's a value judgement. It's one I agree with, and which most RSes agree with (including this one), but still. The description given allows for the inclusion of anti-islamism, misogyny and xenophobia. It does imply that the alt-lite is better than the alt-right because it excludes white nationalism and antisemitism. Sure, it's only 0.01% less horrible than the alt-right, but a 0.01% increase is still an increase. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the point of the article there is to note that the difference between the two is so small as to be inconsequential. ValarianB (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a minor distinction and probably not worth dealing with. At the end of the day we are not here to fine-tune the rankings of how far-right someone is, just noting that association is enough. Artw (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction is major enough for not only the ADL to distinguish but Wikipedia to have two separate articles. We are not here to fine-tune how "far-right" someone is but we must give due weight to sources. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad to see sources adopting this distinction. I do not think whether one supports white nationalism is minor or insignificant.
I think the current lede is reasonably accurate in this regard as is the section Milo_Yiannopoulos#Political_views. I don't think "We Hunted the Mammoth" is reliable or necessary for the statements sourced to it. Would anyone object if I removed it? James J. Lambden (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've thoroughly enjoyed every blog post I've ever read on that site. Note that I didn't say "article" or "news story". Have at it, hoss. If you don't, I will. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would also accept "anime nazi". Artw (talk)
That made me laugh out loud, because Milo does kind of resemble an Anime character... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alt-right on the lead (reviseted)

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

He is widely regarded as a champion/icon/provocateur of the alt-right [1][2][3]. The content of another Wikipedia article has no bearing on the properly sourced use of the term here.- MrX 02:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's strange that "the alt right champion" does not fit in the description from the alt-right article. I can agree if what you're suggesting is that the alt-right article should be changed. But we both know that is not going to happen. So, at the very least the distinction should be made here - as it is made by the AFD and by Milo himself - and attribution is due. Saturnalia0 (talk) 03:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you throw up a link to the AFD source? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Based on a quick search for "anti-defamation league milo yiannopoulos", I think it's likely to be this: [4] - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 05:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's enough to write that Milo has also been called alt-lite.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have a sentence about that in the article already. Milo Yiannopoulos#Relationship with the alt-right. I agree that this is a bit of a conundrum. Gay Jews are not the alt-right's favorite sort of people. The identification of Milo with the alt-right came about during the early times, when the definition was more nebulous. Maybe we should be looking for sources discussing the same exact thing as us. There might be some out there, so we could cover this discrepancy, instead of trying to "fix it" ourselves. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The identification of Milo with the alt-right came about during the early times, when the definition was more nebulous." - right, but what this basically means is that this identification came when they thought the alt-right was hip and cool (see Milo's article on alt-right in Breitbart) and the links to white supremacy were funny jokes or something that should be tolerated for the sake of the general movement. Now, after Charlottesville, they're trying to jump ship and pretend they had nothing to do with it. Which isn't true.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you hear that? That pervasive, overpowering sound? That's the sound of me not arguing with you. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Come on man, sometimes I just need to agree with somebody somewhere on Wikipedia. Just for a change of pace.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No! Zis is ze Vikipedia!! You vill argue or you vill be shot!!! (Ignore the fact that my previous comment was basically just me saying "I agree with everything VM said" because I was sufficiently snarky about it to avoid the Wiki-SS.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Err, not really, no, the interview to Channel 4 dates back to the first reports crowning him king of the alt-right, and I haven't heard Milo trying to distance himself from anything lately. It's mostly about making a distinction between what is defined in Wikipedia as alt-right and what the sources actually meant when attributing the label to Yiannopoulos. Saturnalia0 (talk) 06:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course he's trying to distance himself now that the alt-right movement has been cast into complete mainstream disrepute. If there are reliable sources that say that he's trying to distance himself, we can certainly include that, but it doesn't erase the fact that many sources have already explicitly linked him to the alt-right movement.- MrX 11:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Islam is seen as leftist?

It would really be good to have that citation, if the fellow actually has stated that he views Islam as leftist. --Haruo (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peadophila acusation

The section regarding his endorsement of pedophilia is not balanced. When attendees at CPAC were polled none believed that Milo endorsed pedophilia. The people where he did the interview in which he made the comments also didn't believe he endorsed pedophilia and no one in their audience complained about it at the time. So you either didn't get all the facts or you want to paint him a certain way. You also didn't mention that in no way did Milo lose his popularity and his fan base is a strong as ever if not stronger. In other words, it was not a career-ending issue he is still alive and kicking. 49.207.61.24 (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Milo_Yiannopoulos&oldid=800864246"