Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos

Proposed revision of the 2nd introductory paragraph

The second paragraph in this article's introduction does far more to misinform than it does to inform. Please read the BuzzFeed article it's based on for yourself and see if you agree. The second paragraph of this introduction starts, "Much of the work at Breitbart which brought Yiannopoulos to national attention was inspired by the ideas of neo-Nazis and white nationalists." This is technically true according to the BuzzFeed article, but what is not mentioned is that the article Yiannopoulos wrote that brought him national attention was on the subject of the alt-right, so naturally involved contacting people commonly associated with neo-Nazis and white nationalists and discussing their ideas. If you read the full BuzzFeed article it actually strongly supports the notion that Yiannopoulos worked actively on an ongoing basis to distance himself from neo-Nazis and white nationalists for ideological reasons as well as optics.

The rest of the second paragraph extrapolates this misrepresentation, up to the point where it mentions his Dangerous book and the detail that "many" of his Breitbart articles were ghost-written. This last part seems pertinent, but maybe more appropriate in the "Controversies" section.

In general it seems this second paragraph belongs more in the "Career" or "Controversies" section where it can have the context it deserves for a greater depth of understanding. BuzzFeed is a single source with issues of its own (let's just say it's not the NYT); why is this single-source out-of-context factoid so critical that it must be the second paragraph of the introduction for the entire article, when it is more relevant to the aforementioned sub-sections? Without the relevant context the second paragraph becomes more like a character assassination than an attempt to accurately inform the reader. As is I think it lowers Wikipedia's credibility.

For reference here is the second paragraph in full in its current state: "Much of the work at Breitbart which brought Yiannopoulos to national attention was inspired by the ideas of neo-Nazis and white nationalists. In October 2017, leaked emails revealed that Yiannopoulos had repeatedly solicited neo-Nazi and white supremacist figures on the alt-right for feedback and story ideas in his work for the website Breitbart. The leaked emails also showed that his book, Dangerous, and many of his Breitbart articles were ghost-written by a Breitbart colleague." Joeparsec (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

You know, a google image search will find plenty of pictures of this guy in Nazi regalia, and a google video search will find you a video of him giving a nazi salute at a karaoke bar, along with a dozen other nazis, including Richard Spencer. So... No. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants

Tell me all about it. 22:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: this is what the subject is best known for, so it's reasonable to have this content in the lead. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Re@ MjolnirPants: Do a search for Michael Richards and you'll find him saying he wants to string ni**ers up in a tree. You can take that out of context and definitively say he's a white nationalist neo-Nazi too. The primary issue I'm raising is that the BuzzFeed article is selectively interpreted to justify the second paragraph in this intro. Unless you want to turn the introduction of Yiannopoulos into points and counter-points of how his rise to fame was or wasn't inspired by white nationalist and neo-Nazi ideas -- which is the neutral way this subject should be raised when sourcing it to the single BuzzFeed article -- we should agree to move this part to a more relevant section where it can get the fuller context. Re@ K.e.coffman: if this is what he is best known for there should be a lot more than a single arguably-selectively-interpreted BuzzFeed article backing that up in the citation for the second paragraph in the introduction. Joeparsec (talk) 09:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Doing a search for Michael Richards will turn up information about one incident in his life. Milo, on the other hand, experiences a pattern of 1) getting caught being or acting like a nazi, 2) getting called out for it, 3) working hard to disassociate himself from modern nazis, 4) beginning to establish that he's not a nazi, and then returning to 1) getting caught being or acting like a nazi again. So yeah, your counter example is unconvincing. Regarding your response to Coffman: There are seven sources used in the article to establish Milo's nazi cred. But only one is used in the lede, so thank you for outing yourself as unwilling to read more than two paragraphs before making ideologically based complaints here. We now know that we will be justified in ignoring you out of hand if you continue to pursue this argument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Modern American Extremism and Domestic Terrorism: An Encyclopedia of Extremists and Extremist Groups basically says the same thing that MP just wrote: [1]. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

You're both talking opinion until you provide citations for the second paragraph. As it stands the second paragraph is based on a selective part from a single source. Yiannopoulos does an exposé on the alt-right (I tried to link to the exposé but Wikipedia's editors have blacklisted it), does primary research, and you're telling me the best way of summing that process up is to say, "Much of the work at Breitbart which brought Yiannopoulos to national attention was inspired by the ideas of neo-Nazis and white nationalists." !!? Read the link above provided by K.e.coffman; Yiannopoulos calls anti-Semites and white supremacists "the worst dregs of human society." In the next sentence someone from the SPLC says, "racists...and oddball figures like Yiannopoulos have more in common..." In a Wikipedia article we wouldn't include the latter and omit the former. Joeparsec (talk) 08:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

You're both talking opinion until you provide citations for the second paragraph. There are seven such citations used in the article and one provided at the second paragraph itself. Your refusal to acknowledge this is not reflective of any failure on our part. As for the rest, see WP:ABIAS. We do not reflect fringe opinions with the same weight as we reflect mainstream opinions. The mainstream opinion (which is also a verifiable fact) is that Milo associates with neo-nazis and has much in common with them. Milo's statements to the contrary represent the fringe view of a tiny minority, and deserve virtually no weight whatsoever as a result. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

re@ MPants: You're being disingenuous to say the second paragraph is based on seven sources. It's based on one. One that's not of the highest caliber and is missing context. I'm just repeating myself. Hope more people weigh in on this issue. Joeparsec (talk) 09:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Have you ever read MOS:LEDE? I highly recommend it. Especially MOS:LEDECITE. In case you can't be bothered, I'll summarize. We usually don't cite material in the lede because the lede is a summary of the body, which should be cited in-line. We only add cites to the lede if a statement is particularly contentious. This means the bit in the lede that you're reading is a summary of this section, which is supported by six unique citations. Add to that the one from the lede, and the lede bit is supported by seven cites.

So you can take your bad faith accusations and shove them. It's not disingenuity, it's me knowing how to write a fucking lede and you not. :)

Of course, it doesn't matter. Because it's supported by at least one reliable source, it's certainly WP:DUE as it's what Milo is arguably best known for. Your opening claim that the paragraph "does far more to misinform than it does to inform." is not only completely ridiculous, it really makes it look like you're here to push a political agenda rather than improve the project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Summoned from the darkness of WP:BLP/N Considering all the corroborating evidence, I'd suggest that the Buzzfeed article is certainly a reliable source and that this is definitely WP:DUE considering that Yiannopoulos's main claim to fame is play acting as a nazi. Simonm223 (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The Ernst Röhm species. EEng 18:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I've been waiting about a year and a half for someone to mention him on this page. Kudos, sir. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I aim to please. But I'm disappointed you haven't pitched in at Talk:Homonym#Ad_hominem. EEng 18:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I too, aim to please. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I am sure I'd darkly alluded to how well things ended up for Röhm somewhere or other, but probably not here. Simonm223 (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

re@MPants at work: I don't know what's worse: you justifying a hit piece ("We do not reflect fringe opinions..." neglecting the fact that the "fringe opinion" is from from the same source/article as the "mainstream opinion"), or you justifying not citing material. It makes sense if the lede is later expounded upon and supported by many reputable sources. You say it is supported by "seven such citations," but after several responses you haven't cited these. Just to remind you, here is what you are claiming seven sources back up definitively, to the point that it can be used in this introduction: "Much of the work at Breitbart which brought Yiannopoulos to national attention was inspired by the ideas of neo-Nazis and white nationalists." Regarding Wikipedia articles about controversial figures, it's especially important to have many citations backing up what's in the lede. Right now there is exactly one regarding this paragraph. Joeparsec (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

re@ Simonm223: Yes, BuzzFeed is probably a reliable source as per WP:DUE, though you don't specify what "corroborating evidence" you're talking about. I'll also reiterate that it's only one source, and I've mentioned how BuzzFeed has potential credibility issues. To add to that list (not mentioned in that article), The Atlantic has termed one of BuzzFeed's publishing decisions as sidestepping "a basic principle of journalism." I'll repeat my conclusion: this second paragraph is too out of context and not supported enough to include in the introduction; we should move it down to a more relevant section. Joeparsec (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Refs 142 through 144 corroborate Buzzfeed; and as the Buzzfeed leak was of Yiannopoulos' own emails that there are multiple independent sources reporting these as legit is all we really need for corroboration. The second paragraph is entirely within context and I don't give two hoots about whether publishing those leaked emails represented "sidestepping a basic principle of journalism" since that's not as relevant as the fact that the emails demonstrate pretty clearly that Yiannopulos is a basic nazi wannabe. Simonm223 (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: I don't see "multiple independent sources reporting these [emails] as legit" linked anywhere here; do you have citations? Note that BuzzFeed has not made the supposed leaked emails public, except in excerpts quoted in the article. I think it's noteworthy BuzzFeed is the sole corroborating reference for these email leaks, and doubly noteworthy that the author of that article is spinning primary-source research as being "inspired by the ideas of neo-Nazis." Its overall credibility as the sole source of the second paragraph must be relevant here. Joeparsec (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I literally just gave you reference numbers for the corroborating evidence. Like that was the start of what I said to you - WP:TEND much? Simonm223 (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Those citations are reports referencing the BuzzFeed article (Ref 7), not explicitly confirming it. You could argue that's implicit confirmation, but that would be sidetracking from the points I've raised. I said in the beginning that the BuzzFeed article is technically accurate, but that its conclusion is taken out of context. I'd like to reiterate the points from my previous response to you too: It's very noteworthy that the author of that article is spinning primary-source research as being "inspired by the ideas of neo-Nazis." That's even more concerning in the context of BuzzFeed's questionable credibility and judgment. The entire second paragraph is based on that. A reminder of the intro of the second paragraph: "Much of the work at Breitbart which brought Yiannopoulos to national attention was inspired by the ideas of neo-Nazis and white nationalists." Joeparsec (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

You haven't raised any points. You've bitched and tried to convince us that your own OR overrides the reliable sources we're currently using. Well, it doesn't. If you don't have anything else, then we're done here. Come back with sources or don't come back at all, thanks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@MPants at work: To make it easy for everyone to add feedback, here are the points I've raised which I've backed up with citations:

•BuzzFeed is the only source cited to support the second paragraph that can be summarized by its intro: "Much of the work at Breitbart which brought Yiannopoulos to national attention was inspired by the ideas of neo-Nazis and white nationalists." 1

•BuzzFeed doesn't have the best credibility 1, 2

•Yiannopoulos did primary research on the alt-right, and BuzzFeed uses this to justify the statement "Much of the work at Breitbart which brought Yiannopoulos to national attention was inspired by the ideas of neo-Nazis and white nationalists." 1

When I've made these evidence-based points you've implied I'm pushing a political agenda. You've responded to the first point saying there are seven sources justifying that lede, but haven't cited them. You've justified one-sided smear articles and not responded to my points on the same (you said: "We do not reflect fringe opinions..." neglecting the fact that the "fringe opinion" is from from the same source/article as the "mainstream opinion"). You've cited irrelevant articles about academic bias. And after all this you've said I "haven't raised any points." This is a good demonstration of why Wikipedia works on citations and not on personal attacks/smears and opinions. As I mentioned before this is all a great exercise in repetition, and I hope/welcome more people to weigh in. Joeparsec (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Joeparsec: You're beating a dead horse. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I think this conversation is over. Joeparsec challenged a source. Page consensus is firmly in 1AM territory that the source is reliable and the information is due. No reliable sources were provided to suggest that the Buzzfeed information, widely reported in multiple sources, is anything other than 100% accurate. And that's that. Simonm223 (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• BLPN consensus (so far, in my opinion,) seems to be against this used in the lead. I do think the Buzzfeed News source is reliable. But as to it being due, there are a lot of RS on Milo, and a very small fraction of them discuss this (Buzzfeed and a few that discuss the Buzzfeed article), which suggests it isn't due for the WP:LEAD (even if it was due in the article). If we did include it in the body, per WP:RACIST we would want attribution for the claim that he was inspired by neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Additionally I have concerns that the words "inspired by" is not an accurate reflection of the Buzzfeed article (and as such WP:OR). To me, being "inspired by" requires more than merely talking to them about a given story, but includes adopting some of their views (or using them as a starting point), which I don't believe even the Buzzfeed article alleges (And it doesn't use the words "inspired by"). -Obsidi (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

You are incorrect in your reading of consensus. At best, there is "no consensus" at BLPN. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

What the hell, here's an actual look at the consensus (note how I actually EXPLAIN MYSELF and try to do the same whenever you look at a consensus):

Between this page and BLPN, there are 5 editors disagreeing with the current content; Nil Einne, Masem, Obsidi, Digby Dalton (since blocked for being a 5-year-old about it) and Joeparsec (who hasn't been much better behaved than Digby). There are 8 editors defending it; Me, K.e.coffman, Simon223, NorthBySouthBaranof, Dumuzid, Vanamonde93, Only in death and HandThatFeeds. There are three more editors who've jumped in, but none indicated clearly whether or not they supported the content, only arguing against one other editor (two against an editor arguing to remove, and one against me) on a tangential point. Presumably (and I mean "certainly" by that because duh), the editor who wrote the passage as it currently appears also supports it: Steeletrap. So the muddiest that support count gets is 11-6 in favor of the text, and the clearest support count is 9-5.

Several editors have edited the lede without objecting to this content: Phillip Cross, MrX, Nedrutland, WhatsUpWorld and JzG, not to mention a host of drive by "fix bias" type POV editors who changed a lot of things, but not that. Some of those editors may object to this content, some may support it, but none of them found it objectionable to the point of changing it, even though it was right there in front of them as they edited.

The arguments against the current content are:

• It's not supported by the source because [no reason ever given, and at least one editor making this argument acknowledges that there is no "technical" difference between the content and what the source says].
• It's not neutral, even though it's true and highly relevant.
• It implies that Milo associates with neo-nazis.
• It's insulting to Milo.
• The source is not reliable.

And the arguments in favor of the content are:

• It's supported by the source because that's literally what the phrase "inspired by" means.
• WP:NPOV disagrees with the assertion that it's not neutral.
• It's true and relevant.
• The source is reliable according to multiple discussions at RSN. Stop confusing Buzzfeed News and regular Buzzfeed.

So that's actually a consensus in favor of the current content, but it's not an overwhelming one so nobody's using it as an excuse to start hatting threads yet. But that will happen sooner or later, if this doesn't come to an end. I've asked multiple times for someone to describe the difference between what the content states and what the source states. So far, the only answer I've gotten has been "There is no technical difference," from Masem. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It's insulting to Milo. – It takes a lot to insult Milo Y. EEng 00:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

And, while it's important to consider that Consensus is not a majority vote and so the relative numbers are less important, there has been no compelling Wikipolicy reason put forward for the change to the lede. When a majority of editors provide a Wikipolicy supported rationale for inclusion and a minority of editors provide no such rationale (frankly Masem's rationale I can't even fathom) supporting exclusion that does not suggest that consensus supports exclusion in any way. Simonm223 (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The thing is, I'm not even opposed to changing it on a fundamental level. I'm just opposed to conceding to horrible arguments. Give me a good reason to change it (along with a good proposal of what to change it to) and I could get behind it. But the arguments presented thus far are not just unconvincing, they're convincing me that changing it would be a bad thing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I was commenting on BLPN only (not including the editors who had already commented on this page), and even then it was a close call (if you think its no consensus so far at BLPN, I think that is a reasonable to take) but yes, with the additional editors from this page it does seem to be no consensus so far.

Let me help clarify what the arguments against the current content are:

• It's not supported by the source because: "Associates" does not equate to "inspired by" (This is I think an WP:OR claim).
• It's does not have the weight (in terms of % of RS when discussing milo) to be in the lead.
• It implies that Milo agrees with neo-nazis without attribution as required by WP:RACIST.
• The source is not reliable. (I don't personally agree with this one, but others have raised it.)

And the arguments in favor of the content are (With my own comments in parentheses):

• It's supported by the source because that is what some editors think "inspired by" means.
• WP:NPOV disagrees with the assertion that it's not neutral. (But the question per WP:NPOV should be on the % of RS discuss this when talking about milo, requiring a high % to include in lead)
• It's true and relevant. (But See WP:NOTTRUTH)
• The source is reliable according to multiple discussions at RSN. Stop confusing Buzzfeed News and regular Buzzfeed. (I agree with you on this.)

-Obsidi (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I'm so happy you posted this. Like, you have no idea how much I laughed upon reading this. You might as well have just posted "Yeah, well I have no idea what I'm talking about, so good luck convincing me of anything!"

It's not supported by the source because: "Associates" does not equate to "inspired by" (This is I think an WP:OR claim). The source shows that he actively solicited ideas from white supremacists and neo-nazis, in order to write an article he decided on his own to write, about neo-nazi and white supremacist ideas. That is not a claim that he "associates" with them, but that he was inspired by them. So please go back to BLPN and actually read those portions I quoted, because what you're claiming the source says here and what the source says in those quotes is not at all the same thing.

It's does not have the weight (in terms of % of RS when discussing milo) to be in the lead LOL. ROFLMAO. LOLOLOLOLOL Seriously you need to do some research on this guy. Besides, as has been pointed out multiple times: SEVEN FUCKING SOURCES, and that's just about the leaked emails, we've got nine more that are explicitly about his relationship with the alt right, dozens that explicitly call him a member of the alt-right and god-knows-how-many who mention the alt-right, neo-nazis or white supremacists in the context of Milo. This is literally a more ignorant claim than anything made by the drive-by POV pushers who come here to insist that Milo isn't alt-right and WP is smearing his good name before throwing a fit and getting indeffed. I mean literally more ignorant than what they say. Do you even know who Milo is? LOL

The source is not reliable. That's just bullshit.

It's supported by the source because that is what some editors think "inspired by" means. And the reason we "think" that is because... drumroll please... That's what it fucking means! ;)

It's true and relevant. (But See WP:NOTTRUTH) Oh, I really think you're the one who needs to read that. Like, really badly.

Thank you for taking the time to further undermine your own argument and prove beyond any reasonable doubt that it is not even remotely based on policy or rationality.

P.S. I forgot an editor who argued against a proponent of removal, so you can increase the "support" count I gave by one in the muddiest number. Also, since I wrote that, another editor (HandThatFeeds) has come along to support the current content, so add another "support" to all the counts. In fact, I'll do that now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

You are free to believe what you wish, I will let my contributions speak for themselves. I've read it again, and I do not agree that it says he was inspired by neo-nazis or white supremacists. I ran a search on Factiva for all publications with "milo yiannopoulos" in it and found 8,574. I then ran a search for all publications that contain both "milo yiannopoulos" and the words "inspired by" and found 101 articles (of which 21 were exact duplicates). I examined each of those 80 non-duplicate articles and could not find a single one which said that milo was inspired by nazis, neo-nazis or white supremacists. Can you cite ANY RS that uses those words (inspired by) to link milo to nazis, neo-nazis or white supremacists? If you want to change the text to something that says alt-right or something along those lines, just tell me what the text you propose is and I will see how many RS actually use that phrase. -Obsidi (talk) 01:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I will let my contributions speak for themselves. Ha! Oh trust me, your "contributions" speak volumes.

I examined each of those 80 non-duplicate articles Bull-motherfucking-shit. She-goddamn-nanigans. I don't believe this shit for one second.

Can you cite ANY RS that uses those words I'll tell you what. I'll find you a whole slew of RSes using that exact phrase the moment you find the part of WP:V that says we're supposed to be using the exact same words as the sources, instead of summarizing them. Hell, I'll do you one better and show you a writ-in-stone, never-gonna-change, community-consensus-is-fucking-irrelevant policy that says we shouldn't do that: WP:COPYVIO. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

You don't believe me? Then go double check my work, here is my list of all 80 non-duplicate articles: User:Obsidi/MiloSources (with the title the word "AT" in capitals and then the publication source/date etc.). Yes we should not be copying word for word sentences from the sources. But you would think that if there was a large number of sources which said milo was inspired by neo-nazis that some RS out there would actually use those words. -Obsidi (talk) 04:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

That's some good WP:SOUP there at that list of non-linked articles from random sources listed by headline and with no context. Can you please provide us with one or two of those, high quality, and supporting your proposed edit in clear language? Simonm223 (talk) 12:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Preferably with links so we can, you know, read them? Simonm223 (talk) 12:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I’d love to give you links, but I read the content on Factiva which licenses the content (I could give you the factiva links, but if you don’t have an account you wouldn’t be able to access them). So while I’m sure there are probably links to most of these sources I don’t know what they are. But per WP:PAYWALL, even if included in an article that doesn’t mean they wouldnt be verifiable. -Obsidi (talk) 12:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, this is a BLP claim, on which the burden is on those who wish to keep it (I could go remove it right now until there is consensus that it is valid). Secondly, I’m trying to prove a negative, that there is no RS anywhere that uses those words to connect milo to neo-nazi’s. -Obsidi (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Bullshit: this is not a BLP issue unless and until you dig up reliable sources refuting it. Our WP:OR is not what determines what is or is not a "contentious claim", the RSes are. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Googling the names of the first several hits shows that Obsidi basically just grabbed every passing mention of Milo he could find. See articles like this, and this and even his very first item. Obsidi apparently doesn't know how to do an effective news search using the service he pays for to do news searches. So it's not surprising that few, if any of them say anything in particular about Milo; the vast majority aren't even about Milo.

Not that it matters, as listing a bunch of articles doesn't even suggest that Obsidi has examined all of them, and even if it did, it still doesn't matter as Obsidi is trying to "prove" that the sources we currently use don't say what they actually say, and even if he did that it STILL wouldn't matter because Obsidi's larger point is that Milo's links to the alt-right are WP:UNDUE and that's just laughable on the face. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Obsidi I'm going to make this really simple for you - we can't adjudicate the relevance of sources we haven't read. And your list provides no context for the contents and relevance beyond that they're articles that mention the subject. Please provide references supporting your requested edit in a form that can be read without a subscription to whatever the heck Factiva is. Simonm223 (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Again, I'm not asking for 80 refs tangentially related to the subject. I'm looking for one or two high-quality sources that support your proposed edit. That's not a big ask. In fact, it's a minimal ask. Simonm223 (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Under WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE: the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. I have removed the material that seems to be an analysis of the Buzzfeed News article [2]. The burden is not on me to provide a RS that Milo isn't inspired by neo-nazis, the burden is on those who wish to keep this material in this article to provide a RS that actually says that and gain consensus that the reliable source actually says that before restoring. My claim above is broader than what BLP requires: that there is NO reliable source anywhere that says Milo was inspired by neo-nazis. For BLP, all I need to claim is that the source actually provided does not say what it is being claimed for. -Obsidi (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Read WP:CRYBLP and either provide reliable sources disputing the claim, which has been thoroughly sourced already or fuck off. Seriously, dude, you're begging for an ANI report, and you're going to get one soon with this tendentiousness. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Stop whitewashing the article. The "work at Breitbart" was not only "inspired by", but actually sympathetic. If it hadn't been, Breitbart wouldn't have given him a platform, and, by extension, explains why Trump likes Bannon, as well as worships dictatorial world leaders who are also racist nationalists. Mpants's restoration of good content is proper. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Not everything is about Trump, crazy I know. PackMecEng (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The hell you say [3] ;P ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@ BullRangifer: this isn't the time or place to discuss subjective opinions as fact. Come with on-topic credible citations. @General: Reminder about WP:CIV. Joeparsec (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Joeparsec: Just so you know, Obsidi just got indefinitely blocked for doing nothing over the past 11 years except jump into discussions and stir up shit. So please don't think that resuming the battery of this necrotic equine is a good idea because he commented here. You have run face first into a consensus that opposes you, so it's time for you to move on to more productive things. Also, that's how you ping someone. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree to a consensus with Obsidi regarding WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Regarding @"MPants at work"'s citation of WP:CRYBLP. "MPants at work": can you please specify under which sub-heading of WP:CRYBLP you find Obsidi's WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE edit to be objectionable? I've reviewed that section and have not concurred with your finding. Joeparsec (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

As mentioned above, it's already thoroughly sourced, and there seems to be consensus on that, so reverting Obsidi's edit seems to be completely consistent with WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. --tronvillain (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Since I originally started this thread, MjolnirPants (possibly also writing under the name "MPants at work") has cited "seven sources" as justifying the second paragraph's "Much of the work at Breitbart which brought Yiannopoulos to national attention was inspired by the ideas of neo-Nazis and white nationalists." These "seven sources" have never been specifically identified thus far. Obsidi has raised additional significant issues about this paragraph as well, especially in regards to the phrase "inspired by," based on WP:LEAD, WP:RACIST, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTTRUTH, and WP:PAYWALL, which I second. And in addition to these, the issue of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE has come up, and I agree with Obsidi's edit based on this pending justification as requested from those who object. I've clearly raised and stated this and for @Tronvillian to say there "...seems to be consensus on that, so reverting Obsidi's edit seems to be completely consistent..." is a strange and blatantly misrepresentative statement, to say the least, on par with @"MPants at work"'s apparently (not-so)-veiled threat(?) , "...don't think that resuming the battery of this necrotic equine is a good idea..." It's really simple folks: we all come to a consensus based on the guidelines for Wikipedia edits. At this point several Wikipedia editors have raised very legitimate Wikipedia-policy-based issues that have thus far gone un-addressed. For several of these issues, the burden of proof falls on those making the claims, and must otherwise be reverted. Joeparsec (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

"MPants at work" is clearly identified as an alternate account of MjolnirPants, as a moments glance at their user pages would tell you. --tronvillain (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

we all come to a consensus based on the guidelines for Wikipedia edits We have come to a consensus. Also, consensus is not unanimity, so it doesn't matter if you agree or not.

At this point several Wikipedia editors Two out of four have been blocked and a third has admitted that their objection is not technically accurate.

have raised very legitimate Wikipedia-policy-based issues Untrue. WP:CRYBLP is quite the opposite of a "Wikipedia-policy-based issue".

that have thus far gone un-addressed Also untrue. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think I'm interested enough to discuss this issue any more, especially since two of the people who've also seen there could be a problem have got themselves blocked for silly behaviour. One of them indef. But although I know this is a BLP, it seems clear that quite a few people feel whatever problems may or may not exist aren't severe enough to warrant immediate action. Given that it's unlikely you'll convince sufficient people that there is BLP action required, can we all just forget about "burden of proof" and other such defeatist attitudes and concentrate on achieving consensus? Also if some parties feel consensus has been reached but others strongly disagree that it has, the simplest solution would be to get a neutral admin to close. Frankly since the discussion is so messy, it may be better to agree hopefully on 2 different possible phrasings for the lead, and start a neutrally worded RFC and go from there. But only if no agreement on consensus can be achieved with out it. (As said, I'm not likely to participate in such an RFC or the discussion leading up to it so this is simply a suggestion if there remains dispute.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Right now, Joeparsec, a relative newbie, is the only one objecting to the content. The objections they have raised are not policy based, and those nominally-policy-based objections that were raised at BLPN have literally all been addressed. Not to belabor the points too much, but I'll summarize the arguments for exclusion with their counterarguments, and you can judge for yourself. The arguments are in bold.

• This is not sourced. It is sourced to this, and it is a summary of this section which contains 6 additional sources.
• None of the claimed sources exist. Yes, in fact, they do.
• The source doesn't support "inspired by" only "associates with". This is just completely and obviously untrue, as any reading of the sources will show. Note also that one editor (Masem) who presented this argument at BLPN has acknowledged that the source "technically" supports the content, and explained that their real concern was the implications of the content.
• Even though it's supported by the source, it's still a BLP violation. No-one has shown anything controversial about the statement. No RSes disagree with it, several RSes explicitly agree with it and many many RSes implicitly agree with it. Claims are not contentious simply because an editor insists they are. You have to show them to be contentious before you get to demand supporters of the claims have the burden of proof.
• No RS explicitly calls Milo a neo-Nazi. Neither do we. Also, this is not necessarily true. I've seen several borderline reliable sources do so, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if an RS did.
• MjolnirPants is an asshole. Well, yeah, but I haven't been an asshole to anyone in this discussion. Utterly dismissive towards the guy who got indeffed for doing nothing other than jumping into arguments to flame them up (and starting new arguments that do nothing but heat things up) after he jumped into this argument to flame things up, yeah. But never straight-up assholery.

That's pretty much it. If I missed any, let me know, and I'll post a response. If you're curious about the history of this discussion, I can also post diffs to where the arguments were made and countered first. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you like the paragraph being discussed, this version is better: [4]. Unfortunately, it's not the current version because the editor above (ignoring my syntax corrections) told me "please stop" when in fact I have not edited this article in about a year. I'll just leave this link here for anyone who might have a particular interest in this article. I certainly don't. Connor Behan (talk) 05:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Pardon me if I don't simply take your word that your version is better, especially when there are something like 9 editors who have supported the current wording and maybe half that who have opposed it (two of whom have been blocked, one indefinitely, and a third of whom is a brand newb with very little idea of what they're talking about), and when the arguments put forth in opposing it have all been addressed. Even you admitted it was accurate. Our BLP policy is not an end-run around WP:V that allows you to remove facts you do not like. If you can show that this is contentious among the sources that cover Milo, then we can have a discussion about the BLP implications. But we don't rely upon your WP:OR to decide whether a claim is contentious or not, and thus whether a claim is a BLP violation or not. See the comment above yours, where I pointed out that this has been addressed already. I would like to add that this has been addressed multiple times already. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey guys, I'm not a Wikipedia contributor at all, I just opened this article and the disputed sentence just confused me. You've been discussing technicalities here, and I don't really understand your slang, etc. What the article still fails to do is to show how much his actual work was inspired by neo-Nazi ideas. Someone above is arguing that this sentence summarizes a section in the article, but to me that session summarizes to the fact that he corresponded with some people, which is his job as a journalist. What would actually substantiate that sentence would be references to his works expressing or supporting "the ideas of neo-Nazis and white nationalists".217.144.189.152 (talk) 08:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Milo Yiannopoulos' Instagram Post Praising Mail Bombs (news article)

• [5]. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

This was apparently the scene, 20 years ago:

Milo's dad: "Son, what do you want to be when you grow up?"

Milo: "Just, like, the absolute worst person ever!"

Dad: "But you're such a good boy! You could never be that."

Milo: "Watch me!"

I guess he proved his dad wrong. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

This article also explicitly states that Milo is connected to white supremacist movements. (for those keeping score)Simonm223 (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

religion

I know. still. on the one hand we have a Breitbart article which mentions without any support that he is a practicing Roman Catholic (also without any definition of "practicing", which is not univocal). But now he has said "I told Campus Reform, '... I am a Jew'." https://www.dangerous.com/45111/middle-rages/?fbclid=IwAR0WJSdTBHiiEUuXHyS-tJKX_yieu7ZPDIUNfvgJH4UT-n3X5sQWsLB2MC0, about a quarter down. I would take his own word over an article with an unsuported statement in it. So short some way of expressing this ambiguity in an easy-to-read fashion, I suggest that the line about him being a practicing Roman Catholic simply be removed. If it is necessary to discuss his religion, both sources get mentioned along the lines of "Y's religion has been reported in various ways. He has said... and ....."--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 04:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Milo Yiannopoulos 'more than $2m in debt', Australian promoters' documents show

Probably should be included somewhere

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/dec/03/milo-yiannopoulos-more-than-2m-in-debt-australian-promoters-documents-show

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 12:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Added it to the career section.Bacondrum (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

A single source is really not enough to justify an entire paragraph, let alone an entire section.- MrX 🖋 13:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@MrX:Hi MrX. A single source is desirable, especially when it's recognised as a reputable source. see WP:OVERCITE Wikipedia:RELIABLE WP:VerifiabilityBacondrum (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: and @Bacondrum:, I added 4 additional references from reliable sources. John Cummings (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

OK John Cummings, I'm fine with the sources but now I'm concerned about the rewrite:

"In April 2018 documents assembled by his former Australian tour promoters Australian Events Management show Yiannopoulos had accrued more than $2 million in unpaid debt"

I think it should say that the documents are "alleged to show".- MrX 🖋 15:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: I don't think the Guardian is known for making false and defamatory statements, the journalists claim to have personally seen the documents. I believe it is fair to assume the documents are real and accurate. Wikipedia:RELIABLE WP:Verifiability

having said that, if you believe it should say that the documents are "alleged to show" then I'm fine with that. CheersBacondrum (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't doubt the veracity of the reporting. What I'm not certain of is if the promoter's allegations should be accepted at face value. I'll wait to see what other editors think before making any changes.- MrX 🖋 22:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Haha? "Roused" NOT "Aroused" - These two words have completely different contemporary meanings

Apparently some Wikipedia editor thinks it's OK to use "haha. they're gay!" as an insult against people they dislike.

Under the section titled "Leaked Breitbart emails", on its second paragraph, it says "According to her, Yiannopoulos was getting the others "AROUSED".

The source says, "Then I had people get in my face. It might have been Milo because he didn't immediately go outside; he was kind of getting them ROUSED, and they were saying, 'Make America white again.'"

The meaning of the word is clearly apparent when read in context. No where does it say he was getting them "aroused". This is a blatant misquote, and the casual, everyday understanding of that word is almost always used in the context of sexual arousal. Rd3457 (talk) 15:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed - MrX 🖋 13:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Rd3457 (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Neo-Nazism in lead

I would like to address the supposed long-standing consensus of treating the Buzzfeed report that Yiannopoulos was inspired by neo-Nazis and white nationalists as fact, specifically addressing Simonm223. Buzzfeed is not a reliable source. As you can see here, they were only factchecked once on Politifact, and the rating for their story was "Pants on Fire." Our own article on Buzzfeed makes clear here that it is widely seen as an unreliable source. So why are we treating their hit piece on Milo Yiannopoulos as fact? Display name 99 (talk) 15:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

We've been over this many times. No credible source has disputed the accuracy of the information leaked by Buzzfeed. There's no reason to doubt their reliability in this instance. Sorry, but Milo is a nazi. Simonm223 (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Wow, your application of Wikipedia rules is pathetically weak. We are not permitted to rely on unreliable sources for controversial content, especially if it is for a WP:BLP. I've never found a clause anywhere in the Wikipedia guidelines that allows us to use controversial information from unreliable sources just because we can't find a reliable source which has disputed it. You're simply making crap up. I also find it remarkable that a gay Jewish Catholic guy legally married to a black man who has never criticized Jews or blacks, nor ever exalted the white race the way that people like Richard Spencer do, and has in fact repeatedly criticized actual neo-Nazis, is being called a Nazi. But I wouldn't really expect much better from a Marxist. Display name 99 (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Buzzfeed and buzzfeed news are not the same. Buzzfeed is unreliable. BuzzfeedNews is Pulitzer nominated. BuzzFeed_NewsResultingConstant (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

A single reporter from Buzzfeed News was nominated for the Pulitzer Prize, not the organization itself. And the fact that it is owned by Buzzfeed suggests unreliability. Display name 99 (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Here's an article from the (ultra-reliable) Guardian that discusses the subject’s affection for various Neo-Nazi stands, publications, and leaders. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/dec/05/milo-yiannopoulos-speaks-australia-respectable-racists-howl-approval MarkBernstein (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)