Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Milo Yiannopoulos article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 90 days

Article milestones Date Process Result September 10, 2010 Articles for deletion Deleted July 25, 2012 Articles for deletion Speedily kept
	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?

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies C‑class This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBT articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Milo Yiannopoulos article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 90 days

Fellow editors, A recent change was made to the Religion field in the Infobox, modifying this from "Roman Catholic" to "Jewish"; the edit summary suggesting that this change was sourced to an interview on "The Rubin Report". Given that Jewish can refer to both religion and ethnicity, and that "Roman Catholic" is mentioned in the article body, and in Categorisation, I have reverted this change, pending formation of a consensus here. Thoughts? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 05:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's ambiguous. In this recent article he self-identified as "a gay man of Jewish descent". It sounds like that's strictly a description of his ethnicity. Kelly ^hi! 15:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a joke, you dweebs. That religion is just as much hostile to his lifestyle as his muslim antagonists. Bizarre you can't see his sarcasm - or how he in later posts ridicules Wikipedia for this fanatic claim.

                 "The Jewish magazine Tablet wrote that Yiannopoulos has "recently taken to claiming, when it suits him, matrilineal Jewish heritage..." I think this is a derogatory remark. Is anyone planning to change this? the article is not oped for editing, so It seems like someone of the editing staff is being  biased and non acadamic here. He can be both Jewish and Catholic if he's father is Catholic and mother is jewish. I don't understand why this is a a matter of sneering or even debating. someone? Akivaragen (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He certainly has at various times talked about being of Jewish descent in reasonably serious terms. That doesn't make it true necessarily but it's something that he has said, particularly in the context of anti-semitic attacks etc. However, I think he's been fairly clear about being a catholic and that this is his religion. 86.128.232.59 (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Milo Y. was not born in Greece, but in Kent. His birth name is "Milo Hanrahan". Source: http://search.findmypast.co.uk/record?id=bmd%2fb%2f1984%2f11%2f113036475 Have edited infobox to reflect these changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.255.4.184 (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reliable source. New sources should be discussed below, at #Birthplace?. Grayfell (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a source I provided (see above), but I had read this talk page, noted the information and checked it out (it's a bona fide source, but not, to my knowledge, one we can link to directly). Luther Blissetts (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the career section there's a huge chunk of quotation from the article "I’m Sooo Bored of Being Gay" regarding sexuality that is largely irrelevant. All it is is a sarcastic rant by Milo and I think it should either be summarised, or moved to the "Others" section. 123.3.16.224 (talk) 07:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the career section it mentions places he's speaked on certain issues, but not what his stances on those issues are. I think this is important information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.156.42 (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if incidents of his speeches being disrupted are worth mentioning in the article, but here is a reference in case they are deemed worthy: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/05/26/two-colleges-what-happens-when-protesters-obstruct-free-speech . 05:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it is. Used HuffPo but the more references we add to establish notability the better. Ranze (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

please change ((Tablet)) to ((Tablet (magazine)|Tablet)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4305:c70:805e:9ef:7835:30bb (talk)

Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 15:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this: two sources mention that an event was disrupted by BLM protesters, but the only one that mentions "violent threats" is this one, from the Huffington Post blog. Posts to the blog are effectively self-published: Huffington Post does not exert editorial control, it simply hosts the material, and anything that isn't libelous or abusive is allowed. Nblund (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit: the paragraph previously cited: the Daily Caller, Washington Times, and Reason online. None of the statements in this section were given in-text attribution. The only two relatively mainstream sources were both from the Chicago Tribune, and they were both editorials that were critical of protesters. Opinion pieces and editorials are usually not reliable sources for statements of fact, and the list of citations to uniformly critical opinions raises obvious NPOV red-flags.

Mainstream coverage of this incident is minimal, but I found these sources.

Chicago Sun-Times Inside Higher Education Depaulia (the student newspaper)

None of these sources mention anyone "striking" Yiannopoulos. They also don't clearly identify the protesters as having anything more than an ideological alignment with the Black Lives Matter movement, and none of these sources say that University officials prevented security from removing the protesters. Even the two Chicago Tribune editorials, both critical of the protesters, don't make these claims.

If we find good quality (non-opinion) sources for these statements we should put them in and include those citations. My view is that that the lack of mainstream coverage suggests that this is not a particularly notable incident, but if we really think some of these opinion pieces are notable enough to warrant mention, they should be given clear in-text attribution and should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Nblund (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are really twisting here. What's your agenda? Without even trying hard, I found an article from the Washing Times that says, "Conservative pundit Milo Yiannopoulos was threatened with violence and hit in the face by a female student during a speaking engagement at the university’s Chicago campus on earlier this week." Are you going to persist with this? I'm not even citing other sources that are reliable, but right wing, that covered this. You've also ignored the video recording of the attack which has been cited by sources.Mattnad (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that article was cited and I mentioned it above. The Washington Times is a right-leaning newspaper that blends editorial content in to all of it's news. It might be a plausible case for inclusion if there were any non-right wing sources that reported this, but I can't find a single one. It seems like a pretty massive WP:REDFLAG that none of the mainstream coverage (including the 7 articles published by the student newspaper), bothered to mention threats of violence or anyone being hit in the face. I have absolutely no problem putting it back in if you can find coverage in any of the mainstream sources that covered the three claims I removed, but I seriously can't find it, even though I looked.

I don't see anyone being "struck" in the video, but it's a moot point: it's a Youtube video uploaded by Milo Yiannopolous to his Youtube channel. This is a self-published claim being used to source a statement about a living third party.

This seems like a strange hill to die on. Can you explain why you think this material is so essential that we should forego ordinary precautions about verifiability? Nblund (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The material is verifiable based on the many sources and WP:RS make no mention of the requirements you've invented here. The video is referred to by other sources and is on its face is not a matter of opinion. A punch is thrown towards his face (and you've sidestepped my queries on that). I'll take it to RSN given you've deleted rather than edited here (i.e., added in-text attribution if that's your requirement). Mattnad (talk)

I'm not sure what you want me to address regarding the Youtube video, but I did mention it in my previous comment. Could you clarify what I'm supposed to be seeing here? It looks like maybe she shakes the mic in his face at 9 seconds, but I can't even tell if she actually touches him. Is that what you're referencing? Regardless: a Youtube video uploaded by Yiannopoulos is a primary, self-published source, and it's not an RS.

I'm have a tough time seeing why this is even worth arguing over. Putting aside the basic verifiability issue for a moment: it seems like there's a pretty big NPOV issue when the entire discussion is sourced to right-wing websites and editorials. I think it would help if you would clarify exactly what you want to see in the article and why. Are you saying you want to see those articles quoted with in-text citations? Do you agree with me that this isn't covered in mainstream sources, and that it seems odd that mainstream sources wouldn't mention that Yiannopoulos was punched in the face or threatened? Nblund (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing odd about it. You have decided that if something is covered only by right wing press, it's not verifiable. No point in arguing this. You've dug in your heels and have ignored WP:RS. I'll present it to RSN.Mattnad (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really "dig in my heels", because you aren't saying what you want. Are you saying you want to keep the unattributed claim that a student clearly struck Yiannopoulos? Without in-text attribution?

Did you read the WP:REDFLAG thing that I linked to? I'm really referencing the part about "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;". This seems like a fairly important factoid, but it's not covered in any mainstream source, and it doesn't even seem to be consistently described in the right-wing sources I've looked at: you quoted Soave saying that the protester can be seen "striking Yiannopoulos in the face", but the video description says that the protester "took a swing at him", and Breitbart Tech (which is Yiannopoulos' outlet) says protesters "grabbed the microphone out of the interviewer’s hand, and threatened to punch Yiannopoulos in the face." (emphasis mine). Daily Caller doesn't mention the "threats" or the "punch".

The university president say he saw "a student rip the microphone from the hands of the conference moderator and wave it in the face of our speaker.”. That actually looks more consistent with what the video, but who knows? None of these sources seem sufficient for a BLP-claim that effectively accuses a person of committing an assault, and even the unreliable sources don't agree. None of this seems like an issue to you? Nblund (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Daily Beast article is another source for the assault [1] One of his accomplices, a female student, actually struck Yiannopoulos in the face (albeit gently). James J. Lambden (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is is another opinion piece, by Robby Soave, who regularly publishes editorials critical of student protesters. It adds yet another description of the event: we now have the protester "gently" striking him in the face(?). You're describing it as an "assault", but no one is arrested, Yiannopoulos's own outlet seems to contradict that description, and no mainstream outlet appears to have reported it. This seems to fail on basic verifiability grounds, but it also seems UNDUE to report it, given that it only appears in a handful of sources that appear to have a bias that would likely disfavor the protesters. Nblund (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Beast article makes claims of fact and it's published in an RS subject to editorial review - it's citable. I don't understand your arrest argument; by that logic 95% of rape is imagined. So far we have two sources reporting the assault. If more sources report it I'll consider adding it to the article. James J. Lambden (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your comparison to sexual assault seems like an odd analogy: do you think, in articles where we discuss people accused of sexual assault, that we repeat completely un-attributed allegations of sexual assault? Without in-text attribution? And without regard to the quality or consistency of the sourcing? Jezebel.com is subject to editorial review, I think people would (rightfully) object if someone started citing accusations from that outlet in an article about sexual assault.

You say you will consider adding "it" to the article, but I'm not sure what "it" is because the sources are inconsistent. That she "struck him (gently)"? "threatened him"? "swung at him"? "waved the microphone in his face"? Which of the various descriptions do you think we choose? Does it seem problematic if we pick the most sensational claim? Are you suggesting we should do this with in-text attribution, or simply state it as a fact? Nblund (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BLP is not a concern provided the person is not identified and while controversial (to you) it's sourced which is all that BLP requires. None of the sources fail on verifiability grounds, well, because they are verifiable according to extremely fundamental Wikipedia policy. So it comes down to how it's presented with an eye towards weight. While you write about avoiding the "most sensational claim", you've systematically removed any and all claim of threatened or actual violence with various arguments including the argument that Breitbart's video recording of her actions cannot be included because it's "self-published". It's no more self published than ABC or NBC posting on youtube. Now a reasonable person would say forcibly taking a microphone out of one person's hand and shaking it in another person's face would is threatening which is why several sources have commented on it - all of which you dismiss because they are conservative. Some have stated the protester struck him. So to answer James J. Lambden's comment about having sources here are a few, and none of them are "opinion pieces" technically:

• Breitbart: "threatened to punch Yiannopoulos in the face" and "One attendee, Matt Forney, was grabbed by activists as he attempted to film the march."
• Daily Caller: "One video uploaded to Twitter, for instance, shows the cameraman joke about a protester’s weight and subsequently get attacked by a woman who calls him a “fucking racist.”
• Washington Times: "Conservative pundit Milo Yiannopoulos was threatened with violence and hit in the face by a female student during a speaking engagement at the university’s Chicago campus on earlier this week."
• Reason.com "In video footage of the event, a female protester can clearly be seen striking Yiannopoulos in the face."

The articles cover more and I think there's enough here to say, "Several news sources indicated some protesters threatened violence, with some reporting on actual physical acts of violence against Milo and another person videotaping the protest. They also included links to a video recording of one protester grabbing a microphone and possibly hitting Milo in the face. During the interruption, protesters shouted "Black Lives Matter" while security guards stood passively aside at the request of administrators present". We could then provide details of how DePaul had required to Milo to pay for additional security, but later refunded those charges and apologized to organizers. Now, if you insist these are opinion pieces, we could include the sources in-text.Mattnad (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these are opinion sources. If you're really uncertain, you can ask for yet another clarification on the RS noticeboard. Regardless: WP:ASSERT would apply here even if they weren't opinion pieces because they contradict each other, so it's really a moot point.

Regarding your proposed wording: Protesters reportedly yelled a number of things, so I don't really think it makes sense to single out "Black Lives Matter", and I can't find any other sourcing (aside from the Huffington Post article that we already discussed) for the claim that University administrators asked police or security not to intervene.

More importantly, it doesn't give in-text attribution, and it gives a level of detail and a one-sided set of accusations that is almost certainly WP:UNDUE. Given that this has received minimal coverage inside or outside of the mainstream press, due weight probably dictates that this should not be covered at all.

If it is covered, it should not be given more coverage than the aspects of the protest that were covered in the mainstream sources, and it should be neutral: both sides have accused one another of threats, intimidation, and assault. I think those claims are all equally unsupportable and equally lacking in notability, but they do exist. If this is really worth adding, we could say something like: "The protest was unruly, members of the Black Student organization [...others] charged that they were assaulted or threatened, or called racial slurs, the college Republicans chapter, and Breitbart.com itself, complained that protesters threatened Yiannopoulos". Or (even more brief): "both supporters of Yiannopoulos and protesters accused one another of violence or intimidation following the protest". Nblund (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Washinting Times is pretty mainstream, as is Brietbart and the Daily Caller, and far more read than the De Paul Online (a student paper) and far, far more notable. In one month alone, Breitbart has 17M unique visitors and the Daily Caller has 12M. That's huge. What they aren't is leftist, but that's not a requirement for notability. If you have other sources you want to include, with nuance go for it. So long as they are verifiable.Mattnad (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DUE WEIGHT emphasizes the importance of discussing relevant experts or concerned parties, it's not a matter of web traffic. In this case, Breitbart.com probably does qualify because it's the outlet that Yiannopoulos works for. But the Depaulia also qualifies, because it's the paper for the University where the events occurred, and because it's quoting a statement from a protest organizer. The statement by the University President, who was critical of the protesters (already cited), and the critical editorial from the Tribune is also arguably pretty significant. Just listing every nonsensical accusation is WP:COATRACK. Are there specific things from specific sources you want to add to what I suggested above?

I don't think "verifiability" is really a consideration if we're just repeating wholly unfounded accusations to begin with. Are we agreed that these can't really be cited as facts? Because I think we should take that to the RS noticeboard if not. Nblund (talk) 03:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I do agree that we could also note that the University president criticized the protesters, in addition to apologizing to the student body/criticizing Yiannopoulos, and we could add the stuff about reimbursements, the DePaul paper also reports this. Since I think we both agree on these edits, I went ahead and added them. We should attempt to limit the length of this discussion, since it wasn't even the only appearance with unruly protesters. Nblund (talk) 04:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple RS connect BLM to the DePaul incident. No sources argue there was no connection. Giving the connection/no-connection positions equal weight is a misinterpretation of WP:DUE. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I went ahead and posted an RS noticeboard request on this specific statement, and also asked for general feedback on the usage of sources like the Washington Times. Nblund (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Watch the video, good grief. Y'all complain about "right-wing sources" when Wikipedia itself is one large left-wing source. Then again, that makes it all come together, like a delicious pie. Mmmm... 2601:192:4201:B40:DC3C:EDA9:DDEC:6EA (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the "Career" section, there is an out of place line that states "Yiannopoulos has said that his homosexuality was a choice he made to rebel against his parents.[15]" The cited article is a satirical/sarcastic piece Yiannopoulos wrote to convey how ridiculous it is for people to consider homosexuality a choice. He is not saying he actually made that choice. This line in the Wikipedia article is very misleading and should be removed.

2601:4C3:4000:7001:3DDC:4B40:E651:ABA4 (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I read the article and it's obvious satire. Quoting it out of context in a BLP is bad form. Even if it were sincere there's the issue of weight - no mentions in independent sources. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I added that line as a replacement for a lengthy quote from the cited article, but it was not a step in the right direction, and removing it was appropriate. I've seen other sources where he says similar things, as well statements where he directly contradicts that by saying he would chose to be straight if he could. All of the independent sources are too flimsy considering the BLP issues, and his style is almost always far too... satirical, I guess, to be taken at face value. Grayfell (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies removed some text from the article ('In 2015, in an article titled "I dropped out of Manchester and Cambridge but it’s honestly fine," he wrote that he didn't believe a university degree was necessary for success, and that he believed he had achieved success without one') with the comment, "uninteresting: primary source". An experienced editor should not be removing content from articles because he personally finds it to be "uninteresting". Obviously not everyone is going to find the same things "interesting", and if editors removed everything that they personally found "uninteresting", there would in the end be nothing left. There is no reason a primary source cannot be used. WP:BLPPRIMARY stresses the need for caution in using such sources; it does not forbid them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yiannopoulos has written many, many things, and since he's paid for it, presumably most of them are interesting to somebody. Drmies is entitled to their opinion, as are you. Relying on opinions about what is or is not interesting isn't going to work, and including every opinion he's written also isn't going to work. This is why we need independent sources commenting on his opinions. The article shouldn't be a directory of every opinion any editor considers of interest. Some facts are so basic to a biography that primary sources work (schools attended, birthdays, etc.), or they can be useful for responses to secondary sources, or to provide context for issues covered by sources to avoid misrepresenting someone. This is not one of those cases. Grayfell (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are free to use their judgment about what is significant and what is not. As far as I am concerned, Yiannopoulos' comments about achieving success without a university degree are particularly important, and throw interesting light on him and his career. They most certainly should be in the article, and Drmies (and you) were wrong to remove them. No policy states independent sources commenting on Yiannopoulos' comments are needed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that they are particularly important, but neither of our opinions should be the deciding factor. Verifiable facts about his own education are relevant to a section on his education, but his opinions on what qualifies as success in a general sense seems arbitrary. This is especially bad here because the source is a humor-piece where he goes on and on about how fantastic he is and brags about all the celebrities he's met and how hot he is and then ends with a line about how modest he is, too (ha ha). Is this a serious reflection on his past? No, clearly not. Is this all just the setup to a punchline? Something in between? This isn't presented seriously, and it shouldn't be taken seriously. If we go by what some editors think is interesting, but what others don't, we end up with an edit war. This is why we should rely on independent sources for this kind of thing. Grayfell (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the purposes of BLPPRIMARY is to allow for primary sources to establish basic biographical facts which may be hard to come by otherwise. Birthdays are frequently sourced to primary documents, and usually there's nothing wrong with that. But User:FreeKnowledgeCreator has a habit of thinking that every single thing a person has ever said or done is automatically notable, and adding a source, even if it's a primary source, is then frequently used to argue "it's verified so it's notable". However, who cares what this subject has to say about getting academic degrees? It's not the person's forte, he didn't get one, his advice is unlikely to be repeated by parents to their children, and it does nothing for this biography. Grayfell's point is well taken: one of the functions of secondary sources is to establishes that certain facts about notable people are worthwhile repeating; even if they are presented seriously, they don't become of encyclopedic relevance until they are proven to have been noticed by serious and independent sources. I think I saw on Twitter that the subject got a new haircut, maybe for the Olympics or for the Republican convention. By FreeKnowledgeCreator's standards, this would be worthwhile including. No. Drmies (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, editors can use their judgment about what is significant. Drmies of course considers the content he removed insignificant, and he presents some irrelevant and inconsequential arguments ("his advice is unlikely to be repeated by parents to their children") that I am surprised to see any experienced editor use in a discussion. I would certainly not be in favor of mentioning every comment Yiannopoulos ever made about anything, but his comments about achieving success without a university degree certainly cast an interesting light on him and his career. Readers who understand how significant academic qualifications are usually seen as being should understand this, and would realize that the issue is in a entirely different category from Yiannopoulos' haircut. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judgement calls shouldn't be used as a licence to include trivia and half-sincere self-aggrandizing. As I said before, the source is not serious. Taking a joke article literally makes Wikipedia look foolish. I don't think the content would belong even if it was supported by a serious autobiographical work, but using this source for this content is just silly. We're not expected to take all statements hyper-literally regardless of context. What would that accomplish? Grayfell (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FreeKnowledge, your judgment and mine differ and that's fine. Now, the guy's comment doesn't mean a thing: it is obvious that one can drop out of college and be successful, and if you think that needs proof, you can point someone to the article for Milo Yiannopoulos. I mean, it's self-evident. And trivial. As for "experienced editor"--you are an experienced editor, yet you have a problem with someone imagining a readership for this article at the same time that you fail to recognize that the article itself is proof of the trite statement made by the subject himself--and that article is read by the reader. It seems to me that you are not imagining readers at all. And by the way, let's not overstate "academic qualifications"--we're talking about an undergraduate degree in English, the kind of degree that gets you a job at Starbucks. Grayfell, I like what you say about joking and taking stuff literally: pace Trump we're not going to go to hell because of political correctness but because of literalism. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the Guardian source nor Breitbart source say that Yiannopoulos says his ban is a violation of his supposed first amendment rights. Quite possibly because as he's not an American citizen, he doesn't have any even if it did apply to Twitter which it doesn't. As such, I have removed the sentence.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aliens in the USA absolutely enjoy the entire spectrum of First Amendment Rights under the law. The Supreme Court addressed this specifically in 1945 when the high court held that “Freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country” (Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 148). Likewise the rest of the Bill of Rights, including the more commonly understood 2nd, 4th and 5th amendments. The court has yet to directly address any limitations on the rights of those here without permission, but in 1982 said that children of illegal aliens have the right to a public elementary education (Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202). In general, anything deemed a "fundamental right" in the US Constitution is construed as existing without regard to government. In other words, the right to free association, speech and religious belief (1A) exists not because of government, but prior to the existence of government. Therefore, the right exists at a human level and must be protected by our Constitution. Generally, the only rights denied to non-citizens are those specific to the functional duties of actual citizenship - voting, holding federal office and the like. Every other right has been recognized when put to test before the court - even the right to keep and bear arms (though still undefined for undocumented aliens). So yes, Milo can say what he wants, own guns and be free from unwarranted search while in the USA, the same as me. -- signed by an anon 11:38 26 July 2016 (EST)

In fact I did not remove them, as I was edit conflicted with HappyWaldo's edit which addresses the problem.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you anyway, people get really confused about the First Amendment - or more likely they never bother to try to understand what it means. Doug Weller talk 14:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To the IP - First amendment rights don't stop Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, etc from banning people from using their websites. The First Amendment "prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting thepetitioning for a governmental redress of grievances." In other words, it's about governments, not companies, etc. Doug Weller talk 18:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any reliable sources on his origins? This has been changed so much in the article, often with unreliable sources, and they tell a different story each time.

• Where was he born?
• Of what origin are his parents?
• If he was born abroad, when did he move to the UK?

Some might see this as uninteresting trivia, but it is important to a figure who bases a lot of his material on his identity. Particularly this recent trend of him mentioning Jewish ancestry. '''tAD''' (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Yiannopoulos' claim, "if [I am a white supremacist], I must be the first black-dick-sucking white supremacist in history," is demonstrably false (see: http://crooksandliars.com/2014/04/report-white-supremacist-was-caught-80s), which should be noted.

216.165.95.67 (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not exactly relevant. His statement was rhetoric given in his usual provocative/sarcastic manner, not a serious scholarly opinion on the history of interracial fellatio. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the quote. It's messy to be picking inflammatory, off-the-cuff quotes to try and support contentious content like this. If this is the only response he's made to being called a white supremacist, he hasn't really made a response worth mentioning. The Crooks and Liars source doesn't mention Yiannopoulos, so it is totally irrelevant. Using that source would be WP:SYNTH, which is not acceptable. Grayfell (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Text under "Ideological position" should be changed from 'Yiannopoloulos has rejected accusations that he is a white supremacist, stating "if that's the case, I must be the first black-dick-sucking white supremacist in history"[86]' to 'Yiannopoloulos has rejected accusations that he is a white supremacist, falsely[86] stating "if that's the case, I must be the first black-dick-sucking white supremacist in history"[87],' with a link from [86] to < http://crooksandliars.com/2014/04/report-white-supremacist-was-caught-80s >.

In response to the above comment, the point is relevant I would argue, because, while Yiannopoulos' rhetoric may be sarcastic/provocative, he is nevertheless pointedly suggesting that, because he has engaged in sexual relations (as is implied) with a black man, it would be impossible for him to be a white supremacist - which is indeed pertinent to his own view of his ideological position, but which is also, as stated, demonstrably false. It is possible both to be a white supremacist and to have had sexual relations with a black person, and to quote Yiannopoulos without comment is tacitly to accept the validity of his reasoning.

216.165.95.67 (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the quote. Per above, that source is useless here, but we need more context. Using a gossip column to pick an inflammatory quote sets a bad precedent. If more reliable sources haven't commented on accusations of white supremacy (and I bet they have), neither should Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say that the first thing I thought when I saw his statement was "Yeah, right, who could imagine a white supremacist having sex with a black?" If he really meant that he's naive and sheltered. Doug Weller talk 20:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The alt-right isn't know for its sincerity, so who knows? Even if he didn't mean it, he still might be naive and sheltered. Grayfell (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

On July 19th, 2016 Milo Yiannopoulos' Twitter account was banned permanently following some of his supporters to tweet racist tweets to Leslie jones following a critical review of Ghostbusters by Yiannopoulos. The result is people from both sides of the aisle coming together to attack Jack Dorsey because the censorship factor in the ban along with no banning people who openly call for the killing of Donald J Trump... and ISIS sympathizers. The result is that #FreeNero was #1 trend for over 16 hours on Twitter and an overall outcry for the ending of censorship.

MrSuperEditor123 (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. You would also need to provide reliable sources for these claims as they relate to Yiannopoulos, which almost certainly don't exist. Grayfell (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

there isn't any proof/citations accompanying this statement to render it factual; the citations following the statement only lead to two articles covering the fact that Yiannopoulos did criticize Jones on Twitter and was banned, but neither make any mention of Yiannopoulos's followers being a notable group who insulted Jones. although it is quite possible (and probable) that a large demographic of those who insulted Jones followed Yiannopoulos on the platform, there is no way to prove this unless someone would like to take the time to actually analyze how many of those Twitter users who insulted Jones on Twitter followed Yiannopoulos, then determining if that portion of users is/was significant enough to show that there is/was a correlation between Yiannopoulos's followers and those who insulted Jones. however, since Twitter is still extremely active, any sort of statistic drawn from Twitter users is still subject to fluctuation. in the meantime, it's probably best to remove and/or alter this statement to make the page on Yiannopoulos more factual, removing the assumption that Yiannopoulos's followers were the ones who insulted Leslie Jones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.33.200 (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of analysis would be WP:OR. Wikipedia uses reliable sources. Source agree that Yiannopoulos's tweets led to an increase in abuse. We could add more of those sources, but that would just be WP:CITECLUTTER, so it would be better to avoid that, if possible. Grayfell (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Time magazine [2] say he "reportedly spearheaded" the abuse. That seems fair to include unless there's absolute proof. I don't know why, in this world where everything is screenshot to bite you on the arse later on, no source has shown any proof that he was consciously leading an army of white supremacist trolls. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since all / most of the sources are biased against conservatives, we have to be careful not to repeat their bias in WP's voice per WP:NPOV. The Verge is from Vox (notoriously liberal); The Hill is notoriously liberal; Twitter (interviewed in PC Magazine) has again and again come under fire for bias and censorship against conservatives; TIME is not exactly known for its political neutrality, either. No one with a conscience could claim these are neutral sources with a straight face. Why are there no neutral or even conservative sources to balance those out, with appropriate attribution of opinion all around? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 21:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We do not require the use of neutral sources, but rather, policy requires us to neutrally summarize what the full range of reliable sources say about the matter. Anyone trying to argue, for example, that Time magazine is not an acceptable source is very likely to be disappointed here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expecting screenshots of a gotcha moment assumes he didn't realize what would happen when he started insulting Jones. Are sources seriously claiming that he couldn't have known how his followers would've behaved when he joined in the abuse? They seem pretty clear on that to me. His own tweets where clearly insulting and followed days of targeted abuse. Actually, months of abuse, since Yiannopoulos been part of the gang insulting the film's cast and crew and whining about its existence since before it was even filmed. Nobody is claiming he said "Go forth and harass her, and don't hold back on the racism, please." That's not a realistic threshold, and that only works if we demand an overly literal definition of incitement. That runs against common sense about how social media works. Twitter didn't expect that, other sources don't expect that, and neither should we.

As for biased sources, the reliable conservative sources I've seen agree that Jones was harassed and insulted beyond acceptability. If not by Yiannopoulos, then by the "eggs" who came along later. If you know of any news sources which meet guiidelines, go for it, but I doubt we're going to see a drastic change in how this is covered. Opinion pieces could be considered, but they would need attribution. I think it's still too premature to be adding a lot of those, and they bring with them a lot of BLP problems as well. Grayfell (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this provides a balanced overview of the back-and-forth tweets that led to Milo's suspension. If we can find a reliable source that covers the tweets themselves in a non-NPOV way, then it should be used. - HappyWaldo (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are many, many sources covering the ban and the tweets, so it's not clear what you're asking for. That link screams of false balance to me, as he glosses over a lot of important context. A Youtube personality like Philip DeFranco isn't a reliable source, and in this case it's really, really not a neutral one despite his superficial impartiality. This would also be WP:BLPSPS violation. Grayfell (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking that we cite a YouTube personality, but that we use a source that gives a balanced assessment, minus any left/right bias. - HappyWaldo (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are not required to be unbiased or neutral. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.69.11 (talk) 05:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[11]

I don't know much about either the Verge or the author, but it doesn't strike me as a conservative-leaning website. It is mulled over here whether it was a final warning or related only to one event. '''tAD''' (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The author of this article understands how twitter works (just like most of those reading this page understand how Wikipedia and probably Twitter work), which is very different from most other sources where it's fairly clear that the author of those articles have no idea at all what is going on inside twitter and are probably technologically illiterate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.69.11 (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.businessinsider.com/milo-yiannopoulos-fighting-twitter-ban-2016-7 Another Impartial Source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.69.11 (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the coverage of Yiannopoulos is quite critical. As this is a living person, we have to abide by WP:BLP and only include critical opinions covered in very reliable sources and that is properly attributed and a non-minority view. I believe that the Guardian article which HappyWaldo removed was from a reliable source that reflected a non-minority view, and was properly attributed. As such, I will be reverting his removal of it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't "pundit" or "commentator" more accurate than "journalist"? IMHO/NPV Milo is very candidly a highly opinionated individual. Journalistic neutrality and objectivity are really just not characteristic of Milo. His fans and detracters really would agree don't you think? Wikidgood (talk) 11:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably commentator? The majority of what he writes tends to be opinion pieces, and his fame and coverage comes from his beliefs about things. I think you're good to reword as such. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we applied the requirement of neutrality and objectivity before we called people jounalists, there would be very few BLPs (but quite a lot of BDPs) that qualify. We call people what reliable sources call them, and enough refer to him as a journalist to justify the label. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reverts, which constitute edit warring, like these involve inclusion of non-reliable sources, WP:WEASELing with the purpose of making the article fail WP:NPOV, and original research. User:TheTruthiness please provide an explanation for your edits and try to convince other editors to gain consensus rather than edit warring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've found one source which I don't honestly know that much about, but has an article that would solve the missing citation issue quite nicely, if the source is reliable. [[12]] Someone want to give feedback? Sage (Buzz me) 19:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure as to what sources are being requested for, but I would suggest a source with comments such as '“Stop treating us like children,” the red-faced young woman whined, amidst a tantrum that would look familiar to any parent of a toddler' would probably be best avoided.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although it appears I have missed the point, namely that the woman in question was deliberately acting that way and not being serious.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Triggering event, under heading 2.6 in the Table of contents, "needs additional citation for verification". This citation which shows the protests that occurred at the event, would be a perfect addition. I just need to know if the site itself is considered reliable. Sage (Buzz me) 20:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Heat Street in general. The site looks like nothing but clickbait to me, but looks can be deceiving. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and that specific article is short, gossip column-like, and low on substance, so I would not use it for anything significant or controversial. Grayfell (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Grayfell: I hear you. Maybe this, which is a meatier, overall better article, would be a better source, though campus reform is biased. [[13]] Sage (Buzz me) 20:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pretty good source, I think, as it's in the format of a respectable article and the site itself is pretty good, I think. [[14]] And here's Fox News, which is definitely a good source. [[15]] That having been said, I'm going to add the Fox citation and await approval on the others. Sage (Buzz me) 21:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Fox News article is directly taken from HeatStreet, as mentioned in the byline.

A look at the sources used at Campus Reform is telling. That article cites "drudgereportarchives-net.africancrisis.org" (wow), HeatStreet, and a blog, all of which are just recycling Campus Reform's own material. There's also a LA Times story which doesn't actually mention Campus Reform, but the only reliable sources used at that article are from The Chronicle of Higher Education. They're paywalled, so I can't read it, but the titles suggests that they're not praising CR's impartial journalism. Wikipedia's article on them is not a definitive argument against using them, but I think it highlights the problem, here. WP:RS calls for a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", which this site doesn't have.

This is especially bad as a foundation for WP:BLP content. From what I've been able to find, the entire event was pretty much only covered by Breitbart (which is specifically not impartial in this situation for multiple reasons) and a handful other questionable sites in the same walled-garden. I would prefer to remove it from this article entirely, but if better sources exist, The Triggering article could sure benefit from them, also. Grayfell (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of them before, but looking at the New Boston Post it seems like it might be a good source. Their ideology is transparent and they're presenting the story factually and without editorializing (superficially, at least). I wouldn't use them for anything controversial without looking into it closer, but for establishing that he appeared at the event, this seems fine. Since the article only mentions Yiannopoulos's role as being part of a larger event, I'm not totally clear why we need to mention this at all, but if we are going to mention it, that seems like the source to use. Grayfell (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so are we just going to get rid of it entirely, or add the New Boston Post as the source? I vote to keep it and change the source, but I'd like someone else to weigh in. Sage (Buzz me) 01:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a small look around the New Boston post website it seems like it's actually a pretty good source. They're very transparent about their bias and they don't put too much extra opinion into their articles most of the time. Sage (Buzz me) 01:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would accept that source, but still prefer to leave it out. He's made many appearances, after all, and this one is notably mainly because of niche coverage of its protests, not its speaker line-up. I don't see much discussion of anything in particular that Yiannopoulos said or did there that is encyclopedically significant. Let's see if anyone else cares to weigh in. Grayfell (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to assume that's a no. @Grayfell: I'm willing to defer to you, let's just remove that section from the entry. Sage (Buzz me) 12:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As has been mentioned before, there's a lot of critical material, and I don't know enough about the man and the issues to even begin to adjudicate what should be included, but I ran across the following which claims that the privilege grant has not fulfilled its pledge and that the money was transferred to Yiannopoulos' account.

https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrumpSpam/comments/4y8rb2/the_donald_monderator_breitbart_editor_and_trump/?st=is06bj2p&sh=a07a9f6e

Reddit is not exactly what I would use as an academic source (and most of the links are images of tweets) and the tone leaves no illusions as to the author's position on the issue, but I thought it was worth bringing up so someone a little more knowledgable could follow up/update with whatever was 'wiki worthy' or otherwise determine if this is worth following up on.

He is apparently due to address it tomorrow, though I'm not sure where.

Systemchalk (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On his podcast two weeks ago (The Milo Yiannopoulos Show, Episode 20, interview with Chuck Dixon), he mentioned that he would have news regarding the Privilege Grant soon. Since his podcast airs every Friday, I'm guessing that that's where he'll announce it. Once he releases the episode and I have a chance to listen to it, hopefully we can update that part. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to suggest we wait for secondary coverage before updating this (e.g. no reddit posts, no podcasts by the subject of the article.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary coverage at The Daily Beast: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/19/breitbart-editor-milo-yiannopoulos-takes-100-000-for-charity-gives-0.html PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although I've enjoyed the author's republished National Enquirer headlines [16] and dish on the sex lives of campaign staffers [17], I don't think Resnick and The Daily Beast are adequate for claims of criminal wrongdoing. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think more is needed, but neither of those links have anything to do with Yiannopoulos. We should wait until more info is known for BLP and WP:NOTNEWS reasons, but I don't think The Daily Beast is inherently unreliable as a source. The first is a story about a tabloid's coverage of a scandal and Trump's later endorsement of that tabloid, which is not relevant to this. The second is about a lawsuit between Trump and a former campaign aide, which is also not relevant. The Daily Beast does have some problems, but those stories aren't examples. Grayfell (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen conflicting statements,but the article linked to says he was born in Greece.-LebaneseArab (talk) 01:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An IP changed the information about his birthplace, I have reverted the changes. -- GB fan 01:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source lists his birthplace as Greece-LebaneseArab (talk) 02:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His birth name is Hanrahan - this is his first directorship with his father's company: https://www.duedil.com/director/908919443/milo-hanrahan. Clearly he was not born in Greece with the surname Yiannopoulos, since in the first discussion on birthplace an unsigned IP gave the link to his correct birth data. What's the best way to resolve this? Luther Blissetts (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The way to resolve this is easy. Find a reliable source that is better than the source that is in the article right now. -- GB fan 00:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Until someone deigns to write an article in a approved publication about his claim to have been born in Greece (made originally I think when he was using the name Milo Wagner on wikipedia in his own bio https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Milo_Andreas_Wagner&diff=177006376&oldid=159810081) and references the actual birth data (as linked to by the unsigned IP), then can we at least place an ^{[unreliable source?]} or something similar to alert the reader? Luther Blissetts (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing to show that the LA Times is an unreliable source. If you think it it's unreliable take it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and ask the question. -- GB fan 00:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure no-one is claiming that the LA Times is unreliable source. A reliable source like his birth record isn't something we can link to in the wikipedia article itself. http://www.genesreunited.co.uk/search/results?sourcecategory=birthsutf002c%20marriages%20utf0026%20deaths&collection=births%20utf0026%20baptisms&datasetname=england%20utf0026%20wales%20births%201837-2006&firstname=milo&firstname_variants=true&lastname=hanrahan&birthyear=1984&birthyear_offset=2&region=great%20britain Luther Blissetts (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What source are you saying should be marked as an unreliable source? -- GB fan 00:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"or something similar to alert the reader" - meaning that if the words 'born in Greece' can't be removed from the sentence, then is there some way we can alert the reader to the contentious nature of this. Otherwise we're leaving misleading information in, when it doesn't need to be there. We can't use the public records of his birth and companies. Luther Blissetts (talk) 01:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be acceptable to just remove "born in Greece", so the sentence says "was raised in the United Kingdom"?Luther Blissetts (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get that his last name at birth was "Hanrahan"? This all seems to be based on the declaration by an ip that his last name at birth was Hanrahan. Then that same ip doing original research with public records to say he was born in Kent. We have nothing reliable that even remotely suggests there is anything contentious here. After (edit conflict), no his birth place is reliably sourced and should remain until we have reliable sources to counter that. -- GB fan 01:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We know that his surname at birth was Hanrahan due to: his birth certificate; we know his birthday because he wrote about it; we know he was not born in 1983 as claimed by Milo Wagner and on the companies data for Wrong Agency Ltd, but in 1984 (see the other companies); we know his father Nic Hanrahan on twitter back in 2013, arguing with Guardian journalist Charles Arthur; his paternal grandmother, Petronella Hanrahan, about whom he wrote an article and whom he posthumously into the infamous Kernal non-payment fiasco. As you say, let's wait for a reliable source that shows he was born in Chatham, Kent, in 1984 and not Greece in 1983 as mentioned in this wikipedia article and previously claimed by Milo Wagner (one of three names used by the same man). -- Luther Blissetts (talk) 02:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone that knows of Milo, knows of him with the Donald Trumpesque shock of obviously-dyed white hair. So while reading about the British Government employees making such efforts at obviously negatively editing his wikipedia article (as an equally obvious attempt at smearing poo on Donald Trump, aka "Daddy", first impression is a 2013 picture of Milo with dark hair. Don't bother arguing that a current image of Milo is unavailable, we all know better. I'm just saying that you folks should at least maintain the illusion of neutrality while using Wikipedia to advance your socialist, anti-Trump agenda. This photo crosses that line and shows the whole world what you are up to.Jonny Quick (talk) 03:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, find a better photo, Jonny Quick. In other words, fix it yourself. 2601:1C0:6D01:1800:E897:5561:DE47:3E3C (talk) 03:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]