Icarus of old (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 176: | Line 176: | ||
Milo has attracted major coverage by reliable sources over this. There is no doubt that this is notable enough for inclusion. This is not just some controversy that will blow over in one day and lose all encyclopedic value. Coverage by CBS, Haaretz, the Independent, the Guardian, Politico, the Hill, NY Mag, Huff Po, Vox, Seattle P-I etc. in the last few hours, and more is certainly imminent. It is therefore notable enough for the lede. [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) 17:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC) |
Milo has attracted major coverage by reliable sources over this. There is no doubt that this is notable enough for inclusion. This is not just some controversy that will blow over in one day and lose all encyclopedic value. Coverage by CBS, Haaretz, the Independent, the Guardian, Politico, the Hill, NY Mag, Huff Po, Vox, Seattle P-I etc. in the last few hours, and more is certainly imminent. It is therefore notable enough for the lede. [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) 17:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC) |
||
:The lead (sorry, I really hate "lede", it is a gilded invention of 60's print journalists) is supposed to summarize and introduce the subject, and if this thing has really only happened in the last few hours then we really don't have enough time and objectivity to judge whether it is a significant enough aspect of Milo Y's life yet. Give it times and see where this goes, if it winds up to be a passing controversy then its fine where it is. if it becomes career-defining like Bill Cosby's sexual assaults, then it is perfect lead material. For the record and on a personal note, I am NOT defending alleged pedophilia advocacy by any means. I dearly hope that this is a career-ENDER as well as definer for the subject. But we have rules to follow. [[User:ValarianB|ValarianB]] ([[User talk:ValarianB|talk]]) 17:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Inconsistency re: Academic Record == |
== Inconsistency re: Academic Record == |
Revision as of 17:29, 20 February 2017
| |||||||||||||
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 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.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Breitbart News "far right"?
The first sentence in the lede states "Milo Yiannopoulos is a British journalist, entrepreneur, public speaker, and technology editor for Breitbart News, a far-right news and opinion website based in the United States. Breitbart is not considered "far-right" but rather, "alt-right". According to the lede in the Wiki on the far-right: "Far-right politics often involve a focus on tradition, real or imagined, as opposed to policies and customs that are regarded as reflective of modernism. Many far-right ideologies have a disregard or a disdain for egalitarianism, even if they do not always express overt support for social hierarchy, elements of social conservatism and opposition to most forms of liberalism and socialism. The term is commonly used to describe right-wing populist ideologies which is known for its espousal of extreme nationalism and its opposition to immigration, as well as its advocacy of Nazism, neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies or organizations that feature extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, or reactionary views, which can lead to oppression and violence against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority, or their perceived threat to the nation, state or ultraconservative traditional social institutions." This description does not apply to Breitbart, which, AFAIK has never expressed support for Nazism, neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism, nor violence against groups. Indeed, Jewish groups have praised Breitbart for defending against anti-Semitism (which rather discredits the "Nazi" or "neo-Nazi" notions). There are plenty of legitimate criticisms to be made about Breitbart, but any article that calls them "far-right" undermines its own credibility, and leaves no room for describing the position of truly far-right media, such as Stormfront. Breitbart is "alt-right"; there's no reason to exaggerate their position on the spectrum. Bricology (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Been over this. Read archives here and at the Breitbart article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Misleading - there was no consensus reached. I've added the term "right wing" so it now reads "right wing to far right" - exactly as it does on the Breitbart News article. And there is every reason to exaggerate; this is Wikipedia, a majority left-wing cabal. Phatwa (talk) 13:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- And by your use of 'cabal' you instantly put yourself into the group 'people who are least likely to be objective'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- First edit picked at random from your contribs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=760492077, pot-kettle etc. Phatwa (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, describing a trash tabloid as trash that has been caught *blatantly making stuff up*, with a history of printing homophobia, racism, sexism, and supporting the Nazi's is somehow evidence of a left-wing cabal? Ahahahahahahahaaaaaaaahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaahahaha. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Phatwa:, please focus on content, not contributors per WP:CIVIL. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- I've already reverted. The lack of consensus claimed doesn't exist anywhere in current talk space, and I suspect doesn't exist (except perhaps historically, in that it's no longer the case) in archives. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's from November 2016 in the Archive (page 3). Phatwa (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- The consensus in that discussion (there are three in that archive page, but all came to the same consensus) per WP:CON was to refer to Breitbart as "alt-right". Please read WP:CON and understand that consensus is not a vote. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's from November 2016 in the Archive (page 3). Phatwa (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- First edit picked at random from your contribs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=760492077, pot-kettle etc. Phatwa (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- And by your use of 'cabal' you instantly put yourself into the group 'people who are least likely to be objective'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Misleading - there was no consensus reached. I've added the term "right wing" so it now reads "right wing to far right" - exactly as it does on the Breitbart News article. And there is every reason to exaggerate; this is Wikipedia, a majority left-wing cabal. Phatwa (talk) 13:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- 'Alt-right' is a subset of 'far-right'. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's right. Adding right-wing or alt-right or conservative adds no new information.- MrX 13:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Great post. My comment was about the reason for no editing on the Milo page is simply that the individual who does not know the difference between alt and far is more interested in preventing corrections or maybe he thinks that people who correct him are vandals. Tonertee (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- What comment are you referring to? Also, as has been pointed out before: alt-right is a subset of far right according to every reliable source to have written about it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- At any rate, Milo himself has argued strongly that he is not "alt-right" and is against the "alt-right," and he has gotten several retractions from various newspapers that erroneously labeled him "alt-right." So this entire inclusion of "alt-right" gives a false impression. (Likewise, the section on his sexual identity gives the impression he is a "self-loathing gay man," whereas he speaks proudly in his stage performances about being a proud gay man. So, that really gives a misleading impression. I would also recommend that his being recognized as a "gay man," be in the initial introduction to him at the top of this page, since it is a major part of what he presents as his identity, including the name of his current tour that is generating so much controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.58.248.139 (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what stage performances you're referring to, but he's well known for repeatedly stating that he wishes he weren't gay. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm surmising from the discussion here and the discussion/source analysis at Breitbart News that "far-right" would be the most accurate descriptor to use in this situation. Lizzius (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- A similar issue occurred on the Steve Bannon page with this solution ref. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- "Solution" is a stretch; could we settle on "kludge". - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 18:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- That's a fine settlement for me, but I think if we can come up with a better idea we should implement it there too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- "Solution" is a stretch; could we settle on "kludge". - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 18:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
'far-right' is a subjective term and should not be used in the context of an encyclopedic article. Nothing more needs be said on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.56.154 (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- No, it's not. It's a basic, descriptive term. It might not have the most firm boundaries, but it has a very clear definition that can be applied very easily in all but the edge cases. It's a statement of fact, regardless of your opinion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Split proposed
I propose that we spin off the section about his tour as it is notable and has received considerable media coverage. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support. The tour section is becoming long relative to the biography article. feminist 03:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Merge with Dangerous (book) The tour was in support of his book and it belongs in that entry. Bangabandhu (talk) 05:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Um, no. The tour began well before Dangerous was announced. Both topics are notable separately. feminist 08:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - The article has 21kB of readable prose, far less than recommended by WP:SIZESPLIT. In fact, The tour section should be trimmed of excessive detail. For example, quotes of protesters' chants, Facebook reviews of venues, about half of the UCLA section, and so on. His tour really does not have enduring encyclopedic value outside the context of his biography.- MrX 12:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- No, this is not a WP:SIZESPLIT. In fact the current level of detail is a strong reason for creating a separate article for the tour. The tour and many of its events have received significant news coverage over more than a year of time, much more than many concert tours deemed notable and with an article. If that isn't sufficient, I don't know what is. feminist 13:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support - This particular tour had faced so much controversy that it needs its own separate article. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 04:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose -- The tour and the subject are pretty much part and parcel of each other. In other words, he *is* the tour. — Confession0791 talk 08:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - Milo's only part in the protest was being invited as a speaker. His BLP already describes who he is and what he represents. The riot at Berkeley is better suited for the Berkeley article since the rioters purportedly included staff and students who acted violently in protest, denying the expression of free speech as per Art 1 of the US Constitution. Atsme📞📧 15:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Summoned by bot. Per above the 21kB is less than recommended by WP:SIZESPLIT. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose The text dedicated to the tour is already overly long and unnecessarily detailed. Spin offs about "tours" are to be done judiciously, e.g. the group Rolling Stones, active since the early 1960s, had been in dozens of tours, most of them hugely popular and notable in their own right, yet only two spin off articles for their tours exist in Wikipedia. The entry on Milo Yiannopoulos itself needs to be more balanced in its content, i.e. the section on the "Faggot Tour" should be significantly trimmed. -The Gnome (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose "part and parcel of the article."Mwinog2777 (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Sources for "anti-fascist activists"
I recently added a descriptor "anti-fascist" to group that started the recent riots in Berkeley, which was contested by Ad Orientem. These sources clearly label the rioters as "anti-fascist activists" from the group "Antifa" or "AntiFA": The Guardian, Vocativ, IBTimes, etc. I fail to see how this is POV, and it's more specific than what we currently have ("masked agitators"). Some sources describe them as "anarchists," but that's just one part of their philosophy, at least according to the IBTimes article. FallingGravity 01:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell most RS sources are not using this descriptor. And "anti-fascist" does tend to make them sound rather heroic. I mean who isn't against fascism? But if a preponderance of RS sources are using the term then by all means we can put it in. At the moment though, I'm not seeing it. Side note: I appreciate FG taking this to the talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- With all due respect to Ad Orientem, this information is verifiable and true, even if it only appears in a minority of RSes. The majority of sources aren't mentioning it because the majority of sources are writing about how this fits into the larger picture of protests against Trump and the alt-right. To those stories, it doesn't really matter what group organized the protests, only that the protest was organized. All of these subsections have multiple references, being used to support different parts. If we trim each section down to only what's repeated in a majority of sources, we'd be left with one-two sentences for each.
- If accurate, relevant information causes a POV shift in the article, then by definition, it's shifting towards neutrality. As a compromise, instead of calling them "anti-fascist activist" why not call them "activist from an anti-fascist group"? It's a more accurate way of phrasing it, anyways, as we don't know that all of them went due to a legitimate desire to protest, instead of simply wanting to fit in with their group, for example. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- I think "anti-fascist" is significant because it shows the agitators were likely protesting Milo's connections to the alt-right. That's not to say we should state that as the reason for the riot, but at the least it gives the reader some context for them to make up their mind. FallingGravity 09:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
...it shows the agitators were likely protesting Milo's connections to the alt-right.
Indeed, it does show that. But do you (or I, or indeed, anyone aside from each of those individual protesters) know that for a fact? No. As I mentioned, some may have (read: almost certainly did) come just to engage in activities with their friends in the group. Some may have felt uncomfortable coming, but came along due to peer pressure. Some were possibly not there from the anti-fascists groups at all, but got caught up in the energy of the crowd. We don't know. We can reasonably infer that the protest was organized by the anti fascist groups due to that. Since this edit has been challenged, and the proposal I made above is dryer and less provocative, yet at least equally (almost certainly more, but again: I don't know either) true, shouldn't we use that? I'm literally looking at an option that addresses your concerns (this detail does change the narrative, and since it's true it should be included) and equally addresses Ad Orientem's concerns (it doesn't portray the protesters as overtly noble). It even implies a motive to the groups in organizing the protests. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 06:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)- I'm not objecting to your wording MP, I was more replying to Ad Orientem about the use of the term "anti-fascist". FallingGravity 01:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- I think "anti-fascist" is significant because it shows the agitators were likely protesting Milo's connections to the alt-right. That's not to say we should state that as the reason for the riot, but at the least it gives the reader some context for them to make up their mind. FallingGravity 09:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- >Falling - I think Ad Orientem is correct, and the WP:WEIGHT of coverage (in number and major outlets) does not use that. Most I saw seem to follow the Chancellors terms like "150 masked agitators" that CNN used with the Black bloc, or Fox says "violent protestors" and quotes "invaded the campus", and ABC relates the police chief "group of agitators". p.s. I'm also seeing many now view the group as having given him a PR windfall -- it made the troll more famous, sold more of his work, and now he gets to say the left is "terrified of free speech" or "bully people into silence by name-calling". Markbassett (talk) 04:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Markbassett: All of the sources you cite are from the day after the protest. However, since then more information about the protesters has come to light, which is reflected in the sources. Rolling Stone: "150 black-clad, anti-fascist radicals"; Gothamist: "antifa rioters"; ABC7: calls them "Black Bloc", an anti-fascist group. FallingGravity 04:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- >Falling - The major players (ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, NBC) or others large ones (NPR; or BBC, CNBC, Daily Mail, MSNBC, Washington Post, LA Times) ... just are going other ways. That the small players are your cites for this -- are a minority whichever way I look at it. It's also looking like many sites do not single out a separate group.
- > As to the later coverage shifting -- well WP:WEIGHT does not give later reports more value, they go by predominance and then somewhat by quality of source. I don't even think you can describe Black Bloc as anti-fascist --- see LATimes refer to black bloc as anarchists or anti-fascists, and elsewhere being not sure if black bloc is 'group or tactic', and generally Black bloc favors anarchist+violent. Sidenote (not citeable) that the photos / TV images show a banner over the crowd "Be Ungovernable", and coverage shows masked folks at the student union but unmasked guy holding bar at bank, and unmasked wandering streets leading to the further spray paint and other smashing.
- > Bottom line is I think "violent" is widely supported but after that mentioning Black Bloc is significant but needs to be attributed as one theory (e.g. what Chancellor said) and seems not accepted by all. And in describing "Black Bloc" it would be "anarchist group" and/or as the tactic of masked folks using a large crowd as cover to do a bit of violent protest. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- To be clear: a Black bloc is not a group, either of the anti-fascist or anarchist sort, but a tactic used by (usually violent) protestors.
- I'm fairly certain the dates matter. The date of articles is something that we take into account for a number of reasons, under a number of policies and guidelines, including WP:RSBREAKING; the most relevant, but also WP:BLP and WP:MEDRS. That first link starts with the statement
Breaking news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia, than to help spread potentially false rumors.
- It's a clear message that the claims of the earliest publications are to be given less weight than the claims of later publications.
- So if earlier publications use a more general description, and later publications use a more specific one, if those later publications are reliable, then it's up to us to assume they are also accurate. So the only question is whether this information is also relevant, which of course it is. It changes the narrative, as I mentioned above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Picture
Would someone who is able to change the picture to one that is accurate. GuysIJustEditedThis (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- It is a picture of him. What is inaccurate about it? --‖ Ebyabe talk - Welfare State ‖ 08:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps the fact he's since recreated his image? --Crisbrm (talk) 08:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- His images are her Commons:Category:Milo Yiannopoulos. This one is the most recent that we can use. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- I've updated it to a better image of him that was taken at the same event. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- His images are her Commons:Category:Milo Yiannopoulos. This one is the most recent that we can use. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps the fact he's since recreated his image? --Crisbrm (talk) 08:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Trivia
Emir of Wikipedia restored some content that I removed with the comment, "WP:NOTCENSORED. Just because the content is sexually contreversial it does not mean we should remove it." The user is confused. I did not remove the content - including Yiannopoulos's claims about how he supposedly lost his virginity and how he would supposedly like to try conversion therapy - because it is sexual or controversial. I removed it because it is trivial. WP:NOTCENSORED does not mean that Wikipedia must include every claim made by an article subject in a biographical article. It is up to those who consider these two claims by Yiannopoulos non-trivial to make a case for including the information. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Incidentally, Emir of Wikipedia, you also reverted this completely uncontroversial formatting change. Could you please be more careful? There was no need to revert absolutely all my edits simply because I made some changes you disagreed with. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- I agree, it should be left out unless it has been covered by secondary sources.- MrX 23:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Apologies for undoing the formatting change. I will be more careful, but I accept it should be left out unless covered by secondary sources. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Breitbart
My issue is not with Breitbart being called right-wing, it is with adding unnecessary info to the article, given we have a link to the article on Breitbart and this is the article on Yiannopoulos. It's insertion looks like there has been an editing dispute and it has been added for that reason. An edit dispute is never a good reason to add content, especially non-notable content. BTW it is also unsourced content, restoring unsourced content that has been removed from a WP:BLP article is always dubious. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 12:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- agreed. per BLP contentious. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- That content has been in the article for several weeks because it is very well-sourced and an RfC at Breitbart News established that there is consensus for describing Breitbart as "far right". The claim that this is a WP:BLP violation is meritless. Feel free to inquire at WP:BLPN if you believe otherwise.- MrX 17:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- Per the above, you will find that quite a few BLP regulars have this on their watchlist. The idea that describing Breitbart as a far right publication on *this* page is a BLP violation rests on the presumption doing so will negatively affect Milo's reputation in some way or is an UNDUE/NPOV connection. This is obviously not true, given he explicitly appeals to the right-wing and far-right demographics both in his political opinions and overtly in his speaking/support of certain political movements. If anything it boosts his reputation amongst his hapless stoog...I mean followers by including the connection. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- It has been extensively discussed both here and at Talk:Breitbart News, and the consensus has been unquestionably that Breitbart is to be called "far-right". There has also been support for calling it "alt-right" but not nearly enough. The bulk of recent discussion on this has been at the hands of three editors (one an IP, the other two experienced) who have refused to accept the consensus, which has been supported by over a dozen experienced editors and a similar number of newer editors. There was one highly experienced editor (an admin in fact, though not the only one to participate in the discussions) who objected to the label, but this editor quickly abandoned the argument after just a few hours.
- One of the hallmarks of a strong consensus is the ability for the 'winning' side to convert editors who advocated for the other position. An examination of this issue in the Breitbart talk archives demonstrates exactly that: the suggest that we call them far-right gained little support at first, but steadily converted editors who had argued against it until the level of support was overwhelming. In the most recent RfC, there were twelve !votes in favor of exclusively calling it "far-right", three !votes in favor of adding "right-wing" and only two in favor of dropping "far-right" entirely.
- It is an important detail which helps to provide an accurate depiction of Milo in the lead. It would paint a very different picture if he worked for a neoconservative outlet, or a liberal outlet. It changes the narrative and is factually accurate, the two most fundamental standards by which we judge information offered for inclusion in a BLP.
- The label "far-right" is not pejorative. If you hold politically left views, then you must understand that simply labeling others as having opposing views does not imply that they are wrong. If you hold politically right views, then I would suggest that the fact that you find the accurate labeling of views similar to (or the same as) your own is a very good reason to re-examine your own beliefs.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- agreed. per BLP contentious. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Milo on Brexit
Milo's a firm believer of Brexit as he stated here: [1] [2], just wondering why it isn't mentioned in the article. Bluesphere 04:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- Probably because no one really cares about him in Britain? So his opinion is largely not covered/irrelevant, and the Americans who take him seriously dont care what he thinks about Brexit - being more concerned with his views on homosexuality, US politics etc. Granted you *could* include it, but I suspect its just not encyclopedic to include his opinion on everything. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
minor edit request
in first paragraph insert far-right news to provide context thanks ScotKreek (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- The first paragraph (the first sentence, really) already states that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Websites
I was posting info about his websites and I had used WHOIS creation date to indicate some rough order of events. It was undone twice with comments "whois services... not reliable sources" and "the WHOIS result is iffy at best". While WHOIS#Accuracy_of_information doesn't specifically deal with creation date, it does say "In cases where the registrant's (Domain Owner) identity is public, anyone can easily confirm the status of a domain via WHOIS." A Quora answer said, "The creations date is the date the domain name was registered although it could have dropped and been re-register. This information is accurate and cannot be changed." [3] A Stackoverflow answer said, "You cannot change the creation date for your domain." [4] Is there some decision on Wikipedia relating to WHOIS or which website to use for WHOIS? There are hundreds of articles that use the creation date and reference WHOIS, including History of Wikipedia. Ironically, the article on Wikipedia doesn't use WHOIS, but it doesn't have any references that support the January 15, 2001 date. StrayBolt (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- WP:RS requires reliable secondary sources for most content. Using a WHOIS result to support the claim that a specific person set up a website runs into problems, because WHOIS is a primary source. It's a good enough primary source for establishing who registered the domain, but it doesn't demonstrate who owned the website. In this case, one needs to check the archived version of the website itself to confirm that it was about Milo and not used as a host for a random porn site or a phishing site, but that's WP:SYNTH, a form of WP:OR.
- All that being said, it would take a really good argument to convince a reasonable person that anyone other than Milo owned that site, so this is a case where, I think WP:IAR can be applied. But you need to make a case for that and get consensus here. But nothing in all of that indicates who designed or managed the site, only who owned it, so you need to be careful about how you state it.
- Also, the statements you sourced to the WP userpage are absolutely not acceptable. There is no way to verify that user name actually belonged to this individual and not someone else. I could edit my user page to claim that I'm Tom Hiddleston right now, and many people would believe it because he (or someone pretending to be him) briefly used the same handle as me on one of the social media sites. For the record, I'm not Tom Hiddleston. I'm much more handsome than he, according to my wife. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Bill Maher interviews Milo Yiannopoulos
Would there be a decisive problem using the interview as source and mentioning it in the the article? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HexaNYw_O-4)- Lähdeluettelo (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- not in spirit, although some editors may insist on additional coverage of the topic for inclusion. Also, we would need to be careful not to infringe of the shows intellectual rights. perhaps the best use will be to dispel or at least reject some of the terms used to describe his views. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Problematic section
Currently the section Relationship with Donald Trump and the alt-right reads:
(...) In a Breitbart article, he and a co-author championed the movement and its intellectual backers, whom he described as "dangerously bright". Tablet noted that many of these intellectual backers write for publications Tablet describes as racist and antisemitic, like VDARE and American Renaissance.[18] The article was criticised by opponents of the right-wing for excusing the extremist elements of the alt-right, and also by neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer who claim that racism and antisemitism are pillars of the movement.[86][87] A Daily Beast article in September 2016 suggested that Yiannopoulos has received funding from virtual reality tycoon Palmer Luckey.[88]
Which article is this section talking about? Did it have any notoriety? Isn't a post entitled "Donald Trump’s Little Boy Is a Gay Half-Jew With Jungle Fever" from a certain Tablet (Magazine) WP:UNDUE? Furthermore what does it mean to "champion the movement and its intellectual backers" - WP:UPE? And the last part:
A Daily Beast article in September 2016 suggested that Yiannopoulos has received funding from virtual reality tycoon Palmer Luckey.[88]
Not knowing who Palmer Luckey is (not such a notable person), what relation does this bare with either Donald Trump or alt-right for it to be in this section? I feel like there should be a better explanation of the article cited in this sentence such that the relation with Trump is clearer. Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- Tablet is a very biased source. I've said it, and I'll keep saying it. — Confession0791 talk 01:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- Palmer Luckey has a WP article which is pretty much the binary criteria for notability. If you doubt this, go ahead and send it to AFD and see how far that gets you. The fact that you've never heard of him is immaterial to the question of his notability.
- WP:YESPOV sufficiently addresses the handling of biased sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- His notability is irrelevant, I only suggested his relationship with Trump to be explicit in the paragraph (e.g. "P.L., who donated to Trump's campaign").
- I.e. that paragraph should be removed? Saturnalia0 (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- Palmer Luckey is the reason Bethesda software just got a 300 million injection to the development of the next Elder Scrolls game. He also does stuff like fund Trump supporters. (Although after looking at that biography it really needs an update, as does John Carmack, Bethesda Softworks etc as the only place the recent lawsuit appears to be mentioned at all is here). Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Milo's pedophilia stuff is not recentism and belongs in the lede
Milo has attracted major coverage by reliable sources over this. There is no doubt that this is notable enough for inclusion. This is not just some controversy that will blow over in one day and lose all encyclopedic value. Coverage by CBS, Haaretz, the Independent, the Guardian, Politico, the Hill, NY Mag, Huff Po, Vox, Seattle P-I etc. in the last few hours, and more is certainly imminent. It is therefore notable enough for the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- The lead (sorry, I really hate "lede", it is a gilded invention of 60's print journalists) is supposed to summarize and introduce the subject, and if this thing has really only happened in the last few hours then we really don't have enough time and objectivity to judge whether it is a significant enough aspect of Milo Y's life yet. Give it times and see where this goes, if it winds up to be a passing controversy then its fine where it is. if it becomes career-defining like Bill Cosby's sexual assaults, then it is perfect lead material. For the record and on a personal note, I am NOT defending alleged pedophilia advocacy by any means. I dearly hope that this is a career-ENDER as well as definer for the subject. But we have rules to follow. ValarianB (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Inconsistency re: Academic Record
I'm a newb. I've read the guidelines carefully, but I apologize if this post is nonconforming.
I propose to update the "biographical summary" for this person, to reflect the facts that he did not graduate from University of Manchester, nor from Cambridge. These facts are contained in the body of the Wikipedia entry ("He attended the University of Manchester, dropping out without graduating.[20]"), but they are not contained in the biographical summary.
I refer to the top right of the Wikipedia entry for this person as the "biographical summary" (it has a light blue background). The biographical summary also appears in Google search results for this person:
CURRENT: Education: University of Manchester, Wolfson College, Cambridge
REQUESTED CHANGE: Education: University of Manchester (did not graduate), Wolfson College, Cambridge (did not graduate)
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.235.197 (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- Fixed, per literal definition of alma mater and sources given within article. Icarus of old (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)