Line 261: | Line 261: | ||
I'm sure many people here know that Yiannopoulos can now add [[Midwest Furfest]] to the list of places he's not welcome. There are [https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/milo-yiannopolous-furry-convention-884960/ plenty] [https://www.thedailybeast.com/milo-yiannopoulos-banned-from-furry-convention of] [https://boingboing.net/2019/09/16/furries-deplatform-milo.html reliable] [https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/09/18/milo-yiannopoulos-furry-midwest-furfest-chicago-telegram/ sources] for this incident. My question, and why I came ''here'' first before editing: is this [[WP:DUE]]? Or would this just end up [[WP:RECENTISM]] and [[WP:CRUFT]]? Thoughts? [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC) |
I'm sure many people here know that Yiannopoulos can now add [[Midwest Furfest]] to the list of places he's not welcome. There are [https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/milo-yiannopolous-furry-convention-884960/ plenty] [https://www.thedailybeast.com/milo-yiannopoulos-banned-from-furry-convention of] [https://boingboing.net/2019/09/16/furries-deplatform-milo.html reliable] [https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/09/18/milo-yiannopoulos-furry-midwest-furfest-chicago-telegram/ sources] for this incident. My question, and why I came ''here'' first before editing: is this [[WP:DUE]]? Or would this just end up [[WP:RECENTISM]] and [[WP:CRUFT]]? Thoughts? [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC) |
||
:As much as I personally love this story, I still don't feel like it passes the [[WP:10YT]] - it was an attempt at a publicity stunt that failed. At best, it might be on par with his participation in the "straight pride parade", which netted a one sentence mention. [[User:Nblund |<span style="background-color: #CC79A7; color:white;">'''Nblund'''</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Nblund|talk]]</sup> 13:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC) |
:As much as I personally love this story, I still don't feel like it passes the [[WP:10YT]] - it was an attempt at a publicity stunt that failed. At best, it might be on par with his participation in the "straight pride parade", which netted a one sentence mention. [[User:Nblund |<span style="background-color: #CC79A7; color:white;">'''Nblund'''</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Nblund|talk]]</sup> 13:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC) |
||
::Fair. Like I said, I was on the fence about this one myself. But it did amuse me greatly. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 14:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:54, 19 September 2019
| |||||||||||||
![]() | 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.
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.
|
Removing significant amounts of undue detail
I actually don't know where to begin with this article, it's busting at the seems with undue detail and reads terribly. It's been a bit of a bugbear for me as it is full of dubious sources, endless quotes and opinion...but I've struggled to figure out how to improve it and to go through it bit by bit would be more work than I have time for. It reads like supporters and detractors have been, as PraiseVivec pointed out, adding "particularly inflammatory quotes on pretty much every subject he ever mentioned" and it has indeed led to a highly "undesirable effect, in which this page has ballooned to a staggering size for someone of his profile". He is an internet troll. He is not a psephologist, a political scientist, an academic, an expert on Islam, feminism or much else to be completely honest...maybe he has some expertise regarding tech?
I've tried to summarise why I think much of it should be removed or reworded below, but there's just so much wrong with the article that I've not discussed every change. I have no intention of acting alone. I ask that editors interested in improving the article have a look at this version and discuss my suggestions/make further suggestions. I've given it a red hot go, pruning, rearranging etc.
The following are my thoughts on some sections I believe should be removed:
I started by going through the sources that I'd never heard of and removing claims that relied on student/local papers, claims that were not widely reported.
Gamergate - One of the first to cover Gamergate? Who cares? Did he break the story? If not it's undue detail, thousands of reporters covered the story.
Alt-right - He is not a psephologist or a political scientists, his personal thoughts and analysis of the movement is undue. Who cares what he thinks about a subject that he has no particular expertise in?
Career - No need to go into this much detail about his "career" as a journalist, he is not notable for this (at least not prior to Breitbart), in-fact I doubt other journalists would regard him as such, maybe a former journalist. This is undue, as demonstrated by the quality of the sources. The Gamergate info is undue, the only mainstream/major outlet to provide coverage of his opinions on the matter cited is CNN and it barely mentions Yiannopoulos.
Breitbart - The Breitbart section of his career is all over the place, should all be in one section and clearly needs further editing. His views on Israel/Palestine are from an op-ed and are completely undue, he is no expert on the issue his views were not widely reported. Taunting some random Jewish journo is undue detail. There's so much detail here, why do we need to know that the bar tender that kicked him out had support from her co workers? For example.
Protests and talks - It's completely undue to list individual events and people booing etc...unless they were widely reported. Most of these rely on minor reports in local and student papers.
Political views
Trump - Yianopolous is no psephologist, or political scientist, he is not an expert on Islam either, these long-winded sections regarding his views on subjects that he has no expertise on, basically just has an opinion about are undue. A paragraph is too much, but I can deal with that.
Islam - Milo is no expert on Islam, who cares what he said once about something he has no expertise on? The widely reported and highly offensive claims are almost alright, but the spurious quotes? We are just giving air to his views, repeating these offensive and hurtful views, they are undue. We can summerise his views, no need to expand on them.
LGBT - An obscure debate with a musician about the word "gay" is undue. We are discussing Milo's views here, no? Who cares what Kevin D. Williamson thinks about Hugo Boss making SS uniforms? An interview that was not accepted for publication and was posted to Yiannopoulos's personal website is not notable. Marshaling a tiny stunt rally is not noteworthy, we are not here to list his stupid pranks. Who cares what he said in some interview with some random church newspaper? Undue.
Glasgow University - Who cares if he was nominated for rector of Glasgow University? Was he appointed? If not this is a complete non-event, an absolute irrelevance.
Debt - As for his debt, his fundraising efforts on Patrion are obviously completely undue detail, why not mention that he got a loan from his mum and borrowed a ten bucks from his mate while we are at it?
IMO There's heaps more that should go, but this version would include much of the relevant detail and give us something we can work to improve. As it stands it is such a mess, it's hard to figure out where to start. Bacondrum (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding the lead proposed in your sandbox, it's too drastic of a cut for the size of this article. It does not adequately summarize the article. As seen at Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos/Archive 4#Due weight and lede length, we recently went over this. So I don't agree with that drastic cut. Yes, I know you want to drastically cut the size of the article, but we also went over that: Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos/Archive 4#The article is way too long for a person whom history will likely forget in a few years. I feel the same way I felt then about WP:Due weight, cutting, and notability. I agree that we shouldn't be adding any and everything about Yiannopoulos and excessive detail. This is why, as seen at Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos/Archive 4#Recent expansions, I stated, "Display name 99, I see that you've been adding material to the article. Per what has been stated above, make sure that you are not going overboard with material. The article already has lot in it, and there are WP:Due weight, WP:DIARY and WP:SIZE matters to consider with expansions. If text can be summarized without cutting out important detail, we should do that." So I am for cutting unnecessary and excessive material, but I am also for keeping in mind what WP:Preserve states.
- Cutting anything that is the subject of the #RfC August 2019 discussion probably should not be done until that RfC is over. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- I have closed the RfC as consensus was clearly in favor of the removal of the material in question. I have taken out the paragraph on Yiannapoulos's comments on transgender people, as that formed part of the content in the RfC. I am not sure that I will have any significant role here in the future, as my ideas for what the article should look like are apparently considerably out of step with those of everyone else. But I agree with Flyer22 Reborn that at the very least caution should be used when deciding to take information out of the article. Display name 99 (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- I will add one more thing however. Removing content because you deem it "offensive and hurtful" violates Wikipedia policy with regard to neutrality and unbiased editing. Please do not do it. Display name 99 (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- If the content is "offensive and hurtful" it should be treated carefully, and only added when completely necessary. Publishing racist, homophobic, sexist and other offensive material should only be done when absolutely essential to presenting the subject views. I will be removing undue additions of hate speech as this is 100% inline with wikipedia policy: "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." WP:GRATUITOUS End of story. Bacondrum (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- You are not simply removing excessive detail. You are rearranging material. Furthermore, cutting material can be subjective, as it has been with you in the past; others, including me, have been against you cutting a lot based on your personal opinion. We have asked you to first discuss potential large deletions because others may disagree, and this article is under WP:1RR. So edit warring at this article can have consequences. I don't see that anyone agreed to your sandbox version. If there are no objections to your changes, you are in the clear, though, obviously. I've already objected to the lead version in your sandbox. And regarding this revert by me, that is another objection thus far. We have already been over this. It is consensus material. It is included because, with regard to Yiannopoulos's comments and some commentators accusing him of endorsing pedophilia, other commentators did take note of what pedophilia is and isn't.
- If the content is "offensive and hurtful" it should be treated carefully, and only added when completely necessary. Publishing racist, homophobic, sexist and other offensive material should only be done when absolutely essential to presenting the subject views. I will be removing undue additions of hate speech as this is 100% inline with wikipedia policy: "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." WP:GRATUITOUS End of story. Bacondrum (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- I will add one more thing however. Removing content because you deem it "offensive and hurtful" violates Wikipedia policy with regard to neutrality and unbiased editing. Please do not do it. Display name 99 (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- As for your comments about WP:Offensive material, we include racist, homophobic, sexist and other offensive material when it is relevant to the topic, as it is in this case due to the substantial controversy and/or criticism. The WP:Not censored policy is tempered with the WP:Offensive material guideline. We only omit offensive material when it "would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate." Leaving out relevant and/or prominent controversy and/or criticism (which is also obviously relevant) with regard to Yiannopoulos because it may be hurtful (to Yiannopoulos or to others) is not supported by the WP:Offensive material guideline. What is supported by Wikipedia is not including excessive material on whatever matter that has received significant controversy and/or criticism. Summarizing where possible is best. Consensus, however, may determine what is or isn't excessive. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- You're entitled to your opinion. This is a direct quote from the guidelines: "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." Seems like a fair and reasonable standard for measuring the value of republishing anything a reasonable person would consider to be offensive material. Bacondrum (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'm used to endorsing and employing the WP:Offensive material guideline, usually with regard to images (which is what "no equally suitable alternative is available" more often applies to), and have weighed in on matters concerning it on its talk page. I'm informing you of how it is and isn't supposed to be used. What I stated is correct. And if you want more opinions on that matter, we can ask at the guideline's talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- You're entitled to your opinion. This is a direct quote from the guidelines: "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." Seems like a fair and reasonable standard for measuring the value of republishing anything a reasonable person would consider to be offensive material. Bacondrum (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding this, it seems like some Gamergate material should be in the "Women and feminism" section. Not necessarily the content you removed. We mention Gamergate in the lead because it was covered lower. And removing the section on it should not be used as an excuse to remove mention of it from the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Why is Gamergate mentioned at all? Did he break the story? Did he reveal something of note? Or did he just report about it, like thousands of other journalists? Bacondrum (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- This has been answered in the #Breitbart seciton below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- Why is Gamergate mentioned at all? Did he break the story? Did he reveal something of note? Or did he just report about it, like thousands of other journalists? Bacondrum (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- As for your comments about WP:Offensive material, we include racist, homophobic, sexist and other offensive material when it is relevant to the topic, as it is in this case due to the substantial controversy and/or criticism. The WP:Not censored policy is tempered with the WP:Offensive material guideline. We only omit offensive material when it "would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate." Leaving out relevant and/or prominent controversy and/or criticism (which is also obviously relevant) with regard to Yiannopoulos because it may be hurtful (to Yiannopoulos or to others) is not supported by the WP:Offensive material guideline. What is supported by Wikipedia is not including excessive material on whatever matter that has received significant controversy and/or criticism. Summarizing where possible is best. Consensus, however, may determine what is or isn't excessive. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Looking at this version of the article, it appears to me that you've cut enough. There is a little bit of material that can be summarized instead of including quotes. But you have significantly downsized the article. The goal certainly should not be what the goal was in the "The article is way too long for a person whom history will likely forget in a few years" discussion. And this is for reasons stated in that discussion. And by "goal," I obviously mean downsizing the article because of what one personally feels about Yiannopoulos's noteworthiness or relevance. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Undue levels of detail included within the section on pedophelia remarks
This seems undue to me:
Matthew Rozsa of Salon.com wrote that although Yiannopoulos is technically correct in distinguishing between paedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia, "it is still illegal in most parts of the Western world for an adult to have sex with a minor." Margaret Hartmann of New York magazine additionally acknowledged the definitions for hebephilia and ephebophilia, but stated, "The lowest and most common age of consent across the U.S. is 16."
- The section on pedophilia comments is already way too detailed, IMO. Two op-eds discussing the distinction between paedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia doesn't belong in this article, maybe the articles about paedophilia, hebephilia, or ephebophilia. It seems pretty obviously undue to me that this is completely undue, but I've been wrong before. Any thoughts? Bacondrum (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- My thoughts are above. I stated, "[R]egarding this revert by me [...] We have already been over this. It is consensus material. It is included because, with regard to Yiannopoulos's comments and some commentators accusing him of endorsing pedophilia, other commentators did take note of what pedophilia is and isn't."
- The arguments you made above were already made. Almost everyone who voted in that RfC was for inclusion. I can ping them for a reassessment of their views.
We have commentators inaccurately speaking on pedophilia and related matters in the section.It makes sense to have commentators accurately speaking on pedophilia and related matters in the section. You titled this discussion section "Undue levels of detail," but have criticized a WP:Due aspect that already went through discussion. Is your rationale not based on WP:IDON'TLIKEIT because commentators are pointing out that Yiannopoulos is technically correct about what pedophilia is? We have had editors at this article strongly wanting to present him as a supporter of pedophilia. And, no, per WP:MEDRS and those pieces specifically being about Yiannopoulos's statements, those pieces don't belong in the articles about Pedophilia, Hebephilia, or Ephebophilia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- The arguments you made above were already made. Almost everyone who voted in that RfC was for inclusion. I can ping them for a reassessment of their views.
- Consensus changes, the only thing I don't like that is relevant to this discussion is a meandering article full of trivia and undue detail. Bacondrum (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, consensus changes, but it hasn't yet changed in this case. I struck through the "we have commentators inaccurately speaking on pedophilia and related matters in the section" part of my comment. When the section in the article noted that some commentators accused Yiannopoulos of endorsing pedophilia, the Matthew Rozsa paragraph was more relevant and didn't come across as some unnecessary piece. The "some commentators accused Yiannopoulos of endorsing pedophilia" aspect was removed when you made this edit. Part of the content stated, "Editorials in conservative media, including National Review, The Blaze, Townhall, and The American Conservative have characterised his comments as supportive of paedophilia or pederasty." As seen at Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos/Archive 4#Okay, that's not getting anywhere, I criticized some of the removals. I feel that we should re-dd that Yiannopoulos's comments were widely characterized as endorsing paedophilia or pederasty, since that was what the controversy was about. MrX agreed that "characterised his comments as supportive of paedophilia or pederasty" and "widely criticised" are fine for the section. But without that aspect, the Matthew Rozsa paragraph isn't needed and I understand your point about removing it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, lets see what other editors think and go from there. Bacondrum (talk) 04:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'll revert myself until the "Yiannopoulos's comments were widely characterized as endorsing paedophilia or pederasty" aspect is added back. If no one else adds it, and appropriately of course, I'll get around to adding it. Anything else in the section you think needs cutting? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- I would support that, the recent removal would be relevant in that context. I reckon that section would be fine at that point, that's one section where most the detail is due IMO, after all those comments are one of the only reasons anyone has ever heard of him. Bacondrum (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'll revert myself until the "Yiannopoulos's comments were widely characterized as endorsing paedophilia or pederasty" aspect is added back. If no one else adds it, and appropriately of course, I'll get around to adding it. Anything else in the section you think needs cutting? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, lets see what other editors think and go from there. Bacondrum (talk) 04:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, consensus changes, but it hasn't yet changed in this case. I struck through the "we have commentators inaccurately speaking on pedophilia and related matters in the section" part of my comment. When the section in the article noted that some commentators accused Yiannopoulos of endorsing pedophilia, the Matthew Rozsa paragraph was more relevant and didn't come across as some unnecessary piece. The "some commentators accused Yiannopoulos of endorsing pedophilia" aspect was removed when you made this edit. Part of the content stated, "Editorials in conservative media, including National Review, The Blaze, Townhall, and The American Conservative have characterised his comments as supportive of paedophilia or pederasty." As seen at Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos/Archive 4#Okay, that's not getting anywhere, I criticized some of the removals. I feel that we should re-dd that Yiannopoulos's comments were widely characterized as endorsing paedophilia or pederasty, since that was what the controversy was about. MrX agreed that "characterised his comments as supportive of paedophilia or pederasty" and "widely criticised" are fine for the section. But without that aspect, the Matthew Rozsa paragraph isn't needed and I understand your point about removing it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Feminism, Privilege Grant
There are two chapters about feminism. Is it really necessary? The page is very voluminous, rehashed info, and very difficult to read. Privilege Grant was not explained (the nature of the grant, who gave him money, fans or Mercer family; who won the grant?). Moelscene (talk) 08:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- I have expanded the Privilege Grant section. Nedrutland (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, it's much better. Moelscene (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- yes, thanks for improving the grant section. And yes, the feminism sections should be merged and undue detail removed. I agree, for someone of such little note, the article is far too voluminous, I've been saying this for ages - way too much undue detail! I'll suport any move to remove undue detail and improve the prose and flow of the article. Bacondrum (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
The Kernel
There seems to be a low key edit war regarding how much information should be given about Yiannopoulos' work with The Kernel...it gets added in, it gets taken out, etc. Can we get any agreement on how much information to include? Liz Read! Talk! 01:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- I personally think it's okay as it is now. As with most of the article and most articles relating to the Alt-right, there's a tendency to add excessive detail. Naming co-founders, excessive details about its management etc are undue, it's a footnote in a largely discredited and short career as a journalist. Breitbart, his tours (the protests they received), some of the most outrageous claims he has made and his trashy book are the parts of his career that are noteworthy, IMO. Bacondrum (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
The lede
So, working toward lifting this to a B-class article (or better). looking at the content assessment criteria I think the problems with this article are reasonably clear. I don't believe this article is still missing important content, the problem is that it contains too much irrelevant material. The article has references to reliable sources, but still has some problems and requires substantial cleanup. It has some gaps, needs editing for clarity and flow. It also contains policy violations in the form of undue detail and original research.
The body of the article has been cleaned up, still needs more cleaning, but I'm not willing to cut much more without input from other editors.
Can we start by addressing the lede? I accept that I may have gone a bit hard on pruning it, but I believe some of the detail is undue in the lede and should be left to the body of the article.
My thoughts on removing undue detail from the lede (parts I propose deleting are in bold):
Milo Yiannopoulos (/jəˈnɒpələs/; born Milo Hanrahan, 18 October 1984), or pen name Milo Andreas Wagner, is a British far-right political commentator, polemicist, public speaker, and writer I beleive this is too long winded, delete and replace with "provocateur" - most RS refer to him as a provocateur or a troll (this covers his commentary, polemics, public speaking, and writing). Yiannopoulos is a former editor for Breitbart News who describes himself as a "cultural libertarian". Through his speeches and writings, he ridicules Islam, feminism, social justice, and political correctness. Leaked emails have shown that Yiannopoulous's book, Dangerous, and many of his Breitbart articles were ghost-written by a Breitbart colleague.
Yiannopoulos worked for Breitbart from 2015 until 2017. In July 2016, I believe this should be cut, no need to mention that he worked for Breitbart twice, it's already mentioned in the first paragraph. he was permanently banned from Twitter for harassment. He was permanently banned from Facebook in 2019. This could be merged into the first para (prose needs improving
According to hundreds of emails by Yiannopoulous clunky prose leaked by Buzzfeed in late 2017, Yiannopoulos repeatedly solicited white nationalists, such as American Renaissance editor Devin Saucier, we can discuss the particular white nationalists he worked with in the body of the article, this is undue detail for the lede, IMO for story ideas and editing suggestions during his tenure at Breitbart. The emails show that this was an effort to appeal to a racist readership through dog-whistling. While I personally agree that the subject is a dog-whistling racist, this doesn't sound encyclopedic, reads like opinion and it's uncited
Yiannopoulos has been accused of being an apologist for or supporting This needs to be cleared up, is he an appologist or a supporter? Sounds weird - clunky prose paedophilia. The allegation arose from several video clips in which he said that sexual relationships between 13-year-old boys and adult men and women can be "perfectly consensual" and positive experiences for the boys. Following the release of the video, Yiannopoulos was forced out of his position at Breitbart, his invitation to speak before the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) was revoked, and a contract to publish his autobiography with Simon & Schuster was cancelled. Yiannopoulos has said that he is not a supporter of paedophilic relationships and that his statements were merely attempts to cope with his own victimhood, as an object of child abuse by unnamed older men. This is undue in the lede, this level of detail should be gone into in the body of the article
So, I'd be interested to hear from other editors on improving the lede. Cheers Bacondrum (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- Like I stated to you before, the pedophilia/child sexual abuse stuff is prominent, as made clear by the section on it the article. Like the lead states, "following the release of the video, Yiannopoulos was forced out of his position at Breitbart, his invitation to speak before the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) was revoked, and a contract to publish his autobiography with Simon & Schuster was cancelled." That is a huge impact. The matter is without a doubt the most controversial and prominent matter regarding him at this point in time. It cost him his job. All of that is why it deserves a spot in the lead as opposed to most of his other controversies. And per WP:Lead, his controversies should be summarized in the lead. The most significant ones anyway.
- And like I stated of reverting you here, "we also obviously should not simply state that the was accused of supporting pedophilia and child sexual abuse without including his statement on the matter. This a BLP."
- I have nothing else to state on the matter. Follow WP:Lead appropriately. This article's length is in accordance with its size. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I disagree though. The lede should summarise and not go into so much detail, that should be saved for the body, as per MOS:INTRO. I can see the value of a bit more detail than I'm suggesting in the paedo bit, but the article is classed as a C for a number of reasons that need addressing - clunky prose and undue detail are obvious problems with the article, IMO Bacondrum (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps something like this: "Yiannopoulos has been accused of being an apologist for paedophilia. The allegation arose from several video clips in which he said that sexual relationships between 13-year-old boys and adult men and women can be "perfectly consensual" and positive experiences for the boys. Following the release of the video, Yiannopoulos was forced out of his position at Breitbart and a number of speaking and publishing contracts were cancelled." Bacondrum (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- The lead, per WP:Lead, is supposed to "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Given the fallout from the "pedophilia/child sexual abuse" aspect and the size of the "Remarks on paedophilia and child sexual abuse" section, what is currently in the lead on the matter should be there. As for your latest proposal for that content, I would support it if it mentioned that "Yiannopoulos has said that he is not a supporter of paedophilic relationships and that his statements were merely attempts to cope with his own victimhood, as an object of child abuse by unnamed older men." Why do you think that we shouldn't include his statement that he's not a supporter of pedophilic relationships and why he says he made the comments? Per WP:BLP, it should be there. We shouldn't leave the accusation there unchallenged. WP:Lead also states, "As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." It also has a MOS:LEADLENGTH section that can be helpful. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough, You're correct, I think his attempts to blame his remarks on vague unverified/unproven claims that he was abused are undue in the lede though. The paragraph could be reduced to: "Yiannopoulos has been accused of being an apologist for paedophilia. The allegation arose from several video clips in which he said that sexual relationships between 13-year-old boys and adult men and women can be "perfectly consensual" and positive experiences for the boys. Following the release of the video, Yiannopoulos was forced out of his position at Breitbart and a number of speaking and publishing contracts were cancelled. Yiannopoulos has said that he is not a supporter of paedophilic relationships." Also, verifiable is informed by many other guidelines including, but not limited to WP:UNDUE and vice versa, content must be due and verifiable, not just one or the other. Bacondrum (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- I appreciate that your latest proposal is a compromise with regard to Yiannopoulos's response, but the "and [says] that his statements were merely attempts to cope with his own victimhood, as an object of child abuse by unnamed older men" does seem due to me in a BLP context because he's explaining himself. Whether editors or readers believe him is irrelevant. It's covered in detail below and the lead should adequately summarize the "pedophilia/child sexual abuse" matter. We can wait and see if anyone else weighs in on this. I agree with how you have changed the wording for that paragraph. I just disagree with not including all of the "Yiannopoulos's response" sentence. As for people saying that they were sexually abused, there often is not evidence that the abuse took place. It's partly why the Me Too movement is so powerful -- because people decided to believe those who say they are victims. Furthermore, false allegation of child sexual abuse is rare, especially when coming from the person who says they were abused. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that his defence should be in the lead but would amend "that his statements were attempts to cope with his own sexual abuse as a child." which is briefer and summarises the para in the body. Nedrutland (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- Nedrutland, are you saying that you would change it to "Yiannopoulos has said that he is not a supporter of paedophilic relationships and that his statements were attempts to cope with his own sexual abuse as a child."? If so, I can support that, although I think that the "older men" aspect is relevant. We should definitely retain "Yiannopoulos has said that he is not a supporter of paedophilic relationships." I don't think that the entire sentence should be shortened to just "Yiannopoulos said his statements were attempts to cope with his own sexual abuse as a child." No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- Correct Nedrutland (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- For the record, I believe women and I believe survivors. It is not fair to equate a habitual liar like Yiannopoulos' desperate backpedaling from claims that it's okay to sexually abuse children to legitimate claims about abuse - they are not the same. I support Nedrutland's or my own version. He has denied he supports paedophelia, 'nuff said...no need to go into the detail of his backpedaling which is an insult to survivors, IMO. Verifiable claims matter, and the veracity matters tens times more when the subject is a proven habitual liar who has repeatedly claimed that child sex abuse is perfectly fine and claimed he can't stop himself from making fun of rape survivors. Mentioning that he backpedaled is enough for the lede, if people want to read his excuses for the vile things he has said then it's in the body of the article. Bacondrum (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- At the end of the day, he is a
pathologicalliar. I wouldn't be surprised if we find out down the track that he is a protestant heterosexual with no Greek ancestry. He is completely unreliable and therefor any claim he makes needs to be either verified or taken with a grain of salt. Bacondrum (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- At the end of the day, he is a
- For the record, I believe women and I believe survivors. It is not fair to equate a habitual liar like Yiannopoulos' desperate backpedaling from claims that it's okay to sexually abuse children to legitimate claims about abuse - they are not the same. I support Nedrutland's or my own version. He has denied he supports paedophelia, 'nuff said...no need to go into the detail of his backpedaling which is an insult to survivors, IMO. Verifiable claims matter, and the veracity matters tens times more when the subject is a proven habitual liar who has repeatedly claimed that child sex abuse is perfectly fine and claimed he can't stop himself from making fun of rape survivors. Mentioning that he backpedaled is enough for the lede, if people want to read his excuses for the vile things he has said then it's in the body of the article. Bacondrum (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that his defence should be in the lead but would amend "that his statements were attempts to cope with his own sexual abuse as a child." which is briefer and summarises the para in the body. Nedrutland (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- I appreciate that your latest proposal is a compromise with regard to Yiannopoulos's response, but the "and [says] that his statements were merely attempts to cope with his own victimhood, as an object of child abuse by unnamed older men" does seem due to me in a BLP context because he's explaining himself. Whether editors or readers believe him is irrelevant. It's covered in detail below and the lead should adequately summarize the "pedophilia/child sexual abuse" matter. We can wait and see if anyone else weighs in on this. I agree with how you have changed the wording for that paragraph. I just disagree with not including all of the "Yiannopoulos's response" sentence. As for people saying that they were sexually abused, there often is not evidence that the abuse took place. It's partly why the Me Too movement is so powerful -- because people decided to believe those who say they are victims. Furthermore, false allegation of child sexual abuse is rare, especially when coming from the person who says they were abused. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough, You're correct, I think his attempts to blame his remarks on vague unverified/unproven claims that he was abused are undue in the lede though. The paragraph could be reduced to: "Yiannopoulos has been accused of being an apologist for paedophilia. The allegation arose from several video clips in which he said that sexual relationships between 13-year-old boys and adult men and women can be "perfectly consensual" and positive experiences for the boys. Following the release of the video, Yiannopoulos was forced out of his position at Breitbart and a number of speaking and publishing contracts were cancelled. Yiannopoulos has said that he is not a supporter of paedophilic relationships." Also, verifiable is informed by many other guidelines including, but not limited to WP:UNDUE and vice versa, content must be due and verifiable, not just one or the other. Bacondrum (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- The lead, per WP:Lead, is supposed to "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Given the fallout from the "pedophilia/child sexual abuse" aspect and the size of the "Remarks on paedophilia and child sexual abuse" section, what is currently in the lead on the matter should be there. As for your latest proposal for that content, I would support it if it mentioned that "Yiannopoulos has said that he is not a supporter of paedophilic relationships and that his statements were merely attempts to cope with his own victimhood, as an object of child abuse by unnamed older men." Why do you think that we shouldn't include his statement that he's not a supporter of pedophilic relationships and why he says he made the comments? Per WP:BLP, it should be there. We shouldn't leave the accusation there unchallenged. WP:Lead also states, "As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." It also has a MOS:LEADLENGTH section that can be helpful. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that this is a BLP. So, per WP:BLP, comments like "a habitual liar like Yiannopoulos," "desperate backpedaling from claims" and "he is a pathological liar," and other derogatory personal opinions on Yiannopoulos, should be avoided. As for "an insult to survivors," some survivors of child sexual abuse, especially male survivors of child sexual abuse, have tried to downplay such harm, whether with regard to themselves and/or others. So Yiannopoulos's claim that his "statements were merely attempts to cope with his own victimhood, as an object of child abuse by unnamed older men" does align with that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, except Yiannopoulos has lied repeatedly about his past and his claims are not verifiable. He only made the claims after getting fired and losing millions of dollars worth of contracts for indefensible comments regarding child abuse. He has mocked survivors in the past and all other arguments aside, it's an unverifiable claim. I'll be more careful about the language I use in the future. Bacondrum (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that this is a BLP. So, per WP:BLP, comments like "a habitual liar like Yiannopoulos," "desperate backpedaling from claims" and "he is a pathological liar," and other derogatory personal opinions on Yiannopoulos, should be avoided. As for "an insult to survivors," some survivors of child sexual abuse, especially male survivors of child sexual abuse, have tried to downplay such harm, whether with regard to themselves and/or others. So Yiannopoulos's claim that his "statements were merely attempts to cope with his own victimhood, as an object of child abuse by unnamed older men" does align with that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- And as for the cutting of the article, I was clear above that although there is a little bit of material that can be summarized instead of including quotes, I feel that you have cut enough. I'm not sure what undue detail and original research you are speaking of. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough, that's why I'm here discussing changes. Once we are done with the lede, I'll move onto discussing the original research and excess quotes, detail etc. This article is a C-class which means it need significant improvements. Bacondrum (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- You have significantly improved it, and it does seem to live up to C-class. But I'm willing to listen to what other cuts you are aiming for and what WP:OR you are speaking of. I just ask that you propose the cuts here on the talk page first. There is no rush, and you've already significantly downsized the article. I'm fine with you summarizing quoted material without discussion.
- Fair enough, that's why I'm here discussing changes. Once we are done with the lede, I'll move onto discussing the original research and excess quotes, detail etc. This article is a C-class which means it need significant improvements. Bacondrum (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- And as for the cutting of the article, I was clear above that although there is a little bit of material that can be summarized instead of including quotes, I feel that you have cut enough. I'm not sure what undue detail and original research you are speaking of. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- On a side note: Per WP:TPO, be careful about breaking up a comment. I duplicated my signature above so that it's clear that I made that comment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- And regarding this, it might be best to note there that the article is under discretionary sanctions. Given that it's under discretionary sanctions and the recent discussions on this talk page, it doesn't seem like it's an article you should have listed at Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Nominations. See what Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Nominations#Instructions says about controversy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hey, sorry I didn't mean to break up the comment, my mistake. Yes, I will discuss any other changes and I'm glad we are working together rather than fighting, I hope you can see that I've learnt from past mistakes. I know it's been controversial, but as Yiannopolous' public profile has fizzed out I feel like the debate around him has too, I just thought it would be good to get some fresh eyes on the article, it's only a nomination after all and may well be disregarded, but worth a try. The article gets a lot of traffic and it is lacking in many regards, I'd like to at least improve it to a B-class article level. Bacondrum (talk) 08:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- Whether or not Yiannopolous is as talked about as he was before, he's still a controversial figure. That will never die. This article is still a controversial topic as a result. And even today, editors are still having disagreements about what to include in the article, how to include it, and how much to cut. So I don't think this article should have been listed at Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Nominations. It cautious against listing articles like these for a reason. But, yeah, we can see what happens with the nomination.
- Hey, sorry I didn't mean to break up the comment, my mistake. Yes, I will discuss any other changes and I'm glad we are working together rather than fighting, I hope you can see that I've learnt from past mistakes. I know it's been controversial, but as Yiannopolous' public profile has fizzed out I feel like the debate around him has too, I just thought it would be good to get some fresh eyes on the article, it's only a nomination after all and may well be disregarded, but worth a try. The article gets a lot of traffic and it is lacking in many regards, I'd like to at least improve it to a B-class article level. Bacondrum (talk) 08:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- And regarding this, it might be best to note there that the article is under discretionary sanctions. Given that it's under discretionary sanctions and the recent discussions on this talk page, it doesn't seem like it's an article you should have listed at Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Nominations. See what Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Nominations#Instructions says about controversy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- I also appreciate that we are working together. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- Once again, there is an unsubstantiated claim (lede) that Milo was abused as a child (playing victim card), and he recently supported convicted pedophile cardinal George Pell who abused little boys. How sick is that? He lied many times about his family, birth place, education, wealth, friends...there are no witnesses, evidence, etc. Can you find such biased, unsubstantiated, "controversial" claims in Encyclopedia Britannica, Larousse? Moelscene (talk) 06:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. He has lied repeatedly about his past, as such any claims he makes need to be verified by a reliable secondary source. He has demonstrated repeatedly that he cannot be taken on his word - Yiannopoulos is essentially an unreliable source. Bacondrum (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that this is a BLP. So, per WP:BLP, comments like "he's playing the victim card" and other derogatory personal opinions from editors about Yiannopoulos on this talk page should be avoided. If we are discussing what reliable sources have stated about him, that's different. And to repeat what I stated above, "Whether editors or readers believe him is irrelevant. It's covered in detail below and the lead should adequately summarize the 'pedophilia/child sexual abuse' matter. [...] As for people saying that they were sexually abused, there often is not evidence that the abuse took place. It's partly why the Me Too movement is so powerful -- because people decided to believe those who say they are victims. Furthermore, false allegation of child sexual abuse is rare, especially when coming from the person who says they were abused." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, except this is a man who has repeatedly mocked rape and abuse survivors, including claiming he can't help but make fun of rape survivors. And only made his own claims when defending indefensible statements and losing millions in contracts and future earnings as a result. I believe it is reasonable to question his claims and motives in light of his behavior. The claims are unverifiable. Bacondrum (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- As for "Playing the victim", I didn't use those words, but reliable sources have described his behavior as such like this and this and at least another dozen articles. Bacondrum (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, except this is a man who has repeatedly mocked rape and abuse survivors, including claiming he can't help but make fun of rape survivors. And only made his own claims when defending indefensible statements and losing millions in contracts and future earnings as a result. I believe it is reasonable to question his claims and motives in light of his behavior. The claims are unverifiable. Bacondrum (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that this is a BLP. So, per WP:BLP, comments like "he's playing the victim card" and other derogatory personal opinions from editors about Yiannopoulos on this talk page should be avoided. If we are discussing what reliable sources have stated about him, that's different. And to repeat what I stated above, "Whether editors or readers believe him is irrelevant. It's covered in detail below and the lead should adequately summarize the 'pedophilia/child sexual abuse' matter. [...] As for people saying that they were sexually abused, there often is not evidence that the abuse took place. It's partly why the Me Too movement is so powerful -- because people decided to believe those who say they are victims. Furthermore, false allegation of child sexual abuse is rare, especially when coming from the person who says they were abused." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. He has lied repeatedly about his past, as such any claims he makes need to be verified by a reliable secondary source. He has demonstrated repeatedly that he cannot be taken on his word - Yiannopoulos is essentially an unreliable source. Bacondrum (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yiannopoulos defends convicted pedophile cardinal George Pell, but Flyer22 Reborn constantly wants to find excuses for his toxic behavior, that he was a sexual abuse victim as a teenager. He called Harvey Weinstein's accusers a greedy sluts, liars, misandrists. He supported Brigitte Bardot, Catherine Deneuve (she retracted her statements after the backlash) when they attacked #meetoo movement. He is sexual abuse apologist and was (is) a member of Proud Boys, self proclaimed male chauvinists (they participated in "Straight Pride" in Boston). He frequently collaborated with Gavin McInnes, rape apologist Mike Cernovich. Moelscene (talk) 11:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- Moelscene, keep stating things like "Flyer22 Reborn constantly wants to find excuses for his toxic behavior," and I will report you for thinly-veiled personal attacks. Whatever odd notion you have of me being some apologist is absurd. My record here at Wikipedia on child sexual abuse, statutory rape and topics such as pedophilia speaks for itself. I do not need to justify myself to you. I'm also quite certain that you don't know what pedophilia actually is. Indeed, I got involved with this article because of all the laypeople talk about pedophilia. But that is the beside the point. This is a BLP. It matters not if an editor thinks Yiannopoulos is lying. We are supposed to provide his defense with regard to allegations, and not just a piece of it that we find acceptable. If Yiannopoulos were convicted of child sexual abuse or statutory rape or found to possess child pornography, things would be different. But he is not a convicted child sexual abuser or statutory rapist. Nor has he been found to possess child pornography. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Breitbart
Yiannopoulos started writing for Breitbart in 2014 - the oldest article by him currently on Breitbart is dated 28 April 2014. After his coverage on GamerGate, in October 2015 Bannon created a Breitbart Tech section and placed Yiannopoulos and Dulis in charge, but by that time Yiannopoulos had been writing for the publication for about 18 months. - Bilby (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- My mistake, thanks for the correction. Bacondrum (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- Bilby, thanks for re-adding some Gamergate material back to the article. This answers Bacondrum's following questions at the end of the #Removing significant amounts of undue detail discussion above: "Why is Gamergate mentioned at all? Did he break the story? Did he reveal something of note? Or did he just report about it, like thousands of other journalists?"
- Do you think anything should be re-added about it to the lead? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
-
- I think Bilby has made the case for a paragraph in the body of the article by adding RS's/explaining why it's of some significance to his career, but it's not what he is known for more generally. I don't think it's due in the lede, it already contains too much undue detail, IMO. Bacondrum (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
-
- One may not think it belongs in the lead now because of all the material you removed on it. Another may think it belongs in the lead, given its importance to his career and influence. The current four-paragraph lead is due. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- Absolutely, and one may think it belongs in the lead. Another may not think it belongs in the lead, given its lack of importance to his career and influence. I disagree that all the detail in the four-paragraph lead is due. Bacondrum (talk) 05:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- Given what the article states about the Gamergate aspect with regard to Yiannopoulos's career and his influence on Gamergate, how do you figure that it lacks importance to his career and influence? I've addressed the lead matter before, including in the #The lede section above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- Because it's a footnote in his career. It's barely justified in the article. Bacondrum (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- Given what the article states about the Gamergate aspect with regard to Yiannopoulos's career and his influence on Gamergate, how do you figure that it lacks importance to his career and influence? I've addressed the lead matter before, including in the #The lede section above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- Absolutely, and one may think it belongs in the lead. Another may not think it belongs in the lead, given its lack of importance to his career and influence. I disagree that all the detail in the four-paragraph lead is due. Bacondrum (talk) 05:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- One may not think it belongs in the lead now because of all the material you removed on it. Another may think it belongs in the lead, given its importance to his career and influence. The current four-paragraph lead is due. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
RFC - Improving the lede
I'm interested in improving the lede, but there's been a fair bit of argy bargy around this subject, so I would like feedback from other editors interested in improving the article through consensus. Bacondrum (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
The current lede contains clunky prose, a lot of WP:RECENT and WP:UNDUE detail as per WP:LEAD, in my opinion.
I propose changing the lede from this (A):
Milo Yiannopoulos (/jəˈnɒpələs/;born Milo Hanrahan, 18 October 1984), or pen name Milo Andreas Wagner, is a British far-right political commentator, polemicist, public speaker, and writer. Yiannopoulos is a former editor for Breitbart News who describes himself as a "cultural libertarian". Through his speeches and writings, he ridicules Islam, feminism, social justice, and political correctness. Leaked emails have shown that Yiannopoulous's book, Dangerous, and many of his Breitbart articles were ghost-written by a Breitbart colleague.
Yiannopoulos worked for Breitbart from 2014 until 2017. During his time at Beitbart Yiannopoulos rose to prominence as a significant voice in the Gamergate controversy. In July 2016, he was permanently banned from Twitter for harassment. He was permanently banned from Facebook in 2019.
According to hundreds of emails by Yiannopoulous leaked by Buzzfeed in late 2017, Yiannopoulos repeatedly solicited white nationalists, such as American Renaissance editor Devin Saucier, for story ideas and editing suggestions during his tenure at Breitbart. The emails show that this was an effort to appeal to a racist readership through dog-whistling.
Yiannopoulos has been accused of being an apologist for or supporting paedophilia. The allegation arose from several video clips in which he said that sexual relationships between 13-year-old boys and adult men and women can be "perfectly consensual" and positive experiences for the boys. Following the release of the video, Yiannopoulos was forced out of his position at Breitbart, his invitation to speak before the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) was revoked, and a contract to publish his autobiography with Simon & Schuster was cancelled. Yiannopoulos has said that he is not a supporter of paedophilic relationships and that his statements were merely attempts to cope with his own victimhood, as an object of child abuse by unnamed older men.
To this (option B):
Milo Yiannopoulos (/jəˈnɒpələs/; born Milo Hanrahan, 18 October 1984), also known by the pen name Milo Andreas Wagner, is a British far-right provocateur. Yiannopoulos is a former editor for Breitbart News who describes himself as a "cultural libertarian". Through his speeches and writings, he ridicules Islam, feminism, social justice, and political correctness.
Yiannopoulos worked for Breitbart from 2014 until 2017. During his time at Beitbart Yiannopoulos rose to prominence as a significant voice in the Gamergate controversy. According to hundreds of emails leaked by Buzzfeed in late 2017, Yiannopoulos repeatedly solicited white nationalists for story ideas and editing suggestions during his tenure at Breitbart. Leaked emails have shown that Yiannopoulous's book, Dangerous, and many of his Breitbart articles were ghost-written by a Breitbart colleague.
In July 2016, Yiannopoulos was permanently banned from Twitter for harassment, he was permanently banned from Facebook in 2019.
Yiannopoulos has been accused of being an apologist for paedophilia. The allegation arose from several video clips in which he said that sexual relationships between 13-year-old boys and adult men and women can be "perfectly consensual" and positive experiences for the boys. Following the release of the video, Yiannopoulos was forced out of his position at Breitbart and a number of speaking and publishing contracts were cancelled. Yiannopoulos has said that he is not a supporter of paedophilic relationships.
Reasoning for changes:
- "or pen name Milo Andreas Wagner" sounds clunky should be reworded to "also known by the pen name"
- I believe "political commentator, polemicist, public speaker, and writer" is too long winded and vague, delete and replace with "provocateur" or "troll" - most RS refer to him as a provocateur or a troll (this covers his journalism, commentary, polemics, public speaking, and writing). He describes himself as a "troll".
- I believe all details about Breitbart should be in one paragraph, it's messy as is.
- "Yiannopoulos worked for Breitbart from 2014 until 2017. During his time at Beitbart Yiannopoulos rose to prominence as a significant voice in the Gamergate controversy. In July 2016, he was permanently banned from Twitter for harassment. He was permanently banned from Facebook in 2019." Why are Gamergate (which is part of his career at Breitbart, not part of a paragraph dedicated to Breitbart and why is his social media ban in this paragraph, they're not related.
- Clunky prose "According to hundreds of emails by Yiannopoulous leaked by Buzzfeed in late 2017" should be rephrased
- "such as American Renaissance editor Devin Saucier" should go, we can discuss the particular white nationalists he worked with in the body of the article, he worked with a number of them this is undue detail for the lede
- "for story ideas and editing suggestions during his tenure at Breitbart." Should be part of the Breitbart paragraph.
- This is opinion/original research "The emails show that this was an effort to appeal to a racist readership through dog-whistling." and must be removed. While I personally agree with the assertion, this doesn't sound encyclopedic, is an opinion and it's uncited.
- "Yiannopoulos has been accused of being an apologist for or supporting" This needs to be cleared up, is he an apologist or a supporter? Sounds weird - clunky prose
- Much of the last paragraph is undue detail, who cancelled contract, details of his attempts explain his child abuse comments can be found in the body, the lede is supposed to summerise.
All with relevant citations retained or improved, of course. Thanks in advance. Bacondrum (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- Support proposed text as much more concise, sharper, and focusing on WP:DUE statements. — JFG talk 11:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- "In July 2016, Yiannopoulos was permanently banned from Twitter for harassment, he was permanently banned from Facebook in 2019." I object to the repetition of 'permanently' and doubt if it needs to be used even once (to me, a ban is permanent; if it were temporary, it would be a suspension). I suggest "Yiannopoulos was banned from Twitter in July 2016 for harassment, and from Facebook in 2019."
- Similarly amend "Yiannopoulos worked for Breitbart from 2014 until 2017. During his time at Beitbart Yiannopoulos rose to prominence as a significant voice in the Gamergate controversy." to "Yiannopoulos worked for Breitbart from 2014 until 2017. During his time there, he ..." Nedrutland (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- 100% in agreement with those suggestions. Thanks Bacondrum (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- Support with one suggestion Let's retain
such as American Renaissance editor Devin Saucier,
and otherwise it's fine. Simonm223 (talk) 12:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- Alright, we'll retain that. Bacondrum (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose both. I have made a post [1] at WP:BLPN raising my concern that the current and proposed leads do not approach this BLP in a professional manner. As I pointed out in my BLPN post, our lead for Donald Trump — who has politics very similar to Yiannopoulos — is by contrast restrained. And our article for Rocky Suhayda, the leader of the American Nazi Party and someone who is significantly closer to (indeed, is himself) the extreme right, is also restrained. It is inappropriate to have a lead that consists, paragraph by paragraph, of (1) ridicule, plagiarism, (2) harassment, banning, (3) racism, dog-whistling, (4) and paedophilia. Why is Yiannopoulos so popular? What is "his side?" You really get no idea of this from reading the lead of this article. Whatever you think about Yiannopoulos — and I don't think much — this is a shameful way to approach a biography. @Bacondrum, Flyer22 Reborn, Simonm223, JFG, and Nedrutland: and Markbassett. -Darouet (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Darouet: I don't necessarily disagree. What do you propose as an alternative?
- Oppose removal of "and that his statements were merely attempts to cope with his own victimhood, as an object of child abuse by unnamed older men.". This is for reasons I mentioned in the #The lede section above. In that section, Nedrutland also supported retaining the content. Nedrutland, is this still the case? Bacondrum has dropped that disputed aspect into this RfC which includes actual proposed improvements and therefore muddies things. Yes, the lead is supposed to summarize. The "Yiannopoulos has said that he is not a supporter of paedophilic relationships" piece is only summarizing that aspect of his statement. The above proposal is deliberately leaving out a significant aspect of his response to the allegation. And, in the "The lede" discussion, Bacondrum has provided his personal feelings as to why he wants that piece out of the lead. It has nothing to do with summarizing. This is a BLP. It matters not if an editor thinks Yiannopoulos is lying. We are supposed to provide his defense with regard to allegations, and not just a piece of it that we find acceptable. If Yiannopoulos were convicted of child sexual abuse or statutory rape or found to possess child pornography, things would be different. But he is not a convicted child sexual abuser or statutory rapist. Nor has he been found to possess child pornography. I was going to state "Support except for the removal of 'and that his statements were merely attempts to cope with his own victimhood, as an object of child abuse by unnamed older men'.", but Darouet has made me consider that although the fact that Yiannopoulos is controversial and controversial aspects should be covered in the lead, there may be more that should be in the lead as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- Details of his explanation for those comments are in the body of the article. My proposal isn't hard and fast, we are discussing the changes. please feel free to propose keeping the sections you think should be retained. And please focus on the content, not me - I'm not willing to get into another endless squabble with you. Bacondrum (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, details are. The summary should still be in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- Details of his explanation for those comments are in the body of the article. My proposal isn't hard and fast, we are discussing the changes. please feel free to propose keeping the sections you think should be retained. And please focus on the content, not me - I'm not willing to get into another endless squabble with you. Bacondrum (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- This looks like an improvement to me. Guy (help!) 23:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- Support. (Summoned by bot) The current inclusion of a ghostrwiriting allegation in the lead paragraph is especially undesirable. Coretheapple (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Banned from a Furry Con - due?
I'm sure many people here know that Yiannopoulos can now add Midwest Furfest to the list of places he's not welcome. There are plenty of reliable sources for this incident. My question, and why I came here first before editing: is this WP:DUE? Or would this just end up WP:RECENTISM and WP:CRUFT? Thoughts? Simonm223 (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
- As much as I personally love this story, I still don't feel like it passes the WP:10YT - it was an attempt at a publicity stunt that failed. At best, it might be on par with his participation in the "straight pride parade", which netted a one sentence mention. Nblund talk 13:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Fair. Like I said, I was on the fence about this one myself. But it did amuse me greatly. Simonm223 (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)