Jump to content

Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Miacek (talk | contribs) at 09:54, 19 May 2018 (→Lede: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Template:Vital article

Yiannopoulos Privilege Grant sourcing

At the section Milo Yiannopoulos#Yiannopoulos Privilege Grant, Albin Schmitt added an unreliable sources hat note with this edit. Presumably, this is because the section cites Breitbart and Milo's "privelege grant" website as sources.

I don't think those sources are unreliable, given the content they are used to support. In both cases, it is a relatively uncontroversial claim, that is not unduly self-serving and which doesn't appear to violate NPOV in any way. In other words, I don't think the hat note is necessary, but I want to see what Albin and any other watchers have to say before I remove it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Breitbart and Milo on how charitable he is seems like a real conflict of interest. Furthermore, Breitbart is not considered a WP:RS. The fund was debated in The Guardian - why not use the information from there? The Guardian claims: "He said donations were still in his bank account and would be spent, as originally promised, exclusively on white men to balance scholarships for women and ethnic minorities. He also promised to register the fund as a legal charity. Yiannopoulos did not respond to a Guardian interview request."[1] It is furthermore irrelevant what he WANTED to do. It is more interesting what did happen: nothing that was intended. As far as I can see it, Milo's website claims to give money to 10 white men but that wasn't confirmed by any trustworthy source. There has been enough reliable sources writing about the grant - why not just use them? Why use probably biased material?--APStalk 17:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how Breitbart and Milo himself are cited for "how charitable he is". I see a grant being set up by Milo, and the date of it being sourced to Breitbart. I'm not sure how giving the date is any sort of POV shift, and I'm not sure why Breitbart might be considered unreliable for the date. Similarly, I don't see how repeating a claim from the privilege grant (while attributing it to them, which is a clearly permitted use per WP:SELFPUB) and noting that they withheld potentially important information is any way unduly self-serving.
If you are aware of other sources to which the date, the fact that they announced ten recipients and the fact that they did not give the names of those recipients can be cited, the please replace the sources currently being used, or at least list them here, so I can replace them. Otherwise, I will remove the hat note as UNDUE and a possible POV push and leave the section as it is.
I'm not sure how you think the rest of your response here addresses my question, so I'm not responding to it beyond pointing out that you are making talk space edits that imply you are a POV pusher, and that will hinder your ability to gain consensus here, as well as possibly result in sanctions, should it become too obvious. This talk page is not the place to vent against Milo, and this article is not the place to "expose" him. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The privilege grant website has now lapsed, does that make a difference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.32 (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, except that we need to make sure we can still cite an archive of it. Which we can. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yiannopoulos has now confirmed that the grant has been closed, please could someone update the article accordingly. [2] Jono1011 (talk) 10:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Carroll, Rory (2016-08-19). "Where's the money? Milo Yiannopoulos denies he spent cash for charity fund". the Guardian. Retrieved 2018-02-01.
  2. ^ https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/milo-yiannopoulos-charity-white-boys-winds-down-mystery-remains-over-n860756

Attitudes towards Islam

The current page includes a number of references to Yiannopoulos's attitude towards Islam. I have two suggestions, one general and one specific:

  1. Would it be helpful to collate this information into a single section - the controversies/political views section would seem sensible
  2. On a specific note, I think it would be valid to include comments made by Yiannopoulos during his 2017 Australian tour, in which he suggested that "Anyone who describes himself as a Muslim [should be sent] back to the Middle East'. This statement is cited in a number of reliable sources and would, I believe, satisfy the due weight requirement.Jono1011 (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He says he disapproves of all Muslims—except his boyfriend of 10 years. [1] --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that one looks alright. I can only find one reference to Milo talking about Muslims in the article though (see "He had demanded the university's Muslim Students Association be shut down."), so I don't think two mentions is enough for a section. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants but the lead says He is a critic of feminism, Islam,. My suggestion would be to expand his views on Islam or remove Islam from the list as it is undue. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a separate section is probably not merited. Re: the second point, evidence of anti-Islamic sentiments, from reliable sources, can be found here and here. I think these merit inclusion in the main article and taken together suggest that we should retain reference to Islam in the opening paragraph.Jono1011 (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sputnik is not held to be a generally reliable source here, because it's controlled by the Russian govn't and used for propaganda. I'm not sure about The Tab, but I suspect it's alright. I'll check to see if it's ever been discussed at WP:RSN, and if not, we can go ahead with adding some more about this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Sputnik article, I agree its associations with the Russian Government should temper assessments of its reliability, but the article does include a video in which Yiannopoulos makes the statement attributed to him. If you are keen to avoid Sputnik the same video clip can be found here and can, I suggest, be reliably cited. On a related, but separate note, the citation regarding Yiannopoulos's comments following the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting no longer seems to be working.Jono1011 (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So long as the content is quotes from Milo (or summaries of things Milo said), then that video should be just fine. (Others might disagree, but we'll deal with them when they show up reverting.) As for the broken link, I'll see if there's an archived version. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. For future reference, any time you find a broken link, you can copy the link address and go to https://archive.org/web/, where you can paste the address into the textbox and see if they've archived a working version. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks so much. The only other thing I could think of re: this topic concerns Yiannopoulos's attitude towards of Trump's Travel Ban, which has been viewed and labelled by some as akin to a Muslim Travel Ban. I recall that this was something that Yiannopoulos has spoken in favour of, but I'm not aware of any credible sources which show this. I'm not suggesting that this page make a determination on whether the travel ban is Islamaphobic, but if anyone is aware of remarks by Yiannopoulos on this issue, this would seem to be a good point to bring them up. Jono1011 (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I get home this evening I'll sit down with this section and make some more edits at the page. If you find anything about the travel ban, go ahead and drop it here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to add this content to the article? I'm not aware of any new material to include, but I think the remarks included in the sources above merit inclusion. Jono1011 (talk) 12:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with the creepy picture edit?

It's quite obvious someone has injected a significantly creepy image of milo to replace the default image. The edit is here: (cur | prev) 07:32, 9 February 2018‎ Trainsandtech (talk | contribs)‎ . . (118,098 bytes) (-71)‎ . . (More professional (and slightly more up to date) image) (thank) (Tag: Visual edit)

I'm not sure an image of someone who is visibly sweating with a shirt unbuttoned is "more professional" instead the spirit of this change is an indirect snipe at Milo, which is childish. We should settle on a normal, professional image. JRockets☯ —Preceding undated comment added 21:48, 14 March 2018

Is "professionalism" a criteria for using libre media? I see three images images of Yiannopoulos in the recent edit history: File:Milo Yiannopoulos - Liverpool Street Moonwalk.jpg, File:Milo Yiannopoulos, Journalist, Broadcaster and Entrepreneur-1441 (8961808556) cropped.jpg, and File:Next14 Day1 pic by Thomas Fedra (14132414383) (cropped).jpg. In the approximately six years represented here, Yiannopoulos has three different "looks" (if you will). Given that, the most-recent of our available libre photos should be used. If there's any reliable-sourced precedent for the subject currently or more-regularly looking more alike one of these than another, then we should use it. — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

politico.com 27 April 2018: Yiannopoulos’ business implodes after death of crypto-billionaire

Matthew Mellon.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/27/yiannopoulos-business-implodes-after-death-of-crypto-billionaire-557456

--Neun-x (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 May 2018

Adding to his political Views section using sources listed below: https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/how-could-you-represent-someone-milo-yiannopoulos https://www.vox.com/2017/10/14/16468878/milo-yiannopoulos-trash-talks-pope-in-catholic-magazine-interview https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/24/outrage-milo-yiannopoulos-criticises-ariana-grande-pro-islam/

The sources talk about his stances against abortion and Islam, with the first one also discussing the ACLU lawsuit for the freedom of his speech. Leaky.Solar (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

I suspect it should still be mentioned in the lede that he is gay, given all the controversies regarding it etc. If pedophilia accusations are reflected, this seems kinda unfair. Though he's mostly just a troll, of course.Miacek (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Milo_Yiannopoulos&oldid=841972729"