Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos

Split proposed - RfC

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 section merits its own page.--Artaxerxes 20:50, 21 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)
• Oppose Summoned by bot. Yes, the section is too long. So cut it back. Does not warrant a "fork." By the way I added "RfC" to the section header here as is the usual style, if anyone objects feel free to take it out. Coretheapple (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The section is too long and should be cut back not split. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support if the section gets too long. It's not yet. Keiiri (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Summarize the tour and create a separate article in detail. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support - This page is getting long and forking seems appropriate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not relevant.84.150.224.91 (talk) 14:39, 8 March 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)

Remember that this is a BLP so you need to be careful. Here is a recent transcript where he makes it clear that he is not defending paedophilia [1] --- Paedophilia specifically involves prepubescent children --- What he is okay with are consensual cross-generational relationships; see: Pederasty. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The subject condoned sexual relations between adult and a child as young as 13. That is pedophilia, as the reliable sources say it is. ValarianB (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

You are incorrect about what constitutes pedophilia, just research it. Pederasty is not the same thing although it's obviously illegal in many countries, as it should be. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I, along with the preponderance of reliable sources, define it precisely as I said.

"Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos appeared to speak tolerantly of pedophilia in video clips..."

CPAC Under Pressure to Cancel Milo Speech After Pedophilia Defense

CPAC Blasted for Milo Yiannopoulos Invite After Pedophilia Remarks Resurface

You may argue semantics til the cows come home, but the reliable media describes what the subject advocated for was pedophilia. ValarianB (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not semantics as I've demonstrated above. Add this to your sources [2] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The subject's denial is a routine matter of course; Bill Cosby denies the allegations against him as well. The fact remains that this his how sources describe the matter. That's all there is to it. ValarianB (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The reliable source used in the article is The Guardian, which correctly (as Somedifferentstuff already explained) calls it Paedophilia, just as this article has always done. The Independent, the other source used in the article, also does so. Lower quality sources seem to have missed the a. Saturnalia0 (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Isn't "e" vs "ae" just American vs British English? It is still describing the same thing. ValarianB (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

You are correct, I have clicked the link supplied by Somedifferentstuff and confused it with the British English article I also had open in another tab. It is a matter of semantics after all. Saturnalia0 (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

It may belong in the lead sometime in the (possibly near) future, but not as of now - it is an ongoing controversy that was reported merely a few hours ago in a biography of a living person with a history of controversy. And by the way the current wording makes no justice to it. As The Guardian (used as ref) reports he was (again) "talking about his own relationship", so "advocating for it" is a stretch. This reminds me of a somewhat similar case in which this piece by The Independent (the other ref) and several other media articles started to report on the Jane Doe case and some editors insisted on adding it to the lead of Donald Trump while others correctly removed per WP:RECENTISM and WP:BLP and which eventually became clear that it did not belong in the lead and was even removed from the article altogether I.e. although the initial impact of the news might have made some people think it belonged in the lead, it didn't took long to be clear that it did not.Saturnalia0 (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• After everything has died down, then this might warrant a single sentence, like "In February of 2017, several venues cancelled Yiannopolous' speaking engagements after a clip of him speaking in terms which have been described as 'tolerant' of pedophilia." But that's about as far as I can see this going. Even that is iffy: Milo's whole schtick is to say offensive things and defend offensive positions. This is not at all surprising or novel for him. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  Hah, no, this should not be swept under the rug in a single sentence. CPAC is a major event in American right-wing politics, for the organizers to give someone the boot for being too controversial is very big news; CPAC boots Milo Yiannopoulos over pedophilia comments. ValarianB (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hah, no, this should not be swept under the rug in a single sentence. That sounds an awful lot like a value judgement, to me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Sources I've seen have been careful about describing his comments. I lean toward excluding it for now. The CPAC thing might be worth mentioning, but in the scope of the entire BLP of Yiannopoulos, this is currently a minor thing. If it becomes bigger, we can adjust accordingly. To act like this is huge enough to deserve a paragraph in the lead is the definition of WP:RECENTISM. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  Hm, do you have examples? I'm not doubting you but I've seen a lot of respected outlets, USA Today to ABC News and many others, report this as a straight-up "he said this", followed by the expected denial. Even CPACs tweet about the rescinded invitation pulls no punches, and even goes so far to say that it considers Milo's response or explanation to be insufficient; https://mobile.twitter.com/costareports/status/833743918135128064 This is so far the first comment I've seen by anyone to rebut his own rebuttal. ValarianB (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

You can't really mention the "CPAC thing" without mentioning what caused them to dis-invite him though.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, this is much more than just a minor occurrence (even if it is "unsurprising for him") - given this and [3] it looks like the story may keep going.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Brief search. No hedging: NYTimes, USA Today. Hedging: Fox Business News ("seemed to defend"), BBC ("appearing to condone paedophilia"), NY Daily News ("appearing to speak fondly"), LA Times ("seemed to condone"). Something else or neutral: WaPo ("joking about"), CBS News, SF Gate. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I would be weary and cautious replying to EvergreenFir. Supporters of Yiannopoulos are known to frequent his Wikipedia page in hopes of erasing anything that promotes him negatively. CloudKade11 (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@CloudKade11: hold up... Are you doing in a supporter of Milo and thus users shouldn't engage with me? EvergreenFir (talk) 06:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Isn't it only classed as Paedophilia if it's per-pubecence? Theofficeprankster (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Depends if we're talking psychology, common parlance, or law. But this is not the place to discuss any of that. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

What he was talking about was Hebephilia, If he was condoning anything it was Hebephilia, that still doesn't make it right, but to call it pedophilia violates NPV because it by definition is not. Theofficeprankster (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I edited this section yesterday to reflect that the interview he gave was in 2015 and I don't think should be simply characterized as "old". It is located here.. Why not cite the original interview? Anyhow, I leave it to all of you who wish to explore all things Milo in detail. Dharmabum (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I took a look here after quickly examining the transcript: [4] Two paragraphs is waaay too much for the lede - we have a section for this stuff, and it's not there. Mention it in the lede but do not flog it like a rented mule. It is also important for good BLP to preserve context - I don't know how possible that is with the sources we're likely to get, but I don't want to join a mob. That includes recognizing that pedophilia is in fact typically defined as under 13, by our own article (we might even see notions that it is less); the other is hebephilia which is still a crime of course but not by that word. Also I would like to see someone find a source recognizing that if someone is a victim of child sexual abuse they may have some odd ways of working through that. Last but not least we should bear in mind that the U.S. itself has had some pretty young age of consent laws not far out of line with Yiannopoulos' ideas - he's not coming out of a social vacuum on this. I'm not saying we take a position to defend him, nor whitewash out anything because we don't like it, but we do want our readers to come away more informed than the average joe. Wnt (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The Age of consent according to the UCMJ is 14, period*. No exceptions for the age difference between the parties. The only exceptions is when a base commander issues standing orders to the contrary (which is quite common, but not ubiquitous), and which usually take the form of "The age of consent on this base is to be the age of consent as defined in this state's laws." So yeah, you raise a good point. Now that don't ask don't tell has been repealed, it's legal somewhere in the states for a 30 year old man to have sex with a 14 year old boy.

*At least it was when I did basic in the early 2000's. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Addendum I looked it up, and it's 16 now. Still, my point stands. The situation Milo described is legal in some military jurisdictions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• What belongs in the lead is the cancellation of his autobiography deal (this is his biography, after all).[5] [6] Also, upgrade sourcing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Dangerous (book)

I'm proposing that the book article be trimmed and merged with the bio. The book publisher has withdrawn, so it seems unlikely that this article could be expanded much beyond it's current stub status. - MrX 00:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It's highly likely that the book will either get picked up by another publisher, or that he will self-publish it (which is fairly easy in this day and age) --Distelfinck (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

If that happens, and if it attains independent notability to sustain a separate article, then it can be spun off. At this point it's vaporware. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, some low rent publisher is bound to pick up the book but, nevertheless, it's not notable enough to have its own article yet. 199.7.157.23 (talk) 02:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Merge per WP:CRYSTAL but with no prejudice for spinning out if it gets GNG later. ResultingConstant (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Hold Hold on to this decision until a concrete publisher confirms the publishing of this book with an approximate timeline — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.50.165 (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose the book as of right now has already received coverage far excess of what WP:GNG requires. Per WP:NTEMP, once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. Otherwise, the article should not have been created in the first place. feminist 09:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose As per above. Even if the book does end up not being published it is still a notable unpublished book. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support. The proposed book, which hasn't even been published, doesn't need a stand-alone article, particularly not this brief stub. It can be covered in his biography instead. --Tataral (talk) 14:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
• I'd suggest holding off for at least a week or two to see what happens. At this point in time it's a bit soon to pack everything up just yet, although if this book doesn't have a new publisher by the end of March I'd suggest merging this into the main article for Yiannopoulos. This did get quite a bit of coverage, so I'm hesitant to mark it off only the day after S&S nixed the book. There is enough to maybe justify an article and it's still getting some mention in the press (although his overall comments are dominating the news right now), so I just don't want us to be too hasty. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
• Agree with Tokyogirl79 that it's still too early to tell. (Though I note that the book on Gamergate that he said he was writing in 2014 still remains unpublished.) JezGrove (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with Tokyogirl79 also. Keiiri (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with Tokyogirl79 also. 2602:306:CE95:57B0:B16B:F04E:351D:3553 (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • No offense, but can you try not to copy someone's else's comment word for word? Keiiri (talk) 05:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Taking into account that the book has enough sources to stand alone as an article as is it could stay. However that might make for a bad permanent article and if his biography improves enough that this content could be woven in then that might be a solution. Having stated all that, which is rehashing what others have already pointed out, I'll also restate that it's a bit too early as these events have just occurred and some other publisher may leap at the opportunity of Milo may self-publish. In essence Tokyogirl79's statement voiced my comments perfectly so i felt nothing else needed to be added at this time. Hope that helps in any decision-making! 2602:306:CE95:57B0:B16B:F04E:351D:3553 (talk) 06:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Simon & Schuster will still own the rights to the book unless the advance has been repaid, so it's unlikely it will be picked up or self-published. Another book might be written, but that would be a different book.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.210 (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2017

I'm not sure about that. My understanding is that when a book contract is signed and an advance paid, the publisher owns the rights provided they fulfill their contractual obligation to publish the book. As long as the author delivers the book on time and is otherwise in compliance with their contractual obligation the publisher can't just refuse to publish w/o surrendering the copyright. Unless there is some specific clause, the publisher typically forfeits any paid advance in these situations. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• I found this article that talks about the press statement that Yiannopoulos put out on Tuesday. The gist of the book related material is that other publishers have contacted him about the book and it's supposed to release this year as planned. I still think that it's a bit premature to merge this into the main article. If we don't hear anything truly concrete in a few weeks then redirecting would be a good idea, but only with the coda that as soon as a release date is announced, that it get restored. The thing to remember is that if a book is high profile enough a publisher may possibly pick it up after the dust settles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose the book has received lots of coverage, and has its own history by itself. --Deansfa (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should 'the scandal' be referred to as 'allegations of pedarastry' or 'allegations of pedophilia'?

Pedophilia The RS accuse him of condoning pedophlia; this is the allegation at the heart of the scandal. Using the clinical definition of pedophilia (which excludes post-pubescent children), and ignoring RS, would be WP:SYN.

The definition of words, it should be noted, depends on context. In a clinical context, a person who is sexually attracted to a 13 year old may not be a pedophile. But he is a pedophile is in common parlance. It is also worth noting that under the law (which prohibits sex with post-pubescent children of 14-15, and (in some states) 16-17, and makes offenders register as pedophiles) pederasty is synonymous with pedophilia and often treated with equal contempt. Steeletrap (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

a person who is sexually attracted to a 13 year old may not be a pedophile. But he is a pedophile

It went from "talking about his experience when a young boy" to "condoning pedophilia" to "he is a pedophile" pretty quickly. Saturnalia0 (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Pedophilia because that's what sources use. Not the past to be pedantic about pedophilia, ephebophilia, hebephilia, and pedarastry. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Pederasty would be accurate according to his description [7] but we need to follow the sources. With that said, his response needs to be included as well [8] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 07:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Pedophilia as that is what the sources say. A minor is a minor, pubescence has nothing to do with the matter at hand. ValarianB (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually it does as a minor is someone who has not started the process of pubescence. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't. The subject is being lambasted in the press for condoning sex with minors. That's all there is to it. ValarianB (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Nuanced. The reliable sources are 'allegations of paedophila' so I dont have a huge issue with that as a title. HOWEVER it is both technically and legally incorrect in that Paedophilia is a condition that is attraction to pre-pubescent children. People who sleep with post-pubescent minors are not paedophiles either medically or legally - being covered under the various 'Having sex with minors' or 'registered sex offenders' (they are not 'registered paedophiles'). Assuming the title 'Accusations of paedophilia' is used (as that is what the sources use) it needs to be made very very clear that it is not the correct term. This is going to bite Milo because accusations of homosexuality being linked with paedophilia is an old old canard thrown out by homophobes over the decades. There are wider issues than a load of sensationalist headlines. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
• WP:IAR is a policy. Right now, the reliable sources are using a demonstrably incorrect term. I say we use the correct term (pederasty), because otherwise we're endorsing inaccuracy. Also, I still want to point out that the amount of text and the section heading scream WP:BLPVIO to me and the only thing keeping me from deleting it all is the fairly clear consensus to keep it. But don't be surprised if this blows up on you all the next time a BLP-experienced admin comes across this page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

They are not using a "demonstrably incorrect term" but an alternative fact. Pedophilia is commonly used to describe sex with pubscents under the age of consent. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not open to any correction which includes attempting to give a legitimate meaning to the term "alternative fact". "Alternative facts" is just a politically correct way of saying "bullshit". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, using this "ignore rules" fallback to get what you want seems to be pretty shaky ground. While there many be a technically semantic difference between a pedophile and pederast, the term "pedophile" is colloquially used to refer to sexual acts committed by an adult on a minor. I'm aware that citing Google Hits isn't a definitively strong argument to make but it can help to gauge rough popularity or usage of a phrase. "milo yiannopoulos pedophilia" returns 989,000 hits, while "milo yiannopoulos pederasty" returns 4,910. You can't just ignore reliable sources because they choose a colloquialism over a technically precise term. An encyclopedia is not a textbook. ValarianB (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

You just completely ignored my entire argument after demonstrating that you read enough of it to understand it. I don't see the point in discussing anything with you if you can't be bothered to respond to what I said, instead of repeating the same argument I just poked holes in. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Well that is a rather bizarre and unsubstantiated accusation, but I'll let you believe whatever you like. You're arguing that editors should ignore what reliable sources report because it is, in your view, an incorrect term. I rebutted that and pointed out that most see no difference in pederasty vs. pedophilia. You may not like that, but it is true. Most people and sources describe what Milo advocated for as "pedophilia". ValarianB (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry you have trouble understanding it. Let me explain. I said Policy is to ignore rules when they prevent us from improving the project. The rules state we should use an incorrect term, therefore we should ignore them and use the correct term. to which you replied But the rules say to use the incorrect term. Do you understand now? It doesn't matter how many sources use "pedophilia" in my argument. You responding by pointing out that many sources use that term makes no difference to my argument or not. I fully acknowledge that the majority of sources use "pedophilia", else I never would have made my argument in the first place. Do you get what I'm saying now? If you want to refute my argument, then make an argument that following the rules is better than using the correct term. I'm always open to changing my mind. But you need to nullify the train of logic that caused me to come to this position in the first place. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I do not have trouble understanding. I do not feel that righting the perceived wrong (sources not using the technically precise "pederasty") is an improvement to the Wikipedia, thus I reject wholesale your invoking of "IAR". Is that clear? It does not matter that sources colloquially use "pedophilia" to refer to Milo's advocacy. ValarianB (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

So you flatly reject my argument because [personal feelings and bad rhetoric]? Yeah, I'm sticking with "There's no point discussing this with this editor." Have a nice day. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

No, good sir, I reject it because I find your "IAR" invoking to be faulty. Words can have colloquial meanings beyond their simple dictionary entries, and in this case "pedophilia" is commonly used as a catch-all for "sexual interest in minors". Choosing to not speak to me is your prerogative, but if you try to unilaterally invoke IAR and make a change to the article without consensus, it will likely be removed by someone. ValarianB (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem (or at least one of the problems) is that if the word "pedophilia" is used without qualification to describe what he was discussing, it will inevitably be Wikilinked and people will click through to the definition on Pedophilia which describes it as involving prepubescent children. So although it is indeed a common usage, we would instantly be misleading people. The solution might be a form of words such as "...sexual relations with minors (which some described as pedophilia)". Barnabypage (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Words can have colloquial meanings... As I said before: You read my comment but you just don't understand it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Alternative facts is not a politically correct way of saying something but a legal term. It is used when there is competing facts for the two sides of the case. In this (non-legal) case the argument for the term "pedophile" is to follow the reliable sources, and the other case is to ignore the reliable sources and instead use the correct term as per Wikipedia:Truth, not verifiability. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a court of law, nor is it an "alternative fact" in the legal sense to assert that a term means something it doesn't because it's commonly misused. An alternative fact in the legal sense is literally a fact that contradicts a given narrative. For example, the fact that Milo referred entirely to teen boys and defended himself is an alternative fact in the legal sense to the narrative that he defended pedophilia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm leaning more towards what OiD is suggesting. The thing is that while we can argue that the term was originally meant to cover pre-pubescent minors, it is very commonly used as a blanket title that also covers hemophilia or pederasty, but more importantly it's the most common term used to describe this particular controversy - to the point where it's used almost exclusively. I think that it's more likely that someone coming in to Wikipedia will be looking for "allegations of pedophilia" rather than pederasty or hebephilia, so this would be less confusing. However that said, it would absolutely have to contain information that stated that he was not discussing sex with pre-pubescent minors. Yiannopoulos himself even states that people are using the term incorrectly, so that would be an easy way to work that in. The link I posted to NY Magazine even makes the distinction between pedophilia and the other terms, so there's that. It would have to be done very carefully though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• An alternative, however, is that it's always possible to retitle the section after the show and interview, like "Drunken Peasants interview" since that's where the comments were originally made. It won't be as intuitive since most news sources haven't really cared about the name of the show but his comments, but I feel that this would be a good compromise. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

'Drunken Peasants controversy' sounds like a very different problem tho ;) Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• I didn't think about that. Now the compromise title kind of sounds like a Monty Python sketch! XD Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I applaud the idea of finding compromise but I think that the podcast name is just too obscure. ValarianB (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Pedophilia as the most widely used accurate term. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Widely used: Yes. Accurate: No. That is precisely the debate here, which of the two to use. Saturnalia0 (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

News outlets **are** making allegations of pedophilia advocacy, but in truth Milo discussed age of consent and underage/overage relationships. The scientific term would be pederasty but most people are unfamiliar with that term. I think "Statuatory Rape Controversy" or "Age of consent Controversy" might be the most accurate terms to use. Meskarune (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The sources say pedophilia, so that is what we must say per verifiability. Both terms can also be synonymous with each other anyway. Keiiri (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

You have to use the term pedophilia, because so many sources have. But you also have to explain that, as Milo correctly said, pedophilia is formally defined to refer to children under the age of 13, because Wikipedia has to make a point to be right. You follow and reflect the bulk of the sources, but you also make a point to provide the best information among them. Wnt (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Pederasty is the same thing as pedophilia, just more specific. So neither terms are inaccurate. Keiiri (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

This has obviously been a controversial point. I would suggest that the current text also suffers from the technically correct but misleading problem it refers to. It is quite right that the term pedophila is used commonly in colloquial language to involve attraction to post pubescent children. Thus, using the clinical definition can communicate the wrong idea to the audience (perhaps the intended effect of his remarks). However, it is a real and important distinction. pedophilia is considered a psychiatric disorder and is defined as such the the APA's Diagnostic and statistical manual. Attraction to post pubescent people is not considered a psychiatric disorder in and of itself. distinguishing pedophilia to hebephilia without comment suggests both are psychiatric disorders. This is a common view of non psychiatrists, but it is not the mainstream view of psychiatry. It does not mean that hebephilia is acceptable behaviour, or shouldn't be opposed. Those are separate issues. To resolve this in the article, I think this should be inserted into this section. Something along the lines of "...pedophilia, a well accepted psychiatric disorder, and hebephilia which is not a considered psychiatric disorder, though it may still be unacceptable behaviour." This is a real question. The age of consent in the US varies from 14 to 18, and 16 is commonly used in the US, Europe and other developed countries. Pedophiles have a high rate of recidivism, while it is common for those who are attracted to post pubescent teenagers to not show the same compulssion. Not making the distinction ignores the real differences between the two types of attraction and behaviour. Ignatios2000 (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• Pedophilia with an explanation of what Milo actually said vs what the mainstream reporting has stated. And perhaps that pedophilia is commonly used as a catch-all term for all adult-non-adult relationships. 2602:306:CE95:57B0:B16B:F04E:351D:3553 (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
• Pederasty The "reliable sources" are accusing him of pedophilia for clicks. No sex scientist or medical expert would call him a pedophile.

What lede says about this[9]

-He resigned from Breitbart after a video of him appeared defending sexual relationships between boys as young as 13 and adults (both gay men and straight women) in their 20s resurfaced.

Note that "defending" something isn't a crime. And you yourself don't have to be engaging in that behavior. There are people who are for legalizing certain drugs, but don't take those drugs, for example.

-Pederasty or paederasty (US /ˈpɛdəræsti/ or UK /ˈpiːdəræsti/) is a (usually erotic) homosexual relationship between an adult male and a pubescent or adolescent male.

Usually illegal in the United States. Article has the good ol' "Not to be confused with" hatnote.

-Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.

Not illegal on its own. There are self-described pedophiles who don't break the law.

We have to be careful when sensationalist news media say "pedophilia" when

they really mean "sexual contact with people under 18". Riley Cohen (talk) 08:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Neither as such allegations lack rigor and there is no allegation that he is either, though he my have been a victim. We generally don't accuse victims of a crime even if they don't press charges. --DHeyward (talk) 09:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Strong objection to gutting the content of the pedophilia allegations section

In this edit, [10], the section was essentially watered down to nothing. I had already restored the old title earlier but want to err on the side of caution with the one revert rule in place so I undid myself. But I object strongly to wholesale changes like this when there's no discussion on this page about it, and would like to see the status quo restored pending such discussion. ValarianB (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

They seem to be pushing an agenda, their other edits do the page do the same thing. ESPECIALLY the lack of talk page discussion for such major edits, and the fact that other editors have reverted the same things. Gatemansgc (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Who's "they"? Saturnalia0 (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Saturnalia0: Scottb108 most likely. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The user removed well sourced content, left only one POV (Milo's) on a BLP, added poorly written text, all when there is open discussion about that section on the talk page, including an RfC. I don't see how anyone could possibly object the revert. Saturnalia0 (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Gatemansgc (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

In the interests of having this section be as unbiased as possible, here are the transcripts for his actual words with a video of the actual podcast: heavy.com/news/2017/02/milo-yiannopolous-pedophilia-transcript-pederasty-video-full-sex-boys-men-catholic-priest-cpac-quotes/ Meskarune (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, the article should clearly link the original transcript and video, as well as Milo's later comments because we owe it to a subject to let him have his say, for better or worse. You certainly can't make this uncontroversial but it is clearly not as bad as some make out either; it speaks for itself one way and the other. Wnt (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

We need to be careful about blaming the victim. Recall Mary Kay Letourneau's relationship with her 12 year-old student, Vili Fualaau. She was convicted of a crime but the two later married. Fualaau describes their relationship but it would be quite the leap to say that his consent means that he condones or approves of pedophilia. He obviously doesn't consider himself as a victim and relaying personal experience of being in a relationship shouldn't result in attributing a societal view. No one should claim Fualaau condones child/adult relationships based on his particular experience. --DHeyward (talk) 05:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@DHeyward: Which victim do you suppose is at risk of being blamed here? PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

As I understand it, Milo said he lost his virginity at 13 and that was the basis for his comments. Just as Vili Fualaau said his relationship was consensual and he later married the person that victimized him, it would be inappropriate to then say he supports pedophilia. Milo is in the same situation if he is describing his own experience. His view of his own consent should not be constructed as if he supports his victimization. That appears to be how this is being construed. --DHeyward (talk) 07:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@DHeyward: You say 'if he is describing his own experience'. Would you kindly describe exactly how you believe the situation is, and then state why you propose we act a certain way, instead of posing hypotheticals? PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Per this [11], he's referring to his experience as a 13 year-old. He never says pedophilia so we are basically saying the 13 year-old Milo, who would be considered the victim, is advocating for his victimhood. The accusation that he is advocating for pedophilia has very high hurdle with attribution. For examples of where we handle similar instances, we don't say that Vili Fualaau is advocating for pedophilia when he defends his relationship with LeTourneau even though he says the same as Milo. Similarly, when Lena Dunham was criticized for her actions with her sister Grace when Grace was a young girl, Grace came out with statements supporting her sister - we don't characterize Graces comments as supporting pedophilia or incest regardless of what sources said of Lena. Milo was 13 and relaying his accounts as a 13 year-old. He would be a victim of pedophilia if that's how it's characterized and it's very shaky ground to repeat his account of being in that relationship as condoning the actions of pedophiles. It's a form of victim blaming. Neither Milo, or Vili Fualaau or Grace Dunham are supporting pedophilia by recounting their personal experience of sexual contact with an adult while they were a child. They said it didn't damage them and they enjoyed the relationship. It stands BLP on it's head then to characterize their acceptance of their relationship as supporting pedophilia especially as they are the victims if that characterization stands. For that reason, we should not characterize anything in this article as Milo condoning or accepting pedophilia as an acceptable practice. Gut it if need be. --12:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the sources say otherwise. The article already includes the subject's rebuttal, but that can be expanded if need be. ValarianB (talk) 12:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with DHeyward's analysis and reasoning. The content is non-BLP compliant and should not be presented in a fashion that indicated Yiannopolous is pro-pedophilia. I also agree to gut it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with DHeyward's reasoning as well, however I acknowledge that no amount of reasoning can be used to contradict the dominant narrative by the RSes. After having gone through the sources presented here and used in the article, I'm still very leery of this, but I reluctantly support including more than the single sentence I advocated for, previously. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Let's also not forget WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Losing his job, losing his book contract, losing his speaking slot... that's not "WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE". And good luck trying to explain those things without mentioning the big "why" in the room.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm merely saying we need to keep those policies in mind. No need to be snippy about it.-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with DHeyward's reasoning as well. And if any of this crap is to be included, WP:ATTRIBUTION should be used to make it clear that it is the opinion of RS and not state it in WP's voice. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

This "crap" is well-sourced and notable, it all happened to a prominent, public figure, not a previously-unknown individual, and it is now a rather large coda to their journalism career. Sources have characterized the subject's words as being in support of pedophilia so we have to report that. In their (the sources) voice is fine, along with subject's emphatic rebuttal. I agree that we should not be saying "so-and-so is a pedophile supporter" as encyclopedic fact, just that we cover the whole thing fairly. ValarianB (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Birth place

Proposal: Put "Greece" in the birth_place infobox field, as this BBC News article describes MY's early life: "Born in Greece to a Greek father and British mother, he grew up in Kent in the south of England." Arbor to SJ (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, this News247.gr article opens: "Ο ελληνικής καταγωγής Μίλων Γιαννόπουλος (Milo Yiannopoulos)..." which in Google Translate comes out as "The Greek origin Milon Giannopoulos...", but can any native Greek speakers clarify if "καταγωγής" is used as a synonym for "born in"? Arbor to SJ (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Not native Greek but web tools such as Word Reference suggest it is as ambiguous as it is in English. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Check out Talk:Milo_Yiannopoulos/Archive 2#Place of birth and birth name need to be updated. This has come up before and apparently there are birth records for him in Britain. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Did another google search, found this November 2016 Daily Record article saying MY was "born in Kent". Arbor to SJ (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

While we do need to analyse the reliability of the sources for both locations and whether they are primary or secondary sources, it is worth noting that for some reason the Greek sources only mention the entire country, but sources which say he was born in England specify Kent. However it is worth noting that if he grew up in Kent it could be easily mistaken that it was his biological birth place and not merely his childhood home town. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

ancestry.com claims to have birth records for a Milo Hanrahan, born in Chatham, Kent, England on October 18th 1984. I'm not suggesting we use it as a source (it's a primary source), but that, combined with a number of other factors mentioned in the section I linked to is pretty convincing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Generally where celebrities have 'sexed up' their background, what tends to happen is we either cover the contradictions (if they have been covered in reliable sources) or we avoid mentioning them. His actual birth place is largely irrelevant and primary documents (for those not in the UK, our birth, christening, death records are comprehensive) clearly indicate one thing that is in line with his history as it is covered in secondary sources. (Grew up in Chatham, Kent, birth name Hanrahan and so on). That his personal narrative differs does not surprise me, he would be FAR from the first celebrity to do so. Of course the alternative could be his parents lied to him. Personally I would just omit reference to his birthplace. It doesnt detract from his Greek heritage in any way and it has no impact on his career. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The only problem I see with that would be the number of edit requests we would get to insert a place of birth. I personally would rather omit it, as it doesn't really change the narrative to say that he was born in Greece but raised in Kent, vs saying that he was born and raised in Kent. I can see why Milo would change it, as it affects his internal narrative quite a bit. But the narrative of this article doesn't shift really at all. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Pedophilia content

In the middle of the section on the pedophilia controversy, the article states that, "In making this statement, Yiannopolous is accurately distinguishing between pedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia, in line with the Tanner stages, though the imprecise use of the term "pedophilia" in association with any sexual activity with an individual under the age of consent is common." That sentence needs to be removed or at least rephrased. It is a form of editorializing inappropriate to an encyclopedia. A properly written biography of a person does not contain statements that amount to, "His views on this subject are correct", or, "His statements about this topic are accurate" - not even if such statements are correct. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, policy explicitly states :WP:YESPOV Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested. As you have already stipulated, his statement is correct. His statement has been described as correct by multiple sources. There is no dispute or controversy that his statement is correct. (note that the rest of his statement is certainly controversial, but this particular fact is not) ResultingConstant (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The material is currently worded, "Commentators such as Matthew Rozsa of Salon.com and Margaret Hartmann of New York magazine wrote that in making this statement, Yiannopolous is technically correct in distinguishing between pedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia, but the authors also note that "pedophilia" is typically used to denounce relationships of the sort allegedly promoted by Yiannopoulos (those between 13 year olds and adults)", which appears to pose no problem. It is quite possible to avoid filling a biographical article with statements announcing that the article subject's views are correct, which is inappropriate as well as pitifully poor writing, without "stating facts as opinions." That the views of these commentators may be correct does not mean that they need to be presented in Wikipedia's voice. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

We do say something like this in Wikipedia's voice -- from pedophilia: "Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.[1][2] Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12,[3] criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13...." If we can say that there we can say that here. Caveat is, now that I've reread, our article says it is up to and including 13 rather than below 13, which I hadn't realized (did it change? I thought I looked it up some time ago). That is likely to be a sticky point. Wnt (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

For what it is worth, the American Psychiatric Association, in the DSM-5, does not give a specific age. it specifies "...a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 or younger). The defining feature is sexual maturity, not age, and there is room for cases to be considered above and below the age 13 benchmark and be consistent with the definition. Ignatios2000 (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Heritage

Milo states twice that his mother is a German native in this video of the press conference (at 3m6s and 19m42s). Milo is therefore a British national of German and Greek descent. [12][13] 84.132.37.150 (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid that'd be considered original research, so we'd need to see that coming from a reliable source first. -- Fuzheado | Talk 05:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Generally for uncontroversial statements about oneself, a self-source (a video of a press conference is a primary source) suffices for reliability. Unless there is some actual credible complaint the information is false, the person in the video is not actually Milo, or its controversial in some way. 'My mother was German' is not a controversial statement. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

His paternal grandparents were Andreas I. Yiannopoullos born 1937 in Marylebone, London, and Petronella T. Hanrahan born 1933 in Medway, Kent according to (a not so reliable source? [14]. Apart from his mother's maiden name being "Baker", little else seems known about his parentage (no first name for his father? mother? why he took his grandmother's maiden name at birth?).--Artaxerxes 17:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The lede needs to mention 13

The controversy is inexplicable if we simply say "Milo said teens could have sex with adults," or even "Milo said minors could have sex with adults." (Does anyone really think he would be fired if he condoned sex between 17 and 20 year olds?) We need to specify the root of the controversy: saying that boys as young as thirteen can consen to sex with audlts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs) 06:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The age difference led to the widely reported pedophilia charge which led to the demise of CPAC and his book offer which should be covered at the same time. 2602:306:CE95:57B0:B16B:F04E:351D:3553 (talk) 06:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

According to the transcript a user posted to this talk page (and to the video itself), Milo never said that. See:

Another man says: “The whole consent thing for me. It’s not this black and white thing that people try to paint it. Are there some 13-year-olds out there capable of giving informed consent to have sex with an adult, probably…”

Then:

The man says, “The reason these age of consent laws exist is because we have to set some kind of a barometer here, we’ve got to pick some kind of an age…” Milo: “The law is probably about right, that’s probably roughly the right age. I think it’s probably about okay, but there are certainly people who are capable of giving consent at a younger age [than that which the law defines], I certainly consider myself to be one of them, people who are sexually active younger

And finally:

Milo: “You’re misunderstanding what pedophilia means. Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13-years-old who is sexually mature. Pedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty.

I.e. the only moment in which Milo mentions the age of 13 is when he (correctly) distinguishes pedophilia and other disorders. So, why should the lead mention something he never said? Saturnalia0 (talk) 10:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Earlier he's much clearer:

Unkown man says: “If I knew someone around my age that was like had sex with a 13-year-old I would be creeped out. Honestly.”

Milo says: “What is your age”

Unknown man says: “I am almost thirty-five (35).”

Milo says: “Ok, well I am talking about 28-year-olds”.

Unknown man says: “Oh that changes everything? [Laughter]

Milo says: “I am guessing, I haven’t told this publicly … we are talking 13 – 25, 13 – 28. These things happen perfectly consensually. Often by the way it is the women who suffer.” “What normally happens in schools very often is older woman with this younger boy. And the boy is predatory in that situation. The boy is like let us see if I can f*ck the hot gym teacher or the maths teacher. And he does. The women fall in love with these young men, these athletic young boys in their prime.And end up having their long life destroyed. Their schools, whatever. I would say, that situation I am describing on Joe Rogan show I was very definitely a predator on both occasions. As offensive as some people would find that I don’t much care. That was certainly my experience.”

Unknown man says: “Milo hold on a second. Ben, you said you would be creeped out if someone cam to and said they had sex with a 13-year-old. But what if they said, you know the 13-year-old, they were the predator. He came on to me. Is it that unbelievable to have some really horny 13-year-old that just like … "

Milo says: “Seriously, is it any wonder I was sexually precocious, f*cking look at me.”

Milo asserts (from 56 minutes) that 13-year-olds are not only able to give consent, but to be sexual predators in a relationship with adults.

He asserted that he did so, as the 13-year-old. That doesn't mean he said every 13-year-old can give consent - to the contrary, he just said that a higher legal age of consent was appropriate. Note there is a distinction between knowing, as the 13-year-old all grown up, that you gave genuine consent, and thinking you know, as a child sexual abuser, that the child you want to screw is really capable of and giving genuine consent. It's the difference between knowing your own mind and knowing someone else's. (And yes, I know, we really shouldn't be arguing these issues here -- but we are anyway, and if we are, I want to make sure people give the guy a fair shake. There's been a lot of craziness around him but Wikipedia is not a riot zone. Wnt (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the shake needs to be fair, but 'these things happen', 'often it is the women who suffer', and 'in schools very often' imply that he's talking about a class of relationships rather than just his own experiences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.210 (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a class of relationship between "younger boys" and grown men/women, not 13 year olds. Currently the lead is merely repeating fake news from The New York Times. Saturnalia0 (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Milo couldn't have been talking about himself because one of his hypos related to a 13 year old boy with a woman, not a 13 year old boy with a man. Steeletrap (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

See how "13 years old" was introduced in the conversation, quoted above. I am still surprised that the media gave so much attention to this stunt by Glenn Beck, Milo has a history of denouncing underage sex scandals. In his response he already clarified what he was talking about so there is not much of a point in debating it. Even the crappy BBC article used in this article points it out. Saturnalia0 (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

This isn't about history. The New York Times is a reliable source and he was talking about more than just himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.5.2 (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I am aware of the reliability status of the newspaper in this Encyclopedia, I did not contest it, I contested the affirmation made in this talk page and by the journalist who wrote the story for the NYT. I didn't say it was about history either, I pointed it out to show how absurd the claim is. He was talking about more than just himself of course, he does not deny it. He wasn't on the other hand "supporting pedophilia" (even if we completely ignore his response, just by the very definition of it) or "condoning sex with 13 year olds". Saturnalia0 (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Milo has never, to my knowledge, denounced pedos outside of the context of ongoing political battles (i.e. he has accused Leftists at Salon and anti-gamergate journalists of being pedos). Steeletrap (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Milo claimed that as a kid, he was the "predator"; therefore, he believes, other kids could be the predator; therefore, there are some women who suffer, etc. All of this supposes that a kid can want to have sex, but it doesn't mean he thinks that an adult can know a kid genuinely wants to have sex, nor did he say anything I see as excusing all the adults who break the law - even if some, you know not who, are really "victims". That may be a very fine line, but it is a genuine distinction, a distinction between condoning pedophilia (sensu latu) and merely expressing some compassion. We should be careful going forward not to cross this line inadvertently in describing his comments, and we should also probably take this in context that as a kid he might have been more or less brainwashed by an adult who wanted him to think this way about his own experience. Wnt (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The sources have to make the choice for us. They, following the statement from Cpac, have had no problem saying 'condoning peeophilia'.77.103.5.2 (talk) 07:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a WP BLP article. There are lots of things that sources say that we choose not to include. At the top of the list would be repeating an assertion that a victim of pedophilia condones pedophilia. --DHeyward (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It can be OK to include that CPAC said that - at arm's length. Wikipedia isn't here to "make this go away". But if you can write it in such a way that the distinction actually is explained clearly, you can reduce the impact. I'm just urging everyone to think about these issues and keep them in mind and write in a way that is fair. Wnt (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

If Milo was 13 when he lost his virginity odds are he had begun puberty by then so I'm not sure calling him a 'victim of pedophilia' would be accurate. Particularly if he was describing himself as the predator via the "I was very definitely a predator on both occasions" comment. If a dozen 13 year old boys Graped a woman you wouldn't call her them victims of pedophilia right? Being "a predator" isn't necessarily talking about rape, but is talking about aggression/initiation/pursuer where the issue is an adult not taking adequate action to resist rather than taking improper actions to start. 64.231.171.58 (talk) 07:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You've made my point. Under no circumstances would we portray the child as a pedophile or rapist in a relationship where the adult consented. It turns BLPCRIME on its head and blames the child victim when the only possible perpetrator is the adult. --DHeyward (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I think a lot of the conflict has to do with varying definitions. Yes, under law, the adult is always the abuser or rapist, and never the minor. That is a legal determination, in a system that needs very clear, sharp boundaries. But just because that is the law, it doesn't mean that is the fact or only interpretation. Mr Yiannopoulos appears to be saying that the law is "about right", while expanding on the issue of "consent" and "predator" in a less narrow context. Whether this is a reasonable position to take is of course beyond the purview of the Encyclopedia. I will go further and say that the issue becomes even muddier because many people (not necessarily on this talk page) consider any suggestion that the legal positionis incorrect as intolerable unto itself, just as many people lump post pubescent sexual relations as "pedophila" even though it is not the same thing. I think that in this sort of social atmosphere, where many lines are blurred and legal, clinical, behavioural, and linguistic distinctions are often ignored it is the job of the Encyclopedia to provide some clarity in its own reporting. I don't think this is a matter of being for or anti Yiannopoulos, his positions, or lower age of consent, or child abuse, or whatever. It is about providing accurate information that does not mislead, regardless of the perspective of the reader. Ignatios2000 (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You are making it too complicated. In law and sociology and psychology, the person that is in a relationship with a consenting adult is not a pedophile. Their is no ambiguity and there is no age. The adult may be questioned as to their state of mind, but the non-adult is not. Seeking a relationship with an adult is not pedophilia. The adult may face consequences for consenting but the minor does not. They are never accused of pedophilia because seeking a sexual relationship with a consenting adult is neither abnormal or criminal. Abnormality and criminality rests solely with the adult. --DHeyward (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The necessary entailment: an adult would have to have sex with a 13 year old

The problem with advocating that it's ok for a thirteen year old to have sex with an adult, it that an adult would have to have sex with a 13 year old. An adult having sex with a 13 year old is indefensible. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

"founded 'TheKernel'" in the lead

This should be adjusted for accuracy. Instead of "founded 'The Kernel'" I think it should say he "co-founded 'The Kernel' in November 2011" 2602:306:CE95:57B0:B16B:F04E:351D:3553 (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. Keiiri (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Length

Why do we have 4,500 words on this publicity-seeking individual, much of it relating to transitory events? Seems a clear case of WP:UNDUE. – Sca (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Because he's been largely successful in his publicity seeking. Next! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Also because of this. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sca: Ridiculous! There is no such thing as "undue length" for an article. Read the policy you quoted. For the record, the appropriate length for all our articles is: bigger. Split up as necessary into a lot of long sub-articles in WP:summary style. If reliable sources keep coming out, or getting found by our editors, and editors are still interested in writing, articles keep getting bigger - that's the way it should be. Wnt (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Consider the source. His talk page comprises 50,000 words. Sca (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

First off, WP:FOC. As utterly inept as it was, that is a pretty clear personal attack and ad hominem. Second: My talk page (including archives) is as old as Wnt's, and contains over 41,000 words.

@Wnt:the appropriate length for all our articles is: bigger. I am so stealing that line. I love it! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2017

Larmardillo (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Nothing has been asked for so nothing has been edited. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

British English

This has to be in British English!--Rævhuld (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You could argue it either way to be honest. (MOS:TIES and MOS:RETAIN would be the two competing ENGVAR issues) He is British, but he is not really very relevant in Britain today - Breitbart and Trump being a US issue. Most of his 'fame' is derived from his US career, his tours of US educational institutions etc. The US controversies. Currently he is of much more relevance to the US reader than the British. I have seriously lost count of how many times I have had to explain to fellow Brits in the last week who he is. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The English used has to be consistent, and I would side with MOS:RETAIN here as it would be too difficult to all change date formats and English variations to their US counterparts. I see why in the age of Trump that MOS:TIES may seem relevant, but that really smacks of WP:RECENTISM in my view. Milo has written on other subjects other than Trump and US social/political issues, even if that may be hard to remember right now. HelgaStick (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I strongly support using British English for all bios of british people, including here. And I dont agree that Trump & Breitbart are US issues, generally US presidents are worldwide issues and never more so than with Trump; and we now have Beitbart London so Breitbart is as relevant to the UK as to the US; and looking at the UK press every day as I do I would say Yiannopoulos is highly notable within the UK. We can easily rewrite the article to incorporate British English, the article is poor because it is written in US English. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

MOS:RETAIN seems to cover keeping it the way it was. PackMecEng (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Does pedophilia controversy deserve its own section?

I think it does. If you look at the other sections--"charity work," "books," "dangerous faggot tour--it refers to events that are less conseuqential and less well-covered in RS than the pedophilia thing. Please share your point of view. Steeletrap (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Too soon to tell. If he doubles down and makes more of it then maybe. 2602:306:CE95:57B0:B16B:F04E:351D:3553 (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

"symbol of the No Platform movement" -- misleading

Article currently states: "He has become a symbol of the No Platform movement of banning controversial speakers". That makes it sound as though he is in favour of, or instrumental in, banning, whereas I understand he is strongly opposed to it. The sentence suggests the opposite. Equinox ◑ 23:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Above issue has been addressed (successfull?), but temporal anchoring around "2016 election season" prompts questions: Where (U.S. and U.K.)? Who says? The source doesn't seem to support this time bracket, and the No Platform movement seems U.K.-based. Was it the U.S. presidential election that launched the anti-Milo sentiment? Was it his support of Trump that made him so controversial (on both sides of the Atlantic)? If so, U.S. needs to be mentioned.--Artaxerxes 17:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Which photo from these two?

• 
  2013
• 
  2014

I was more fond of the newer image, a matter of recentism for me. That said, choice and thoughts both appreciated. Bluesphere 08:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The 2014 image is horrid and barely looks like him. Minus the curly hair, the 2013 photo reflects his "look" today. The 2014 photo makes him look bloated, unkempt, and on drugs. Definitely not the kind of quality for an image in the infobox, the place readers look first. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 11:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I support the 2014 image. My choice for this is not only recentism of the photo and it being closer to his current appearance, but the fact that it is from his most famous time (Presidents of the United States have their presidential photographs in the infobox). Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, no. The 2014 image doesn't look more like him now. I've seen him on several occasions recently via TV and online video (as well as photos), and he doesn't look like the 2014 photo at all. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, he also does not look like the 2013 photo. The 2013 photo at least has the advantage its better quality. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

"He resigned from Breitbart" should be amended ...

"He resigned from Breitbart" probably should say instead "In February 2017 he resigned from Breitbart ..." 2602:306:CE95:57B0:B16B:F04E:351D:3553 (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done. HelgaStick (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Comma changes meaning

"He also stated that "paedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13 years old, who is sexually mature" but rather that "paedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty"." The comma after "somebody 13 years old" changes the meaning of the quote from meaning an individual who is both 13 and also sexually mature (in context, himself at that age) to mean all 13 year olds are sexually mature. I have checked the written source and that is how it is written, but given this is controversial maybe a more neutral interpretation is appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.87.199.26 (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

We don't change quotes, and I don't think a [sic] notation is going to clear that up. I agree, but I don't think it's worth doing anything about. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

We can remove the comma if it helps (WP:QUOTE and WP:COMMA). EvergreenFir (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where taking punctuation out of a quote is acceptable in those links, but if no-one objects, then WP:IAR and fix it. I don't object. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Wikipedia:Quotations#Formatting, second sentence of paragraph starting "Unexpected errors..." EvergreenFir (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Ahhh, you are correct, sir. Good call. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Removal

When was this added? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Ten days ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Milo_Yiannopoulos&diff=prev&oldid=767024746 Marteau (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

NeilN, I've addressed the topic below, but I didn't search the edit history to see who added the text. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

If it's recently added then it needs to stay out until there's consensus to add it. If it's been there for a while (say, six months) then the removal needs consensus. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

NeilN, like I just stated below, "the pedophilia controversy is a recent matter and was discussed more than once above on this talk page. Where is the consensus for any of it?" Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

If you want to challenge that, you can remove it. Marteau is challenging one recent modification and so it needs to stay out per Arbcom editing restrictions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to challenge the inclusion of that material, given the media attention that topic got and that it led to him stepping down from his job. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Recent WP:OR/WP:SYNTH claim

As seen with this edit, I reverted Marteau on the following sentence: "The usage of paedophile as interchangeable with child molester is also acknowledged by academics." Marteau came to my talk about with a complaint.

Marteau had removed the sentence claiming that it is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. That claim is incorrect. WP:OR is about there not being a source that exists for the content. It is not about content being unsourced. Sources do exist for that content. Many sources. If one were to look at the literature, they would know this. And the WP:SYNTH aspect of WP:OR is about stating something not made explicitly clear by the source (or sources).

The source states, "Oftentimes, the term 'pedophile' is used rather loosely within a general context, referring broadly to individuals who have committed sexual crimes against children and used interchangeably with 'child molester.' However, it is important to note that given current diagnostic labels, not everyone who has engaged in sexual acts involving children would meet criteria for pedophilia, nor have all individuals diagnosed with pedophilia necessarily engaged in acts of child molestation or child sexual abuse."

Therefore...the sentence that Marteau removed is correct. The academics are the authors. The source does not have to state "The usage of paedophile as interchangeable with child molester is also acknowledged by academics." The source only needs to explicitly support the content, and it does. I can easily add more sources to support the sentence in question. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

While we discuss this matter, you need to restore my challenged edit. As I mentioned on your talk page, you have violated the Active Arbitration Remedies which state "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." The edit in question was added ten days ago, and cannot be considered firm consensus and is subject to challenge. Marteau (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

If we look at the edit you cited above, it was added by EdChem, and he states, "returning the proper scientific references on this topic." So was that content, or similar content, already in the article, and then removed, and he simply restored it? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

If I am using the WikiBlame tool correctly (and I may not be, but I think I am), the phrase "child molester" did not occur in the article in any revision until EdChem added it with the edit I cited above. Marteau (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, the pedophilia controversy is a recent matter and was discussed more than once above on this talk page. Where is the consensus for any of it? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. I am guessing by this that you are not respecting my interpretation of the sanction and it's applicability to your action. Are you saying it does not apply in this case? Because I believe it clearly does and that you are in clear violation of it. Marteau (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

... and I will be glad to address your assertion that the material is not OR or SYNTH and work on concensus after we iron out the sanction bit. Marteau (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand your point about sanctions because you are focusing on new content that was in the article for sometime. In other words, all of the content is new and I see no consensus for any of it, except for WP:Silent consensus and that one RfC matter above. And yet you focused on removing this one part that is supported by the source. And why remove this one part by EdChem, but not the rest of what he added?

I removed what you objected to, but, per my above explanation, I fail to see why you think it counts as WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Do explain. Why do you want to exclude text that specifically notes that academics (and not just news sources) also acknowledge the imprecise usage of the term pedophilia? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I have not removed other EdChem edits because they were sourced to articles about Yiannopoulous. The edit I object to does not cite Yiannopoulous, but instead discusses concepts about molestation and includes the phrase "child molester"... a phrase not linked to him by citation, but through what I consider synthesis by EdChem.

From reading your descriptions of what you think OR and SYNTH are as it applies to the subject at hand, I think you miss my point. I am not saying the edit is not sourced. I am not saying the edit misrepresents the source. The Wikipedia definition of WP:SYNTH is "(combining) material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."

The edits are indeed sourced. But they do combine to "make or suggest a new statement not supported by any of the sources" namely, that the term, concept and phrase 'child molester' in any way applies to Yiannopoulos or his issues or his statement, and that it encyclopedically belongs in Yiannopoulos's Wikipedia article. No cited article uses the phrase 'child molester' with Milo's name or discussion of Milo's particular case. The only way the term 'child molester' can be included is by "combining material from multiple sources" and that is clear synthesis and that is forbidden on Wikipedia.

The sentence I challenged as SYNTH appears intended to serve as an explanation not sourced to any of Yiannopoulous's issues, and not applied to Yiannopoulos except by EdChem. I trust those academics know what they're talking about, and I do not doubt them in their field. What I am saying, though, is that applying their work to Yiannopoulos's issue and including the phrase "child molester" in any context in the Yiannopoulous article simply cannot be done without creating a linkage not present except through the original research of EdChem.

I do think I understand where you're coming from, though, although I think you do not understand my point (which may be my fault of course). From reading your objection above and your statements about what you think OR and SYNTH are as I have applied them, I don't expect I'll change your mind. I do thank you for respecting the process, though, and will of course defer to the opinions and concensus of additional editors. Marteau (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your view. There are indeed many sources that talk about the Yiannopoulous matter in the context of child molestation, as seen here and here. I have not yet checked the sources about Yiannopoulous in the article to see if they use the term child molestation or child sexual abuse, but, given the included text, it appeared to me that they do. If they are talking about sexual abuse of minors, then child molestation or child sexual abuse are synonyms, although some cases fall under statutory rape. Either way, although I don't agree with your removal of simply noting that academics acknowledge the imprecise use of the term pedophilia, I now understand where you are coming from. You will also notice that EdChem added "which are defined in the academic literature in line with the Tanner stages." I don't think that clarifications necessarily constitute WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, but you or someone else might want to remove that piece as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Citation need tag added to lede

Distelfinck, you have already violated the DS sanctions before I came along today, with this edit, and you have no violated it again with this edit. Please stop edit warring and bring your concerns to the talk page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Can someone please put a cite somewhere with the necessary quote in the reference so the edit warring can stop and blocks avoided. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced quote

The following is part of the lede:

In February 2017 he resigned from Breitbart after a controversy arising from a video clip in which he said that sexual relationships between 13-year-old boys and adult men and women "very often" are "perfectly consensual" and positive experiences for the boys.

That Yiannopoulos said that this is very often the case is not supported by the article's body, in fact the term "very often" doesn't even come up in the body.

I therefore propose changing this back to "some".

--Distelfinck (talk) 02:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Well the term does appear in a quote in the article's body (of the source used), but not in the same context as in the lead - that is, saying that the relationships are very often perfectly consensual. The lead is already quoted above, I quote the relevant part of the article's body below. It should be adapted to reflect what the source actually says.

"And I think particularly in the gay world, and outside the Catholic Church — if that's where some of you want to go with this — I think in the gay world some of the most important, enriching and incredibly life-affirming, important shaping relationships very often between younger boys and older men," he said. "They can be hugely positive experiences."

I suggest moving the "very often" after "perfectly consensual" and restoring the original text that is in the criticism section which correctly describes what he said. I did a quick fix that might be enough. Saturnalia0 (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Saturnalia0, I'm good with the edit you made, as well the original version. Seeing as how the lead is only using selectively quoted phrases, it would be inaccurate to suggest that we're quoting him, but rather that we're summarizing what he said, using snippets of his own turns of phrases. I have high confidence that the first version (that these relationships are "very often" "perfectly consensual") is an accurate representation of one of his points, but your versions (that they "very often" are positive experiences) is also an accurate summation of a different point. Yours has the advantage of keeping the quoted snippet in context. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)