This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Milo Yiannopoulos article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Archives:1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 14 days
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Pedophilia Article WatchWikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchTemplate:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchPedophilia Article Watch
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kent, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the county of Kent in South East England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KentWikipedia:WikiProject KentTemplate:WikiProject KentKent-related
Note: These articles may overlap with those on other related lists. If you would like to make a change, either do so yourself, or make a suggestion.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report2 times. The weeks in which this happened:
There was a leak in which he had as his computer password The Night of Long Knives as well as the date the jwews got expelled from England....there is no mention of that in his controversies. Chefs-kiss (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He did not graduate from either the University of Manchester or the University of Cambridge, he only attended briefly before being kicked out. His infobox listing these institutions as his 'education' seems in accurate because he did not complete a program of study at either. If you look at Bill Gates' infobox it specifies that he "dropped out" of Harvard, Mark Zuckerberg's does the same - I propose doing similar for Yiannopoulos and noting that he was removed from both.Boredintheevening (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cortador:The citation you brought up is for the alma_mater parameter, not the education parameter. Hi, no this is wrong. The template documentation says "This parameter is a more concise alternative to (not addition to) |education= ... It is usually not relevant to include either parameter for non-graduates, but article talk page consensus may conclude otherwise", the either referring to education and alma mater --FMSky (talk) 12:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we promote Milo's views in those long quotes, there is no need for more than what first two sentences express. Further, Milo is not "critic of Islam" to be categorized as such - his animus against Muslims expressed in million ways has taken privilege of being called "critic of Islam" from him long time ago. He is a bigot and Islamophobe, and it is unacceptable to put him in the same group as late Christopher Hitchens, for instance, who genuinely belong to a group of Islam and religion critics with legit arguments. It should be explained why something gets reverted, that's the least we owe to each other. ౪ Santa ౪99°14:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, we should avoid quotations which contain some specific information in vacuum, like those bits I removed but another editor reverted without explanation. When we put something that needs additional elaboration or explanation, all with RS, but don't do that then we promote that info or at least leave reader with a huge question mark over his head; if go into explanation we risk going off topic, and so on. And for label "critic" - it should be reserved, specifically, for genuine critics, not for "pro-trolls". ౪ Santa ౪99°15:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I later restored my "version", and I hope you guys agree? If some disagree, we can always roll back old version or discuss it more, or bring some new ideas. ౪ Santa ౪99°17:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
