Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos

Breitbart News "far right"?

The first sentence in the lede states "Milo Yiannopoulos is a British journalist, entrepreneur, public speaker, and technology editor for Breitbart News, a far-right news and opinion website based in the United States. Breitbart is not considered "far-right" but rather, "alt-right". According to the lede in the Wiki on the far-right: "Far-right politics often involve a focus on tradition, real or imagined, as opposed to policies and customs that are regarded as reflective of modernism. Many far-right ideologies have a disregard or a disdain for egalitarianism, even if they do not always express overt support for social hierarchy, elements of social conservatism and opposition to most forms of liberalism and socialism. The term is commonly used to describe right-wing populist ideologies which is known for its espousal of extreme nationalism and its opposition to immigration, as well as its advocacy of Nazism, neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies or organizations that feature extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, or reactionary views, which can lead to oppression and violence against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority, or their perceived threat to the nation, state or ultraconservative traditional social institutions." This description does not apply to Breitbart, which, AFAIK has never expressed support for Nazism, neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism, nor violence against groups. Indeed, Jewish groups have praised Breitbart for defending against anti-Semitism (which rather discredits the "Nazi" or "neo-Nazi" notions). There are plenty of legitimate criticisms to be made about Breitbart, but any article that calls them "far-right" undermines its own credibility, and leaves no room for describing the position of truly far-right media, such as Stormfront. Breitbart is "alt-right"; there's no reason to exaggerate their position on the spectrum. Bricology (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Been over this. Read archives here and at the Breitbart article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Misleading - there was no consensus reached. I've added the term "right wing" so it now reads "right wing to far right" - exactly as it does on the Breitbart News article. And there is every reason to exaggerate; this is Wikipedia, a majority left-wing cabal. Phatwa (talk) 13:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

And by your use of 'cabal' you instantly put yourself into the group 'people who are least likely to be objective'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

First edit picked at random from your contribs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=760492077, pot-kettle etc. Phatwa (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, describing a trash tabloid as trash that has been caught *blatantly making stuff up*, with a history of printing homophobia, racism, sexism, and supporting the Nazi's is somehow evidence of a left-wing cabal? Ahahahahahahahaaaaaaaahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaahahaha. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Phatwa:, please focus on content, not contributors per WP:CIVIL. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I've already reverted. The lack of consensus claimed doesn't exist anywhere in current talk space, and I suspect doesn't exist (except perhaps historically, in that it's no longer the case) in archives. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It's from November 2016 in the Archive (page 3). Phatwa (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The consensus in that discussion (there are three in that archive page, but all came to the same consensus) per WP:CON was to refer to Breitbart as "alt-right". Please read WP:CON and understand that consensus is not a vote. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

'Alt-right' is a subset of 'far-right'. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

That's right. Adding right-wing or alt-right or conservative adds no new information.- MrX 13:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Great post. My comment was about the reason for no editing on the Milo page is simply that the individual who does not know the difference between alt and far is more interested in preventing corrections or maybe he thinks that people who correct him are vandals. Tonertee (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

What comment are you referring to? Also, as has been pointed out before: alt-right is a subset of far right according to every reliable source to have written about it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Adding Category: Yiannopoulos is Jewish - adequate sources verify this and should not be removed until proven otherwise

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

One can of course go roundabout searching for disrupting and twisting excuses to sabotage proper Wikipedia editing (WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:CHERRYPICKING). The most valid and orthodox source for establishing who is Jewish is the Halacha ; and that's final. Wringing out any half baked obstreperous rationalisation is totally inexcusable and unwanted on Wikipedia. In any other Wikipedia article known/repeatable newspapers or magazines are used as valid sources and can be only countered by other sources claiming otherwise. The Forward Yiannopoulos’s maternal grandmother is Jewish, so according to Jewish law, he is, too, but he was raised Catholic.(January 3, 2017 By Daniel J. Solomon) http://forward.com/fast-forward/358909/milo-yiannopoulos-slams-thick-as-pig-st-media-jews/) RudiLefkowitz (talk) 13:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you're failing to see the distinction between a person's ethnicity and their religion. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

See Matrilineality in Judaism and Halakha. 1.Not all Jews follow Matrilineality, 2.Halakha is not necessary a binding law to all contemporary Jews. 3. Ethnicity and Religion are not the same. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Will you desist with your Jew-tagging. The source says according to 'Jewish law' X is Jewish. That is not enough for us to say 'X is Jewish' especially since the subject (and who knows regarding his mother) have in no way indicated they adhere to Jewish religious law. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Halakha is the main and most important authoritative source for Jewish thinking and custom. Other more modern, liberal and heterodox interpretations exist nowadays, even in mainstream discussion, but that does not change the traditional view and Jewish theology that the Jews are a people defined by there common heritage defined by the Halacha. It is absolutely false try to inject minority viewpoints as conclusive or to compare Judaism using some form double-entry bookkeeping comparison. Christianity is very much about faith and Judaism concerns itself traditionally and authoritatively with descent that is connected withJewish law. Jews are a G-d's people, descending from Abraham with a shared destiny and that is the traditional Jewish belief. RudiLefkowitz (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Ahem: I think you're failing to see the distinction between a person's ethnicity and their religion. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Well firstly since Milo is a contemporary figure and neither a traditional nor historical one, historical or traditional views have no sway on if someone is a Jew now. Secondly Halakha is a religious doctrine and outside of religion has no bearing on ethnicity. Thirdly the source does not say he is Jewish, it says that according to Jewish law he is, confirming the religious aspect. Fourthly, there is a reason the article basically says 'Milo claims he has a Jewish grandmother' because there is substantial criticism of his views that can be labelled anti-semitic. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

But it is the same thing in Judaism (ethnicity&religion)! You're looking at this thing from the perspective and knowledge of a Western Christian or someone connected to that line of thought i.e. secularised West. Warm regards, RudiLefkowitz (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

First, traditional Judaism maintains that a person is a Jew if his mother is a Jew, regardless of who his father is.http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm#Who

- - - -

However, many people who call themselves Jews do not believe in that religion at all! More than half of all Jews in Israel today call themselves "secular," and don't believe in G-d or any of the religious beliefs of Judaism.

The most traditional Jews and the most liberal Jews and everyone in between would agree that these secular people are still Jews, regardless of their disbelief. See Who is a Jew? Clearly, then, there is more to being Jewish than just a religion.(http://www.jewfaq.org/judaism.htm) RudiLefkowitz (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

An illustrative example about the above mentioned is the anarchist Emma Goldman was born to an Orthodox Jewish family and rejected belief in God, while the Israeli prime minister Golda Meir, when asked if she believed in God, answered "I believe in the Jewish people, and the Jewish people believe in God. More recently, the French Jewish philosopher Jacques Derrida stated somewhat cryptically, "I rightly pass for an atheist". - Jewish atheism (: RudiLefkowitz (talk) 14:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a Christian and I would remind you that making assumptions (which are easily refuted) about other editors' POV is a poor tactic to take in any discussion. Furthermore, you're still not drawing the distinction: Your commentary here strongly implies (indeed, I don't see how you could insist you didn't mean to imply it) that we should excise "Catholic" and replace it with "Jewish" because Milo happens to come from the same ethnic group that produced a religion which has established complex-yet-unambiguous rules governing who they consider to be a member of their religion/ethnic group. It's akin to suggesting that I must be a Germanic Neopagan because I have Norwegian ancestry, which unquestionably makes me a Norseman. And if that's the case, I might simply remind you of my people's preferred method of conflict resolution. Unless you have three shields, a cloak and time for a swordfight next week, you may not want to continue this argument. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to be a bit shorter than MP: If you cant tell the difference between Milo and a Russian Orthodox Jew named Goldman, an Israeli, and a Sephardic Jew, there is little to be done here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

In fact, there is no difference between Milo and a Russian Orthodox Jew named Goldman, if it adheres to authoritative Jewish sources and Jewish theology that define who is a Jew. So User:Only in death, you mean that Larry Ellison, Scarlett Johansson, Natalie Portman, Jake Gyllenhaal, Brian L. Roberts, Abe Fortas, Tony Curtis, Kirk Douglas, Daniel Radcliffe, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and even Samuel Montagu, 1st Baron Swaythling can't be Jewish or shouldn't be, because they are not a "Russian Orthodox Jew named Goldman"? Regards, RudiLefkowitz (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

How many of them identify as a practicing Catholic? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

....Judaism maintains that a person is a Jew if his mother is a Jew, regardless of who his father is. (http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm#Who) Regards,RudiLefkowitz (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

However, many people who call themselves Jews do not believe in that religion at all (http://www.jewfaq.org/judaism.htm)! Regards,RudiLefkowitz (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Germanic Neopaganism maintains that the descendants of Odin are forever in his service. So once again, does that make me a Germanic Neopagan?

Also, again I want to remind you that there is a difference between ethnicity and religion. He is already identified as a (self-proclaimed, but still) person of Jewish heritage. He is (correctly) also identified as a practicing catholic. You are literally arguing that this article should lie because the truth offends your religious sensibilities. Fuck. That. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of disbelief or losing the technical 'status' of being a Jew by adopting another faith, you are still a Jew. Jews believe that a Jew is someone who is the child of a Jewish mother (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/judaism/beliefs/beliefs_1.shtml) Regards, RudiLefkowitz (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, you've been edit warring over this for hours. I've warned you in an edit summary and at your talk page, and I'm warning you here: Knock it off or you will be reported. Your edits are disruptive and completely unconstructive: the category you keep trying to add doesn't even exist.

Finally, we're done here. I've responded to your claims with policy-and-logic-based reasons why we will not be implementing your edit. Your response has consisted of repeating yourself and ignoring everything that I and Only in death have said. At this point, you are accomplishing nothing but disruption. It's time to walk away and find something else to do. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Please for refrain from finger pointing and kindly keep to the general courtesy, neutrality and sourced material that should be upheld in Wikipedia (WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV). First and foremost we have established that Milo Yiannopoulos is according to Judaism and all it's denominations. Adequate sources have been provided and until proven otherwise by other sources, the fact remains and should not be removed by alternatives fact that are unsubstantiated and thus has no bearing (WP:DNCH, WP:OR). NB. Please observe also WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:CHERRYPICKING

Factual and legal disclaimer

The Israeli Chief Rabbinate requires documents proving the Jewishness of one’s mother, grandmother, great-grandmother and great-great-grandmother when applying for marriage. The Office of the Chief Rabbi (OCR) has underlined the basic principle that a child is not recognised by the OCR and other bodies as Jewish unless his or her mother is Jewish. Israel's Law of Return stipulates that a Jew is someone with a Jewish mother or someone who has converted to Judaism.

According to Jewish law, a person is only considered Jewish if their mother is Jewish, or they underwent a proper conversion.

more: The Forward - Raised Christian, But Jewish by Birth (http://forward.com/articles/152154/raised-christian-but-jewish-by-birth/) A Child is Jewish because it is born from a Jewish mother (http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/maternity3.html), Jewish identity, that is blood affinity, is linked through the mother to child. The fact that a mother is Jewish makes her child Jewish.(http://www.jewishmag.com/150mag/intermarriage/intermarriage.htm), Why Is Jewishness Passed Down Through the Mother? (http://www.chabad.org/theJewishWoman/article_cdo/aid/968282/jewish/Why-Is-Jewishness-Passed-Down-Through-the-Mother.htm) [[User:RudiLefkowitz|RudiLefkowitz][[ (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC) ps If sourced facts cannot be respected please see (WP:PN)

Aside from the bizarre formatting of this most recent post; everything you've said has been addressed, by myself or others. I've already explained above that I'm not going to keep humoring you. If you cannot drop the stick and leave it be you're going to end up getting hit with sanctions. Look at the section below this. An admin made explicit that standard DS applies to this page as a result of this argument and the edit war it caused. You seem to have forgotten the first law of holes: When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Your suggested edit has failed to gain any support, and flies in the face of one of WP's core policies. In addition, your assertions defy all reason, relying entirely upon a religious tenet and having no bearing on actual fact. You are suggesting we identify as Jewish someone who only claims to be jewish when accused of being antisemitic, who has made countless antisemitic remarks, who had once changed his surname to "Wagner", who posted photographs of himself wearing nazi symbology to the internet and who is not verifiably jewish. I cannot imagine a more ridiculous proposition than this. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• RudiLefkowitz Jewish law is not the final arbiter of someone's religion on Wikipedia any more than the Roman Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, or Islam, all of which have rules and beliefs by which they sometimes consider someone as being "one of them" even if they don't self identify as such. Under certain interpretations of Islamic Law former President Barrack Obama would be considered a Muslim because his father was. If we are going to follow your line of reasoning we would have to label him as a Muslim despite the fact that he clearly self identifies as a Christian. All I can say at this point is that you really need to read WP:BLP and step back. I don't know any gentle way to put this, so I'm going to be blunt. You are wrong under the guidelines and policies by which we edit BLP's on Wikipedia. And if you are unable, or unwilling to abide by those guidelines, however much you may disagree with them, then other steps may be required. At this point, I must caution you formally that your persistent editing on this particular topic and refusal to abide by consensus and longstanding guidelines, has become disruptive. Please stop. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I will be brief and civil. Are some claiming here that sourced content, backed by proven custom should be removed without any countering source or facts proving otherwise? Let's take an example: According to the Jus soli legal principle, applied in Argentine nationality law, any person born in Argentine acquires Argentine citizenship at birth, even though the parents have none whatsoever connection to Argentine. So could I then add the category Category:Argentine people to John Doe's Wikipedia article, if I have a source and the legal principle that state that John Doe is born in Argentine and has thus has gained Argentine citizenship? So what would the difference if I furthermore added the category Category:Argentine Jews to John Doe's Wikipedia article, if I have a source that states that John Doe is Jewish through his matrilineal descent (see Matrilineality in Judaism). I have already previously verified that according to the general principle in Judaism and Jewish law, a person is automatically considered Jewish if their mother/grandmother is Jewish, which is the original and current definition of being Jewish. From the Jewish perspective it does not matter if John Doe' has been born into another religion or embraced another religion, as long as his blood affinity is matrilineal. Regards, RudiLefkowitz (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're actually interested in engaging or are just trolling people here, but do you realize that the majority of both affiliated Jews (i.e., Conservative, Reform and other non-Orthodox sects) and non-affiliated Jews do not believe or follow matrilineality in Judaism? And I'm not even discussing gentiles here. You obviously live in an Orthodox Jewish bubble. I'd encourage you to get out of it, and maybe even practice a little religious pluralism. FuriouslySerene (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, this is inappropriate. Telling someone else how to live their life is definitely not relevant to this discussion, nor does it belong on this talk page. Let's please stick to the topic at hand. Bradv 00:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Concerning Yiannopoulos's ethnicity and/or religion as I see it we have 3 options:

1. Defer to Jewish custom
2. Allow self-identification
3. Allow journalists to determine his beliefs (even over his objections)

Of those, self-identification seems preferable. It does strike me as somewhat absurd that if Yiannopoulos were to claim he's a woman that alone would be sufficient for wikipedia – whereas with religion and/or ethnicity we leave it to RS to decide what he truly believes. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request :

There was a request for a Third Opinion in this dispute, but I have removed the request as there are already more than two people involved. If this discussion is still going strong it may be a better candiate for an RFC or the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Bradv 19:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

User:RudiLefkowitz has already called for dispute resolution. The case is currently waiting for the responses of all parties involved. MereTechnicality (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

It's also been brought to the NPOV Noticeboard, Peer Review, Editor Assistance, and ANI. This level of forum shopping is quite inappropriate. Bradv 21:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• I came across this thanks to RudiLefkowitz's forum shopping. I can't believe this needs to be repeated, but Wikipedia doesn't "follow Halacha." It follows its core policies, including the reliable source guideline. This may be very hard for someone who (clearly) considers himself an Orthodox Jew to hear, but the rest of the world doesn't follow or adhere to Halacha. RudiLefkowitz needs to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. FuriouslySerene (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Observing this Rudi, I got to admit, I'm amused.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Further, no conclusion was reached at ANI on what is a content decision, despite the suggestion at DRN. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

James J. Lambden I'm not going to get in a tiff over this but my involvement in this has been in my capacity as an administrator. This thread is one of the factors that caused me to put 1RR on this article and all of my subsequent communications have also been in that capacity. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• It was MereTechnicality who opined that the ANI thread demonstrated a consensus, not Ad Orientem. That was pretty clearly a mistake (an understandable one: several users took side against Rudi and the thread was shut down post-haste with the final comment in it being a disagreement with Rudi on the content), but it doesn't change the fact that Rudi's proposal flies in the face of WP policy (and common sense) on several levels. Also, while Ad has "taken a side" so to speak, it's pretty clear they did so in their capacity as an administrator, for the purpose of ending disruption and preventing further disruption. Their only mention of content was in the context of explaining WP policy, which itself was an attempt to head off further disruption. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Part of the reason I closed the DRN thread was because we can't make decisions when one already exists on another noticeboard (especially the administrator's noticeboard). I'm sorry if I closed the case too early (I don't have experience with the DRN yet). However, it may not be unreasonable to invoke the snowball clause here since several users and at least 2 administrators argued that Rudi's edits violated Wikipedia policy. If a user that isn't Rudi wants to open a new case at the DRN, then they may do so. In trying to follow policy, I may have accidentally become WP:INVOLVED so I won't be able to oversee it. Again, if I closed the case too early, I apologize. MereTechnicality (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

No worries. You were clearly acting in good faith and I think this falls under "no harm no foul." The bottom line is that we have a solid consensus on this issue and I do think that we can now close this discussion. Out of deference to 1RR and since my close was reverted, I will let someone else do the honors. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discretionary Sanctions

Due to the highly controversial nature of the subject of this article and the multiple BLP issues which have arisen, coupled with sometimes heated content disputes, I am imposing Discretionary Sanctions on this article per this ARBCOM decision. Specifically WP:1RR is now in effect. Thank you for your cooperation in abiding by this editing restriction. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Shooter and victim at U Washington shooting

Shooter sent Facebook message to Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopoulos before gunfire at UW protest, police say Originally published January 23, 2017 Seattle Times Suspect Facebook page indicates he is a supporter of Trump, Yiannopoulos and the National Rifle Association. Victim is Seattle computer-security engineer and a member of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) General Defense Committee, which describes itself as an “anti-racist and anti-fascist organization.” an early opponent to the appearance of Yiannopoulos at the UW and worked to organize a resistance among a number of groups, Bachcell (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Please update the page with the article with an update to the UW shooting as there is more info now. I've included links to local news stories. http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/man-shot-outside-yiannopoulos-talk-at-uw-improves-to-satisfactory-condition/

http://crosscut.com/2017/01/uw-shooting-milo-yiannopoulos-how-it-happened/ I've also been tracking the book controversy and responses on the Simon & Schuster page--so there are plenty of citations there with new information about that. Jaldous1 (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Adding Category:British people of Jewish descent, not Category:British Jews

Is a list of individuals who are of Jewish descent, but not Jewish (ex. David Beckham )...even if Mr. Yiannopoulos is Jewish according Israeli law - Who is a Jew? + Matrilineality in Judaism + Source http://forward.com/fast-forward/358909/milo-yiannopoulos-slams-thick-as-pig-st-media-jews/). I am not representing or advocating some obscure or even a certain Jewish denominations view on who is Jewish. All Jewish religious movements consider univocally everyone automatically as a Jew trough matrilineal blood affinity. The before mention is not only just the majority opinion in Judaism, but, the general scholarly verdict shown in any good in-depth encyclopedia. Ask any scholar or even a rabbi or a Israeli immigration official. The only difference is that Reform Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism accept even the patrilineal descent i.e. a even broder definition that is more like self-identification. So adding category "Jewish descent" should at least be no problem, until we can get some proper Jewish scholars on Wikipedia to verify the Jewishness of Milo Yiannopoulos. Shalom. RudiLefkowitz (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

We just had a whole discussion about this above which closed with a clear consensus not to add this category. Unless you have some new source that says that this person self-identifies as Jewish, there is no reason to have this discussion again. It is time to drop the stick. Bradv 21:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

That was about Category:British Jews, not Category:British people of Jewish descent. Henceforth be kind enough to be more attentive and read my whole text in it's entirety. Regards, RudiLefkowitz (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Ps. Example: Harrison Ford - American people of Belarusian-Jewish descent! This does not require self-identification! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RudiLefkowitz (talk • contribs) 21:41, January 28, 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you have added the category British Jews several times, but you also tried to add this category twice (1 2). The fact that this is the first time you managed to correctly point to the category is inconsequential—the consensus is not to identify Yiannopoulos as Jewish. Please stop. Bradv 21:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, If you want to question WP policy, you could start by ex. questioning ex. Robert De Niro's WP article, Category:American people of Italian descent, here Talk:Robert De Niro ! RudiLefkowitz (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

De Niro identifies as Italian. Bradv 21:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Bradv, are you saying that if there would be no source for Robert De Niro's self-identification as Italian, you should not add a WP Category relating his family origins (ex. "to be of Italian descent) or heritage. You are in fact saying that self-identification overrules everything, even history and background?...(You Are What You Say You Are!?)

Let's define the word descent:

*the state or fact of being related to a particular person or group of people who lived in the past:

She's a woman of mixed/French descent.

They trace their line of descent back to a French duke.

He claims direct descent from Mohammed. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/descent

I would with out a doubt claim that a WP category relating to a persons descent can be added without the need of some loosely defined self-identification criteria!

Examples John O'Connor (cardinal): Category: American people of Jewish descent

Madeleine Albright: Category: American people of Czech-Jewish descent

Hitler identified himself as German, not Austrian, and had German citizenship.. In spite of this, I see no problem with the Adolf Hitler's WP article having Category:Austrian people of World War II -or does anyone object?

and then again Harrison Ford - American people of Belarusian-Jewish descent

There has to be a level headed, scrupulous and predictable way of adding category in Wikipedia concerning background and descent. Wikipedia is not a forum for political trends, incl. identity politics. WP:NEUTRAL must be respected and avoid WIKIPEDIA:NOTADVOCATE, WP:NOTCENSORED and adhering to the principle that Wikipedia is not a Democracy WP:NOT#DEM! Articles should present the relevant religious perspective and Religious articles cannot be written from the "majority" perspective. Regards, RudiLefkowitz (talk) 12:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

*Leave it out - His Jewish heritage is dubious at best. He passingly claims that his grandmother was Jewish as a defense against accusations of antisemitism. He also claims he is Catholic. If he does have a Jewish heritage, it is very poorly documented and not a defining characteristic as required by WP:CAT.- MrX 13:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• No reason to question the source/sources. (The Forward -January 3, 2017 By Daniel J. Solomon, http://forward.com/fast-forward/358909/milo-yiannopoulos-slams-thick-as-pig-st-media-jews/). In any other WP Biographies, the used source/sources would be accepted without hesitation and no special review or scrutiny would be done or discussed. I truly hope that you apply this same amount of energy and this certain standard on every other WP bio article on Wikipedia.! If you are right that one or two sources from known and established newspapers are not valid + self-identification must be a proven criteria, I will start applying it to every WP biographical article henceforth. So the proposed criteria by user: MrX is that sources from known and established newspapers are not valid if it's only one source and the other newspaper sources cannot be trusted as the information was reported by the person himself. User:Bradv seems to argue that no source, however many or good, cannot be used if self-identification is not established and hence Category for background/descent should not be added in any Wikipedia article. I hope that a Dispute resolution will come to a recommendation on which criteria should be applied in WP Biographies concerning adding background/descent categories.

So for example, the following biographies will be changed accordingly, either removing/ keeping Category:Jewish descent or Category:Jews

Ludwig Wittgenstein, Oliver Stone, Theodor W. Adorno, John Kerry, Jacques Offenbach, Johann Strauss II, Hermann Broch, Karl Stern, Jean-Marie Lustiger, Lindsey Vuolo, J. D. Salinger, Marcel Proust, Helena Bonham Carter, Roman Polanski, Douglas Fairbanks, Sean Penn

PS: Here is mainly mainstream media sources on Mr. Yiannopoulos Jewish background:

-Yiannopoulos, according to Jewish law, he is, Jewish too, but he was raised Catholic - From Forward.com (http://forward.com/fast-forward/358909/milo-yiannopoulos-slams-thick-as-pig-st-media-jews/)

-Yiannopoulos’ loathsome reply was his avowal of Jewish identity (http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/203888/donald-trumps-little-boy)

-And some on the furthest extremes of the Alt-right attacked him as a “Jewish homosexual (https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/alternative-right)

-has repeatedly denounced Yiannopoulos for being gay and part-Jewish (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/12/29/alt_right_bigot_milo_yiannopoulos_just_got_a_250_000_book_deal.html)

-Yiannopoulos’ mother is Jewish and he is a practicing Catholic (http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/11/milo-yiannopoulos-says-steve-bannon-hiring-proves-not-bigot/)

-because Milo Yiannopoulos is “part-Jewish” (http://www.salon.com/2016/09/29/alt-right-catfight-daily-stormer-wages-holy-crusade-on-breitbart-because-milo-yiannopoulos-is-part-jewish/) and even -https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-america-divided/milo-yiannopoulos/. Regards, RudiLefkowitz (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Most of those are poor sources and should not be used in a BLP, and no, they would not be accepted without hesitation in other articles by anyone knowledgeable about our content policies. Also, being attacked as something does not make you that thing.- MrX 17:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

So the following biographies, for starters, can be changed accordingly, if they are similar "poor" sources:

Ludwig Wittgenstein, Oliver Stone, Theodor W. Adorno, John Kerry, Jacques Offenbach, Johann Strauss II, Hermann Broch, Karl Stern, Jean-Marie Lustiger, Lindsey Vuolo, J. D. Salinger, Marcel Proust, Helena Bonham Carter, Roman Polanski, Douglas Fairbanks, Sean Penn.

I think a review/recommendation from a few Wikipedia administrators would be needed to validate user:MrX claim about what constitutes a "poor" source. Are the above mentioned "poor" sources and does reporting oneself, one's background make it any less valid? I would like to get this confirmed, before I will systematically apply it on all feature Wikipedia biographical articles. Thanks, RudiLefkowitz (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about closure

The close disregarded the question and the discussion. He was not asking to add "British Jews" as a cat, he was discussing "British of Jewish descent" which should not be a problem, since his mother is Jewish and therefore is of Jewish descent. Why is that category not allowed? As I posted on Rudi's talk page, I do understand that Wikipedia has an issue with Jews and especially with Jews who don't fit into the stereotypical mold. The sources say Milo is of Jewish descent, but nothing short of Moses coming down from Sinai proclaiming that would be good enough for some of the editors here. Read the links above, he clearly identifies as a Jew. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, One source says Milo is of Jewish descent. The rest of the sources say that he claims to be of Jewish descent whenever he is accused of antisemitism. He also has a history of neo-nazi-esque actions (including using the pseudonym "Milo Wagner" and posting pictures of himself reading non-critical books about Hitler and wearing an Iron cross on the internet), so his claims of Jewish ancestry are highly suspect. Please check the other sources used in the article, and further reliable sources can be found by googling the phrase "Milo Yiannopoulos Jewish" and choosing news results. If some investigative journalist takes it upon themselves to check Milo's claimed ancestry and confirms it, then this category would be appropriate. But until then, the claim that he is of Jewish descent is essentially unverifiable. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I had noticed the difference and pointed it out on other talk pages, but consensus appears to remain against introducing it. This was addressed in part in the preceding discussion and further discussed on user talk pages. One of the main sources he is citing asserts Jewish identity is inherited from the mother and this looks like a back door attempt to identify Milo as Jewish which has been an near obsessive object for Rudi. If you think this belongs here I am OK with reopening the discussion. However be aware that Rudi is currently blocked for violating 1RR. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Whether he is Jewish or not is a separate issue. The question at hand is whether he is of Jewish descent which is a separate category. That his grandmother or mother is Jewish is not in question, therefore he is of Jewish descent. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Find several good sources that say "Yiannopoulos is of Jewish descent" and we can discuss it. Original research based on vague (and possibly sardonic) blurts by the subject, reported in very non-biographically context in very weak sources will not move the ball forward. Now, can we please move on?- MrX 15:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph:That his grandmother or mother is Jewish is not in question, Yes, it is. That was the whole point of my response. Please read comments before you reply to them. The majority of sources question whether his mother or grandmother really is Jewish, referring to the claim as "convenient" or pointing out that he only does so when accused of antisemitism. See [1] and [2]MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

(Many EC's) Actually it is in question, and has been above multiple times. Firstly there is the dubious 'my grandmother was Jewish' claims. Secondly that only applies if we take a strict reading of Halakha (which is not done by many modern Jews) as the article matrilineality clearly lays out. And articles are not written from a Jewish religious law POV. They are written based on verifiable reliable sources and in BLP's this extends to where there are sensitive areas (religion, ethnicity, sexuality etc) we prefer self-identification or clear-cut sourcing. Neither of which is availble here. And frankly if we wanted to be picky it could be argued he was referring to his grandmother's religion not her ethnicity. Which are not the same. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Multiple (edit conflict) Well clearly there is some debate on his being of Jewish descent (see MP's cmt above). As I noted above, if you want to re-open the discussion I'm fine with that. However this has been a contentious topic of discussion here and the category should not be restored to the article w/o a clear consensus on this page first. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• I am reopening the discussion given there is continued debate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• The sources above state "I am a gay Jew" That should be enough. Then another source says his mother is Jewish. It is irrelevant why and when he chooses to identify as a Jew. The statements are clear and is self-identified as per policy and the descent is sourced as well. That people on Wikipedia have a problem with identifying people as Jewish is not my problem, we have policies to look at and when someone says "I am a gay Jew" it usually means he is a gay Jew. Or are you saying that only certain actions and people can identify as being Jewish? Is there a faith/practice test that applies on Wikipedia? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• FYI I'm going to be busy today so I will check in here when I can. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I am a native of the third planet orbiting Zeta Reticuli. Can we now report in Extraterrestrial life that ETs have been confirmed? No. Milo making statements such as that don't qualify as proof. Alex Jones claims he speaks the truth. Donald Trump claims the population of the US adores him. People lie, especially about themselves. We need something other than Milo claiming to be a jew whenever it's convenient to support this. You find that support, and I'll change my tune. Until then: no. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

For BLP and religious information, we go by self-identification. He self identified as a Jew. It's as simple as that. Again, you have a bias and that's fine, but the fact is that policy is satisfied and he is Jewish and he is of Jewish descent, no matter how sad that makes you feel. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

When an editor tells you that they will support a claim when a preponderance of reliable sources support it, we take their word. We do not go on to accuse that editor of having a bias. I have no bias in this matter. I have no problems imagining a person with Jewish ancestry turning out like Milo. I actually know of someone who is 100% jewish who flirted with Neo-Nazism. But the preponderance of reliable sources question this claim. That is the end of the discussion. We do no prioritize fringe views over mainstream views. Numerous individuals with WP articles have challenged the identifiers that those articles apply to them. When there is no evidence to support their claims, and the preponderance of reliable sources dispute them, we do not take those claims at face value. This is a non issue: this is made quite clear in a number of BLPs through precedent and made explicit through the BLP policy page itself. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

To echo your rebuttal of me from a different content dispute, what RS state that he does not have Jewish heritage? We have some evidence that he does (including self-identification, which is supposed to be sufficient per the Chelsea Manning dispute) and no evidence that he does not. You say that "the preponderance of reliable sources dispute them" but which sources are the ones that explicitly say he is not of Jewish descent? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

In short, we dont know in what context he was referring to his maternal grandmother (religion or ethnicity), we lack information from a reliable source addressing this, where sources DO address this there is also criticism he claims a Jewish grandmother just to deflect anti-semitism questions, short of clear information, and unreliable information, its just a bad piece of info that shouldnt be in the article without some clarity. The above 'He is Jewish!' proponents only real argument is that Halakha says he is a Jew so he is one. Which is obviously not a point of view we would raise above reliable sourcing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The Wordsmith, might I assume that since you're taking my argument from that dispute, than you also feel the same circumstances apply, here? Namely, that "not Jewish" is a subset of "Jewish"? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - None of the subject's statements published in reliable sources are sufficient to categorize the article under any category related to Jewish religion, heritage, ethnicity, or really anything else.- MrX 15:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• And this is why Wikipedia is a joke. Do what you want to the article, I'm taking it off my watchlist. As always, bias wins over truth. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

You're seriously going to storm off, crying "bias" because your claims have been refuted by policy-based reasoning? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Shhhh! Dont look a gift huff in the mouth! Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Considering that their involvement here was the work of some undisguised canvassing, I'm not inclined to argue with their departure too much. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's a good thing I didn't take the page off my watchlist yet (I will uncheck the box with this edit). I was not canvassed here. Firstly, if you check the archives on this page, I've posted here before. Secondly, I have talk pages of other editors on my watchlist and I saw this discussion pop up again. Rudi contacted me ages ago and I didn't respond. If you, or OID, wish to insult me or say I'm only here from canvassing, please ping me so I can respond. And I'm not going to storm off crying. I just have no interest in getting into a debate over a Wiki article. Milo self-identified as Jewish, that is good enough for Wikipedia. It's not good enough for you and you have to live with that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Really? You're casting aspersions at all those who disagree with you, then complaining about being insulted when one of them points out that Rudi had been canvassing in a way which included you?

Milo self-identified as Jewish, that is good enough for Wikipedia. Not according to WP:BLPSELFPUB (specifically points 1 and 4) it isn't. I mean, this is the exact situation that policy was written to address. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@MPants at work: we allow people to self identify about certain things, namely gender, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation (WP:EGRS). EvergreenFir (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Please see pretty much everything everyone has said in opposition to this proposal, but specifically see the two sources I provided earlier in this discussion and the specific policy references I made in the edit you replied to. No RSes have confirmed this claim (though one has repeated it in passing) and several have contested it. I will tell you the same thing I've told the other two (the only other two) editors to have supported this in these threads: Find me some RSes which explicitly confirm this and I will change my position. Until then, this is the definition of a contentious, self-serving claim and should be avoided. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@MPants at work: Sorry I think I was being unnecessarily pedantic. I was just pointing out that we do allow people to self-identify. But I agree with you here that we likely shouldn't include it just because he says it. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

No worries, us pedants need to stick together. Hope I didn't sound to snappy in response. Normally, I wouldn't bat an eyelash at this proposal, and indeed, it wasn't until I read the overly rhetorical thread title ("...should not be removed until proven otherwise") from Rudi that I started looking into this, and discovered that the RSes don't take him at his word for the most part. I'm still not invested in this. I'd be happy to add the category and change the voice of this claim to wikivoice given the right sources. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

*Suggestion Is it perhaps time to post an RfC to try and get a broader pool of editors involved and maybe (hopefully) establish a definitive consensus on this issue? Reminder I'm taking no position on this subject. My role here is to prevent edit warring and any other disruptive editing. If I can help facilitate a constructive discussion I'm happy to do so. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm open to the idea, but I still see a pretty clear consensus not to include (perhaps less clear than with the previous proposal, but still clear enough). I don't think an RfC would change that. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that given the previous discussion, RfC might not be fruitful. But there's nothing stopping one. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I think describing someone's descent or background should not be a problem and hence go on to adding the relevant category. Furthermore, backing that claim by sources that are regularly used in similar biographical articles, should also be without problem.

If we would only apply a loosely defined self-identification criteria for adding a descent/background to biographical , we would be in for a huge makeover of all bio articles in Wikipedia. That would entail a radical removal of categories that have a regular newspaper as a source and are additionally without explicit statement proving self-identification. Fortunately have in this case we have a CNBC interview with Milo Yiannopoulos stating he’s a gay Jew i.e. source+self-identification!

For some reason this bio-article in question has been targeted for special overzealous scrutiny to prevent adding a category that would normally be the common practice in Wikipedia. In my humble opinion, we should take inspiration from Kant ’s categorical imperative and try to “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”. The spirit of that principle should be required to be 'general, public, prospective, coherent, clear, stable, and practicable'. Thus we would avoid misconception, conflict in the our world of make-belief and ever changing ideological fads. Regards, RudiLefkowitz (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

/*Sponsors/

Mr. Yiannopoulos has been sponsored by College Republicans and Turning Point USA. 96.93.147.49 (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Washington University Shooting

I updated the information. We know the victim and the suspect. The suspect is a Trump supporter, the honorable victim, Josh D., is a computer engineer and is active in a labour union. The suspect claims self-defense and has not been arrested. The brave Josh D. wants to talk to the suspected shooter to de-escalate the situation.--Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Calling the victim "honorable" is a violation of WP:NPOV; we also generally don't name victims per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, unless said victim is notable for something other than this event (which doesn't appear to be the case here). JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

DePaul University Fact Check

The validity of the content under the "DePaul University" sub-heading is questionable. Much of this section is generally irrelevant and the specifics regarding the protest of the speaking event at the University come from un-reliable sources. Using Breitbart as a source to provide information about an editor of the newspaper exhibits a conflict of interest and many of the other citations are not to reputable sources but rather to think-pieces or small, independent news outlets, displaying significant bias. Wordsmithone (talk) 07:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

(Taking off my admin hat for a minute) I'm not sure what you are referring to here. The only Fact Checking sub-section I see is under "Controversies." That said, I am not comfortable with it or its wording which sounds like an attack and appears to be using a political hit piece for a source. Yiannopoulis has certainly made a lot of dicey claims, but we need RS sources and we should not be wording sections like that in a BLP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the title of that subsection is the problem. The section doesn't actually fact-check anything. It consists pretty much entirely of a quote from a reporter who provides (critical) commentary on the nature of Milo's talks. I think the best thing to do is to nix that section heading and the first sentence, then move the rest to the dangerous faggot tour section, like so.

I'm not 100% comfortable with the spot I moved the text to. It might be too prominent. It really belongs in a "reception" or "criticism" section (as opposed to a "controversy" section because it's not a controversy). That being said, I'm less comfortable with removing it entirely, as it represents a big part of the very small amount of third party analysis present on the page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a definite improvement, and I also agree with your redaction of the opening sentence. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Now, I'm about to tell you how wrong you are, MUAH HA HA!!! (This is WP, after all, nothing else would be acceptable.)

I'm pretty sure Wordsmithone was referring to the DePaul University subsection, under the Dangerous Faggot tour section, and their reference to 'fact check' was intended to describe what they are doing in starting this particular thread. I'm going to look through that section and see if there's anything to their complaints now. They certainly have a point in that breitbart is used to support at least one claim of fact (which would be controversial if true), and that's something that breitbart almost certainly isn't suitable for. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• I just performed a major overhaul of that section. The OP's concerns were spot on, for the most part. There were a lot of claims of fact that didn't appear in the sources, and the breitbart sources were too vitriolic and were not backed up by other sources on the details. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)