Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Alt-right in lead

@HappyWaldo: Why haven't you started a discussion about this?

I have multiple problems with this line.

For one, I don't see any real benefit to including Yiannopoulos's off-hand comment about his role in the alt-right in the lead. This is one of countless opinion pieces he's written, and stumbling around for sources which call him a ringleader or spokesperson or figurehead or whatever only to immediately refute that in the same sentence isI sloppy.

It also seems like it's an excuse to include yet more of Yiannopoulos's self-aggrandizement in the article. J.D. Salinger he ain't. He loves to talk about himself, to the point of self-parody, so finding quotes where he describes himself in flattering terms isn't difficult or noteworthy. Some sort of secondary sources would be needed for this kind of fluff. If all these sources have commented on his role in the alt-right, haven't any of them commented on his response to that?

Additionally, the lead is supposed to summarize the body, and none of this is in the body. The lead should not be the only place a significant issue is discussed, and if it's not a significant issue, it probably shouldn't be in the lead. Grayfell (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

It's strange not to have alt-right in the lead, given how often Yiannopoulos is called a leader/spokesperson/figurehead/ringleader of the movement. If someone is labelled something persistently, that's noteworthy. If that someone disagrees with said label, that's also noteworthy. HappyWaldo (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

He is connected to the alt-right, so I see what you're saying, but there's more to this. His tepid disagreement in one primary source is at odds with the large number of sources which link him, in some way, to the alt right. Even so, it still doesn't belong in the lead before it's in the body. That some sources have called him, in passing, an important figure in the alt-right, as opposed to commentator on the alt-right needs context.

Summarizing source which uses 'spokesman' in passing isn't a justification for including a longer direct quote based only on a primary source. The source itself is a response to an article by Jack Hunter, but absolutely none of that context is included or would belong in the lead if it were. (That he says "he's understandably jumpy about me coming for him" seems telling regarding the above discussion, as well). He later goes on to mention his "alt-right explainer" where he "differentiated between the hateful and non-hateful components of the alt-right movement." That flies in the face of claims that he's not a spokesman for the alt-right, doesn't it? That's why a secondary source is needed. We can't summarize his position based on one part of an article while ignoring the rest of the article.

It's also an odd choice for a quote because it's not obvious what it means. "Fellow traveller" has several meanings, and none of them are a clear fit here. It suggests that he acts as a member but is not a formal member. Nobody is a formal member in the alt-right, because it's not a formal organization. It's also a pejorative which is mostly used in reference to communism, which means he's either being "ironic" (yet again), or that he doesn't know what the term means. If a secondary source emphasized this quote as being informative, that might be different, but it's still weird and adds more confusion than is helpful. Grayfell (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Points taken. I tried to cover his links to the alt-right as succinctly as possible, given it's the lead, but perhaps more qualifiers are needed. Indeed a section with subsections should be created to flesh out his views and associations. - HappyWaldo (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Without relitigating the issue of whether this belongs in the lead: assuming this belongs in the lead, doesn't it make more sense just to include the short quotation rather than a disputable interpretation of it? Knowitall369 (talk) 02:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, but what does it explain? Since, as I mention above, the claim that he's not a spokesperson is contradicted later in the same source, it's inappropriate to highlight that aspect of it. Since the quote isn't particularly clear in meaning, what does it actually accomplish? It's just adding yet more of Yiannopoulos talking about himself, and readers can go to Breitbart if that's what they are looking for. If we quoted someone as specifically calling him a "ringleader" (which would benefit from secondary sources, for weight etc.) this would be appropriate as a response, but this article is just saying he's a more generic 'spokesperson' of the movement. He supports that description in the source by promoting his "explainer" article and his speaking roles, so it's not going to work to pick the one sentence of the source where he says otherwise. I don't love it, but the current wording explains that he hasn't entirely embraced the term for himself, without ignoring the larger picture. Grayfell (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The lead is quite clearly poisoning the well. It's right from the bat trying to depict a kind of personality or political views that the reader may probably find objectionable, even though these are minor details that do not really belong to this kind of summary. Unfortunately Wikipedia is showing, once again, its regressive left bias when it comes to somebody who is highly critical of that ideology. While this article is not as much of a blatantly biased leftist propaganda piece as the infamous gamergate article (which has been quite efficiently and totally hijacked by the regressive left social justice warriors), it's still on that ballpark. Given how much Wikipedia has been appropriated by the regressive leftist ideology, I'm not expecting this to be fixed any time soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.72.139.35 (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Removing twitter ban from lede

I agree- it wouldn't be that important for your average minor celebrity. It's just that Yiannopoulos is primarily notable for being banned from Twitter, so it's probably something we should mention in the lede. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

OK. If it is going to remain in the lede I think a brief clarification to introduce it is needful. And Grayfell, I think you'll find it takes two people to engage in edit warring, so I find it insensible of you to try to exclusively pin it on me, especially when you started the first revert and have history in reverting this very sentence. Inswoon (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2016 (GMT)

It's currently misplaced; it stands out like the proverbial. If it is retained, suggest a move to the end of the second paragraph, after the "vocal critic" information. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

It is indeed misplaced, I made the initial edit to highlight that point, but an explanation of its presence would be more suiting. Inswoon (talk) 01:43, 28 September 2016 (GMT)

See WP:BRD regarding edit warring. I have no problem moving it down a bit. While it does at first appear to be an over-emphasized point, many reliable sources highlight this as being significant, so we should reflect sources. Grayfell (talk) 02:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Twitter controversies

Two months ago, user TheTruthiness (talk) made the following edit:

"In July 2016, Yiannopoulos panned the Ghostbusters reboot as "a movie to help lonely middle-aged women feel better about being left on the shelf."[63][64] After the film's release, Twitter trolls attacked African American actress Leslie Jones, in ways that included racial abuse. Yiannopoulos wrote three public tweets about Jones, saying "Ghostbusters is doing so badly they've deployed [Leslie Jones] to play the victim on Twitter", before describing her reply to him as "Barely literate" and then calling her a "black dude".[65][66][67] Critics of Yiannopoulos allege that his tweets encouraged third parties to abuse Jones.[68][69]

Yiannopoulos was then permanently banned by Twitter, which released a statement saying that "no one deserves to be subjected to targeted abuse online, and our rules prohibit inciting or engaging in the targeted abuse or harassment of others. ... We know many people believe we have not done enough to curb this type of behavior on Twitter. We agree." but did not specify which tweet or tweets they felt violated this policy.[70] Critics noted that Jones herself directly violated those same rules by asking her followers "I hope y’all go after them like they going after me" and "get her [a 17 year old Twitter user]" yet was actively courted by Twitter's CEO Jack Dorsey to return to the platform.[71][72]" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Milo_Yiannopoulos&diff=732585583&oldid=732577606

For some reason, three editors opposed his edit. What I don't understand is why is "Critics of Yiannopoulos allege that his tweets encouraged third parties to abuse Jones." not considered WEASEL, but "Critics noted that Jones herself directly violated those same rules by asking her followers "I hope y’all go after them like they going after me" and "get her [a 17 year old Twitter user]" yet was actively courted by Twitter's CEO Jack Dorsey to return to the platform." is.

I do not see anything wrong w/ TheTruthiness' edit and the sources he used. Why only mention what critics of Yiannopoulos said about his behaviour? Israell (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Sourced to Breitbart and someone at IBTimes whose qualifications include 'social science student'. If I have to explain why that is inappropriate on this topic I will go totally bursar. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh god. Yeah, it was a bit of a weasel. It's not just "Critics of Yiannopoulos", it's either strongly implied or explicitly stated by the majority of reliable media outlets that bothered covering it. If it was just some unnamed 'critics' it probably wouldn't even belong. I've changed the wording to more clearly explain this. Grayfell (talk) 05:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Greek-writen name

Μίλω Ιαννόπουλοσ is wrong, the "σ" is never used in the ending and the "ς" is used instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.71.151.53 (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I've removed it. Is there a specific guideline in the WP:MOS for this? I couldn't find one. MOS:FORLANG suggests that this should only be used for topics which are closely associated with a region or language, but the article only says that Yiannopoulos's father is from Greece. "Do not include foreign equivalents in the lead sentence just to show etymology" seems to apply. We don't know if he speaks Greek, or if he has been written about in Greek publications or similar. By including the Greek spelling, the article is implying that it's more relevant than is supported by sources. Since we don't have a source for that spelling, and it's apparently wrong, there is more than one reason to remove it. Grayfell (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

his official site: external links

here tis: "https://yiannopoulos.net/" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.91.215 (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

DePaul University

"..university president Dennis H. Holtschneider issued a statement reaffirming the value of free speech and apologizing for the harm caused by Yiannopolous's appearance on the campus..."

Is the above a neutral point of view? What is the "harm" that is alleged? Shouldn't there be a reference to the original statement? 136.162.2.1 (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2016

i would like to add that his mother is an English Jew and so is he Jewish by ancestry and culturally.

source: https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-america-divided/milo-yiannopoulos/

Ronron251 (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Partly done: I have added that his mother is of Jewish descent, that is really all the source says and we can publish. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Reverted again, per above. Grayfell (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Birthdate

I've taken the time out to wade through past revisions for birthdate. I found that originally the entry just said "British journalist, October 1984". I note that the first edit giving Crunchbase as a source for birthdate was made by a a now blocked IP on 10 October 2014. The birth date of 18 Oct 1984 was not in the reference provided, and this was not picked up by other editors at the time of editing. Whilst Crunchbase appears to be a wiki-style profile, not necessarily created or edited by the person themselves, we can see from its edit history that the subject of this bio eventually registers an official profile and therefore can be assumed to have control over its content, and it seems likely that at least some of the previous edits were also made by the subject before registration at Crunchbase. Later on wikipedia, after what seems like a lengthy edit war which began in December 2014 by Gibbets, some AGF edits in January 2015 by Malfuron4, and some very silly IP edit wars in August 2015, the subject's birthdate was changed by an editor from 1984 to 1983 to reflect the info on the Crunchbase source.

Given the nature of the Crunchbase source, partly a self-published source, (see WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:SELFPUB, WP:BLPSELFPUB), and think some due diligence is required, since there is, as will be demonstrated in the next paragraph, reasonable doubt as to the birthdate authenticity. However, due to the subjects control over the information contained on Crunchbase, "it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object" to the inclusion of 18 October 1983 as their WP:DOB.

The UK Companies House lists the subject's birthdate as 18/10/94 for three limited companies which are mentioned in reliable secondary sources (Hipster Ventures, Sentinel Media, Caligula): https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/Ok_73a89ZK4v5il-7NckmFS4nUU/appointments A fourth company Counterknowledge also has the birthdate/year of 18/10/94 for "British Writer". Counterknowledge is also referenced by the nom de plume Milo Andreas Wagner on their personal website. A fifth company Wrong Agency shows a birthdate for 18 Oct 1983, yet it is clearly the same "British Journalist" as the other four companies. These Companies House sources I consider to be WP:BLPPRIMARY, since they're public records.Please correct me if I'm wrong.

It seems unlikely that the subject has started four limited companies using the wrong birth data. It does appear that the Wrong Agency Limited company lists an incorrect year of birth, but that the Crunchbase wiki and the wikipedia autobiography for his nom de plume Milo Andreas Wagner, (WP:BLPSELFPUB?), may have intentionally given an incorrect year (1983).

Two more primary sources corroborate the four WP:BLPPRIMARY sources which establish the basic biographical fact of birthdate - his first stint as a director for his father's company whilst a student in 2003, and his birth certificate.

With six primary sources for the 1994 birth year incl. birthcert, and three (two secondary, one primary) for what appears to be a fictitious year of 1993, we ought to be able to make a judgement call and edit the entry to reflect these basic biographical facts:

• birth year 1994;
• nationality British;
• names: name: Milo Yiannopoulos; [don't include until verified by secondary source:birthname: Milo Hanrahan]; noms de plume: Milo Andreas Wagner, [don't include until birthname verified by reliable secondary source] Milo Yiannopoulos.

I have set out concrete but primary proof that the birthyear is not 1983. This evidence cannot be included in the BLP, but proves the contentious nature of a 1983 birthyear. If the above changes are acceptable, then I suggest that current birthyear/birthname/nationality be altered to reflect the =source consensus, else, perhaps the best solution (given the amount of edit warring over this issue) is to remove the birthdata altogether. What do other editors think? -- Luther Blissetts (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I have found an article from September 2012 from a secondary source which states: "Yiannopoulos, 27". As the subject was 27 years of age in Sept 2012, and their birth month is October, then the subject's 28th birthday is October 2012. It's then easy to deduce from this source that the subject was born in 1984. This source will now be used as an inline citation for birthyear. Luther Blissetts (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I have found a tweet by the subject from December 2015, saying (to Ben Shapiro): "I know you know I was born in 1984, not 1983". Luther Blissetts (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

MILO HANRAHAN (his real name) was definitely born in 1984 in Chatham in Kent (not in Greece). You can prove this by searching the UK's official register of Births, Deaths and Marriages. It's simpler to search at Genes Reunited http://www.genesreunited.co.uk/search/results?sourcecategory=birthsutf002c%20marriages%20utf0026%20deaths&collection=births%20utf0026%20baptisms&firstname=milo&firstname_variants=true&lastname=hanrahan&birthyear=1984&birthyear_offset=2&region=great%20britain Milo's unmarried grandparents were Andreas I Yiannoppoullos and Petronella T Hanrahan. Milo's father (who was also born in Chatham, in 1953) changed his name to use his mother's surname, ie he became Nick Hanrahan. Milo was born Hanrahan and changed his name back to Yiannoppoulos (dropping one l), which is why people can't find his birth records. Milo's unmarried mother was called Maria Jane Baker. I don't have any evidence that she was Jewish, but nor do I have any evidence that she wasn't Jewish. Same goes for Petronella T. Hanrahan (geboren worden im Monat 1933, in Geburtsort, zu Breaden https://archive.is/xykD4#selection-649.0-594.3) but it's not a Jewish-sounding name. Scholia (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Why? He was permanently banned from Twitter in July 2016

This sentence in the leads BEGS to be answered "because ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE95:57B0:D9E8:8AB4:72C9:DF3E (talk) 04:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

"He opposed the provision of "Soho masses""

This sentence does not make sense. What provision was opposed, what does it say about Milo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE95:57B0:7DAB:F42C:5D99:BA0F (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the article on Soho Masses, and at the source referenced here, this appears to be an opposition to segregated Catholic mass services for members of the LGBT community only - on the basis that he believes it is contrary to the point of mass, which he suggests is to bring people together.[2] Some expansion for clarity might be advised. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 November 2016

Please correct the last line in the start of the article to: Yiannopoulos was permanently banned from Twitter in July 2016 for what the company cited as “participating in or inciting targeted abuse of individuals.” [source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/07/20/twitter-bans-milo-yiannopoulos-for-good-while-cracking-down-on-abuse/?tid=a_inl] 2602:306:CE95:57B0:7DAB:F42C:5D99:BA0F (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC) p.s. The references there support this but I cited a direct source for the company's own wording``` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE95:57B0:7DAB:F42C:5D99:BA0F (talk) 04:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

How can I do that if no one bothers to say anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE95:57B0:8033:AFBD:D378:1967 (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I've made this edit. Without a brief indication as to why he was banned from Twitter, the sentence doesn't really carry any significance.--Trystan (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE95:57B0:8033:AFBD:D378:1967 (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Editor bias?

Given Milo is such a controversial figure it is not too hard to imagine there being an edit war of sorts that could erupt over this page, or that the writing of the article may favor certain opinions. I noticed this when I corrected (attempted to, rather;my edit was undone along with accusations that I was making "false claims" despite providing sources, which just illustrates my point) claims in the article that he was a "spokesperson" for the alt-right, with sources from Guardian.com opinion pieces (which were very anti-Milo) used as sources to justify. Likewise, I can see that other instances of this sort of sourcing exist, such as the source for Milo being a "critic of third-wave feminism" using an opinion piece with clear bias accusing him of "misogyny" rather than an example of his criticisms. Given what happened during the Gamergate scandal and the realities of agenda driven editing, I think it a good idea to take steps to ensure neutrality is being maintained. 2601:191:100:FE63:5996:B7A9:13AB:E782 (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

While it is critical that editors make a particular effort to analyze their own biases on contentious topics, we won't achieve a better neutral point of view in the article by dismissing all sources critical of the subject as biased.--Trystan (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Persona

From what I understand, Milo cultivates being flamboyantly homosexual as part of his persona and is one of the reasons his campus speech circuit is called the "Dangerous F----t" tour. However, the article doesn't mention this as far as I can see. Also, why is his Twitter ban mentioned in the lede? TariqMatters (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

American English?, also old Wikipedia user page

Why is this page written in American English? He's British, so it should be in UKEng. Also, his old Wikipedia userpage (User:Milo Andreas Wagner) says he was born in 1983. Heepman1997 (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Milo's focus is apparently more in the domain of American politics, rather than British politics. As for his alleged user page, someone more qualified than myself would have to answer that. — Confession0791 ^talk 07:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself. And people lie about their age. Especially high profile public figures. (Also we dont really care about him in the UK). Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, most of us don't really care about him in the US, either... MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

According to Halacha Mr. Yiannopoulos is Jewish - It's quite simple

One can of course go roundabout searching for disrupting and twisting excuses to sabotage proper Wikipedia editing. 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. Of course proper sources are warrented and must be in place. RudiLefkowitz (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

As for as I know, nobody is specifically saying that his granny was definitely not Jewish, we're just debating if and how to include this otherwise relatively minor point about his heritage in the article. Wikipedia doesn't concern itself with how orthodox a source is, and as has already been mentioned, it's just not that simple. If you know of a reliable source stating that he is Jewish according to halakha, bring it forth for discussion. Without such a source specifically supporting that point, mentioning halakha would be original research. Grayfell (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Again. Secondary, reliable, sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Ugh. Lokal, really? So soon? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

What is his maternal grandmother's name? What was her mother's name? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

This is not a place for original research based on people's names. This is based on simple reported self-identification, which is how people are categorised project-wide on wikipedia. Avaya1 (talk) 04:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Since multiple sources treat the significance of this as contentious, repeating this without including that would be non-neutral. This is not the place for original research based on halakha, either. Grayfell (talk) 04:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2016

Alt-right should be in quotes or preceded by "so-called" as per AP style guide. Mflsviolin (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: That's not the style we currently use. I think that might be something to propose at WT:MOS EvergreenFir (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Milo's mother and maternal grandmother are Jewish

When I first read this article I saw that his mother is Jewish. I am not sure why it was taken off and it is important to his biographical information, because by Jewish law this makes him Jewish, regardless of if he identifies as Catholic.

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-america-divided/milo-yiannopoulos/ http://www.salon.com/2016/09/29/alt-right-catfight-daily-stormer-wages-holy-crusade-on-breitbart-because-milo-yiannopoulos-is-part-jewish/ https://idledillettante.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/380a6-screenshot2013-01-15at21-50-07.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.66.31 (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

In short - Jews tend to get treated as a special case due to being both a religion and an ethnicity. Most Jews (although not all) do hold that if you mother was Jewish, so are you. This however is an ethnicity issue, not a religious issue. As a self-identified Catholic if we discussed his religion he would be 'Catholic' not Jewish. As an ethnicity issue we would say (assuming the correct sources) he is of Jewish descent etc. By current practice, Religion shouldnt be in the infobox unless its relevant to the subjects notability/a significant factor. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

It should still be in the article though. We have the fact that his father is Greek, it would benefit the article to mention there that his mother is an English Jew, especially because the article is about Milo. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 19:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I added that his mother is of Jewish descent, which is sourced and neutral. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Sir Joseph, I'm sorry I didn't sign earlier. I am new to Wikipedia Talk 65.51.66.31 (talk)avr1891 —Preceding undated comment added 21:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I've removed it, yet again. The Bloomberg piece (which is already cited in the article, btw) only says, in parenthesis, "...he likes to mention that his maternal grandmother was Jewish when he’s accused of anti-Semitism". This isn't saying his grandmother was Jewish, it's saying that he likes to say she was in certain situations. As was already discussed above in #Persondata set, this is a passing mention which was phrased to imply skepticism or doubt. There are at least a couple of sources saying that his claims are questionable, or only used by him when it's convenient to deflect criticism. As far as I know, there are no reliable, independent sources supporting his Jewish ancestry without these caveats. We can either try and figure out some way to include this point, or we can wait until a more reliable source is found. Needless to say, The Daily Stormer's opinion on who is or isn't Jewish is total garbage as far as reliable sources go (even if repeated by Salon), and a screenshot of a couple of tweets taken out of context isn't any good, either. Grayfell (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if this helps resolve the issue, but Milo replied to a comment on Facebook earlier today asking him this exact question (why are you sometimes Catholic and other times Jewish?) to which he replied: "Jewish by birth, raised Catholic by my grandmother." Why is it such a problem that he can't be listed as both? Mushh94 (talk) 05:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I have a feeling this has come up again thanks to antisemitism accusations circling around his boss at Breitbart. Regardless, we should not ignore context because it's convenient. In the Bloomberg article he implies, without actually saying, that his dad's a mob boss, that he's dabbled in prostitution, that he's got a payroll of a million dollars to pay his large staff (none of those thirty paid staff-members reminded him to file paperwork for his scholarship on time?) and several other wild stories. Unusual claims require strong sources, not offhand brags in an interview. Bloomberg doesn't take him at his word in reporting these claims, it passes them along filtered though the journalist's skepticism, which is appropriate. If Wikipedia accepts his claims based on a skeptical article, it makes Wikipedia look like a patsy to Yiannopoulos's angsty self-aggrandizement. Is he Jewish? Is his dad really a "Greek Tony Soprano"? Is that or anything else he's said about himself true? It absolutely could be true, but let's hold off until better sources can be found.

So, should we explain that multiple sources have described him as using his Jewish grandma as a way to deflect accusations of antisemitism? That seems to be the sole reason any reliable, non-ephemeral sources have mentioned his Jewishness at all. We could, as I said above, say that "he has said that his grandmother was ethnically Jewish", but if we have to hedge and qualify that to such a stilted degree, why bother? Why do so many editors work so hard to include this otherwise relatively minor point? Jewish identity and the question "Who is a Jew?" aren't simple questions. So is the former religion/possible-ethnicity of his grandmother worth including based on these flimsy sources? None of his other three grandparents are even mentioned. The article cites multiple lengthy pieces about him from reputable outlets. None of them explain this clearly, much less place any emphasis on it, so I don't think we should either, at least not yet. The handful of passing mentions in social media don't help much, since I don't think anybody is denying that he has occasionally said it. Grayfell (talk) 07:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter when or why Milo likes to bring up that he is part Jewish, all that matters is that we have sources stating that Milo's mother is Jewish. This is what matters. — Confession0791 ^talk 08:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Which reliable sources actually say that, though? Passing mentions in social media which are mixed in with jokes, half-truths and pure BS are not reliable. We don't have to stick our heads in the sand about context, either. Not everything that can be sourced belongs. Grayfell (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

For something contentious like this, we'd really need to stick to firmly reliable sources (not social media, not a passing half-mention.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

That is why I wrote that he is of Jewish descent from his mother's side. That is not contentious. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Strange that when he says he's Greek we take his word, when he says he was raised Catholic we take his word but when he says he's "Jewish" that's apparently "contentious." Troubling (and unsupported) double standard. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Theres a difference between 'taking his word' and being able to prove otherwise. There has been quite a lot of original research done which sheds quite a bit of doubt on many of his statements, however since it is not covered by reliable sources, it cannot be used. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Strange that when he says he's Greek we take his word - do you honestly think it's "strange" to think his father was Greek? But if you want to remove that, be my guest.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

There's as much evidence that he's Greek (or that he's gay, or that he's Catholic) as there is that he is Jewish. And project-wide, wikipedia almost always follows self-reported identity. So there is no reason for the removal of this. Avaya1 (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Riiiiggghhhhttt. What is this evidence? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

So did you actually read anything I wrote? What reliable sources say he's Jewish? Sources do say he's Greek, gay, and Catholic. None of them clearly say he's Jewish without adding the qualification about it being a deflection, which strongly indicates that it's insincere or exaggerated in some way. Even the Facebook comment used earlier was in this context. Grayfell (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Even if it's a deflection, it's still a RS that his mother is Jewish. Why the need to not include that he is of Jewish ancestry? 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 21:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, always. I don't accept that it is RS in this case, but even so, why is including it so important? Basic biographical details, such as name, birth-date, and birth-place should use primary sources when nothing better is available. This isn't the case, though. This is the ethnicity/religion of one of his four grandparents, which is being added with no context of any kind. Stripping facts of their surrounding context is the opposite of neutral. Including the context provided by sources, on the other hand, seems undue and likely a BLP issue. He's free to say he has a Jewish grandmother all he wants in whatever context he wants, but that goes both ways. Biographers are free to point out that it appears to be self-serving and only when politically convenient. Likewise, Wikipedia is free to ignore both of these. He writes about himself a lot, and for that and several other reasons, we need to be cautious of using his own writing to imply that this is a routine fact. Grayfell (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

You're imposing requirements not supported by policy. It doesn't matter why or when he mentions he's Jewish. He is by the only test of Judaism, Jewish, so we say he's Jewish. Other than a drive-by reverter who thinks Judaism is "contentious" you're the only editor arguing against it. If you feel strongly about it WP:BLPN is the way to go; edit-warring against consensus (passing 3RR with your last revert) is not acceptable. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

He identifies as Jewish and he identifies his mother as Jewish, and this is repeated in reliable sources. There's no less evidence for this, than for his being half-Greek, being gay, being Catholic (all of these are based on his statements). The removal of this content makes no sense, as wikipedia almost always allows self-identification project-wide. Your claim that he is lying is the unsourced part here. Avaya1 (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Mostly correct however that is not the whole of it: For BLP's which generally have higher sourcing requirements, the subjects are (most of the time) reliable sources for information about themselves if uncontentious, so primary sources (the subject) is usually fine for things like sexual orientation, religion etc. In Milo's case, he has specifically been called out for bringing up his Jewish heritage as a defense against anti-semitism. Which makes (in his case) his claims less reliable and more contentious than they would otherwise. Since reliable sources do discuss his Jewish ancestry in the context of anti-semitism, that should be the context in which it is covered. There are plenty of examples of subjects who strech the truth regarding themselves... actors and age for example. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Why is such material even considered relevant enough for inclusion? It's barely mentioned, highly contentious, and ultimately doesn't matter in the BLP. Why bother with all this edit warring to include it? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty clear by the sources that this mother is Jewish, which is the determinate by Jewish heritage conventions that he is indeed Jewish. It is immaterial whether he uses this identity as some kind of "deflection" or "shield". It's not like he's coopting or appropriating a Jewish identity; it's there regardless by means of Jewish heritage conventions. — Confession0791 ^talk 08:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Its actually not that simple. Not all Jewish communities consider Matrilineality automatically conferring membership. If we could reliably source his mother and grandmother being orthodox Jews it wouldnt be a question. I did point this out much earlier, however the erroneous 'common knowledge' that if your mother is a Jew, you are a Jew rarely gets corrected.Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

It's a complicated question. If we're identifying his (or her) religion as Jewish I'd agree it depends. When we're talking ethnicity, which is implied when it follows "his father is Greek" it gets fuzzier. Ethnically his mother is half Jewish but ethnically Obama is as much white as he is black. I don't think we can devise a consistent rule beyond self-identification within reasonable bounds. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

That's why in my edit I just wrote that his mother is of JEwish ancestry. And BTW, I know of no Jewish group who denies Jewish membership from the mother's side. Only from the father's side is there a difference between the demonstrations. Regardless, he himself wrote it and that is good enough for a mention in the article. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 18:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I still haven't seen anyone try and answer the question of why this is important for the article. Saying over and over again that primary sources are good enough seems like its avoiding the main objection. Even the articles and social media being cited for this support that it's only brought-up to deflect accusations of bigotry. There is no requirement for this to be included, and many top-quality bio articles leave out heritage of one of the grandparents, even when it's not controversial. Grayfell (talk) 07:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Because, to many, the fact that someone is of Jewish decent is noteworthy, particularly since Jews are a very small cultural as well as religious minority. Mushh94 (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Do we have some sort of policy for why somebody's ancestry is more notable if it contains Jewish people? PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• Why is being jewish ""controversial"".. what is wrong with being jewish? are you anti -semitic? KMilos (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from playing bad faithed games.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The only relevant question is whether reliable sources describe him or his mother as "Jewish" frequently. That's it. Secondary reliable sources. All your speculation and theorizing is completely irrelevant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

And in regard to this [3], there's obviously no consensus to include this. And if controversial material is challenged it should not be restored.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Why is it controversial that Milo is Jewish? He has repeatedly spoke about his Jewish ancestry and he self-identified and RS published it as well. It is also notable and should be included. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. Since you guys insist on playing these WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games, let me explain this carefully. I don't know, nor care, whether "Milo is Jewish" is controversial. That's not the issue. What *IS* controversial is that Milo claims he is Jewish. Given that he's a, to quote LA Times "glorified internet Troll", it's unsurprising that sources don't actually back that up and don't take these claims at face value, instead only quoting his claim. There are NO SECONDARY SOURCES which make this claim. You CANNOT put this claim in Wikipedia voice.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The claim made by the subject is uncontentious except among a handful of wikipedians, some of whom (oddly enough) argued self-identification was the only requirement for Shaun King's ethnicity. I notice Marek imposed a new requirement with "frequently" which I'm unable to find in policy. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

If it's uncontentious (sic) then let's see the sources. I don't know anything about Shaun King's article, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. I am not imposing any "new requirement", just the most basic one - we need secondary reliable sources to back it up. You provide these sources, you're good. You don't, it doesn't go in. This isn't my invention. This is how Wikipedia works. Since you are unable to find this Wikipedia policy, allow me to provide you with a link: WP:RS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

There are many many sources which are reliable for Milo saying he is Jewish. And wikipedia is deep into people being able to self identify. This has been pounded to death in Bernie's article, King's, many others. VM, you know you are jerking the chain here. Do you really want to make this the hill you die on for AE/Arbcom? ResultingConstant (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't just assert. Prove. Show us the sources. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's see these sources. And drop the inane threats please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• I have fully protected the article for BLP reasons. One can make certain claims about one's own identity, but not about someone else's. Reliable sources should decide what goes in the article, and you all have a week to find them and make the case. Possibilities here run the gamut from "his mother is Jewish" to "he claims his mother is Jewish", and lots of possible modifications are conceivable. This is an encyclopedia: please take your responsibilities seriously. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
• It has long been accepted practice on Wikipedia that we accept certain things at face value from the subject of BLPs. Sexual orientation and religious affiliation are high on that list. If he says he is Catholic then barring some VERY compelling evidence to the contrary from multiple reliable sources, that's the end of it. The argument that he is Jewish because of ancestry is the same sort of argument I have seen employed by fringe nut jobs who argue that President Obama is Muslim because his farther was. That is in fact correct under certain interpretations of Islamic Law. But he self identifies as Christian and again, that is the end of it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

No, the long accepted practice on Wikipedia is that we rely on reliable secondary sources. If you can provide these then we can include it. If not, then not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

"[Generation Trump, the alt right people,] don't care about Jews. I mean, they may have some assumptions about things, how the Jews run everything; well, we do." — Milo Yiannopulous [4] [5] [6]

Not sure if there's a reason to mention his Jewishness, though

--Distelfinck (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I just removed the category that goes with this (missing) statement. Don't really care if it is here or not, but the category should match the article whichever way consensus goes. - Brianhe (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Milo's religion

Could someone support Milo's Catholicism with a source where he explicitly self-identify as Catholic? You know, just a simple, "I am Catholic" will do. WP:BLPCAT anyone? A simple report about his being a member of that institution is not enough. Bluesphere 16:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

This video I found is Milo discussing his religion with Joe Rogan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjT_yMMr2eg

at 0:30 he says "I would call myself a Catholic, I'm not a GOOD Catholic but you know" Aurigae54 (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Far right?

I reverted this edit which changed Yiannopoulos' description from "conservative" to "far-right." I checked the first half of the article's cited sources to be sure (59) and not one used the term "far-right" (I suspect because most coverage preceded Trump's campaign, where it became fashionable to associate conservatives with nazis.) I am however open to convincing, if the majority of sources do in fact use "far right." James J. Lambden (talk) 05:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

1. This wasn't a description of Yiannopoulos but of Breitbart.

2. There's plenty of sources:

3. Your hyperbole/strawman about "it became fashionable to associate conservatives with nazis" is WP:SOAPBOXING and a clear statement of your POV. Nobody's comparing anyone to Nazis. Nobody's talking about "conservatives". Please pontificate somewhere else. Those kind of slurs are not constructive or conducive to a rational discussion.

4. You're pretty well aware of 1-3 above, so it's hard to believe you're acting in good faith here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

This is the same problem that was over at the Christina Hoff Summers article, too. Milo calls himself a conservative, but when other people call him far-right that make his self-description invalid? Sethyre (talk) 10:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

We don't go by self descriptions, we go by reliable secondary sources (especially in this topic area as there's an obvious incentive/marketing reasons for groups and individuals to misrepresent themselves).Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

First of all "far right" or "alt right" and "conservative" aren't necessarily exclusive. If reputables sources describe or label differently than he does himself, then simply state both labels properly attributed.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

For BLP reasons, we generally defer to either self-descriptors or mild categories. "Conservative" is a descriptor Yiannopulous uses and adequately conveys whatever point is being made about political leanings. No need for anything that will be perceived as a pejorative or inaccurate or disputed. --DHeyward (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I think you might be missing point 1 above, that is this was not used as a description of Yiannopulous, but rather as a description of Breitbart News. Having read the discussion about the use of "conservative" vs "far-right" in the survey on the talk page over there, policy supports using the description "far-right". Lizzius (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

"For BLP reasons, we generally defer to either self-descriptors or mild categories" - this is not true. We defer, as always, to secondary reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

This was my mistake. I disagree that Breitbart should be described as far-right but at the time I reverted I believed I was reverting a description of Yiannopoulos, not Breitbart. My mistake. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

BLP however does not overrule what the majority of reputables states, even if it is not mild. Even more so letting in particular promiment actors in the political sphere merely describing themselves (no matter what reputable the sources say) is outright ridiculous and violates a bunch of other project rules (WP:Sources, WP:NPV, ...). Now having said that we shouldn't artificially hype criticism based on a few critical sources, but we certainly downplay or tone down critical descriptions found in larger number of reputable (mainstream) sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The term is often used as an insult, so we need to tread carefully. I've just read far right and it is somewhat vague. Yiannopoulos might be "reactionary" (or even "neo-reactionary"); not too sure about far right. Journalists, who write reliable third-party sources, are not political scientists.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Almost anything can be read as an insult or turned into one. Let me reiterate again that the measuring stick for description/labels/categorization is the use in reputable sources at large and not perception or abuse of the term by individuals or individual Wikipedians.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I know. I just don't think this is an appropriate term, and I am not surprised that journalists are confused about it. They are not political scientists. We could say, "several media outlets [or, insert newspapers/magazines] have described him as "far right" (sic), while he describes himself as conservative."Zigzig20s (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

But that's exactly the point if WP has to choose between your (or my) assessment and that of reputable journalistic sources, it goes wit the journalistic sources. However if we have a reputable scholarly sources, they of course take priority over the journalistic ones. Are their any scholarly sources dealing with Yiannopoulos? Unless there are any describing him differently I really don't see any reasonable grounds to drop the "far right" label. It doesn't have to be in the lead necessarily, but at least somewhere the article should state that reputable sources consider him as "far right".--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment - As Volunteer Marek pointed out in the second comment above, The sources listed below use the term "far-right" in describing Breitbart News*, not Yiannopoulos. Though this discussion indicates that the term was applied to Yiannopoulos, the edit which was initially reverted to provoke the discussion applied the term to Breitbart News, not to Yiannopoulos.*some of the sources listed do not use the descriptor for either Yiannopoulos or Breitbart News, and should probably be struck through. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 03:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC) updated Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

This is also part of the point. This isn't about how MY should be described, it's about how the outlet he writes for is described.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, no matter whether it is about him personally, his writings or the outlet he works for, essentially the same reasoning as stated above applies, that is we go with what reputable sources at large use. In addition the (not really valid) BLP argument that was made above, would only apply to first case but not so much for the second and not at all for the third.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Yiannopoulis is a gay, "race-mixing", self-described Jew. Yes, I know several sources say that he is "far-right". The fact of the matter is that the "far-right" and the alt-right both loath him and say that he does not represent them. I think it would be constructive to include those sources as well. — Confession0791 ^talk 08:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

What sources? We're not going to include a Daily Stormer attack article or anything like it in a BLP just to prove a point about how there are people even further right than he is. The phrase in question (regarding his employer, not him as a person) is 'far right' not 'farthest right'. It's not like these far right groups can agree on something like this, anyway. There's no official boss for the far right who get's to decide who's in and who's out. Grayfell (talk) 09:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

It's just a click-baiting conservative news website. They have outrageous headlines because they want us to click on their links from our Facebook newsfeeds. Anyway, since we don't do guilt by association on Wikipedia, if you want to talk about Breitbart, could you please take it to Talk:Breitbart News?Zigzig20s (talk) 09:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Accurately labeling the reason he is notable isn't guilt by association. Yiannopoulos is notable primarily because he is an editor for Breitbart, so we should explain what that is as part of the lead. Breitbart's motives for being outrageous are irrelevant. Clickbait or not, sincere or not, the end result is the same, and it is very useful to a biographical understanding of Yiannopoulos. It is a far right outlet as a consequence of its behavior, and pretending otherwise would be euphemistic. There's irony here, as artfully choosing the least offensive possible term in spite of evidence and clarity seems like the definition of "political correctness", which he so often complains about. Grayfell (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessarily far right. I strongly disagree with this edit.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not about what you (or I) think. It's about reliable sources. Your comment and the analogous edit are just expressions of your own personal WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And since neither is based in policy they constitute edit warring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a BLP violation. Since it is contentious, leaving out a qualifier in the lede seems to be the most NPOV approach. I should add that this was my only edit ever in this article. However, if you want to re-insert it, do it. I have no intention to argue about this. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Why do you think describing a publication as 'far-right' is a BLP violation? PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

As I said earlier, it's guilt by association (especially since it would appear in the lede of an individual). However, if you want to add it back, I do not give a toss. I certainly don't want to spend more time thinking about this. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Done. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Characterizing this as a BLP issue is understandable, but dicey. This is about the publication, not him directly, and "far-right" isn't an attack on him, it's a well-supported description of reason he's notable. It's contentious in that some editors don't like it or agree with it, but we need more than that, otherwise anything unflattering-but-true becomes "contentious". BLP is important, but it's a way to preserve neutrality, not to undermine it. Grayfell (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I oppose introducing the "far-right" characterization of Brietbart News into the lead paragraph this biography. Leave that to the page about Brietbart News itself. Introducing the "far-right" description into this article, rather than just saying "technology editor for Breitbart News", comes across as using loaded language in an attempt at guilt by association. Just leaving it out is the best way to preserve neutrality. Gnome de plume (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Although many or most articles mention that he is Technology Editor, very few sources bother giving any details about his role as "technology editor". Almost all of them discuss his involvement with politics or social issues, however. If we're going to mention Breitbart in the lead as the reason he's notable, we should go just a bit further and explain honestly what Breitbart is. I prefer "far right" but "right-wing" would be better than nothing. Emphasizing one relatively minor aspect of his role while ignoring the rest does not seem neutral to me. Omitting relevant context doesn't preserve neutrality, even if it does make things simpler. This is covered somewhat in the second paragraph, but we should be up-front about what we're really doing by leaving this out. We shouldn't whitewashing this out of convenience. Grayfell (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Nobody seems to have mentioned this thus far, but "far-right" is a descriptive, not a pejorative term. Seriously. "Far-right" doesn't say a damn thing about being good or bad, right or wrong. Anyone who reads a value judgement into it is -by definition- only doing so due to their own biases. Skinheads will not read "Breitbart is far-right" as a condemnation of Breitbart, just like socialist-vegan-atheist-feminist-environmental-activists will not read "far-left" as a condemnation of any source. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Clearly Breitbart needs to be described as far-right, based on how it is described by reliable sources and as thoroughly established in many previous related discussions. Also, MPants at work is entirely correct that far-right is a descriptive term, and not pejorative in any way, particularly not for a website which emphasizes its position to the far-right of conservatism in the United States and which calls itself the platform of the alt-right. --Tataral (talk) 12:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

same set of standards are not used to describe Salon or MotherJones as being far left, which is the polar opposite of what is found on Breitbart. Different standards is a clear sign of bias. 68.2.53.158 (talk) 05:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe because they're not "polar opposite of what is found on Breitbart". At least not in the sense that you mean. So there you go.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

MotherJones is far left??? Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure, if you're across the street from their headquarters, they're pretty far to the left of Fiona's Sweetshoppe. One thing a lot of Americans seem to be oblivious to is that we don't have much in the way of far-left here. For example, the Socialist Party USA's political clout extends to (drumroll please)... Their local school boards. No, Progressivism in the United States isn't really that far to the left. They tend to be economically liberal (that means they believe in a free market; economic liberalism is an entirely different beast from political liberalism and is a cornerstone of right-wing politics in the US), and while they advocate for income equality and social justice, they tend to do so from a rather libertarian (economic liberalism again) position, e.g. making discrimination against homosexuals illegal, but not proscribing special accommodations such as homosexual-only businesses. So yeah. Mother Jones, Think Progress, MSNBC and other sources we often think of as 'far-left' are really center-left/centrist outlets that only appear far-left because of the ongoing media wars between them and the extant far-right and moderate-right outlets. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

When looking at politics of western Europe, you are correct. The far-left in the USA is at best center-left but this is not really in context of western Europe. I would say Mother Jones is far-left in terms of the US political system, but quite not as far-left as Breitbart is far-right. Mother Jones vs Breitbart This is a decent site bias in US media. PackMecEng (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I have serious doubts about the reliability of mediabiasfactcheck.com, but in general I agree that Mother Jones is 'far-left' in the sense of being about as far to the left as mainstream American media outlets get. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah agreed its hard finding a consistent and reliable place that ranks sources on their political leaning. Especially since it's largely subjective. I would say that mediabiasfactcheck.com is okay but definitely not end all. PackMecEng (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

It's something that could be made into an objective algorithm, but that would require a lot of context-recognition-capable parsing software. Not something a small org could do. Google probably could, but since google is notable for being somewhat left-wing, they'd lose all credibility with the right. To be fair, in my experience, any attempt to be as factual as possible will probably cause one to lose credibility with the right. There seems to be (IMHO, but I could probably prove it if I put in the work) a decided imbalance with respect to the sources of false information and biased reporting. So while I often contrast Fox News and Think Progress, I've found TP to be far more reliable for claims of fact and completeness of information, even when their bias is showing. That's why I felt it's important to point out that we don't have much real far-left media here: because saying we do implies a false balance between (in the context of the US political climate) the left-wing and right-wing media outlets in terms of reliability. I think that's the reason WP gets accused of having a liberal bias so often: because there are more RSes on the liberal side. ANd at that, I think I've said enough. I'm getting too general for this particular talk page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment A little late to this, but listing the site as "far right" is based solely on third party sources and although the wording is descriptive of Breitbart and not Yiannopoulos, the casual reader will interrupt it as if Yiannopoulos was far-right, which he is not. Although most of the sources that list Breitbart as far-right are from legitimate outlets, there's far more than simply label them as a Conservative website (Including Breitbart who deny claims of being far-right). While the far-right tag should be left on the Breitbart article, it's more professional, neutral and cleaner to just list them as conservative or right-wing for the Yiannopoulos article, especially when Breitbart is seldom covered/not a major focus in Yiannopoulos's article. Spilia4 (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

He's the tech editor for the site (which isn't a reliable source). The article doesn't say he's far-right, it says, correctly, that Breitbart is, and Breitbart is the primary reason he's notable at all. If you can figure out a way to provide that context more clearly, let's see it, but removing the label doesn't seem more professional or neutral. Grayfell (talk) 07:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

His social media presence and university lectures have garnered him far more attention than Breitbart. This is reflected in the article. Breitbart is only covered in the "Breitbart Tech" subheading which is literally two lines. Conversely his social media usage and lectures take up over half the article. Seeing how irrelevant Breitbart is to the article, the far-right tag should be removed or Yiannopoulos' involvement with the website should be expanded within this article. Spilia4 (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, it was his work for Breitbart that brought him into the public spotlight, even if his social media presence and stage performances got more attention. Further, calling Breitbart 'conservative' isn't wrong. Conservatism is a subset of right-wing politics, and the terms are virtually interchangeable in the US. "far-right" is another subset, which Breitbart fits into, and Breitbart has described itself as "alt-right" which is, by definition, far-right. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

"Conservatism is a subset of right-wing politics" other way round mate ;) Right-wing politics are a subset of conservatism. You are effectively so conservative you reject all change. The further to the right you are, the more conservative. But that does not necessarily hold true the other way around. You can be very conservative in politics but not necessarily right-wing/far-right as the label is currently used. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

That is actually my general impression, but there are a number of outlets which explictly state the opposite, including our own articles on Conservatism and Right-wing politics. To be fair, at that high a level, I think the relationships are a bit nebulous, but I was referring specifically to the political landscape in the US. Here, there are right-wingers who are not conservative, but no conservatives who aren't right-wing. At least not to my knowledge. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2016

Milo is owner of www.PizzaGateGear.com WikiWhoYou (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. You'll need reliable sources, also. Grayfell (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Milo's Birthplace

The source used for his Early and personal life (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-milo-yiannopoulos-gamergate-feminists-20151028-story.html) specifically states that he was born in Greece and raised in Kent. Seems like his birth place is as much of a fact as him being raised in Kent based on the same source but has been removed without good reason.

I suggest the two following changes

Please change from

| birth_place  =  

to

| birth_place  = Greece

Please change from

Yiannopoulos was raised in a small town in Kent in southern England. His mother is British. His father is Greek.

to

Yiannopoulos was born in Greece and raised in a small town in Kent in southern England. His mother is British. His father is Greek.

Monokunny (talk) 14:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Done st170e 22:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Off-page discussion

There is a discussion concerning this article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Milo Yiannopoulos's alleged transphobia. Input from contributors here would be welcome. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed text 1

Based on the above linked discussion, which includes an analysis of available sources, the following change is proposed:

The Advocate and Pink News, two LGBT publications, have expressed concerns over the transphobic content of his speeches.<ref>http://www.advocate.com/transgender/2016/10/26/milo-yiannopoulos-takes-transphobia-tour</ref><ref>http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/10/31/gay-internet-troll-milo-yiannopoulos-goes-on-transphobic-tour-of-america/</ref>

The citations can later be neatly formatted to {{citation}}. For reading convenience they are: 1 archive1 and 2 archive2

To test concensus on this change, please add your aye or nay below, along with any comment you feel would be helpful. If longer discussion is needed, such as on alternative text, please add a new subsection for it. --Fæ (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• Y As proposer and the previous views given at the LGBT studies noticeboard. --Fæ (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
• Y I have seen no objections to this wording that bear any merit, however, see my comments below. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
• ? Support an inclusion documenting the expressed concerns; but, as per the discussion here, I believe that the language suggested above presupposes the "transphobic content" as an objective truth and couches it in Wikipedia's voice; which we cannot do, based solely on opinion sources or original research, per WP:NPOV. Suggest "The Advocate and Pink News, two LGBT publications, have expressed concerns over the content of his speeches, describing them as transphobic." or similar. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 20:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Or even more concisely, "... have described his speeches as transphobic."--Trystan (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

He apparently called transgender people "mentally ill" (sic). How is that not a transphobic speech act?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

? How about "alleged"? Does Wikipedia really need to ascribe "phobic" or "isms" to people? Or just state what the sources say? I say the latter. — Confession0791 ^talk 09:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

We had quite a long discussion about this at WikiProject LGBT Studies. We've come to the conclusion that we don't know if he is transphobic or making fun of transphobes as a camp performance artist, but that his speech acts are performatively transphobic. So we won't ascribe anything to him as a person, but simply repeat what The Advocate and Pink News (reliable third-party sources) say--that the content of his speeches, like calling transgender people "mentally ill" (sic), is transphobic. That's not an opinion; it's just a fact, because we know that transgender people are not mentally ill.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:LABEL suggests that value-laden labels should be presented with in-text citation. That guideline includes the example racism, and I think transphobic falls under the same umbrella.--Trystan (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

It looks like that citation is there already.

Hi User:Trystan: It looks like WP:LABEL would be relevant if we were to call him "transphobic", but we won't. There is a difference between the individual and the speech acts performed by the individual.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there is a meaningful difference between a value-laden label of an individual, and a value-laden label of an individual's speech. Both are most neutrally presented with in-text citation. I've created a second option below.--Trystan (talk) 03:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Why not? Individuals, especially public figures, can say certain things and not mean them at all (for shock value, to get more clicks and ad revenues, etc.). The problem I have with saying that LGBT publications describe the content of his speeches as transphobic is that it implies that the content might not be transphobic. That seems inherently transphobic to me. I don't think we want Wikipedia to take an anti-LGBT stance, do we?Zigzig20s (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia is equipped to be an arbiter of what is transphobic and what is not. Even when it seems like a clear case, it's better to use a neutral presentation that attributes the label to a source.--Trystan (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• N It would be better to reformulate to avoid applying the WP:LABEL transphobic in Wikipedia's voice.--Trystan (talk) 03:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• I have see two lines of argument against this proposal here. First, that "transphobic" is a value-laden term that is discouraged (not prohibited) from use. The second is that calling Milo's speech "transphobic" is equivalent to calling Milo "transphobic".

I reject the second one out of hand. There is a clear conceptual distinction between a person's actions and that person them-self. This is covered in WP policy ("Focus on content, not on contributors."), folk wisdom ("You are more than the sum of your mistakes."), idioms ("I'm not the same person anymore.") and countless principles of law that I'm not even going to bother listing or giving examples of. That argument is completely spurious.

The first has more merit, but it relies on a personal interpretation of what "transphobic" means. There is a well-accepted 'proper' definition, as well as a well accepted common usage of the word. Milo's performance itself fits either one, quite well. I'm not denying that anyone who finds the word to be emotionally charged has cause to do so, but I would like to point out that words like "liberal", "religious", "conservative" or "atheist" can be emotionally reactive to many people. To still others, words like "redhead", "cancer", "foot" or "cucumber" seem emotionally charged, due to some experience of theirs. In fact, I would be shocked if there were a single word in any common language such as English that did not appear emotionally charged to someone.

Conversate.

I know somebody ground their teeth a bit on reading that.

So my point is that this isn't a catch-all argument, either. It ceases to be relevant the moment you agree that we are trying all just to be objective. After all, no-one has put forth an argument that his speech was not transphobic.

Now, I see "anti-transgendered" or "anti-trans" as equivalent terms to "transphobic". So I don't care which term is actually used. But if we are trying to inform, then saying as little as possible is not the best way to do it, is it? Shouldn't we concisely communicate some information about the content of Milo's speech without implying that it may or may not actually be so? There's a good use for wikivoice, and I think this is one of them. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 05:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed text 2

An alternative formulation, based on the guidance in WP:LABEL:

The Advocate and Pink News, two LGBT publications, have described his speeches as transphobic.<ref>http://www.advocate.com/transgender/2016/10/26/milo-yiannopoulos-takes-transphobia-tour</ref><ref>http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/10/31/gay-internet-troll-milo-yiannopoulos-goes-on-transphobic-tour-of-america/</ref>

• Y As proposer and flowing from above discussion.--Trystan (talk) 03:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• This would be my third choice, but it's still not too bad. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 05:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
• I prefer this version and suggest "transphobic" be linked if appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE95:57B0:8033:AFBD:D378:1967 (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• Y The attribution here meets the requirements of NPOV. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Rivertorch has also proposed an alternate wording which replaces the word "transphobic" with "anti-transgender". I would equally support that wording. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Just checking the two citations; Pink News uses transphobic in the headline but then does use anti-trans in the text, while The Advocate uses transphobia in the headline and then a mix of trans people, trans women and transgender women in the text. On this basis we may be able to justify anti-trans. However if anti-transgender is used in a wider range of sources (as was indicated in the earlier discussion) then I suggest a few of those other sources are added before adopting the term.

I would rather stick to transphobic, mainly because social media widely ran with the term "transphobic tour" and this is what made most of the headlines (the Washington Blade is one exception, using anti-trans). --Fæ (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I prefer "transphobic" too, because it's the most commonly used word in academic journals/books.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Where in the article would this be added? Is this still part of the Dangerous Faggot tour?--Trystan (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that adding it to the end of the first paragraph of that section makes most sense. --Fæ (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2017

Yiannopoulos has been called a spokesperson for the alt-right, [THEN ADD:] a group that he describes as "inclined to prioritise the interests of their tribe, [while] they recognise that other groups – Mexicans, African-Americans or Muslims – are likely to do the same." According to Yiannopoulos, the alt-right are those who "doubt that full 'integration' is ever possible." Hellpuppy (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I'm not sure if this is the correct place for adding this. That article which you've linked has been co-authored by him, not authored entirely by him. Seek some consensus on the talk page about whether this should be added/the location for it. If no-one responds or if there is consensus for adding it, reopen this edit request. st170e 23:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2017

Addition of information that while Milo reports on the Alt-Right movement, he has specifically stated, in addition to many other prominent Alt-Right leaders, that "[he] is not part of the alt-right". Cynicalhistorian (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The article already reflects his tepid repudiation of the label. also. Grayfell (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Confusing - bad edit?

This sentence appears to be a bad edit. It makes no sense in English.

• He wrote a long and colleague Allum Bokhari penned a 5,000 word article[87] for Breitbart championing the movement and its intellectual backers, which he called "dangerously bright".

173.20.35.53 (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Straw poll

This edit was revert-warred so instead of revert warring back, let's have a straw poll. Should mention be made that Yiannopoulos was named 2016 Person of the Year by LGBTQ Nation?

• Yes, mention in the article because that is a major gay publication and positive information should be included in biographies in Wikipedia, especially this one so that Wikipedia won't be accused of homophobic bias. (Note: I'm not accusing Volunteer Marek of acting out of homophobia by reverting my edit). TariqMatters (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• No - It's trivial and apparently he made "a concerted effort to drum up votes via social media", so it's also meaningless.- MrX 20:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Meh MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• A straw poll doesn't seem like a great way to start this, per WP:PNSD. Is there a reliable, independent source mentioning this? What's LGBTQ Nation? Was this an online poll, or was it selected by a board of editors or similar? If we cannot clearly and concisely answer those questions (in the article, not just on the talk page), this absolutely doesn't belong, because it's not informative. Adding an (obscure?) award without any context is misleading. If it's "a major gay publication", there should be independent sources commenting on this recognition, no? We can use those sources to provide background. Cramming info into the article to avoid accusations of homophobic bias is false balance, and is ridiculously non-neutral. Grayfell (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The source makes it very, very clear that this was brigaded by Yiannopoulos, Breitbart, and their followers. After a concerted effort to drum up votes via social media..., Yiannopoulos' fans didn’t just flock to the site from his Facebook page though... and Yiannopoulos made the news throughout 2016 and always for truly awful reasons. This is not positive information, and should not be misrepresented as such. Grayfell (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I saw where it had been added to the "awards" section, and I agree with not putting it there. But I just can't bring myself to say that it's UNDUE to include it at all. Maybe in the "Controversies" section? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I had placed it in the "media coverage" section because that's where I thought it was appropriate to go. Judging from the other comments here, we're all thinking the same thing. By the way, is it normal for established editors to do a drive-by revert without discussing first, and then decline to participate in the discussion when the reverted editor starts one? Someone told me that long-time editors in Wikipedia often act like that. TariqMatters (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

An edit was made which lauded a highly controversial figure, using a source which was highly critical of that figure's involvement in the process which produced the laurels, without ever mentioning said criticism (only the laurels). Yeah, that kind of edit is pretty much just begging for a quick revert. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to it being somewhere more appropriate, I guess, but only with independent sources. Otherwise this was just a goofy PR game he played and won, and so what? The LGBTQ Nation article seems a little embarrassed they got played like that (the user-comment screenshot, for example), so its encyclopedic significance seems minimal, but outside sources would clear that up. Grayfell (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

One thing is sure: If it's going in, it's got to include info about him gaming the poll. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

UC Davis incident

As I have several friends as eyewitnesses who documented the UC Davis cancellation, the sentence supported by source 126 needs to be amended. This is lifted straight from a tweet made by Milo Yiannopoulos himself, and unsubstantiated by any other news source than Breitbart. This is shoddy content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Davis (talk • contribs) 05:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, M.Davis. Unfortunately, your own personal knowledge is not a reliable source for writing claims of fact in an article. You will need to provide a reliable source for any content you wish to add to the article. If you need help finding one, you can ask anyone you see participating here, and we'd be happy to help you get started. The first thing you should know is that you should always sign your comments on talk pages by typing four tildes at the end, like this (~~~~). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 05:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The UC Davis Police have said that there were no broken windows or reports of hammers https://www.facebook.com/UCDavis/posts/10158116966805215 / http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2017/01/13/milo-yiannopoulos-martin-shkreli-set-to-speak-at-uc-davis/. It appears that this information was started by Milo's Twitter post. Crbarahona (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Yup. While personal knowledge isn't a reliable source, neither is Breitbart, so I've removed the comment about broken windows pending confirmation. Grayfell (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2017

According to the Associated Press, there was no violence or property destruction at the UC-Davis protest: https://www.yahoo.com/news/protests-shutdown-far-speaker-uc-davis-053553008.html 104.162.225.58 (talk) 08:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 08:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Forgive me if this isn't the proper way to reopen this edit, but I've not been involved in protected pages before. Contrary to AP's reporting, UC Davis police reports a single arrest as explained in the UC Davis Media Relations press release: https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/message-interim-chancellor-ralph-j-hexter-event-cancellationCrbarahona (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Crbarahona: Your edit request reopening worked fine. @Grayfell: Pinging previous request reviewer. --JustBerry (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Yup, got it. Grayfell (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

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.

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)

/*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)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2017

In the discussion of the University of Washington incident, the assailant is referred to as a former student of Washington University. This is not correct -- the assailant is a former student not of Washington University (which is a school in St. Louis, MO. He is a former student of The University of Washington. Jay Kelner (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done All taken care of. Good catch. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

New York Times: "More than 100 faculty members signed a letter opposing the visit by Mr. Yiannopoulos"

This should be included in the article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/us/university-california-berkeley-free-speech-milo-yiannopoulos.html 71.182.241.125 (talk) 06:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

UW shooting - Source contradicts the vic. pepper spraying.

The wikipedia article claims the victim, Dukes, was the one firing pepper spray into the crowd.

"Information about the incident came to light through witness Samie Frites' testimony, who recalled seeing Dukes spray "little projectiles into the crowd," later confirmed by law enforcement to be pepper spray. At this point the shooter confronted Dukes and shot him, forcing him to cease spraying." 

But the Seattle Times article that is cited seems to contain the opposite -- that the shooter was pepper spraying the crowd and the victim was attempting to stop him. (Pronouns are confusing in this passage. I added an (A) for when the victim is the "he" and (B) for the shooter)

"Samie Frites, a nursing assistant who said he had gone to the protest “to make sure nobody got hurt,” said he saw a man (B) pull “something out of his coat and started firing these little projectiles into the crowd.”

The law-enforcement source said it was pepper spray.

“I yelled at him (B) to stop,” Frites said. “That’s when this other guy (A) came out of the crowd and went after him.”

Frites said he grabbed him (A) to try to prevent a confrontation. That’s when Frites said he heard a “muffled noise,” which he is now sure was the gunshot.

“The guy I was holding looked back (A) at me over his shoulder. He looked bad. He was really scared,” said Frites, who said he lowered the wounded man (A) to the ground."

Frites says he was holding back the victim when he was shot. And he wasn't holding back the pepper sprayed, he was holding out the person who was attempting to confront him.

Could someone with editing privilege change the article to better fit with the cited source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.97.112.65 (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I tried to change this, as it is an obvious misrepresentation of the source, but Mushh94 (who added this in the first place) reverted back. The result is that we now have a shooting victim that is not only named but accused of doing something he didn't do, which isn't very WP:BLP. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed it. The Daily Caller simply says "there was some kind of confrontation and then a sound, which was likely the gunshot." That's about all that can be said at this point without violating WP:BLP. We also need to think carefully if we should even bother naming the victim, per WP:BLPNAME. Yes, it has been mentioned by sources, but if this is his only claim to fame it doesn't really serve enough purpose to justifies the privacy issues. Grayfell (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for the confusion. I can see now the pronouns used were misleading. However, it is still uncertain who is who, according to said testimony. Pronouns are equally ambiguous. I found this source with a video of the incident it that helps. In either case, don't revert it back to the original (before me) write-up, that one was heavily biased – naming the shooter as an NRA supporter for no reason and only offered that the victim was empathetic to the shooter afterwards with no mention of pepper spray use or that the shooter was not charged with a crime. As for the use of names, if the media has released the information and its in the source, there's no reason we can't.Mushh94 (talk) 06:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Berkeley College Republicans Draw Invitation to Host Milo Yiannopoulos

It should be noted that the Berkeley College Republicans, a club on the UC Berkeley campus, invited Milo Yiannopoulos to speak at the Paulley Ballroom of the student union center named after Martin Luther King Jr. The Daily Cal, USA Today, and East Bay Times note this.

Ejlauren121 (talk) 08:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't find it mentioned in ref 5. The other two mention it only in passing and make no indication of any importance. Absent evidence that this was some kind of deliberate incitement I see no reason to mention it.

References

"violent protests" vs "rioting"

The WordsmithYour revert-revert was a DS violation (see the top of this page). That being said, I agree with your edit, which is why I'm posting here instead of asking you to self-revert at your talk. Regardless of source word choice (which remains a valid argument when sources all use the same word), the different between a violent protest and a riot is fairly semantic. Maybe one could argue that looting or extensive property damage is a defining characteristic of a riot, but one could just as easily argue that they're not. I prefer "rioting" because using the other term implies a difference that I'm just not seeing.

Ad Orientem or anyone else, if you're not satisfied with the new source or my reasoning above, let us know, so we can continue to discuss it here. Otherwise, I think it's fine to 'retroactively' apply my support and the lack of dissent to say there's a consensus for the Wordsmith's change.

There's a part of my wikisoul that hurts a little every time I see admins edit warring (or maybe edit-battling when it's this brief?) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

My reversion was based solely on the lack of cited sources using the word "riot" which is a much stronger word than protest. I didn't disagree with the actual accuracy, just that it was not sourced. A solid RS source has now been added and I am fine with it. Moving on... -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Basically what Ad Orientem said. He reverted because there was no source. When he did so, I was already in the process of adding the source because I knew I would need one. Glad we can move on. Also, since I'm participating in content issues on this article then I'm recused from acting as an administrator here. Had no intention of getting into an admin edit war. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article called riot which says:

"A riot is a form of civil disorder commonly characterized by a group lashing out in a violent public disturbance against authority, property or people. Riots typically involve vandalism and the destruction of property, public or private. The property targeted varies depending on the riot and the inclinations of those involved. Targets can include shops, cars, restaurants, state-owned institutions, and religious buildings."

This is exactly what reliable sources have reported as having happened at UC Berkeley.

71.182.241.125 (talk) 06:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Generally we try to avoid labelling things with words that may be contentious even if the definition of them is accurate for the circumstances - preferring to use the same terminology in the sources available. Where a label has legal considerations doubly so. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Peaceful protest at UC Berkeley preceded violence

I've just edited the "UC Berkeley" section to mention that there was a peaceful protest before it was interrupted by violence, as reported by the university itself. Although some news outlets have focused their reporting on the property destruction and violence, it is not controversial that a large peaceful protest took place beforehand, and that the violence was instigated by a separate, masked group of agitators. The cited UC Berkeley news article draws its facts from the UC Police Department itself and is a reliable source. If you have concerns or objections regarding this edit, please discuss here on the talk page before reverting. Thanks. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Not all media outlets agree that there was a clear line between an initial "peaceful" protest and the later riot by masked agitators. For example, there are a number of videos, some referenced in the media, showing attendees being assaulted by the "peaceful" protestors before the anarchists showed up. TariqMatters (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Not all media outlets are going to agree that there was a peaceful protest in the midst of the agitator's tactics but UC Berkeley itself claims "The violence was instigated by a group of about 150 masked agitators who came onto campus and interrupted an otherwise non-violent protest." which must be accounted for. The actions of singular protest attendees, whether plain protestor or agitator, can not be widely applied to the entire group that showed up to demonstrate. Ejlauren121 (talk) 08:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

UC Berkeley is an involved party and may have an interest in coloring this event a certain way. We need to go by what the majority of reliable secondary sources are saying.. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2017

Huffington Post is described as, "...is a left-leaning..." while Breitbart news is described as "far-right"? Please remove the bias from this article by returning the description back to "conservative", or attribute HuffPo as being "far-left". 216.194.43.66 (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: See discussion at Talk:Breitbart News for why Breitbart is labeled far-right. clpo13_(talk) 19:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

And also the discussion on this talk page titled #Breitbart News "far right"?. clpo13_(talk) 19:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Place of birth and birth name need to be updated

According to England & Wales Civil Registration Birth Index 1916-2005 he was born on 18 October 1984 in Chatham, Kent, England as Milo Hanrahan. His father had Irish and Greek ancestry (hence Yiannopoulos) but went by Hanrahan and his name was registered as such at birth. For accuracy the current birth name/birth place (i.e. Milo Yiannopoulos, born in Greece) should be updated. Res554743 (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I cannot confirm this information. Please provide a more specific source. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately the best source that is both easily accessible online and trustworthy is the virtual transcription of the UK birth index, referenced above, usually available to search at family heritage/ancestry websites. He's listed as Milo Hanrahan born in Chatham, England, in 1984. His father is listed as Nicholas Hanrahan (born Nicolas I Yiannopoulos in Chatham, England, in 1953). I'll see if I can find another specific online source to verify. Res554743 (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

And how do you know that this Milo Hanrahan is actually the subject of this article? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Previous schoolmate in Canterbury. Not that it's a verifiable source but his father has a now dormant twitter account that confirms the Hanrahan/Yiannopoulos link: https://twitter.com/nichanrahan Res554743 (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Unless the entirety of your claim is verifiable, it doesn't belong in the article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Its only ever been verifiable by primary (eg government birth records etc) sources. Which are not useable for this information. There is an issue of course in that they directly contradict Milo's stated history as told to reliable sources, which have never seen fit to question it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

That's why I told him his claims need to be completely verifiable. If a wikipedian dug up RSes which contradict the widely reported story, then we'd have to add the claims of those RSes to the article (while noting only that the sources have two different narratives). But if that claim isn't verifiable? There's nothing to it. We can't add a "fringe" theory if that fringe theory originated in a wikipedian's original research. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Well a quick google does throw up the occasional biography that directly mentions it. His school invited him back and you would expect them to know by what name he attended. (By his own statements he changed his name relatively late in life). The main issue is that in-between he also went by the name Wagner which comes up more often because that was the point where he started to get more fame/notoriety. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Well, those verify the last name part, so that's worth updating. What about his country of birth? The source used says Greece, but the OP here says England. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thats the bit about primary sources I have referred to. So apparantly birth records confirm it (alledgedly, I havnt personally confirmed it but the usual talking shops indicate it is so) but secondary sources only go so far as mentioning his birth name. Milo said he was born in Greece - however this could reasonably be a mistake on his part (his parents may have misled him) etc or the birth records are inaccurate (unlikely but not entirely out of the park) - the two sources I linked above are the best of the ones out there that are independant/not primary that even mention the Hanrahan link and they dont comment on his place of birth. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Has he explicitly said that he was born in Greece? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 05:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Business records indicate Milo Hanrahan (Student) and Nicolas Ivan Yiannoppolous (note 2 p's) were both Directors in Ronin Security Limited with an address in Chatham in 2003. It lists both nationalities as British (I don't know British rules on birth location and nationality) and Milo was born in Oct 1984. There are multiple sites listing this historical business information. StrayBolt (talk) 08:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
        • Those are all based off directly or indirectly primary (in this case companies house records) sources. I dont have an issue with the Milo Hanrahan name as it has been discussed in the two publications I previously posted. The place of birth however may be more problematic - we dont use primary sources like birth/death records etc for biographical information. There are rare (but not unknown) issues where people are born overseas but first registered in the UK and so on. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
          • I think the issue stems from this Los Angeles Times article (used as the main source for his place of birth on his article) that states his place of birth as Greece, although not as a direct quote from him. This then seems to have proliferated through other news sources and media as it appears that their go-to reference is Wikipedia rather than independent research/background checks. There is a separate register for the births of British citizens/children of British citizens born abroad; you can only be registered in one index or the other (although historic, very rare cases of being registered in both do exist), so if he's registered in the British index it does point to him being born in Britain rather than abroad. If he took British nationality later in life (having been born in Greece as a Greek national) he would not be registered in either British register/index at all. However, as you point out, there is the policy of not using primary sources. So, whether by deliberate misinformation or personal myth building or misunderstanding, until he confirms his birthplace himself or via another authority, then the issue is rather up in the air. Golbahar98712 (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• I would suggest that we simply remove the place of birth. Of course, doing so would imply that his place of birth was Britain, but at least it wouldn't be stating a contestable claim as a fact in wikivoice. I'm going to go update the article now, and will post a diff of my edit shortly. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

No you are not going to update it. I already have. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You didn't add his birth name. I did. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I removed the birthplace until we reach a consensus, but I am thankful for you adding his birth name. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the reference to the primary document. For multiple reasons, not least WP:BLPPRIMARY, but also including that it does not directly verify the statement it's used for (it requires analysis), its provenance is uncertain, and I think there might be an issue with the url used, because the document linked doesn't actually mention Hanrahan. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 19:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Good call. I didn't notice that was primary. But we need another source now to verify the month and day of his birth; the source I added only mentions the year. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Can we add more details of the "births" of his personae and the activities he did under all his names? He had vaguely mentioned what he had done as John Wagner in at least one of his events. Is calling "John Wagner" a pseudonym inappropriate if he did other work under that name. Did he legally change his name to that? StrayBolt (talk) 06:48, 4 February 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 [7] and [8]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 that describing someone's descent or background and proceeding to add the relevant category, should not be a problem. Furthermore, backing that claim with sources that are regularly in use in similar biographical Wikipedia articles, is also a no-brainer.

If we exclude regular newspapers as a source and apply only a loosely defined self-identification criteria, we would be in for a radical and systematic makeover of all Wikipedia articles. Fortunately we have in this case a CNBC interview with Milo Yiannopoulos stating he’s a homosexual Jew i.e. source + self-identification!

For some reason this biography in question has been targeted for special a overzealous scrutiny to prevent adding a category that would normally be the conventional 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;

general, prospective, coherent, clear, and practicable.

Thus we would avoid misconception and conflict in our world of make-belief and ever changing ideological fads. Shalom. Regards, RudiLefkowitz (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

What's the verdict?

If the verdict favours those editors that opposed adding the Category:British people of Jewish descent, for various reasons, they could hopefully assist in removing these "false categories":

The following biographical articles for starters are, as some editors have argued, lacking in proof of self-identification or have so called "poor" sources. Put your money where your mouth is -so just dig in:

-John Kerry, Category:American people of Austrian-Jewish descent, American people of Hungarian-Jewish descent

-Madeleine Albright, Category:American people of Czech-Jewish descent, Austrian Jews, British people of Austrian-Jewish descent, British people of German-Jewish descent

-Lenny Kravitz, Category:African-American Jews and African-American Christians, Jewish rock musicians, Converts to Christianity and American people of Russian-Jewish descent, American people of Ukrainian-Jewish descent

-Gwyneth Paltrow, Category:American people of Belarusian-Jewish descent, American people of Pennsylvania Dutch descent, American people of Polish-Jewish descent

-Ludwig Wittgenstein, born Catholic but also Category:Austrian people of Jewish descent and British Jews

-John O'Connor (cardinal), Category: American cardinals and American people of Jewish descent

-Joaquin Phoenix, Category:American people of Russian-Jewish descent and American people of Hungarian-Jewish descent

-Wesley Clark, Catholic convert but Category:American people of Belarusian-Jewish descent

-Jean-Marie Lustiger, Category:French cardinals, French Jews and French people of Polish-Jewish, descent

-Douglas Fairbanks, Category:American people of German-Jewish descent

-Helena Bonham Carter, Category:Jewish English actresses and English people of Austrian-Jewish descentEnglish people of Czech-Jewish descentEnglish people of German-Jewish descent

-Jamie Lee Curtis, Category:American people of Hungarian-Jewish descent and American people of Danish descent

and then of course Ivanka Trump Category: American people of Czech descent and American people of German descent ? There is no source that Ivanka identifies as Czech or/and German! So let’s go a head and remove the category indicating descent?

PS!

How about self-identification in the category List of Jewish atheists and agnostics, yet most of the named people have Category: Jews? Where’s the self-identification?...You Are What You Say You Are!? What to do? Should we remove the Category:Jewish atheists completely? Anyone!? Regards, RudiLefkowitz (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a very serious matter and should not be taken lightly! If we don't resolve the question of adding/removing category concerning descent, we will have this discussion all over again on another talk page! It will be Déjà vu! We must avoid being totally engulfed in ideological fads and try to find a principle that can be used equally in other articles. Maybe we should soon move to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/ArbCom. Regards, RudiLefkowitz (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• I had a spare few moments to look into this matter, and was able to find the follow sources. Many are from the last week, so the balance may have shifted over that time. A number of the sources make a passing mention of Jewish, and the reliability of some may be also be doubtful (1x student newspaper; 1x newsblog), but I have included these so that editors may judge for themselves. I am unable to find any sources which categorically state "not of Jewish descent" or equivalent.

List of quotes & sources

The article spews anti-Semitic slurs at the Breitbart Tech Editor, who is Catholic with Jewish ancestry. - http://southfloridagaynews.com/National/alt-right-website-declares-anti-semitic-holy-crusade-on-milo-yiannopoulos.html The British-born writer is openly gay and also technically Jewish, due to having a maternal Jewish grandmother. - http://forward.com/fast-forward/361992/milo-yiannopoulos-uc-berkeley-event-canceled-after-riot/ Originally from Britain, Yiannopoulos is openly gay and is Jewish, according to Jewish law, due to his maternal ancestry. - http://forward.com/fast-forward/360911/milo-yiannopoulos-lena-dunham-amy-schumer-are-harpies/ But Yiannopoulos is of Jewish heritage and proudly identifies with his minority status. - http://www.krdo.com/news/top-stories/protests-erupt-as-right-wing-pundit-milo-yiannopoulos-visits-uccs/295308751 And as long as Donald Trump and Milo Yiannopoulos (A gay Catholic with a Jewish mother) continue to be accused of being Nazis to the delight of protestors and rioters, that agreement is unlikely. - http://www.cw.ua.edu/article/2017/02/violence-occurs-when-words-are-not-enough A calculated riot took place to prevent Milo Yiannopoulos, a young gay Jewish conservative, from speaking. - http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/02/schumer_and_his_pals_campaigning_hard_for_trumps_reelection_.html Yiannopoulos puts a face to a homosexual Jewish Republican ... - http://www.dvcinquirer.com/uncategorized/2017/01/17/milo-yiannopoulos-leads-a-free-speech-rally-after-violent-protesters-shut-down-paid-event/ He is also not entirely accepted in the alt-right community due to his sexual orientation and ethnicity — part-Jewish. - http://www.ibtimes.co.in/breitbart-milo-yiannopoulos-dangerous-could-be-most-controversial-book-century-711748 Many leading figures associated with the alt-right are also Jewish themselves including Ramsey, Cernovich, Breitbart writer Milo Yiannopoulos, libertarian vlogger Stefan Molyneux and publishing entrepreneur Ezra Levant. - http://www.salon.com/2016/11/23/man-who-did-nazi-salute-with-tila-tequila-outside-richard-spencers-alt-right-conference-is-jewish-and-its-causing-problems/ For those of you who don’t follow Milo’s work, he is a fancy, half-Jewish, British homosexual in his early 30s ... - http://www.salon.com/2017/01/06/the-greatest-living-american-writer-sure-milos-book-deal-is-a-stain-on-the-publishing-industry-so-what/ Backed by the Freedom Center, Yiannopoulos, an outspoken gay, Jewish, Greek-born British citizen who ardently supports President Trump, ... - http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265678/berkeley-riots-provoked-freedom-center-campaign-matthew-vadum Yiannopoulos, whose mother is Jewish ... - http://www.splicetoday.com/politics-and-media/milo-yiannopoulos-whitewashes-the-alt-right The lynch mob that targeted Yiannopoulos, a gay Jewish man - http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/milo-yiannopoulos-was-censored-berkeley-by-violent-protests-left-hate-it-fears-1604566 Yiannopoulos is Jewish, according to Jewish law, and gay and has refered to himself as a “gay Jew,” though he also identifies as Catholic. - http://www.timesofisrael.com/uc-berkeley-talk-by-trump-supporting-breitbart-editor-canceled-amid-violent-protests/

Discuss? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Picture

Would someone who is able to change the picture to one that is accurate. GuysIJustEditedThis (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

It is a picture of him. What is inaccurate about it? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 08:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the fact he's since recreated his image? --Crisbrm (talk) 08:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

His images are her Commons:Category:Milo Yiannopoulos. This one is the most recent that we can use. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I've updated it to a better image of him that was taken at the same event. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Trivia

Emir of Wikipedia restored some content that I removed with the comment, "WP:NOTCENSORED. Just because the content is sexually contreversial it does not mean we should remove it." The user is confused. I did not remove the content - including Yiannopoulos's claims about how he supposedly lost his virginity and how he would supposedly like to try conversion therapy - because it is sexual or controversial. I removed it because it is trivial. WP:NOTCENSORED does not mean that Wikipedia must include every claim made by an article subject in a biographical article. It is up to those who consider these two claims by Yiannopoulos non-trivial to make a case for including the information. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, Emir of Wikipedia, you also reverted this completely uncontroversial formatting change. Could you please be more careful? There was no need to revert absolutely all my edits simply because I made some changes you disagreed with. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree, it should be left out unless it has been covered by secondary sources.- MrX 23:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for undoing the formatting change. I will be more careful, but I accept it should be left out unless covered by secondary sources. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Sources for "anti-fascist activists"

I recently added a descriptor "anti-fascist" to group that started the recent riots in Berkeley, which was contested by Ad Orientem. These sources clearly label the rioters as "anti-fascist activists" from the group "Antifa" or "AntiFA": The Guardian, Vocativ, IBTimes, etc. I fail to see how this is POV, and it's more specific than what we currently have ("masked agitators"). Some sources describe them as "anarchists," but that's just one part of their philosophy, at least according to the IBTimes article. ^Falling_Gravity 01:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell most RS sources are not using this descriptor. And "anti-fascist" does tend to make them sound rather heroic. I mean who isn't against fascism? But if a preponderance of RS sources are using the term then by all means we can put it in. At the moment though, I'm not seeing it. Side note: I appreciate FG taking this to the talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect to Ad Orientem, this information is verifiable and true, even if it only appears in a minority of RSes. The majority of sources aren't mentioning it because the majority of sources are writing about how this fits into the larger picture of protests against Trump and the alt-right. To those stories, it doesn't really matter what group organized the protests, only that the protest was organized. All of these subsections have multiple references, being used to support different parts. If we trim each section down to only what's repeated in a majority of sources, we'd be left with one-two sentences for each.

If accurate, relevant information causes a POV shift in the article, then by definition, it's shifting towards neutrality. As a compromise, instead of calling them "anti-fascist activist" why not call them "activist from an anti-fascist group"? It's a more accurate way of phrasing it, anyways, as we don't know that all of them went due to a legitimate desire to protest, instead of simply wanting to fit in with their group, for example. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I think "anti-fascist" is significant because it shows the agitators were likely protesting Milo's connections to the alt-right. That's not to say we should state that as the reason for the riot, but at the least it gives the reader some context for them to make up their mind. ^Falling_Gravity 09:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

...it shows the agitators were likely protesting Milo's connections to the alt-right. Indeed, it does show that. But do you (or I, or indeed, anyone aside from each of those individual protesters) know that for a fact? No. As I mentioned, some may have (read: almost certainly did) come just to engage in activities with their friends in the group. Some may have felt uncomfortable coming, but came along due to peer pressure. Some were possibly not there from the anti-fascists groups at all, but got caught up in the energy of the crowd. We don't know. We can reasonably infer that the protest was organized by the anti fascist groups due to that. Since this edit has been challenged, and the proposal I made above is dryer and less provocative, yet at least equally (almost certainly more, but again: I don't know either) true, shouldn't we use that? I'm literally looking at an option that addresses your concerns (this detail does change the narrative, and since it's true it should be included) and equally addresses Ad Orientem's concerns (it doesn't portray the protesters as overtly noble). It even implies a motive to the groups in organizing the protests. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 06:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to your wording MP, I was more replying to Ad Orientem about the use of the term "anti-fascist". ^Falling_Gravity 01:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Okily Dokily! My mistakiroony! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

>Falling - I think Ad Orientem is correct, and the WP:WEIGHT of coverage (in number and major outlets) does not use that. Most I saw seem to follow the Chancellors terms like "150 masked agitators" that CNN used with the Black bloc, or Fox says "violent protestors" and quotes "invaded the campus", and ABC relates the police chief "group of agitators". p.s. I'm also seeing many now view the group as having given him a PR windfall -- it made the troll more famous, sold more of his work, and now he gets to say the left is "terrified of free speech" or "bully people into silence by name-calling". Markbassett (talk) 04:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Markbassett: All of the sources you cite are from the day after the protest. However, since then more information about the protesters has come to light, which is reflected in the sources. Rolling Stone: "150 black-clad, anti-fascist radicals"; Gothamist: "antifa rioters"; ABC7: calls them "Black Bloc", an anti-fascist group. ^Falling_Gravity 04:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

>Falling - The major players (ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, NBC) or others large ones (NPR; or BBC, CNBC, Daily Mail, MSNBC, Washington Post, LA Times) ... just are going other ways. That the small players are your cites for this -- are a minority whichever way I look at it. It's also looking like many sites do not single out a separate group.

> As to the later coverage shifting -- well WP:WEIGHT does not give later reports more value, they go by predominance and then somewhat by quality of source. I don't even think you can describe Black Bloc as anti-fascist --- see LATimes refer to black bloc as anarchists or anti-fascists, and elsewhere being not sure if black bloc is 'group or tactic', and generally Black bloc favors anarchist+violent. Sidenote (not citeable) that the photos / TV images show a banner over the crowd "Be Ungovernable", and coverage shows masked folks at the student union but unmasked guy holding bar at bank, and unmasked wandering streets leading to the further spray paint and other smashing.

> Bottom line is I think "violent" is widely supported but after that mentioning Black Bloc is significant but needs to be attributed as one theory (e.g. what Chancellor said) and seems not accepted by all. And in describing "Black Bloc" it would be "anarchist group" and/or as the tactic of masked folks using a large crowd as cover to do a bit of violent protest. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• To be clear: a Black bloc is not a group, either of the anti-fascist or anarchist sort, but a tactic used by (usually violent) protestors.

I'm fairly certain the dates matter. The date of articles is something that we take into account for a number of reasons, under a number of policies and guidelines, including WP:RSBREAKING; the most relevant, but also WP:BLP and WP:MEDRS. That first link starts with the statement Breaking news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia, than to help spread potentially false rumors.

It's a clear message that the claims of the earliest publications are to be given less weight than the claims of later publications.

So if earlier publications use a more general description, and later publications use a more specific one, if those later publications are reliable, then it's up to us to assume they are also accurate. So the only question is whether this information is also relevant, which of course it is. It changes the narrative, as I mentioned above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Breitbart

My issue is not with Breitbart being called right-wing, it is with adding unnecessary info to the article, given we have a link to the article on Breitbart and this is the article on Yiannopoulos. It's insertion looks like there has been an editing dispute and it has been added for that reason. An edit dispute is never a good reason to add content, especially non-notable content. BTW it is also unsourced content, restoring unsourced content that has been removed from a WP:BLP article is always dubious. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 12:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

agreed. per BLP contentious. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

That content has been in the article for several weeks because it is very well-sourced and an RfC at Breitbart News established that there is consensus for describing Breitbart as "far right". The claim that this is a WP:BLP violation is meritless. Feel free to inquire at WP:BLPN if you believe otherwise.- MrX 17:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Per the above, you will find that quite a few BLP regulars have this on their watchlist. The idea that describing Breitbart as a far right publication on *this* page is a BLP violation rests on the presumption doing so will negatively affect Milo's reputation in some way or is an UNDUE/NPOV connection. This is obviously not true, given he explicitly appeals to the right-wing and far-right demographics both in his political opinions and overtly in his speaking/support of certain political movements. If anything it boosts his reputation amongst his hapless stoog...I mean followers by including the connection. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

1. It has been extensively discussed both here and at Talk:Breitbart News, and the consensus has been unquestionably that Breitbart is to be called "far-right". There has also been support for calling it "alt-right" but not nearly enough. The bulk of recent discussion on this has been at the hands of three editors (one an IP, the other two experienced) who have refused to accept the consensus, which has been supported by over a dozen experienced editors and a similar number of newer editors. There was one highly experienced editor (an admin in fact, though not the only one to participate in the discussions) who objected to the label, but this editor quickly abandoned the argument after just a few hours.
2. One of the hallmarks of a strong consensus is the ability for the 'winning' side to convert editors who advocated for the other position. An examination of this issue in the Breitbart talk archives demonstrates exactly that: the suggest that we call them far-right gained little support at first, but steadily converted editors who had argued against it until the level of support was overwhelming. In the most recent RfC, there were twelve !votes in favor of exclusively calling it "far-right", three !votes in favor of adding "right-wing" and only two in favor of dropping "far-right" entirely.
3. It is an important detail which helps to provide an accurate depiction of Milo in the lead. It would paint a very different picture if he worked for a neoconservative outlet, or a liberal outlet. It changes the narrative and is factually accurate, the two most fundamental standards by which we judge information offered for inclusion in a BLP.
4. The label "far-right" is not pejorative. If you hold politically left views, then you must understand that simply labeling others as having opposing views does not imply that they are wrong. If you hold politically right views, then I would suggest that the fact that you find the accurate labeling of views similar to (or the same as) your own is a very good reason to re-examine your own beliefs.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Milo on Brexit

Milo's a firm believer of Brexit as he stated here: [9] [10], just wondering why it isn't mentioned in the article. Bluesphere 04:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Probably because no one really cares about him in Britain? So his opinion is largely not covered/irrelevant, and the Americans who take him seriously dont care what he thinks about Brexit - being more concerned with his views on homosexuality, US politics etc. Granted you *could* include it, but I suspect its just not encyclopedic to include his opinion on everything. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

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)

At any rate, Milo himself has argued strongly that he is not "alt-right" and is against the "alt-right," and he has gotten several retractions from various newspapers that erroneously labeled him "alt-right." So this entire inclusion of "alt-right" gives a false impression. (Likewise, the section on his sexual identity gives the impression he is a "self-loathing gay man," whereas he speaks proudly in his stage performances about being a proud gay man. So, that really gives a misleading impression. I would also recommend that his being recognized as a "gay man," be in the initial introduction to him at the top of this page, since it is a major part of what he presents as his identity, including the name of his current tour that is generating so much controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.58.248.139 (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what stage performances you're referring to, but he's well known for repeatedly stating that he wishes he weren't gay. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm surmising from the discussion here and the discussion/source analysis at Breitbart News that "far-right" would be the most accurate descriptor to use in this situation. Lizzius (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

A similar issue occurred on the Steve Bannon page with this solution ref. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

"Solution" is a stretch; could we settle on "kludge". - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 18:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

That's a fine settlement for me, but I think if we can come up with a better idea we should implement it there too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

'far-right' is a subjective term and should not be used in the context of an encyclopedic article. Nothing more needs be said on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.56.154 (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's a basic, descriptive term. It might not have the most firm boundaries, but it has a very clear definition that can be applied very easily in all but the edge cases. It's a statement of fact, regardless of your opinion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Websites

I was posting info about his websites and I had used WHOIS creation date to indicate some rough order of events. It was undone twice with comments "whois services... not reliable sources" and "the WHOIS result is iffy at best". While WHOIS#Accuracy_of_information doesn't specifically deal with creation date, it does say "In cases where the registrant's (Domain Owner) identity is public, anyone can easily confirm the status of a domain via WHOIS." A Quora answer said, "The creations date is the date the domain name was registered although it could have dropped and been re-register. This information is accurate and cannot be changed." [11] A Stackoverflow answer said, "You cannot change the creation date for your domain." [12] Is there some decision on Wikipedia relating to WHOIS or which website to use for WHOIS? There are hundreds of articles that use the creation date and reference WHOIS, including History of Wikipedia. Ironically, the article on Wikipedia doesn't use WHOIS, but it doesn't have any references that support the January 15, 2001 date. StrayBolt (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:RS requires reliable secondary sources for most content. Using a WHOIS result to support the claim that a specific person set up a website runs into problems, because WHOIS is a primary source. It's a good enough primary source for establishing who registered the domain, but it doesn't demonstrate who owned the website. In this case, one needs to check the archived version of the website itself to confirm that it was about Milo and not used as a host for a random porn site or a phishing site, but that's WP:SYNTH, a form of WP:OR.

All that being said, it would take a really good argument to convince a reasonable person that anyone other than Milo owned that site, so this is a case where, I think WP:IAR can be applied. But you need to make a case for that and get consensus here. But nothing in all of that indicates who designed or managed the site, only who owned it, so you need to be careful about how you state it.

Also, the statements you sourced to the WP userpage are absolutely not acceptable. There is no way to verify that user name actually belonged to this individual and not someone else. I could edit my user page to claim that I'm Tom Hiddleston right now, and many people would believe it because he (or someone pretending to be him) briefly used the same handle as me on one of the social media sites. For the record, I'm not Tom Hiddleston. I'm much more handsome than he, according to my wife. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

minor edit request

in first paragraph insert far-right news to provide context thanks ScotKreek (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The first paragraph (the first sentence, really) already states that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistency re: Academic Record

I'm a newb. I've read the guidelines carefully, but I apologize if this post is nonconforming.

I propose to update the "biographical summary" for this person, to reflect the facts that he did not graduate from University of Manchester, nor from Cambridge. These facts are contained in the body of the Wikipedia entry ("He attended the University of Manchester, dropping out without graduating.[20]"), but they are not contained in the biographical summary.

I refer to the top right of the Wikipedia entry for this person as the "biographical summary" (it has a light blue background). The biographical summary also appears in Google search results for this person:

Google search results

CURRENT: Education: University of Manchester, Wolfson College, Cambridge

REQUESTED CHANGE: Education: University of Manchester (did not graduate), Wolfson College, Cambridge (did not graduate)

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.235.197 (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Fixed, per literal definition of alma mater and sources given within article. Icarus of old (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The literal definition is just an institution that one has attended. You may have confused this with the education parameter. I won't revert due to 1RR restrictions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2017

"Over 1,000 people gathered to violently protest the event on the steps of Sproul Hall." This line is incorrect. The source article does not say that 1000 people gathered to violently protest the event. They gathered to protest the event. (Also it was 1500, not 1000.) The source article also says that 150 people joinedwho may have been violent. But the 1500 people gathered did not do so to _violently_ protest and as such this article is incorrect. Please change it to say 1500 and please remove the word "violently". Thank you. Steveinphilly (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Already done Icarus of old Changed it EvergreenFir (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Problematic section

Currently the section Relationship with Donald Trump and the alt-right reads:

(...) In a Breitbart article, he and a co-author championed the movement and its intellectual backers, whom he described as "dangerously bright". Tablet noted that many of these intellectual backers write for publications Tablet describes as racist and antisemitic, like VDARE and American Renaissance.[18] The article was criticised by opponents of the right-wing for excusing the extremist elements of the alt-right, and also by neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer who claim that racism and antisemitism are pillars of the movement.[86][87] A Daily Beast article in September 2016 suggested that Yiannopoulos has received funding from virtual reality tycoon Palmer Luckey.[88]

Which article is this section talking about? Did it have any notoriety? Isn't a post entitled "Donald Trump’s Little Boy Is a Gay Half-Jew With Jungle Fever" from a certain Tablet (Magazine) WP:UNDUE? Furthermore what does it mean to "champion the movement and its intellectual backers" - WP:UPE? And the last part:

A Daily Beast article in September 2016 suggested that Yiannopoulos has received funding from virtual reality tycoon Palmer Luckey.[88]

Not knowing who Palmer Luckey is (not such a notable person), what relation does this bare with either Donald Trump or alt-right for it to be in this section? I feel like there should be a better explanation of the article cited in this sentence such that the relation with Trump is clearer. Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Tablet is a very biased source. I've said it, and I'll keep saying it. — Confession0791 ^talk 01:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

1. Palmer Luckey has a WP article which is pretty much the binary criteria for notability. If you doubt this, go ahead and send it to AFD and see how far that gets you. The fact that you've never heard of him is immaterial to the question of his notability.
2. WP:YESPOV sufficiently addresses the handling of biased sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

1. His notability is irrelevant, I only suggested his relationship with Trump to be explicit in the paragraph (e.g. "P.L., who donated to Trump's campaign").
2. I.e. that paragraph should be removed? Saturnalia0 (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

1. The opinions of notable sources on notable subjects about notable incidents are generally held to notable. Welcome to Logic 101, you will need your textbook for this course.
2. No, you need to actually read policy and guideline pages before you jump to assumptions about what they say. I made that title a link, you should click on it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Palmer Luckey is the reason Bethesda software just got a 300 million injection to the development of the next Elder Scrolls game. He also does stuff like fund Trump supporters. (Although after looking at that biography it really needs an update, as does John Carmack, Bethesda Softworks etc as the only place the recent lawsuit appears to be mentioned at all is here). Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Bill Maher interviews Milo Yiannopoulos

Would there be a decisive problem using the interview as source and mentioning it in the the article? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HexaNYw_O-4)- Lähdeluettelo (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

not in spirit, although some editors may insist on additional coverage of the topic for inclusion. Also, we would need to be careful not to infringe of the shows intellectual rights. perhaps the best use will be to dispel or at least reject some of the terms used to describe his views. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

What "intellectual rights"?

I may add a graf about liberal ire over Maher hosting a conservative firebrand later. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2017

Please edit it to state "former senior editor for Breitbart News, who resigned after controversy from his positive views on underage boys having sex with older men brought extreme negative attention to the outlet. 184.70.154.6 (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Done clpo13_(talk) 20:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that Milo Yiannopoulos's maternal grandmother was a Jew?

Under "Early and personal life" it currently states: He is a practising Catholic; he has said that his mother or maternal grandmother is Jewish,[22][23] which has put him at odds with neo-Nazi elements of the alt-right.[24] While it is uncontroversial that Mr. Yiannopoulos has stated himself that his maternal grandmother, the citations do not actually reference any evidence that these are truthful statements. The wording of the article makes no reference to this uncertainty. --Mattomynameo (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Not required. His statement is attributed correctly, 'He has stated' which doesnt require evidence either way. We dont require evidence someone is telling the truth unless there is evidence they are likely lying. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I removed mother or as the source actually says his mother has Jewish ancestors. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Given the controversy caused by his assertion of technically being a Jew by his ancestry (though he may not have been considered a Jew during WWII per the Mischling_Test) and the fact that this is unsubstantiated, we ought to include this uncertainty in the article. Shall we incorporate language such as "though this has not been confirmed" or "no documentation supports his claim" to the article? Who was his mother and who was her mother? Were they Jews? We don't seem to know this information at this time. --Mattomynameo (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

No reliable source I have seen describes his mother as being a Jew (of Religion) but Milo has said his maternal grandmother was Jewish. I think the controversy is the reason it should be included, as notable sources have picked upon it. If it was something like the case of Hitler where it was more of a passing accusation without a self claim then I would obviously reject its inclusion, unless it is a prominent piece of information like with Hitler where his lawyer claimed it and research has taken place. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, there is one reliable source which repeats Milo's claim in their own words. That source was used as an excuse to edit war a category on this page a few weeks ago. But most reliable sources that discuss it either mention it in passing (which isn't really use-able) or demonstrate a marked suspicion of the truth of this claim. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

RFC: Now That Breitbart Dropped Milo, Should Pedo Scandal Be in Lede?

Yes He lost most he had built to this point--his Breitbart gig, his 250k book deal, and a sizable share of social media fans--because of the scandal. Focus on the scandal is therefore not presentism. It is a seminal part of his life, and has been covered endlessly by all major RS over the past 48 hours. Steeletrap (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Why are you not properly formatting your RfC's? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2017

The section on Milo Yiannopoulos' pedophilia controversy describes the relevant video as "an old interview." The word "old" denotes bias. Please replace "an old interview of Yiannopoulos, from a YouTube-based talk show" with "a January, 2016 episode of "The Drunken Peasants" podcast".

The word "old" denotes bias. Ahh, damn! Ageism strikes again! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It seems the wording in question has already been changed, so marking the edit request as answered. Pishcal (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2017

Change: "Yiannopoulos resigned from Breitbart in February 2017 following the resurfacing of video in which he asserted that, . . . ."

to: "Yiannopoulos resigned from Breitbart in February 2017 following the resurfacing of comments he made on the Drunken Peasants podcast on January 4, 2016 in which he asserted . . ."

This makes it more accurate and actually fairly attributes the source of the comments. XyZero (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

That sentence is no longer in the lede, but I just added month + year to the article body --Distelfinck (talk) 23:54, 21 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)

"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)

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 [13] --- 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 [14] -- 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 [15] 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: [16] 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).[17] [18] Also, upgrade sourcing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Strong objection to gutting the content of the pedophilia allegations section

In this edit, [19], 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 [20], 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)

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)

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)

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. [21][22] 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? [23]. 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)

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 [24] but we need to follow the sources. With that said, his response needs to be included as well [25] -- 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[26]

-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)