Talk:Andy Ngo

Removal of Bellingcat content

The editor "Springee" removed content sourced to Bellingcat (which is a RS per the WP:RSP) on Ngo's deceptive "reporting" on a May 2019 clash between far-right people and anti-fascists. Per Bellingcat's reporting, Ngo misleds those who follow his "reporting" into thinking the far-right people were attacked in an unprovoked manner whereas it was later revealed that Ngo had heard the far-right people plan an attack on the anti-fascists but omitted it in his "reporting." The content should be restored ASAP.[1] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, that seems to be due for the body and we should also add the report by the Columbia Journalism Review, among others, as suggest by Binksternet here. The biggest issue seemed to be that it was not lead worthy, not that it should not be mentioned at all in the article. Davide King (talk) 08:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The only part I removed was this [[2]]. First, the source doesn't claim Ngo did anything "falsely". Second, this is a strongly opinionated article offering a lot of the Evens's interpretation of events rather than just black and white facts and thus should not have been put in wiki-voice. Third, the claim isn't supported by Evens's own offered facts. Ngo's Tweet only said that he was personally assaulted. Ngo's tweets say nothing about what the PP members did. Evens's claims are not supported by his own presented evidence. The follow on about the video is speculation on Evens's part. As has been previously discussed by RSs, we don't know what Ngo did or didn't hear while the video was being filmed so it's speculative to say Ngo didn't report it. Not that it would have been relevant to Ngo's claim that he was personally attacked. Evens seems to have a conclusion he wishes to reach then tries to force facts to fit his version of events.

The reliability of the whole article should be questioned. Given the gross misrepresentation of Ngo's Cider Riot tweets Evens has shown his analysis can not be trusted. The criticism of the DC tweet is at least supported by the factual evidence presented (thus the reader doesn't have to trust Evens's opinions). The statements in Ngo's tweets appear factually correct but Evens is correct in saying they don't present a complete picture. Evens offers his own speculations as if they were fact when saying Ngo had the facts to know "Rome Man" was provoking a fight. This might be the case or it could be the case that in an effort to get info out fast, Ngo didn't do additional background work. Either way, based on Evens's presentation of videos, Rome Man appears to have decided he bit off more than he could chew and was trying to tuck tail and flee. He was attacked from behind when trying to leave. So Ngo's claims are factual and it would be false to say violence was only on the right (or left). As such I think this is a poor source for use in the article period and should only be used with attribution and even then WEIGHT of this claim is not clear at this point. I won't remove it myself but I would support removal as a source. [see subsection below] Springee (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Nov 2020 DC material in later work

This is recently added material [[3]] and [[4]] claiming, in effect, that Ngo's tweets suggested leftist activists were making unprovoked attacks on right wing marchers. There are a number of problems with this edit. First, the "later work" section isn't a place for reactions/commentary about his work. The section is clearly following his career path. It might make sense as part of the next section where we cover a lot of the controversies related to Ngo's reporting. However, I don't think this content is DUE. The three sources offered as support don't make a good case for DUE. Two are of lower quality and the WP simply doesn't mention Ngo. The Billingcat material is discussed above. While the source presents clear evidence that "Rome Man" was not an innocent right wing marcher, it's overall case again Ngo is of poor quality. The Daily Dot isn't a good source for this sort of social/political reporting vs fluffy internet stuff. Finally, while the WP does support the general event, it doesn't mention Ngo (I didn't see Ngo with a keyword search). As such I think this fails DUE. Springee (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Springee The phrase "fluffy internet stuff" stands out. Ngo is notable in a large part due to the way he uses media and technology. It isn't fluffy or light weight. The omission of his use of media may well be the weakest part of the current article's structure. Other editors have pointed towards this as well. The patterns of live streaming, progression and growth of the subject's twitter followers have been addressed by several RS and rather than rejecting and deleting content because it does not fit the frame/title, it makes more sense to expand the frame. Cedar777 (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Cedar777, I think if we have RSs saying Ngo frequently presents partial tellings of events (I think RS and CJR say as much) then a section saying Ngo's work has bee criticized for presenting half truths or leaving out critical background information (etc) would make sense. We could then briefly have a few examples. The May vide as well as this recent one (maybe) could be included in such a section. We should not dump a questionable criticism of a tweet at the end of a section about the places he's worked. That's just bad editing even if the content is DUE. Springee (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

It's obviously DUE. Half this page is various controversies that Ngo has landed himself in. This is yet another one of those controversies that's been covered in multiple reliable sources. If those sources chose to cover it, it's clearly DUE. Loki (talk) 04:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, if Billingcat and DailyDot are the only sources it's not DUE. Additionally, this section is about the places he's worked not controversies so it doesn't belong there. Springee (talk) 12:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Bellingcat and the Daily Dot are both RS per WP:RSP. Springee's sloppy original research attacking these RS is not a reason to remove this RS coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

DD is only a RS in limited context, The Daily Dot is considered generally reliable for Internet culture. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article.. This article is outside of that context. Bellingcat was considered reliable but also something that needs to be used with attribution. So here we have an issue with WEIGHT since we have limited sources discussing this claim against Ngo. Remember, this isn't meant to be a collection of everything Ngo has done that some source has criticized. Additionally, the Bellingcat article is misrepresenting some of Ngo's earlier tweets which hurts the credibility to the article and that again goes back to WEIGHT. Per WP:ONUS, just because it can be verified doesn't mean it has weight. Finally, even if the content had weight, it doesn't fit into the article where you added it. If it doesn't fit nicely into the larger structure of the article, again one has to question if it has weight. Springee (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Ngo plainly falls under internet culture, and Bellingcat is clearly a good source here. I don't see any valid reason not to include it. And your personal disagreement with how Bellingcat covers some of Ngo's tweets is definitely not a reason to exclude - you might personally feel strongly that it is "misrepresentation", but by that logic, no source that says anything you disagree with could ever be used. --Aquillion (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Ngo is a person, not "internet culture". Using a questionable source (see the recent RSN discussion on Andy Ngo) to make this sort of weak claim is undue. The Bellingcat article contains claims that are basically the same thing Ngo is being accused of. When a specific article is shown to contain factual errors we should discount it. Since you disagree that Bellingcat falsely represented Ngo's earlier claims please show why my analysis is wrong. DUE is a valid reason not to include it. There isn't weight for this trivial material. The article shouldn't be a laundry list of every time someone claims Ngo tweeted something they didn't like. Springee (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

As a way forward I would suggest a subsection before the "confrontation with Antifa" section, around 1 paragraph long, noting that Ngo has been accused of biased reporting by presenting misleading or partial versions of events. The Bellingscat source and several others would support that claim without needing to dive into excessive detail relating to any single incident. Ideally we need to find a source or two that support the high level statement then offer a few supporting examples. This helps support the comments in the lead as well. It also gives a place for critical articles such as this which have limited WEIGHT to exist. Springee (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar:, please address the sourcing issues above. We have but two sources, one has a number of questionable claims the other is not reliable for claims that a person is lying. Why is this DUE? Also, why in a section about where Ngo had worked? Springee (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

A twitter incident reported by a couple of fourth-rate sources--one of which is only reliable for "internet culture"--is obviously not DUE in a BLP article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

If you want, we can take Bellingcat to WP:RSN for this to see if it's a "fourth-rate source". I definitely don't see it in any of the previous discussions; most previous discussions found it to be very high-quality. The Daily Dot, similarly, was repeatedly found to be a high-quality source for internet culture, which this (as an edited video posted to a tweet by someone whose fame is mostly online) clearly falls under. EDIT: I took the Daily Dot (not yet Bellingcat) to WP:RSN, since I think that that's actually a more interesting question and I'm not sure they're only reliable for internet culture anyway; you can raise Bellingcat there too if you want, but I feel that previous discussions are pretty unequivocal that they're a high-quality source in general. --Aquillion (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

We should take the specific Bellingcat article to RSN vs the source in general. The fact that the article in question misrepresents some of Ngo's other tweets is quite relevant in this case. Springee (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Bellingcat and the Daily Dot remain green at WP:RSP. The content should be restored. For those who disparage the sources, this is why we use attribution for some green sources. It is important to keep in mind that the subject’s own publishers (Quillette and the Post Millennial) are considered RED (unreliable) by a consensus of Wikipedia editors. Deleting RS content because it is in the “wrong” section is nonsense. Cedar777 (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Nov 2020 DC material in Social media influence

The viral video content was revised and restored in the article. Then it was deleted. The retweeting echo chamber of Ngo's content that occurred following the Million Maga March in November 2020 was reported on by THREE reliable sources. It is relevant and DUE since it fits into a broader pattern of behavior that has been repeatedly covered (before and after this event) by quality media outlets and has now also been addressed by leading academic researchers at Harvard and Yale.

The content is relevant and essential as we are describing Ngo as a social media personality in the lede, the same terminology used by reliable sources. It is entirely fitting to clarify the facts surrounding his social media involvement, i.e. number of followers, growth of followers, platforms used, audience, and reach of his content as reported by RS. Regarding objections raised earlier:

1) The Washington Post article does indeed address the video clip from Ngo following the Million Maga March that Trump then retweeted. (It requires reading the image embeds.)

2) The Bellingcat content is in a stand alone section for social media influence, not the career section

3) There has been no actual evidence presented as to anything problematic with Evans reporting on the million MAGA march (please point to or link to this here on the talk page, if it exists)

It is furthermore relevant to the article if an authority figure retweets Ngo's content several times, even more so if it is frequently retweeted in a short span of time. There was zero need quote directly the wording of the LA Times author for simple factual information unless one is POV pushing (LA Times is green and solidly reliable for factual information) per the edit by @NedFausa:. There was also no need nor any explanation offered by user @Springee: for deleting the modified content regarding the frequency with which an authority figure retweeted the subject's content, reliably sourced to LA Times. Cedar777 (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

In what way was this modified? You were using the same poor sources as last time. The WP article doesn't mention Ngo so it doesn't add weight for inclusion. The rest is the same content. The LA Times book reviewer should not be quoted as if they are an LA Times reporter (they certainly aren't the voice of the LAT. Also that content isn't related to the Bellingcat content. You linked them together in a way that neither source supports. Springee (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Springee That ANY of these three sources are "poor" is entirely your opinion, NOT the opinion of a consensus of Wikipedia editors who have designated all of these sources GREEN per WP:RSP. As to your second argument that factual information about Trump retweeting Ngo 11 times being off topic and unrelated, this simply has no legs to stand on. It is in a section about social media influence. What could be more influential than a national leader repeatedly retweeting one's content? Furthermore, my edit included the content as a separate paragraph; another editor rewrote and conflated the two paragraphs in edits I do not agree with. Review the diffs of how the content was changed before you deleted it outright. Edit 1 Edit 2. Cedar777 (talk) 05:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem is this time you are trying to synthisize material to force inclusion of material that didn't have consensus last time. The Bellingcat article was bad because the author setup a conclusion that was not supported by the facts he presented (see my earlier discussion). The DD is a RS for internet trends, not contentious claims about BLP (it was green only for a narrow focus). Even if a source is green on the RSP list that doesn't mean every article they write is green. Also that only would mean we would, in general, consider their claims factual, not that they would have weight. The WP article doesn't mention Ngo in the article. You claim he is mentioned in a click through picture thing but that isn't the article body. The book review doesn't discuss this content specifically so it shouldn't be used to add weight to Bellingcat's false claims. This material simply isn't needed in this article. Springee (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Repeatedly overriding the contributions of three separate editors who have added this reliably sourced content is not productive. Several editors clearly disagree that it is not needed otherwise they would not have added it into the article.

The original contribution from Snooganssnoogans: Addition 1a + sources in Addition 1b

Springee deletes content: Deletion 1

Content restored by LokiTheLiar on Dec 1: Addition 2

The second deletion by user Springee: Deletion 2

The most recent addition Feb 12: Addition 3

Which was again deleted by user Springee: Deletion 3

The specific Bellingcat article "Unraveling a Violent Viral Video" under discussion here offers a careful analysis of how content was captured on video, then was pared down and reduced to the point at which viewers miss the forest for the trees. Evans provides the lengthy, detailed dissection of how this video content unfurled following the Million MAGA March on Nov 14, 2020. The Daily Dot and The Washington Post both address the significance of the video but do not go into the depth of detail that Evans does. What paragraph and/or wording from the Bellingcat article is objectionable? It is a long article, yet your statement that Evans had made false claims remains vague and undefined. Cedar777 (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• This obviously doesn't pass the 10 year test, and DD and Bellingcat don't show it is DUE in my opinion. But, even if you ignore those issues, the proposed content provides a misleading summary. The first sentence of the proposed content states: Bellingcat reported that on November 14, 2020, Ngo retweeted a selectively edited video clip with a misleading and inaccurate description which appeared to show counter-protesters, whom Ngo described as "BLM-antifa thugs" knocking out a man unprovoked who was participating in the Million MAGA March. But in fact the Bellingcat article goes out of its way to say that while Ngo's description appears inaccurate (note the word 'appears' here!), the first video clip he posted was not selectively edited, but provides a fuller accounting of events for the viewer. The source then goes on to say that a subsequent excerpt of the video which he also tweeted was selectively edited, and it casts some shade on Ngo for that subsequent tweet. So we'd need to provide this context to make this an accurate summary. But this additional information renders the content even more UNDUE, since it would require additional space to make all this clear, all for a minor incident that has little interest in the larger context of the topic of the article. This is in addition to the reasonable concerns that Springee raises above about SYNTH. So I'm against including this. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight We are in agreement that the wording that I contributed to the article in the most recent addition of this content could be improved upon. We disagree that the appropriate course of action is to throw everything out as worthless. Let us keep in mind that you recently referred to three green sources as "a couple of fourth-rate sources" in the above discussion. One must wonder what actually constitutes a first or second rate source in your book.

The information that you refer to as "minor" is an example, covered in depth by a credible source, of Ngo's actions that constitutes a large amount of the broader reporting on the subject. The article in its current state is skewed to suppress the numerous green sources that have already reported on the subject and the way he uses media and technology. There are two areas in the article where we have 6+ sources crammed into a bland blanket statement to cover what was actually quality in-depth reporting. This is a significant problem! The suppression of the Bellingcat content is the tip of the iceberg in regards to this much larger issue.

Regarding claims of SYNTH, please be more specific on what content you feel was synthesized. It appears that several editors have not actually read through most of the credible (green) articles covering Ngo (not just the three specific articles mentioned here but a number of others). Many sources have reinforced this content about Ngo. More clarification of the parameters of your objection are needed.Cedar777 (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Right, I think these are low quality sources. High quality sources would include for example the New York Times or another major news organization like NPR or BBC or the AP, or a highly cited refereed journal article, or a book from a prominent press like Oxford University Press. I don't think this should be surprising, and it's obviously would be absurd not to make some distinction between say NYT and Bellingcat. Our own WP:DUE policy uses "prominent adherents" and "commonly accepted reference texts" to get at this idea; I'm trying to apply that policy in a reasonable way, and obviously Bellingcat is not "prominent" or as far as I can tell a "commonly accepted" source. Unlike, say, NYT or WaPo or a book from OUP or what have you. So yeah, thought of in that way, Bellingcat is plainly fourth-rate at best. And if you think that you can substantiate the sort of content you want to include by appealing to prominent and commonly accepted sources, I welcome your doing so. If you had a NYT piece and a OUP book that were saying these things about Ngo, I'd agree that we should absolutely include it. But scraping little click-bait stories from tiny little "internet culture" sites is exactly what WP:DUE is supposed to prevent. Meanwhile, you aren't really responding to my worry about the proposed content. I am not claiming it needs improvement; I'm claiming that an accurate summary of the sources would be undue: something like "He posted this one video, but then he went on to post a clip of the video that Bellingcat thought was misleading!" I mean, this is just clearly UNDUE. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmmmmm. Interesting. What tier does Sky News Australia fall under in this system? Cedar777 (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure. What do you think. By "this system" I assume you mean WP policy. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be an RS (Bellingcat) making a point that has been frequently made by others - that Ngo misrepresents information in order to make a right-wing partisan political point. Why on earth would this not belong on Ngo's page? Noteduck (talk) 06:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't make the article DUE. The fact that they misrepresent Ngo's comments (as can be seen by their own arguments and evidences) is that much worse and means we shouldn't use this article is it can be shown to be unreliable. Springee (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Springee Repeating your opinion about Bellingcat doesn't make it a fact. How has Bellingcat misrepresented Ngo? If it is a fact, as you claim, then simply define what exactly has been misrepresented. Who said that it was misrepresented? Who reported on the misrepresentation by Bellingcat? Cedar777 (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I explained that the last time we discussed this same source. Back in November I noted that Bellingcat was misrepresenting some of Ngo's Tweets. A source that makes errors or misrepresents the facts is not a RS. That doesn't mean all BC articles are out but it does mean this one is not reliable. We shouldn't give it any weight. The DD is only reliable for internet culture. This isn't internet culture (look at our own article saying what internet culture is). Additionally, DD is simply too narrow a source to establish weight for the particular claims of misrepresentation. If you want to say in more general terms that people have retweeted things Ngo has said, fine. However, we need better sources for that. I would also note the controversial LAT book review writer shouldn't be a source for such a claim with out attribution. Springee (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

There has yet to be a single fact listed that Bellingcat has distorted. Cedar777 (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

That is not correct. To refresh, towards the bottom of the Bellingcat article the writer claims, "In 2019 Ngo reported in-person on a mass brawl at a Portland area bar named Cider Riot. His tweets framed it as an unprovoked assault by anti-fascists." To 'prove' this claim the writer included a tweet where Ngo said he was personally attacked. The provided tweets from Ngo didn't say anything about either side attacking the other first or without provocation. They only said that Ngo was personally assaulted. Unless we can show Ngo attacked the anti-fascists how can this be proof that Ngo framed anything other than an attack on him personally? The fact that the writer screws up something that significantly should tell us this person hasn't done their homework and that this article is not reliable. That should be the end of this discussion. Again, if this video were significant then we would see it covered in some form in good sources. We aren't. I said as much 18:18, 21 November 2020 at the top of this section. Springee (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Springee, Bellingcat IS a good source. That's the heart of the matter. This logic is odd for a number of reasons. Any reporter, whether at Bellingcat, the BBC, the NYT, or Reason, is not somehow required to PROVE every statement they relay with "evidence". The publisher's reputation as reliable is key. If the NYT reports that someone has died, readers do not need them to provide an image of the death certificate as proof that this has, in fact, occurred. Readers trust that the NYT can be relied upon to get it right. On those rare occasions where they make a mistake, the publisher can also be relied upon to own up to the error by swiftly issuing a public correction. The same can be said of Bellingcat, where a consensus of Wikipedia editors have agreed that this publisher is generally reliable for news. A publisher does not need to prove every statement made by a reporter with evidence in the form of an embedded tweet or document. An image embed (such as a tweet, a captioned photo, or a document) can be helpful to provide additional details on the content. It is your interpretation that a single tweet embedded by Evans was not simply additional information but instead some sort of required proof(!) of his statement that "In 2019 Ngo reported in-person on a mass brawl at a Portland area bar named Cider Riot. His tweets framed it as an unprovoked assault by anti-fascists." Also note here that Evans refers to tweets in the plural sense. How many tweets does he need to embed in the article to satisfy your need for proof? Evans needs to provide zero tweets. Readers are relying on the publisher, Bellingcat, to uphold their reputation for journalistic integrity. If a mistake had been made, thay would have issued a correction.

Second, it is odd that you have previously argued against including the content of a tweet, AKA an image embed, from Ngo when used to interpret the Washington Post article about this event while here also using the content of a tweet by Bellingcat to argue for disqualification of the legitimacy of that article about the event. You can't have it both ways.Cedar777 (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

No, BC isn't a good source. The source makes a clearly false claim that means, even if BC as a whole is reliable, this specific article is not. Additionally, BC isn't a source that generates enough WEIGHT to justify including this "controversy". The WP embeded image is not part of the WP article any more than the title is and if the writer wanted to point out Ngo then it would have been in the text. Again, we don't need to jam every possible item into the article just because a source that has a beef with Ngo includes it. Springee (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck, you're not responding to the points I made in my last comment. So your question, "Why on earth...?" is answered by my last comment. In short, the sourcing (which is weak anyway) does not support the proposed content, and to alter the content so that it accurately summarizes the source results in content that is cumbersome and UNDUE. And there are other problems as well, per Springee. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Real collaboration among edits to improve the page would be great but it only works if editors are willing to read a large quantity of the credible sources that cover the subject and then recognize the content that is most consistent. That isn't SNYTH as much as it is a matter of making informed decisions.Cedar777 (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Trying to dump every bit of negative commentary from low impact sources into this article is not improving things. If you want to find a range of decent sources that say something and summarize them please do so. Don't take sources that have factual errors or are not reliable for contentious claims about BLP expect them to have weight for inclusion. Springee (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Please take a moment to list a single fact that Bellingcat has distorted. Cedar777 (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Ngo's credibility needs to be addressed in the header - whitewashing and false balance a problem

There is a strong current in mainstream journalism that holds that Ngo is not a credible, good-faith journalist. While Ngo is frequently described as a "journalist" in media sources he is also frequently described as a "provocateur", a "right-wing activist" a "grifter" and a "troll". Yes I have looked at the talk page and seen the extensive discussions on this topic. And yet, the header is remarkably credulous and seems to barely address the serious questions about the sincerity and credulity of Ngo's writing.

This article whitewashes Ngo to a considerable extent - why on earth have references from the SPLC (who have called Ngo a "far-right provocateur"[[5]] and say that he "has been caught misrepresenting facts"[[6]] been removed? Eg see[7] I'm keen to hear the thoughts of other editors. Has anyone had a problem with politically partisan editing on this page? Noteduck (talk) 09:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

edit - I see that a reference to the SPLC was re-added so I've put a strike through one of my previous statements. I'm baffled as to why it was removed in the first place Noteduck (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck, why are you adding content to the lead vs the body? As a general rule, new or expanded content goes in the body of the article. If that content has sufficient weight in terms of the rest of the article then the lead should be expanded/modified. You have recently added a lot of content to the lead with no regard for the previous, extensive discussions regarding the lead. I would suggest reverting the additions to the lead and look at where the new content would fit in the body first. Also, the lead generally doesn't have sources because it doesn't need them. The material in the lead is supposed to be sourced from the article body thus it shouldn't need citations (there are exceptions but if written correctly this isn't needed). Springee (talk) 05:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Looking at a few other controversial conservative journalists...Milo Yiannopoulos' header has 19 citations, Tucker Carlson's has 16, Lauren Southern has 17...soooooo you're the one needing to prove an unusual case, not me. Oh, and about content in the header v body - have you read the article? The milkshaking and Vanguard and Quillette controversies are extensively covered. A few sentences in the header adding some references prefaces the article but doesn't change its content and tone at all. And yes, I've read through the talk page material. Long innit! Noteduck (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The fact that other articles are done poorly isn't a reason to make the same mistakes here. Please follow MOS:LEADCITE. Also, please respect the previous consensus lead. If you have new content for the body it could be added there. Also remember this article is a 1RR per 24hr. Springee (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Sigh - why restore incorrect grammatical tenses and a thoroughly baffling final sentence? Regarding the subheading on citations - "Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead...complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." Plenty of things in the header are controversial:

• Ngo's link with Patriot Prayer. "Standing close to" is bafflingly vague
• the details of Ngo's attack and milkshaking, especially the "fast-drying concrete" allegation. His account of receiving a brain haemorrhage has been questioned by some but it seems he can back very much it up[8]
• idea (supported by the SPLC) that Ngo promotes a false balance between left and right
• Ngo's credibility and very status as a journalist - plenty of sources call him a "self-described" journalist or prefer terms like "writer"

Noteduck (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, between the two versions I support Noteduck's, but I think we really should cut some of this stuff because both versions of the lede are too long. May I suggest the quotes? IMO, several quotes in a row all tending towards the same point smells of WP:SYNTH to me. Loki (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The previous version of the lead I restored had wide spread consensus. Additionally, Noteduck's restoration is a volation of the 1RR rule since much of what they added was previously in and removed from the lead. Self reverting and getting consensus first would be a good idea here. Springee (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I just reverted again to the consensus Lead. I oppose adding material to the lead that isn't in the body. The lead should summarize the body. Noteduck does make a good point that the last sentence is pretty trashy: "claims of bias increased" is not summarizing anything in the body that I can see, and it's pretty vague. I'd support removing that sentence from the lead. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I added {Template:Disputed inline} after the last sentence. I support removing that sentence entirely. NedFausa (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Haven't looked at the details, but the lead is supposed to summarize the body. It's purpose is not to give extra emphasis or higher visibility to selected items. And of course, that means that it should not contain things that aren't first in the body. North8000 (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• There was a RfC that said the video prior to the cider riot incident had to be in the lead (not closed that way but by weight of numbers it appears to be include). Some effort was put into how it made sense to integrate it. I felt it was dumb to just say "this happened". Looking at the sources it appeared that many took that video to show that Ngo was too cozy with the extreme right and this appears to have hurt his credibility. Thus the sentence in the lead. I don't like that the sentence states in Wiki-voice that an attack was planned since we have a Reason article that disputes that. However, editors said that article was opinion (while it's not "opinion" when other sources analyze the same audio and reach the conclusion it was a plan. So I would support removing the sentence but I also want to respect the process that put the sentence into the article even if I don't agree with it. Springee (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Springee: Looking back at the archive, that RfC never got closed. How are you judging the outcome of it? Maybe we should request a close? Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

You are correct it was never closed. I based my conclusion on weight of numbers and assumed few would object if I assumed it would close as consensus to include given I was personally opposed. Springee (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Springee: To facilitate this discussion, here is a link to the RfC. It dates from October 2020 and concerns the alleged planning of an attack. However, as I read it, the disputed sentence now in the lead has a different focus: Claims of bias increased after video footage surfaced which showed Ngo close by Patriot Prayer members who were planning an attack…. (Emphasis added.) The body of our BLP cites four references to support stating In Wikipedia's voice that Ngo was "seen laughing, while standing next to the members of the far-right group Patriot Prayer as they plan an attack…." From this, we are apparently meant to infer that those four news stories themselves constitute an increase in claims of bias against Ngo. Please clarify if that's how you interpret the digressive, bloated ≈6,800-word RfC that even the editor who originated it later called "sorta moot since that section was entirely rephrased (and the hedging was removed)." Surely we can respect the RfC process in general without dignifying that particular RfC, which I believe is itself frequently biased. NedFausa (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I have never liked the sentence so if you feel the spirit of the previous discussion is being respected I won't object to the removal. Springee (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Springee, can you please strike through the following comment that you made:

"The previous version of the lead I restored had wide spread consensus. Additionally, Noteduck's restoration is a volation of the 1RR rule since much of what they added was previously in and removed from the lead. Self reverting and getting consensus first would be a good idea here."

We had this discussion on my talk page[9] and I helped to remind you of some of the principles of the arbitration remedies. Content for which there is clearly established consensus should not be removed. As per the terms of the settled RfC this extends to the designation of Ngo as a "journalist", which I have not changed. Your comment is incorrect, so please strike through. Nothing in the header is irremovable at this point save the "journalist" designation for Ngo (subject to 1RR of course). Beyond that it is putting the cart before the horse to simply assert there is consensus, and I'm concerned about your "weight of numbers" claim about consensus-building, which is an inaccurate interpretation of WP:CON. Lokitheliar I agree that the quotes are far too long. It might be good to put one expert opinion on Ngo that summarizes the criticisms of him - I thought the SPLC's "false equivalence between left and right" was a good summary, but unfortunately it's been reverted.

Shinealittlelight, I'm glad that you didn't restore the flawed grammatical tense in the header. Your reversion is frankly mostly misguided. There are now ZERO citations in the header. You have not referred to the principles of MOS:LEADCITE (which I have pointed out in this thread and it means a number of contested claims in the header are now without citations. Please read this full subheading for examples of the controversial statements in the header and let's look at the principles of MOS:LEADCITE:

"Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead...complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none."

The final sentence of the header needs to be amended because it is simply hopeless English:

"Claims of bias increased after video footage surfaced which showed Ngo close by Patriot Prayer members who were planning an attack on patrons of the Cider Riot bar."

As NedFausa seems to have noticed, this could mean any number of things. Who is accusing whom of bias here? Let's try subject-verb-object here. Eg "Various sources accused Ngo of bias after video footage surfaced..." It's quite baffling that you deleted the references to the media sources that have questioned Ngo's credibility, and especially the mention of his departure from Quillette. This is part of an unfortunate tendency to resort to reversions of large blocks of materials without substantive discussion - let's focus on improving flawed material and building consensus to make a better page Noteduck (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, what do people think about adding a subheading "reception" somewhere in the article? Given how controversial Ngo is and given how extensively he's been analyzed and criticized by both journalistic and academic sources I think it should be added. It would be a good place to relocate the long quotes from the header. Noteduck (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Please FOC, once again. I agree that you've identified a policy that requires adding citations to the lead. We should still do so in a way that involves the basic objective of summarizing the body and not introducing material not included in the body. So if we want to add citations to the lead that are not in the body, we need to first add them to the body. I agree that the last sentence in the lead is trash. It is poorly written and unsupported by any source we have so far. I'd be for omitting it altogether. I disagree with a "reception" section per WP:CRIT. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Shine, can you point to the section in WP:CRIT that supports your view? Springee and Springee, it's worth observing that while other editors have made changes to this page incrementally, you both have tended to remove large blocks of material without substantive discussion, sometimes even restoring grammatical errors excised from the piece.[10][11] This is not the recommended editorial method but I've noticed you both employing it over a few different pages. It's going back through Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. Per WP:ROWN, "it is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a prior edit than to revert the prior edit. Furthermore, your bias should be toward keeping the entire edit. Let's keep working together to improve this page Noteduck (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck, I think you need to show some good faith and start by discussing the edits you think the article need here first. This has been an issue across many articles. Slow down, get buy in, then make the change. I will not strike the 1RR claim. You changed the existing text of the lead. You didn't add a new paragraph that didn't touch the existing lead. You changed the existing lead. That is a first revision. That revision was rejected. When you then restore that rejected revision that is a second revision hence a 1RR violation. Springee (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, Noteduck should absolutely have discussed such extensive changes before making them. Yes, they have violated WP:BRD by restoring their version after it was reverted. But they have not - technically - violated 1RR unless one of their first block of edits was a simple reversion of previous edit, which I don't believe it was. We have had this discussion a lot at AE, and it's generally been decided that you cannot treat any change to an article as a revert, because technically any edit changes something that someone previously wrote. Black Kite (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • OK, my bad on the 1RR. I've always taken changes to existing material, especially material that hasn't been a source of back and forth like the lead to this article, as a first revision. Anyway, there have been some back and forths here so I think now is a very good time to stop and say it would be unwise for anyone here to make moreextensive edits without discussing them first. Perhaps this article would benefit from a consensus required rule. If a change is made then reverted, consensus must be shown before restoring it or a similar change. Springee (talk) 02:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Editted Springee (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I think that's a pretty reasonable idea. Black Kite (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Springee and Black Kite: Having made 11 edits to the article today without preapproval, I'd appreciate your explanation of what discretionary sanction or page protection currently in effect prohibits a user from making changes here without first obtaining your permission. NedFausa (talk) 02:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• NedFausa There isn't one. I believe that Springee is suggesting a consensus-required rule, which is effectively 0RR and states that if you make an edit to the article and it is reverted, then you should attempt to gain consensus for it on the talkpage. Which is actually, per BRD, what you should be doing anyway. There are a number of articles in various hot-button areas that have this requirement already. I am certainly not going to apply it unilaterally, however; that too would require a discussion. Black Kite (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea, Black Kite. It has been hard to get people to follow BRD on this article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Black Kite: Let me state this clearly. Unless you direct me in plain language to make no change to this article without permission from you or Springee, I have no intention of abiding by this seemingly unfounded and arbitrary restriction. NedFausa (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

NedFausa, he isn't saying you'd need permission to introduce an edit; he's saying that (under this proposal) if you did introduce an edit, and it were reverted, you'd have to gain consensus before reintroducing it. That's not the same as saying you have to get permission for any edit. It's basically saying that BRD would be enforced. But that still allows the B part! Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight: I can read English. Springee wrote, I think now is a very good time to stop and say it would be unwise for anyone here to make more edits without discussing them first. (Emphasis added) That struck me as an effort to intimidate the rest of us from changing the Andy Ngo BLP. I don't react well to thinly veiled threats, especially when backed up immediately by an administrator. This is Wikipedia, not The Godfather Part IV. NedFausa (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough, sorry if I misunderstood. I can see why you bristled in reaction to the quoted statement from Springee. But I still think that the idea of enforcing BRD would help make things more orderly. And, for the record, I appreciate your edits today, which I thought were improvements. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

NedFausa, my apologies. I do see how that could be taken badly. I should have (and will per this discussion) made it clear I was thinking about extensive or possibly controversial edits. Still, I think it's always a good idea, if you think something may be controversial, discuss first. You aren't asking permission (as we all have the same "rights"). Rather it just helps smooth the process. A few months back I worked with another editor off line to redo the lead. Since our opinions were far apart I figured anything we both could accept was probably a good compromise. We did this off line so no one could get mad about back and forth changes.[[12]] Sorry for the bad communication. Springee (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

NedFausa, I haven't seen any issue with what you are doing. It appears my read of what a revert is was wrong. I've always considered the change of something that is already there to be a revert. So if you add a new sentence or paragraph I wouldn't consider that a revert. I also wouldn't consider integrating some new material into an existing sentence a revert (Mr X is an A and B -> Mr X is an A, B and C). I did consider changing things like the lead around or changing the meaning of sentences in the lead to be a fist change (which is allowed under 1RR). Anyway, per Black Kite if the material being changed was stable then that doesn't count as a revert, instead it's an original edit. If rejected, you are allowed one more attempt under 1RR. Also, your edits were all back to back which is consider to be a single edit since you could have made them all as one single edit. Really I wouldn't care about any of this if editors were good at following BRD. ND started by really tearing up the lead, a part of this article that has caused a lot of controversy in the past. After their lead changes were rejected they started to do somethign similar to the body. That's just a recipe for unhappiness. Contrast that with your edits. You tagged the part of the lead you didn't like and discussed your concerns without changing things. Your body edits weren't huge rip ups and you have shown a clear willingness to talk things out. I don't see an issue and I hope you feel I'm just as amicable as you are. Springee (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

If adding material to the page is impermissible without consensus on the talk page, but "consensus" is being defined as the agreement of certain editors on the talk page, those editors are essentially asking for a veto on the introduction of new material. Can somebody point to any policy that would justify such a move? Seems pretty contrary to absolutely everything in WP:STONEWALL and the general recommendation against moratoriums in Wikipedia:RECENTCONSENSUS, which notes that moratoriums run counter to the general practice on Wikipedia that any editor may initiate a discussion on any topic related to the operations of the encyclopedia at any time.

As far as I can tell, all the RfC decrees is "clearly established consensus" is that the designation of Ngo as a "journalist" should not be removed, and nobody has done so. Shinealittlelight and Springee, in your block reverts you have repeatedly gone against Wiki's editorial policies. To quote WP:ROWN again:

• it is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a prior edit
• your bias should be toward keeping the entire edit

In future, pay edition to editorial policy, don't delete blocks of text wholesale without substantive discussion, and to improve rather than revert. If you care about this article, why don't you restore some sources to the controversial points of the header, which require inline citations as per MOS:LEADCITE? Noteduck (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck thank you for making several valid and relevant points here, along with a number of page edits that have significantly improved the article. Applying MOS:LEADCITE is an improvement. I agree that the header needs to address what the most reliable sources say about Ngo's credibility. There is indeed a problem with whitewashing and false balance at this page.

This article has some significant issues, in particular the two sentences (each with 6+ cited sources) that have been collapsed into blanket statements. There are even more sources than those currently listed that credibly cover the subject in depth on these issues. The sentences that are meant to cover all the ground of 6+ sources each are:

1. in the Later work section "Several media outlets, including The Oregonian and Rolling Stone have been critical of Ngo and described him as a "right-wing provocateur"."
2. Found under the Confrontations with antifa activists and assault subsection"He has also been accused of using selectively edited videos and sharing misleading and inaccurate information to paint antifa activists as violent, and to underplay the violence of the far-right."

Although there have been a number of important improvements, the article in its current state is not neutral. From WP:NPOV "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias." The side represented in each of the above blanket statements has been insufficiently explained in this article, despite an abundance of sources covering it in depth, and it needs correction.Cedar777 (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

One bar, not two (Cider Riot again)

In the section “Patriot Prayer video and departure from Quillette”, this recently edited sentence is not supported by the sources: “On August 26, 2019, the Portland Mercury reported on a video that showed Ngo standing near members of far-right group Patriot Prayer in a Portland bar and smiling and laughing as the group planned a violent attack at a different bar, frequented by left-wing activists.” There is only one bar, the Cider Riot. The Patriot Prayer conversations that Ngo was present for (as described by the Mercury) happened in the street enroute to Cider Riot - not in front of another bar. This is also directly observable in the video. Is there another source that lists a second bar? If not, this content needs to be corrected in the article. Cedar777 (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this concern. I think it's a minor thing but I don't recall any sources saying exactly where the video was taken nor do I think it would matter much. Springee (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Cedar777: Thank you for pointing this out. I have corrected my mistake, which stemmed from the former wording: …video that showed Ngo standing near members of far-right group Patriot Prayer in a Portland bar and smiling and laughing as the group planned a violent attack at a bar frequented by left-wing activists. To me, that suggested two different bars. NedFausa (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Cedar777 (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

No deaths by Antifa

this article in conflict with the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_of_Aaron_Danielson_and_Michael_Reinoehl which clearly states his antifa leanings and he killed some one. As has not been tested in court would not go as far as say murdered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K1w1.Troll (talk • contribs) 08:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

At the time our source was published (August 27th, 2020), that statement was true. Aaron Danielson was shot August 29th, 2020. We probably should clarify, though. Loki (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Recent edit

This edit summary did not make much sense to me "Comparing Ngo to Goebbels is absolutely not acceptable in a BLP even if the source attributed to a book review". Wikipedia is not censored. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah no, we are not going to compare him to Joseph Goebbels. That is just inappropriate, fringe, and asinine. PackMecEng (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

"We" are not comparing Ngo to anyone; note that this is not rendered in wiki-voice. The book review does: "'According to Nazaryan, Ngo describes every act of violence by antifa 'so meticulously and ominously'...'. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

You say that like it makes a difference. It does not my friend. Not even a little bit. Yes, it is attributed to someone else and not in Wiki's voice. So what? It is still inappropriate, fringe, and asinine. PackMecEng (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The review is "inappropriate, fringe, and asinine"? This does not make much sense since the review is still cited in the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

This is an example of finding the "sound bite" in the article rather than the substance. We can summarize the review without using it's inflammatory language. That is especially true when the language compares the person to a literal Nazi. If nothing else it's very unencyclopedic to use such terms even in an attributed quote. Springee (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Then provide a better summary of the review. The comparison of Ngo to historical propagandists is an essential part of that review and the understanding of Ngo's work. No reason to censor the comparison outright.Shadybabs (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

A better summary of the report was already there. PackMecEng (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Shadybabs, once that edit was reversed twice it should have been clear that there wasn't consensus for such a statement in the article. Restoring it tends towards disruptive editing. Springee (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't that apply more directly to PackMecEng? "Yeah no" is not a justified edit summary.Shadybabs (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

There was a discussion here before you restored the recently added, non-consensus text which compares a BLP subject to a literal Nazi. Springee (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

On the one hand, I don't think Nazi comparisons are 100% out of bounds in any article even a BLP. Ultimately we go by the sources, and if all the sources say someone is like Goebbels then we shouldn't override them with our own personal bias. On the other hand, however, it seems in this case it's just one line in one source, which is certainly not enough to implicitly call someone a Nazi. Loki (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

As editors we are using our personal bias to decide which, if any, lines to quote from the review. Comparing living people to Nazi's is always going to be problematic even if it comes from a book reviewer who clearly has a bone to pick. Springee (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, I don't think that it's appropriate in this particular case, where we only have one line from one source. But surely in a hypothetical case where we have tons of sources comparing the subject to Nazis, we wouldn't hesitate to include that, right? E.g. I'm sure lots of sources have compared Richard Spencer to Nazis, and it would certainly be strange to leave that comparison out of that article. (In fact, there's a comparison in that article of Spencer to Goebbels specifically.) Loki (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, I think I mistook your earlier comment. Regardless, you are right. Just like we might include a statement that a person is widely viewed as a racist, Xist, Xphobe etc, yes, if a wide range of sources called the person a Nazi we could say the same in attributed voice. Springee (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The LA Times writer clearly disagrees with Ngo. It would be best to summarize the writer's opinion. That's somewhat hard to do since the writer seems to engage in the same vilification for which he condemns Ngo. It would be impartial to say the writer claims Ngo ignores facts that don't support the narrative of the book and the writer feels the book is propaganda that tries to vilify those Ngo doesn't like. To use the Nazi parallel, even if attributed, fails wp:impartial. Springee (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

In presenting a book review, Wikipedia editors have the option to either paraphrase or attribute quotations to capture the review's essence. In this case, paraphrasing is inadequate. Alexander Nazaryan does not merely pan Unmasked, he calls it "supremely dishonest" and accuses Ngo of "churning out the very kind [of] propaganda that keeps authoritarians in power." Ngo writes "in the tendentious, pedantic tone of a Wikipedia enthusiast," Nazaryan sneers, and "crosses the line into truly despicable." Ngo describes every act of violence by antifa "so meticulously and ominously," declares Nazaryan, "that Herr Goebbels would have been proud." To ensure that we take this over-the-top rhetoric literally, Nazaryan adds, "In no way do I make that allusion flippantly." This is not just a bad review, it's a public excoriation that willfully invokes the most evil parallels. To fairly represent such bias, we must quote Nazaryan directly and, most importantly, on point. His personalized comments about Ngo's parents' immigration from Vietnam, which the author relates only in the book's final pages, are a tangential afterthought. The point of Nazaryan's review is to vilify Ngo as a Nazi propagandist of the first magnitude. Please, let's not lose sight of that. Give Alexander Nazaryan his due. NedFausa (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Is Nazaryan worthy of that deference? His review seems more like an angry rant than a careful, critical review. If the reviewer is over the top we should probably discount their review. Regardless, choosing to highlight that inflammatory text bite is not encyclopedic and should be replaced with a more impartial description (WP:IMPARTIAL is policy). Springee (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:IMPARTIAL advises: Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone. That policy does not, however, prohibit us from quoting directly if, as in this case, the content cannot otherwise be accurately represented. NedFausa (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The actual arguments can be summarized without the hyperbolic language used in this review. Springee (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

They cannot be accurately summarized without being watered down. NedFausa (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure they can. We simply remove the hyperbole. I can say "I would rather eat dog [poop] than food from Burger-Mart!". That can be sumarized as "Springee expressed great dislike of Burger-Mart's food". Yes, the hyperbole was removed but the core idea is still there. It might be helpful to get some NPOVN feedback on this question. Springee (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Then you have to define hyperbole. When Alexander Nazaryan calls Unmasked a "supremely dishonest" book, is that hyperbole? NedFausa (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you can draw a clear line in the sand but I think when you start to add modifiers to your descriptions you are certainly moving towards hyperbole. Take your example, I think we can define dishonest. If Ngo states things he knows to be false that is dishonest. How do we decide when something is "supremely" vs "very" vs "really" etc. A way to handle this would be say "Nazaryan described the book as dishonest citing examples... X, Y and Z." If Nazaryan can't provide an example to show the dishonesty then we shouldn't credit his claim. In the case of the Goebbels comment we can just say, "Ngo's writing attempts to vilify those he wants the reader to dislike". Honestly, reading it as the text appears in the wiki article the reason for the Goebbels comparison is less clear. In the actual article the next paragraph says why the reviewer makes the connection. That part, not the shock value name is more significant. Imagine if a text described a politician as, "The person was like Hitler. Both are 1.75m tall." Now imagine we said, "Senator X was compared to Hitler by [reporter]". Being the same height as Hitler is hardly a sin but the comparison is certainly going to raise eyebrows. Anyway, I'm happy to raise this as a NPOVN question if it will help. Springee (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Why does Alexander Nazaryan liken Ngo to Goebbels? Because, he explains, "Maligning the opposition was central to the Nazi strategy, and it is critical to today's far-right extremists. Ngo's intention here seems not just to discredit antifa, but to run a diversionary tactic for Patriot Prayer and other groups that are far more dangerous than their leftist counterparts." We could add that if editors believe it somehow softens the blow as Nazaryan assassinates Ngo's character. NedFausa (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Incidentally, I noticed there are hyperlinks inside the quotes which, while not prohibited are questionable per MOS:LWQ. Springee (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Here in full is the disputed paragraph as it now stands.

In the Los Angeles Times, Alexander Nazaryan reviewed Unmasked as a "supremely dishonest new book on the left-wing anti-fascist movement known as antifa". According to Nazaryan, Ngo describes every act of violence by antifa "so meticulously and ominously" that Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda of Nazi Germany, "would have been proud. In no way do I make that allusion flippantly." Nonetheless, Ngo's book became an Amazon bestseller.

References

There are no hyperlinks within quotations. NedFausa (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see why I was confused. The mixing of quoted and paraphrased made it look like the mention of Nazis was a direct quote. Since it wasn't a direct quote there is even less reason to summarize it. Springee (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I am also having a hard time finding Nazaryan qualified to even make that comparison. I see nothing in his background that would make him authority on nazi propaganda or Goebbels. Finally he seems basically alone in making such a comparison. Why would we want to amplify such a fringe viewpoint? PackMecEng (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: Please, can you identify something in Alexander Nazaryan's review that does not represent a fringe viewpoint? NedFausa (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Why? You are making a case for including that specific content and I am explaining why we should not include it. PackMecEng (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: You are the first editor in this 1,800-word thread to mention "fringe," although you did mention it in a previous thread. Now that you raise the issue here, it strikes me that Alexander Nazaryan's entire review is fringe, and therefore ought not to be included in this BLP. However, I asked for your input because I am prepared to defer to your judgment as to whether his review contains anything that is not fringe, and might therefore qualify for inclusion. NedFausa (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

My fringe reference was him making the comparison as the comparison is not made anywhere else really. So that is a fringe view. His other views may share more wide spread support, and then not be fringe, I do not know. I have not looked too deeply into those, only the one presented for inclusion into the article. PackMecEng (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know, Alexander Nazaryan's is the only review of Unmasked to appear in a mainstream news outlet. It stands to reason then, that nothing he wrote in attacking this book and its author shares widespread support. Accordingly, Nazaryan's entire review is fringe and should not be used. Don't you agree? NedFausa (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I've opened a NPOVN discussion regarding the topic here [[13]]. Springee (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Given the contentious nature of comparing a BLP subject to a Nazi, even with attribution, I've reverted the text to the previous version. This is consistent with wp:NOCON. Springee (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree but wish you hadn't called the reviewer an "LA Times writer" above since, as stated at the end of the article, he actually works for Yahoo. And, having seen "Newsweek apologizes after writer Alexander Nazaryan compares Ted Cruz fans to Nazis", I conclude he is indeed capable of using that critique method "flippantly". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Andy Ngo, NY Times Best Selling Author, Unmasked: Inside Antifa's Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy

Andy Ngo is also a NY Times Best Selling Author, 'Unmasked: Inside Antifa's Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy.' An investigative journalist, he's been attacked by Antifa and writes a deeply researched and reported account of the group's history and tactics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ann Page007 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ann Page007: We would need WP:RS in order to add this to our BLP. NedFausa (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

New to NYT Best Seller list this week[14]. Schazjmd (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. It was already added. Please see ¶3. NedFausa (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

August 2019 attack being repeatedly mentioned, and general sloppiness

I've been going through cleaning up a few things here, and I couldn't help but notice how quite a few incidents are repeatedly mentioned with nearly identical text, multiple times. I feel like this article could really benefit from some general restructuring, as the current section headings kind of have a bit too much overlap with each other. I'd suggest possible headings as "Career (limit this to the actual papers / websites he's worked for)", "Involvement with protests and street violence (pretty much everything from late 2018 through 2019 in Portland in here)", "Legal Actions", "Political views", and "Criticism". I'm gonna touch on the last two though. I think with figures like Ngo articles can get overly clogged up with details about the subject's beliefs, and then people adding in where others have criticized these beliefs. This is made exponentially harder with figures like Ngo who will bold-facedly describe themselves as centrists, when every RS and human with two eyes would disagree. Thats why I think we should probably try to concentrate these criticisms and more analysis type bits of info in one spot, which will also allow them to be a lot more coherent as a counter-narrative to his own descriptions of himself. On a completely unrelated note, I think his absolutely hilarious allegation that the sneaky communists put cement in their milkshakes definitely needs to be noted here, as it does the reader a disservice to deprive them of that wonderful tidbit. If people think re-work is warranted I'll go ahead with it, I just didn't want to do anything quite that drastic on a semi-protected page like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomerIsland (talk • contribs) 18:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@SomerIsland: Please provide proposed text for inclusion and WP:RS for what you call Ngo's "absolutely hilarious allegation that the sneaky communists put cement in their milkshakes." Also, speaking of "sloppyness" (in your section heading here), the word is spelled sloppiness. NedFausa (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I moreso posted this wanting to make sure my proposal for reorganising those parts of the article was proper. I did some further digging and realised it wasn't actually Ngo who started the debunked cement milkshake conspiracy, it was the far right groups known as the "Portland Police Department" and "Fox News" who spread it. One Rolling Stone article cites him as having stated it on twitter, but I really can't find any evidence for this, and I'm guessing they misinterpreted it. I mean it does sound like something he'd come up with, not the actual police department. Sorry for the typo in the section header by the way, ESL here. Not sure if its possible for you or me to fix that now? SomerIsland (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

SomerIsland The section headings and chronology of the article do have issues and could be improved. As so much of the reporting on Ngo has been about various controversies, it is challenging as to how to best structure the bio. Most of the basic informational content regarding early life and education, along with career, have been sourced from publishers who discuss various controversies and criticism of the subject. The career section was structured chronologically until just recently (when a lot of content was added regarding the book) and is now out of sequence. It may be time to break the content up more by topic, as you suggested. Noteduck's proposal (listed below) to add a separate section for criticism would be a good place to start. Cedar777 (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Social media influence

@Springee: In re this revert, "This content has been extensively discussed and never found consensus for inclusion", could you point to where this content was discussed? --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Look at the top of the page. There was also a RSN which I think asked what was the limit of "internet culture". Springee (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Springee, thanks. I only see your disagreement with other editors: #Removal_of_Bellingcat_content. What is the relevant RSN discussion? --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Here is the discussion I was thinking of [[15]]. Also, as I recall from the previous discussion a big issue with the Bellingscat material was the evidence presented by the source contradicted the claims made in the source. Springee (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The Reliable Source Noticeboard (RSN) discussion pointed to above does NOT support eliminating The Daily Dot for content on Ngo. The majority of editors commented that it is usable and relevant but that it should simply be attributed. Cedar777 (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

This isn't internet culture and the RSN didn't have consensus that DD was a RS for this claim. If this is the best you have it should stay out. This is a BLP, not an opportunity to post every negative blogish thing we can find about him. Springee (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Internet culture doesn't end where social and political issues begin. The operative word is culture. This broad scope is addressed in the article for internet culture. Perhaps much of the problem here stems from a needlessly narrow view of that subject. Politico has described Ngo as a mega influencer. What is an influencer? It is an internet celebrity. What could possibly be more central to internet culture??? The idea that this is grounds to throw out credible content is bizarre. Furthermore, Ngo is not a WP:LOWPROFILE individual, he is a Public Figure (see WP:BLPPUBLIC) that has given numerous interviews as an antifa expert on Fox News. Editors do not need to tiptoe around the abundant negative content about the subject that has been reported by a multitude of reliable sources. Cedar777 (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Fled for his life

Noteduck made this edit, and I don't understand why. The source here says Mr Ngo ... is now living in London having fled Portland fearing for his life. This is reported in the reporter's voice, not attributed to Ngo. But Noteduck is insisting on attributing it to Ngo anyway, and moreover his edit does so in a way that violates MOS:CLAIM. When I reverted, the content was reversed again, apparently in violation of 1RR and the normal BRD process. Noteduck, please self-revert and discuss here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Is the pull-quote not linked to the next sentence, though? "Mr Ngo – who recently published a book, ‘Unmasked’, covering the inner workings of Antifa – is now living in London having fled Portland fearing for his life. “For a number of months now there’s just been increasing threats of violence against me, promises by Antifa extremists to kill me.”" Otherwise that quote is an orphan? And the reporter is clearly basing that sentence on Ngo's statement. Black Kite (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the reporter is basing his statement, made in his voice, that Mr Ngo ... is now living in London having fled Portland fearing for his life, on the statement from Ngo. Reporters often report things as being true based on the testimony of other people and without attributing the statement to the source. They don't always attribute. Presumably they attribute when they're not confident of the truth of the statement, and they say it in their own voice when they're confident. So should we attribute? We should follow the RS judgment on this: in this case, the reporter didn't attribute so neither should we. Moreover, we should also follow MOS:CLAIM, 1RR, and BRD. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• All of this information, sourced only to Sky News Australia, is best left out of an encyclopedia article until there are other sources confirming it. Cedar777 (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. It has also been reported in the Oregonian here that Because of increasing concerns about his personal safety, Ngo said he recently left his hometown for London. This is a tricky sentence. As I read it, they are saying (i) there are increasing concerns about his personal safety, and (ii) Ngo says these concerns are why he left his hometown for London. Do you think that this additional source makes it DUE for inclusion? I'm on the fence. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: What you call "a tricky sentence" in The Oregonian is followed by this, which you omitted: He filed at least 10 reports with Portland police about threats made toward him or his family since last June, said Sgt. Kevin Allen, a bureau spokesman. (Emphasis added.) As I read it, that gives additional, official weight to Ngo's fear for his personal safety. NedFausa (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Good point, I missed that, I agree. I think the text reverted to its previous state and the Oregonian source should be added. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The Oregonian article is quality and contains a lot of usable content on the subject (however, its worth noting that it is only a few hours old at this point, having just been published this morning). The Oregonian is clearly the better source for content about the relocation to London as it covers the subject in depth, not to mention it has a reputation for producing Pulitzer-prize-winning journalism. More caution is required when using Sky News Australia to source content as it is considered to be a strongly biased source. It is not necessary to quote Ngo per Sky News Australia. From WP policy WP:QUOTE: "It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words." The Oregonian does a much better job maintaining NPOV in their coverage of the material. Cedar777 (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Birthday

Seems to be April 6. Is this a reliable enough source? https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1247060374219681792?s=20 Kingofthedead (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

It's a poor source, but might be used if better sources aren't available. --Hipal (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Amending header to address Ngo's contested credibility as a journalist

The header of this article is still far too credulous and afflicted by false balance. Ngo has been EXTENSIVELY criticized in the media - I don't think I've ever seen another journalist, apart from perhaps Milo Yiannopoulos, whose credibility has been so extensively called into question. With this in mind, I propose this addition to the header in the paragraph starting "Ngo's coverage of anti-fascist groups..."

Ngo's coverage of anti-fascist groups has been controversial, and the accuracy and credibility of his reporting has been extensively questioned. He has been accused of sharing misleading and selectively edited videos and called a provocateur, and a troll, and accused of having links to militant right-wing groups. Philosopher Jason Stanley contended in an interview with the Southern Poverty Law Center that Ngo promotes a false equivalence between left and right-wing political violence in the U.S.

There are plenty of other sources that could be added, but this is a good start. Anyway, I know this material (and anything that attests to Ngo's well-documented credibility problems) is likely to be questioned and I know who will object to this material, so I'm awaiting contestation and claims of bias/poor sources/NPOV problems. Please keep policy and MOS:LEADCITE and WP:ROWN in mind when discussing this - if there's a spelling error or something, amend it rather than using it as an excuse to veto the new material in its entirety. Constructive comments/edits welcome Noteduck (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The lead is meant to be IMPARTIAL, not a collection of negative comments, especially those from questionable sources. Springee (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

alrighty, do you condemn that all 14 of the sources cited are "questionable"? I'm totally unsure of what you consider a legitimate source. I think we're all sick to death of MOS:LEADCITE but here it is again.

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.

I don't know how fourteen sources questioning a journalist's credibility could be considered anything but a significant controversy Noteduck (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Many of those 14 sources aren't worth the time of day and I suspect all have been previously discussed. Jamming the lead full of every mean thing you can think of is not good writing practice and fails IMPARTIAL. Additionally, comments like, "I know who will object to this material" should be discussed elsewhere and are not acceptable for an article talk page. Springee (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

FWIW the majority of those sources are green on WP:RSP. I don't think there's any argument for not including that based solely on the sourcing. As for the proposed change, I mostly support it with the exception of called a provocateur, and a troll. I think that the sourcing for "provocateur" is strong enough we can call him that in Wikivoice in the first sentence, and "Andy Ngo has been called a troll by someone, anyone, before" is IMO not WP:DUE (as opposed to "Andy Ngo is a troll, as shown by all these reliable sources calling him one", but we don't have that). Loki (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Not all of them are green and some are not green or due as being used here. Look we have been over this many times. We absolutely can not call him a provocateur in first wikivoice and the prior discussions should have made that clear. Per impartial we should never be calling someone a name like "provocateur" in wiki voice unless it was a universal term. Springee (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

This proposal would not summarize material in the body. The lead follows the body per MOS:LEAD. If you want to add something to the body, start there. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck, This is well researched and helps illustrate the number of quality sources substantiating these points. Reflection on Ngo's role by journalists and academics has expanded considerably over the past year. It can be a time-consuming process to carefully review all of it thoroughly but it is the only way to accurately respond to the depth and breadth of the coverage. Overall this lede would be a significant improvement. The support for troll is still minimal and would be best left out. Cedar777 (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

No, many of these sources have been discussed in the past. Some are weak such as Daily Dot. Others like Al Jazeera aren't saying Ngo did any of those things, only that others have accused him of such. Using a source that says, "Ngo has been accused of X" to put "Ngo has been accused of X" in our article is questionable. If we are going to say "Ngo is accused of X" we need to look at the source that do it in their own voice. Jezebel is far to activist and opinionated to use as a source for a claim about what Ngo is. Media Matters is a questionable source. Comments like accusing Ngo of working with far right groups, not just being uncritical of but actually working with, would need very strong sourcing. DD and Media Matters don't cut it and even VOX would be questionable for such a claim. Sorry, this is a BLP and IMPARTIAL does matter. An uncritical laundry list is not acceptable here. Springee (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight and Springee I don't think I'll get much traction out of reminding you of policy, but please read WP:FALSEBALANCE. Shine, there several sentences in the body of the page that refer to Ngo's reported propensity for misinformation. I agree that the material on Ngo's reported propensity needs more explication in the body of the article though, which is why I've suggested a new subheading. This material proposed has been subject to a far higher evidentiary burden with many more sources than, say, Milo Yiannopoulos' or Lauren Southern's pages and the rebuttals to inclusion have been vague. Shine and Springee, you have not referred to a single excerpt from policy or a previous thread indicating that these sources are poor quality - this is starting to look like stonewalling as per WP:STONEWALL. If there are no stronger rebuttals, this material should be added to the header, though I'm fine with removing the term "troll" Noteduck (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to start with asking if the sources we are using are acceptable to make contentious claims about a BLP subject. You just added Above the Law and Technology Review. Did you check to see if either source would be acceptable in this context? A big problem here is the use of passing mentions rather than sources about Ngo. If we are going to say sources call Ngo X then we shouldn't use ones that say it uncritically or in passing. In journalism that is lazy. Its not something we should accept in an encyclopedia. They are also mentions that have no WEIGHT thus shouldn't be included. The objective here isn't to make readers hate Ngo or to find every example were someone claims something bad about him. The objective is to offer an impartial summary of Ngo. Springee (talk) 12:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, the lead summarizes the body per MOS:LEAD. If you want to add some of these sources to the body, make a proposal to that effect. But we shouldn't add stuff to the lead that isn't summarizing the body. This proposal would be just that. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we should rewind a bit. The paragraph in question read as follows on Jan 25th before Noteduck made changes that have never had true consensus:

Ngo's coverage of anti-fascist groups has been controversial, including accusations that Ngo focuses on violence committed by the far-left while ignoring the violent actions of the far-right. In August 2019, a video surfaced that showed Ngo standing near members the far-right group Patriot Prayer who later attacked patrons of the well-known Antifa hangout Cider Riot bar.[2] Ngo denied overhearing plans to commit any crime.[3]

Currently the lead has too much detail regarding the Cider Riot incident as well as speculative quotes from an "alternative weekly". Maybe we can find some common ground. Using your text above, the old version of the lead and parts from the current version, what about this:

Ngo's coverage of anti-fascist groups has been controversial, and the accuracy of his reporting has been questioned. He has been accused of sharing misleading and selectively edited videos[soruces], called a provocateur,[sources] and accused of promoting a false equivalence between left and right-wing political violence in the U.S.[7] In August 2019, a video surfaced that showed Ngo standing near members the far-right group Patriot Prayer who later attacked patrons of the well-known Antifa hangout Cider Riot bar.[2] Ngo denied overhearing plans to commit any crime.[3] Ngo's departure from Quillette the day the story was made public led to speculation the events were linked. Quillette founding editor Claire Lehmann said that Ngo's departure was not related to the release of the video.

For the moment I've left out the specific sources but I would suggest we only use the strongest sources. This is a balance between including more of the negative comments and trying to keep the lead to a summary per MOS and IMPARTIAL. Springee (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

For reference, this deletes Media sources described Ngo as smiling[8] and laughing[9][10] in the video, and the Portland Mercury's Alex Zielinski reported that "there’s no way [Ngo] couldn’t know the group was planning on instigating violence".[11] in favor of He has been accused of sharing misleading and selectively edited videos[soruces], called a provocateur,[sources] and accused of promoting a false equivalence between left and right-wing political violence in the U.S.[7].

While I think this is probably better, I'd like to include some of the deleted material in the sentence about the Cider Riot attack. Maybe replace In August 2019, a video surfaced that showed Ngo standing near members the far-right group Patriot Prayer who later attacked patrons of the well-known Antifa hangout Cider Riot bar.[2] with In August 2019, a video surfaced that showed Ngo walking with members of the far-right group Patriot Prayer who were on their way to a planned attack on the bar Cider Riot, a well-known hangout for members of the far-left.[2]? I don't like the in-text attribution in the deleted sentence either, TBH, but I feel like some of it, especially the assertion there's no way Ngo couldn't have known what he was doing, is there to balance out the extreme level of distance conveyed in the previous sentence. He wasn't just standing near them and they didn't just attack the bar later, he was walking with them on their way to attack the bar. That's clear in the video and every source. That's why Alex Zielinski is saying there's no way he couldn't have known. Loki (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Loki, I appreciate your effort to try to find common ground here. I'm going to disagree with some of what you are suggesting but I still think it's important to acknowledge the effort you are making. The video and stills I've seen don't show Ngo walking with the group and I don't think many (any?) of the sources actually say he was walking with. All that is show is literally that he was near them and acknowledged them. That a writer who appears to be hostile to Ngo feels he must have heard them is perhaps due for the body where this content is discussed but not for the lead where we should err on the side of impartial and respecting the BLP aspects here. Springee (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The Jewish Currents source says that Ngo was in the presence of Patriot Prayer members as they discussed the attack, has a chummy relationship with Patriot Prayer and that he was supposedly tailing them in his capacity as a reporter (the "supposedly" in context is clearly pointed at "in his capacity as a reporter" not "tailing"). The Portland Mercury, which originally dropped this story, says that he tags along with Patriot Prayer during demonstrations, that during the video, their source was walking through NE Portland neighborhoods with the far-right protesters and Ngo and that Ngo doesn’t film any of the conversations, and smiles when the group cracks jokes. Salon says that he was acting friendly with members of Patriot Prayer, pal[ling] around with them, laughing as the group plans a violent attack on antifa members, and that he was present the entire time. The Daily Dot says that he was laughing as members of the far-right group Patriot Prayer plan an attack (but doesn't mention his actual location, instead saying that he is present in the video and can even be seen laughing at certain points).

Given all this, I agree that the most accurate summary is not "walking with", but "standing near" is even worse. The best description of Ngo's behavior in the video is "acting friendly with" or "hanging out with". That's the thing the sources most clearly agree on. Loki (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Remember we also have Reason's take on the subject. In all cases we are talking about writers assessing what they see in the video. I agree standing near could mean the same thing as I was standing near a person on the subway but totally oblivious to them. Clearly Ngo was not oblivious to the group and did acknowledge them. He also did follow the group to Cider Riot. What is speculation on the part of the various sources is if Ngo was aware of what was being discussed. Some sources say yes but that seems to be as much motivated reasoning as anything. I think near and acknowledged together is rather neutral and factual. What about something clinical like, can be seen in close proximity to and acknowledges the members. The video doesn't show him comingling and it's hard to judge what could be heard since the camera is near the people speaking and not near Ngo. Springee (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck, above is a current discussion related to the changes to the lead. It was clear from the above discussion that your changes wouldn't have consensus as as proposed. I'm objecting to the changes. Springee (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Springee, I removed the designation of Ngo as a "troll" based on the talk page discussion, and added your tip that "acknowledge" should be in the sentence about Ngo and Patriot Prayer. I am happy to discuss the amended header - what about the amended header do you object to, and on what grounds? I hope you keep WP:ROWN in mind when making any changes. Noteduck (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck, there isn't a consensus for the long 4th paragraph you have crafted. Above you can see we were closer to a consensus which includes some of your content while still respecting that the lead is a SUMMARY, not a detailed description. We do not need every citation and at least some of those are poor citations that should not be used. Springee (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Springee, admittedly I've been especially thorough to have multiple sources, since you have frequently questioned the sources I've added. If you think some of these are poor sources you'll have to identify which ones and why Noteduck (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Shadybabs, where did Ngo "converse" with anyone in the video in question? Which source do you think says he conversed with the PP members? Springee (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Changed to hanging out and laughing with, as per source.Shadybabs (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hanging out and laughing with is also a disputed claim. Springee (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I've added a NPOV tag based on the way the 4th paragraph is being ballooned with contested claims, failing to use impartial language and was changed without consensus and over objections on the talk page. Springee (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Springee, nobody on the talk page raised any objection to the presence of a "criticism" section before it was added when I raised it on the talk page. I added it partly because Cedar777 expressed approval of the idea, and because Shinealittlelight said that criticism of Ngo in the header did not summarize material in the lead. You'll need to explicate further on what you mean by "contested claims" and "impartial language". I've included responses to criticism of Ngo as well Noteduck (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

You mean other than the objections above? There is a discussion above regarding how the 4th paragraph should be handled. Loki and I appeared to have some level of consensus that incorporated some of your edits (with a reduced list of sources TBD). The sticking point was how best to describe Ngo and his actions as seen in the video. Making large edits as you did without getting consensus first is a problem. My view is we should try to make a good faith effort to find some common ground (see above). Failing that the 4th paragraph should be restored to it's early January form as that was the last stable version. Springee (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• After reading the lede, one thing is clear to me; the article goes into too much details regarding this 'associating' with the far-right group. We don't need an opinion by a journalist and we don't need to know anything about other crimes or about this group. We can cover this in the body of the article. As for the critisicm above it, I don't see too much wrong here, but I don't know where you got 'extensively questioned' from. Just providing a list of of half a dozen sources doesn't tell me that it has been extensively questioned. The final comment I would like to make is that considering the milkshake attack due 'national attention', I don't know why more isn't said about it in the lede. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Ngo is widely viewed in the media and political world as not a "journalist" but rather a "troll" or "provocateur". To call him a "journalist" in WP:WIKIVOICE is to weigh in on the debate and accept his premise, which is something we absolutely should not do. We should use a more neutral word such as "blogger" or "writer" for the lead, with some reference to the semantic debate and the various labels he's been given in a relevant section of the body. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

That's really revisiting an old debate. Ngo is in the business of journalism. You can argue he isn't a good journalist but doesn't negate that he is a journalist (which plenty of sources support). That he is controversial and people dispute his claims is extensively covered. Springee (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for not being the veteran of this talk page that you seem to be. I was merely responding "to address Ngo's contested credibility as a journalist," which as per the sources I provided is absolutely contested. At the very least the "plenty of sources" you name should be in the lead of the article to support "journalist," a label disputed by several. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

My apologies. I didn't mean to come off that way. There was a discussion late last year with a RfC that said consensus for including journalist with no consensus either way for other descriptors [[16]]. Springee (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

AllegedlyHuman thanks for your interest in this page. Yep, there was an RfC that came to the conclusion that Ngo should be referred to as a "journalist" in the lead, though per MOS:LEADCITE anything that is likely to be contested in the header should have inline citations attached. Several sources have indeed rejected the designation of Ngo as a "journalist", so I believe this designation should have inline citations attached - feel free to add some. I'm a bit busy but might do so later. Springee, I've struck out my fairly obnoxious comments above, and I apologize for them Noteduck (talk) 06:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I asked the BLPN to take a look at the 4th paragraph of the lead. [[17]]. The feedback was the lead disproportionately focuses on negative content and with too much detail. Loki the Liar, I think we were close with a compromise text, the only sticking point being how to describe Ngo's interactions in the video. We also hadn't agreed to which sources should be in the lists. Note that if we do our jobs correctly we don't need to cite thing in the lead and certainly should not cite things in the lead that aren't also used in the body. I would suggest just 2-3 of the strongest sources for each place. Springee (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar, I think your amendments to the lede are very good. The SPLC quote wasn't really necessary (though perhaps worth working into the body). I originally put a large amount of citations because material added to this page has frequently been questioned on the basis of purported poor sourcing, but the cuts are good. I think it's a big improvement Noteduck (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Thoughts on new subheading - "Criticism"

Ngo is a controversial figure and his credibility and accuracy as a journalist are frequently called into question. As user:Cedar777 has pointed out, a lot of the criticisms of Ngo in the article are lumped into brief sentences with multiple citations. I believe there should be an additional subheading setting out some of the main criticisms of Ngo, including relevant rebuttals. I suggest that such a subheading could go immediately after "Social media influence". Thoughts? Noteduck (talk) 05:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Criticism sections are generally not a good idea. This one in particular is bad for several reasons. First, it repeats prior sources and prior comments. Second it uses sources that have been regretted in the past and third it becomes a non-notable opinion dumping ground. The edit should be reverted. Springee (talk) 11:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The subject is almost universally discussed by RS within the context of one controversy or another. Until recently, I have sought to maintain chronological organization for the various coverage of Ngo, namely because (as I expressed above in response to similar concerns by user SommerIsland) the biographical information has generally been embedded within the content of these controversies. However since the argument has been made, repeatedly, that reliably sourced content additions can be deleted outright because they are in the "wrong section", it has become clear that the article will continue to suffer a lack of accuracy without either a controversy section or a criticism section. For expamples see this edit here and another example here.

The quality of some of the sources in this early version of the Criticism section does need refinement. It would be improved if the content was an expansion of what the higher quality sources have discussed at length regarding broad issues raised including the subject's journalistic credibility. Sources that most merit further mention here are those that have covered Ngo at length, e.g., the 2019 Rolling Stone, and the 2021 Oregonian, among several others. Cedar777 (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

No. See WP:CSECTION. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree that policy points to better words such as "Reception", "Reviews", "Responses", "Reactions", "Critiques", and "Assessments". Cedar777 (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that there should not be criticism sections. In this case, it would better to add criticism to the sections about his journalism. Ngo for example follows far right groups around. Why does he do this? How close is he to them? You're more likely to achieve a neutral tone than by beginning, "Ngo has been criticized for his relationship with far right groups." TFD (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree with TFD here. Much of this information already exists in the article in various forums. However, adding some content in his journalism section may also work but again we have to be careful about turning this into a dumping ground. Specific criticisms (too close to one side of the far-right/far-left debate for example) is legitimate. Really, if one asks, why is the PP-Ngo video even mentioned it fits in that section. What happened in the video or what PP did after the video was filed is less significant to the story of Ngo vs that it was seen as further evidence that he has firmly picked a side and his reporting is biased because of his side. The sources that describe Ngo in an unflattering way in passing really shouldn't be included here. Springee (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar changed it from "criticism" to "credibility". I think it works well Noteduck (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

A section header "Credibility" fails IMPARTIAL. Springee (talk) 11:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Andy Ngo and Patriot Prayer video - header sentence

There's been a bit of discussion about how to refer to the video in which Andy Ngo was filmed with Patriot Prayer in the header. It previously referred to Ngo "standing near" Patriot Prayer which I thought was a bit limp, and then "hanging out" which was accurate but too informal (though would be ok if a direct quote). I've amended it to "assocating with":

In August 2019, a video surfaced that showed Ngo associating with members of the far-right group Patriot Prayer who later attacked patrons of the well-known Antifa hangout Cider Riot bar.

Thoughts/comments? Noteduck (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Object as "associated with" indicates a level of interaction that is in dispute. The indisputable parts are Ngo was seen in the video and he was in proximity to (near) the PP members. He can be seen acknowledging them. That is the extent of it. Anything else is speculative. Yes, some sources, generally not strong ones have said more. Reason, a source you added earlier today, said the video does not show Ngo associating with. From the Reason source:

go appears in the video only occasionally, and is mostly in the periphery, pacing and incessantly checking his phone. Ngo told Reason that he was scanning the internet for reports from other journalists pertaining to the earlier violence of the day, during which Ngo was punched in the stomach. He was much more interested in his social media feed than the conversations around him.<pb>"The people are milling around for like probably an hour," he said. "I was just like, nothing was happening. I wasn't paying attention to what was being said because there's just a whole bunch of different random conversations. I didn't see any evidence of a violent conspiracy to launch an attack." <pb>Ngo said that contrary to some of the media reports, he never laughed at what Patriot Prayer folks were saying. He admits he responded with a faint smile "out of pity" when someone mentioned that antifa had them outnumbered.

This is a BLP so we need to err on the side of what all sides agree on, especially in the lead. I can understand that "near" could imply zero acknowledgement which is less than all sources agree on. What we need is something that says "near with some sources saying some level of interaction". Side note: I watch this page so no need to ping me. Springee (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Aggressively covering and photographing demonstrators?

This line seems very biased and can be demonstrated to be false because he hasn't even been able to attend protests with him being attacked the last time he was present at one in a significant manner. Also, since the attack a lot of his shared videos have been taken by others so he himself is not photographing anyone. I suggest this phrasing be changed to something more neutral. CaptainPrimo (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The phrasing "known for aggressively covering and video-recording demonstrators" comes directly from the Associated Press and was used by the news agency in 2021. Please review the inline citation in the article. It is neither inaccurate nor outdated. To put it another way, he is known for aggressively covering demonstrators and he is known for video-recording demonstrators. The modifier aggressively is placed in front of covering which means to "investigate, report on, or publish or broadcast pictures of (an event)". He certainly continues to do this regardless of his physical location. It is also important to note that several sources (including the recent 2021 piece in The Oregonian) have stated that Ngo claims to still appear in person at demonstrations but he attends in disguise. Cedar777 (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

should you be lifting lines from sources directly instead of paraphrasing them in a neutral manner into the article? Isn't it the protocol when its a direct quote to put it in quotes and attribute the opinion in the line to its author? Does Andy Ngo wear a disguise but still get in the faces of people who want to assault him negating the use of said disguises? CaptainPrimo (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

In this case, yes, Wikipedia editors should stick to what reliable sources actually say even if that mean repeating a handful of words. Shifting the language of the AP would be editorializing and is not advisable for the lede. Cedar777 (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to ask, what exactly does 'aggressively' mean in this context. Presumably he doesn't shout at people while he records them? Presumably he isn't rude or disrespectful? So how exactly is he aggressive? I've never heard an act like this be described as aggressive. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 13:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

yeah, and he is supposed to be hiding but he's also aggressively getting into the faces of people who would attack him on sight to film them. 15:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC) CaptainPrimo (talk)

@Willbb234: It is an error to interpret this word in the most limited sense. It also refers to a disposition, not simply a physical posturing. Aggressively is defined as: "in a determined and forceful way" with an example "foreign-owned banks are aggressively marketing credit cards". In this example, foreign-owned banks aren't getting into anyone's face, yet they can also be considered aggressive. Cedar777 (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the issue. I take aggressive to mean Ngo tries to be at the events in person, close to the action. It's quite possible that antifa's threats against Ngo have forced Ngo to stay away but that doesn't mean they weren't originally known for their first hand accounts. Do note that this doesn't mean the accounts were considered accurate, just that they were first hand vs after the fact. Springee (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The issue is that when people read aggressive they don't take it to mean close to the action but rather being violent so its disingenuous to have it in the article to mean he's close to protesters. If that's what you think it should convey why not use phrasing that gets the point across more clearly? CaptainPrimo (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The word aggressively doesn't mean "close to the action" it means "in a determined and forceful way". The definition for aggressive, the root word, is "pursuing one's aims and interests forcefully, sometimes unduly so: an aggressive businessman". The rest of the article should help summarize why the top news agency, the Associated Press, describes him that way. They didn't pick the wrong word. Cedar777 (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

However you and the Associated Press feel about his work, Wikipedia shouldn't be casting value judgements. Show me another article that uses "aggressive" in the lead the same way. I don't see any businessman called aggressive in their Wikipedia lead. CaptainPrimo (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Mick Mars: Robert Alan Deal[1] (born either May 4, 1951[1] or April 4, 1955),[2] known professionally as Mick Mars, is an American musician, lead guitarist and co-founder of the rock band Mötley Crüe. He is known for his aggressive, melodic solos and bluesy riffs.[3] (emphasis mine) Loki (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment I think being agressive in music does not have the negative connotations as it does in journalism. If someone plays aggressively in music, it simply means that the person plays loudly. But in journalism, in my opinion, it might suggest that the journalist harms others or does something inappropriate in their reporting. Thomas Meng (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Thomas Meng: and @CaptainPrimo:: A large number of reliable sources do address this topic of Ngo's journalistic credibility and, it is worth mentioning, quite a few of them use a range of significantly less flattering terms to describe his notability. See the section in the talk page archive 6 linked here that lists a number of ways Ngo had been described, with green highlighting the sources considered reliable by a consensus of Wikipedia editors per WP:RSP. Since that list was compiled several months ago, there have been even more articles written where the highest quality sources routinely touch on the issue of Ngo's journalistic credibility. While there are a few outlier articles that express a contradictory viewpoint, they are sourced to low quality publishers (such as The Post Millennial and others not considered usable per WP:RSP. ''The Associated Press'' is a top tier source that is known to be measured, cautious, and judicious in its use of language which is why it is so well suited to be cited in the lead sentence for clarity on Ngo's notability. Cedar777 (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Further this is giving undue weight to one source's subjective claim as an objective claim. You haven't presented any counter argument since I last commented. Another user ::::::@Grayfell: insists its irrelevant what other articles say - I disagree - you can't have different standards based on the subject matter on a neutral website. CaptainPrimo (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The AP is not a lightweight source. It has been awarded 54 Pulitzer prizes and tends to be a good go-to for clear unbiased language, especially when a subject is polarizing and divisive. The cited article by AP is not an outlier as there are dozens of other sources that point to the subject's style of news coverage over a four-year period. Cedar777 (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The issue is that I still don't understand how in a "forceful way" can be used to describe journalism. The definition of forceful is "strong and assertive; vigorous and powerful." but how can that be used to describe journalism. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The term aggressively is used by The Associated Press to describe how Ngo is known to cover news events, i.e, that his style of coverage is known to be aggressive or assertive or forceful. In July 2020, The New York Times reported on a rift between journalists in the news and opinion divisions at The Wall Street Journal in which the WSJ's newsroom staff, in an open letter, took issue with Ngo's journalistic coverage, among other concerns and were opposed to WSJ's retention of Ngo as an opinion contributor. Many other quality sources have addressed his credibility using less charitable terms.(Columbia Journalism Review, for example, has referred to Ngo as a "discredited provocateur".) The lede is not sourced to Columbia Journalism Review, but to the AP which is making a measured an judicious statement about what Ngo is known for. Cedar777 (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: In an effort to keep Wikipedia neutral and to avoid reflecting the negative connotations of the word "aggressively", while keeping the original meanings of the aforementioned AP report, would editors here agree to change it to "actively"? Thomas Meng (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I support that. CaptainPrimo (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. The AP did not use the word "actively". This is a divisive figure and it is important to stick to the highest quality sources and not distort their words when addressing notability. Cedar777 (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Using reliable sources doesn't mean you blatantly lift their sentences word to word instead of paraphrasing. CaptainPrimo (talk) 08:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• I tend to read "aggressively" as something like vigorously as opposed to recklessly or some other negative version which might apply. Still, this article doesn't need to be a quote farm and "aggressively" is a vague term and specifically attributed to a single source (ie not a summary of sources). This is especially true since this is in the opening sentence of the lead. If this were in the body I think I would be OK with keeping it as an attributed claim. Since this is specifically the opening sentence this should be kept out. The opening sentence in particular should avoid hype and be the most strictly impartial part of the article. Springee (talk) 05:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with Springee. I think though AP is considered an RS, it may not always absent bias, which is allowed on WP, but has to be attributed.Thomas Meng (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Disagree with this change. The AP is one of the highest-quality sources available, and misrepresenting how he's described in such sources substantially obscures why he is so controversial, which is central to his notability; therefore, it's appropriate to cover it accurately in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 12:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • It's not misrepresenting since the lead is meant to be a summary. You do raise a good question, if we don't use the word aggressively do we need this exact citation here? Springee (talk) 12:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Cedar777, while I think we can all agree there isn't consensus to change aggressively to a different word, there also isn't consensus to keep it which means, per NOCON it should be removed, not restored as you just did. Note: this comment didn't apply to the other changes you made with that edit. Springee (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

No, Springee, NOCON requires legitimate policy-based disagreement. This is just a bunch of editors opining on specific definitions of words (which is irrelevant, since the source tells us what to use) or objecting just because it seems neagative. –dlthewave ☎ 12:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Dlthewave, this is a legitimate policy based disagreement. "Aggressively" is a term used by a single source and thus is not a good summary of what he is known for. I'm not in favor of "actively" since I think it has the same issue as "aggressively", if we can't agree on a summarizing modifier then we just drop the modifier. Springee (talk) 12:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

well said, Springee. Also I found a neutral source that notes that Associated Press practices "left leaning editoralization." https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/associated-press/ CaptainPrimo (talk) 06:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

They're also categorized as "least biased". If you want to claim that the AP is too biased to be reliable here, take it to RSN. –dlthewave ☎ 12:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• No, we do not replace the word used by the source (aggressive) with a word that means something else (active) just because we don't like it or it gives a negative connotation. That is called whitewashing. I've added a "failed verification" tag to reflect this. There is also no justification for removing the word entirely while it is under discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 12:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

So you are admitting you want to convey a negative connotation with the word and it is in fact not neutral? Thanks for the clarification. I don't think its Wikipedia's policy to present an opinion on its subjects especially in the lead. CaptainPrimo (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

My intention is to convey what the sources say, regardless of whether it's positive, negative or indifferent. I find it far more concerning that editors are going to such lengths to avoid certain connotations. –dlthewave ☎ 22:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, according to WP:NPOV, "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." CaptainPrimo (talk) 05:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I do agree we don't need to add a different modifier. Springee (talk) 12:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Header distortion on severity of attack on Ngo.

The intro paragraph includes the description of the suit brought by Ngo and indicates that he was hit by a milkshake. This is classic distortion, lying really, by omission. The article reference should be quoted to give more information about the claim. This would be more complete and better to make this slightly less tendentious against him: the suit “says he was assaulted twice during a June 29, 2019, protest, once when he was beaten by a mob including two named defendants and again when another named defendant doused him with a ‘milkshake’ that police said may have contained quick-drying cement.”

Wiki is called slanted left, and my experience has been seeing this happening for well over a decade now. It is allowing itself to become another media platform captured by ideological leftists. Please reverse this, a common sense, reasonable Wikipedia used to be a given and it is not now. Sych (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I think your accusations of bias are not just wrong but flipped. That being said, I agree that the current framing of that incident is misleading. Ngo didn't claim a head injury because he had been milkshaked, but because he had been punched in the head. Loki (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think the "quick-drying cement" bit is WP:DUE for the lead (I think there were extensive discussions of it further back in the logs), given that it was a speculative comment at the time that doesn't seem to have panned out in most later sources. --Aquillion (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

26 Feb Article updates

LokiTheLiar, I think your recent changes to the lead are an improvement. I would like to propose some additional changes. I'll use strike and underline to indicate additional changes. Please let me know what you think.

Andy Cuong Ngô (born c. 1986) is an American conservative journalist and social media personality from Portland, Oregon known for aggressively covering and video-recording demonstrators.[2] He describes himself as the editor-at-large of The Post Millennial, a Canadian conservative news website.[3] Ngo is a regular guest on Fox News[4] and has published columns in outlets such as the Wall Street Journal and The Spectator. Ngo's coverage of anti-fascist groups and Muslims has been controversial, and the accuracy and credibility of his reporting has been extensively questioned. He has been widely accused of sharing misleading and selectively edited videos,[5][6][7][8] described as a provocateur,[9][10][11][12] and accused of having links with [to accepting of/uncritical of/...] militant right-wing groups in Portland.[13][14][15][16]

Ngo began his career as a multimedia editor for the Portland State University student newspaper, The Vanguard.[8] In 2017, he was dismissed after publishing a video to Twitter that the paper's editor-in-chief said was out of context and violated journalist ethics.[1] Ngo responded publicly in a piece in the National Review disputing that he made any misrepresentation.[1] He then went on to work as a sub-editor for Quillette.[17]<pb>While reporting on a Proud Boys march in Portland in the summer of 2019, Ngo was attacked by counter-protesters, including being punched, kicked, and hit by a milkshake. This attack drew national attention. Ngo claimed he suffered a head injury as a result of this attack. In a lawsuit, he blamed Rose City Antifa activists for the assault.[3] Ngo later testified on antifa and related First Amendment issues before a U.S. House subcommittee.

In August 2019, a video surfaced that showed Ngo associating with standing near members of the far-right group Patriot Prayer who later attacked patrons of the well-known Antifa hangout Cider Riot bar.[8][18] Media sources described Ngo as smiling[14] and laughing[19][20][5] in the video, and the Portland Mercury's Alex Zielinski reported that "there’s no way [Ngo] couldn’t know the group was planning on instigating violence".[20] Ngo denied overhearing plans to commit any crime.[14] Ngo departed from Quillette the day the story was made public, although founding editor Claire Lehmann said that Ngo's departure was not related to the release of the video.

Reasons: "extensively" and "widely" are subjective measures of how much. We can just say these sources have. I think source 5 is the Daily Dot. That source isn't reliable or DUE for a contentious claim about a BLP subject. "Having links with" can imply he is secretly a member or coordinates with. The sources aren't strong enough to put that sort of implication right at the top of a BLP. It is better to say something more to the effect that he is uncritical of the far-right. RS just cites WW (which isn't a stellar source for such a serious allegation). The other claim comes from the "undercover" antifa member's claim. I think the entire 4th paragraph could be removed as the critical point is it makes him look chummy with the far right (covered in the first paragraph). However, per this discussion here [[18]] the lead has too much detail and I think the 4th paragraph is the primary offender. Springee (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I think removing the "extensively" and "widely" severely understates the sourcing: the fact that we don't have 8 citations listed for that any more doesn't mean we don't still have 8 RSes for it. (And probably even more: none of those sources were this, for example.) IMO saying he has been widely accused of sharing misleading videos is already weaker than the strongest thing we could say with those citations, namely that he has shared misleading videos.

Similarly, the sources say he has been accused of having links with far-right groups in the sense of coordinating with them, not merely that he is too accepting of them. Changing that would just be a lie: it'd be altering the paragraph to fit with what we want to be true instead of what the sources say.

I'm fine with cutting out the sentence about Ngo smiling and laughing from the lead as long as "associating with" stays in instead of "standing near". Given that phrasing I think the second sentence is redundant, and I don't like including direct quotes from journalists so I'd like to get rid of the quote anyway.

More broadly, I think if we want to trim the lead down, we should get rid of all but the first paragraph. The first paragraph is a true summary of who Andy Ngo is and what's he's known for, while the rest are a point-by-point of major incidents he's been involved in. But unlike, say, James O'Keefe, whose notability is so heavily tied to one event we basically have to mention that, Andy Ngo is not really known for any specific event. That means the three paragraphs in the lead about his life are kinda undirected and frankly don't really need to be there. Loki (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

We aren't in agreement yet but this is progress, thank you for that. I'm glad we agree that the long sentence of details can be cut. That's a good start. I don't agree that we should cut things like the summary of where Ngo worked etc. That is standard stuff in biographies. It also makes the lead look unbalanced if all we say is "Ngo is famous for getting attacked and for being a bad reporter". Again, the issue with "widely" etc is they are our editorial opinion. We don't have sources that claim that. Perhaps something in the middle like "multiple sources" so we make it clear this isn't a single source nor is it universal. I think we need to find a compromise term for the video. Just watching the video makes it clear Ngo isn't interacting with the other people even if he does acknowledge them. While we have one writer claiming Ngo must have heard, most sources don't make that claim and some say the interactions were minimal (Reason and Commentary [[19]]) Springee (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the aggressively should be removed in the lead as I laid out earlier. CaptainPrimo (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course it should, but that would solve only one tiny problem vis-à-vis the naked bias of the article. Jprw (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Shameful bias

The article reads like an anti Ngo hit-piece written by a highly partisan pro-Antifa publication. Wikipedia is lost. Jprw (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

User Jprw: The article’s content is well sourced with inline citations. Which reliable sources are you proposing to include that support your claim? Wikipedia requires reliably sourced content. Cedar777 (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

When a long time editor looks at the article and decides it looks bad, that is a sign that we have issues. Sometimes its just that we are missing the forest for the trees. For example, look at how many articles get loaded up with a long list of "here is a RS that said something negative about the subject". Another issue is when articles have a lot of directly quoted material from sources rather than summarizing sources. This is especially true when editors decide to grab the most shocking or provocative quotes from a source vs summarizing the whole of the source. This article has a bit of that. Another problem is when we focus too much on how the subject is labeled by others vs discussing the facts/events etc that might have lead to those labels. In general I feel labels can become a disservice to readers because they attempt to tell the reader what to conclude before offering the evidence. They are often used as an in article appeal to authority vs providing the facts and allowing the reader to apply their own mental labels. Think about how often we focus on the political leanings of a source vs the quality of the arguments*. We assume a left-right tribalism when thinking about why a source reached a given conclusion. [*This is not to say bias never matters. Sources don't always provide enough material for a reader to draw their own conclusions thus we have to rely on what the source tells us. Additionally, a biased source might skew their selection of facts and provide those that support their conclusion while ignoring those that don't.] Springee (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Or rather, it is a sign that a long-term editor has a bias. Longevity does not confer a more-valued opinion on a matter, and you will make no headway by attacking the media for its coverage of Ngo. ValarianB (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

True but we should we start with the assumption that any criticism of the article is just reader bias? I don't see that any of the arguments really are criticizing media coverage of Ngo. My comments were generalized, not Ngo specific. Springee (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Andy Ngo is a highly-partisan sympathizer of fascist-adjacent groups such as the Proud Boys, as documented in reliable sources. That you disagree with those sources is irrelevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, from what I've seen the bulk of RS's either question or reject Ngo's credibility as an impartial journalist. I can't think of any modern writer, apart from perhaps Milo Yiannopoulos, whose credibility has been so extensively questioned. Here's Ngo called a "far-right provocateur" in RS The Guardian today.[20] Of course, if there are good sources that reject these contentions they should be included in the article as well Noteduck (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I did notice this week that most of the sources commenting about the Mumford and Sons issue did call him "right-wing" or "far-right" rather than conservative, even amongst right-leaning sources. Although congratulations to the Guardian - in the link provided by Noteduck above, they managed to call him a "far-right agitator" and a "conservative journalist" in the space of two paragraphs. Black Kite (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Primary vs secondary sources in Early life

The early life section covers a lot of ground regarding Ngo's parents. Much of the content appears to be from a primary source: Ngo's recently published book. It is preferable to use secondary sources for this information as Wikipedia policy (see WP:PSTS) advises limiting the use of primary sources, i.e. content that comes directly from the subject, in favor of secondary sources. Where primary sources are used, they need inline citations for clarity as with the rest of the article. Thanks and Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the book is fine for a lot of the basic, non-controversial stuff. Things like where he was from, what his parents did etc. If any of those items become too self serving then I can see cutting them. I presume any source we find will simply quote the book or Ngo's own claims. Springee (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I count 5 'citation needed' tags. I suggest we remove inappropriately sourced text immediately. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Those tags were added recently and I don't see that there has been any agreement that all are correct. Here is the text in question:

Ngo was born and raised in Portland, Oregon.[1] His parents, who fled Vietnam in 1978,[21] were Vietnamese boat people: refugees who escaped by sea from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam in the wake of the Vietnam War. His mother Mai came from an educated middle class family that ran a jewelry business[21] in Vung Tau, a beach town frequented by tourists from Saigon.[citation needed] His father Binh Ngo (Vietnamese: Ngô Quốc Bình) was born into a poor family in Long Dien, son of a Hakka Chinese immigrant.[citation needed] Ngo expressed that his parents experienced political repression following the 1975 Fall of Saigon to the communist People's Army of Vietnam.[citation needed] Mai's class background made her an enemy to the Marxist–Leninist Viet Cong, who sent her to a rat-infested re-education camp, where fire ants crawled into and damaged her ear canal.[citation needed] Binh had briefly served as a police officer in Ba Ria under the South Vietnamese government and was also politically suspect to the North Vietnamese communist regime, which sentenced the 21-year-old to forced labor picking crops on a state-run commune in Bau Lam.[citation needed] After they fled southeastern Vietnam, Ngo's parents first met amid a six-month stay at a UNHCR refugee camp near Tanjung Pinang, Indonesia, prior to their arrival in the United States in 1979.[22]

The simple statements regarding what Ngo's mother and father did and where they were from in Vietnam seem like basic ABOUTSELF stuff. It could be trimmed back but I don't see why we would say aboutself doesn't apply. The political repression part probably should use a second source. The re-education camp part should probably be removed since its not clear how it applies to Ngo's biography here. Where Ngo's parents met could be included with some abridgement. My bigger concern with much of this is it seems to tangential to the subject of the article. Springee (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the book should suffice for simple statements, but for the more detailed and colourful descriptions of his relatives we would need additional sources, not just to verify but to establish whether it's WP:DUE. I'd remove them and keep things simple for now. BeŻet (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, I removed or converted the un-sourced content using existing sources. The early life section is a valuable part of any biography and, provided the content is well sourced, I support including a clear and concise background history from his family. Cedar777 (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Killing of Aaron Danielson

The article states that nobody has been murderer by antifa terrorists. This is false, as there is at least one example (Aaron Danielson). Jason Stanley is a liar, and his opinion should be removed from the article or stated as false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.209.100.92 (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality of lead

Are there any specific comments about the lead, or can the template be removed now? BeŻet (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure the lead will ever be really neutral so long as the current 4th paragraph is part of it. It's still too much detail and too one sided for the lead though it has improved since I raised the issue at BLPN not long ago. [[21]] I believe the version of the lead that Bacondrum and I worked on is far more impartial than what we have now. The description of the video needs to be updated but that requires changes to the body first. This article [[22]] supports conclusions similar to what Reason said about the incident. Springee (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

  Springee, well done, you finally expunged the thing for which he is best known outside his walled garden of fascist grifter friends. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems pretty neutral to me, it explains what the video shows and then presents attributed interpretations, followed by his denial. Not sure how you can get more neutral than that? BeŻet (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

That 4th paragraph in the lead does have a neutrality problem, it is basically a construction by his political opponents. He was at a bar with some people who later did something wrong. So then a political opponent of his hypothesizes that he must have known that they were going to do it and the constructed connection is based on that hypothesis, and the hypothesis by a political opponent is in the lead of a Wikipedia article. North8000 (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

He was with a group of far-right people who were openly planning an attack, and then followed them where the attack occurred. Saying that he was "just at a bar with some people" is quite a stretch. You can argue that he did not hear anything, and he's just a really terrible journalist, but we are just presenting a factual description of what happened. BeŻet (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

We present the known facts and reporting, including Ngo's denial. Which "political opponent" are you referring to? Are you claiming the Portland Mercury journalist is politically opposed to Ngo? On what evidence do you rest this claim? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

My point on the "at the bar" wording wasn't intended to make it sound like a routine trip to the pub, it was to say that that putative it being something bad is the hypothesis by a political opponent that they must have been discussing the future event during his visit to the bar. North8000 (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

But we are clearly stating that Andy Ngo was present when these things were discussed. Ngo claims he did not hear anything because he was preoccupied on his phone and was just blindly following them for no reason. We then talk about specific people saying that it's impossible he did not hear anything. Since this situation has received a lot of coverage, it's WP:DUE, and I think this is the most neutral way we can talk about it. Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be saying that this is not neutral simply because we mention it in the first place. BeŻet (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

What political opponent? We cite the journalist's statement that he couldn't not have heard what was going on, and no one apparently disputes that violence was discussed and planned there. Ngo's defense isn't that there wasn't violence planned, it's that he didn't hear it discussed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I think this continued discussion supports the need for the tag. Springee (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Inclusions of such tags can also violate WP:NPOV if there are no precise comments about what needs changing and it's all just about WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We should be working towards a consensus and fixing the lead. BeŻet (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

If there was no disagreement then we wouldn't need the tag. The BLPN was critical of that paragraph and I am as well. Personally I think it should be removed but even if it isn't, the material about the video needs to be toned down as sources don't agree. We are currently accepting commentary from sources that are clearly hostile to Ngo as noted by the Commentary Mag source. It noted that the PP comments were ambiguous about instigating violence and that Ngo spent the video at the periphery of the group and was preoccupied with his phone. The author also references the Reason article and supports the claim that the discussion didn't prove an intent to incite violence though they clearly expected it. A serious problem is we are treating the video as proof of something when sources are conflicted on it's significance. We can agree it was seen by left leaning sources as supporting their view that Ngo is too cozy with the left but the details of what Ngo was aware of are clearly disputed. Beyond that we simply have more detail about that video than warranted in the lead. Springee (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

What needs toning down? We are simply stating facts. Do the sources not highlight that he was present there, smiling and laughing? What's there to tone down? Like I said, Wikipedia needs to stay neutral, not play dumb. BeŻet (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The current lead really didn't need this information at all. We are giving it UNDUE weight. Emphasizing the parts that make it sound like Ngo was interacting with the PP members is presenting a false impression of the video contents. Springee (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

It's due because of multiple sources reporting on it. The emphasis is just what the sources are highlighting. Like I said, we need to be neutral, not playing dumb. BeŻet (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

That makes it DUE for the article body, not the lead. The emphasis is highlighted by biased sources. We don't have to highlight the same things. Additionally we have two sources that dispute the significance these actions. Springee (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

What is the second source? The Reason article and ? Cedar777 (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Commentary Magazine (see link at top of discussion). Springee (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Are you honestly suggesting that Commentary (magazine) is not a biased source? It's literally a magazine that's unapologetically conservative. Come on, who cares if Commentary thinks that the events were insignificant. After his Islamophobic article and getting punched in the face, the video of him with Patriot Prayer is the only other thing that received wider coverage. BeŻet (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting they are a published source that looked at the video and coverage of the topic and disagreed with the interpretation of the video contents. They aren't claiming the events were insignificant, they were saying the interpretations were wrong. That means we have two sources who looked at the content and disagreed with the sources we list. That means it should be considered a disputed interpretation. Springee (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

But we present a single, attributed "interpretation" (stating that it's impossible Ngo didn't hear what they were talking about), confronted with Andy's denial. Seems like a balanced approach. BeŻet (talk) 11:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

No, we are presenting a telling which two sources have specifically called out as misleading. We aren't presenting this impartially, we are presenting it in a way that suggests Ngo denial is that of someone caught red handed saying, not me. Springee (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

We are stating undisputable facts, followed by an interpretation, which is countered with Ngo's denial. Come on man, this is becoming nonsensical. You're basically offended by the fact that this is brought up in the first place. BeŻet (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

But we aren't discussing "undisputed facts". It is a fact that two sources directly criticize how many of our cited sources describe the contents of the video. The degree to which Ngo was interacting is disputed. The only fact is that Ngo was in the video (I'm leaving out discussions regarding what the PP members discussed which is also disputed). What aspects of the video we choose to emphasize do carry implications. It's a fact that Ngo spent much of the video looking at his phone. How would it change the implications of this video if we said, "The video showed Ngo in the background looking at his phone". That statement is as objectively true as "Ngo was seen laughing and interacting with", perhaps more so. Using one vs the other creates a huge difference in perception. Also, do not speculate as to what I'm "offended by". I'm not speculating about your motives since that would be focusing on editors, not content. Please do the same. Springee (talk) 12:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

But two biased sources don't hold precedence over other sources. We can add that he was looking at his phone if that makes it better for you, but it is undeniable that he was smiling and laughing with them (meaning that he was listening to at least some parts of what they were saying). If you want to ignore that, then we will be introducing bias, as we are hiding what other sources have highlighted. BeŻet (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

First, the argument isn't we disregard one version for the other, at least that's not my argument. Instead we note the dispute in the lead (or mention less in the lead) and then in the article body we discuss the dispute. Second, you say the sources are biased. Why aren't you concerned about the bias of the current sources? Why is bias only a problem with sources that dispute what we have? It is deniable that he was "smiling and laughing with them". That is exactly what the sources dispute. Also, your opinion that he was listening to what they said based on acknowledging them is wrong. Have you ever heard someone say something to you but because you weren't paying attention you didn't actually understand what they said? Did you ever have an interaction with someone where you were left wondering what they said because you didn't hear them clearly? I mean there are whole comedy sketches based on that premise. It seems like quite a stretch to conclude that acknowledging a group means you heard and understood a discussion happening within the group while you were focused on something else. Finally, I'm not proposing that we hide what other sources claim in the body of the article. Instead I'm saying that we are IMPARTIAL in the lead and we don't tell one side's version vs the other side's. We simply say things are disputed and allow the reader to get the rest of the facts in the article body. If we put the dispute in the lead we give the whole thing UNDE weight. Remember, this is a BLP article so we err on the side of not implying wrong doing. Springee (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

That is very well said, Springee.Thomas Meng (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

There's a video of him smiling and laughing with them. There's literally video evidence. How is this deniable? Like I said, being neutral doesn't mean playing dumb. If it bothers you so much, we could instead say that "a video surfaced of Andy Ngo accompanying the members of...", but please don't come back saying that this is deniable, and he just happened to be strolling next to them without knowing who they were... Would that be a compromise for you? BeŻet (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

BeŻet, it's a question of Truth™ versus fact. It is a fact that Ngo is a fascist-apologist grifter. But the "conservative" Truth™ is that he's a brave critic of the real terrorists, Antifa, who, along with BLM, represent an existential threat to Real America™ in a way that fascists somehow don't. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I've watched the video. I didn't see the "smiling and laughing with them" and neither did at least two sources. A minimal crack of a smile to acknowledge someone isn't laughing and smiling. Can you show where this happens in the video? Reason and Commentary didn't see it. Why focus on this "laughing and smiling" claim when the part all sources agree on was he was in the background when the video was taken? Why not only mention the claims that aren't in dispute. Springee (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

So are you happy to change it to "accompanying the members of"? Or is that also disputed. BeŻet (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

BeŻet, I appreciate you dedicating your time in this discussion. But "accompanying members of" a group that committed violence seems to suggest more complicity than our previous version. Also, doing so seems to prefer the interpretation of some sources over others, and if we weigh in the interpretations of other sources, then this material wouldn't be due to include in the lead because they suggest that Ngo is not at all complicit in the violence. So I'd recommend only mentioning this in the body Thomas Meng (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this becoming farcical. Andy has accompanied the group. This is an undeniable and undisputable fact. We are not here to insult our readers' intelligence and say that he was just randomly standing nearby minding his own business, just accidently bumping into them. I know that this upsets some people who would like to word things in a way that it's impossible to accuse Ngo of anything; but we are here to state facts, not cover them up or to manipulate them. What is the alternative way of wording it that would warrant removal of the template? Just give me the full sentence that you would suggest - I can't think of a more neutral way of doing this. BeŻet (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm quite concerned by some of the defences of Ngo here. Remember, he is supposed to be an impartial journalist and in the video he is shown hanging out with a far-right group. What possible alibi could there be for this? He didn't get there by accident. Two insider sources per Willamette Week, including someone who went undercover with Patriot Prayer, stated that Ngo has links with far right groups. This incident discredited Ngo in much of the media and led to his sacking from Quillette, and it shouldn't be removed from the lede or changed. Noteduck (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Attempts at removing any mentioning of the fact that Andy was with the far-right group is in fact a violation of WP:NPOV. It is concerning that certain editors think that neutrality means conceiling facts that potentially make people look bad. BeŻet (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Thomas Meng: The Reason source states: But Ben's video—which shows Ngo in the company of a small group of Gibson's associates immediately prior to the Cider Riot battle (...). Can you still defend the point of view that saying Ngo "accompanied" the group is not neutral if all sources say that, even the ones biased towards Ngo? BeŻet (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

A single editor doesn't get to hold an article and a tag hostage, though. If this is truly just a one-against-many thing, and it has been this long, then the tag should be removed. ValarianB (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with the tag, the lead from a few months ago actually complied with WP:NPOV and was neutral in laying out Ngo in a dispassionate tone, without unnecessary labelling and avoids WP:SYNTH.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 01:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

  The lead is supposed to summarise the contents of the article. I think it does a pretty good job - what would you change? BeŻet (talk) 10:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

IMO it has neutrality problems, particularly the 4th paragraph. North8000 (talk) 12:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok but what specifically? What change should you propose? Saying that any mentioning of the fact that Andy was with PP is not neutral does not cut it. BeŻet (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

"With" isn't an impartial term in this case since "with" can imply that he was part of the group vs simply felt safe being near the group. Part of the IMPARTIAL issue here is any implication that Ngo was a party to what happened or that Ngo was involved with the PP members. This is why it's important to make it clear that sources disagree on what the video is showing. This is also why I challenged you to show us where in the video Ngo is smiling and laughing with the PP members so we can all have a clear understanding what the sources are describing. Ngo clearly feels "safe" around the alt-right members in a way he doesn't feel "safe" around the far-left members. This isn't surprising since antifa has a reputation for attacking media and Ngo has been previously attacked by these people. Yes, his focus on the sins of the left vs right would certainly play into that and the criticism that he is too chummy with the right is one we need to have in the article. This video was used to support that view which is why it's DUE in the article. However, people seem to focused on telling the details of the video which are in dispute rather than zooming out and seeing the bigger picture which is that his appearance in this video was used to support claims that he was chummy with the alt-right. Take "Ben's" claim that he must have heard what was being discussed. That quote isn't encyclopedic and isn't reliable either, it's the opinion of a non-expert. Since Ngo wasn't a party to any of the legal actions after the bar fight why would we even mention it? The only reason to mention it is again, the higher level issue, ie critics accuse Ngo of being too close with the far-right people who are subjects of his reporting. Also, critics say Ngo's reporting is biased and again this video provided them with evidence. Why we are focusing on details of the video that are in dispute vs the bigger picture which all agree on is puzzling. That bigger picture is why an earlier version of the lead that was stable for a while included this:

Ngo's coverage of anti-facists groups has been controversial including accusations that Ngo focuses on violence purported by the far-left while ignoring the violent actions of the far-right. According to The New York Times journalist Mike Baker, Ngo "has a history of battling with anti-fascist groups, with the two sides sharing a mutual antipathy that dates back many months. The conservative journalist has built a prominent presence in part by going into situations where there may be conflict and then publicizing the results." He was described by Brian Levin, professor of criminal justice and director of the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino, as a "political pundit who certainly makes the most out of his conflicts, which sometimes turn violent on him. [...] But to his credit, I've never seen him be the physical aggressor in the posts that he's made generally." Claims of bias increased after video footage surfaced which showed Ngo close by Patriot Prayer members who were planning an attack on patrons of the Cider Riot bar.

That last was the last paragraph was the last stable version of the lead. It summarizes why the video was important while not fixating on details that are in dispute. We haven't had a consensus lead since it was changed in January. Springee (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

All sources state that he was with the group, which is also visible in the video. Saying that he was "close by" is not neutral, it's manipulation. Removing the part about laughing and simply stating that he accompanied the group is literally as neutral as it gets. BeŻet (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps an analogy will help here. You are standing in line at the store. The person in front of you happens to be a bad person. Someone takes a picture. Clearly you are "with them in line" right? You are riding a subway. Someone sits next to you. You are "with them" on the subway right? What we have here is Ngo was seen near the PP members in the video. At one point he was seen giving them an acknowledging smile. That doesn't mean he was part of the group. Saying "with" can suggest that Ngo was part of a group that went to a bar to stir up trouble. That can create a false impression of the level of interaction etc that the video shows. That is why we don't just fixate on the descriptions that suggest Ngo was just another member etc. Springee (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

No, this analogy is silly, it's manipulative and is trying to make Wikipedia play dumb. There is absolutely no doubt that Andy was with them. He didn't just happen to walk next to them. He walked when they walked, he stopped when they stopped. He interacted with them. All sources say that but one (which I still need to see properly). It's what anyone watching the video can tell you. Come on. Stop beating a dead horse. We are sticking with what the sources are saying. It's time to move on. BeŻet (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

It's a good analogy even if you aren't able to accept it. Trying to make wikipedia play dumb is when we discard IMPARTIAL to imply an association that not all sources accept and that our own eyes can see isn't true. Ngo isn't chumming up to the PP members. Ngo is near and checking his phone. It takes a big stretch to say he was somehow a member of the group and saying he was "with them" can do just that. I would ask that you stop beating the dead horse and remember that we are dealing with a BLP. IMPARTIAL applies even if a number of the sources in question are anything but impartial. Springee (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Which source says in its own voice that Ngo was "near and checking his phone"? Which source disputes the fact that he was with the group? –dlthewave ☎ 17:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Patriot Prayer and anti-fascists held public demonstrations during the day for International Workers Day in Portland on May 1, 2019. Journalists, writers, and bloggers covered these events and published their accounts of the clashes. This was part of a cycle that had been going on in the Pacific Northwest for several years already, since Patriot Prayer was founded in 2016. But the kicker is, somehow the "free speech" that happened in public space during the day was not enough for some members of PP and they decided to gather and then converge on a PRIVATE BUSINESS known to be hosting an event associated with anti-fascism supporters in the early evening. Perhaps another analogy would be useful here. This is like a gathering of antagonistic flag-burners (carrying weapons and bear mace) showing up at a privately-owned bar known to be popular with militant opposition (e.g., Three Percenters/Oath Keepers/Qanon faithful), while filming it from all angles for their respective live-streaming audiences. And doing this after an entire day of public demonstrations and disagreement! The bar patrons were not seeking confrontation at that point - they were defending the business. They couldn't just leave and go have a beer at their favorite pub to talk about the day - whereas Patriot Prayer still had that choice available to them at all points in time yet chose to remain and antagonize others despite repeatedly being asked to leave.

While I agree that a careful reading of all of the sources covering the Cider Riot event and video is essential (including Reason and Commentary Magazine which are relevant yet remain outnumbered) this was not a grocery store line or anything close to it. Cedar777 (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

But that doesn't mean Ngo or any other journalist was "with" PP. The analogy still stands. If you are near someone who is later identified as a bad person, heck even if you acknowledge them, that doesn't mean you are "with them". This is a BLP and IMPARTIAL is policy. We cannot through our choice of words imply a relationship between Ngo and the PP members. We can say what sources say but we also have to acknowledge that the sources aren't in agreement. There are aspects they agree on (Ngo is seen in the video) and aspects they don't agree on (Ngo overheard things being said). Springee (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The context is relevant to the article and the controversy. There is no denying that Ngo is well known for this controversy, even if you are among those who support the minority viewpoint expressed by a source (or two?) regarding the video. OPB in 2020 stated that Ngo was "best known for his ties to the far right." [23] (BTW - a quote regarding what Commentary specifically states about the video would be helpful due to their paywall.) There is a much larger number of sources that support the interpretation that the video further connected the subject to the far right. Perhaps a talk page list in a new thread showing a timeline of sources and their assessment of the video will be required. Cedar777 (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Acousmana, I think a lot of your updates are moving things in the correct direction but I don't think "fraternizing" is a good summary of what sources say about Ngo's interactions with the PP members.[[24]] The implications are similar to the claims that he was "smiling and laughing with". Also I think, instead of saying "journalistic integrity" which is general, we should say this furthered the criticism that Ngo is too close to the alt-right subjects of his reports (or something less wordy). This says what the specific criticism as it relates to the video. That said, the edit is an improvement as it tells the reader why they should care about the rest of the paragraph. I think we could further improve things zooming out a bit more and saying that Ngo's journalism has been criticized for being one sided and then introduce the video as such an example. That was my intent when Bacondrum and I worked on the paragraph above. Springee (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

What other words are left that will be deemed acceptable? If "fraternizing" and "accompanying" is wrong, what's left? Sources concluded he was in the company of the group. BeŻet (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, anything that over emphasizes the level of interaction or association is wrong. Which sources concluded he was "in the company of the group" and why should we use their description vs the sources that say he was just on the periphery and not part of the group. That he decided to follow with the assumption that where the group went would be where the news was, seems like common sense vs anything nefarious. Again, IMPARTIAL is policy. If sources present the same facts differently we don't pick sides. Springee (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

associating/mingling/hobnobbing/roister doistering? fraternizing has more general informal usage too, it doesn't necessarily mean he was bro-ing it up with these guys. Acousmana (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

So when the military says officers shouldn't fraternize with enlisted personnel they mean don't acknowledge them or stand near them? I get that this isn't easy to pick a term since most of the simple terms imply a range of interaction. Some range from more friendly-interactive than is agreed upon by the sources. Others (standing near) imply less interaction (all sources acknowledge that Ngo acknowledged the presence of the people in the video and Ngo's words made it clear he knew who or at least what they were (far-right). The problem is finding a balance. Perhaps saying he is seen in the periphery of the video with some sources claiming X and other sources disputing X while claiming Y. In the lead it's probably best just to say he was seen in the video and leave the details to later where we can do them more justice (both sides of the discussion). Springee (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Springee: but nearly all sources say he accompanied the group. I say nearly all because I am not sure about the Commentary Magazine, because I don't have a subscription, but even the Reason source says that. Pushing for this because of one op-ed is just WP:FRINGE. How on Earth is accompanying "over emphasizing" the level of interaction? It's just stating an undisputable fact. BeŻet (talk) 13:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

BeŻet I agree that we don't have a clear consensus yet. But WP:NOCONSENSUS says for a BLP, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it. So according to that policy, shouldn't we either remove it from the lead or just go with the earlier version? Best, Thomas Meng (talk) 19:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

This rule cannot be used as a wild card by people who want content removed. Arguments for removing at very underwhelming and negate what sources are saying. Moreover, a lack of consensus can be established after a discussion has ended, but while a discussion is being held to establish consensus; and if we're dealing with arguments that even stating the fact that Andy was with the group is wrong, then we are dealing with things that are impossible to resolve without the person putting that argument forward acknowledging that they're presenting quite an extreme opinion. We should probably start an RfC where more experienced editors can express their thoughts on the matter. BeŻet (talk) 13:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Springee: Can you present a quote from the Commentary Magazine (the only source that says that Ngo wasn't really "with" the group)? It's possible we are dealing with WP:FRINGE here, but please share what it says so we have more clarity. BeŻet (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

It is clear from reading both Reason and Commentary that Ngo was not a member of the group and was not "hanging out with them". "With" can imply inclusion in a group. We should not imply Ngo was part of their group even if some sources would like to imply just that. That Ngo choose to wait for the day's events near the group who was likely to be part of the story is at least understandable. A reporter might also hang out around the police before they move in to break of a demonstration. Does that make them a cop? I think a critical point that is lost in much of this is that both Reason and Commentary are very critical of the very sources we are citing and not big issues like not contacting Ngo for comment. Regardless, any claims that Ngo was coordinating or part of the group vs just in proximity are IMPARTIAL violations. Springee (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The Reason source literally says that he was "in the company of" the group. What you are presenting is your hypothesis. This is why I'm asking for a quote from the Commentary source. Could you please provide it? BeŻet (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Context matters. It also literally says, "Far from being engaged in conservation with Gibson's associates and intently involved in what they are saying, Ngo appears in the video only occasionally, and is mostly in the periphery, pacing and incessantly checking his phone." Reason makes it clear that this is not a case of Ngo hanging out then denying he was a party to a conversation he was in the middle of. I think Loki's lead edit really addresses this by sidestepping the issue. In the body of the article we can present both sides neutrally. Springee (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC) I see users ask for a defense of Ngo being present around right wing group members. Its simple. Left wing types want to murder him for reporting on their crimes and right wingers are the only ones who can offer protection. In a war zone, you don't fault a reporter for taking protection by those who are willing to offer it. And its pretty amusing seeing people be outraged by one attack years ago after months of continuous violence from left wingers in Portland. CaptainPrimo (talk) 02:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC) I'm sorry, but this is one hell of an accusation against "left wing types". Let me remind you that a woman who was attacked by PP and ended up having a damaged spine was doxxed by Andy on his Twitter. He also doxxed several journalists who received death threats from far-right groups and ended up on their kill lists. BeŻet (talk) 13:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC) Sharing mugshots of individuals arrested for criminal activity is not doxxing. Name one person killed because of Andy Ngo or even attacked (actual evidence of an attack, not claims of receiving death threats)? There's the legitimate attack on Andy Ngo versus imaginary kill lists. Also, it was a left winger who shot Aaron Danielson. I'm not aware of any right wingers shooting any left wingers in Portland in the time Andy Ngo has been active. CaptainPrimo (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

23 March edit

I think LokiTheLiar's shortening of the lead was a good step [[25]]. It cut out a lot of the disputed content. I don't love it but I'm willing to live with it and it does address the NPOV tag concerns. Springee (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Congressional Testimoney

Dlthewave, I have a concern with this edit [[26]]. Ngo's testimony is here [[27]] and we can see the videos here [[28]]. I think stripping out a key part of his testimony is problematic. Let's use the CN tag rather than stripping out content. Testifying before congress is a big deal and should be part of the article as should some limited summary of his testimony. Springee (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

If you would like to include a summary of the testimony, I would suggest choosing material that has been covered by secondary sources. –dlthewave ☎ 12:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem is you removed the whole section because you didn't like that it was sourced to the DailyCaller. I think this would be a reasonable time to use the DailyCaller since we can verify the claims via CSPAN and the congressional records. Regardless, a CN tag is the appropriate thing here unless your argument is a summary of Ngo's congressional testimony is somehow not relevant to this article. Springee (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

No, we're not going to use the Daily Caller, it's a deprecated source and would fail WP:DUE even if we were to use it. Editors who would like to include this content should do the work of writing reliably-sourced content. –dlthewave ☎ 15:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you think the content of his testimony is something readers wouldn't want to know? Is it not relevant that he pointed out that violence against reporters was coming from the far-left, not police? Why not restore the text and include a CN tag? Springee (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it would certainly be appropriate to include a brief reliably-sourced summary of the testimony, but let me ask you this: Why would we include the bit about antifa attacking journalists (even with a CN tag) if it hasn't been covered by secondary sources? –dlthewave ☎ 15:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Your summary here [[29]] is incorrect and fails IMAPRTIAL. It fails IMPARTIAL because the juxtaposition of what Ngo says with the next sentence suggests wikipedia is saying his testimony was false. Second, the summary is not accurate to what was said. The added claim is, "However, there was no evidence that any of the people arrested in Portland were linked to Antifa." That suggests that after searching no evidence was found. That is not what the source said. The source said: U.S federal prosecutors have produced no evidence linking any of the dozens of people arrested in Portland to Antifa. “We have not alleged defendant affiliation with any specific groups or ideologies in our cases stemming from recent Portland protests,” Kevin Sonoff, spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Portland, told Reuters. “Our cases focus purely on the criminal conduct alleged.” Note the critical part, "Our cases focus purely on the criminal conduct alleged." That is, if a person was arrested for assaulting a reporter, they didn't check to see if that person had antifa affiliations. They are only looking to build a case related to the assaults. This also means that if a Proud Boy's member was arrested they aren't looking for that evidence either. This edit needs to be fixed as it violates NPOV. Springee (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

If you don't like the summary as written, perhaps you could suggest a change and try to gain consensus. –dlthewave ☎ 17:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Why didn't you do the same before changing long standing text? I propose removing the misleading sentence as it fails V. Springee (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Remember, FOC. Instead of removing the sentence and leaving the passage without a summary of the testimony, I changed the wording [30] to reflect the fact that evidence of antifa affiliation was not presented, avoiding the implication that it did not exist. Would you agree that this passes WP:V and more closely reflects the source? –dlthewave ☎ 18:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. If third-party sources mention the testimony then we mention it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Having reviewed this further, the original source deletion was incorrect. Dlthewave deleted an article sourced to the Daily Signal based on the deprecation of the Daily Caller. I don't see how that can be justified in this case. The source should be restored along with the text it supported. The RSN discussions I found do not support this view. Those discussions did raise concern with TDS for use on climate change topics but that wouldn't apply here. The source, in general, has been used by others. Since the Daily Signal is not run or operated by the same organization as The Daily Caller. Springee (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The Daily Signal source is syndicated content provided by the Daily Caller News Foundation. Note the Daily Caller banner below the second paragraph and the notice at the bottom, "Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org." I really don't see any justification for using this deprecated source, especially when the marginally better Fox News source is available. –dlthewave ☎ 16:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Daily Signal is not a deprecated source. Unless you can show that this is some sort of pay to play vs the DS simply deciding to run a DC story (and thus taking ownership of the editorial issues) this should remain. This is especially true since the content in question s easily verified by the congressional record. If CNN chooses to run an AP story we can assume CNN has reviewed it and put their editorial backing on the story. That isn't the case if CNN called it sponsored content. So long as this is going to the Daily Signal you need to show that the Daily Signal is not reliable for claims which we can show to be true via the congressional record. Springee (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

If anything the Wikipedia:USEBYOTHERS of The Daily Caller by The Daily Signal suggests we were wrong to deprecate the former. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how this in any way indicates it was an error to deprecate that source. There are almost always better sources available, that don't have the litany of issues that deprecated sources tend to have. If you feel this is in error, take it up at RSN. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The Daily Signal is a house organ of The Heritage Foundation. What you've proven is that The Heritage Foundation and The Daily Caller share ideologies (shocking!), and nothing more. It certainly demonstrates nothing about the source's reliability. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

We can verify the claims simply by looking at the written testimony sourced to congress. The reliability of the claims in question is all but perfectly proven. The bias of the DS is acknowledged but that's not really a factor here. I don't see that we have a consensus to remove this simply statement of fact. Springee (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Springee, I'm confused, does WP:NOCON mean that we include or exclude the challenged content? What's different about this instance compared to your previous assertions [31][32]? Wouldn't this be considered a low-weight author published by a low-weight source? –dlthewave ☎ 00:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

It's easy, the relevant part of NOCON is this, "However, for contentious matters related to living people,". So if this source were being used to say Ngo was an evil person or a super person I would agree. Comparing someone to a Nazi is clearly contentious. Stating someone is doing something "aggressively" is less contentious but it is also recent material. However, it is a recent addition and was challenged just a few days later. Thus even if this weren't a BLP case, this is a change that is being rejected thus needs consensus to stay. In the case of the details of Ngo's testimony, what is contentious in this claim? Are you suggesting the content is false or Ngo didn't say what teh DS claimed? Is it recent content? It appears to have been in the article since July 2020. This looks like content that needs consensus to remove, especially if your justification is only that DS isn't reliable for the claim in question given we have the congressional record to support the claim. Springee (talk) 01:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The sourcing on this content is low quality, at best. In June 2020, Fox News came under fire for the inaccurate images used to report on the Capitol Hill Organized Protest in Seattle. See the WaPost article [33] and Snopes [34]. Fox was downgraded on Wikipedia for politics and science. What Fox has to say about the subject's congressional testimony (the journalistic interpretation of the significance of Ngo's appearance) is not usable in light of Fox being caught misrepresenting Seattle as "helpless" and literally on fire when it was not (the photos were of Minneapolis on fire while other erroneous images were of the wrong neighborhood of the city). Fox and the Daily Signal are problematic. However there are two reliable sources that made mention of Ngo's testimony:

• August 5, 2020 The Intercept (green at WP:RSP) mentioned the first round of testimony here: [35] Stating: "The only member of the media called to testify was right-wing provocateur Andy Ngo. Ngo spoke of the long history of antifa organizing in Portland, but unsurprisingly omitted the most obvious reason for it: In recent years, Portland has become an epicenter of far-right violence, to which anti-fascist action is a rightful response."
• February 25, 2021 The Independent (green at WP:RSP) mentioned the second round of testimony here: [36] by stating: "But Republicans on the committee – some of whom were connected to the “stop the steal” campaign that encouraged rioters on 6 January and supported overturning Electoral College results – insisted “antifa” remained a threat as they condemned political violence without connecting it to their own rhetoric. Their sole witness, Andy Ngo, has promoted deceptively edited videos from protests, criticised as dishonest reporting to deflect attention from far-right violence." Cedar777 (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

You are failing to consider a critical aspect of WP:V, an exceptional claim requires an exceptional source. This is not an exceptional claim. This is a basic claim that he went before congress (Dlthewave actually removed that fact as well), and he said X. We can verify what he said by looking at CSPAN videos and the congressional record thus a basic statement of fact "Ngo said X" is not an extraordinary claim. The Daily Signal + congressional record is sufficient for this claim. However, if editors still disagree perhaps once again we need to go to RSN to verify this. Also, your claim that what Fox says is not usable is wrong. Fox was not deemed unreliable, only that care should be taken. The congressional record to back claims is such care. Springee (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Why use a red (The Daily Caller) or yellow (Fox News politics) source where there are two green sources available? Cedar777 (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The Daily Signal is the source as it takes editorial responsibility for the article. Fox is perfectly reliable for this sort of content. As for why not the two sources you have suggested? Look at the original content Bgrus22 added. It's a simple statement of fact, Nog testified and his testimony said X. It doesn't contain any commentary and what he said can be confirmed. Compare that to using The Independent. Per your text they offered only a limited summary of Ngo's testimony and put more effort into labeling Ngo as well as criticizing him for what they felt he left out. That is effectively a mix of opinion into fact based reporting and that commentary can't be confirmed via the congressional record. The Independent isn't talking about his first appearance before congress. Adding material like "stop the steal" seems to be an effort to poison the well. Did Ngo say anything about the 2020 election validity in his testimony? Is a discussion of stop the steal germane to Ngo's statements? If not then we should question why a "factual account" would include such content if not to bias the reader. Do keep in mind that the RSP list is not policy and we should use our heads when examining sources. Since the statements we are discussing can be verified by the congressional record this line of questioning the DS or Fox seems little more than wikilawyering. Springee (talk) 02:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Context does matter, and we do prefer sources that provide it. Imagine a set of news articles about a murder trial: Would you really choose a piece that only repeats hand-picked bits of testimony from the defendant's best friend over one that speaks to the bigger picture beyond what was said that day in the courtroom? Could the decision of what pieces of testimony to include introduce bias to that source or even create a misleading narrative, even without added commentary? We don't have evidence that the Caller actually did that in this case but we also can't trust them not to. –dlthewave ☎ 03:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is basic RS/verifiability/weight stuff. Reliable secondary sources don't just verify that something is true, they also establish due weight as well as context and analysis. Obviously we don't include the entire CSPAN segment in our article and we don't go by what we personally like or dislike; we include what reliable secondary sources tell us is relevant. The Intercept and Independent sources carry far more weight than Signal, and they both contrast Ngo's statements with right-wing violence that was also occurring. Daily Signal carries little if any weight, particularly when the content was written by a deprecated source, and the piece is of little value since it simply repeats bits of the testimony. There's no reason to use this source. –dlthewave ☎ 03:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

When the commentary is opinionated and not backed by additional information isn't not very useful. Conversely, the statements from the Daily Signal are clearly backed by primary sources (I assume you agree with that). Also, I'm not sure we should put much stock in two sources that are so clearly mixing their own opinions in when facts. Not that any of this should matter. The content is long standing and the sourcing is reliable for the statement in question. The Intercept looses credibility when they put so much commentary into their statements. It doesn't appear that the Independent is covering the first congressional testimony and again, if they want to poison the well we shouldn't use them. Springee (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

RSN discussion has been opened. Springee (talk) 04:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Which testimony?

Taking a closer look at the sources, it's clear that we're looking at three different appearances by Ngo:

• 29 June 2020 House Committee on Oversight and Reform, Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil

Liberties (Written testimony submitted by Andy Ngo, Daily Signal)

• 4 August 2020 Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing (Fox News, The Intercept)
• 24 February 24, 2021 House Judiciary Committee hearing (The Independent)

I couldn't find any reliable secondary sources covering 29 June, but the second two might merit a few sentences on house/senate testimony. –dlthewave ☎ 14:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Shorter lead

I BOLDly shortened the lead significantly. It wasn't really summarizing who Andy Ngo is and why he's notable so much as it was just a random list of events in his life. (Furthermore, almost all disputes on this page are about whether content deserves to be in the lead and where it goes if so, so hopefully by reducing the length of the lead we can reduce the number of disputes on this article.) Loki (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I think this was a good step. I think a bit more Ngo background could be included. I also have a few issues with the last sentence but I think those issues can be put to the side for the time. Springee (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

best note the discussion above and express your views there, this is counterproductive. Acousmana (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I did express my views there[[37]]. Springee (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

you did, but unless I'm mistaken, Loki did not engage prior to this bold edit. Acousmana (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

They aren't strictly required to. Do you have an issue with their specific changes? I think it's an improvement and support the change. Springee (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

the relevant discussion is above, this is tangential. Acousmana (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)