Talk:Andy Ngo

Name diacritic

In his twitter profile uses Andy Ngô, this should be added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.16.86.106 (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

It's already in the lead, in bold as part of his full name. If you mean, however, that Ngo should be globally replaced in the BLP with Ngô, doing so would put us at odds with the preponderance of reliable sources. NedFausa (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with NedFausa’s points and want to add that universally changing the o to an ô would probably be more of a hassle than its worth especially as it will introduce errors for readers on some mobile platforms. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Which mobile platforms can't show "ô"? -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Milkshakes

The article falsely states that Ngo was hit by "a milkshake". The Independent article give as a reference says he was "covered in milkshake". No indication of a singular. Furthermore, the video that is part of that article shows him being hit by three milkshakes. Hence, the text should be changed to "milkshakes". Str1977 ^(talk) 10:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The Independent article give as a reference says he was "covered in milkshake"

Nope. "a milkshake". Second sentence here:

Andy Ngo was surrounded and beaten by protesters wearing black with their faces concealed, while being covered in a milkshake, eggs and spray on Saturday.

Anyone can confirm that your statement is false -- not to mention that your edit summary claimed that you made the change because you watched a video, which is WP:OR. --Calton | Talk 11:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I did make the change because the video - which is a source - contradicted what the article claimed.

No, it's not OR as that video is part of the reference already there and I am merely repeating what's there. According to your logic, the current wording is just as much OR as the phrase used in the article cannot be found in the source. According to your logic, anything beyond parroting the source is OR. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I did make the change because the video - which is a source...

No, it's not: it's a video. the source is YOU, looking at a video and drawing your own conclusions -- kind of like the logic-chopping you did when confronted with the black-and-white wording you somehow missed. And it's irrelevant where you saw the video: this would be same whether it were at the Independent, YouTube, or Joe's Totally Kewl Blog.

...contradicted what the article claimed.

Then take it up with the editors of The Independent, I'm sure they'll be glad you pointed out their error to them. Come back when you have that retraction. --Calton | Talk 12:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I misread. It says "covered in a milkshake" - but that's still not the same as being "hit by a milkshake". Obviously, you cannot count how many "milkshakes" are dripping from somebody's face.

Again, the editors of The Independent will be, no doubt, glad to hear you explain things to them. --Calton | Talk 12:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The article also notes that the police "said it later received reports of individuals throwing “milkshakes” with a substance mixed in" - that the cement part appears to be false doesn't negate the report about multiple milk shakes. And, as I said, denying that multiple shakes were thrown at him is just willfully closing your eyes. Str1977 ^(talk) 12:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not OR to use the video to show that a news report got a fact wrong. I would suggest we use a neutral phrasing to avoid stating this was "one" or "more than one". It seems that would avoid the issue. Springee (talk) 11:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not OR to use the video to show that a news report got a fact wrong

Flat wrong: it's a Wikipedia editor looking at a video and deciding that they know better than the source which provided the vidoe. You know, original research. --Calton | Talk 12:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Please review WP:OR, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.". We are absolutely allowed to use things like watching a video and seeing more than one milkshake to assess that the specific "one milkshake" claim is not true. If the video shows more than one then we can discount the claim in the other source as an error. Again the easy option is to make the claim number agnostic. Springee (talk) 12:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

"looking at a video and deciding that they know better than the source which provided the vidoe [sic]"

Not only are you misinterpreting WP:OR, your claim about knowing better the source is also wrong in so far as the source never says "Ngo was hit by one milkshake". Despite my above misreading, that much holds true. So, it's not the video correcting the article but the video clarifying the article. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The sentence in our article ending "hit with a milkshake by antifa protesters" is followed by six references. The first two do not report that Andy Ngo was hit by milkshake(s). As discussed in this thread, The Independent provides text saying Ngo was "covered in a milkshake"—but I did not view the video to count otherwise. Of the three remaining references, HuffPost has a photo caption saying that unidentified individuals "splashed him with a milkshake," and OregonLive.com quotes a tweet: "Looks like @MrAndyNgo got hit by a milkshake." However, BuzzFeed News relates that after Ngo was hit by a single milkshake, he was hit by at least one additional milkshake: But then a man with a plastic foam cup sprinted past Ngo, who was suddenly covered in viscous white globs: a milkshake. … A smiling person walked up to Ngo and threw a second milkshake in his face. … People were pelting him with milkshakes and eggs, adding literal insult to injury. NedFausa (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• So the logical thing is to say "was hit with at least one milkshake". I don't think a definitive number of dairy-based missiles is really required, is it? Black Kite (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think it really matters to say how many specifically. If we have video and at least one source saying more than one we should go with that but if we can find a phrasing that avoids suggesting a specific number that would seem to address this issue. Springee (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I support saying "was hit with at least one milkshake" and additionally observe that only at Wikipedia would grownups fret over whether someone at a protest was hit by one, or more than one, beverage blending milk, ice cream, and flavorings or sweeteners such as butterscotch, caramel sauce, chocolate syrup, fruit syrup, or whole fruit into a thick, sweet, cold mixture. It's good that we all have a lot of time on our hands. Now, it would be different if Ngo had been hit by a milkshake loaded with concrete or other dangerous substance, but as discussed above, no reliable source reported any such thing or even that Ngo had claimed it was so. NedFausa (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you aware of the Wp:NPA policy? Please don't accuse us of being "grownups" :D Springee (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Though I'd prefer "hit by one or more milkshake" I can also live with "hit with at least one milkshake".

Fretting over how many milkshakes hit Ngo might sound silly but should this complaint not rather be laid at the feet of those who repeatedly insisted that it was only one milkshake and refused to watch a video? Str1977 ^(talk) 17:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Str1977: Please, let's not play the blame game over trivia. I remind you that of the four references in our article supporting "hit with a milkshake" that mention it, half report Ngo being hit by one, not multiple beverages. Editors such as I who refuse to watch The Independent video may have perfectly valid reasons. That particular video begins with a WARNING – VIDEO CONTAINS VIOLENCE THAT SOME VIEWERS MAY FIND DISTRESSING. Being too squeamish to subject myself to images of graphic violence, I for one must rely on textual reports. This single-frame news photo is as much as I can stomach of Antifa USA's brutality that day against Andy Ngo. NedFausa (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa: I have no interest in the blame game, which you seem to have started in your earlier comment.

Your point out references however does not lead to the same conclusion. Supposing four articles support "Hit with a milkshake", they do not contradict that he was hit by more than one. They just report one.

Are you now saying that anyone refusing to watch the video does so out of "squeamishness"? If that is so, it is still not a valid reason to disregard the contents. I have no intention of forcing anyone to watch it, but then please do not force the article to ignore it. While I don't have as much a problem in watching the video as you apparently do, we do share the same distaste of that violence. This is exactly why I don't want to have it swept under the rug (which currently seems to be a thing in the US). If you can't watch the video, fine. But those who can, can also see multiple milkshakes being thrown at Andy Ngo. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

NPOV, lead issues

There are myriad issues with this article.

1) There are a number of disputes that are central themes to this BLP. Most of them seem partisan in nature, for example, his firing from a college paper. Reliable sources have documented the justification for the firing offered by the newspaper board members and the conservative media criticisms. Both are DUE viewpoints; only one is reflected in the article.

2) The lead describes him as being a participant in a "confrontation" with activists. News reports reported he was assaulted by Antifa members. This non-synchronous description between the Wiki article and what the sources have reported is not in compliance with policy, namely WP:BLP.

3) The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article body. Where in the body does it say that Ngo gained "national attention" for the protester confrontation?

Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Where to start? Your citation of the Willamette Week source ignored the context provided by that source to merely say criticism "exists". Wikipedia isn't a gossip column, so this kind of context-free trivia is inappropriate. The WW source mainly discusses Brietbart, but hopefully we all know that WP:BREITBART is garbage as a reliable source. The WW source provides context, so they can use "conservative media" as shorthand for Brietbart. We do not have that option, at least not without a disproportionate level of context. Reducing that in the article to the even more simplistic "conservatives" is both euphemistic and misrepresents the source. There is some deep irony in selectively ignoring context from a source which clearly explains that Ngo was fired for selectively ignoring context from his own sources.

Antifa is not a gang, is not organized, doesn't have formal members, and doesn't need to be capitalized. Prior to this confrontation, Ngo had a long history of antagonizing and doxing left-wing protesters and activists in Oregon. This, too, is important context. Per the Vox article: But the aftermath of the attack — the narratives both sides have spun out of the basic facts established by the footage — is much trickier to assess. The term "assaulted" would be presuming that one narrative is correct, and the other narratives are not worth mentioning. This is non-neutral, and would be non-synchronous with sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that start, @Grayfell:. My response:

1) Your citation of the Willamette Week source ignored the context provided by that source to merely say criticism "exists". Wikipedia isn't a gossip column, so this kind of context-free trivia is inappropriate. The WW source mainly discusses Brietbart, but hopefully we all know that WP:BREITBART is garbage as a reliable source. It's not whether criticism exists. It's whether a viewpoint has been reported in a reliable source. The cited source was not Breitbart,'' as you acknowledge, but The Williamette Week. Reliability of Breitbart or lack thereof has nothing to do with it, nor do editor's opinions on the merits of those viewpoints. See WP:DUE, WP:NPOV. If it's political victimhood by the conservative media over nothing, then so be it, but that can't be omitted from a summary of what propelled him to "national attention" as the article states.

2) If "Antifa" is properly capitalized as "antifa," that is a stylistic change I will agree with. It didn't require deleting the entire sentence. Nowhere did my edits characterize it as a gang or organized.

3) The description in reliable sources was an assault, including in the sources already cited in the article. This is not qualified or counterbalanced by the unsourced background you've provided here. If there's a source that does not describe it as an assault and provides a different "narrative" as you put it, I'd be glad to review that and take it into account. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Do not ping me again. As I said, a source provides context. You cannot strip that context away to include an isolated detail. Edits like this replace encyclopedic information with trivia and factoids. Summarize what sources are actually saying, not the parts you happen to find interesting. Grayfell (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

A bunch of bad faith accusations that have nothing to do with policy. "Important information" to one editor is "trivial factoids" to another (but if you read WP:CIVIL, we don't call it that.) We don't go by these subjective standards, what matters are what are reported in the sources and policy. Your omissions of "factoids" in this case remove key information in the article about the subject's background and notoriety and violates NPOV, and your suggestion that Ngo was an antagonizer of what reliable sources describe as an assault (you say it wasn't) is a blatant BLP violation. This is unacceptable, and kindly do not remove NPOV tags unilaterally. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Your edit was inappropriate, because it decontexualized reliable sources to emphasize a specific, non-neutral point. Describing content issues in direct language is perfectly WP:CIVIL, even if you dislike or disagree with what I am saying. My assessment of sources and the facts reported by those sources is not a personal attack, and it is disruptive to imply that it is.

Sources explain why the confrontation was not a simple issue despite initial coverage, so we should use a broader, more neutral term.

Improvement tags are meant to prompt improvement to the article. They are not meant to be badges of shame. There is clearly an active talk page, so the purpose of this tag is poorly justified. Further, your actions are just as "unilateral" as mine. Grayfell (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting my use of the tag. The tag is meant to draw attention to a specific issue on the talk page. One shouldn't automatically assume a tag is a badge of shame. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, I think you are viewing my edits in a vacuum, as opposed to their place in the entire article. I am adding context, not removing it. Almost all of the "counter" points (if we're going to call them that) that you raise are already in the article. What I added were perspectives that were reported in those same sources that are cited but are curiously missing, i.e. what the conservative position was on his firing, the alleged assault, and his lawsuit, among others. These details are not "trivia"; they flesh out key points in an article that mostly describes disputes between the subject, who is highly controversial, and other groups/figures/organizations. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

You added details, but I dispute that you added the necessary context for those details, nor do I accept that those details belong in the lead, nor do I accept that your summary was from a neutral point of view. The lead is intended to summarize the body. Using the lead to emphasize specific, politically suggestive points is non-neutral. If there is room to contextualize these details in the body of the article, so be it. This isn't an excuse to hint at conclusions in the lead. Grayfell (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I generally think Wikieditor19920's edits are an improvement. I see some issues where things were worse but those could be corrected without a total revert. I like that 19920 had a three paragraph layout that started with a clear "Ngo is X and Y and works for Z" That makes for a clean opening paragraph vs being merged into the rest of the lead as we have now. I think adding some sort of counterbalance to the student paper part is important, especially since it is the event that got Ngo recognized by an outside publication. The last paragraph I think is more problematic. The argument that "we don't know it was Antifa" should be respected (see the talk page history there). I don't think Ngo's lawsuit, is lead worthy. I'm not even sure it's closed. However, in the previous lead I think the implication that he was coordinating with right wing groups is getting too much attention. Still, that was another one that had a lot of discussion so I would be reluctant to just ditch it. I guess that means I think this 19920's edit was about 50% better. I would say break it up into the 3 paragraphs (is that a contentious change), add something like what 19920 added to the middle paragraph. Restore the original text for the last paragraph. Springee (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not his coordination is getting "too much attention" should be primarily determined by the weight of sources. The Beachamp source used by Wikieditor19920 (which was already redundantly cited in the article) specifically also supports this coordination. Further, since this has been covered by multiple sources, we have to look at the larger picture. Later sources (etc.) specifically contextualize this incident as being directly related to his cozy relationship with neo-fascist groups such as the Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer. It is not enough to pick a detail from a source to add a detail the lead out of balance, because this leads to false balance. Encyclopedic writing means including a longer-view of the story. If we cannot explain these incidents neutrally in context, we should not cram them salaciously into the lead as a half-assed compromise. Grayfell (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

This is something we went over in the past. It looks like a couple of sources that are politically opposed to what Ngo has been reporting took a video of Ngo being near the PB's and spun that into something. Did we ever have a high quality source make the connection? This seems to be more an effort to discredit than anything else. I oppose inclusion in the lead but I'm not sure my opposition is sufficient to say consensus has shifted. I'm not sure what you mean by your last comment. What incident are we cramming in? I thought fired from his school paper and the associated story was significant because it resulted in his opportunity to write for a national site. Springee (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• The coverage of his association with Patriot Prayer is pretty extensive - we devote, by my count, two fairly large paragraphs to it totally a bit under 10% of the article (and they have a bunch of independent sources, so that seems appropriate.) It also provides extremely vital context to both the videos and confrontations that made him famous, and the sources covering it generally treat it that way. I absolutely don't think we can omit it from the lead. I'd be especially reluctant to cover confrontations he's been in in the lead while ignoring followup coverage from many of the same sources that indicate that he may have been involved with the groups responsible for those confrontations - that seems like it would be giving WP:UNDUE focus to just one side of the story. We can be (and are) cautious with our wording, and we note Ngo's denials in the article (though further down because they're not given any credence in secondary sources AFAIK.) But Ngo himself seems to be the only person who thinks that that association is still in doubt, at which point WP:MANDY probably applies. --Aquillion (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

That link has always been questionable. It was an example of sources that clearly didn't like Ngo or what he was reporting suggesting a connection based on very questionable evidences and "an undercover source". Certainly that undercover source would have no perverse incentive to lie right? If this were covered by more mainstream sources or if the evidence were more substantial I would be more sympathetic to the efforts to that really look like little more than an effort to discredit a political opponent. This sort of effort to control the narrative isn't something that others have failed to notice [[1]]. Springee (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The WP:STONEWALLING at this article is shocking. Nowhere in the article does it indicate that this is the reason he received "national attention," yet @Grayfell: continues to restore it while calling terms like "conservative media" unsupported because he attributes to to Breitbart, a view this editor deems non-credible. Meanwhile, the Williamette Weekly uses precisely those terms: [2].

The only "links" between Ngo and Patriot Prayer that I can find are in the context of one specific protest, yet @Aquillion:, in disregard of BLP, asserts "extensive" links without sources, and synthesizes by claiming that what was reported as an assault really isn't because of the actions of organizations that the subject was allegedly loosely "associated" with in one particular context. The emphasis on "alleged connections with Patriot Prayer" in the lead is a misleading and flat-out BLP violation, and the description of what transpired with the "confrontation" in painting him as an aggressor, contrary to what the sources have reported, is equally unacceptable. Efforts to restore neutrality to this article are being painted as "decontextualizing" and other bad-faith accusations, creating further problems. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

And Grayfell needs to read sources before he accuses other editors of editorializing. Here is the source where the "free speech" bit comes from. Sloppily skimming sources, missing information, and then accusing other editors of contrivances is not what should be occurring here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)\

Grayfell violates BLP by suggesting the subject has "cozy relations" with "neo-fascist groups" and the line in the lead that suggests "alleged connections" with a far-right group called Patriot Prayer is broader than what the sources describe—this is an inference apparently drawn by an editor, and it is one that is inappropriately being repeatedly restored to the article. The sources describe him tagging along at events. The Rolling Stone reports that the group allows him at events to report and offers protection—Ngo denied to the publication that there was an implicit agreement. The "broader connections" language is conspiratorial and suggests something beyond what the sources have reported, yet it is persistently being reinserted. Again, this absolutely can not continue, especially because the line was already challenged. It should not have been restored so promptly. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC) Characterizations of proper efforts to flesh out perspectives reported in reliable sources as "false balance" has nothing to do with what that policy stands for—that refers to opinions in unreliable sources. That is not what is occurring here. Including all perspectives reported in reliable sources is called compliance with WP:NPOV, the exact opposite of false balance Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

"Stonewalling"? How about WP:SEALIONing.

Per several sources, including ones you link, Ngo had or has a cozy relationship with Patriot Prayer and the Proud Boys, which are a neo-fascist group. Me explaining this on a talk page is not a BLP violation, and calling this a BLP violation is WP:CRYBLP.

The first significant national sources which mention Ngo do so because he was fired from Vanguard and then took a tour on the outrage circuit to complain about it.

As I have already explained, in the article, you must summarize what sources are actually saying, not just the bits you find interesting or compelling. Stripping context away from a single sentence in a local news source to emphasize "free speech" in the lead is inappropriate and non-neutral. That this was not even explained in the body makes this worse, but that's not an endorsement of cherry-picking this kind of thing there, either. Grayfell (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Your characterization of any attempt to improve the neutrality of this article as "POV" is patently ridiculous.

• "Per several sources, including ones you link, Ngo had or has a cozy relationship with Patriot Prayer and the Proud Boys, which are a neo-fascist group. There are two sources on this talk page that cover this: the first alleges that he had some sort of understanding with the group in order to tail them and report on their activities, and the second source is entirely based on the first and relies on it as a source for all of its information. They also mention that Ngo disputes that this occurred through an attorney. The fact that you believe this information can be presented without noting Ngo's dispute, and that you rehash the allegations in your own words on the talk page without acknowledging it (and believe that being called on this is "crying blp) is flat-wrong, indeed a violation of BLP.
• In case it wasn't clear the first time: your dismissive characterizations of the "conservative media" perspective reported by the Williamette have approximately ZERO to do with how we assess weight. It is a perspective reported in a reliable source (The Williammette, not Breitbart), and it belongs in the article for neutrality.

You are also repeatedly mischaracterizing relevant policies. WP:FALSEBALANCE is when an editor wrongly equates information from a reliable sources from a fringe sources, not opposing views reported in a reliable source. As for the rest, and I suggest deferring to policy rather than essays. Other editors have agreed with me that there is a problem and that some of the recent changes were an improvement. Edit warring is unhelpful and unwarranted. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• Just did a search and found plenty of RS saying that Ngo claimed he was attacked by antifa. But, none that actually said it was antifa. O3000 (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Vox says the attack was carried out by participants from an antifa-organized counter protest against a far right group.

Last Saturday, the far-right Proud Boys group held a rally in Portland, Oregon. Left-wing groups, including the Portland branch of the militant antifa group, put together a counterprotest — whose attendees clashed with the Proud Boys. But the most notable instance of violence had nothing to do with the Proud Boys: It was an attack by counterprotesters on the conservative journalist Andy Ngo that reportedly sent him to the hospital.

Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

It said antifa organized the protest. It did not say they were involved with this clash. Later in the article, it says: We don’t yet have proof that the people who assaulted Ngo were antifa members (though it seems likely given their history). That's not strong enough to even suggest it was antifa. O3000 (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Then we can add the above context and attribute the description of the attackers as "antifa" to Ngo. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

We can say he blamed antifa, but there is no evidence. O3000 (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

WaPo said he was left bloodied by antifa activists. See here: [3] Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

At a protest organized by antifa and other leftist groups, Ngo was attacked and injured in a confrontation with counterprotesters. Ngo blamed antifa members for the assault." I would not say there is "no evidence," but we don't weigh evidence either. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Not only is it not true that there's no evidence; we in fact have an excellent source, WaPo, which confirms that he was attacked and injured by antifa activists. Link above. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

In each of two articles, WaPo refers to others parties making the claim that it was antifa. First, the publisher is refering to specific polititans. 1 "The senators also pointed to conservative journalist Andy Ngo, who in June was left bloodied by antifa activists in Portland, Ore." The linked article within that passage refers to a Proud Boys organizer by stating 2 "But Proud Boys leader and event organizer Luke Rohlfing told the Daily Beast that the event is also aimed at left-wing anti-fascist activists after a violent clash in Portland last week left conservative writer Andy Ngo bloodied, shaken and doused in a vegan milkshake." This differs from the Washington Post stating directly that Ngo was definitavely attacked by antifa, or antifa supporters/affiliates. It appears that there were no charges or named suspects in this assault on Ngo, making it difficult to discern the affiliations of the individuals involved. I agree with Objective3000 the the most factually accurate statement we can say is that Ngo (or Luke Rohlfing/Proud Boys or Senator Cruz) blamed antifa, but it is not clear that the individuals who assaulted Ngo were antifa proper. Cedar777 (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

No, the first source puts it in WaPo's voice. WaPo does not attribute the claim that the attackers were antifa activists to the senators. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Short version, who was arrested and when is the trial? O3000 (talk) 00:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cedar777: You are incorrect in your description of the WaPO source. It restates the charge that "antifa activists" were responsible for "bloodying" Ngo in their own words. This source qualifies for what Shinealittlelight presented it for, and shows why more in-depth research and providing links to sources can be more helpful than making a blanket claim that sources don't say something based on a cursory search. I don't know whether there are sources that cast doubt on whether it was "antifa activists" repsonsible, but it'd be helpful if any arguments along those lines referenced such sources. In the meantime, I think we have a suitable compromise above. Lastly, the line that Ngo drew "national attention" for "alleged connections" to Proud Boys is patently false and needs to be removed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: Goodness, your disagreement with my interpretation of two WaPo sources quoted from and linked to above does not justify condescension. Upholding WP:CIVIL is equally valid to upholding WP:BLP.

Text from the WaPo article Shinealittlelight first pointed towards contains a hotlink to the second WaPo article (which in turn quotes the Daily Beast and links to a NYT article). As these WaPo articles are referring to the response of two senators and a Proud Boys organizer respectively, caution is advised as to how each sentence is interpreted, particularly when there are other sources that do not make this claim. Cedar777 (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Hyperlinks are much harder to interpret than plain english. The wording of the WaPo story is perfectly clear as it is, and they literally misspoke if they meant to attribute the "bloodied by antifa activists" claim to the senators they mentioned. I see no reason to accuse WaPo of erring in the way you are suggesting. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The WaPo article is a tad unusual as it appears to be written entirely from the view of the senators and Proud Boys, unlike most other RS. O3000 (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The WaPo article straightforwardly says in WaPo voice that Ngo was left bloodied by Antifa activists. I'm not going to pretend that this is not what it said because someone feels like the article may have been attributing it to Cruz since he is also mentioned in the same sentence. That's an absurd argument. I'll email the reporter to see if she stands by her report. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly absurd that the reporter wrote this, without any evidence. I haven't seen any other RS report this. O3000 (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Please strike your statement that Washington Post reporter Marisa Iati is publishing reports without evidence unless you have a clear source to that effect. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a bit like not calling a mob hit a "mob hit" because, absent knowing who the killer is, we don't have "proof" the killer was acting for the mob. Even if we had an arrest and the person claimed to be an antifa activist since antifa has no membership list etc how would you "prove" they were an antifa member. Most RS don't specifically state this attack was carried out by antifa members so I think those opposed to stating it as such are correct. However, I think something like "appeared to be" or similar is warranted. This was not just Ngo getting in a fight with a random person. This was multiple rioters attacking him. We don't need to try to down play this sort of behavior by the mob. Springee (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The "activist" label is yet another BLP violation. The New York Times and Vox refer to him as a journalist. The "activist" label is basically sourced to a Buzzfeed piece that reads like an opinion column. Buzzfeed is not a reliable source and it is ridiculous that this career label is given weight over the New York Times and Vox, which refers to Ngo as a journalist. So I'm removing this, and any efforts to restore it will be treated like a BLP violation. There is no contrary position here. The most reliable source available (NYT) receives the most weight, low-quality opinion pieces from second-tier sources do not. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 11:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Buzzfeed News is not the same as Buzzfeed's clickbait. Per WP:RSP, this distinction has already been discussed on Wikipedia countless times. Vox calles him a "conservative journalist". Using only half of a description would be editorializing. The NYT sometimes calls him a "conservative journalist", but also sometimes a "conservative writer" or just "writer". I cannot actually find the NYT calling him just "journalist" without the "conservative" part, although I didn't look that hard. The emphasis on "conservative" tells us that "journalist" by itself is too simplistic. If sources almost always contextualize this in a certain way, we should avoid over-simplifying by removing that context. Grayfell (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Buzzfeed news is hardly unbiased and using a single reference to add "activist" to the lead is undue. At best it should be attributed in the body. Grayfell, are there other issues with the version of the lead you reverted? Springee (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Buzzfeed news is green at wp:RSP. That you think it is biased does not override community consensus. O3000 (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

There isn't a community consensus for "activist". That was an edit you snuckadded in recently. [Correction: O3000 was not the editor who added it] Springee (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Not only is there no consensus on the "activist" line, there is no community consensus that Buzzfeed carries more weight than the New York Times. WP:RSP recommends caution for articles published after January 2019 for a drop in editorial qualify due to layoffs. The cited piece, calling him an "activist," was published in July 2019. The New York Times piece cited covering Ngo exclusively refers to him as a journalist and not once as an activist. We do not apply career labels based on what's reported in a single second-tier source when that is not also reflected in high-quality sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The emphasis on "conservative" tells us that "journalist" by itself is too simplistic. This is completely baffling to me. The title "journalist" is not complicated in any sense of the word. It's only complicated when you try to draw a connection from "journalist" to "activist" based on low-quality sources, and which is not reflected in high-quality ones. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about? "Snuck". Strike that. And I didn't add it anyhow. O3000 (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Springee's correct that there's no consensus for the line. He mistakenly thought you added it; it was in fact Grayfell. I think that's cleared up now. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't "snuck" in by anyone. It is sourced and obvious to everyone. Let us not stoop to incivility and bad faith edits. O3000 (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The line was re-added without consensus, despite the obvious BLP implications and sourcing issues, and WP:ONUS. That's the problem. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

If the rule is that you must obtain consensus for every edit, you have violated that a dozen times in the last day. Stop supporting a WP:CIV WP:AGF vio. All I have to say on the matter. O3000 (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I removed it per WP:ONUS. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. When we're talking about BLP sensitive content—I can't think of anything more BLP sensitive than the career label in the first sentence, other than something scandalous—WP:ONUS applies. I don't know what else you're referring to. If you have a specific problem with any other changes I've made, feel free to articulate them if you haven't already. Thanks! Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

You restored far more controversial, challenged claims. I suggest you revert them. O3000 (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

If you have a specific problem with any other changes I've made, feel free to articulate them if you haven't already. Thanks! Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I am responding to Shinealittlelight. Does anyone here understand threading? O3000 (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I removed the disputed claim, and I have made no other edits to this page in over a month. Do remove your BLP violation against the WaPo reporter above, though. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Your edit removed more than what you claim here. And I made no BLP vio. It is absolutely within our bounds to comment on reporting. We do this constantly. Just stop. O3000 (talk) 01:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll stop responding to you when you stop talking to me. The diff of my edit is here for all to see: [4]. I simply removed the claim that he is a social media activist from the lead, since that is currently in dispute, and in the opinion of several of us, undue in the lead sentence. If you have something substantive to say, please say it. You're welcome to comment on reporting, of course, but when say without evidence that a journalist at WaPo is publishing unfounded claims, you're crossing a line. WaPo is a central RS, and if you have evidence that she erred, go ahead and present it. But if you're just soiling her name for no reason, please remove it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I said "without evidence" because she gave no evidence. She didn't even say anonymous sources, much less according to authorities. No one has been identified, much less arrested. I don't even see anything about a suspect or person of interest. I do see that the paragraph starts with the resolution by Ted Cruz and the sentence starts with "The senators also pointed to", suggesting that she was just parroting an accusation by two senators, also in the article title, in a failed resolution. In the sentence we are using as a source, there is also an odd link in “who in June was left bloodied by antifa activists” that points to a different protest, a year earlier, saying nothing about antifa engaging in any violent action. This appears to be an error. The article is specifically about a resolution, not the incident, and it talks to the claims and substance therein. And yes, I am allowed to talk about this. Articles are not above reproach. O3000 (talk) 10:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so you did not mean that she has no evidence for the claim that Ngo was attacked by Antifa activists, but only that she did not present such evidence in the article. That seems right. Previously, you said she was making a claim with no evidence. That would have been a baseless smear, so I'm glad to hear that it is not what you meant. I have emailed her, so we will see if she responds. But the default of course is that facts reported in WaPo are reliable unless contradicted by other sources. I place no weight on the link, so that's beside the point. And no, she clearly wasn't attributing it to the senators. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. As a journalist, she has a duty to provide some indication of why she is making an accusation in WaPoVoice if it is not widely known. Perhaps you are smearing her. O3000 (talk) 12:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

There's no such duty. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The sentence has a link that makes no sense and is a sole source. In my mind, there is if it wishes to be used here. It is not a "smear" to question the usefulness of a sentence in an RS that is problematic. Daily journalism is difficult. We all make mistakes. O3000 (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry, and why has the second paragraph been trimmed again? It makes zero sense now. The reason that Ngo got famous was because of "conservative media," whatever you think of him, championing his cause. This is precisely what the cited source from the Williamette says. The firing alone didn't do it. The lead needs to summarize this simple fact. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Your attempted summary of the Vanguard incident was non-neutral. Reliable sources agree that the quote was out-of-context. MOS:ALLEGED is a form of editorializing. For the lead, the reason he came to national attention was for being fired. Anything beyond that is subjective, and your opinion that this is a simple fact is WP:OR. None of this really belongs in the lead at all based on these relatively flimsy sources. The "conservative media" line was a single sentence from a single source which is already over-used in the article. If this is so vitally important that it needs to be included in the lead, it should be supported and contextualized by more than this one mention.

As for the first sentence, I have restored an older version of the first paragraph, since that had consensus for at least several months. Citing WP:ONUS doesn't work as a justification for only including changes you agree with. The purpose is to build consensus, not to game the system.

As for being "attacked by Antifa activists" the Wikipedia article spends significantly more time discussing his laughing with the Patriot Prayer members who organized an attack on Cider Riot. If the lead is supposed to summarize the article, the lead should be roughly proportionate in which things it covers. Painting him as the victim of an attack by "Antifa activist" is non-neutral, because it's emphasizing the most salacious detail without regard to the weight of sources.

Since this seems like a point of confusion: Patriot Prayer is an organization which has members. Patriot Prayer is also loosely a far-right movement. Rose City Antifa is also an organization with some members. Just as not everyone who is far-right is Patriot Prayer, not everyone who is "antifa" is part of an organization. Attributing crimes to "Antifa" is simply not going to work without attribution. Patriot Prayer members are specifically accused of crimes. Antifa members cannot be accused of crimes, because "antifa members" don't exist. This is an encyclopedia, if you need to be specific, be specific. Grayfell (talk) 04:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The sources say His dismissal has drawn national attention from conservative media, which see it as an example of left-wing campuses muzzling free speech. His editorial piece and the conservative reaction--again, regardless of what you think of it--that brought him to national attention. But for that, he would have been fired for the tweet and we would never know who he is. I obviously agree with noting precisely what he was fired for--misrepresenting a Muslim student's remarks. In fact, I was the one who added it. But the other part of the story, and again, whatever any of us thinks of the conservative media (per WW) taking on his cause--whether they were right or wrong--it's a crucial piece of his notoriety and public profile. If the manner I've added this to the lead is "non-neutral," I would appreciate suggestions as to how this can presented in a more neutral fashion.

Painting him as the victim of an attack by "Antifa activist" is non-neutral, because it's emphasizing the most salacious detail without regard to the weight of sources. The lead does not say antifa activists carried out the assault, it says Ngo blamed them for the assault. Second, the WaPo names antifa activists or members for the assault (the sources describe antifa as a group--groups have members. This is how the English language works.). So either version would be acceptable. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Lead changes

How's that for an informative heading. Anyway, there is a lot of text above but I'm having trouble understanding what people want to add/remove from the body and the lead. I would suggest that 1. we at least agree for the time to stop making changes to the lead while we sort out changes (if any) to the body. Once the body is sorted then we can revisit the lead. 2. That we discuss changes to the body below with proposed changes (quotes etc) so we can reduce the number of back and forths before a change goes live. In watching the discussion above I find that both sides are making some good points. In watching the edits to the article I think there is ample room for a compromise text. It might not make anyone happy but if both can "live with it" then it's probably a good compromise. Springee (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• I don't like that the "social media personality" line was restored by Grayfell after being challenged, and without Grayfell even proposing this on the talk page. Of course, this is slightly different than the "activist" language and more neutral, and I was able to find it sourced to a piece in the Rolling Stone (though, again, the NYT should be our guiding star here). At this point, I think the only really necessary change is to explain how Ngo came to notoriety. He was fired from a paper for statements on Twitter perceived as misleading; he wrote an article about it claiming to be a victim of censhorship; conservative outlets and commentators jumped on his bandwagon, and thus a "star was born." Or, in other words, that's how we know who this guy is. I think it is incorrect to imply, as the lead currently does, that the firing alone is what sparked his public profile, when there were a few key events after that. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
• I can’t find any mainstream articles about him since the one incident over a year ago. A story that quickly died. Fox did report on his suit against “antifa”, in a highly biased article. The suit looks like an attempt at another fifteen minutes. Nobody is talking about the incident except for us. Frankly, he’s barely notable. O3000 (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Notability isn't temporary once established. The subject's notability is derived from 1) the coverage regarding his firing from a college paper and then 2) the coverage over his attack while covering protests in Portland, (as the lead already indicates). Since the article's been up for a year, never been the subject of a del. rev., and it's never been an issue before, bringing up the fundamental issue of notability while we're hammering out details of the lead is sort of like throwing a wrench into the discussion, and I'm not sure how much good that'll do. Then again, any editor is free to open a deletion review any time they like. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I said nothing about deletion. But, the coverage was very short-lived in RS and due to his efforts along with right-wing groups. Was there ever a police report on this attack? O3000 (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:SECONDARY. We don't go off primary sources (which include court documents, police reports, and criminal complaints). If you're interested in discussing article changes, this thread is the place to do it. If you want to raise basic questions about notability, that is probably meant for a second thread; bringing up notability about the subject generally also implies that you believe the article doesn't meet GNG, which is also appropriate fodder for a del rev but not something that can be fully addressed in the article's talk page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Please stop making assumptions about what I am saying. I say what I mean. I know we don't go off primary sources. Was there ever a police report on this attack? Wouldn't that be mentioned in a secondary source? O3000 (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that no police report was filed or that Ngo didn't report the attack to the police? The police are looking for suspects which they normally wouldn't do without a police report.[[5]] Didn't take much effort to find that. Springee (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I was looking for a serious source. "The Post Millennial is a conservative Canadian online news magazine started in 2017. It publishes national and local news and has a large amount of opinion content. It has been criticized for releasing misinformation and articles written by fake personas, for past employment of an editor with ties to white supremacist-platforming and pro-Kremlin media outlets, and for opaque funding and political connections." (According to our article) The article you linked to talks about concrete in milkshakes, that was debunked, and the quote they provide from the Portland Mayor doesn’t mention the incident or Ngo. Oh, I forgot, Andy Ngo was an editor of the source you used. O3000 (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:YOUCANSEARCH. Arguments about notability and available of primary sources belong in another thread. Separating out different discussions to consolidate those on same topic. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

O3000, first, are you seriously claiming that Ngo didn't file a police report? Second, that article was from shortly after the incident and quotes police with respect to the concrete part. When was that debunked, before or after 1 July? Finally, are you seriously saying Ngo didn't notify the police? Springee (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The talk page is a good place to clarify what is sourced and what isn't. The Post Millennial isn't even close to being a reliable source. What do reliable sources say about this, and what is the due weight of this incident, per those sources? Grayfell (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just trying to understand why O3000 is suggesting Ngo didn't file a police report. Why would we even care? Are people suggesting he wasn't really attacked? Are you suggesting the PM is lying that the police were looking for those people? I get that we might not want to quote the PM for this information though it would be questionable to say they aren't reliable for such a basic claim (weight of course is about matter). I never suggested that we should put this in the article. I'm just trying to understand why O3000 thinks we need to see a police report. Do we expect sources to specifically mentioned a police report in cases like this? Springee (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

WP is an encyclopedia based upon reliable secondary sources. Not that extremist source you provided, of which Ngo was a part. Where is the source that says an official report was made? We don't make assumptions here. And, please stop misconstruing my words. I asked if a police report was filed twice and received no evidence of such. Don't you think that's important? O3000 (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Why would you even suggest a police report want filed? Since you seem to be the only one suggesting the police weren't involved why don't you search. No one else is suggesting such a basic thing didn't happen. What article level content do you think is missing because we lack this report? What change are you proposing here? Springee (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I tire of your AGF vios. AGAIN, this is an encyclopedia. We don't take the word of one person for anything. I asked the question because there is no source. That is my job as an editor. And of course I searched. I found nothing. You said it was easy to find a source, and provided a recently created source criticized for fake news and white supremacist and Russian ties where the accuser worked. Why have you not stricken this embarrassing "source"? O3000 (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

What are you even taking about? You asked about a police report, why? Do you think one was never filed? For what article content is this needed? Springee (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I say again, we are an encyclopedia. We don’t assume. Do you really think it is wrong for an editor to ask for sourcing? I don’t know if a police report was filed. You don’t either – although you seem to believe a source criticized for white supremacy and Russian connections connected to the accuser. I can’t find sources that actually support the claims made by Ngo and repeated in the article. Seriously, the lead says “Ngo was attacked and injured”, with a cite that he SAYS he was attacked and injured. See the difference? It would be nice to have sources. It would be nice to see a secondary source that sys a police report was actually filed and accepted. Why do you keep questioning my reasonable questions? O3000 (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

You can say that again and again. I'm not arguing about sourcing. You asked if a police report was filed. Why. I provided a source that should at least be sufficient to convince you that the police were involved. Since I'm not proposing adding that content to the article the fact that PM isn't a generally RS doesn't matter. So since you asked about the report, why? Are you actually going suggest that Ngo wasn't attacked or injured? Are you suggesting we need to see a police report to verify Ngo was attacked? Yes, I keep questioning your questions but so far you haven't explained why they are "reasonable". Perhaps if you explained what article content you think is insufficiently sourced we might make some progress. Springee (talk) 01:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? You are still relying on a source identified with white supremacy and Russian propaganda and where the accuser himself worked? Clearly, I am incapable of the articulation needed to describe the role of a Wikipedia editor. So, I’ll leave it at that. O3000 (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Objective3000, I thought I would respond to a comment you made here [[6]] in this article where it belongs. You suggested that the PM would have a conflict of interest in reporting on Ngo, "Further, Andy Ngo, who the article is about, was an editor at the source, making it an obvious COI, " But Ngo started working for the PM in November 2019 (per our wiki article). The article in question was dated July 2019. Also, looking in the archives shows the answer should have been clear. [[7]]. 05:25 5 Sept entry includes quotes from NYT and qFox 13. NYT [[8]] says, "Many have blamed Antifa for the beating, which was captured on video. No one has been charged in connection with the assault, which the police are continuing to investigate. " The Fox affiliate says, " Portland’s mayor says an investigation into the attack is ongoing.". I think that should make it clear the police were notified and a police report likely exists. Springee (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, one Hell of a coincidence. That article supports what I have been saying. O3000 (talk) 02:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The part I was replying to was the suggestion that there was no police report. If you are suggesting that we can't state "the assailant was an Antifa member" I agreed already (in fact I think I agreed almost a year ago [[9]]) Springee (talk) 02:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

break for convenience

I am incapable of the articulation needed to describe the role of a Wikipedia editor Thankfully no one asked you to do so! He cited the source as an answer to your question of whether or not there was a police report for the attack on Ngo. If you aren't happy with his answer, then flex those fingers, crack open a Google search bar tab, and find one yourself that you believe is sufficient. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

His source is worse than The Onion. Are you actually supporting this? And obviously I did do a search. I can find no RS that says a police report was filed. WP:AGF O3000 (talk) 11:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I never supported anything, I said that I think whether there was a police report is inconsequential, and that if you are curious about whether there was one (reported in a reliable source), you are free to search it yourself and let us know what you find. Since you didn't find one, I take it there isn't, and I assume that settles the matter! Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. You, O3000 asked if a police report had been filed. Your question suggested that one hadn't. You have avoided answering the question, why are you asking. Are you suggesting one wasn't filed? How do you see this impacting the article? I provided the first source that included comments that police were looking for these people (pictures included) in connection with the attack. You seem to have fixated on the fact that the source as PM instead of answering why did you think this was an important question. I've asked if you are suggesting that Ngo wouldn't report the attack or that an attack never happened. You have remained silent on those questions. In order to shut down the red herring that was your PM rant, [[10]]. In that article, in relation to the Ngo attack, Portland police Lt. Tina Jones, bureau spokeswoman, said police were "actively looking into that incident." Does it show a police report? No. Does it say the police are looking into it, yes. Are you going to suggest they are doing this without some type of paperwork? Springee (talk) 13:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The question I asked is a legitimate question that you have repeatedly insinuated is otherwise. I will answer yet again. I am an editor asking a pertinent question. I am allowed to do that. The source you continue to push has connections to white supremacists and Russian propagandists and the subject of this article was an editor. That obviously makes it a terrible source. Further, it did not say that police were investigating an attack on Ngo. Your statement that I have remained silent on this is false and should be stricken. Your characterization that I was ranting is a personal attack and should be stricken. I strongly suggest you not stoop to this again. As for your second source, the article on this in Wikipedia has a total of five sentences; according to you it doesn’t say there was a police report filed; and it demands that I install an app to read. I will not do this. I ask again, was a police report filed? I think this is an important question given what all the other RS say about this and other incidents related to the subject of this article. O3000 (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

You are dodging the question again and it's starting to look like you are doing this to obfuscate. Prior to providing any sources, you asked, in a way that suggested you thought the answer was no, if Ngo had filed a police report. Why did you ask? Was there some content that should be changed in the article depending on the answer/evidence provided? That should be an easy question to answer and it doesn't matter if I cite the Onion, PM or NYT. Also, speaking of comments that should be struck, since I'm not suggesting we add the PM to the article your rant about it's "Russian ties" etc are red herrings. BTW, Oregon Live doesn't require an installed app to read. I don't know where you got that idea. I agree (and said before) it doesn't say "police report filed" but it does say the police are looking into the Ngo attack. Are you suggesting they are doing that without a police report? Before you answer that one, let's start with the primary question, why are you fixated on this police report question?Springee (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

You have twice accused me of ranting and twice accused me of fixating. Now accusing me of obfuscating. I am not ranting, fixating, or obfuscating. I asked one question. You are fixating on this for some reason, and making personal attack after personal attack. I don't know why you are so upset by this simple question, but streams of personal attacks in response is unacceptable. O3000 (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Let's distill this to a simple question. You asked about a police report. How do you think the answer to that question will be used to change the article? What article edits would be made based on the answer to that question? Unless you think ONUS would apply to some article content, no editor is required to answer your question. Springee (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Currently the section on the Vanguard incident cites three sources:

• <ref name="wweekJournalist">: Herron, Elise (July 14, 2017). "A Dispute Over a Muslim Student's Remarks Costs a College Journalist His Job, And Brings National Furor to Portland State University". Willamette Week. Retrieved June 30, 2019.
• <nowiki><ref name="outrage">: Wilson, Jason (March 18, 2018). "How to troll the left: understanding the rightwing outrage machine". The Guardian. Retrieved July 1, 2019.
• Leary, Colleen (May 14, 2017). "In response to 'Fired for reporting the truth'". Daily Vanguard. Retrieved August 30, 2019.

The Vanguard source is directly involved, is an opinion, and is in a student paper. There's nothing wrong with any of these, but this means it should be treated cautiously and with clear attribution. Willamette Week is a reliable source for factual information, but is a Portland-based alt-weekly that focuses on local issues (Willamette is a river that runs through Portland). Both the WW and Vanguard stories are from around the time of the incident, which means they cannot demonstrate the long-term significance of this incident.

The Guardian source is international coverage which was written several months after this incident. In this respect it is the strongest of the three sources. It is not primarily about the Vanguard incident. Instead, it spends several paragraphs discussing this as context for other, more important issues. Therefore, it makes sense to me to use this for the broad strokes, while the other two can be used to fill-in details.

As a prelude to explaining the Vanguard incident, the Guardian says this:

Ngo is no stranger to controversy, and it wasn’t his first viral video. Over the last year, the student has shrewdly inserted several into the workings of the rightwing outrage machine.

The Guardian source's main topic is this "outrage machine", and several other examples of Ngo's role in this are given. My reading of the source tells me this is important context. The Guardian is at least partly giving Ngo credit for repeatedly becoming the stories he supposedly reported on.

All three sources mention Breitbart as well as the National Review opinion. If Breitbart is the example cited by all sources, this may be important enough for the lead, as well. According to the Guardian source, Ngo himself used the opinion to frame this as a free speech issue, as well as (supposedly) being about political correctness. None of the sources I have seen treat this as having real merit. Instead, they treat this as a disputable claim used to attract attention. Including this detail without context would be misrepresenting what reliable sources are saying.

Grayfell (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Assessments of "merit" need to be de-entangled from assessments of weight. Nor does an assessment of the "merit" of a viewpoint have any place in this kind of analysis. WP:NOTFORUM. All the sources mention the conservative reaction as adding to Ngo's notoriety, namely the Williamette and Guardian piece. The third is a letter to the editor and an opinion piece, and not usable for our purposes. If there is a viewpoint expressed in those sources that the conservative backlash was wrong, it can also be included per weight. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Merit matters to the extent that reliable sources evaluate it. This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip column. We are not going to promote a WP:FRINGE perspective that Ngo is being censored for misrepresenting other people's words and actions. Sources do not accept that this is valid, so we cannot tacitly endorse this perspective by pushing it to the lead without context. Sources provide context, and we cannot ignore that context. In that respect, merit does matter. Placing this in the lead without this context would be misrepresenting sources to promote a specific point of view.

I assume by "the third" you mean the Vanguard opinion. That isn't a "letter to the editor", it is a letter from the editor, also known as an editorial. Further, it is cited by other reliable sources. How we summarize this open to discussion, but do not misrepresent the source. Grayfell (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• We cannot cite editorials as reliable sources for anything other than that person's opinion.
• A WP:FRINGE view is a view that is not represented in reliable sources, not one that you believe to be incorrect. The Guardian source covers the conservative media reaction critically—this does not mean it should be excluded from the article.

When Vanguard, too, became the focus of conservative ire, it published another blogpost offering further explanation. As a result of his dismissal, Ngo got space on a major conservative platform, National Review, which he used to frame his dismissal as a free speech issue. He also did an “ask me anything” session on the subreddit r/thedonald, a major hub for Trump supporters, conspiracy theorists, and far-right sympathizers. There, he described his firing as part of a “trend towards self-censorship in the name of political correctness”, expressing a desire to appear on the show of Fox’s prime-time race hustler, Tucker Carlson. In February, another Ngo video did the rounds of rightwing media. It depicted another brief disruption of an event, this one hosted by Freethinkers of PSU, an atheist student club led by Ngo. The headliner was the fired Google engineer and author of an infamous memo on diversity at the company, James Damore.

• This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip column. Sanctimoniously repeating this over and over has nothing to do with the fact that the analysis above is heavily flawed.
• but do not misrepresent the source Nothing was misrepresented. The lead as I had edited it briefly gave reference to the reaction in conservative media as reported by the Williamette and Guardian, nothing more. This does not establish the view as correct, it merely establishes that it was their view. We do not selectively censor opinions reported in reliable sources, particularly when, as I have repeatedly noted, they form a key part of why the subject became notable. If you feel further "context" is required, then suggest that context, but stop edit-warring the material out of the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

At the very least, Ngo's response to the allegation by the paper is required. He has written, as you noted, an editorial defending his actions. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC) Example: Ngo framed his firing as an attempt to stifle free speech, garnering support from conservative media. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Ngo's response to the allegations is something that is acceptable per ABOUTSELF. It may not be DUE in the lead but it would be DUE in the body. Springee (talk) 01:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The article already mentions his op-ed. Specifically mentioning Breitbart seems like a step in the right direction, since this is mentioned by all sources, but this should also be summarized in the body as well. This illustrates a deeper problem. I have attempted to expand the lead to more accurately summarize the body of the article. Including many details of this one incident was lopsided at best, since the lion's share of sources are about other issues. Ngo's framing is not automatically included in the lead, or the body (no, that isn't how BLP works). Getting fired is not a criminal act, and Wikipedia doesn't offer the right of reply. His framing only belong as a proportionate summary of sources, so the task for us is to summarize the article in the lead and then evaluate. This may need an RFC or some noticeboard discussions. Grayfell (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I've rolled these changes back. Too much detail and you changed the previous, consensus agreement on the description of his alleged joking with Proud Boys. Springee (talk) 10:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Grayfell adds to the lead that Ngo was pictured "laughing" with Proud Boys members without noting that a) he denies any connections with the group and b) that this, too, is out-of-context material. Talk about "decontextualizing." This is patently ridiculous to include; it is suggestive, barely mentioned in sources, and not relevant to a summary of the article. It's a shame, because a few of Grayfell's other, more minor changes were reasonable, but I have to endorse the revert because the edits in the entirety so blatantly violate NPOV. Need to do better. And stop calling the attackers "unidentified." This is WP:SYNTH. None of the sources say that. We don't know that they haven't been identified, we just know that there haven't been any public arrests. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

And let me also put out a reminder that, per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, where an allegation has been denied, that denial is to be included. Grayfell's objection to "Ngo's framing" not belonging in the lead and claim that it isn't required does not follow from WP policy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cedar777:, my reversion of the lead change was not due to a single issue. There were quite a few issues with that change. Additionally, a discussion was on going with two editors objective to the change. At this point ONUS applies and the old version should be restored. That said, please join into the discussion here. I suspect your input would be good based on some of your other edits to the article today. Springee (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Cedar777 restored a prior version of the lead which blatantly violated neutrality. Discontent with a short, neutral description is not a reason to start highlighting negative or salacious information in the lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see that it violated neutrality: [11]; my rationale was: "the lead should focus on what the subject is primarily known for". --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, as an experienced editor you should know that this is now a contested change and there isn't consensus for Grayfell's edits. The next step is to discuss the changes (not all negative in my opinion) and get a consensus change. We should not be restoring the disputed text without addressing concerns first. Springee (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: "Primarily known for" means what's received the most coverage. That would be the firing & the assault by antifa. The rest is minutia. Balancing his blaming antifa activists for the assault with "but the attackers are unidentified" is unsupported by sources, which do not use that language, see WP:SYNTH, and contradicted by the Washington Post, which says that antifa activists "bloodied" Ngo. The rest of the lead goes well beyond a summary of what he's well-known for and creates 2 additional paragraphs, for a total of 5, violating MOS:LEAD's recommendation of four max, to mention additional disputes that are far lesser known. I suggest you restore the shorter version and read the above discussion, per WP:ONUS. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with K.e.coffman's revert. This results in a more neutral, more accurate. more representative lead. O3000 (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

So you are OK with factual errors? (Per our article Ngo was testifying on 1A issues, not 2A). We also have covered that "joking" with PB is problematic because the "source" for the video is someone who claims to be an antifa sympathizer who went "under cover" with the PBs. Also, based on the video evidence the claim is very weak and has been disputed by other sources. That shouldn't be in the lead. The old lead covered that claim already. With respect to the assault on Ngo, the "no attacker has been identified" suggests the assault didn't happen vs it did but the perps haven't been captured. We can discuss some of the details but the bulk change is less neutral and factually less accurate. Springee (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

On the whole, I think the changes are neutrally written and a significant improvement from much earlier versions of the article. However, the bit about him "joking" with activists does not belong in the lead. And as I stated already, the attackers were identified as antifa by the press (WaPo). As Springee mentioned, we shouldn't gloss over inaccuracies or undue weight issues for the sake of consensus. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Being "identified as antifa" is misleading at best. Antifa is a loose ideology, not an identifying physical trait. All I could find was one caption to a photo which says Unidentified Rose City Antifa members beat up Ngo.[12] Does this mean that Washington Post identified them as unidentified? In addition to being logically incoherent, this demonstrates the flimsiness of using photo captions for factual claims. Nowhere else does the article mention Rose City Antifa. The WaPo story cited this earlier WaPo story which doesn't identify anyone or mention Rose City Antifa. That story cited this NYT story which also doesn't identify anyone or mention Rose City Antifa. So far, the only source which says anything either way says they are unidentified. All of this is very flimsy.

I have not seen any reliable sources which dispute that Ngo was laughing and smiling. The relevant footage shows Ngo with a group of people traveling with helmets, body armor, sticks, respirators (for pepper spray), etc. to a bar favored by antifa activists on May 1st. As far as I know, nobody is pretending they went for a neighborhood bar crawl with their bear mace and police batons. Ngo was present, but did not report any of this part of the event. Instead, he attributed the violence to antifa. These are the facts according to reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

We went through the "attacked by antifa" members question a while back. In the end I agree we can't say "attacked by antifa". The sources generally don't specifically call the attackers antifa members and, as others have said, if antifa doesn't have a strict membership then how can we say someone is or isn't. There litterally could be someone who is 100% on the same page as "antifa" but was a lone individual. They would be sympathetic with antifa's actions and methods but still not be a member. I would suggest the long standing phrasing from the lead simply because that was what came out of the last set of debates. Yes, if an arrest was made and the person could be identified as a Rose City Antifa member, that would be different. Incidentally, I do think "appear to be" is reasonable but again, previous text was there after a series of back and forths.

We also had a discussion about laughing/smiling. That one again, we should stick with long standing versions. The previous lead consensus was that he was accused of associated with. That is a summary and it would not only cover that video but any other associations that may have been accused. Several commentators/op-eds noted the weak nature of this "laughing with" claim. I understand we normally don't like op-ed type materials but many of these sources on both sides are a mix of fact and op-ed. Fact is "video shows Andy Ngo". Commentary is "Ngo is doing X in video". No reason why an op-ed writer viewing the video would be more or less accurate than a strongly biased source "factually" reporting about the video content (especially if the "factual" reporting is a source like the Daily Dot). Additionally, this was problematic because the sources is an anonymous "under cover" antifa (or similar) person. So the unnamed source would have a clear perverse incentive to discredit Ngo. We then have commentators who are not sympathetic to Ngo who decide the video means X when the actual evidence in the video is unclear. It could mean X but it could also mean Y or Z. Since this is a BLP and the accusation is very damning if true as claimed we need to err on the side of caution with how this material is handled. Note that until very recently the text in the body of the article was, " Ngo, who ultimately blamed the violence on antifascist activists, is alleged to be smiling and laughing at the discussion." That is true. Sources are claiming is his laughing with. We are not stating in Wikivoice that he is doing this thing. That text in the body was changed earlier today in a disputed edit [[13]]. It has been previously discussed more than once (and probably more than just these times since I didn't search the notice boards) [[14]][[15]]. So we get back to the primary issue, some sources are making this allegation but they are low quality sources/speculative. We don't accuse someone of this sort of thing without solid evidence. The previous lead covered this in a neutral way. The updated, non-consensus lead does not. Springee (talk) 03:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

No consensus for lead change: I want to make it clear that at this point we don't have a consensus for the changes to the lead. The changes haven't been justified and per ONUS they should not have been restored once challenged. A primary issue is the claim that Ngo was joking with PP members and was aware of an upcoming attack. This absolutely should not be presented in wiki voice. It must be clearly indicated that this is an allegation, not a proven fact. The weak evidence has been disputed by other source [[16]].

The problem, of course, is that the video—which mostly depicts a small group of people standing around, discussing which side of the street they should walk on when and if they approach antifa, and conversing with the undercover Ben—proves no such thing. I have watched it from start to finish at least five times, and it does not even establish that the group of right-wing agitators planned an attack—let alone that Ngo was aware of such a plot. Indeed, the Portland Mercury article that received such rave reviews from The Daily Beast, Vice, Media Matters, and others makes little effort to explain what was so damning about the video, and Zielinski spends much of her article lionizing Ben's actions without offering any independent scrutiny of his claims. Ngo says she did not reach out to him before publishing the article, and she confirmed this in an email to Reason. When asked about some of the claims in her piece, Zielinski said, "I can tell you're concerned with my coverage on a larger scale, and I'm sure my response won't change that."

Additionally, The Spectator ran an article by Ngo where he refutes the allegations [[17]]. Responses to allegations by the accused are DUE in cases like this. For some time the article had stood with a consensus that this was an allegation. Yesterday, without discussion, this was changed from an allegation to a statement in wiki voice. [[18]] Such a change needs to be justified by those who wish to make the change and should not be in the article once challenged until a new consensus is clear. Springee (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. There's no consensus for the change. Frankly, I think in such a short article, it's weird how detailed the lead is, and everything past the first paragraph seems to me undue for the lead. But I agree with what Springee and Wikieditor have said about the problems with the specific changes that have been made. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Including allegations from second-tier sources that Ngo "laughed with" far-right groups, even with the qualifers that were added. This is undue for the lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Consensus isn't a vote, and an excessively lengthy post isn't a supervote. Your personal opinion that this is undue is at odds with MOS:LEAD. Your opinion that they are "second-tier" is at odds with WP:RS. The lead summarizes the body of the article, and this incident has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The lead also includes Ngo's denial. Grayfell (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree, it's not a vote but if you are suggesting there is a difference between merits of the arguments then perhaps you should run a RfC or some other method. We don't have a consensus of opinion and this isn't a case where you can claim an overwhelming majority that must be right so that means we should restore the last stable text. BTW, if you want a policy based argument, BLP. You are accusing Ngo of being a party to a conspiracy to commit a crime and putting that text clearly in the lead. That's a big deal. Springee (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. I am not accusing Ngo of anything. Sources have accurately documented that he was with armed far-right activists who walked towards a bar favored by antifa activists, and then reported on the subsequent violence by blaming antifa bar patrons. Everyone, including Ngo, agrees that violence occurred. The weapons, helmets, and "tacticool" body armor demonstrate the far-right activists expected violence. Contrary to unreliable sources, Portland is not a war zone,Patriot Prayer isn't a military force, and Ngo isn't an embedded journalist. If somehow Ngo didn't notice that the people he was with were bringing bear spay and police batons to a bar, then he was not paying attention. If that's his defense, so be it, but this doesn't change the facts of the situation according to reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

A few issues here:

1) Whatever beliefs you want to attribute to Ngo are utterly and completely irrelevant. 2) You do not have consensus to restore this material. Material that my be verifable is not by default WP:DUE, and it is completely unwarranted for the lead. This is reporting limited to a few second-tier sources. 3) In your last edit summary, you suggest my removal of this challenged material for which there is no consensus and possibly consensus against, as WP:BLANKing. This is a false accusation.

You are entitled to make your case, but you are not entitled to make bad-faith accusations or restore the content while discussion is pending and consensus is not there. Please remove it.

Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand the comment about "beliefs". The lead should be a summary of the entire article. I am not interested in personalizing this discussion. However you wish to describe it, you removed contend from the lead. Your assessment of those sources as "second-tier" is unsupported. These sources are reliable, even if they are not perfect, and per sources this incident is associated with a significant career change. Further, many sources mention the May Day riot in relation to Ngo, and it would be a misrepresentation of the situation to ignore this context. Grayfell (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Grayfell, the previous lead which said he was "accused of" did summarize the body. You are planning undue weight on an accusation that hasn't been substantiated by additional sources (ie we have only "Ben" the undercover antifa agent and a video which commentators have used to suggest a disputed conclusion. We also have sources such as Reason which say the evidence doesn't support the conclusion. We don't include Ngo's denial of the accusation which is required per BLPPUBLIC. Finally, at least 3 editors have iobjected to this change so you don't have consensus to edit war it into the lead (and body). Springee (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I do not know which previous lead you are referring to, as none of the recent ones I glanced at to refresh my memory use "accused" in the lead. If you are referring to the lead before my recent attempt at expanded it, then I dispute that it accurately summarized the article. Your personal distrust of "Ben" is at odds with how reliability is evaluated. It is up to sources to interpret this material, not editors. I have not seen any reliable sources which dispute that Ngo was there, was friendly with the far-right activists, etc. Grayfell (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• For clarity, I should mention that my recent revert included some other changes. I removed the detail about laughing and joking, as this seemed unnecessary. The "or report the attack" line seemed confusing, as well. Grayfell (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• That is better than before but you still are failing to follow BLPPUBLIC as you aren't including Ngo's denial of the accusation. Regardless, since this is a disputed change NOCON says it should be reverted and we can work out the difference here before it goes live. That said, let's step back and perhaps reach an agreement on the body text related to that material. Until a few days ago the body text said:

On August 26, 2019, The Daily Beast reported that Ngo was leaving Quillette. Earlier in the day, Portland Mercury covered a video that showed Ngo standing near members of Patriot Prayer, the far-right group active in Portland, as they planned violence at a bar frequented by left-wing activists.[5][54][64] Ngo, who ultimately blamed the violence on antifascist activists, is alleged to be smiling and laughing at the discussion.[51][40]

The two sources for "smiling and laughing" are Salon and Daily Dot. Per RSP Salon is yellow (biased and opinionated). Daily Dot is considered reliable for internet culture which this is not. Salon actually attributed their version of what the video says to The Portland Mercury News writer. The DD discussion of the video attributes specific claims to others such as the same PM writer and various Twitter users. Seriously, we are using that as our source to say, in wikivoice, Ngo was hanging out with and laughing with PP members. On the other hand we have Ngo's version of events published in The Spectator. His version of events is every bit as believable as the one being told by "Ben". We also have Reason (green per RSP) which says the evidence doesn't support the claim. [[19]]

What was so "damning" and "incriminating" about the video was largely unexplained, though Sommer did include a quote from Quillette Editor in Chief Claire Lehmann, who explained that Ngo's departure had nothing to do with the new video footage, and had been agreed upon by both parties some weeks ago. (Lehmann confirmed this to Reason.) ... In any case, the message coming from left-of-center media was clear: Patriot Prayer planned the Cider Riot attack, Ngo was tacitly involved, and Ben's video proves it.

The problem, of course, is that the video—which mostly depicts a small group of people standing around, discussing which side of the street they should walk on when and if they approach antifa, and conversing with the undercover Ben—proves no such thing. I have watched it from start to finish at least five times, and it does not even establish that the group of right-wing agitators planned an attack—let alone that Ngo was aware of such a plot. Indeed, the Portland Mercury article that received such rave reviews from The Daily Beast, Vice, Media Matters, and others makes little effort to explain what was so damning about the video, and Zielinski spends much of her article lionizing Ben's actions without offering any independent scrutiny of his claims. Ngo says she did not reach out to him before publishing the article, and she confirmed this in an email to Reason. When asked about some of the claims in her piece, Zielinski said, "I can tell you're concerned with my coverage on a larger scale, and I'm sure my response won't change that."

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. 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.

We have a reliable source that says the video doesn't show what some claim. That means we need to say this is an allegation and not universally accepted. We also need to indicate that Ngo has disputed the claim in detail. I would propose we change things back to "alleged", add more content as to what some claim the video shows but also add the response from Ngo and Reason showing that the significance of the video is in dispute. Springee (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

It's completely sensationalist, limited to a few lower-quality sources, and is nowhere near worthy for the lead. It is also challenged and without consensus at this time. Please remove the content. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

We have reliable news sources documenting this. What, exactly, is he "denying"? He is not denying that he was with them prior to the riot. It is not up to Ngo or Reason or individual editors to determine why this video was significant. Quotes from an opinion at Reason.com do not change anything. The reliability of these sources is not challenged by calling them "lower-quality" or "second-tier" or whatever. They have positive reputations for accuracy and fact checking, which is what is required from WP:RS. Grayfell (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Daily Dot is considered reliable for internet culture which this is not. Strenuously disagree with the latter part; this is clearly an internet-culture-war thing. Ngo's fame is largely online (that is where he posts almost all his things), the videos were posted on Twitter, and the other part of the dispute concerns his departure from a grindy internet-culture-war website himself. If this isn't internet culture then I'm unsure exactly what would be. Also, On the other hand we have Ngo's version of events published in The Spectator. His version of events is every bit as believable as the one being told by "Ben". Absolutely not; that is a mere opinion-piece in a yellow / low-quality source, and we cannot cite an opinion piece for statements of fact, as you are well aware. The things he states there are obviously self-serving; it is nowhere near as good of a source as the Daily Dot's reporting. We note the bare existence of his disagreement in the article body, but unless a secondary source takes it seriously it is the typical WP:MANDY stuff - there is no reason to give it any particular weight beyond that. --Aquillion (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Podcast blurb

@Prisencolin: We need a specific reason to include a quote from an interview. This podcast is 1 hour and 20 minutes long, so presumably it has many quotes. It is non-neutral to use this quote, and none of the others, based on nothing but editor opinion. If there is some specific reason to include this line, support it with an WP:IS. Grayfell (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

This was a previous discussion topic. It was included per ABOUTSEFL as it allows Ngo to describe his own political POV. Springee (talk) 10:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I do not see any strong support in the talk page's archives for this specific quote. We can summarize his own views without cherry-picking a sensationalist quote from a lengthy podcast. Looking at these sources closer, it appears this is WP:SYNTH, as well. It appears that none of these sources mention whether or not he "describes himself as such". A more neutral summary would be something like this:

Ngo describes himself as center-right.[podcast] He has been described by others as right wing,[specific sources] or conservative.[specific sources].

At least some sources, such as the RSF.org one, also describe him as "far-right", so this could be included as well. If Ngo directly disputes being called a conservative journalist, let's see a source for that. If he only indirectly disputes this by calling himself "center-right", then having the article say "he describes his political views as center-right" or similar is sufficient. Grayfell (talk) 02:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Please see this discussion at NPOVN [[20]]. The critical points are that we have a number of sources that tell us what they think Ngo's political views are. Since this describes an individual, that individual's view's of himself are inherently relevant even if they are a minority POV in RSs. For this reason the Rogan quote was in the article despite being sourced to a podcast. It should be noted that Rogan's show has viewership numbers that would be respectable on any cable news channel. "Far-right" vs conservative, is a different question. "Far-right" is not used as it becomes a contentious label and not one used by more mainstream, centrists publications. Springee (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with your summary of that discussion.

Again, what is accomplished by this salacious, conversational quote about "a gun to his head" that isn't better accomplished by "he has described himself as politically center-right"? This seems to be a point that was also raised at that discussion, but not, as far as I can see, answered.

As for avoiding far-right, this seems like political correctness, at best. A personal dislike of a term doesn't make it any more or less significant than a some other one. To only use some terms, strictly based on some editor's opinion of how "contentious" they are, would be a form of editorializing. This would be removing sourced content based on one editor's own appraisal of that source's conclusions. It is not up to editors to make conclusions, it is up to sources. If being far-right is contentious, then there would have to be a more-neutral way to explain the same underlying concept without resorting to WP:EUPHEMISMs. "Far-right" is the neutral term for this political position, so it is appropriate language for an encyclopedia. Grayfell (talk) 03:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

No, we go by what the most reliable sources have reported—not on opinion pieces, and not according to second-tier sources, particularly with contentious labels. The New York Times has written on Ngo and used the term "conservative," never "far-right." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The accusations of "editorializing" and "decontextualizing" are getting tiresome. Whether something is controversial or contentious is an objective determination. "Far-left," "far-right," "militant," are all WP:LABELS for whichpolicy requires we use only the highest tier of sources. The best sources available, namely WaPo and NYT, have used no such labels for the subject of this article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The NYTimes rarely uses the term far-right when discussing US politics. Can't remember the last time. O3000 (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Grayfell, are you concerned about the specific wording or simply the source itself? Changing the wording might be OK but allowing Ngo to have his own statements linked via the podcast is a good ABOUTSELF option. The other links are not as effective at communicating Ngo's own POV on the subject and remember, this is a question that was asked and answered in response to the number of sources that were calling him far-right etc. The article is better for offering more depth in this area. Springee (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

It is correct that the NYT is more circumspect about labels like "far-right" or equivalently "far-left," though it does use them. That's because they are indeed a high quality source and are careful to use such labels without extensive evidence. Second-tier sources are more looser about throwing around contentious phrases and descriptors. That's why we follow the former and not the latter. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

For the third time, I propose replacing the full quote from the Rogan podcast with Ngo has described himself as politically center-right and removing the "but doesn't describe himself as such" line as editorializing that is not directly supported by the attached sources.

If reliable sources describe him as far-right, we can discuss the merits of those sources. The NYT is not so reliable that it trumps all other sources. Grayfell (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

As has been explained: WP:RELIABILITY and WP:WEIGHT are not yes/no questions. They are a matter of degree. The NYT is indeed reliable enough that, if it does not use a label, we take that heavily into account. We do not place the same weight on Buzzfeed or a magazine op-ed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. It is not a yes/no question. If a generally reliable outlet like Buzzfeed News publishes an article describing Ngo as far-right, we well have to evaluate that source on its own merits. Invoking "Buzzfeed" to imply clickbait is a deflection, since the only source I specifically mentioned was RSF.org, and only as a potential example.

For context, that source is categorized by the site as news, not an opinion. It includes an editorial comment from the RSF condemning violence against Ngo and affirming his right to report without being attacked. And again, it describes him as "a far-right blogger". This demonstrates that the RSF considers "far-right" as a neutral description. It is context they provide to readers.

As for whether or not "we take that heavily into account"... Not exactly. This is not matched by my experiences on Wikipedia. I have had very similar discussions about this issue on several other BLP articles. If multiple reliable sources use different, overlapping terms, we can evaluate the best way to convey that information to readers without presuming this is a contradiction. The NYT's manual of style is not our manual of style, and we are not a newspaper anyway. The absence of a term in some sources doesn't invalidate it in others. Nobody is saying we should ignore the NYT. We should look at all reliable sources and weigh them accordingly. Grayfell (talk) 09:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. We are not discussing a "manual of style." The NYT's apparent refraining from using contentious labels is a journalistic practice, and it is one indicative of reliability. Buzzfeed News articles dated after their layoffs are marked with a proceed with caution at RSP. We do not defer to your cherrypicked sources, we defer to the most reliable sources, especially when it involves WP:LABEL, which labels suggestive of extremism or "far-right/far-left" are relevant to. There is no "overlap" on the use of the term "far-right" between the NYT and WaPo. Both describe Ngo as conservative. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I am going to suggest a compromise that I believe is compliant with policy: Clearly you feel this content is relevant to the article. It may well be, and I agree that Buzzfeed News is not unreliable, even though it is probably in the middle-tier of reliability. If you want to use that phrase in the article, it should be attributed. I.e. Buzzfeed News has described Ngo as . . . etc. I believe this is compliant with BLP and LABEL, and would not object to its addition. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Please start indenting your comments consistently, per WP:TPG.

My response regarding Buzzfeed was intended to indicate that all outlets are judged in context. It is not possible to precisely rank outlets by reliability, as this is subjective. It is also likely unproductive for any specific change to an article.

We have many sources which us various similar terms. This article is not the place to discuss whether or not "conservative", "right wing" and "far-right" are exclusive or overlapping in a general sense. As I said, I have already had this discussion on several other talk pages. In this particular article, sources which otherwise agree often use different words to describe Ngo's political position. Some likely favor specific terms based on their own MoS, which is why this is relevant to this discussion. The use of "conservative" by one source doesn't challenge the use of "far-right" by another source. The NYT's manual of style is conservative (in the non-political sense) and differs from Wikipedia's in many ways. Other sources use different language to describe the same thing. As a tertiary source, we should sample broadly from reliable sources.

I think it would be unnecessary to attribute every single source, since sources do not treat this as a subjective opinion. From Wikipedia's perspective, it is just as possible for someone to be objectively far-right as it is for them to be objectively conservative. The article already establishes that these descriptions are external to Ngo. If any of these sources explain why they use these terms, this should be used to expand the section and provide more context. In that case, attribution might make a lot more sense. "According to the Podunk Times, Ngo's sympathetic coverage of neo-nationalist groups like Patriot Prayer suggests a far-right political ideology ..." Something like that. Since a large number of sources call him "conservative" as a factual description, there is no particular reason to attribute this, and I don't preemptively assume that a source which uses a different term must be handled with kid gloves. If a source is reliable enough to be cited in a BLP, and the RSF one appears to be reliable, then it is reliable for statements of fact. It is not presented by the source as an opinion. Attributing this as an opinion would imply to readers that this should be doubted, but we have not demonstrated any reason this is unreliable in this context. Grayfell (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

We do not need to "rank" sources to know that the New York Times and WaPo are top-tier and Buzzfeed News is marked as "use caution" at WP:RSP. Four paragraphs are not required on this subject to establish this. If you want to use second-tier sources for contentious labels, attribute them. End of story. Nor did I suggest that "every source" needs to be attributed, nor does "every source" use the label that you are aggressively pushing for. Case in point, WaPo and NYT do not. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't introduce Buzzfeed into this discussion, you did, and again, any specific Buzzfeed News article will have to be evaluated on its own merits. The use of different terminology indicates a different point of view, but it is not necessarily a contradiction. Therefor including information from RSF (such as "far-right blogger") is not a challenge to the NYT's reliability when they say "conservative journalist". Grayfell (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

If you cannot understand this fundamental concept, then you shouldn't be editing a contentious page. Persistently and aggressively pushing for content that is close to or actually violates BLP without consensus is going to get us nowhere. Contentious labels require high quality sources and showing that such use is widespread in those sources. "RSF.org" is nothing close to a mainstream reliable source. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I dunno, maybe if you add some more html code, I'll start agreeing with you...

Your dislike of a term doesn't make it inaccurate, therefore it is not automatically contentious. As I have said, "far-right" is the neutral term for a non-neutral position. Wikipedia is not censored, so we have to be able to use direct language to describe these topics. There really isn't a more neutral way to explain this, so avoiding the term would be euphemistic. Reporters Without Borders is mainstream, especially for issues of journalism, and this source is already cited in the article. We have a lot of reliable sources using different terms. It's not clear that any one of them is definitive in isolation. Lumping together a handful which use anodyne terms, but not any other terms, is cherry-picking. It is using Wikipedia for public relations, which is explicitly contrary to Wikipedia's mission.

Here are how some sources describe Ngo. I have added bold for relevant terms, strictly to make this wall of text more digestible:

• "Reporters Without Borders (RSF) condemns protesters who physically attacked far-right blogger Andy Ngo during a demonstration in Portland, Oregon, on June 29."[21]
• "That quote was in a tweet from Andy Ngo, a right-wing propagandist who has been associated with the violent far-right group, Patriot Prayer."[22]
• "That same day, conservative Portland activist Andy Ngo shared Gray's name and mug shot on Twitter."[23]
• "Andy Ngo, an online provocateur ... Ngo aligned himself with the right-wing groups."[24]
• "The 33-year-old provocateur, despite his pretenses to the contrary, wasn’t a reporter." (and a lot more about his "chummy" relationship with the far-right)[25]
• "The conservative activist and journalist Andy Ngo sued Hacker and several other people earlier this year, alleging they harassed him over his unfavorable coverage of antifa."[26]
• "He believes the retraction was spurred by right-wing agitator Andy Ngo, who tweeted that the company was 'offering to donate ice pops to the Portland antifa rioters.'"[27]
• "He has retweeted posts by Andy Ngo (a right-wing provocateur who fashions himself as a gonzo journalist), George Soros conspiracies, and seems to believe there is a communist conspiracy to take guns away from American citizens."[28]
• "But the issue wasn’t so much that Ngo had finally been “exposed” as a right-wing provocateur as opposed to a journalist. It was that he’d managed to successfully convince so many ostensibly reasonable people otherwise, despite significant evidence to the contrary — and, in so doing, did some serious damage in the process."[29]
• "But the most notable instance of violence had nothing to do with the Proud Boys: It was an attack by counterprotesters on the conservative journalist Andy Ngo that reportedly sent him to the hospital. ...But according to a second narrative, offered primarily by less well-known left-liberal writers and social media accounts, the mainstream media is getting it all wrong. Ngo is not an innocent victim but a far-right sympathizer who has doxxed antifa members in the past, potentially facilitating their harassment, and provokes them so that he can broadcast the result." The source is not picking sides, but explicitly does not discount the "far-right" perspective.
• "In the hour before airing President Trump’s interview, OAN ran a segment on nationwide anti-racism protests that focused on “leftist rioters” and “antifa” and that used footage from far-right media activist Andy Ngo."[30]

I could keep going, but a there is enough here to make an observation: None of these sources present his political position as separate from his career. All of them use it as a defining trait in relation to his activities. Having a subsection for "Political views" is misrepresenting how sources describe him. He is not notable as a journalist who happens to have views, he is notable as an "activist", "agitator", "provocateur", "busybody journalist" etc.

To avoid hagiography or PR, we should either integrate this information into the rest of the article, or we should have a proper "Reception" section. I'm not optimistic about the former. The latter has WP:CSECTION issues, but it would be a much better way to contextualize how sources view his work instead of his "views", which are not actually all that important anyway. Grayfell (talk) 05:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

This isn't the first or second time you've tried to push "right-wing" vs conservative etc. You don't have consensus for this change. I think it was last December when a more expansive list of sources made it clear that conservative was used more often and by the more reliable, mainstream sources. The same is true of attempts to replace journalist with other descriptors. Springee (talk) 10:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Grayfell can call compliance with BLP and sourcing standards "hagiography," but this aggressive POV pushing and mis-use of low-quality and opinion pieces has no place in the article. If yu want to provide a list of sources, include the names of the publications and dates next to each bullet point. To reiterate: the most reliable, neutral pieces on the subject (WaPo/NYT) have used no such terminology (except calling him conservative), and those our are default. And by the way, since when do we start identifying journalists' political views in the lead sentence? When did this become standard practice? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Possibly since we started calling political bloggers journalists. O3000 (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Why would we call him a blogger vs editor at large or what ever the WSJ called him? This has been beaten to death, conservative journalist was the result from the last time. Why change it now? What has changed? Springee (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say call him a blogger here, although some sources do and it seems to fit better. I was just answering the question. O3000 (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Any user using the term "blogger" here appears not to have read the sources. See The New York Times, which calls him a conservative journalist. "Blogger" may be a fun euphemism, but I see no link to a source on this page using that terminology and I see no "Andy Ngo blog." BLP applies to talk pages as well as main pages, and we have a responsibility not to throw around inaccurate labels here or anywhere else. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Accusations of vandalism are some of the worst personal attacks on WP. I suggest you self-rvt. O3000 (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

My edit was serious, not vandalism as you called it. Some cites for blogger. [31], [32], [33], [34], [35] O3000 (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

My apologies for misinterpreting. I was not accusing you of vandalism. The AP source is helpful. Howeve,r the Vox piece does not call him a blogger, it cites a tweet calling him a blogger, and there's no consensus on Vice and I would tend to consider it unreliable in most instances and non-mainstream, and Business Insider isn't great. However, "blogger" is a bit of misnomer even used by the AP. Is he a "blogger" because he's on social media? I don't think "blogger" is a very current term. I think "social media personality" hit it best, and even there, the NYT and WaPo kept it to "conservative journalist." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

You missed The Independent, which is RS and called him a conservative blogger. O3000 (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

It calls him a blogger in the headline, and a "writer" in the article. I'm not sure how someone can be a blogger without a blog, but maybe I'm missing something. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the self-rvt. O3000 (talk) 22:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Headlines are generally not considered reliable. If the labels don't appear in the body then we assume they aren't there. Anyway, we really shouldn't be re-litigating either "conservative" or "journalist" given the large numbers of editors who have weighed in on those questions. Honestly, the same is true of the Rogan link and quote. It's the best example of Ngo's reply to what others say about his political beliefs. Yes, other sources might offer an abridged summary but Ngo's own words are the most authoritative with respect to his self declaration. Springee (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Self declarations are not particularly useful. Every terrorist calls himself a freedom fighter. Note from The Guardian, a highly regarded source, Ngo "describes himself as a journalist, and his work has appeared almost exclusively in hyper-partisan conservative outlets like The College Fix" [36] I think this article needs some work. But, unlike what normally happens, I won't tag it. O3000 (talk) 00:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Fortunately we have the NYT to rely on. Soon the tensions escalated, with a black-clad activist striking the conservative journalist Andy Ngo in the face while others slimed him with what protesters said were vegan coconut milkshakes. Mr. Ngo was left bloodied and obviously shaken, reporting the attack in a video livestreamed to his more than 140,000 Twitter followers when a city medic arrived to check on him. [37]. Note that the article is currently locked. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Please realize that we use a prevalence of info in RS -- not a single RS. O3000 (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT means we defer to the highest quality sources, not what appears more often in lower-quality sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying The Associated Press and The Independent are lower-quality? You keep quoting one source -- and that one source has an editorial policy to avoid certain terms. That's why we use multiple sources. And, I'm not even arguing for a change anyhow. O3000 (talk) 01:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Editorial policy counseling hesitancy to apply contentious labels is a hallmark of reliability and precisely why the NYT is accorded the weight it receives. The Independent only used the word "blogger" in the headline, not the body of the article. If you're not advocating for a specific change, I'm not going to continue down this path just for the sake of debate, as interesting as it is. I think we have a clear hierarchy of sources and NyT/WaPo are rightfully at the top of that list. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The entire purpose of a tertiary source (like Wikipedia) is to summarize sources. In Wikipedia's case, this almost always means multiple reliable sources. There is no hierarchy that places NYT at the top in these simplistic terms, but even there were, it would not justify ignoring other reliable sources which use slightly different language. There is no substantial dispute between sources here. It is possible to be "right wing", "conservative", "far-right", a "journalist", a "provocateur", a "propagandist" an "activist", a "blogger" and a butcher, baker, candlestick maker, tinker, tailor, solider, spy, etc. Our goal is to weigh all reliable sources and summarize accordingly. It doesn't mean we completely ignore sources some editors deem slightly less reliable. Reliable sources us a broader range of terms, in a broader range of contexts, than the article currently explains. This is a gap in Wikipedia's coverage of Andy Ngo as an encyclopedia topic.

As for "contentious labels", BLP says this: "Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources." I do not accept as a premise that "far-right" is always contentious, but it doesn't even matter in this case. We still use sources either way, and we favor WP:IS. Further, "far-right" is more precise. In this context, "conservative" lacks precision. Both the letter and spirit of BLP is that we should summarize reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Conservative is a rather neutral descriptor as might be right leaning. "Far-right", "provocateur", "propagandist"? No, those are cleearly value laden, as is "activist" as being used here. Our best sources said conservative and journalist. You don't have to like it but please respect prior discussions and consensus. Springee (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I can think of many examples of people who have bridled because reliable sources were saying they were "conservative". Is "conservative" more neutral because it's more open to interpretation, or because of its emotional connotations? Neither of these are valid reasons for using a euphemism. It would be a disservice to readers, and as I said, it would be less precise. So in your opinion conservative is a rather neutral descriptor. Ngo is a political social media personality. Readers will expect to know the the activities and political position of a political personality.

Labels can be "value laden". The problem is that Wikipedia needs labels. We need to be able to use words to describe people, even if those people would rather we use different words. We do not allow self-descriptions and PR to over-ride reliable sources, because Wikipedia isn't a platform for PR. Favoring language strictly because it's inoffensive to some is political correctness.

To be clear, I am not saying we should call him a "far-right propagandist" or something as a factual label in the lead. I am saying we must properly weigh sources which use terminology like this. If we're going to say "some sources call him conservative" we must also be open to sources which call him "far-right", or the sources which specifically dispute his legitimacy as a journalist. Disliking these sources doesn't invalidate them. Grayfell (talk) 23:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

article is edit-protected

I've locked the page down. It's already under WP:1RR and sanctions already, and protecting the page is better than admonishing/blocking multiple parties for a content dispute. Clearly consensus has not been reached, despite many edits and comments. tedder (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The current version contains content that was challenged on BLP grounds as inaccurate. It is written to link the subject's departure from an employer to presence at an event and alleged "participation" in that event, when reliable sources confirm that the two were unrelated. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to be a BLP issues. The lead of the article doesn't say they were related, and sources do not "confirm" that they were unrelated. Sources merely repeat Lehmann's comment implying that it was a coincidence. I attempted to summarize this in the lead, and all of this is explained in the body of the article. Grayfell (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Please don't frame your comments as that of an uninvolved user. You were the one who restored the content back into the article repeatedly, without consensus. Conversely, I and others attempted to remove it on this basis: Following the incident, Ngo left Quillette clearly drawls a link between "the incident" and the departure from the publication, one disproven by the source provided by another user above. A false or incorrect equation between two events is absolutely a BLP violation when it suggests someone was fired or forced out incorrectly. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I restored the content I wrote, because the lead should summarize the body. Nothing was "disproven". Are you talking about the Reason.com opinion? I do not accept that source as usable in this article at all. Reliable sources explain that Ngo's name was removed from the site hours after this footage was released. Quillette is not a reputable outlet, so its editor's PR is not inherently reliable or significant. Grayfell (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The previous lead did summarize the body. 19920 is also correct that items in the current lead are placed in a way to imply things that have been denied. If implications are denied in the body but not in the lead you are no longer summarizing. Springee (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Using this version for comparison, I dispute that it was a good summary. The largest paragraph was on the Vanguard incident, but this isn't treated by the body of the article as all that important. The largest subsection of the article, by far, only received three sentences and glossed-over significant details. I maintain that this was a poor MOS:LEAD and I have tried to explain why I think these changes are necessary.

this version from 31 August, on the other hand, was at least a relatively proportionate summary.

Ngo left Quillette the same day as the footage was released. This detail was noted by several reliable sources, and his career change is relevant to his biography. Stating as fact the article (or the lead) that this was definitely a coincidence would be unduly favoring public relations from an involved, unreliable third party (Lehmann). Stating that it definitely wasn't a coincidence would also be inappropriate. If you can think of a way to explain this succinctly, lets see it. As a reminder, an opinion in Reason.com is neither a reliable source for factual information, nor are other editors obligated to accept the arguments it advances. Grayfell (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

There are reliable sources making that connection, so it is not a WP:BLP issue to note it; the full "requires immediate action regardless of disagreement" force of BLP only comes into play when a contentious claim is unsourced or poorly-sourced, which is not the case here. If your objection is actually just WP:THEWRONGVERSION, WP:CRYBLP isn't going to help. This is (like most of the patiently non-BLP issues raised on this article) a normal content dispute over WP:DUE and how to frame the sources, not a WP:BLP request. If you think disagree - if you genuinely think this is a red-alarm BLP issue - you are free to take Grayfell to WP:AE, since he restored the material you object to and a BLP violation of that nature would be a violation of the BLP AE sanctions - we have proper procedures for when a user ignores the red line set by BLP, which are available to you if you think that's what's happening here. If you're not confident enough to do that, then you need to drop the issue and engage with it as a normal content dispute rather than casting WP:ASPERSIONS by insinuating that such violations have occurred while being unwilling to press them in the proper manner. --Aquillion (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The sources that make the connection are generally not the best quality and certainly not neutral on the subject. There are several related questions here. First, what does the video show. Second, did the video result in Ngo being let go? As for the second, both Ngo and his former employer say no. That should be really clear. Any accusation should be given less weight than those two as a pair. We aren't doing that in the current lead as it makes a strong implication that A lead to B yet doesn't include any of the statements saying there was no connection. So we aren't presenting an honest summary of the body. The first question was, what does the video actually show? To be clear, the video itself is a factual item. The statements of "Ben" are those of an unnamed person who is almost certainly biased against Ngo (Antifa member undercover). After that, we have many sources saying what the video shows. That is interpretation and is opinion. So it's an opinion if it's coming from an Oregon paper or Reason. To act like we can dismiss Reason's assessment of the video vs some other sources is wikilayering. Additionally, we have Ngo's article in The Spectator. In that case the editors of The Spectator decided to support what Ngo is saying so we shouldn't dismiss that either. Yes, it can't be treated as fact but it since others are accusing Ngo of being present for the planning of an assault (even that part is not 100% clear), per BLPPUBLIC the "other side" of the story should be told and at no point should we treat statements like "Ngo was laughing with" or "Ngo should have known" as facts in wikivoice. They are clearly allegations which is what the body and lead used to make clear.

I agree that the Vangard part is being given too much weight in the lead but that isn't an excuse for treating allegations as fact and implying a causal relationship that the involved parties deny. Springee (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Interpreting the video is up to reliable sources, not editors, and not opinions. It is common for a reliable source to have a position, use that position to come to conclusions, and still be a reliable source. Upton Sinclair did not take a neutral stance on food poisoning, after all.

As far as I can tell, no reliable source is disputing a set of basic facts about the existence of the footage. I genuinely tried to summarize this without editorializing, and I included Ngo's rebuttal to the only part which seems like a clear accusation. Grayfell (talk) 00:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Reason is a RS per RSP. Reason is saying that some of the "facts" are in dispute. The claim that Ngo was interacting or "laughing with" vs just being in the area and acknowledging the PP members is a point in dispute. Springee (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

No, that's not what RSP says: "There is consensus that Reason is generally reliable for news and facts. Editors consider Reason to be a biased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles. Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight."

This source is an opinion column under the "Media criticism" header. Such material would need to be attributed to Robby Soave of Reason.com, and opinions hold much lower weight for BLP articles, as you should already know.

Sorry, Reason is a green source and to pretend that we can use some other source's opinion about what the video means but we have to act as if no RS said, "no the video doesn't show that" is total BS. Remember, we are dealing with a BLP so we should always err on the side of not accepting accusatory claims as facts. Springee (talk) 04:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, the edit lock is going to be lifted today. The changes to the lead made prior to the lock are in dispute. As such the lead and this change to the body should be reverted absent establishing a new consensus. The issues with the current lead are both related to how the video of Ngo near the PP is presented.

1. It is implied in the lead that Ngo was terminated from Quillette due to the appearance of the video. Ngo and Quillette have denied this but the lead doesn't include that denial and thus is not an accurate summary of the body text. It is also not clear this material is even DUE for inclusion in the lead (note this is newly added to the lead).

2. The treatment of Ngo and the PP video is disputed. Sources hostile to Ngo are using the video to suggest a strong association/interaction with the PP. Other sources say the video doesn't prove an association nor that Ngo was aware of what was being discussed. Essentially it shows only that they were near by, acknowledged one another but nothing more. As such the article should treat accusations against Ngo based on that video as allegations.

These are issues that haven't been resolved and a number of editors on both sides of the issue have weighed in. Again at this point we don't have a consensus for the changes thus per NOCON the article edits should be rolled back. Springee (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Per NOCON I've rolled back the changes to the lead as well as restored "alleged" to the claim that Ngo was laughing with Patriot Prayer members prior to the Cider Riot brawl. These were the long standing versions of the text and consensus for the changes has not been established. Perhaps a RfC will be needed for those changes as well. The restored lead is more neutral but probably should be longer. It would be best if we discussed changes first. Springee (talk) 02:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Binksternet:, you restored disputed changes to a BLP including restoring contentious labels to the lead sentence. Please explain why? Springee (talk) 10:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Because the labels are widely applied. You apparently think they are contentious because you don't like them. Binksternet (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

There are a number of issues with your restoration. First, the content is disputed so per NOCON it should stay out until consensus says it's in. Second, this is a BLP article so contentious labels in wiki-voice should be avoided. Third there is an active discussion with !votes regarding how the term was used in the lead. That discussion is clearly NOCON if not consensus for oppose at this point. Since it's part of the RfC it's bad form to add the disputed content (which was not part of the long term lead) until the RfC is closed. Finally, consider Masem's very valid point about what goes into the opening sentence of a lead. The first sentence should be objective facts, not subjective and disputed assessments. None of this discussion justifies your other restorations of disputed content as part of the same drive by reverting. Springee (talk) 11:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Alleged bar attack

The article suggests that it's questionable although it's not supported by sources like [38]. What seems alleged is Ngo's participation in the planning, more than that an attack occurred at the bar? —PaleoNeonate – 01:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I was being over-cautious. As far as I know, nobody is disputing that this was an attack. I'm just now noticing that the bar, Cider Riot, has its own article. Grayfell (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Nobody disputes that a fight occurred. It is not known who "threw the first punch". Just as we aren't saying Antifa attacked Ngo in June (we are only saying Ngo was attacked) we also shouldn't say PP attacked, after all, we don't have the court cases, judgements etc. The line in the wiki article saying that PP was "planning violence" should probably be changed to "planning for violence". The first says they were going with the intent to start a fight. The second says they were expecting that violence may be an outcome of what ever happens. This sentence is also a BLP issue, "Ngo, who ultimately blamed the violence on antifascist activists, is seen smiling and laughing at the discussion." since it is not clear if Ngo heard what was actually being said (that is an allegation, not a proven fact) and it creates the impression that Ngo's reporting of who started the violence was perhaps coordinated with PP. From Reason's article on the subject, "the underlying evidence is incredibly thin. At worst, new video footage reveals Ngo to be inattentive and preoccupied with his phone at key moments. This information strengthens concerns about the selectivity of Ngo's reporting, but falls far short of proving that he knew about a planned attack."[[39]] And more, "Regarding Ngo, while the claims being made about him do contain "kernels of truth," as he concedes, there is a vast chasm between what the video actually shows versus what it is alleged to show.

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 is a good source but only one. That means it can't be used to say "this is what really happened" However, it can be used to say that sources disagree regarding the significance or meaning of the video. Springee (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

A Reason.com opinion column is absolutely not a reliable source for any factual claims about this incident. Repeating juicy quotes from this opinion over and over again in multiple sections of this talk page is disruptive. Take it to WP:RSN if you intend to cite this in the article, otherwise drop it and find an actual reliable source.

As for sentences being "a BLP issue", Wikipedia is not The Daily Beast! Reporting in a source cannot be a BLP issue because Wikipedia is not responsible for how sources report on things. According to all reliable sources, Patriot Prayer showed up at Cider Riot, during a May Day event, with weapons and body armor. There is nothing extraordinary about this observation that they planned violence, and this is supported by multiple reliable sources and primary footage. Nobody seems to be talking about "who threw the first punch", nor would this necessarily matter, so this is a deflection which is not based on sources or Wikipedia policy. Now, if Ngo had documented who threw the first punch as a journalist, and if he were a reliable source, this still wouldn't make a difference. He didn't, and he isn't, so it doesn't. Your disagreement or dislike of reliable sources has no weight here. Grayfell (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Why do you think that was an opinion column vs a column reporting on the reports of others? You seem to want to throw out any analysis that doesn't support your POV but keep that which does. BTW, not all sources said PP showed up and started the fight. I believe this was already discussed in the past. Yes, they are alleged to have but Antifa members were alleged to have attacked Ngo. Springee (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The BLP issue is that claiming a journalist was somehow connected with a planned attack because he was present and filming at an event just before is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL and dubious claim. WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims require only the highest quality of sources for inclusion. That is absent here. The burden is on the editors seeking inclusion to show those sources exist, not on the editors opposing inclusion to show that they don't. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The sourcing for this material is insufficient for inclusion. Due weight, especially for a claim like this in a BLP, must be established by being reported by prominent RS. None of the current sources--a blog post on Portland Mercury being the main source--is in any reasonable sense prominent. I'm not sure the Portland Mercury post--which I am calling a blog post because the heading says "Blogtown" in big letters--is RS at all, since blogs typically aren't. But even if it is RS, it isn't prominent, and does not establish that the report is due. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

In justifying restoring this content repeatedly (before the article was locked), Grayfell stated Consensus isn't a vote, and an excessively lengthy post isn't a supervote. Your personal opinion that this is undue is at odds with MOS:LEAD. Your opinion that they are "second-tier" is at odds with WP:RS. The lead summarizes the body of the article, and this incident has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The lead also includes Ngo's denial. Grayfell (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC) A few points of clarification:

• At least as many editors oppose inclusion of the last paragraph of the lead based on sourcing issues than have supported inclusion. The support votes have not been accompanied by any rationale that satsifies the following objections: 1) the sourcing is poor, 2) the sourcing does not give it sufficient weight for the lead, 3) the claim is WP:EXCEPTIONAL.
• Grayfell calls my and others' objection our "personal opinion." Wrong. These are our editorial opinions. Dismissing those who disagree with you out of hand and accusing them of merely acting on personal, non-editorial reasoning is a violation of WP:CIVIL.
• this incident has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The lead also includes Ngo's denial. I have seen no mainstream coverage for this "incident," unlike for his firing, his testimony before Congress, or the attack in Portland, which were covered by the likes of the NYT, WaPo, The Independent, and others. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
• Just to clarify my original post: I propose removing alleged from "In August 2019, footage from May was published showing Ngo with armed Patriot Prayer members prior to an alleged attack on a bar frequented by antifa protesters." —PaleoNeonate – 17:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Social media personality or photojournalist

I failed to understand the usage of social media personality while the main work of Andy Ngo is documenting arrest records of Antifa members. what is the justification of the particular choice of words? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElleShd (talk • contribs) 05:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 September 2020

To change "social media personality" to "photojournalist"

The main work of Andy Ngo is documenting arrest records of Antifa members and publishing video of antifa violence. Contents were accompanied with minimal text reports, with no opinions. I am afraid social media personality is not an appropriate description of him. ElleShd (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Labels in the lead

Coffeeandcrumbs, added the label provocateur to the lead in Wikivoice. What sources in the body or in general support using a contentious LABEL of BLP subject in wikivoice in the opening sentence? Springee (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Several media outlets, including The Oregonian and The Rolling Stone, have described him as a "right-wing provocateur".[40][41][42][43][44][45][46] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Here are more RS:[47][48] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

What I actually object to is the word "conservative". That is a LABEL we do not use on the opposite side. We do not label people as "liberal", so why does this first sentence include "conservative". I also doubt we have the sources to label him a "journalist" with due weight in the lead. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Springee, since I have now challenged your assertion that he is a "journalist", you should also self-revert. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Journalist is long standing and has previously been discussed. It's not something I just added. Springee (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Does not matter. Per WP:BLP it should have a citation. I do not see anywhere on the page where it is cited. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

You are wrong, first, this is not only long standing but material that exists due to previous consensus for it to be in the article. Second, BLP removal statement applies when the material doesn't already have consensus. This material does. The use of the term journalist is strongly supported by RSs [[49]]. We aren't saying he is a good or bad journalist, only that journalism is his profession. This is not a contentious label (ie it's a description of his profession vs applying a subjective term like "racist" [50]] Springee (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The previous discussion you link to was inconclusive. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Where is the discussion that support "provocateur"? You added that label twice today even though it's clearly disputed and it's a contentious LABEL (journalist is not). Springee (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

How is a self-revert of a self-revert adding "that label twice today"? I self-reverted in good faith while we discussed it here. But in the mean time a different editor added "journalist" back creating a POV issue. I located the best sources to add to the lead and added provocateur back (now with LEADCITE) for parity. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

You are correct, that add then revert was effectively a null edit but it occurred only after other editors asked to to consider your edits. However, you still violated 1RR and it's clear that is a disputed label. You felt it was OK to remove "journalist" (a job description) but felt "provocateur" was fine. That's questionable. Either way, we can let ARE decide if you violated 1RR. Springee (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

C&C says he "doesn't believe" that there are sufficient sources to use the term journalist. User links to a discussion where the NYT and WaPo are provided, using just that term, C&C calls it "inconclusive." This doesn't follow. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

RFC: "journalist"

Should the lead section refer to this person as a "journalist"? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Survey "journalist"

• Incomplete RfC Please revise the RfC to include all of your recent changes, including the addition of "provocateur" to the lead. The New York Times describes the subject as a conservative journalist, so please also articulate in your RfC why this is a question worthy of debate. I don't understand why it's now appropriate to second-guess the most reliable sources available in favor of second-tier ones. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why their recent changes should be in the RfC statement or why we should not have an RfC based upon one source. You can make these arguments in a discussion section or a !vote without claiming a malformed RfC. O3000 (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The RfC opener just made a highly controversial change to the article, adding "provocateur" to the lead, yet this RfC only addresses what is basically a settled matter. And it's actually not one, but two sources we have, the NYT and WaPo, that call the subject a journalist. And we don't go by how many sources say something, we go by how much WP:WEIGHT those sources deserve. The NYT and WaPo deserve more weight than BuzzFeed, to state the obvious. So this RfC is attempting to crack open largely a settled matter, yet glosses over more controversial changes that the user is aggressively inserting into the article. I see that as a problem. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: I've come here after seeing it mentoned elsewhere, and do not intend to take part other than to say that you are completely mistaken. I've looked at the history and this RfC was set up correctly. It is a simple neutral question and should not have included the things you think it should have included. Doug Weller talk 11:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:, Respectfully, I disagree. The filer made two changes to the article in the past week that drew debate, yet only one of them was mentioned in the RfC intro. Even so, the opener continues to argue for both changes in discussion threads. To resolve this, I've opened another sub-thread to address the issue omitted from the intro, where there is currently another active debate. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

This is an RfC, not a filing on a drama board. The RfC can be about what the RfC filer wishes, so long as it is formed correctly -- which it is. O3000 (talk) 00:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• No – Either both "journalist" and "provocateur" should be included for parity. Or both should be excluded. The article already cites plenty of sources that dispute the claim of "journalist". New York magazine, according to our article argues that example of "busybody journalism", which is distinguished from experiential journalism by its "focus on the individual reporter's feelings" and absence of editorial fact-checking. This demonstrates that even calling him a "conservative journalist" is not enough. IMO, he is a "right-wing provocateur"[51] or at best a "right-wing writer" and social media personality. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

  I think "conservative writer, activist, and social media personality" is a good descriptor if "provocateur" is to be excluded. Calling him just a "conservative journalist and social media personality" is dishonest, lacks weight, and fails NPOV. I also do not oppose calling him a "right-wing writer ..." --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• No – I oppose refering to the subject as simply a journalist or a conservative journalist. The RS coverage of the subject has changed over time. His notability is thouroughly entwined with the questionable nature of his activites. This June 2020 article in the Seattle Times refers to Ngo as a "conservative writer", while it is only his lawyer that refers to him as a journalist. The Oregonian similarly refers to Ngo as a conservative writer in their June 2020 coverage. Both are highly respected publishers that have been awarded numerous pulitzer prizes for the quality of their journalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedar777 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Cedar777, please indicate your !vote in the form of an answer (Yes or No or Other) to the question posed in the RfC. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - per Springee below, it is extremely well documented that he is.
  • Note 1: It would be quite understandable if there was a strong sense of WP:IDONTLIKEIT here, but as authors of an Encyclopaedia we are, of course, above that.
  • Note 2: Regarding "provocateur", I have seen references that show him being called such a thing but in my opinion we should be very careful to distinguish "provoking controversy" from merely "being controversial". As such there should ideally be some explicit reference to support that he deliberately courts controversy before we label him as such. But subject to that hesitation, I do not object to that term being used in the lead as well. Dorsetonian (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
• Yes We should call him what NYT and WaPo call him, a journalist. We should not call him a provocateur in the lead, since that is a contentious label without high quality sourcing (see discussion below). Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
• Also, obvious Yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor19920 (talk • contribs)
• No - That he is a conservative writer appears to be an undisputed fact; that he is actually a journalist is hotly contested and not consistently applied among reliable sources; therefore, we shouldn't use the term in wikivoice. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
• 'Untrue. There is no evidence the term journalist, used by the NYT and WaPo, is "hotly contested." You need to refer to a reliable source, not a Wikipedia discussion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
• Major problem with how this is proceeding We have two sides here. On the one hand, we have myself and several other editors who have cited highly reliable sources describing the subject as a journalist. They are a NYT piece and a WaPO article from 2019. On the other side, we have editors arguing that 1) these sources are "dated" despite being published in the past year and 2) citing second-tier sources from the same time frame, including the Independent, the Intercept, and the Rolling Stone, which call him a provocateur or "writer" as well," and 3) arguing that, by omission, these sources are stating he is not a journalist. This is a fundamental misinterpretation of how we use sources. First, we go to the most reliable sources. WaPo and NYT fall into that category. If there are additional labels, especially contentious ones like "provocateur," WP:LABEL applies and we need either all of the sources saying it or to use attribution. The opener of this filing states this policy exactly backwards, suggesting that "journalist" is a "contentious label" and out of hand dismisses two preeminent sources that do not support his point and unduly emphasizes second-tier sources that do. This is not how we treat BLPs on Wikipedia. The "No" votes are following this same pattern of deeply flawed reasoning. This is why WP:CONSENSUS is not a vote count. That two sources offer in separate tiers of reliability offer differing characterizations by omission does not mean that we omit one in favor of the other based on the subjective opinions of editors, including mine or anyone else's. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
• No. While some RS have described him as a "conservative journalist", many RS also opt for terms such "activist" and "writer". When RS do not consistently describe him narrowly as a journalist (a term that infers a standard of behavior and professionalization), I think we should opt for a looser and broader term such as "conservative writer", which could include journalism, as well as conservative advocacy and activism. I think it would be a NPOV violation to opt for the narrow term when a broader term would better encapsulate a balance of how RS cover him. Here is a sampling of sources from the last year. Relying on sources from the last year is reasonable given that Ngo has developed a considerable track record on which RS can judge whether to describe him as a journalist or writer (which they did not have when covering him in, say, 2018):

• AP: "conservative writer".[52]
• WaPo: "conservative activist Andy Ngo"[53]
• The Oregonian: "conservative writer and videographer."[54]
• Oregon Public Broadcasting: "right-wing writer"[55].
• Daily Beast: "conservative writer Andy Ngo"[56]
• WaPo: "conservative activist and journalist Andy Ngo"[57]
• Politico: "conservative journalist and Quillette writer"[58]
• Politifact: "conservative journalist Andy Ngo"[59]

• In the discussion below, Springee links to a bunch of sources that refer to Ngo as a journalist. Some of these are op-eds and non-RS, so they are not very telling. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

All from the last year. Add these on to the sources that you cite which call him a journalist, and this is an open and shut matter. We go by WP:WEIGHT. Oh, he also worked as a journalist for recognized outlets for most of his career before becoming an independent journalist (which has been recognized by the sources cited).

• The New York Times: conservative journalist Andy Ngo
• Vox Andy Ngo, a Portland-based journalist
• The Washington Post The conservative activist and journalist Andy Ngo
• The Hill a conservative journalist
• CNN Conservative journalist Andy Ngo
• ABC7 A Portland journalist

Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

All of the RS you listed are older than a year, except The Hill's "Rising" web-show (which is not a RS). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Several of your sources are from 2019 and several others are from a burst of coverage this summer. A year is not a significant passage of time in a career. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

All of the sources I listed are from the last year. A year is significant when the individual in question has become considerably more notable and when serious concerns have been raised about the accuracy of his "reporting". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

No, a year is absolutely not significant with regards to a career (careers span decades, not months). Notability isn't part of the equation, nor do I see a dramatic increase in notability from 2019. The fact that more articles were published about the subject in 2019 than 2020 does not support your proposition. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The understanding of any living subject should improve over time. If a subject changes careers, gets married, is embroiled in a scandal, or dies in a year, Wikipedia editors reflect this with RS in the article. It is a legitimate concern that C&C and others have raised and warrants a review of recent quality sources. The vigorous discussion on this talk page in response to the RfC is a indicator that this is anything but an open and shut matter. Cedar777 (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, given that there are numerous RSes that describe him as being a journalists for various sources as well as an independent journalist (aka freelance). Plus, simple fact that he was employed to write news for papers, aka the very definition of a journalist. He may not work for any specific outlet now, but he still (apparently) has a career and thus would be inappropriate to discount that particularly with the recentness of the sources. Hemming or hawing over this because he sides with the alt-right is violating NPOV. --Masem (t) 15:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
• Yes This should be self evident. This does not mean he is a "good", "honest", "dishonest", "balanced", "biased" etc journalist, only that his profession fits the definition of journalism, a person who writes for newspapers, magazines, or news websites or prepares news to be broadcast. (source, OED, [[60]]). He wrote for sources we have questioned (Post Millennial) and high quality sources (WSJ) He is widely described as a journalist by both high quality and low quality sources. Vexations compiled a list about a year ago based on the sources in this article [[61]] (the collapsed content). It contained 27 sources that called Ngo a journalist in some form. Conservative journalist (the last stable lead description) was the most common. Conservative writer and independent journalist were tied for second. Sources using "journalist" include NYT, WP, ABCnews, The Hill, Fox News, Salon, Rolling Stone, VOX, local news stations, and Oregon Public Broadcasting. This is obviously a widely used description even if it is often tied with other terms (conservative, right-wing, independent, Portland, etc). Some here seem to suggest "writer" is a better term. I don't see why the lead can't say both "writer" and "journalist". As I mentioned in the discussion below, web searches for keywords can offer a rough, order of magnitude comparison between the use of various terms. It is not at all perfect but when we are trying to judge relative usage it's far better than cherry picking. I did searches of Bing and Google news for the following phrases (with quotes)

"andy ngo" journalist -4710 Google, 98 Bing;

"andy ngo" writer - 1830 Google, 33 Bing;

"andy ngo" provocateur - 208 Google, 3 Bing

Without sifting through each hit we can't know if the descriptor was applied to Ngo vs someone else or if some hits are just repeats. However, we can see "journalist" appears in an article with Ngo at a rate of about 3x "writer" and over 10x "provocateur". Any claim that "writer" or something other than journalist is more common or should take the place of the long standing term is ludicrous in view of this evidence. Efforts to add adjectives to the noun, "journalist" are understood. Efforts to claim the noun doesn't apply to Ngo don't align with reality. Springee (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

This comment is misleading. As far as I can tell, all of Ngo's writings for the Wall Street Journal are categorized by the WSJ as "opinion". The WSJ editorial page is definitely not a "high quality source". It further proves the point that "journalist" is not the appropriate way to refer to him. Someone who writes op-eds should instead be described as a writer. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Please stop talking about Google hits. They are meaningless. Rolling Stone used the term “gonzo journalism” which is not what we think of as journalism. Or, an article could say hack journalist, or refers himself as a journalist, or journalists refer to him as xxx, or any number of other uses that make Google hits highly misleading. Google is a search engine. It does not perform according to Wikipedia guidelines. O3000 (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: There's a distinction between "not providing support for something" and "disproving something" that you are missing. Just because his publishing an editorial does not in of itself indicate someone is a journalist does not mean it "disproves" that he is, and taken with his body of work and how other sources describe him, it lends support to the notion. I suggest we draw conclusions based on the direction of the sources. This pattern of trying to push a pre-determined conclusion ("he's not a journalist even though reliable sources describe him as such") and discounting all the evidence en route to that conclusion is concerning. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• To be clear (since you left it out even though it's plainly his most common description), "andy ngo" activist has 57,300 Google hits, over ten times the number you're trying to use to push for your preferred label here. That makes it reasonably plain that he's considered an activist and that presenting any other descriptor equivalent to or alongside it would be giving WP:UNDUE] weight to a minority opinion about him. Worse, skimming the results, it seems like the sources that attempt to label him as a journalist are largely (though not exclusively) opinion or forum posts, often from people or places who share his politics; whereas "activist" seems to be a universally-accepted and neutral descriptor. Therefore, we should probably go with "activist" alone. I would further argue that the two descriptors are, largely, incomparable with each other, and that the overwhelming majority of sources characterizing what he does as activism means it would be taking a WP:FRINGE position to present it as journalism. --Aquillion (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Aquillion: I suggest you look up the meaning of WP:FRINGE. That refers to non-mainstream views. The Times is a mainstream. An editors speculations on a talk page are not. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• To be clear, "activist" still trails "journalist". As I said before, I restricted both my Bing and Google searches to their news sub-searches. So "Andy Ngo" activist returned 3500 Google news hits and 51 Bing news hits. If you do a general Google search "Andy Ngo" journalist you get 110,000 hits. The new feed hits follow the ratios we saw in my previous searches. Accepting that this is far from perfect, when looking at journalist, writer, activist and provocateur, it's clear journalist is still the word most likely to appear with Andy Ngo in a new-websearch. Springee (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• What's clear is that this subject has multiple "hats." They act as both a journalist and a commentator or advocate for conservative causes, as well as opinion writer. All these terms are used in RS, and "journalist" is used in the most and weightiest sources. What has the least support is "provocateur," yet this RfC is being used to basically advocate with replacing "journalist" with "provocateur" despite not being noted in the RfC intro per WP:RFC. This is a misuse of the RfC process. A compromise may be appropriate where we included some combination of "journalist," "writer," and "activist," but not provocateur, at least without attribution given its sparsity in the sources (and the contentious connotations of the phrase). Our use of descriptors needs to be guided by weight and prevalence in sources, not our subjective opinions of what the source is or isn't. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Unquestionably, Ngo should be referenced in the lead as a journalist. There are numerous high-quality, reliable sources that use this epithet. Reducing his work to a "writer" is not appropriate, nor is calling him the contentious label "provocateur." Some of everything (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - There are clearly more than enough reliable sources describing him as a “Journalist”. To the point where it would be non-neutral for Wikipedia to not do so as well. Being a Journalist does not rule out ALSO being a writer, provocateur, etc.... and vise/versa. Blueboar (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
• No – This one took me a while to consider. WaPo does call him a journalist in an article. Yet, in another article, the same WaPo calls him a conservative activist. Lots of sources and different labels. This isn’t surprising as he only just recently started at a student paper, from which he was fired. His actual career appears to have started one year ago, and he now works at The Post Millennial, which according to our article has been criticized for releasing misinformation and articles written by fake personas, for past employment of an editor with ties to white supremacist-platforming and pro-Kremlin media outlets, and for opaque funding and political connections. Difficult to pin down someone with such a brief history. Seems to me we should use a broad term that encompasses the wording in the various source that are RS, as opposed to narrow wording found in only some sources. Conservative writer and activist comes to mind. He’s certainly a provocateur, and that now appears to be his main role. But, I’m fine with leaving that out of the first sentence. O3000 (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Your argument doesn't negate that Ngo is a journalist. For example, the PM is deprecated by wiki editors. OK. Does that mean it isn't a new magazine/source? It may not be a good news magazine but it is still a news magazine. Your arguments are all valid commentary on the quality of his work/employers. That doesn't negate that he is getting paid to do journalism. Springee (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Nor does it negate using the broader term writer, which includes journalist and other labels in RS. O3000 (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

"Journalist" is the term most broadly used by the most reliable sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - That's what reliable sources say. More high quality than the ones used to describe him as a provocateur without attribution. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, he's a journalist. Even if you hate his work and think he's a shitty journalist who's a right-wing "provacateur" (whatever the hell that term means) that doesn't make him not a journalist. "Journalist" is not a controlled term. You don't need a licence in the United States to be a journalist, you don't need to abide by any ethical rules, and there's no self-regulatory body that polices journalism. A journalist is someone who reports or otherwise deals with the news and Andy Ngo does that as established by numerous reliable sources. We can't invent our own vaguely defined "standard of behavior and professionalization" that journalists have to abide by to be considered such. That's practically WP:Original Research. I'm also seeing a lot of vaguely defined references to how Andy Ngo's status as a journalist is "hotly contested" with links to articles that describe Ngo as a "conservative writer". That's not contesting his status as a journalist; it's possible for someone to be both a journalist and an activist or political writer. Traditionally journalists have tried to be officially apolitical in a North America context with political writers not falling into the "journalist" category but nowadays with Fox News and CNN there are an incredibly large amount of people who blur those lines and openly cross it with Marci Ien being a Canadian broadcast journalist who's currently running for political office. There is no reason why the lede can't describe him as a "conservative writer and journalist". Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 02:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
• No While he meets the definition of journalist, using that description without qualification implies that he has professional journalistic standards. If the term is used, it must be qualified, otherwise the article would be endorsing him. TFD (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: And your comment suggests he "does not have professional standard violations." I suggest rephrasing your vote so as not to be a BLP violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor19920 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no BLP violation. Ngo isn't exactly Edward Murrow or Walter Cronkite and it is misleading to imply that he is. TFD (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

It absolutely is, and you just repeated it. You are knocking the subject based on your personal opinion and applying a standard that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not my personal opinion but the weight of opinion in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 03:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Please. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• Reminder BLP applies to talk pages. When you acknowledge the sources refer to the subject as a journalist, but then include some knock about the subject's professionalism, body of work, etc., you undermine the credibility of your own vote. Follow BLP. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• While you are an encyclopedia editor, you are not a professional encyclopedia editor, at least not on this site. Neither is anyone else. That's not a BLP violation. TFD (talk) 03:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't get your point. Take a look at the sources. Two preeminent papers in the country called him a journalist. You'd think they'd be uniquely qualified to make that determination and hestitant to apply it inappropriately. Oh but wait, we have an opinion piece from Jacobin that says otherwise and a culture writer in the Rolling Stone! Yeah, OK. Your opinion of how "good" or "bad" the subject is as a journalist has nothing to do with how we structure opening sentences. A "bad" doctor is still a doctor. A "dishonest" politician is still a politician. Etc. But I'm waiting for the RfC after this proposing we add the qualifier "Andy Ngo is a journalist (but he's no Edward Murrow)". Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't apply here (as journalist/writer does factually apply and given by RSes) but we do make sure people that self-identify themselves incorrectly/dishonestly as certain professionals are not given that title. I can't remember a specific example, but if we have some person who claims to be a medical doctor that is notable for a disproven diet, but RSes identify his profession as only a freelance writer, we're going to call him out as a freelance writer, and definitely not as a doctor as they claim. But that's the extent we'd have that. --Masem (t) 06:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes Sources that describe him as a "writer" do not indicate that he is not a journalist. All journalists are writers, some writers are journalists. Those are certainly not mutually exclusive terms. If you found a source that described him as a "non-journalist," then you would have a legitimate point.Truth is King^TALK 15:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• Leave as is (conservative journalist, social media personality, and provocateur), which seems to encompass the various points made by the sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
• No, too many high-quality recent sources seem to intentionally avoid using the term for him; "activist" seem to be far more common. Given the larger context surrounding him this can only reasonably be interpreted to mean that the label is not widely accepted. It is plain from the sources that he is considered an activist, not a journalist. --Aquillion (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • How do you know they intentionally avoid the word? What evidence do you have that activist is more common (see my amended results above, journalist was 4710, 98 vs 3500, 51 (Google, Bing)). Springee (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, per several reliable sources mentioned above. Idealigic (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
• No. Most of the sources that say he is a journalist continue by describing how he violates the standards of journalism. He is a media activist. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide examples of sources that make that claim? Do those sources actually say he isn't a journalist or do they just say he isn't a good journalist? Springee (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Violates the standards of journalism according to Template:Binksternet, apparently, and not the sources themselves. A blatant BLP violation. I don't understand why the standard practice, even at admittedly controversial pages, is to ignore this conduct? Anyway, this vote is clearly improperly premised. It acknowledges the sources say one thing and then says they simply disagree with the sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The Columbia Journalism Review characterizes Ngo as a writer who is a "discredited provocateur" and a "controversial right-wing writer". Jacobin magazine says Ngo violates journalist standards: "Far-right forces will converge on Portland tomorrow, incited by the right-wing provocateur Andy Ngo. Though he poses as a journalist, the purpose of his platform is to sow harassment and violence against his targets on the Left—and the mainstream media have fallen for it." Rolling Stone writes "Ngo, who describes himself as a journalist," and then talks about his very unjournalist practices such as inciting responses, and trading favorable coverage for benefits. Rolling Stone says Ngo is "a right-wing provocateur as opposed to a journalist." Binksternet (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet and Wikieditor19920, can we at least use those sources, especially the Columbia Journalism Review, in the body? Davide King (talk) 15:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, David, I think we should. I was putting that idea into action here, putting some text about being a provocateur into the article body, and summarizing it in the lead section with the sentence, "He has been described by many publications as a 'provocateur' rather than a neutral reporter." Which is of course the kernel: Ngo is an active participant in the events rather than a passive observer. Binksternet (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet, I think your edit was fine. Do you think that a sentence or two, if not a paragraph, to summarise specifically what the Columbia Journalism Review is saying is worth adding and due? Davide King (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely. The analysis in Rolling Stone and Columbia Journalism Review is high quality though damning to Ngo's journalistic credentials. It's important to include this kind of analysis per WP:NPOV. I'll propose something along those lines in a new thread. Binksternet (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

A section in the article body talking about criticism of his reporting would be very helpful and would help clean up the Carear section. That section starts not with his work history but with a statement that many call him a provocateur. I think it would be better to restructure the section to start with a simple description along the lines of Ngo worked for X from [dates]. Then worked for Y [dates]. Ngo's work has focused on the following topic areas. The next paragraph would start with something like Ngo's work has been criticized by other journalists for [high level summary of why sources use the term provocateur etc, not the labels themselves]. Then we can go into something like a specific list of sources and why they are critical of his work. The labels others apply don't do a good job explaining why he is controversial. However, sources that say he got facts wrong here or said "the left was attacking the right" while failing to mention "the right attacked the left" would be very relevant to clearing up why sources say he is failing to be an impartial or reliable journalist. An example that could support the "activist" label would be statements/claims that he is doxxing activists by tweeting their arrests photos and information would certainly support that label (though we need a RS, not me to say it). Being IMPARTIAL doesn't mean we avoid reporting what the articles say. However, it means we put our efforts into reporting the supporting arguments made in the articles rather than the subjective labels they apply when introducing the subject. It seems to me that editors are too worried about including a controversial label and less worried about including the facts that are used to justify such a label. The current NPOVN discussion related to the Proud Boys is capturing some of the same issues [[62]] Springee (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• Yes He's clearly been a journalist at least for some of his life. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Yes We go by how the majority of RS describe him, which is as a journalist. PackMecEng (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Why are we ignoring so many, many RS that have a sour view of this appellation? O3000 (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Because those are by far the minority. It would a huge NPOV issue to take the fringe view over the majority. PackMecEng (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

No, they aren't. And "fringe"? Columbia Journalism Review? O3000 (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The view not the source. Columbia Journalism Review is a fantastic source, but sometimes they are in the minority. PackMecEng (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I see a large number of sources and think the term "fringe" doesn't close to apply. We are not talking InfoWars here. O3000 (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

There's a useful list provided below. More than half use the term journalist--the majority. That majority includes print newspapers including NYT, WaPo and other outlets like ABC and CNN. The minority that don't include magazine pieces and other online-only sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, provided we report in the body his ethical journalist violations, attributed to each source such as those provided by Binksternet. I would also be fine with conservative journalist, social media personality, and provocateur (perhaps changing provocateur to activist or conservative/right-wing activist) as was suggested here by Rhododendrites. I am also open to the possibility of removing that in the future if we can get consensus that reliable sources avoid using the term to describe him. Davide King (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
• No. It's clear that he is far from being a journalist, and that his purposes are to produce propaganda in affiliation with hate groups. Care especially has to be taken when outlets simply repeat (quoting or paraphrasing) his claims to be a journalist without having done their own review, since such a claim falls into the self-serving category. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/andy-ngo-right-wing-troll-antifa-877914/ 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
• No Absolutely not, not even close to being one. Looking at how he is reported on he is often derided by real journalists and many sources make a point of not calling him one variously describing him as a "writer", "conservative writer" "activist" or some such. He's had one brief dalliance with journalism as a student paper reporter and he was sacked. Since then he has been an occasional opinions writer and an editor (this is the closest he ever got to journalism post Vanguard, he was sacked from this job too), he is not a journalist by any stretch of the imagination. Do those who voted YES actually know what a journalist is? An editor is not a journalist, a opinions writer is not a journalist, a shit stirrer is not a journalist. According to our article he has been variously described as a "right-wing provocateur" (otherwise known as a shit stirrer) producing "media activism", "participant reporting" and "busybody journalism", but these are dumb descriptions, we have a long standing term for this kind of buffoonery - Ngo is the very definition of a Hack writer - nothing more, nothing less. This is a ridiculous argument. Bacondrum (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: Irrelevant vote Rife with BLP violations and makes no reference to sources or policy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: you are bludgeoning the debate and being uncivil - cut it out. I do refer to sources repeatedly and make no BLP violations. I ask that you to please withdraw that nasty and petty comment. Bacondrum (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

What was your RS on "Hack writer"? I must have missed that. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: Your entire vote is a tirade against the subject. You are violating BLP. You cannot describe the subject of an article as a hack writer and shit stirrer. There is nothing "nasty" or "bludgeoning" about me pointing that out. You should retract your vitriolic, personalized characterizations of the subject and take a look at the sources. The NYT and other reliable print sources describe him as a journalist. Respond to that instead of making BLP violations. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment seeing he has only worked as a one time journalist for a single publication and he was sacked in 2017, surely it would be more appropriate to describe him by his job title, as an editor? That is his actual job title. Maybe an editor and writer? I know we don't do truth or facts, but there are plenty of sources to demonstrate he is both an editor and writer - surely we do strive for accuracy based on reliable sources, of which many different sources say many things about this subject. We do know for certain that he is employed as an editor and writes opinions pieces on the side. Bacondrum (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion - "journalist"

Refractored. The following is in responce to Coffeeandcrumbs !vote. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Appreciate the elaboration, but you haven't changed the RfC to accord with your vote. Also, WP:FALSEBALANCE. The NYT and equivalent sources use "journalist," they do not use "provocateur." We do not strive for "parity," we strive for appropriate weight. "Provocateur" does not reflect that. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

A lot has happened since August 2019 when this was last discussed. You are welcome to make your arguments for inclusion. You are also welcome to start a separate RfC for "provocateur". My argument is that "conservative journalist" has been challenged with more recent reporting: "Andy Ngo, a right-leaning provocateur" The Oregonian, "right-wing provocateur Andy Ngo" The Intercept, "Ngo is a conservative provocateur sympathizer" VOX, "alt-right whisperer Andy Ngo" VICE, "33-year-old provocateur" Jewish Currents. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is another one "a provocateur like Ngo" The Independent and another "Donald Trump ally Jim Jordan invited right-wing provocateur Andy Ngo" The Independent and another "Andy Ngo, the provocateur and social media personality" Rolling Stone. How many sources are needed before it is not a FALSEBALANCE versus The Almighty New York Times? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Is this a discussion about "journalist" or "provocateur"? Note that journalist is a neutral description of a profession. Once can be a good or bad journalist. One can be a neutral or biased journalist but by itself it's neutral the same way "teacher", "banker" or "manager" is neutral. "Provocateur" is a loaded term. It suggests a motive beyond just informing etc. It's also a subjective label. We went through this last year [[63]], [[64]]. Additionally, even in the last month sources still refer to Ngo as a journalist (typically "conservative journalist" [[65]][[66]][[67]][[68]][[69]][[70]]. "Provocateur" is a contentious label applied by either low quality sources, strongly biased sources or one writer at RS magazine (see biased). We note that sources call him that but such a label should not be used in wiki voice the opening sentence of a BLP. To claim provocateur is here to balance journalist is a false balance. One is a profession, the other is an accusation. Springee (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Let see: this is a local news channel, as for this see WP:FOX, this says "'Portland-based journalist who describes himself as independent and objective but who has been accused of working with far-right groups in the past", this is written by an "Opinion contributor", for this see WP:RSP. The one reliable source you cite is the WaPo which calls him a "conservative activist and journalist". All in all, doubts all around about the validity of just calling him a "conservative journalist" alone. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, no. As you say, KUSI is a news channel. Fox News is reliable for calling him a journalist vs what ever you want. You just confirmed that Aljazeera called him a journalist. Again, they aren't claiming good or bad, just that he is one. I'm OK saying the Gainesville paper isn't reliable enough. WT is still sufficient for "journalist" and WP is a clear RS. These are all recent articles (I limited the search to the past month). Springee (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Provocateur is a profession. Contentious or not, people make a lot of money doing it. But in the end, I am fine with leaving it out but only including "conservative journalist" is POV because that implies that he is in the mainstream. Conservationism is mainstream. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

There are also a lot of artist provocateurs, cultural provocateurs etc... Google it. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

That is a stretch. Let's step back, do you agree it is a contentious label. Not that it's a disputed label but that it has a negative connotation when applied to Ngo? Springee (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Define "contentious label". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Cofeeandcrumbs: We're not obliged to explain the obvious to you. At WP:AE, you suggested "journalist" has a positive connotation and implies membership in a respected profession. I suggest you use that same logic and consider what "provocateur" means. Here's a dictionary definition to clear things up: [71]\[72]. It implies something negative. It is a contentious label, and the sources that you have thrown at the wall do not pass muster except for possibly the independent. You cite Vice, which has no consensus at WP:RSP, and mock The New York Times. You can add WaPo to the list of sources referring to Ngo as a journalist, albeit a "conservative journalist," but not "provocateur.

The entire premise of this RfC is ridiculous and disruptive. The most reliable available sources on the subject refer to him as a journalist. You object to this without any basis other than subjective opinion. This is not how WP works. We assign weight to sources and build content around the weightiest sources. Editors personal opinions do not control content, and that's all that's been offered here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920 said: We're not obliged to explain the obvious to you. Please don’t use language like that or use simplistic definitions. Journalism comes in flavors. For example, gonzo journalism, which clearly applies here, is often respected as a literary style – but not as reliable journalism. “Provocateur” could apply to the Sons of Liberty, the Boston Tea Party, and other luminaries of the American Revolution. You are applying your own judgements as to what is “respected” or not without context. O3000 (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct that there are nuances to every definition, but the commonly understood meaning of "provocateur" is negative. The two Wiktionary links I provided are a good starting point for determining why "provocateur" is negative. C&C even implicitly acknowledges this by contrasting it with "journalist" which he deems positive. WP:LABEL clearly applies, and we should err on the side of caution. WP:BLP.

Second, my criticism of this RfC stands. It is in violation of the procedures governing RfCs. The subject of the RfC is whether or not "journalist" is appropriate for the lead, but all of C&C's arguments are why "provocateur" is the preferable label. You cannot open an RfC about "A" but really use to advocate for "B." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

And by the way, maybe "provocateur" is an appropriate label, but I think it should be used with attribution because the highest-quality sources available have avoided this terminology. Vice lacks consensus at WP:RSP. The Intercept and the Independent are fine, but rank lower than mainstream, top-tier American news outlets. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

C&C provided a rather impressive number of sources -- in my mind enough to avoid attribution (ignoring the fact that it is patently obvious). I'll take RS over your perception. As for the bounds of the RfC, let us not bind our discussions into a small box. RfCs often have proposals, multiple at times, as they proceed. Life is not black and white and we are not bound to binary decisions. O3000 (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Quality over quantity? He provided: 1) Vice, a source for which there's no consensus, 2) a local publication, 3) a British online newspaper. I provided the two preeminent print and online newspapers in the United States: Washington Post and the New York Times. And "provocateur" is an adjective, not a profession, as C&C asserts. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Exactly this. Opinion pieces in left-leaning sources like Vice, Vox, Jewish Currents, and the like, and a local news report, should not guide us in applying a contentious label in the lead when we have excellent top-tier news sources like NYT and WaPo, which do not apply this label to him. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, you keep repeating that WaPo and NYT call him a journalist. But, in some articles they call him a writer or activist.[73] [74][75] [76] Let us look at the preponderance. And please stop using the term "left-leaning" whenever you disagree with a source. Isn't that label used for NYT and WaPo all too often here? O3000 (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to have to sound like a bot. If only the same points weren't raised against and again. "Preponderance" Nope, WP:WEIGHT. 1000 Tabloids =/= 1 Reliable Newspaper. Or better yet, 100 Second Tier Sources < 10 Top Notch Sources. Don't know how to make this much clearer. I'm also not interested in silly debates over whether "provocateur" is negative. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, can you kindly point the discussion to the policy page that clarifies what constitutes a "First tier" or "Top Notch" source? It would also be helpful for everyone to see where in Wikipedia policy these source valuation you keep referring to are located. Thanks, Cedar777 (talk) 01:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

So, you consider four green-lighted RS as 1% to 0.1% as useful as the sources you like -- even though the sources you like have articles that I cited that do not use the term you like. And Shinealittlelight suggests we don't use "left-leaning" sources, even though the very sources you want to use are called left-leaning hundreds of thousands of times on WP TPs. O3000 (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight and Wikieditor19920, The elephant in the room here is the question of why. Why are there so many sources that avoid referring to Ngo as a journalist? What is it about the terminology of journalist that has left other journalists reluctant to consider Ngo one of their own? Surely they must sympathize with the plight of their fellow reporters and the complexities that any reporter faces when covering newsworthy events. Yet, it is telling that there are a number of reporters who cannot bring themselves to describe the subject as a journalist. It indicates a need for caution on the part of Wikipedia editors as there may well be a significant problem with the content and the integrity of the subject's actions. Cedar777 (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, do I need to search the bowels of WP:RSP discussions to state unequivocally that The New York Times and The Washington Post are more reliable than The Indepednent and The Intercept? I don't think so. WP:RSP answers the question "is this a usable source or is this unusable," not "how much weight does this hold." Don't try to equate the two. I also never referred to "left-leaning" or "right-leaning" sources. WP:BIASED sources are permitted, but sometimes may require attribution. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, this will save a lot of time. Let's just remove all the sources from RSP and leave two. Hey, let's shut down Wikipedia and just redirect to them. O3000 (talk) 01:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Cedar777: The explanation is very simple. Lower-quality sources tend to throw around contentious and charged labels to get clicks and are more prone to making assertions without evidence. Reliable sources are cautious, use conservative language, and only make contentious claims with indisputable evidence. The Washington Post and NYTimes adhere to the latter practice, and that's why they hold weight. Online-only sources like The Intercept and The Independent, while not completely unreliable, have fewer editorial checks and balances in place and fall into the former category. And I suggest dropping the insinuations.

Hey, you know what, Objective3000, you're right. I'm being way to strict with all this demanding high quality sources for contentious claims at a BLP. No idea what got over me. Let's go check what the Daily Mail says! (Kidding around is fun.) Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, The ranking system, as you are describing it, works well for sources at the extremes, i.e. the Daily Mail vs. New York Times, but it becomes problematic when the sources are less polarized. The Seattle Times and the Oregonian are extremely high quality sources of news in the Pacific Northwest. As I mentioned above, these publishers have each earned multiple pulitzers. They are excellent quality sources that are particularly relevant to this subject as many of the events the Ngo is known for took place within the region. The 2020 articles from these publications that I linked earlier both refer to Ngo as a writer, not a journalist. Cedar777 (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Contrary to what O3K said above, I didn't say we can't use left-leaning sources. I said we should not use opinion pieces from left-leaning sources to apply contentious labels in the lead. And, for the record, yes, WaPo and NYT are left-leaning. Moreover, "left-leaning" is not an insult, it's a description. But nobody is proposing to use opinion sources from NYT and WaPo to apply contentious labels in the lead, and, if someone were proposing to do this, I'd be against it. Anyway, we obviously need high-quality, non-opinion sources to place a contentious label in the lead. And yeah, it's our place as editors to determine what is and is not a high-quality source. Reference to "high quality" is all over the place in source-related policy, I don't need to link WP:RS do I? NYT and WaPo are high-quality, prominent sources, and VICE is not. NYT and WaPo pretty much paradigmatic in this regard, despite the fact that, yes, they are left-leaning. They do call him a journalist, they do not call him a provocateur. That's it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, The 2020 articles in the Seattle Times and the Oregonian are not opinion pieces. They do not refer to Ngo as a journalist. I'm still awaiting an answer as to why that might be the case. Cedar777 (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

No one's obligated to answer your every speculative question. If you want to make a claim, provide a source that makes that claim. If the source contradicts a more reliable source, it's a no go. Omissions are not statements when it comes to the use of WP:RS. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Yep. Also, I find it interesting that we've gone from claims of "a rather impressive number" of sources--a claim I was responding to by criticizing most of that number--to now standing on these two local sources. Look, the archives are full of repeated arguments on this issue over the last year, and they are full of lists of additional mainstream national-level sources that call him a journalist. The Portland and Seattle newspapers simply omitting the term 'journalist' obviously isn't going to serve as a reason to depart from the practice of NYT, WaPo, etc. etc. etc. mainstream sources that do call him a journalist. I don't have to speculate as to the reason why these two much less prominent sources didn't call him a journalist to support keeping that term in the lead, following central RS. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Would you guys stick to the policies and guidelines and stop making up new rules? O3000 (talk) 11:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? What rules are being invented? Springee (talk) 12:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The root article for the June 2020 Seattle Times and Oregonian coverage is the Associated Press.

Lawsuit aims to hold nebulous ‘antifa’ to blame for injuries https://apnews.com/article/9c484adddf335e79be648e70406622ca

This highest quality, more recent international source pointedly does not refer to the subject as a journalist but rather a "conservative writer from Portland". Due to the lack of agreement in RS, it should not be stated that NGO is a journalist in Wikipedia‘s voice. Cedar777 (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, no. The archives of this topic show many examples of RS like NYT, WashPo etc calling Ngo a journalist. Within the last month the WP called Ngo a journalist. Cherry picking sources that don't call him that doesn't mean that he isn't widely called a journalist. I think it's rather disturbing that some editors think it's OK to use negative labels in wikivoice but are against using a neutral descriptor of his profession.

I understand web search word counts aren't perfect but I did a Google-new search for the following terms and got the following number of hits: "andy ngo" journalist-4710; "andy ngo" writer-1830; "andy ngo" provocateur-208. I think that is pretty clear that more sources are calling him a journalist than the alternatives discussed here. Finally, let's look at the plain language definition of "journalist"; a person who writes for newspapers, magazines, or news websites or prepares news to be broadcast. Ngo currently writes for the Post Millenial. In the past he has written for even the Wall Street Journal. This shouldn't even be a question. It would be a question if we were asking "is he reliable, respected, unbiased, etc." We aren't doing that. That editors don't like it doesn't change that he is widely described by both highly respected and less respected sources as being a journalist by profession.

Would you be happy if we said he is a "conservative writer and journalist"? That seems like a fair compromise for those who say "writer" instead. Springee (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

In addition to the fact that this description of his profession is widely supported by RSs, we should consider that this is the consensus text that has been widely discussed and kept in the article after a number of discussions regarding the lead. As such editor wishing to remove need to show consensus for the removal. CC has tried to argue that BLP says contentious material needs to stay out rather than in because this is a BLP. Let's review the policies (both NOCON and BLP). The BLPREQUESTRESTORE part talks about material that has been removed on good faith BLP grounds. On what BLP grounds would "journalist" be removed? It is not a value laden label. It is widely used in RSs. Prior to it's removal it had at minimum implied consensus for inclusion. So absent arguments of consensus, on what policy based grounds would it violate BLP? Both NOCON and BLP have no-consensus carve outs for contentious material. So if we were trying to include a statement that Ngo was a racist, liar, criminal etc, I think we can agree that such labels/claims are contentious. They are not neutral with respect to the subject. The same could be true for claims of positive labels like "award winning", "national treasure", "cornerstone of journalistic integrity", "god of all facts", "the next Walter Cronkite". But when we are talking about neutral descriptions or facts, then "contentious" doesn't enter into it. For example, let's assume he wrote a few articles for a paper in Kansas City and that information had been in the article for several years. Now in late 2020 editors argue that the content is UNDUE and should be removed. The talk page discussions may be contentious but the nature of the facts/claims are not. Thus we wouldn't say NOCON=remove. We would say NOCON=restore status quo. That is the case we have here. Springee (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I got completely different Google search counts. They are meaningless. O3000 (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Please share your exact search terms and which part of Google you used. While these results are not foolproof, they are better than editors cherry picking sources. Springee (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Google searches should never be used here as an indication of anything. Firstly, they vary by person taking into account Google's idea of your personal interests. Secondly, they include massive replication due to the echo chamber in anything related to politics. As for cherry-picking, I suggest you stop using that characterization since the argument for inclusion of journalist has repeatedly picked two sources -- the definition of cherry-picking. O3000 (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

You said you did the same search. Please post your terms and results. What is significant here is the ratios. We have more that enough Hugh quality sources to say Ngo is described as a journalist. Some are claiming other terms like "writer" should be used instead. Ok, how do we judge the relative ratio of those two descriptors. A web search, while imperfect, offers an order of magnitude comparison. It's not conclusive but it's hard to ignore when combined with other evidence. Springee (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)For reference, I tried the same search on my phone using private mode (vs my desktop computer without privacy mode). I got 4680, 1820, and 208. Trying the same with my phone and Bing (which I normally don't use) returns 98, 33, 3 respectively. Springee (talk) 14:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Meaningless. You need to analyze search results, not count them. Search engines are a great starting tool. That's all. Further, the use of quote marks is used as a hint to such engines. If you look at results, you will see massive numbers of irrelevant hits where the quote marks are ignored. Obviously, more common words will receive more irrelevant hits. O3000 (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Objective3000 Do not accuse other editors of bad-faith WP:CHERRYPICKING. Emphasizing two pre-eminent sources (WaPo/NYT) supporting a specific characterization is exactly what we should be doing and wholly appropriate per WP:WEIGHT. Other editor's have suggested these sources are not "recent." Each were published in the past year. These same criticisms are paired with citations of sources they believe support their point by omission, and are published in the same time frame. This is ridiculous. The subject has been confirmed to be a journalist by the most reliable publications available. To replace this with "provocateur" based on the suggestions of Wikipedia editors and based on second-tier sources is a blatant BLP vio and severe departure from policy that cannot stand. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

That's funny. I was responding to two accusations of cherry-picking and you're claiming I'm the accuser.:) Secondly, I haven't proposed any text at all. Thirdly, we've hear your argument that we should use your two sources (even though those sources have other articles without that characterization) to the exclusion of other sources many times now and do not agree. Fourthly, if you believe I have made a blatant vio that "cannot stand", take it to the appropriate board. O3000 (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I read your comment. You also made an accusation of cherrypicking, one apparently including me. Two wrongs don't make a right, and I haven't accused you of CP. I'm not accusing you of any vio. The entire premise of this malformed RfC is to advocate what, in my opinion, is a clear BLP vio. C&C opened it to challenge the use of "journalist" after claiming it was unsupported by sources (it is), but is primarily using it a as a vehicle to promote the use of another term, provocateur, which is not mentioned in the RfC intro. You called this a flexible use of an RfC, but I call it misuse. An RfC description is supposed to be straightforward and premised on the narrow change proposed, not suggest "A" and then surreptitiously advocate for "B." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

You accuse others of bad faith, and then engage yourself. I saw no surreptitious intent. At this point, you are bludgeoning. O3000 (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The opener makes arguments focused on a piece of content unrelated to the premise of the RfC. This is confusing for anyone new to the conversation. And don't make accusation. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep in mind the first sentence or even the first phrase of the lede needs to be 100% objective. This should be strictly his nationality and his career facets. Whether this is writer/journalist/activist, that's the question above, but the "provocateur" absolutely needs to be kept out of that area because that is not a career thing. That is something that needs to be discussed in a second sentence or second phrase of the first sentence of the lede since it is part of why he is notable, but the first sentence is not required to spell out why a person is notable, but is required to stay neutral and impartial, and calling out someone as a provocateur which requires specific source attribution is not sticking to objective facts (it's a value-laden label). --Masem (t) 16:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Writer is the most neutral term best suited encompass the subject's activities. Cedar777 (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is the guideline for neutrality, and this is determined by weight in sources. The sources above show the most weight for "journalist." Recognition by the preeminent print papers in the U.S. is not something we poo-poo. "Writer" is also acceptable as a secondary label. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. This isn’t a case of either/or. We can use “and”. We can say “Andy Ngo is a journalist, writer and conservative activist.” (For example). Blueboar (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Sources that describe him as a "writer" do not indicate that he is not a journalist. All journalists are writers, some writers are journalists. Those are certainly not mutually exclusive terms. If you found a source that described him as a "non-journalist," then you would have a legitimate point.Truth is King^TALK 15:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Survey "Provocateur"

• Since the opener of this RfC has repeatedly asserted the appropriateness of "provocateur" in the opening in this thread, but it is not reflected in the intro, this is worthy of a separate and distinct discussion. "Provocateur" has the least support in sources, behind "journalist," "writer," and "activist," in that order. It is also a contentious term. It should not be unduly emphasized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor19920 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
• Mixed - There are distinctly fewer sources that use “Provocateur” than use the other terms under discussion (writer, activist, etc). Those sources are also of lesser quality. Then there is the fact that it is a “loaded” term. However, it IS used, and by more than one source. So... I would mention it, but not in the opening sentence... and I would use in text attribution so it is not presented in Wikipedia’s voice. Blueboar (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
• Generally oppose - It could be included in the lead but with care. A number of lesser but not unreliable sources have described him as such but we shouldn't say something like, "Ngo is described as a provocateur by a number of sources." Such a sentence doesn't explain/justify why he is called that. However, why could be addressed with a neutral, impartial summary of the supporting claims made in those sources (a very high level summary). For example, "Many sources accuse Ngo of being a provocateur because his reports that are accused of vilifying groups such as..." What that sentence adds is some level of why these sources might have chosen that descriptor. Effectively a first layer of evidence. Should that be in the lead? Perhaps but only after careful discussion. Springee (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
• Keep in some form, even if in a subsequent sentence. The fact that he is a right-wing provocateur has been stated in multiple independent sources linked above in my comments about journalist. The lead section should give due weight to this, at least in passing. We can spare the 11 characters. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: Watch how you phrase your vote. BLP applies to talk pages. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

[77] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Among the terms that have been suggested here, including "journalist," "writer," "activist," "provocateur" has the least support. It is sourced to several opinion columns and magazine features offering cultural commentary, not news organizations. It is relevant enough for inclusion in the article, but not in the opening sentence, and not without attribution. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Not only is this a subjective WP:LABEL, it is supported without attribution by weaker sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose with qualifications per Springee above. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
• Leave as is (conservative journalist, social media personality, and provocateur), which seems to encompass the various points made by the sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Not a common term. It usually is a short form for agent provocateur. (Provocateur redirects to the disambiguation page for agent provocateur.) Usually this implies that someone is in the employ of the police. I don't think we should use terms which although strictly speaking are accurate give a misleading impression. For the same reason I wouldn't call him a journalist either. TFD (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as a loaded, polemical, and vaguely defined term. It's clear that the article referring to Ngo as a provocateur was using the word as an insult and not as a serious definition of his occupation; otherwise we're saying that Ngo is someone who pretends to be a protestor in order to induce other protestors to commit crimes. Describing him in WikiVoice as a "provocateur" is laughable. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 19:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
• Keep He has been described as a provocateur in the press and is one, much like Milo Yiannopoulos. I don't think the word has a negative stigma, it just means someone who provokes or is provocative, in some way. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Provocateur is used to describe "one who provokes" (or one who calls forth in others a feeling or an action). Agree with Coffee & Crumbs that some individuals, including artists, consider the role of provocateur to be a calling and find the term nothing to take offense at. Additionally, provocateur has been used by two reliable sources to describe the subject: the Oregonian (winner of 8 pulitzers) and Rolling Stone (green at WP:RSP) which are both solid backing as citations for this content, more than enough to adequately cite this term. Finally, let us not forget that Ngo is a public figure, governed by less stringent WP:BLP rules as for low-profile individuals. Cedar777 (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

[Replies moved to discussion section below]

• Keep in the article, attributed. The term has been used by multiple sources including Rolling Stone, Jacobin, Atlantic and Jewish Currents magazines to describe Ngo. We can follow WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and tell the reader which publications have called him that, and explain why, which is the real benefit to our readers. Binksternet (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Keep, per Liz.--Jorm (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Provocateur is a highly loaded word and appears to be used only as clickbait and partisanship. More neutral terms include activist, agent and operative. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Largely per TFD, given it is not universal and is a loaded term. I would also say it is a freedom fighter type descriptor. PackMecEng (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
• Mixed, perhaps reword it in a sentence or two in the lead to better describe what sources are saying when they use the term, rather than just state the blank term. I would also be fine to change provocateur with activist or conservative/right-wing activist while stating later in the lead that he has been described as such and why; or if not in the lead, better explain and clarify in the body why several reliable sources have been calling him by that term, see Jacobin and Vox. Davide King (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
• Writer I think he should be described as a writer. It is how he is described in a number of reliable sources, and it seems fairly inert as a descriptor. I think calling him a hack writer would be more accurate, but that presents many issues similar to describing him as a provocateur.Bacondrum (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

[Replies moved to discussion section below]

All, this is an ongoing RFC. Adding the disputed RFC material to the lead while the RFC is in process is something experienced editors should know is problematic and not against policy (NOCON). If consensus says add then we should do so but not before then. Springee (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion "Provocateur"

Discussion in reply to Cedar777 [moved from above]:

I suspect Milo would revel in the idea that he is a provocateur. Do you think Ngo would find the term to be balanced? It appears that Ngo is trying to report on what he sees is a problem with left-wing activists using intimidation and violence. Calling him a provocateur appears to be an attempt to discredit his reporting. As such I don't see how we would presume it to be something other than a controversial label. Springee (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

We do not presume to call him anything. RS call him that and we are only relaying the consensus of RS. A significant number of RS call him a "provocateur", therefore, for any relevant intents and purposes on en.wiki, he is a provocateur. Asking for in-line attribution is the only argument that makes sense here, based on the argument that it is a minority view point. However, including significant minority view points is part of how we keep a neutral point of view on en.wiki. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: You need to stop misrepresenting the sources and making broad, patently false characterizations of what the sources are doing. The majority of sources describe him as a journalist. A small number of op-eds and magazine pieces, maybe two or three cited here, use the term provocateur. The op-eds are not secondary and a single magazine article is not a "consensus among RS." It's not even a significant minority viewpoint, it's one limited to opinion pieces and a "culture commentary" magazine article. This can, at most, be noted in the body, with in-text attribution. You are repeating provably false characterizations in a manner that is disruptive to the discussion and has the potential to mislead others. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

[78][79][80][81], as far as I know, none of these are op-eds and all are RS. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The Vox piece calls him a journalist, and suggests he is a "provocateur sympathizer," not a provocateur himself. The Independent piece is an op-ed in the "Voices" section, meaning, opinions. The Intercept piece is yet another online-only magazine by an author who has written sharply negative opinion pieces about Ngo. So I'm not sure how much weight that holds, but even if I give you that one, there is still not even an inkling of a "consensus among rs" that "provocateur" is the prevailing or even an appropriate term. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

You ignore The Oregonian. Vox does not say a "sympathizer to provocateurs". It says "Ngo is a conservative provocateur sympathizer who has worked with militant right-wing groups", meaning that both conservative and provocateur modify symphathizer, which he is, according to Vox. The Independent has a separate properly labeled "opinion" section.[82] I do not have civil words to respond to the misguided statement "another online-only magazine by an author who has written sharply negative opinion pieces about Ngo".

We also forgot to mention the Rolling Stone.[83][84] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

So sticking with my comment about re-working the carer section, I think we should look at those articles when deciding how to handle them. For example, if an article claims he, "worked with militant right-wing groups" we really should include the details of that collaboration. Does this mean active coordination and collaboration? Does it mean he is sympathetic to their version of events and thus effectively aids their narrative without actually collaborating with them? Does it simply mean he challenges claims that it was "the right who hit first" if he saw "the left take the first swing"? Conversely, if a source just says "Ngo, a provocateur and right-wing hack, testified before congress." Well that's just a writer using loaded terms without justification. That should be discounted in terms of answering if we should use the label in the article. Incidentally I think there is almost certainly enough evidence to discuss the various labels in the body of the article. We just need to do it in a way that isn't like a list of names people have called him. Springee (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: I do not have civil words to respond to the misguided statement Keeping mum when you can't say something civil is a smart move. Consider doing the same for statements that are inaccurate. "Provocateur sympathizer" calls him a "sympathizer" for provocateurs, not necessarily one himself. This poorly worded phrasing is inconclusive. You also conveniently omit any information that doesn't support your point, namely that the Vox piece says he is still a journalist. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I have always maintained that both journalist and provocateur should be kept, together, to represent a NPOV. Keeping "journalist" and not "provocateur" is POV pushing. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

What you are advocating for is, in my opinion, a WP:FALSEBALANCE. One is the prevailing term in high-quality print and online sources. The other is limited to a select few opinion and online-only pieces. The two are worlds apart and in terms of weight and the latter is a contentious label, subject to even more stringent sourcing requirements to be used without attribution. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

"provocateur" is not a contentious label, it is simply a word that describes what he does, which is to selectively film and publish footage of events with an aim to invoke a particular response.[85] "racist" is a contentious label. "terrorist" is a contentious label. "bigot" is a contentious label. Do not cheapen truly contentious labels by putting this word in the same boat.

Excluding "online-only pieces" has no basis in policy or guidelines on en.wiki. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

As any good journalistic source would, Vox points to its source for the claim that Ngo "worked with militant right-wing groups", a report by the JewishCurrents, which in turn points to a WP:NEWSBLOG by the Portland Mercury, which telling has a hatnote stating "After publication of this story, a lawyer representing Andy Ngo contacted the Mercury, asking for a retraction and stating that Ngo denies certain claims made by a source quoted in this article. See the full contents of the lawyer’s request here. The Mercury stands by its reporting."

I cannot help but think that editors here expect journalists use nice words to describe right-wing provocateurs. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

This is an great example of why we need to not just repeat what the source claims but also trace back teh evidence. In the case of "worked with right-wing groups" the evidence is the video of Ngo near PP prior to the Cider Riot brawl. What that video shows is greatly disputed. A way we can handle this is say that some sources say Ngo actively works with (or what ever language) right-wing groups. Other sources dispute this claim (Reason's arguments here). The video actually works well in this revised carer framework. Rather than just telling readers "Ngo was seen with these people..." We say "[sources] allege that Ngo has has a cozy relationship/coordinated with right wing groups. In [date] a video was released showing Ngo near PP members. Ngo is seen smiling/acknowledging the PP members. Later that day PP was involved in a brawl at Cider Riot. [Source] says this shows PP planning an attack and that Ngo heard the plans yet failed to report this when later reporting on the brawl. [Source] disputes some of these claims [details]. Ngo, via an article published by [online magazine] denied these claims saying [short denial]. Now the reader can see the accusation against Ngo, the evidence and the counter claims in a single passage. This avoids having to flood the article with labels while helping the reader better understand why some apply the labels to Ngo. Springee (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:LABEL applies to terms with distinctly negative connotations, and provocateur is once such term. I am not arguing for excluding online-only sources, I am explaining (correctly) that print sources like the NYT carry more weight. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no policy basis for the claim that "print sources like the NYT carry more weight". I trust online sources more because they are clearer, more direct, less weighed down by status quo norms, and more likely to offer corrections. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Springee, yes, we can do all that in the body. However, we have enough due weight to mention that "some sources like Rolling Stone, Vox, and The Intercept refer to him as a provocateur because of allegations that he sympathizes with militant right-wing groups, a claim that has been disputed by [so and so publication]". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

What you are arguing is that there is enough weight to the criticism of his journalism to use that in the lead. That doesn't mean we should say, "RS, Vox... call Ngo a provocateur." Instead we say something more like, "[Many] sources have criticized Ngo's reporting for X and claimed he has done Y". That sources chose to apply a controversial label isn't important, why they did is. This is the difference between loading up the article with emotive terms vs an impartial description where we state the basis for the label and allow the reader to reach their own conclusion. This is inline with the IMPARTIAL policy, "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes." Offering up the contentious labels without offering up the reason for them is supporting one side of the dispute. IMPARTIAL goes on to say, "Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. " The label provocateur is an opinion, not a fact. That a particular source says Ngo misrepresented an incident is a fact. That they chose to refer to him as a provocateur is an expression of their opinion. If we are good we should be able to present all the same evidence the other sources provided without using any of their subjective labels. The reader can then decide what to think. Springee (talk) 13:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I still object to calling him a "journalist". That is a disputable job title. We should call him a "writer" as suggested above. I have made concession to reach a consensus. You and Wikieditor19920 appear to not have any interest in reach a consensus. It appears to be your way or the highway when it comes to the lead section. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree but we seem to be repeating. I'm certainly interested in a consensus but that consensus also needs to adhere to IMPARTIAL as that is a policy. Look at the MW definition of Journalist, "1a: a person engaged in journalism especially : a writer or editor for a news medium." Ngo is an editor for the Millennium Post and writes articles for the MP [[86]]. Certainly we can agree that the MP has a poor reputation but that doesn't mean it's not a news medium nor that Ngo isn't writing and (presumably) editing and thus meeting the definition of journalist. While calling him a writer is factually correct, it's broader and less informative. Still, since, reportedly he is releasing a book, perhaps "conservative writer and journalist"? I'm just assuming conservative is in there since that was a added in a previous consensus. Perhaps a better way for us to reach a compromise is to figure out how to fix up the body first then adjust the lead. Springee (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion in reply to to Davide King [moved from above]:

@Davide King: You know that Jacobin piece is an op-ed? It's also pretty polemic and does not carry weight here. However, I thank you for citing it, because a number of other editors here have been parroting the reasoning of this single Jacobin piece with regards to the term "journalist," without citing it, and instead making arguments contrary to the prevailing reliable sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, do you know that Jacobin is reliable (Reason is similarly considered reliable) and that sources are not required to be neutral (few sources, including 'centrist' ones, really are), just that they are reliable? Or that I did not even mean to use those sources to support the claim in the lead, just to use them and attribute them in the body? Both are reliable sources. Davide King (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: I haven't seen a consensus for Jacobin on WP:RSP, so I"m not clear on that. It's also an "American socialist" opinion magazine, so it's both WP:BIASED and not clearly secondary. However, I wholeheartedly agree with you that if the term "provocateur" is used, it should not be in the lead, and must be with attribution. So I think we have a lot of common ground. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, I believe this was the latest RfC. I think Jacobin deserves at least a similar status to Reason. Anyway, I agree, too. If we are to use provocateur in the lead (I would prefer having one or two sentences about it, rather than the blank term; or doing the same in the body, if it is not lead worthy, i.e. expand and clarify why he has been called that way, what he has done to cause several reliable sources to call him that way or in similar terms), we would do our readers a favour by explaining why he has been called that way, rather than just use the blank term, which seems to be that the majority of reliable source are on yours and Springee's side. I also agree with this comment by Springee. Davide King (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for sharing. My read on the RfC, which was not closed with any particular consensus, is that it is usable, but only with attribution. I think that's appropriate for the body, but again, WP:UNDUE for the lead. It's also an opinion piece, so the statements from the Gupta article are reliable only as an indication of what the author's opinion is. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, I agree, that is why I support it only in the body, if it is not lead worthy for now. Davide King (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Survey of Wikipedia ledes in bios of disgraced journalists

For perspective and amusement, there are numerous Wikipedia bios and BLPs under "Category:Journalistic hoaxes" and "Category:Journalistic scandals". It looks like in every single case the person is described as "journalist" (usually "former" journalist, for obvious reasons), sometimes "reporter" or "editor", but nowhere in the lede or article is there language suggesting the person was not actually a journalist while purporting to be one. The articles duly report that the subject fell into professional disrepute, committed journalistic fraud, was involved in controversy, etc, but there is no attempt to frame this as a self-exclusion from the category of Real Journalists. This should settle one ridiculous branch of the discussion above, but if not, here is a new subsection in which to pursue it. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Review of terminology used for subject in recent RS

Discussion listing with dates arranged chronologically to review patterns in RS terminology of subject. Items listed in GREEN have attained consensus by Wikipedia editors as generally reliable per the listing on WP:RSP.

2019

• June 30, 2019 The Guardian. Portland police clash with protesters and make ‘cement milkshake’ claim "A videographer and editor for the rightwing magazine Quillette, Andy Ngo"
• July 1, 2019 New York Times. In Portland, Milkshakes, a Punch and #HimToo "conservative journalist Andy Ngo"
• July 1, 2019 ABC7 News. Portland journalist Andy Ngo speaks out, says Antifa behind attack "A Portland journalist"
• July 2, 2019 Los Angeles Times. Police seek help finding 3 suspects from Portland protests that turned violent "Andy Ngo, a writer and photographer for the conservative website Quillette.com"
• July 3, 2019 BBC. Portland mayor defends handling of violent protest conservative journalist Andy Ngo, who works for online magazine Quillette"
• July 3, 2019 Vox. The assault on conservative journalist Andy Ngo, explained. "Ngo is the closest thing the intellectual dark web has to a gonzo journalist"
• July 18, 2019 Buzzfeed News. Andy Ngo Has The Newest New Media Career. It's Made Him A Victim And A Star. "conservative media personality Andy Ngo"
• July 25, 2019 The Hill. Conservative journalist Andy Ngo says assault involving Antifa resulted in brain injury "conservative journalist"
• August 16, 2019 Associated Press Arrests precede major demonstrations in Portland, Oregon "conservative blogger Andy Ngo"
• August 17, 2019 New York Times. Antifa and Far-Right Groups Face Off in Portland as Trump Weighs In "conservative writer Andy Ngo"
• August 17, 2019 ABC News. At least 13 people arrested at Portland, Oregon, protest "conservative blogger Andy Ngo"
• August 17, 2019 The Irish Times. US far-right group vows to march monthly following Portland rally "conservative writer Andy Ngo"
• August 26, 2019 The Stranger. Undercover in Patriot Prayer "Andy Ngo, a conservative writer who’s built a Twitter persona around filming fights between antifa and right-wing extremists"
• August 27, 2019 The Daily Beast. Right-Wing Star Andy Ngo Exits Quillette After Damning Video Surfaces “controversial right-wing writer Andy Ngo“
• September 3, 2019 Rolling Stone. How a Right-Wing Troll Managed to Manipulate the Mainstream Media "Andy Ngo, the provocateur and social media personality"
• October 3, 2019 Columbia Journalism Review. "Dropshipping journalism". "Other recent Newsweek writers have included Charlie Kirk, discredited provocateur Andy Ngo..."
• November 14, 2019 Oregon Public Broadcasting. Patriot Prayer Proud Boys continue violence "right wing writer Andy Ngo"

2020

• January 3, 2020 Vancouver Sun UBC event cancelled "Andy Ngo, editor at large for the right-wing news site Post Millennial"
• February 3, 2020 WFSB Hartford brewery promises swift action "conservative media personality Andy Ngo"
• April 3, 2020 Bellingcat. How Coronavirus Disinformation Gets Past Social Media Moderators "Once the narrative is out there, prominent individuals within the disinformation ecosystem can continue pouring fuel on the fire (pun intended), without directly making any false claims. Here’s Andy Ngo, editor-at-large for the Post Millennial, doing just that:"
• June 4, 2020 Associated Press. Lawsuit aims to hold nebulous ‘antifa’ to blame for injuries "conservative writer from Portland"
• June 4, 2020 The Oregonian. Conservative writer sues Portland antifa group "conservative writer and videographer"
• June 5, 2020 Politifact. No evidence this man died at hands of an ‘antifa murderer’ "conservative journalist Andy Ngo"
• July 6, 2020 The Daily Beast. Right-Wing Media Outlets Duped by a Middle East Propaganda Campaign "conservative writer Andy Ngo"
• July 22, 2020 The Washington Post. Conservative media helps Trump perform ‘law and order’ in Portland "Video posted by conservative activist Andy Ngo"
• July 25, 2020 Politico. Trump directs a campaign ad in Portland (terminology attributed to Jared Holt, a reporter at Right Wing Watch) “conservative journalist and Quillette writer Andy Ngo“ “All this rage bait coming out of Portland . . . “
• August 27, 2020 Southern Poverty Law Center: Hatewatch. The Fascist Underpinnings of Pro-Trump Media Southern Poverty Law Center "Ngo’s also been caught misrepresenting facts and then what he says goes substantially viral after that."
• September 10, 2020 The Washington Post. Swept up in the federal response to Portland protests "conservative activist and journalist Andy Ngo sued Hacker and several other people earlier this year . . ."
• September 12, 2020 Mother Jones. Right-Wing Conspiracists Linked Antifa to the Wildfires "Andy Ngo, a right-wing propagandist who has been associated with the violent far-right group, Patriot Prayer"
• September 16, 2020 Willamette Week. Portland Protesters Say Their Lives Were Upended by the Posting of Their Mug Shots on a Conservative Twitter Account "conservative Portland activist Andy Ngo"
• September 29, 2020 Al Jazeera. Antifa and America’s revamped Red Scare "...Andy Ngo, a Portland-based journalist who describes himself as independent and objective but who has been accused of working with far-right groups in the past." He "has been criticised for sharing misleading and inaccurate information about anti-fascist demonstrators"
• October 1, 2020 Capital Gazette. Midshipman sues Naval Academy, claims looming expulsion for racist tweets violates his free speech rights "conservative media personality Andy Ngô"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedar777 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Kindly remove the selective bolding and trim the longer quotes. You also missed a source: ABC7 called him a Portland journalist. This confirms that, among reliable sources, journalist is the most frequently used moniker, followed closely by "writer." "Activist" barely makes an appearance, and "provocateur" is used the least frequently. Advocating that we place weight on terms inconsistent with what reliable sources have done is to violate WP:NPOV. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

This does NOT confirm that he is consistently referred to as a journalist. On the contrary, it shows that reliable sources (those Wikipedia editors have collectively deemed quality in GREEN) describe him using a range of terms, with the terminology of journalist waning over time. Taken together, there is a clear pattern of hesitation to describe him as a journalist and to opt instead for either a broader neutral term (like writer, writer/photographer, writer/videographer, activist, and his job title of editor-at-large) or a term that does not indicate the highest journalistic professional ethics (such as blogger, media personality, propagandist, and provocateur). All of these terms have been used by publishers considered reliable (green) by Wikipedia standards. Cedar777 (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no evidence of what you are asserting. He has received less coverage in the last year than in 2019. The vast majority of sources refer to him as a journalist, including the most reliable sources (NYT and WaPo). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

As @Objective3000: has pointed out earlier, it is important to be clear on which WaPo article you are referring to as they have described him on July 22, 2020 as a "conservative activist" and on September 10, 2020 as a "conservative activist and journalist". More generally, the consistent term in current use by WaPo for Ngo is "activist". Cedar777 (talk) 18:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Likewise with the NYT, we have the July 1, 2019 reference to Ngo as a "conservative journalist" followed by an article on August 17, 2019 describing him as a "conservative writer". The more recent coverage by NYT again shifts towards a broader term. Cedar777 (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is a July 2020 NYT article again calling him a journalist [[87]]. Springee (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

"Ngo with armed Patriot Prayer members prior to an alleged attack"

The sentence talks about an "alleged" attack, while the attack is well documented and it's beyond any doubt that it happened. Moreover, the sentence that follows talks about Ngo filming the attack. Surely we can drop the "alleged"? BeŻet (talk) 10:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Alleged is correct because we only have proof that a fight broke out, not that an attack occurred. We do not have proof who started the fight. So just as we would say Ngo was attacked allegedly by antifa, in this case we say there was a fight and some allege PP started it. The Oregon liquor commission found the bar patrons had weapons as well. [[88]]. Absent a legal ruling of fault we can't take sides. Springee (talk) 11:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

But we have video evidence where we can hear them planning the attack, going there, and executing the attack. Ngo's original live stream (before he edited it) also showed members of PP attacking. A plethora or sources also confirm the attack took place. So what is alleged here? It just feels we are playing dumb here for no reason. BeŻet (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

This had already been covered by Reason. The things they are saying don't prove they were "planning an attack". That is an interpretation to support a pre-existing conclusion, not one that is proven by the evidence in the video. The discussions only prove that they expected a confrontation was possible. Springee (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

It "being covered by Reason" means nothing, they have expressed their opinions and interpretation about a fellow right-wing activist (and what they are basically saying is that: yes, they had weapons; yes, they were saying what to do when fighting; yes, they were talking about who to attack; yes, they were saying they are ready to fight; but perhaps them planning to go to Cider Riot with weapons doesn't mean they were planning an attack - honestly, it's extremely silly). Most sources call it an attack, attribute the attack to PP, and point out Ngo was present during the planning. The view that it wasn't an attack is WP:FRINGE, because of the weight of evidence to the contrary. BeŻet (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Reason is a RS. Which RS say PP "attacked". The idea that this was an attack vs a brawl with no clear initiator is further emphasized by this article in the Oregonian [[89]]. This article came out after the liquor commission investigation. It suggests there was guilt all around. The liquor commission specifically accused Cider Riot employees of making false statements to investigators among other issues. We can't treat this as a clear cut case. We treat it as we do with the attack on Ngo. We can say in wiki voice their was a brawl. We can't say who started it or that one side attacked the other. We can say PP is accused of but if we to note that other sources disagree. Springee (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Reason is a RS, but firstly we are dealing with an WP:OPED, and secondly, as explained in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources "Editors consider Reason to be a biased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles". The source you mentioned states clearly that "police and prosecutors say [Joey] Gibson and several associates took multiple steps to incite a brutal brawl". Let's stop playing dumb here and call a spade a spade. BeŻet (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Do not accuse me of "playing dumb". DS apply to this article. Why are you claiming Reason is an "op-ed" article? When it comes to analyzing what is being said why should we accept a left leaning source yet not other sources? Why are your preferred sources "correct" yet others are not. Second, the specific question here is not if Gibson did things once they were there that started the brawl, the question is if this video shows they were planning for one. That is in dispute thus we can not state they were doing X in wiki-voice. Finally, later articles on the subject are not so quick to place the blame on one side. This is why we can say the video is alleged to show something but we don't say it does show something. Alternatively, we can say source X says the video shows something but source Y disagrees. This shouldn't be an argument as we should always err on the side of caution when it comes to accusing individuals or groups of committing crimes. Springee (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Why are you claiming Reason is an "op-ed" article? …because it is? Also, we are discussing the "alleged" descriptor referencing the attack, I am not talking about Ngo's involvement in the planning. The attack absolutely took place, not "allegedly", but in terms of Ngo's involvement we already talk about his excuse he presented (he was pre-occupied with his phone…). BeŻet (talk) 11:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

You stating it's Op-Ed doesn't make it Op-Ed. The Reason article both undermines the claim that Ngo was interacting or aware of what the PP members were saying as well the claim that PP members were planning an attack vs expecting that things could turn violent. The claim that the PB planned an attack is disputed so we need to present it as such. Remember, it's not just Reason that cast doubt on the description. The Oregon liquor commission described this as a brawl and noted that the bar employees provided evasive and misleading answers. The videos don't show an attack so much as a series of escalating provocations on both sides. If you would like to change the term to brawl rather than attack that would be more neutral given the evidence. Springee (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

What on earth is an op-ed to you then? It's literally written in first person! WP:RSP literally says that Reason "primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles"! Come on now... BeŻet (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The bigger problem is that this event, alleged or not, is even mentioned in this page's lead. Ngo only had a tangential connection; emphasizing this is WP:UNDUE. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

It is a major event that has been talked about a lot when discussing his person in the media. It's definitely due. Moreover, his connection isn't "only tangential", he kept pretending that he is a neutral actor despite a lot of evidence, and this was another solid proof that he has strong connections with far-right groups, which he supports, helps and covers up for. BeŻet (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

WIkieditor19920 is right: this is clearly undue for the lead. The sourcing is very weak: Jewish Currents, Daily Dot, Daily Beast, and Inquisitr. It was not covered by any major news organizations. RSN makes it clear that "Daily Dot" should be questionable as adding due weight, Daily Beast is a biased/opinionated source, as is Jewish Currents ("a magazine committed to the rich tradition of thought, activism, and culture of the Jewish left"), and Inquisitr is primarily an entertainment site that hasn't been discussed at RSN. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

You say sourcing is very weak and then mention several sources talking about it. There are plenty of other sources there too: Portland Mercury, Vice, Washington Examiner etc.. So yeah, it's definitely due even if you don't like it. BeŻet (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Right, the sources I mentioned are weak for the reasons given. Blog posts are weak too, and arguably not RS, though the matter is case-by-case. There's no consensus that Vice is an RS at all. So yeah, weak sourcing, nothing to do with what I like. I'm not the issue. Please FOC. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The Washington Examiner is a blog? BeŻet (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

No, the PM link you gave was to a blog. There is no consensus on the reliability of WE according to RSN. As I say, you have provided nothing but weak sourcing. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Well no, you've just explained your personal opinion about the sources calling them "biased" etc.. Look above and see how Springee portrays Reason as an RS. BeŻet (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

No. I am telling you what RSN and WP policy says about these sources. Not my opinion at all. You may want to review what's written about these sources at WP:RSP. Reason is listed as a "green" source that is "generally reliable for news and facts", although it is a biased source and needs to be used carefully with this in mind. Please familiarize yourself with policy and previous discussion of relevant soruces. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

No, you have described certain sources as biased, even though they are not even listed at RSP, and other sources that are clearly considered as reliable as "weak". So please do not lecture me about policies when you are clearly expressing an opinion that other editors have the right to disagree with. BeŻet (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Nearly every point I'm making can be made by simply quoting policy and/or RSP without using my own voice at all:

• Concerning Washington Examiner: according to WP:RSP, There is no consensus on the reliability of the Washington Examiner, but there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims.
• Concerning the Portland Mercury "blogtown" piece: according to WP:NEWSBLOG, Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.
• Concerning Daily Beast: according to WP:RSP, Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons.
• Concerning Daily Dot: according to WP:RSP, 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.

If your idea is that Jewish Currents ("a magazine committed to the rich tradition of thought, activism, and culture of the Jewish left") and Inquisitr are strong sources here, sure, you can express that view, and yeah, it is my opinion that these are obviously weak sources for this BLP content, though I agree that they haven't been discussed much at RSN. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Once again, because you don't seem to understand my point: it is solely your opinion that the sourcing is "weak". None of the sources used are marked as unreliable, and we are using them to show due weight (i.e. a lot of sources talk about it). Referencing Springee's arguments above, he used Reason, a biased source, to justify the "alleged" descriptor that we are discussing in this section. BeŻet (talk) 11:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Nope. The points about WE, Portland Mercury, DB, and DD are not my opinion, they are policy, see above. But yeah, it's my opinion that Jewish Currents and Inquisitr are obviously weak sources for this BLP content, you're right about that much. But I repeat myself. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, well we clearly are at a stalemate, because nothing you showed proves the sources are "weak" and provide no due weight, and you don't seem to understand that. BeŻet (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Nothing "weak" about Jewish Currents – they are strongly progressive and leftist. The only question we should have about the magazine with regard to this biography of Ngo is whether Jewish Currents is trustworthy and reliable, or false and misleading. Looking around at various articles talking about the magazine, nobody says anything bad about their reliability or truthfulness. This is a good signal for reliability. We should definitely respect the magazine as a good source. Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Obviously the attack should be in the lede (you all have just listed 8-9 reliable sources in an attempt to claim there are no reliable sources), and obviously it shouldn't be referred to as "alleged". I'm tempted to make an RfC about this, it seems pretty clear to me that the local consensus is being warped by POV pushers. Loki (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Why would it obviously be in the lead? Is this an article about PP, Cider Riot or Ngo? "Alleged" or similar is required by NPOVN if we use the term "attack". If we use the term "brawl" then it's not required. How is it POV pushing to be IMPARTIAL? Springee (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that RfC could resolve this issue because certain editors are portraying their opinions as Wikipedia policy, which isn't helping when trying to achieve a consensus. BeŻet (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Proud Boys

Springee, the source includes that the Proud Boys are designated as a hate group by the SPLC. As Ngo was assualted at a Proud Boys rally in June and the Proud Boys responded to his assault by holding an additional rally shortly afterward in August, a brief mention of who they are is warranted and relevant to an article on the subject. My edit stuck to exactly what was listed in the source, which is a high quality source. It strikes me that your revert was more a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I kindly request that you reconsider. Cedar777 (talk) 02:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Accusing others of "IDONTLIKEIT" is not an effective way to get them to kindly reconsider. I removed that specific line because it was very pointy/COATRACK in the text. That the SPLC decided that they are a hate group was not relevant in context of Ngo. We need to be careful about giving too much stock to SPLC designations given they are often disputed and the SPLC is not unbiased. More to the point, that seemed like a COATRACK to express an opinion about the Proud Boys which is not relevant to Ngo himself. This seems like something that should go in an article about the PB's not Ngo. Springee (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

SPLC is GREEN at WP:RSP. It is not a contested source and it has also been utilized by the NYT, BBC, and other top notch sources when summarizing the Proud Boys in recent coverage. Ngo's article would also benefit from having a brief description of antifa for any readers coming to this article without a background in all the ongoing American drama. It makes sense to include the basic info about antifa and the proud boys as described by RS coverage of Ngo. They too, are central to his notability. The body of the article suffers from excessive detail and source attribution, due to all the disputes among Wiki editors. It is unfortunate. As the subject has spent several years covering the unrest in Portland, it is not a coatrack to address, in brief, the major players in that unrest. Cedar777 (talk) 02:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

You need to read up on the SPLC discussions but more to the point, why is that information part of an article about Andy Ngo? Look at your sources and what they actually say. Both mention Ngo only once. The ABCnews source does not say the August incidents were due to Ngo's attack in June. Note that the related End_Domestic_Terrorism_rally didn't contain mention of Ngo until you added it today using the same ABCnews source [[90]]. It only mentions Ngo in context of Gibson saying the police are biased in going after him instead of the people who attacked Ngo. The other source is Willamette Week. The author says, "Anger and frustration on the far right has grown since June 29, when conservative journalist Andy Ngo was assaulted by masked protesters in downtown Portland." However, the author doesn't say if this build up of anger and frustration is because of the attack on Ngo or if was something else from that same period. This is very shaky grounds on which to claim the August demonstrations were because Ngo was attacked. Springee (talk) 03:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Springee, this is what the ABC source states: "In a video he livestreamed on Facebook, Gibson accused the police of playing politics by arresting him but not the masked demonstrators who beat up conservative blogger Andy Ngo at a June 29 rally that drew national attention.

A video of that attack went viral and led the Proud Boys, who have been designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, to organize Saturday's event." What ATTACK do you think they are referring to if not the one against Ngo? Cedar777 (talk) 03:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Cedar777, what you added to the article says, "The video of the June 29 incident where Ngo was assaulted by masked demonstrators went viral and led the Proud Boys, a designated hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, to organize a follow up event." Thus your text added to this article says there was a direct cause (Ngo was assaulted) and effect (follow up event). The ABCnew article doesn't say that. It does say Gibson felt that the police were showing bias in going after him but (presumably) not after those who assaulted Ngo. That does not say the reason why the PBs organized the follow up event was because Ngo was assaulted. That fails verification. Springee (talk) 03:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Springee, we do actually agree on one point here. The Willamette Week article does not mention Ngo. It was included at the end of the sentence as it listed the common name for the August 17, 2019 Portland, Oregon rally as the "End Domestic Terrorism rally." Perhaps placement of this citation immediately after the name "End Domestic Terrorism rally" rather than at the end may have helped clarify my intention. As the ABC source identifies the rally by location, organizers, and date, and not the common name, the WW source provided a clearer link to our own Wikipedia page titled "End Domestic Terrorism rally." Perhaps you could have brought up your concerns first on the talk page before reverting my edits on several pages?

Other than copying ABC word for word or quoting the article directly (which generally leads to more awkward readability), is there an alternative phrasing to express this relevant content? Cedar777 (talk) 04:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

It obviously is relevant, since it explains why the issue matters at all - saying who the Proud Boys are is essential context. This is why the source highlighted it, so we ought to do the same. Your personal opinion that We need to be careful about giving too much stock to SPLC designations given they are often disputed and the SPLC is not unbiased isn't a valid reason to strip out vital context included in the source we're using; and it's particularly baffling given that this designation does not seem to be seriously disputed. If you feel the source erred in relying on the SPLC, you ought to contact them and suggest they issue a retraction; but until they do, we should reflect their context and not try to downplay why this is significant. --Aquillion (talk) 04:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps we should look past the relevance claim and go to the fails verification problem. The claim that the August PB protests are because Ngo was attacked in June simply fails verification. So really we shouldn't be debating if the SLPC's interjection belongs in the article. I wouldn't call this OR since that would imply several sources were stitched together to make this claim. Instead this is simply cannot be supported by the sources provided. Springee (talk) 04:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

From this source: In a video he livestreamed on Facebook, Gibson accused the police of playing politics by arresting him but not the masked demonstrators who beat up conservative blogger Andy Ngo at a June 29 rally that drew national attention. A video of that attack went viral and led the Proud Boys, who have been designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, to organize Saturday's event. That seems straightforward to me? I don't understand your objection to it. --Aquillion (talk) 04:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The source does not fail verification. Again, here is the source (with my modifications in parenthesis: "A (The) video of that attack (the June 29 incident where Ngo was assaulted by masked demonstrators) went viral and led the Proud Boys, a designated hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, to organize Saturday's (a follow up) event. The words "masked demonstrators" and "assaulted" came directly from the sentence that preceded it in the same source. Which of my modified words in parenthesis are causing the problem for you Springee? I sincerely cannot comprehend what the enduring issue is here with verification. Cedar777 (talk) 04:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

OK, I missed the paragraph after the Andy Ngo paragraph. I still believe this is a COATRACK since the later protest doesn't appear to involve Ngo. By that I mean the August event was had little impact on Ngo even if the feeling that the police were biased in their failure to prosecute left-wing activists while going after right-wing activists. So for that reason I still think this material should be removed. That said, the ABCnews article does state it was due to Ngo and I missed it when I read it the first time and then didn't concentrate on that material after the fact. The WWeek text is more ambiguous. If WWeek were the only source then I would still say verification is questionable. With ABCnews we can assume WWeek's intent. So, mia-culpa for missing the ABCnews claim. I still think this is UNDUE for this article. As for the SPLC part, that should either be added the first time the PB are mentioned or not at all. Adding it at this point still raises COATRACK questions. Springee (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for returning to the source. (I also stand corrected regarding the Willamette Week article as it does, in fact, mention Ngo, not just the common name of the rally). Regarding your concerns about a COATRACK, I do not see how the Proud Boys reaction differs from the related content that follows, i.e., the article currently describes a series of reactions to the assault on Ngo, including the reaction of Ted Cruz, Andrew Yang, Joe Biden, and Eric Swalwell. According to ABC, the Proud Boys also reacted to his assault and then took action with the End Domestic Terrorism rally about 6 weeks afterward. Also, are you suggesting moving the SPLC content to the first mention of the Proud Boys in that subsection? If so, that seems reasonable to me. Any earlier & it would be more awkward. Perhaps the collective reactions of political figures and the Proud Boys need to be grouped together and placed after the comments from his attorney about his injuries. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Slow motion edit wars

Please remember that slow motion edit war, such as those that are happening on this article are still edit wars and can still result in sanctions even if you are respecting the 1RR --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit request: "Alleged" in lede

The lede currently contains this sentence (where I've bolded the bits I want to edit):

In August 2019, footage from May was published showing Ngo with armed Patriot Prayer members prior to an alleged attack on a bar frequented by antifa protesters. Ngo did not film the alleged planning of the attack, but did film parts of the attack itself.

I would like to remove the word "alleged", because under MOS:ALLEGED it ought to be avoided even if there was any doubt that the attack or planning happened, and more importantly, there is not in fact any doubt that it happened. As the quote states, both the planning and the attack itself were filmed. I don't know who would even dispute that it happened. We call it just an "attack" without alleged later in the article, even. Loki (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

This is being discussed above. The issue is describing this as an attack vs brawl or alleged attack. Attack includes an assignment of motive as well as guilt. Alleged is used because, at this point, it hasn't been proven in court that this was an attack vs PB showing up to protest and a fight later broke out. Looking at the videos it seems both sides were mutually provoking one another. A number of sources use the term brawl including the Oregon Liquor Control Commission which found fault with Cider Riot (presumably as well as PP). Since we don't have a legal decision saying this was an attack we need to refer to it as alleged. I think changing the term to brawl would avoid the issue while maintaining impartiality. Springee (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you but alas, there is some resistance from a couple editors as seen above. The attack clearly wasn't alleged, the sources clearly say an attack took place, but good luck convincing them. BeŻet (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

You confuse that a brawl took place with a legal statement of fact that the PB were found guilty of attacking. Stating in wiki-voice that PP "attacked" is stating that they committed a crime. Since we don't have a conviction of that crime this would be a BLPGROUP violation. We have conflicts between the sources and this is particularly problematic when the OLCC refers to this as a brawl and notes may issues with the claims by the Cedar Riot side of things. Springee (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Following your logic, we shouldn't be saying that Ngo got attacked, because there was no conviction of that crime? BeŻet (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

No, that isn't following my logic. Ngo was clearly "attacked". However, as was previously argued, we don't know who the attacker was. Let's say we had a number of sources that said "Rose City Antifa members attacked", well we would still need to say alleged absent a conviction. It was rightly argued that we don't know who attacked Ngo thus we can't assign responsibility. We have the same case here. We know there was a brawl but we don't know who started it. Springee (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)