Talk:Andy Ngo

RfC: "Conservative" in the lede

There is a clear consensus that the lede should say Andy Ngo is a "conservative".

Cunard (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

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

---

Should the lede say he's a "conservative"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Support. RS that describe him as "conservative": AP[1], BBC[2], NYT[3], ABC News[4], The Oregonian[5], CNN[6], Business Insider[7], The Atlantic[8], The Independent[9], Vox[10], Daily Beast[11]. Conservative outlets (note that these are not all RS), such as Fox, Wash Ex, Wash Times, Newsmax, IJR, Newsbusters, Daily Caller and PJ Media describe him as "conservative", as well. I have not been made aware of any RS that dispute that he's a conservative. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Seems like the jury is out on this one. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support as supported by sources, and it's also the reason he was attacked in Portland so it's part of his notability. --Pudeo (talk) 11:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support. It's clear the sources support the label. This should be added with one or two of the top RS. It is WP:DUE (coverage of recent attack) and important (necessary for establishing context). WP:PUBLICFIGURE is satisfied as his denial is in the body, which is enough as the claim is not nearly as controversial as e.g. calling someone racist. wumbolo ^^^ 17:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support Per Snooganssnoogans. Gerntrash (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• Sure - It would also be helpful to include some description of how he describes himself. Unfortunately, he largely demurs saying "it's complicated" in the source we have.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support. We follow the sources. R2 (bleep) 19:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment, is it common to state the political view of a journalist in the lead section of a biography article? If not, why here? To include it in the body of the article sure, but I am curious as to why it needs be in the lead section. Above, in the source provided Darryl Kerrigan, the subject of the article identifies as being gay, and it can be referenced to multiple reliable sources. Should that be included in the lead as well? If not, why not? Why does one identifier be included, when another is not?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

  @RightCowLeftCoast: More of a question than a comment lol. Generally, for folks in the news-reporting business known to have an ideological bent, we put their ideology in the lead. For example, Laura Ingraham  Yes; Rachel Maddow  Yes; Anderson Cooper  No. IMO, we should avoid (as a general rule) putting people's sexuality and gender identity in the lead unless it's especially notable about them. WP:RS don't refer to Ngo as much as a Gay reporter than they do a Conservative reporter. Hope that answers your question! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

  To build on and clarify MJL's comment... Yes, it is quite common when it is verifiable. There are many journalists, such as Anderson Cooper, whose political views haven't been be succinctly described by independent reliable sources; while there are other journalists, such as Ingraham, Maddow, or Ngo, whose political views have been succinctly described by independent reliable sources. R2 (bleep) 17:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• 'Hell yes - We follow the reliable sources. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support – I don't even think this is really in dispute. "Conservative" is a pretty mild label (compared to the full range of characterizations of his viewpoints out there) and, as MJL has shown, the word reflects a consensus description of Ngo's political views. He's even characterized himself as "center-right", per the Joe Rogan interview cited in the section on his political views; I was thinking it might be reasonable to counterbalance the description as "conservative" with Ngo's own self-description, if he had represented his own views by some other different name, but there's no tension between "conservative" and "center-right". And after his most recent kerfuffle in Portland, the object of controversy hasn't been whether he has right-wing views—it's pretty obvious he does—but whether those views and/or his actions warranted a violent response and, relatedly, whether what he does can be rightly described as journalism or as something else instead: activism, provocation, "material support" for the far-right, pure media spectacle, etc. —BLZ · talk 05:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support Wait, why is there an RfC for this? Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• Without a doubt - clear consensus among RS. --MrClog (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

@Jweiss11: FYI. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Duly noted. Nonetheless, I have reverted the lead back to a more precise description of his political views, really the views about his political views. I will respect the RFC here that the lead should make mention that he is considered to be conservative--that's what the reliable sources say. However, it's undue weight to assert "conservative" as the first meaningful word in article, and, moreover, as if it is an undisputed fact, rather than the opinion of many. PeterTheFourth, please stop stacking the references in an inappropriate style, where reference #9 is a reference to other references. Also, your recent edit summary "Restore references Jweiss11 deleted" was inaccurate. I did not delete references. I deleted duplicate instances of references that were unneeded in the lead as they appear in the body. Jweiss11 (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223: per your revert; please discuss. Please also clean up the inappropriate stacking of the references that I resolved. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

You were WP:BOLD changing the lede contrary to what's pretty clear page consensus. I reverted. The WP:ONUS is on you to make your case. Thanks. Simonm223 (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223, I have made my case to promote more neutral, precise wording. Given that you self-identify on your user page as far left politically, have you considered recusing yourself from this issue? Jweiss11 (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

LOL No. Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Per, your rude edit summary, yes, you are allowed to have an opinion. But what we should all be concerned about here is far-left or far-right or far-anything-else activist editors compromising the neutral voice of Wikipedia. Jweiss11 (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: This is the last time I will caution you about WP:NPA please immediately cease and desist. In addition I ask that you immediately strike through or delete your personal attacks against me. Simonm223 (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

This is not a personal attack. I'm merely describing how you describe yourself on your user page. It may be relevant to the nature of your edits here. Jweiss11 (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

No, you don't understand, it doesn't matter if I describe myself as a socialist. You are attempting to use that self-description to invalidate my argument on an article talk page and that contravenes WP:NPA. It's not a personal attack to say, "you are a socialist." But it's very much a personal attack to say Given that you self-identify on your user page as far left politically, have you considered recusing yourself from this issue? Furthermore, it's a personal attack to call me rude. And it's very explicitly a personal attack to say we should all be concerned about here is far-left or far-right or far-anything-else activist editors compromising the neutral voice of Wikipedia - so that's three personal attacks, two after I cautioned you at user talk and on this page and one of which you reverted back in. Now, for the last time, strike through or delete these three comments. Simonm223 (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

"Lol, No" and "Go away" = rude. Jweiss11 (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I feel like both of you need to take a step back. Jweiss11, there's a pretty clear consensus above to refer to him as a conservative early in the lead. Asking one of the ten contributors to recuse isn't going to materially affect the consensus, even if he does withdraw his vote (which he is under no obligation whatsoever to do). Maybe you should instead explain what you're trying to accomplish? ST47 (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

ST47, the RFC says "Should the lede say he's a "conservative". It doesn't say "early". As I clearly stated above, I'm trying to accomplish is a more precise, factual, and neutral description of Ngo's political views and also to fix the inappropriate stacked style of the references. Jweiss11 (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

more precise, factual, and neutral Not everything is neutral. If he is a conservative, then it isn't a violation of WP:NPOV to call him a conservative. Are there WP:RS to support that it is not precise or not factual to call him a "conservative journalist"? Because consensus above seems to support calling him exactly that. fix the inappropriate stacked style of the references What part of policy or the MOS are you referring to? It looks like your edit removed multiple references. ST47 (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

My edit retained the conservative label with more precision. My edits also did not remove references from the article in total--or at least that was my intent. I removed duplicate instances of the same references that were unneeded in the lead. Per the style point, take a look at reference #9. Should a reference be merely citations of other references in an article? This does not strike me as good style. Jweiss11 (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why {{refn}} is used here in that way, I've seen that usage around but I'm not familiar enough with WP:MOS to know whether it's encouraged or not. It's possible that it was intended to limit the appearance of WP:REFSPAM in the lead - one footnote looking cleaner than five. Given the nature of this case, I understand why someone wanted to use multiple references, as it has been the cause of edit wars before. See MOS:CITELEAD and especially The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. ST47 (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: Just note that naming someone's political positions and then suggesting they should recuse themselves is considered a personal attack. See this quote from WP:NPA: "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" ". --MrClog (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Page restrictions and current disputes

In lieu of fully protecting this article due to the multiple ongoing disputed, I have placed the standard post-1932 American Politics page restrictions on this article. The exact language is visible both in the editnotice and in the notice at the top of this talk page. For the avoidance of any doubt, if an edit has already been challenged by reversion, then any further attempts to reinstate that edit (or revert it, if the edit is currently in place) will fall afoul of the restriction labeled consensus required. Editors who meet the awareness requirements and who violate these restrictions may be blocked without further warnings. Please don't hesitate to ping me if there is any question. ST47 (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@ST47: isn't this a violation of 1RR and consensus required? wumbolo ^^^ 07:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Check the timestamps: that diff was prior to (and was what prompted) my imposing 1RR. ST47 (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. wumbolo ^^^ 07:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

'Punched repeatedly in the head and face'

Hi, I've been reading through our sources to find those which repeat this claim Ngo made. Can anybody link me something other than the independent article? Preferably those which state it in their own voice, rather than just quoting Ngo. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Are you looking for a source that uses those exact words or just that he was attacked? Galestar (talk) 06:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

[12] and [13] go into some detail about the attack. I don't know if "repeatedly punched" is supported by exact text. I'd say something like "attackers punched him in the head, kicked him, poured a milkshake on him, and threw things at him." That seems to reflect the sources. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 07:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Punched is supportable, as is kicked - we're currently almost directly quoting Ngo rather than going off any RS, so I'd like to move to different, less emotional wording. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Please stop trying to sugarcoat and cast expressions of doubt Loganmac (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Loganmac: Focus on the content, not the editor. How do you feel about 'attacked' or 'assaulted' instead of the current emotive wording? PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Attacked is way too general, the article mentions he was thrown milkshakes, that is already an assault. Loganmac (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Loganmac: Pouring a milkshake on somebody is not 'assault', don't be hysterical. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd recommend looking up the actual definition of "assault" before you start throwing around words like "hysterical". The crime of assault includes "knowingly causing physical contact with another person knowing the other person will regard the contact as offensive or provocative". Just the act of throwing a milkshake on someone could very easily meet the legal definition of assault, especially in circumstances like these where multiple people gang up on a single person in a threatening manner and go on to inflict physical harm. "Assault" and "attacked" are very general terms, and the article benefits from describing exactly what happened, since the sources include details of the manner in which he was attacked. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Red Rock Canyon: Yikes. Talk about snowflakes. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: If demanding that legal terms like "assault" or "attacked" be redefined to fit your feeble worldview isn't being a snowflake, I don't know what is. SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@SapientaBrittaniae: Hah. Well put. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

It may be better going back to the 'assaulted' wording.PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, the specificity is helpful. If "punched" and "kicked" is supported, is it just "repeatedly" that you have a problem with? I'm tempted to revert your recent change, but looking for a compromise. Galestar (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

If we are looking to summarise WW2, do we say 'there were a lot of soldiers and they used rifles to shoot bullets at each other repeatedly which impacted the other soldiers and caused them to be injured' or do we say 'there was a large war with many casualties'? If you think you should revert, go ahead, but due weight of the sources does not support directly quoting Ngo on this. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually the WWII article reads "World War II was the deadliest conflict in human history, marked by 50 to 85 million fatalities, most of whom were civilians in the Soviet Union and China. It included massacres, the genocide of the Holocaust, strategic bombing, premeditated death from starvation and disease, and the only use of nuclear weapons in war." so it specifies the different kind of attacks/assaults/violence. Loganmac (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Loganmac: Urgh. Give me more motivation and I'll fit it into a catchy soundbite to aid comprehension. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it's useful to explain what "attacked" means, since that's kind of a vague term. The sources don't specifically support "punched repeatedly in the head and face" but they do support "punched and kicked", and this discussion seems to be leaning in that direction, so that's what I've changed it to. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Speech and accent

An edit arising which purports that Andy Ngo's manner of speaking is a result of having lived in the UK in his "adolescence" - despite said 'accent' being absent from his speech in videos and audio-recordings only two years ago.

The edit is sourced by a June 11 interview Andy Ngo conducted on the Larry Elder radio show. Within said interview, Andy also affirms that he was "born and raised" in Portland. Furthermore, Ngo's demonstrable attendance at Benson Polytechnic High School and PSU place him in Portland during his adolescence and early adulthood.

The preponderance of evidence against Ngo's claim for his accent ought to at the very least, negate it's addition to a fact of his biography unless/until the inconsistencies and/or evidence of UK residency can be demonstrated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accuracy161 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@SapientiaBrittaniae: I agree that's what he sounds like, but that's WP:OR until a reliable source says the same. Either way, I listened to the good portions of the interview, and Ngo doesn't seem to mention living in the UK (just visiting for that piece). I'm inclined to agree with Accuracy161 that we shouldn't state in Wikipedia's voice Ngo lived in the UK. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

It's easy to miss, but he is asked straight-up why he has the accent if he admits to having been born/raised in Portland Oregon (and just after characterizing his trip to the UK as a "visit" per a WSJ article which had a correction issued because Andy was unaware that the anti-drinking signs were common around London and not part of some insidious creeping sharia-law as he claimed in the article) - Andy's response is that he lived in the UK during his "adolescence". However ample video exists of him speaking without a trace of English/UK accent in 2017. Vic Berger recently created a video using 2017 footage and 2019 footage of Andy to demonstrate the new use of an English accent in the past two years. FURTHERMORE - tax, property, business and legal records as well as timeline (i.e. HS graduation in 2004...college...present) prove his he & his family never lived anywhere but Portland Oregon and in-fact his parents still live in the same home they purchased in 1985.

The available evidence suggests strongly that he's invented this accent (and lying about how he acquired it) and certainly there is no good evidence to prove it's genuine or that his claims of having resided in the UK for long-enough to have acquired an accent exist - nor does (again) any of that explain the absence of an accent just two years ago. In any event - a statement of fact that said accent is genuine is unverifiable and until/unless evidence to the contrary can be produced it's a dubious claim at best. If anything, it's the aforementioned discrepancies which belong on the bio page vis-a-vis andy/accent/demonstrable-facts etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accuracy161 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

You seem to have a poor understanding of how idiolects work, but I generally agree with you; this seems like a construct in the vein of William F. Buckley Jr.'s. SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

'Attacked by Antifa'

In the same way we don't say somebody was 'attacked by Fascist' or 'attacked by Capitalist', we shouldn't be saying '[Andy Ngo] was attacked by Antifa during a protest in Portland.' I don't believe the ungrammatical construction is 'more neutral', Jweiss11. Thoughts? PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

It is not an ungrammatical construction; Antifa is typically rendered as a noun, and almost never an adjective. It could only be considered an adjective exclusively in a prescriptive or etymological grammar of English. I recommend not using prescriptive grammar enforcement in WP. I concede, saliently, that the noun Antifa only takes articles when specified (compare "the Antifa" versus "the Seattle Antifa (chapter)," although certain sources do use the former construction) SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Post scriptum, I request Jweiss11 consider that anti-fascist (assuming that to be an expansion of "antifa," which I do not believe is accurate) is both an adjective and a verb; therefore, assuming "antifa" is exclusively a natural shortening of "anti-fascist" (which, again, I believe is not the case in modern descriptive English) it could be used either way. Capitalizing Antifa is optional, as it can either be a proper noun (for example, the sentence "the Chicago antifa" would not be correct in prescriptive English while "the Chicago Antifa" would be fine) or a common one (exemplum gratia "antifa protestor" as opposed to "Antifa protestor," although both forms are correct the former would be more general). SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Added the word "protesters". Jweiss11 (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: Was that so hard? Take a second and read the sentences before you revert to them. Second question - why capital 'A' antifa? At our article, we use either anti-fascist or antifa - no capital. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Also the identity of Ngo's assailant(s) is unknown. As such, we can state his claim that the people who beat him and threw a blunt dairy treat at him were antifascist protesters but can not say so as a statement of fact in wikipedia voice per WP:NPOV and WP:PRIMARY. Simonm223 (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

They are typically reported as being antifa, therefore that is how WP should portray them. The most salient incognito Google result for "andy ngo attack" has the term "antifa" in their headline, and is a WP:RS AFAIK. SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I would concede, however, many sources portray them as merely left-wing protestors. If that is indeed the communis opinio, we ought to say that instead. I would not recommend this as it could portray all left-wing protestors in a bad light (not to mention giving WP a biased voice), but perhaps it's a preferable alternative to saying "antifa." SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Here only to point out that we don't use headlines as sources. They're usually written not by the author of the artic but by someone else and are written to grab attention. Doug Weller talk 20:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I think many of the sources themselves claim he was attacked by anti-fascist protesters. [14] A conservative writer has been attacked by antifascists amid violence at clashing demonstrations in Portland. From [15] (this source is probably the best one, a long-form article by someone who was there the whole time): Just days after his warning, Ngo sat a few feet away from me, cut up and dazed, after a beating at the hands of left-wing protesters. I think "unidentified assailants who he claimed were antifa protesters" is inappropriate use of "claimed", since he's not the only one claiming that. "Who appeared to be antifa protesters" would be a more accurate representation of sources. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I think most sources are being more cautious, so we should reflect that caution. The Hill: Ngo said on Twitter that he was assaulted by antifa members. Buzzfeed is likewise more cautious than you're crediting it - it carefully just describes the attackers in physical terms, and even the bit you cited doesn't mention antifa. See also some of the quotes in the discussion above; the sources don't use antifa consistently and unambiguously the way Ngo himself did or the way people are pushing it to be used here. --Aquillion (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Both of the sources I linked describe the attack as being carried out by antifa. I don't think it really matters that the Buzzfeed reporter calls them "left-wing protesters" in that particular sentence; he calls the people harassing him antifa elsewhere in the article Hostility toward Ngo started out with the odd, weirdly cheerful “Fuck you, Andy”; progressed to groups of two to three unmasked men half-menacingly following him around the park; and arrived at a very clear strategy, by which a group of five thin, masked antifa stood in a half arc around him wherever he walked, obstructing his view. They were pretty clearly teenagers. An older observer, also in black, reminded them repeatedly not to surround Ngo, to always leave him a path out of the park. It turned into an awkward shuffling circle around the monument that slightly resembled good team defense in basketball. In the section where he describes the attack itself, he doesn't explicitly call them antifa, he just describes their appearances and what he directly observed, but that doesn't nullify the statement about his attackers from the beginning of the article. I think "appeared to be" is a good reflection of the sources as a whole, and reflects the fact that currently it's impossible to say who exactly the attackers were and everyone is just going on what it looked like. But "attackers he claimed were antifa" is just inaccurate; independent sources and other people at the scene say antifa attacked him as well. And that wording heavily implies he might be wrong, or lying, which doesn't reflect the sources at all. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, I see your point. After looking at it again, I think the old woman thing can be dropped entirely - Ngo is barely mentioned in the source and wasn't involved in any confrontation, so it's not actually about him. For the silly string one, how about just going with WP:SAY and saying In November 2018, Ngo live-streamed the antifeminist #HimToo Rally by a Patriot Prayer member in downtown Portland, later saying on Twitter that, while doing so, he was sprayed with silly string by antifa protesters. This is how the source portrays it (it's careful to say it's just something he said rather than undisputed fact), and WP:SAY usually avoids any implication that he was necessarily wrong or lying while making it clear that he's the only source for this one. Putting it in the objective article voice makes it sound like there were other sources, which the Hill, at least, is careful to avoid implying. --Aquillion (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

There are some sources that use caution and some that plainly state that it was Antifa. Also: please stop edit-warring to force the changes you want. You don't have consensus to add all that MOS:ALLEGED wording in, please follow WP:BRD. Galestar (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree we should respect WP:BRD and stop reverting... but this is a recent event; both versions are new, meaning that you need to demonstrate consensus for your preferred version as well. The version you're revert-warring to keep in the article is, obviously, not longstanding either; for now, until we have a clear consensus, we should stick with the more cautious version. If you object to that (or feel that it's so biased that having nothing at all would be preferable), the solution is to remove everything that's currently contested (since none of it has ever been stable in the article), which in this case would mean removing any mention of the incident entirely (since it has never been stable since any mention of it was added.) We can do that if you want, but your preferred version here is itself clearly a WP:BOLD addition itself; you need to demonstrate consensus for your version as well if you want to keep it in the article. If we fail to reach consensus on either, then the default would be no mention at all, not a default to your preferred version simply because it was the first WP:BOLD addition. If you want to revert to the last stable version per WP:BRD, basically, you need to completely remove all contested text, not just force it to your version. --Aquillion (talk) 22:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Galestar: Would you mind compiling the sources that 'plainly state' this? We should keep in mind that we err on the side of the more reliable sources and don't base our article's language on e.g. the new york post. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

First I should note that there's a lot more whitewashing and MOS:ALLEGED going on in this article and this edit [16] that is trying to be forced in by Aquillion and others. I'll stick to just June 29th for now to not conflate them. Just looking at the sources that are *already there*:

Independent: A conservative writer has been attacked by antifascists [17]

BuzzFeed News: These guys: Hostility toward Ngo started out with the odd, weirdly cheerful “Fuck you, Andy”; progressed to groups of two to three unmasked men half-menacingly following him around the park; and arrived at a very clear strategy, by which a group of five thin, masked antifa stood in a half arc around him wherever he walked, obstructing his view. [18]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Galestar (talk • contribs)

@Galestar: The BuzzFeed News article does not 'plainly state' that anti-fascist protesters attacked Ngo. It specifically describes the incident as "I looked down at my notebook. I looked up. It was quick. Men were running in to throw punches at Ngo. A churning crowd formed around him. In the few seconds it took me to run to Ngo, several people in the scrum pushed his attackers away.". This does not attribute any violence to anti-fascist protesters. I suggest you read the sources you cite. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: I suggest you read it. Just because they didn't plainly state it in your quote doesn't mean they didn't do so elsewhere, which I quoted. Stop misrepresenting the sources and WP:IDHT to other editors. Galestar (talk) 03:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Galestar: I have read it. I even sampled the relevant part. You can't pretend the sources say something that they don't. By all means, if the article plainly states that anti-fascist protesters attacked Ngo, quote it, but you haven't, because it doesn't. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

but you haven't, because it doesn't I see you still refuse to WP:LISTEN, since I did quote it. Galestar (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Galestar: As I previously said - obstructing someone's view is not an assault. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: Hey you finally decided to actually read my comment and notice that I did quote something! Now maybe read the whole quote - there's much more to it than your misrepresented oversimplification of it. Galestar (talk) 05:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

???? PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

And for the record, 'obstructing his view' is not an attack and anybody suggesting it is would be laughed out of any reasonable society. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

If you'd read the thing, you'd see that one of the first sentences is Just days after his warning, Ngo sat a few feet away from me, cut up and dazed, after a beating at the hands of left-wing protesters, like I quoted above. Later in the article, he specifies that "left-wing protesters" refers to antifa. Either you cannot understand basic English, or you're being deliberately obstructionist. On top of that, you're ignoring the Independent. Multiple sources state directly that he was attacked by antifa. No "people he claimed to be" or any clarification like that.Can you just give it up and quit bickering? Can we just agree to compromise with "assailants who appeared to be antifa protesters"? Is that so unacceptable? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Red Rock Canyon: Sorry, are you Galestar? I'm responding to a very specific thing he quoted, not something you quoted, and it's honestly kind of annoying to have the goal posts moved like this. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

If your goal is to argue pointlessly over minutia with another editor, go do it somewhere else. This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the article. Red Rock Canyon (talk)

@Red Rock Canyon: Put simply - "What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?" You were responding to something I said in response to something, saying I'd failed to read your comment. No, genius, I just wasn't responding to your comment, I was responding to something else. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• Is there a reason why the attackers are not labeled as Antifa attackers? There seems to be a lot of whitewashing of Antifa in this article. There was an Antifa march, Andy was attacked by people in that march, and those people attacked him. Why are we labeling those people as "supposed" or similar? RS state they are Antifa members. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Because reliable sources don't unambiguously describe the protesters as being adherents to antifa ideology. We don't make a positive assertion in Wikipedia's voice on Ngo's say-so. Furthermore, antifa isn't an organized group and as such isn't a proper noun and doesn't take a capital. So this article will not ever talk about Antifa attackers, though, if reliable sources can be found it might talk about antifa attackers. Simonm223 (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Then I suggest you take a look at the RS again, they say, not Ngo, that he was attacked by Antifa. I do understand your point in trying to whitewash Antifa, but he was attacked during a march of Antifa by marchers in that march. And RS clearly state that the marchers who attacked him were Antifa, indeed, the RS used in the article now, state that he was attacked by Antifa, so not sure why we have it as "purported." And your claim that this article will not "ever: talk about Antifa attackers shows that perhaps this article is not the place for you to edit. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Please cite which sources you are referring to for review. Simonm223 (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

They are the news sources cited in the article. I mean, in one of the news articles, it's in the first sentence, "A conservative writer has been attacked by antifascists amid violence at clashing demonstrations in Portland." Just look at the rest, it's clear you are trying to whitewash the growing violence of the antifa movement. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Which article? Simonm223 (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Because the Buzzfeed one has already failed verification. And a single column in a British news source is hardly sufficient for us to ignore WP:BLPCRIME and start making positive assertions about the identities (political or otherwise) of anonymous attackers. Simonm223 (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

No, you just want to whitewash this article. If someone marches in an antifa march, and wears a mask, and attacks people, then they are antifa. I get that you don't like the extra media scrutiny on your organization beating people up merely for not sharing the same opinion, but that's how a democracy works. Andy was attacked by antia thugs and the fact that you are going over backwards to do all you can to eliminate it from the article here is a disgrace to Wikipedia. "purported", "alleged", we all saw the video of him being attacked, who do you think attacked him? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

We also all saw on video Donald Trump declaring that he wanted Russia to dig up dirt on Hillary Clinton, yet our article about Donald Trump doesn't say he's guilty of colluding with Russian foreign intelligence. That's because we don't rely on our lying eyes, we rely on what reliable sources say about something. If reliable sources generally attribute the attack on Ngo to antifa protesters, our article should do so. However, if they do not make that specific attribution, then our article should not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Precisely. And right now, we've got a grand total of one source, a column written by a British author who was not a witness to the event, unambiguously calling the incident an attack by antifa protesters. I mean what if it was just anarchists who wanted to punch a conservative? What if it was anti-racists who wanted some payback for Ngo's racebait articles on Quillette? What if it was alt-right agent provocateurs. We just don't know. Only that people dressed for Black bloc activity beat him up. Simonm223 (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

At best that single source might allow us to say, Ngo was attacked by masked assailants who Lizzie Dearden, writing for The Independent characterized as antifa. Simonm223 (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Lead and other changes

@Galestar: What was wrong with this? I had liked PeterTheFourth's version. If I didn't just waste my 1RR, I'd have probably restored it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Its been contended ever since it was first put in a couple days ago. There's multiple changes here, all wrong for their own reason:

1.There is an ongoing discussion [19] about the June 2019 assault that doesn't have consensus.

2. In May 2019, Ngo said he was pepper-sprayed by an antifa protester was changed to In May 2019, Ngo said he was pepper-sprayed by a purported antifa protester, adding purported even though its already not in WP voice and already uses Ngo said. Original content was accurate and we don't have to add another MOS:ALLEGED word when its already in Ngo's voice.

3. Ngo filmed antifa protesters insulting an old woman in a wheelchair changed to Ngo filmed people he described as antifa protesters insulting an old woman in a wheelchair. It was the source that described them as antifa, not Ngo.

4. It also deleted this for no apparent reason: Front runner Joe Biden and then-candidate Eric Swalwell condemned the attack as well.

Really the whole edit is just a whole lot of MOS:ALLEGED that is either inaccurate, redundant, or currently being discussed. Galestar (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out these issues. Looks like we've already resolved 3 & 4. Unsure about 1 - best to let that discussion continue and keep to the less contentious version for now I think. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

(I prefer to be pinged btw)
(1) Okay, so let's just let the discussion play out?
(2) I agree with you there and happily support that change. My main concern was the change to the lead.
(3) That whole sentence was just deleted by Aquillion ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
(4) I just fixed that. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I added a bit about these further up, but my thought on the old lady thing is that Ngo's involvement there is tangential (he filmed it but just gets a passing mention in the source and wasn't actually involved in any conflicts over it), so it's not worth mentioning. The lead of Ngo received national attention in June 2019 when he was assaulted while covering an antifa counter protest to a Proud Boys march in Portland. seems relatively neutral (ie. it doesn't say anything controversial or disputed, while avoiding casting doubt on Ngo.) For the silly-string incident, I proposed a solution above, but simply put, In November 2018, Ngo live-streamed the antifeminist #HimToo Rally by a Patriot Prayer member in downtown Portland, later saying on Twitter that he was sprayed with silly string by antifa protesters. Or words to that effect, but we mostly need to make it clear that Ngo is the only source for this, since that's how our source describes it. For the rest, we're discussing it above, but I do want to point out that the article itself is new, so it's incorrect to imply that the previous version had any consensus about it - none of these parts have ever enjoyed consensus, so it doesn't make sense to revert back to one particular version under WP:BRD; certainly Galestar's preferred version is a WP:BOLD addition itself. If we absolutely fail to reach any sort of consensus then we'd go back to the version prior to all this started (ie. prior to June 30), which would mean removing the contested text entirely. I don't think we want to do that, but for now we should try to go for more cautious wording. --Aquillion (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding that text about Nov 2018: attributed statements are good. I argue for attribution a lot. Its the claimed, purported, or people he believed to be that I find problematic and your wording cleanly avoids it while still avoiding writing in WP voice. Galestar (talk) 23:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

That proposed lead text only appears neutral because it avoids the matter of who were the perpetrators of the assault entirely. Assuming I can't convince others to use my preferred version (doesn't look like it) then I'm not sure which would be better: your version, or some hypothetical alleged version, which I would actually detest but omitting the accusation entirely would be undue. Galestar (talk) 23:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

re:"the old lady thing": also agreed, his involvement was tangential and you were right to just delete it. Galestar (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

More sources

Finally got around to looking for more sources. My above investigation into sources was Just looking at the sources that are already there. This is the results of a quick search for articles that accuse antifa in their own voice rather than just Ngo's:

• Vox [20] 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.
• Vice [21] a right-wing writer was beaten up by antifascist activists during a protest over the weekend.
• Quillette [22] The Antifa thugs who attacked Quillette editor and photojournalist Andy Ngo in Portland yesterday
• Reason [23] Andy Ngo, a photojournalist and editor at Quillette, landed in the emergency room after a mob of antifa activists attacked him on the streets of Portland during a Saturday afternoon demonstration.
• Washington Examiner [24] the journalist who was attacked by antifa on Saturday
• Mediaite [25] Andy Ngo was beaten up and had milkshakes thrown at him by Antifa protestors during a rally in Portland.

(below sources are previously unknown to me, not sure what the consensus for reliability is)

• American Greatness [26] Video posted by Oregonian reporter Jim Ryan shows the antifa mob swarming Ngo, punching him, kicking him, spraying silly string and pepper-spray on him, and throwing milkshakes at him that may have been laced with cement.
• cnsnews.com [27] Ngo was taking pictures at a June 29 demonstration when he was beaten by Antifa members
• townhall.com [28] Antifa attacked journalist Andy Ngo at a protest in Portland on Saturday

Galestar (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• The Independent [29] A conservative writer has been attacked by antifascists amid violence at clashing demonstrations in Portland.
• Haaretz [30] Unidentified Rose City Antifa members beat up Andy Ngo, a Portland-based journalist, on June 29, 2019 in Portland, Oregon. (Note: this is a caption to a photo in the article; not sure if that matters.) Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Questionable how Haaretz was able to determine their membership in Rose City Antifa from a photo where they're wearing masks. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

This standard is clearly too strict, as with the Independent above. Haaretz is RS, and they don't need to tell us how they came by every fact they report in order for us to reasonably believe them. The photographer was on scene of course, so there are lots of ways that he or she might have confirmed what was reported. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Galestar: This article is under WP:1RR and that applies to the talkpage. Please self-revert your refactoring of my comments. Simonm223 (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• • Haaretz used a photo by Moriah Ratner that has been used by other sources as well. Typoically, the photojournalist provides an imge description that is then used as a caption. Haaretz clearly hasn't done their own reporting, and I don't see why they should be used. The exifdata of the photo carries this description: "PORTLAND, OR - JUNE 29: Unidentified Rose City Antifa members beat up Andy Ngo, a Portland-based journalist, on June 29, 2019 in Portland, Oregon. Several groups from the left and right clashed after competing demonstrations at Pioneer Square, Chapman Square, and Waterfront Park spilled into the streets. According to police, medics treated eight people and three people were arrested during the demonstrations. (Photo by Moriah Ratner/Getty Images)". Vexations (talk) 23:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I've added comments to each source separately. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

No comment on WaPo? Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't see WaPo on the list, and as I don't have a subscription to WaPo (and have no intention of getting one as I dislike giving Amazon my money) I generally leave scrutiny of that source to people who can read it. Simonm223 (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• Vox Does not mention antifa. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• Vice This appears to be a new and reliable source, but I still think two news articles are weak to say, prior to any arrests, "members of this group did the thing." Per WP:BLPCRIME. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Disagree. We have reports that he was attacked by antifa from Independent, Haaretz, and the WaPo (see below). That should be sufficient for establishing that he was attacked by antifa. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• Quillette Not a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• Reason Not a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• Washington Examiner It's a tabloid. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Disagree. It's not tabloid. It's just a partisan source sort of like Vox or Vice, and must be used with care. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

It's worse than Vice certainly with regard to being a straight-up tabloid style piece of yellow journalism and, being perfectly honest, if Vox and Vice were both blacklisted as RSes by Wikipedia tomorrow I'd shed no tears as long as it was part of a larger movement away from the use of journalistic sources on Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• Mediaite Appears to be a blog. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• American Greatness Clearly not a RS. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• cnsnews.com Not a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• townhall.com Not a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• The Independent I've addressed this previously, it's reliable for the columnist's opinion but shouldn't be used in Wikipedia's voice as she was in the UK at the time and is not a witness. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Disagree. It's standard for reliable news stories not to give every detail of their process of discovery. Independent is RS, and they don't need to tell us how they came by every fact they report in order for us to reasonably believe them. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: you noted here [31] that Washington Post says he was left bloodied by antifa activists in Portland, Ore. [32]. Unfortunately its pay-walled, and I can't read it. Can you expand that quote for us? Galestar (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's the paragraph from that Washington Post story The resolution, which also is sponsored by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), would not change U.S. law. It cites antifa activists occupying the road outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement office and “doxing” ICE officials by posting their personal information online. The senators also pointed to conservative journalist Andy Ngo, who in June was left bloodied by antifa activists in Portland, Ore. Some of those sources may not be reliable on for this claim. For example, Quillette is Ngo's employer, so it cannot be considered an independent source on this topic. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to hopefully get us back on track here, I think the best sources above are WaPo, Independent, and Haaretz. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I would include Vox and Vice in that list. They are both partisan but they typically have left-bias and when even they point the finger squarely at antifa, I think we have enough RS here to do so in WP voice. Galestar (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

The Vox piece says he was attacked by counterprotesters, and says that antifa was among the counterprotesters. But they don't quite say that the attackers were antifa, do they? Vox is a poor source in my opinion anyway. Almost everything on the site should in my view be classified as opinion. Same goes for Vice as far as I'm concerned. It has a "no consensus" status on RSN. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• Basically any source you don't like is not reliable? I don't think that's how it works. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: The reasoning is more along the lines of 'any source that's not reliable shouldn't be used here'. Even if we get like 10 blogs saying for sure the moon is made of cheese, etc. Simon223's analysis here seems good. A lot of low quality sources are being cited here to put in something quite contentious and I'd like to wait for a good source. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

We have three excellent sources: WaPo, Independent, and Haaretz. All three have a "green check mark" at RSN. WaPo in particular is a top-tier source. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, I pointed out above why I think Haaretz shouldn't be used. The Washington post is a usually a reliable source, but it's worth pointing out what they say and who their sources are: in this article they say: "The senators also pointed to conservative journalist Andy Ngo, who in June was left bloodied by antifa activists in Portland, Ore." The phrase "by antifa activists" is hyperlinked to a second article that mentions Ngo. That article makes this statement about Ngo: "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." I don't think the Proud Boys, or any of thir members are a reliable source, and even when a claim is properly attributed to them, it should not be presented as fact. Vexations (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I think you are inferring too much from the hyperlinking of that other story. WaPo says in this article, in their own voice, that Ngo was attacked by antifa activists. I don't know what their basis for this claim is, and I don't think they say, but it's totally implausible that WaPo is using the Proud Boys as a source for a statement they make in their own voice. The link is just another story about the event in question; it provides no reason to think that the Proud Boys were their source. If they did use that source, it would be a scandal! As for the Haaretz, I agree that the issue of photo captions is a somewhat tricky issue. The photojournalist was obviously on site, though, and is a journalist, who is trusted by Haaretz and others. So that's arguably RS. But it might be worth approaching RSN about this if we can agree about the WaPo and Independent pieces. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, Haaretz is just too passing a mention to trust. It's a photo caption of a photo of masked individuals. It's more trust than I'm willing to put in literally any journalistic organization to believe the photo caption editor thoroughly fact-checked that beyond confirming that the organized anti-fascist and anti-racist group in Portland calls itself "rose city." I have addressed why the independent is insufficient, IMO, to make a comment in Wikipedia's voice, though I'd concede it's a reliable source and would accept the statement attributed to the columnist who said it (as I've said previously). Finally with WaPo, again as I've mentioned, I have no intention of giving that organization a nickel of my money so the paywall prevents me from directly scrutinizing the contents. But if Vexations is accurately interpreting the source and the statement that the people who beat Ngo up were antifascists came from members of a white chauvinist gang. Well. Remember where I speculated that Ngo could have just as likely been beaten up by white supremacist agent provocateurs? Simonm223 (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223, I have quoted the relevant sections. There is no other mention of Ngo in those articles. Vexations (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

So then I'd oppose use of the Washington Post as a reliable source for this assertion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, the WaPo is referring to the Daily Beast, which says: "According to Proud Boy leader and event organizer Luke Rohfling, though, the event is also aimed at left-wing antifascist activists after Quillette writer Andy Ngo was attacked last weekend in Portland." "was attacked" hyperlinks to an AP article that is no longer available on the New York Times. I'll note that the Haaretz article was from the same news agency, Associated Press. The NYTimes article by the Asssociated Press is archived here, and credits The Oregonian as its source: "Information from: The Oregonian/OregonLive, http://www.oregonlive.com" Vexations (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

In other words, the ultimate source for the NYT / Haaretz quote to be used to say Ngo was attacked by antifa was... Ngo. Simonm223 (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The earliest mention of Ngo in the Oregonian, related to the events we're trying to descibe is [33] which says: "Among the people injured over the course of the afternoon was Andy Ngo, the conservative writer who appeared to be attacked by antifa members." Vexations (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The AP article you linked quotes Ngo's twitter. They're referencing the Oregonian as their primary source, but if the claim that made it to Haaretz and NYT are sourced from a wire service quoting Ngo's twitter, it's definitely not reliable. Simonm223 (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

To sum up your response every source ever: Its either not an RS or they can't possibly mean that. You're just grasping at straws, guessing that of course they must just be parroting Ngo and even though they said it it must not be true. That's all it is though - your guess. As soon as we encounter a source that you can't dispute reliability on all you can do is start speculating to try to downplay them. Galestar (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

And, specifically, the WaPo source is clearly RS. The criticism of that source is based on speculation about where they got their info. But we don't know where they got their info, and WaPo news reports are clearly RS. Similar points hold for the speculation about the sources of the Independent. We don't need to be able to identify their sources. We rely on the fact that they are respected, reliable news organizations who know how to do their jobs. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Galestar: Please focus on the content and not the editor - not very convivial to claim that another editor is 'grasping at straws' when they specifically analyse each and every source you've brought to the table, even those that are clearly not reliable. All you have to do is get a reliable source, and we've already made changes based on when you have gotten a reliable source. Continue to do so. It's nothing personal, this is just the way Wikipedia works. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: my comment was about the editors arguments not the editor themselves. Galestar (talk) 07:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Which is why I didn't remove it as a personal attack - but that being said, your assertion is incorrect. We aren't guessing. Because the thing is that Vexations provided evidence. And that evidentiary trail is what we're reacting to. Not a guess. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I see no reason to think that we know what the WaPo or the Independent (or the Haaretz photo caption) were basing their assertions on, and what I see on this topic above is entirely speculative and not very plausible. WaPo and Independent are standard RS for this sort of info. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Excluding the Independent, which is a different kettle of fish, the WaPo article eventually cites the AP article, which quotes Ngo directly. It's silliness like this, these broken telephone quote chains, that make me regularly calling for the exclusion of journalistic sources at WP:RS/N - so it is an issue far beyond the confines of an article about this contributor to a popular phrenology website but it means, yes, in this case, we're dealing with a laundered WP:SPS claim. Simonm223 (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

They didn't cite anything. Linking is not citing. I repeat: we don't know what their source is. They don't generally cite their sources at newspapers. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: I mean, we are reading the same articles, yes? They did link to it very directly when discussing the claim, in a way that seemed to me to as a summary of a portion of the article that was linked e.g. click here for more information about this thing. Is my reading incorrect? PeterTheFourth (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they linked it when discussing the claim. Yes, that suggests "click here for more information about this." No, that isn't the same thing as saying "this is our sole source for this information." They have editors and fact checkers and a huge news gathering network. They don't always detail exactly what their process is for verifying every fact they publish, and they certainly link other stories without implying that the linked story was their basis for the reported fact. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Meta-discussion about comment threading

meta discussion about comment threading
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Splitting up another user's comments @Simonm223: Please do not break up my comments, as you did here[34] and then reverted my attempt to fix this here[35]. Please see WP:TPO Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points; this confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent. In your own posts you may wish to use the Example text or templates to quote others' posts. Galestar (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC) @Simonm223: [36] Respectfully, if you believe I have violated discretionary sanctions please speak to an uninvolved administrator. At this point I might actually welcome an admin's involvement. Just be careful of the boomerang. Galestar (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC) @Galestar: I'm sure admins are already watching this page. As a sign of good faith I'll propose this compromise - as you refactored my comment in such a way as to render it unreadable, you go back and include which article each statement was regarding within my comment. Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC) While I disagree with your reasoning, the end result would be acceptable. Will do that shortly. Galestar (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC) Thank you. Simonm223 (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC) Done here[37]. Galestar (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Breitbart article about Wikipedia coverage

Breitbart has launched an attack on Wikipedia editors for allegedly protecting Antifa by censoring Wikipedia entries on Andy Ngo and the Portland attack on him. The article cannot be linked to from here because Breitbart.com has been blacklisted by Wikipedia so articles on it can not be linked to on Wikipedia either in articles or on talk pages. - Embram (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Unsurprising, that's par for the course from Breitbart's Trumpist propaganda machine. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

• That would explain the suddenly-increased agitation in this topic area, yeah (I thought it was a bit odd, since nothing interesting has happened that recently.) We'll have to keep a closer eye on this and related articles. --Aquillion (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Major deletions to the lede

I reverted the major deletions of sourced material to the lede that happened today once already but the WP:BOLD editor who made the original change just reverted the edit back again to their preferred version. I've asked the editor to self-revert and come to talk but if someone could please restore the lede to the consensus version pending that discussion I'd be most obliged. Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

BRD: "twitter account of a primary subject is not a reliable source"

@Jweiss11: you have reverted this change claiming, that a "Twitter account of a primary subject is not a reliable source". This makes no sense. The accusation is the tweet, how on Earth can a different source be more reliable than that? Could you please quote related Wikipedia rules, otherwise I will reintroduce the change. BeŻet (talk) 10:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS: Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. That's pretty cut and dry. An accusation about a living person only supported by a self-published source absolutely violates WP:BLP and should be removed on sight. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

unless written or published by the subject of the article - this rule applies to self-published sources talking about a different person, it doesn't discourage using Tweets as sources of information especially if the tweet itself is made by the person you are talking about, in this case, the member of DSA. This is exactly why we have the cite tweet template. Following your logic, a tweet would never ever be appropriate as a source of information. Since we are talking about a member of DSA accusing Ngo, and we literally point at the tweet where he is doing it, it seems like a no-brainer to me that this is allowed by the rules. BeŻet (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The subject of the article is Andy Ngo, not the DSA, nor this member of the DSA. Aside from the potential bias/POV issue with using this tweet, this tidbit isn't notable unless some reliable third-party source wrote about it. Did they? Jweiss11 (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Exactly what Jweiss11 said. Using a tweet as a source to make accusations about a living person is the definition of content forbidden by BLPSPS. It's the entire reason that policy exists. The only exception to BLPSPS is that we can use a person's self-published writing about themselves as a source for basic facts about them, and even that usage is strictly limited.

Look at the next section of the policy, which further defines and limits even that already limited exception. So even if this were an article about whoever the fuck @alsoconnor is, this tweet would still be unusable as a source. It's self-serving, it makes a claim about a third party (Andy Ngo), and there is no reason to believe that this tweet is a genuine record of something that actually happened to a member of the DSA. It's a tweet, it could be something some random person just made up. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Clearly unacceptable; tweets by a random DSA member are not remotely a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

So your argument is basically that this is not notable, which is an argument you can defend, but that's different from it not being reliable. BeŻet (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

It is neither reliable nor notable. If you don't believe us, then take it to WP:RSN or WP:BLP. That tweet can't be used as a source in any article for any reason. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I saw that the other source for similar content in that paragraph is also unreliable, and have removed it [38]. The source, [39], is clearly labelled "blog". According to WP:NEWSBLOG: Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. According to the author's biography, [40], he is a student and neither a professional journalist nor a regularly contributor to The Spectator, so it's not reliable source for factual claims, and the author's opinion is not relevant to the article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The doxxing thing is mentioned in Vox, already cited elsewhere in the article but not (previously) used for this; that seems like a usable source. --Aquillion (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

You're right. That Vox article supports the claims of doxxing and is a reliable source for that material. I forgot that was in there, I should've just added that source instead of removing the material entirely. I'm not so sure about Jacobin though. I think they're a questionable source at best, and this particle article may be even worse than most of their work, so the claims that are only mentioned there might need to be removed. I'll look into it more later. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Someone reverted it; I think they're confused, since it's clearly more reliable than the other source, which they left in, and is already cited elsewhere in the article anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 02:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, I think I was confused. I did try to fix some things in that passage. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Jacobin on Andy Ngo on this subject. In particular, I'm worried that the claim according to Jacobin, friends of two activists said that they had to go into hiding after Ngo revealed their names because they became subjects of harrassment violates BLP because even with attribution, we're just reporting on someone else repeating second-hand allegations. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Portland 2019

I suppose we'll have to wait for the articles if they haven't already been written but Andy falsely claimed that antifa attacked facists with a hammer and then when it was pointed out that the facists brought the hammer claimed it was probably self-defense. [Tweet for now]. He also suggested anti-facist protesters were attacking a father with a child but well known ["Based Spartan"] is with [his 24 year old daughter] and is a known [agitator]. [Tweet for now]. [Vice Profile]

I propose this could potentially be a new section to his bio.

Ramdomwolf 24.52.199.240 (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Due to his profuse, abundant and plentiful lying, can we please just add a section of all the instances where he publicly went and lied to people? I believe this to be both relevant and easily obtainable information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.27.190.162 (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

BRD: "Ngo made several inacurrate claims about the events that unfolded" is not supported by the source

@Red Rock Canyon: the source clearly states all the inaccurate claim he made and why they were inaccurate:

"Two flare-ups caught on video have become the latest flash points between ideological opponents, racking up millions of views online and spreading chaotic scenes that were cast with inaccurate claims and provided limited context. Both were promoted by local conservative writer Andy Ngo (...)"

I will reintroduce the change immediately after 24 hours of your revert. Please consult the source and do not remove content without reading sources properly. BeŻet (talk) 13:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see that the article clearly says that Ngo made inaccurate claims. The quote you provide was so poorly written that it's hard to tell what it is saying. In particular, it isn't clear to me that the article is saying that Ngo made inaccurate claims. It might just be saying that the video itself was misleading, or that the video has led to unspecified subjects making inaccurate claims, or who knows. It is so poorly written that I don't think it is a great source. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

That's nonsense. He made widely misleading, manipulative and inaccurate claims, and the article clearly and thoroughly explains why they were inaccurate. Literally the whole article talks about Ngo's claims. Are we both looking at two different articles? BeŻet (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we are looking at the same article. I did look at the whole article, but I focused on the quote you provided above. That quote does not say that Ngo made inaccurate claims, nor does the piece ever directly say that. It says that Ngo promoted some videos that spread "chatotic scenes that were cast with inaccurate claims". But the passive construction here "were cast with inaccurate claims" leaves the subject unclear. Later in the article, for example, it says that There have been widely circulated claims, including those made by reporters at the scene, that those riding in the shuttle bus were Proud Boys. It appears that they are actually members of the American Guard, a group the Anti-Defamation League labels a white supremacist organization. The inaccurate claim under discussion here is not due to Ngo, but to unspecified reporters and others, some of whom were at the scene. What the piece appears to do is to add additional information to the claims Ngo made. I don't even see that any added info ever contradicts what Ngo said. But the source certainly never directly says that Ngo made inaccurate claims. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, that's nonsense. The article directly quotes the claims made by Andy, presents it as a narrative he attempted to present and then explains why the narrative was misleading and lacked context. These mental gymnastics attempting to obfuscate what the article is about are quite worrying. BeŻet (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

First, Shinealittlelight is correct that that sentence is poorly written and hard to understand. Second, the rest of the article neither claims nor demonstrates that Ngo made inaccurate claims. Here's the paragraph that includes the phrase "inaccurate claims" and then a grammatical breakdown where I rewrite it as a series of simple sentences, laying out which nouns are grammatically associated with which verbs:

Two flare-ups caught on video have become the latest flash points between ideological opponents, racking up millions of views online and spreading chaotic scenes that were cast with inaccurate claims and provided limited context. Both were promoted by local conservative writer Andy Ngo, who was assaulted by black-clad demonstrators during a June protest in Portland and has more than 270,000 Twitter followers.

Two flare-ups were caught on video. The flare-ups have become the latest flash points between ideological opponents. The flare-ups have racked up millions of views online. The flare-ups have spread chaotic scenes. The chaotic scenes were cast with inaccurate claims. The scenes provided limited context. Both flare-ups were promoted by local conservative writer Andy Ngo.

Quite frankly, it's a complete mess. Some of those verbs are probably meant to be associated with different nouns, but the author has no idea how to structure clauses and attributive phrases. It's unclear what the hell "chaotic scenes that were cast with inaccurate claims" is supposed to mean. To the extent that it's possible to tell what the author is saying, he's not saying Ngo made inaccurate claims.

But that paragraph is not the whole article. The rest of the article discusses two particular incidences caught on film and Andy Ngos' tweets about them. It does not explicitly say or demonstrate that Ngo made inaccurate claims. In the first one, Andy Ngo said this: Antifa attacks people on a bus. They try to pull them out and hit them with a hammer. The article then describes what happened. Protesters attacked a bus and tried to pull people out. Apparently, someone in the bus pulled out a hammer. One of the protesters grabbed the hammer and threw it back at them. The author also notes that they haven't been able to confirm who had the hammer first, they're just going by footage that is "grainy and hard to see." The next claim is this: A large antifa mob chase & attack a man & a young girl who got separated from the others. No police. The article then describes what happened: Some counterprotesters appear to throw liquid on the man, who responds by wildly swinging his shield at people near him. The crowd then begins to move in on the man and his female companion, who retreat. The crowd continues to pursue them for more than a minute as they eventually make their way onto the Morrison Bridge and take off. The article then goes into slightly more detail about who this man is, but nothing contradicts the claim Andy Ngo made.

Bezet, you have added quite a few poorly sourced accusations about Andy Ngo to this article. This is the third that I've seen. I haven't removed the stuff sourced to Jacobin yet because I'm waiting for more opinions on the BLP noticeboard, but everyone who's responded so far thinks that it should be removed from the article. Please familiarize yourself with WP:BLP and be more cautious when adding controversial material. You should perhaps wait to get confirmation from multiple high-quality sources before adding accusations against a living person. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I find it quite ironic to be talking about "poorly sourced accusations" when discussing Any Ngo. You can't dismiss a source you don't like as "poor". It is absolutely clear what the article is talking about, the misleading claims Andy made without providing any context. You are trying to defend Andy by stating that what he said wasn't false. It wasn't false, but it was utterly misleading and manipulative, which is what the article is clearly discussing. The article is not saying that he made a false statement, but a misleading one. "Inaccurate claims and provided limited context", this is what Andy "promoted", according to the article. I'm not sure how clearer this could be. BeŻet (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not trying to defend Andy Ngo. I don't give a shit about Andy Ngo. I hadn't even heard his name until I saw something about this article on a noticeboard a month ago. I am trying to defend Wikipedia's policies, in this case WP:BLP. That article is not a source for the claim you are attributing to it because it doesn't support it. Do not read in between the lines of sources to come to your own conclusions. If the source does not explicitly say Ngo's claims were inaccurate or show that his claims were contradicted by reality, then we cannot say that. And so far I've only talked about verifiability. What about WP:DUE? Verifiability is a prerequisite for inclusion; it does not **guarantee** inclusion. Even if the source did support these claims, why should we include them? From what I can tell, Ngo tweets a lot. Online blogs and newspapers mention his tweets a lot. His entire careers seems to consist of tweeting things that newspapers and news channels will repeat, either to support or condemn. Why should these tweets in particular be in the article? This is supposed to be a biographical article about Ngo, not an exhaustive list of times he was mentioned in the news. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Once again, the article clearly presents a narrative by using a direct quote from Andy. How is this reading in between the lines? We should be taking all thtis at face value. BeŻet (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Possible source: https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2019/08/1-hammer-1-antifa-mob-chase-a-closer-look-at-portlands-viral-protest-moments.html EvergreenFir (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

That's the source we've been discussing. They've apparently altered the language that was quoted above; now the relevant passage says Two flare-ups caught on video have become the latest flash points between ideological opponents, racking up millions of views online and spreading chaotic scenes riddled [previously: that were cast] with inaccurate claims and limited context. So now the piece says that the scenes were riddled with inaccurate claims. Not sure what that even means. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

My mistake... one more source that might be helpful here: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/us-far-right-group-vows-to-march-monthly-following-portland-rally-1.3990110 which states:

Several incidents took place after the main body of right-wingers left the city. According to reporters on the west side of the Willamette river, a school bus similar to one used by the right-wing Proud Boys group at previous events had its windows smashed and was pepper-sprayed by anti-fascists.

Video and photos of the incident appeared to show an occupant of the bus wielding a hammer which was then seized by an antifascist.

John Turano, also known as “Based Spartan”, and a familiar figure at right-wing rallies on the west coast in recent years, was seen on the east side arguing with other right-wingers about leaving, saying: “Antifa are over there.” Video showed Turano and his daughter later being driven out of the west side downtown area by a large crowd of counter-protesters.

Videos appearing to show other altercations were posted to social media.

EvergreenFir (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

This source excludes the seemingly important detail that the Antifa member threw the hammer at his opponent. Also, no mention of Ngo in this source (not in connection with the two events in question, I mean). Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Threw back, but yes. I was searching "Andy Ngo hammer" and this came up... but the mentions are separate. This might be something we need to wait on until RS pick it up more. It seems clear that Ngo's account(s) are contested. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I think "throw back" is inaccurate, but let's let that go. I haven't yet heard an RS that questions Ngo's account (as opposed to elaborating on it). Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Re-adding the material

I see you've added the material in again. This time, you have two sources (the Daily Dot and Huffington Post) that do support the claim. I still don't think this material should be in the article for the other reason I mentioned: it doesn't satisfy WP:DUE. Ngo tweets dozens of times a day, and many of those tweets are later challenged as inaccurate. I do not see what makes this latest event worth inclusion. If we included every time some online news site said Andy Ngo tweeted something that distorts the truth, then this entire article would consist of single sentences saying, "on x day, Andy Ngo tweeted y and was accused by z of distorting the truth." This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not an exhaustive list of times Ngo was mentioned in the news.

WP:VERIFIABILITY is the minimum requirement for inclusion; it is not sufficient reason for inclusion. WP:NPOV is also a policy, and part of that reads: An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Ngo's habit of distorting the truth is probably significant enough for inclusion, but that does not mean that each individual time he tweets some claim that lacks context should be included in the article.

If you were able to find sources to support a general statement describing criticism Ngo has received for making inaccurate claims and distorting the truth, I would support including that. However, I do not believe we have sufficient perspective to include some minor controversy that happened three days ago. Maybe some day in the future, these stupid tweets will be seen as some kind of major aspect of Ngo's life and work, and will be worthy of inclusion. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is WP:NOTNEWS: most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. You added this material, it was reverted and challenged by two editors. Please remove it and do not add it again unless there is consensus for inclusion. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Red Rock Canyon, and I want to add that I don't think these additional pieces are RS for the statement that was added to the article. Neither of them uses the word 'inaccurate' or identifies what statement is supposed to be untrue. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I concur with Red Rock Canyon and Shinealittlelight and removed this content. It's obvious POV-pushing. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how this content is 'POV-pushing'. Care to explain, Jweiss11? PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jweiss11. You removed the content, claiming it was 'POV-pushing'. Please explain how it is. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

This is ridiculous on several levels. It is very due to report on Andy's repeated misinformation. It has been doing rounds all over the internet, and multiple media outlets have reported on it. Describing this as "exhaustive list of times Ngo was mentioned in the news" is extremely dishonest. There are THREE sources now talking about how much he distorted the truth (which also fits all of his previous "achievements" listed in the article). This is not a minor controversy – it's a series of misleading statements that have been picked up by the media. BeŻet (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I repeat: the articles do not use 'inaccurate', and they do not identify any false statements he made. Also, those who are reinstating the content are doing so against consensus, and are edit warring. Please remove until we have consensus. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually the term used is 'distortion of the truth' which is harsher, and they identify several misleading statements he made. Also I'd like to remind people that we should be reverting only when necessary, not when you disagree with something or you don't like something. I will reintroduce the change after 24 hours and I implore you to discuss why you feel this should be removed because there isn't any rule broken, just a non-objective opinion that somehow, despite three sources talking about it, it's not important. BeŻet (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Huff post says distortion, which is not the same as inaccurate, and is not very precise. What false statement did Ngo make? Also: I haven't reverted, I'm not participating in the edit war, and your reinstatement was an edit war against consensus. BRD please. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Since the edit was removed despite not breaking any rules, it's arguably a trigger-happy use of the revert functionality. Yes, distortion implies that Andy has purposefully manipulated his followers, while "inaccurate" is a more delicate way of describing it. I'm happy to use "distortion of truth" instead. If you read the articles, you will learn what misleading statements Andy has made: implying that antifascist activists attacked "a man" with a hammer (without clarifying that the man was a far-right thug who attacked first with said hammer), implying that antifascist activists have been attacking a "man" who is seen lying on the floor with his wife/spouse (without clarifying that said man was agitating and attacking antifascist activists with his taped up fists) etc. etc. You can read the articles if you want to learn more. BeŻet (talk) 11:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Nope, it's an edit war. BRD is the process, and you reinstated without consensus. And right, Ngo said they attacked a man with a hammer, and that's what they did, so his statement was true. You can add more information, but that doesn't make him not a man, and it doesn't make it false that they threw a hammer at him. Similar remarks apply to the other statement. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I did not "reinstate without consensus", the previous argument presented was that the source wasn't clear about Andy making misleading statements, so I've added two more sources clearly stating that to resolve the issue. It has now been removed because a different excuse has been established, that for some reason this is not WP:DUE, which I think is not a valid reason for a revert, and the removal of the content should be first discussed before removing it. BeŻet (talk) 12:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The content was just reinstated again against consensus. I request that BeŻet self revert and continue discussion here, and not add the content again unless consensus to do so is reached. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

This is not how this works. You cannot remove portions of the article and then claim that there is no consensus, because you don't agree with it. I'd like to point you at Wikipedia:BRD: Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen. There are FOUR sources talking about Ngo's manipulations, so stating that it is now WP:DUE is not objective by any means. Therefore it is quite dishonest to use that as an argument for reverting. BeŻet (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is how it works. Three editors have told you that they disagree with this material being added. We have given you reasons for our opposition. You must demonstrate consensus before making any change to the article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

But it's impossible to discuss this since @Jweiss11: hasn't explained why it's "obvious POV-pushing" and I've already addressed the other editor's comment regarding language. It is also unclear what are "sources to support a general statement describing criticism Ngo has received for making inaccurate claims and distorting the truth", if you don't treat the existing sources as such. Perhaps if you explained what you would find satisfactory this situation could be resolved. BeŻet (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

If you really want to add this material, then I suggest you open a (neutrally-worded) RFC on the question of whether this material should be included. Then that can be publicized with (neutrally-worded) notifications at relevant noticeboards, WP:NPOV, WP:AmPol, etc. That will bring in new editors to the discussion and we can have a formal determination of consensus. Personally, what I'm looking for in material added to this article is some indication that discussions of Andy Ngo years from now will include descriptions of it. We cannot see the future, obviously, but my view is that in 5 or 10 or 20 years, if anyone were to write a biography of Andy Ngo, they might mention that time he had milkshakes poured on him and was punched in the face. At the very least, that's what he's known for most right now, and it happened a couple months ago. They might describe a general tendency towards stretching the truth, or leaving out inconvenient facts. But those tweets you're trying to add to the article are going to be forgotten within weeks. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe it's fair to say Jweiss11 is challenging the additions as I've invited him to talk about any objections he has twice and he's declined to do so. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

You don't get to decide whether another editor's concerns are valid. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 09:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes he does as if we want to work on Wikipedia in a fair and respectable way, editors should explain themselves and not just post baseless acusations. BeŻet (talk) 09:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Red Rock Canyon: Gentle reminder that Wikipedia is not decided by vote, and that consensus takes into account the strength of arguments. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

BeŻet and PeterTheFourth have asked me to explained why I thought BeŻet's edit, which I reverted here, was POV-pushing. The editorializing of "that he wasn't present at" strikes me as POV-pushing. Journalists and opinion-writers report on events at which they aren't psychically present all time. This is not remarkable. It's only remarkable if you're on a mission to neg Ngo for anything and everything. I also don't think it's fair and neutral to say that Ngo's reporting on the event was "inaccurate". He may indeed have been selective in what he reported. But this again makes him totally unremarkable as a journalist or opinion-writer. The balancing of "neo-fascist groups and anti-fascists" also seems like a political hand-tipping. A neutral, rationale presentation of confrontations like we've seen in Portland of late either wouldn't make that sort of qualitative judgement of a vast disparity between two opponent's relative authoritarianism, or it would present the conflict as one between two illiberal, politically extreme groups on opposite poles of the political spectrum. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to explain your revert. I've addressed the concerns about 'wasn't present at', as it doesn't seem particularly important (people often write about things they weren't present at, both untruthfully and truthfully.) If somebody disagrees, they're welcome to re-add that part. I've tried to lean closely to what reliable sources say - I'm aware that you have your own personal opinions about the events and the media's coverage of Ngo, but we must adhere to what the reliable sources say. We are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

You may believe that you have addressed Jweiss11's concerns, but you haven't addressed mine. I still believe that this is a minor story that will completely disappear within weeks, if not days. Let's look at the sources: you've got three news articles all published within a 36 hour period, and a link to an advocacy group (also published within 24 hours of the others). To me, this does not demonstrate that this event carries the kind of lasting significance that justifies its inclusion. This is an encyclopedia, not a compendium of times people lied on Twitter. You still don't have a consensus for inclusion, please stop adding this material until you do. If you're so sure that this is necessary, then hold an RFC. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I totally agree with Red Rock Canyon. Also, I don't see that anyone ever addressed the concern of Jweiss11 that it isn't fair and neutral to say that Ngo's reporting on the event was "inaccurate". That was also a concern of mine above, which was never addressed. "Inaccurate" is not the term used by any of these sources, and nobody has identified any statement from Ngo that was inaccurate. Finally: please stop edit warring. If you want to address our concerns, try proposing language and additional sources here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Daily Dot: A video has surfaced on Twitter that shows conservative journalist Andy Ngo laughing as members of the far-right group Patriot Prayer plan an attack on anti-fascist patrons at a Portland bar. The incident, which happened in May, is now at the center of a lawsuit. The antifa members were having a peaceful May Day celebration when Patriot Prayer members came to protest, according to the Portland Mercury. Several fights broke out, and now the bar is suing the Patriot Prayer members for allegedly causing the riot. Ngo covered the event on Twitter and blamed the brawl on antifa. ... In Ngo’s coverage of the riots, he posted misleading videos that crop out violent actions from Patriot Prayer members, putting the blame fully on antifa. Since then, videos have emerged that discredit several of his tweets. Since the videos and his confrontations with antifa are what he's famous for, a WP:RS saying that he edits his videos misleadingly and has worked with a group intentionally planning violent confrontation, only to try and blame the people they attacked after the fact, certainly both seem worth mentioning. --Aquillion (talk) 04:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I believe this point is now moot as the coverage of his manipulations and ties to far-right groups is widely covered now in articles that appeared in the last couple days. BeŻet (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Rock or brick thrown with force that struck his head

It's clear an antifa member threw a brick or rock with force that hit Andy at the back of his head while Andy was walking away. No doubt that was the cause of his serious brain injury. Why is there not word about this in this article?? --IHTS (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

It has to be reported in a reliable source. All these articles (are supposed to) do is summarize reliable sources. So if you want to add some information, you have to give the other editors a reliable source for that information. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

We don't really have a reliable source that explains how Ngo came to have brain damage, we can just report that he is brain damaged at the moment. PeterTheFourth (talk)

Right. (Funny though, it's WP:BLUESKY that 1) his brain injury was incurred as a result of the attack in the park, & 2) nobody in the world receives a brain injury from a thrown milkshake.) --IHTS (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

What I'd like to see more of from reliable sources is the impact his brain damage has on his politics. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

??? --IHTS (talk) 08:17, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I guess I figured it was his being hit in the head by the guy at the beginning of the video that caused the brain hemorrhage. There's no evidence I'm aware of that he has ongoing brain damage, and the suggestion that he does is a violation of WP:BLP and should be struck. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The widely circulated video shows nothing of that sort and I can't see any major source reporting on this. Where did you find this specific information? BeŻet (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah "it's clear" is not good enough. The article has has to be based on what reliable sources specifically say. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that it's absolutely not WP:BLUESKY that he suffered any brain damage at all, since the only source of this information is his attorney and a single person that supposedly received a *copy* of his hospital records. Therefore, any assumptions and declarations about how he got the supposed brain damage is completely WP:OR. BeŻet (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The "single person" that he gave his discharge papers to was a journalist working for Buzzfeed news, which is regarded here as RS. That journalist published this report: Ngo sent me a copy of his discharge paperwork from the hospital. The document confirmed his claim that he had suffered a subarachnoid hemorrhage — a brain bleed. If this doesn't show us that he had a subarachnoid hemorrhage, then what would? Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The discharge paperwork itself, of course. BeŻet (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

That would be a primary source in this case, and not usable on Wikipedia. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, I implore you to read Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources. Secondly, if the discharge paperwork was made public, a secondary source would be surely available. Ngo is known for manipulations and making false and inaccurate statements, therefore him sending someone a "copy" of that document isn't undeniable proof. BeŻet (talk) 09:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I did read that. The documents themselves would be a primary source in this case. We do have a secondary RS reporting on the documents. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I did not write that it was WP:BLUESKY Ngo suffered a brain injury. (A fact like that needs RSs.) I wrote that it is WP:BLUESKY the (presumed RS-supported) injury was incurred as a result of the attack in the park. --IHTS (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

But how is it BLUESKY? BeŻet (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Journalist

Several reliable sources call Ngo a writer to distinguish him from journalists, since his work is usually politically motivated and often contains inaccuracies. Darthmenisis (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I think we should definitely consider this, as it's true that a lot of people question the "journalist" label. BeŻet (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

It has already been discussed at length. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

That's inaccurate, it has been discussed, but not "at length", and his image in the media is constantly evolving. BeŻet (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

It's been discussed elsewhere. In any case, the current consensus is that he's a journalist. He's described that way in tons of RS across the spectrum. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

If he's been proven to give half truths and otherwise distort information on a fairly frequent basis, then we should probably consider that in addition to what RS say Darthmenisis (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I think we should consider at least calling him a "right-wing journalist" (or "right-wing conservative journalist"). He has been called right-wing by several reliable sources, and I think this description more aptly matches what he does and where he stands. BeŻet (talk) 13:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The previous discussion was closed prematurely (by someone who was involved in the discussion and wanted to call him a journalist, cutting off someone who was objecting, no less.) While some sources describe him as a journalist, others express obvious skepticism. For example:

• Oregon Live calls him right-wing writer in headline, Andy Ngo, a right-leaning provocateur with online news and opinion outlet Quillette, which identifies Ngo as an editor and photojournalist, went to the left-wing demonstration around noon on Saturday in body. Attributing his status to Quillette rather than stating it in-text is a clear indication of skepticism.
• The Guardian says that Ngo describes himself as a journalist, and his work has appeared almost exclusively in hyper-partisan conservative outlets like The College Fix. There was no media accreditation, but Ngo captured cellphone video, and this became the unchallenged record of the event. Again, "describes himself as" is a clear expression of skepticism.
• GQ describes him as a conservative activist.
• Business Insider describes him as an editor at Quillette.
• Portland Mercury describes him as a conservative writer.
• The Independent describes him as a conservative writer.
• Buzzfeed specifically notes that the descriptor is controversial, saying that Smaller, semantic debates have spun off, mostly on Twitter, about the nature of the word “journalist” as it applies to Ngo and the nature of the word “violence” as it applies to nonphysical harm.
• Daily Beast calls him a "writer".
• Huffington Post calls him a "writer"

That's enough to show, I think, that his description as a journalist is not uncontroversial and should not be stated in the lead as uncontroversial fact. Either way, both these sources and the ones referring to him as a journalist also tend to add the descriptor of conservative or right-wing, so one of those should be in the lead regardless. --Aquillion (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that there is enough skepticism around this, and some media outlets simply described him as a journalist because he self-described himself as such. BeŻet (talk) 10:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I think this source could be a starting point for discussing whether it is worth describing him here as a journalist. Moreover, after the media realised he is a grifter, a lot of them started putting "journalist" in quotation marks. BeŻet (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

He's a blogger and propagandist. Calling him a writer is overly kind, but infinitely superior to calling what he does journalism. Simonm223 (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

While I agree with this sentiment, we need to base this around what the sources say and build a case for a different name. Right now I don't think the "journalist" label dominates too much in the media, so we can definitely use a different term. BeŻet (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• I have no love for Andy Ngo, but if we're going to have this conversation we better list out the sources that have called him a journalist, too:
  • NYTimes conservative journalist
  • ABC News conservative journalist
  • The Hill, [41] a journalist at conservative website Quilette ... journalist
  • CNN conservative journalist
  • Fox News journalist and photographer
  • Oregon Public Broadcasting part-time journalist
  • Rolling Stone right-wing journalist and provocateur
  • New York Intelligencer journalist
  • Portland Tribune, [42] graduate student and journalist ... independent journalist
  • The Times American journalist
  • Vox conservative journalist
  • VICE News Portland-based journalist ... Right-Wing Blogger
  • The Independent conservative journalist

(It's worth noting all these pieces were written before the latest controversy, however.) WanderingWanda (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

In the arena of the written word, a journalist is a type of writer, one who writes specifically about current events. Ngo writes about current events. He is therefore a journalist. It’s pretty simple. Now one may think he is a bad or unethical journalist, and one may be even be correct about that. I have my own doubts about Ngo’s integrity. But this doesn’t make him not a journalist. The assertion that Ngo is not a “journalist” is an antifa talking point. Do we want Wikipedia to be speaking in antifa’s voice here? I suspect some regular editors here do. But what about the rest of us? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll add that calling him a "conservative journalist" has a certain appeal because people who don't like him tend to object to the "journalist" part and people who do tend to object to the "conservative" part. (The ideal compromise: one that makes no one happy!) Incidentally, regardless of what we call him, I think the fact that the "journalist" label has been debated should probably be mentioned somewhere in the article. WanderingWanda (talk) 02:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Standards people. The name *Journalist* is a designation that should be held to the highest standards.

And immediately revoked and permanently once said person showcases absolutely blantant disregard for ethics or impartiality.

The question is has Andy Ngo done this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timotam1952 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

No, “journalist” is a simple neutral descriptor for someone who produces content about current events, particularly as a paid professional in established publications. Do we really want Wikipedia speaking in antifa’s voice here? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

That is incorrect, I agree with Timotam1952 that the term "journalist" indicates some level of professionalism that Andy Ngo, when looking at his past "achievements", seems controversial. Moreover, it is not our job to decide whether he is a journalist or not, but it's our job to look at sources and what they day. In the light of recent controversies, several media outlets have questioned the "journalist" label. We are now discussing what is the most appropriate label considering all this. BeŻet (talk) 10:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Then one could simply say writer instead as a neutral term.

-- A writer is someone who is able to be paid to write

(be it a short story... or false/egregiously misleading/plagiarised/ writing about "current events" etc.)

So again the question I ask is, has Andy Ngo been egregious in any way to paint an egregiously misleading story and/or blantantly disregarded facts or ethics?

If so then I believe he should be called a writer at this stage ... at the very most.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Timotam1952 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not particularly happy that we are having this conversation when previous consensus already determined that Ngo should be called a journalist. I see nothing wrong with Wander's suggestion that we preface it with "Conservative journalist" and think that should be enough to explain to readers that Ngo is more ideological than the typical journalist (who are in fact supposed to be neutral fact finders/reporters). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• That is not a meaningful consensus. As I read it, someone objected, you disagreed with their objection, they changed their mind, and when a second objection arose you cut it off by closing the discussion despite being clearly involved in it; no discussion consisting of four people could reasonably be considered a clear-cut enough close for someone obviously involved to close it as a consensus, while an objection has just been raised. I can understand your reasoning (from your perspective, when the other person backed down it was over, and it would have been tiresome to repeat the conversation with someone else when there was a 3-1 majority.) But someone involved in a discussion can't close it that quickly while there's clear disagreement and expect it to be taken seriously as an established consensus, especially when so few people were involved in the first place. --Aquillion (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

But this discussion is now happening in the context of recent controversies surrounding him, and more media scrutiny being performed regarding his person. BeŻet (talk) 09:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• Considering BeŻet's argument that sources calling Ngo a journalist arise from prior to his firing from Quillette for getting caught on tape offering to run media interference for fascist gangs in exchange for access, I think adhering to the RSes that call him a writer is more neutral. Simonm223 (talk) 12:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223: I was not actually aware Ngo was fired for that... gosh dang. I'm fine with calling him a writer then. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Being clear, Quillette claims that it's all a big coincidence that they fired him immediately after that footage was released. But most commentators are sort of laughing at that. Simonm223 (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Bezet, opinion pieces and the reporting of opinions do no change the definition of basic words like “journalist”. Jweiss11 (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

But him being a journalist isn't WP:BLUESKY, at least in my opinion. We should go with the lowest common denominator based on all of the sources. I personally think "writer" is a good neutral term, and there seem to be other editors who concur, but I do understand other editors feel that "journalist" is adequate. BeŻet (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

"Writer" seems better, on balance. XOR'easter (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I think we are slowly reaching consensus here that "writer" is a better term. Should we give this another 24 hours and then change? BeŻet (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Strongly oppose the use of "writer" here. "Journalist" is not a moral distinction. It is a technical one that is apt here because of the type of writing and photo/video work that Ngo has done. Even if we can conclude that Ngo is an unethical journalist, that does not make him not a journalist. Note the use of "journalist" in the leads of Brian Williams, Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair despite their unethical disgraces while performaning their journalism. There's been a campaign by antifa and a number of antifa-allied or antifa-sympathizing journalists to declare Ngo "not a journalist" on what they believe are ethical grounds going to back to at least the time of his assault in June. Do we really want Wikipedia to speak in antifa's voice here? Jweiss11 (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Frequent reverts

@Red Rock Canyon: I cannot assume good faith any more while you keep reverting my changes. It is rude, inconsiderate and authoritarian. You have a very biased view of what is worthy of inclusion in the article. Somehow every time Andy gets silly stringed, we have to include it, but when he gets implicated in a criminal case, being present at planning an assault as part of an ongoing lawsuit, that's somehow not important. Please stop abusing the revert button. Please start behaving in a respectful and considerate manner, and stop posting links to rules you haven't even read: how is WP:COATRACK related to this, for instance? A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely. It doesn't make sense for you to point at it. Likewise, WP:NOTNEWS isn't a problem here, because this is a significant development, not simply a mentioning that Andy had a burger at his favourite bar. BeŻet (talk) 09:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

You seem to believe that any time any website publishes anything about Andy Ngo, it is immediately worthy of inclusion. I don't believe you've read BLP, and if you have, then you haven't understood it. See WP:BLPPUBLIC in regards to your latest edit: If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. You can't just accuse a living person of committing a crime off the back of a single, borderline reliable source. But you don't care about that. If a single source publishes anything negative about this guy, you add it the second you see the article. In this case, I believe you waited all of two hours after seeing this single article come up to add it to the article. Is that "multiple reliable third-party sources"? No. In fact, at this moment, that is still the only thing close to a reliable source documenting this incident. Here's another policy I've already quoted here, which I will assume you have simply neglected to read, since the alternative is that you lack the competence to understand our policies or simply don't believe they apply to you: An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. If you want me to stop reverting your edits, then read Wikipedia's content policies and stop making garbage edits.

You do have a point; I should've removed the whole paragraph about that incidence, instead of just your addition to it. The fact that he was pepper-sprayed in May is probably not important enough to include in this article. I see no evidence that that incident has the kind of lasting coverage that would make it relevant. Ideally, if we had better sources, we could describe his clashes with protesters in summary style instead of focusing on each incident individually. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

You seem to not realise that literally the only reason this article exists is because of Ngo getting punched in the face. This is his only claim to fame. If you don't believe me, check when the article was created. You seem inconsistent in your arguments: when I did find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, it was still not good enough for you. It seems quite clear to me that since the violence he is involved in is the only reason he's on Wikipedia, significant incidents/events revolving around that subject are worthy of inclusion. I implore you to stop reverting edits whenever you dislike something or personally disagree with something, as this is not a good way to work together on Wikipedia. BeŻet (talk) 11:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Also I should add that Ngo is not a public figure (WP:NPF) and is essentially notable for one event (WP:BLP1E), therefore WP:BLPPUBLIC does not fully apply (i.e. the requirement of multiple sources in order to include anything). BeŻet (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

So first of all, the requirement for inclusion of controversies on public figures is supposed to be less strict than the requirement for inclusion on non-public figures. Non-public figures receive a higher level of protection from the inclusion of controversial material. If Andy Ngo were a non-public figure, then you should be even more restrained in including claims about criminal activity and the like. Did you even read WP:NPF before linking it? But that's irrelevant because he is a public figure. Let's go through the list on WP:LOWPROFILE:

High-profile: Has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication, website, or television or radio program, as a "media personality" (a.k.a. "public face" or "big name"), a self-described "expert", or some other ostensibly (or would-be) notable commentator. Need not be a "household name", simply self-promotional. May ostensibly represent an employer or other group, but is clearly self-representing as well.

High-profile: Has voluntarily participated in self-publicity activities, such as press conferences, promotional appearances, book signings, and the like; and/or has participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity for some other concern, such as a cause, election campaign or commercial endorsee.

High-profile: Has appeared as a featured performer or speaker for a publicly advertised event at which admission was collected and/or which garnered significant independent, non-local coverage. May have produced publications (books, DVDs, etc.) or events that at least in part are designed (successfully or not) to self-promote and to attract favorable public attention.

High-profile: Has sought or holds a position of pre-eminence, power, or authority in a field of research, a sport, a business market, a political sphere, or other area of human endeavor, usually at more than a locally-significant level. Such a position does not necessarily convey notability, but is evidence of projection of self-identity into the public consciousness.

High-profile: As of the writing (or review/editing) of the article (or as of the article subject's death) is (or was) engaged in high-profile activity, as described above, with or without a lifelong history of such activities. Or was engaged in high-profile activity as a lifelong endeavor, but is now (or at the end was) attempting to be low-profile. Typically notable or would-be notable for roles of various levels of importance in more than a single major event, or for a major role in one major event.

He checks at least three of those boxes. More importantly, he definitely fits the headline requirement: Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. This is a man who constantly promotes himself, who publishes videos about himself, who goes on television frequently, who livestreams his attendance of public events, who publicizes his opinions on issues of public concern, who claims to be an expert.

Second, if I appear to be "inconsistent in my arguments", that is simply because your inclusions often fail more than one policy. First of all, they often fail verification, because the source is either not reliable or the source doesn't back up the claims being made. Second, they are often BLP violations. The sources might be sufficient for verification, but they fail to meet the higher standard applied to controversial changes about living people. Third, they tend to be inclusions of petty, minor events, things that have no lasting significance, and thus fail WP:DUE. I revert not out of some personal animus, but because your edits are just bad. They fail multiple content standards. They're sloppily worded. They don't quite convey what is written in the source. This article is already a mess (a list of individual events instead of a summary of what is notable about the topic), and your edits make it worse. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

So first of all, the requirement for inclusion of controversies on public figures is supposed to be less strict than the requirement for inclusion on non-public figures - That is simply false.

Him being "high profile" does not make him a public figure.

because the source is either not reliable or the source doesn't back up the claims being made - this is false, stop claiming sources are unreliable because you don't like them! This is a totally unacceptable behaviour here, and I implore you one final time to amend your behaviour.

And one more time: there wouldn't be an article about Ngo if he wasn't punched; therefore any news around his confrontations with antifa are worthy of inclusion. Like I've mentioned in a message to you, please consult WP:REVERT, WP:BRD and related policies, especially BRD which clearly and unequivocally states that BRD is not an excuse for a revert. If you do keep reverting changes you don't like, I will forward this issue to an arbiter. BeŻet (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

BeŻet, I find your various arguments here bizarre. You're arguing that Andy Ngo is less well-known, and therefore we can be more lax about including negative information about him? That's the reverse of how its supposed to work. The less well-known a figure is, the more cautious we have to be. A giant chunk of the WP:BLP policy is devoted to emphasizing this, see: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy. And, really, it should almost go without saying.

You also pointed to WP:BLP1E. I don't see how that guideline helps your case. It's a guideline that discourages the indiscriminate inclusion of info about a living person. When someone cites it, its usually to argue that something should be removed from an article, not that something should be added.

(Incidentally, if Ngo is genuinely only notable for the single event where he was roughed up, this page should be moved to something like "The assault of Andy Ngo".) WanderingWanda (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Or more to the point, the article should be deleted outright. I think his fifteen minutes may be up. Simonm223 (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

And nobody outside the Breitbart set is going to care that he got punched. Simonm223 (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@WanderingWanda: No, I am not saying that less scrutiny is required. The rule regarding multiple sources for public figures is based around the idea, that since they are a public figure, a lot is being written about that person, and therefore multiple sources reporting on a specific thing implies something more worthy of inclusion. This is something that is hinted in the very first sentence in that section: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources. It would be silly to suggest that a less known person needs even more sources to include anything. Anyhow, this point is now moot as at this stage there are multiple sources reporting on the accusations. BeŻet (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Reverts by Granarkadis

Hi Granarkadis, would you please explain the reverts you did to several editors work? These are the only three edits you've made in roughly 2 years, it would be a decent thing to elaborate on your reasoning behind them. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd also like to know the reasoning, especially that it's difficult to see how talking about his reporting on antifascist activists, which is most of what he does, is "oddly specific". BeŻet (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

He has also left Quillette immediately after the video came out, and The Daily Beast is connecting these two things, although Quillette denies it. I'd want a second source making the connection before adding that part to the article, but the Daily Dot seems sufficient to at least mention the video. It also says a lot more than we're saying in the article: The antifa members were having a peaceful May Day celebration when Patriot Prayer members came to protest, according to the Portland Mercury. Several fights broke out, and now the bar is suing the Patriot Prayer members for allegedly causing the riot. Ngo covered the event on Twitter and blamed the brawl on antifa. ... In Ngo’s coverage of the riots, he posted misleading videos that crop out violent actions from Patriot Prayer members, putting the blame fully on antifa. Since then, videos have emerged that discredit several of his tweets. There's more like that. I don't see how that can be described as a "mistake", as the edit summary did, and clearly that's not how the source describes it. --Aquillion (talk) 04:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I think that at this stage we have plenty of sources and evidence suggesting malicious behaviour on Ngo's side. Arguments presented by a couple editors saying that this is not worthy of inclusion in our article are no longer defensible in any way. BeŻet (talk) 09:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Replacing 'alleged' with 'masked'

Hi Jweiss11, why did you replace instances of 'alleged' with 'masked'? PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Because we now have sources say that Ngo was attacked by antifa, which was obvious as day in the absence of some sort of false-flag operation. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: Would you please link those sources here? Some appear to have failed verification. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)