Talk:Andy Ngo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

@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 [1]. The source, [2], 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, [3], 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[edit]

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 (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 (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

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

@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: 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: 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[edit]

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)

This discussion looks like a solid non-consensus so I'm not sure why the material was added to a BLP. I have to say I think those rejecting the material are correct. See my comments in the RfC below. Springee (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Rock or brick thrown with force that struck his head[edit]

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)


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)
(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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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). –MJLTalk 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. –MJLTalk 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)
If we spoke in "antifa's voice", we would describe him as a "far-right propagandist" or a "grifter". Once again, it is not our job tot decide whether he is a journalist or not, but digest what the sources are saying and choose the most adequate label. Finally, comparing Brian Williams to a person who only had his first internship a mere two years ago and was a media editor, wrote his first op-ed just over a year ago, is... strange. BeŻet (talk) 10:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry if my formatting is wrong, in advance. If we do not call Ngo a journalist, we would have to change a lot of other Wikipedia articles about other people who have done similar or even worse things. I looked at a lot of WP pages, and the general consensus seems to be that someone becomes a “former journalist” when they stop doing reporting. So, unless we can show some reason to go against Wikipedia’s policy of not publishing negative information about living people without a lot of evidence, it could be considered original research or libel, which I would oppose. Gonzo journalism is a type of journalism that Andy could reasonably claim to be doing. Let’s not violate WP policy. It will just get tagged and most likely reverted.
As to who “cares about him getting punched,” I find it abhorrent that anyone here would encourage violence against anyone and record it in a public forum. Many people are pacifists and oppose all violence, not just “the Breitbart set.” Your bias is showing. Please be a reasonable, neutral interlocutor if you wish to be respected.

Pammalamma (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Bezet, "not a journalist" is also antifa's voice, just like "far-right propagandist" and "grifter". I brought up Brian Williams, among others, because he is example of someone whose unethical journalism hasn't negated his status as a journalist on Wikipedia--as it should not since "journalist" is not a moral distinction. The same goes for Glass and Blair, among many others. I was making no comparison between these various journalists accomplishments or tenure. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
No it's not, what does antifascism got to do with assessing who is a journalist and who isn't? BeŻet (talk) 11:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Well ... Perhaps we *should* be changing other Wikipedia articles like the Brian Williams one.

I just cannot see how everyone who writes and gets paid is a journalist. Journalist does have a standard. You are right that some journalism might be shoddy or weak, but if someone has egregiously and intentionally mislead or obscured facts, lied etc

... I don't see how that is journalism being practiced. Perhaps that's the key word.

Is Andy Ngo practicing journalism.... Or pretending to ... and getting paid?

I don't see an issue with calling him a writer. If anything it's a more neutral term than "conservative journalist".

The distinction is to be fair ultimately one of ethics and that is subjective.

But let's look at The New York Times, it is sometimes referred to as left leaning publication, but an individual journalist that works for them is not described as "a liberal journalist". At least not on Wikipedia pages of NYT individual journalist.

You are either a journalist or you are not. You either practice some form of principled standard ethics of reporting ... or you do not.

You can be a crappy journalist who only hears from one side of an issue... But egregiously obscuring, faking or outright lying ... that is not journalism.

There is not a single journalism school or bipartisan read news organisation that would see that as journalism. Not a single. And I challenge anyone to find one that does in say a news organisations Code of Ethics page or some journalism textbook to find one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timotam1952 (talkcontribs) 13:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

We're not the only ones struggling with what to call him. As Arun Gupta observed in Jacobin: The media don’t know what to make of Andy Ngo. The problem with "writer" is that it doesn't cover everything he does or has done. He worked as an editor, opinion-writer, reporter, photographer, videographer and podcaster. In summary: he produces content for news media. He doesn't appear to be employed, so the most accurate description is the one the New York Times uses here: "independent journalist". It doesn't matter that his adherence to journalistic standards is questioned. We still call Nazi propagandists Henri Nannen and Hermann Esser journalists. Vexations (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
We could call him a "content creator" then, however that's not a term used in any RS I think. I still think we should look at what the sources say in this case, however you are write to point out he has worn multiple hats during his (short) career. BeŻet (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, "content creator" is more accurate, but no reliable sources that I can find call him that. Maybe we should just call him a student. He doesn't appear to have graduated from PSU's Graduate Program in Political Science yet. Vexations (talk) 22:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Above unsigned comment was made by Vexations. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Eh it's 2019, everyone in digital media is going to have various roles.

Also yes there appears to be Nazi's who have the term journalist on Wikipedia. But I'm not sure we can surmise why or how they came to that point. Also one of those has Nazi propagandist right after the word journalist...

We should simply look at our own discussion/debate and how we came to it.

Andy Ngo is unlikely a journalist by any standard.

And if he is not a journalist

Does that not make him an activist?

Seems like a more apt description perhaps.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timotam1952 (talkcontribs) 07:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC) 

Activist probably captures all of his work. Darthmenisis (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Activist does sound like a good description, probably even better than "writer", do we have consensus on this? BeŻet (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

No, we don't have a consensus on this, since to cherry pick the one obviously partisan source (GQ) that calls him an activist would be a violation of NPOV. Most major RS call him a conservative journalist, and so that's what we should call him. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
We have already achieved consensus above to call him a writer, but we gave this a bit more time. Also, it is false that most major RS call him a conservative journalist. BeŻet (talk) 12:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Frequent reverts[edit]

@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[edit]

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'[edit]

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)
See and Those are two sources I added today. The other sources marked "failed verification" can serve to verify other elements of the preceding sentence or be removed. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jweiss11: I believe we've discussed the WP post in previous sections extensively and ultimately rejected its use for this claim, but I'll read through the NBC News article and see if I can put some thoughts down. Thanks! PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, I reject the rejection of a reliable source reporting basic facts that are patently obvious. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jweiss11: I understand that you have your own personal opinions about what is and isn't obvious, which you've talked about before. We mustn't let this bias effect how we cover stuff in the article - we go by reliable sources, emphasis on reliable, and we do check up and make sure that things are reliable for what we cite them for. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Peter, let's get real. We have other editors here tanking basic facts and dismissing reliable sources because of their biases. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
The placement of the word 'alleged' does seem odd to me. The implication seems to be that the point under contention is that his assailants have antifa affiliation. Do we have reputable sources identifying this as a claim under active dispute? DerEnglischsprachigerHelfer (talk) 04:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Jweiss11, The current phrasing is a bit unfortunate then. The structure of the sentence "Subject was A and B by X, who also C" is such that it makes two claims, one of which is supported by most references, (C), but not A and B. Perhaps this can be rewritten to more accurately summarize what the sources say. Vexations (talk) 11:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Considering Ngo's entanglements with white supremacist groups, it's fully possible the masked assailants were white supremacists who thought beating up Ngo and blaming it on antifa would be a PR win for them. So yeah, alleged. Nobody has demonstrated conclusively the identity of his assailants. Simonm223 (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Simonm223, there's no evidence of a false flag here and no reliable source has reported such. Perhaps, Ngo has been an antifa mole the whole time just to make Quillette and friends look bad? It's nonsense to seriously consider that possibility at this point, as it is obstructive nonsense to consider yours. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
The video provided by the Oregonian shows masked members of the Antifa group, bearing Antifa flags and symbols, attacking Ngo. Unless you can provide proof of a conspiracy frame to Antifa and its members, it needs to be included. I've fixed it for now. UmbraImpossible (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
UmbraImpossible, do you mean the video embedded in this article: ( Can you point out to us where you see flags and symbols (and which symbols specifically) that allow you to identify the assailants? Vexations (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
At around 0:02 and 0:26 you can clearly see members of the mob that are attacking the journalist bearing the "three arrows" symbol. A symbol linked to Antifa as well as far-left militancy. UmbraImpossible (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
UmbraImpossible, The video is black at 0:02, but at from the start at 0:04 to 0:05 I see someone wearing a cap, a bandana, a white T-shirt with a red crewneck and olive pants with the Three Arrows. That person disappears from view and does not reappear until 0:14 when we see him again, this time only his body, which shows him wearing shorts and low converse (or similar) sneakers. At 0:26 I see nothing that looks like the three arrow. The man in the white T-shirt never participates in the attack. So much for the video. Now regarding your assertion that the video shows masked members of the antifa group, bearing antifa flags and symbols, attacking Ngo. First of all the three arrows were designed for the Iron Front, an organization of the German social democratic party (SPD), and, to put it mildy, not exactly friends of the Antifaschistiche Aktion, organized by the German communist party (KPD). You come to the conclusion that antifa attcked Ngo because you saw a man who did not particpate in the attack (that we can see) wear a logo of a rival group. That's very poor evidence. I disagree with you that if nobody can prove that the attack on Ngo was a false flag operation to discredit antifa we it needs to be included, your orginal research is flawed, not supported by reliable source and we should simply state the truth: we don't know who Ngo's assailants were. Until they're arrested and convicted I prefer that we simply state that the Ngo was attacked by masked, unidentified assailants. Vexations (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, just go ahead and watch the video again. There are multiple members of Antifa displaying the three arrows symbol while attacking the journalist in question. You're just really, super wrong here. We don't assume conspiracy theories about false flags without proof. Antifa attacked a journalist, there's reliable sources and video evidence. It's a bummer that you don't like it. But thems the facts. UmbraImpossible (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
UmbraImpossible, Yup. I have watched that video frame-by-frame over-and-over again. Your claim doesn't hold up. Provide better evidence. For what it's worth, and in case that wasn't clear: I don't support a conspiracy theory about a false flag operation. I do think we simply don't know the identity of the assailants. Until we do, we don't speculate, and we most definitely don't identify people wearing a logo of a rival group who don't participate in the attack as members of antifa attacking Ngo. Vexations (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
You should definitely watch that video again. It shows members of Antifa attacking a journalist. The facts don't support your conspiracy theory and the consensus doesn't support your plans to whitewash an attack on a journalist. You should drop this issue, you're wrong. UmbraImpossible (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
UmbraImpossible, I have just told you I don't think there is a false flag operation. Vexations (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
UmbraImpossible I watched it again, and I see what you're referring to as occurring at 0:26. At 0:22 (frame 12) a man enters the frame from the right who at 0:24 can be seen throwing something, spilling a liquid. I can't tell if Ngo is hit, but he doesn't respond. At 0:25 (frame 12) he turns, revealing his courier bag, which has a the three white arrows in a circle, against a black background. At 0:27 (frame 18) he disappears from the frame. My reading of that scene is that someone tried to throw a milkshake at Ngo (and missed). If that's the evidence, we should wait to render judgment until a court has evaluated the evidence and convicted them of a crime. Vexations (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Yo, you need to drop it, dude. You're wrong, there's no false flag operation and there's an abundance of video evidence that the Antifa group attacked a journalist. Step away from this one. UmbraImpossible (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Jweiss11, you've again made changes to remove the 'alleged' and also removed some of the failed verification tags. Do you believe you have consensus to remove 'alleged'? Why did you remove the failed verification tags? 11:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth Yes, I removed "alleged" because is an accepted fact that Ngo was assaulted by antifa. Sources provided back it up and logically the only way it couldn't be true is in the case of a false flag, for which we have no evidence. I restructured the passage to resolve all the failed verification tags. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Disagree that it's a universally-accepted fact; the sources differ, with some hedging more cautiously (using 'appeared' and the like.) We can't present something that is in dispute as being uncontroversial universally-accepted fact. --Aquillion (talk) 05:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
@Aquillion: which reliable sources dispute that the attackers were antifa? We do have some sources published in the immediate wake of the assault that use the cautious language of "appeared", but as far I know no reliable sources have indicated anyone other than antifa. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Here's a few:
  • New York Times: Many have blamed Antifa for the beating, which was captured on video. No one has been charged in connection with the assault, which the police are continuing to investigate. (From 8/17, not remotely immediately afterwards.) That's not the sort of language that justifies the "it was definitely Antifa and we should indicate so unequivocally in the article voice" position you're taking here.
  • Vox, which is careful to only state exactly what can be seen in the video without labeling anyone, and which says in summary that Whoever punched Ngo, antifa or otherwise, committed a crime.
  • Wilmette Week pointedly merely says masked protesters (again, over a month after the event) in an article urging general skepticism.
  • qFox 13, Andy Ngo, a journalist for a conservative website, was among those caught up in the violence and blamed Antifa protesters for the attack, and says on Twitter that they took credit for the attack. Rose City Antifa denied that claim on Twitter, saying they have not claimed responsibility for the attack. Portland’s mayor says an investigation into the attack is ongoing.
  • CNN says Andy Ngo, a journalist for a conservative website, was among those caught up in the violence and he blames Antifa protesters for the attack. CNN has not been able to confirm that those who attacked Ngo were Antifa protesters.
We have to consider all the sources. Taken collectively, there clearly isn't enough to say that it was definitely antifa in the article voice. You also removed "unidentified", which several sources emphasize - your version gives the (inaccurate) impression that specific attackers have been identified and that the investigation mentioned above completed with a clear conclusion. --Aquillion (talk) 05:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Aquillion makes an excellent point. Even though it may seem obvious to every casual reader that antifa is responsible for attacking Ngo, obviousness is not evidence, and any responsible publication, and that includes us should not draw conclusions that are not supported by evidence. Until the individual attackers have been identified and their membership of antifa proven, directly attributing the attack to antifa is irresponsible.
We could perhaps say a bit more about why antifa dislikes Ngo so much: they claim he is responsible for outing the victim of the May 1, 2019 attack by Proud Boys member Ian Kramer. That's an example of a case where we do have good evidence that someone did something. Vexations (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, for your POV, Wikipedia does not do original research and repeats what reliable sources say. If the reliable source says it's members of Antifa that attacked him, that's what we put in the article. Unless you can find a RS for your conspiracy theory that it isn't Antifa, it needs to be included. That's how Wikipedia works and we shouldn't suspend the rules in order to make you happy. UmbraImpossible (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, Aquillion the article as it is currently written is irresponsible. The language should be changed until a time when conclusive evidence presents itself. Williamallison (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Antifa has no "membership", so describing the attackers as "members of antifa" is already innacurate. The best way to describe this would be "participants of an antifascist counter-protest". BeŻet (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
That's an opinion and one I don't care about. We should stick to the rules and only apply what articles say directly. Not your fringe take on it. UmbraImpossible (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Anyway, if we exclude the sockpuppet, I'm definitely not seeing consensus for these changes here, so I've reverted the relevant text back to where it was at the end of last month. There's too many sources expressing skepticism for us to report it as fact in the article voice. I do think we could go for something other than "alleged" in the lead, but we need to capture the caution present in the sources I linked above in some form - especially the NYT one, which is fairly recent, says "many have blamed", and is careful to note that nobody was charged, though CNN noting the lack of confirmation is also important. --Aquillion (talk) 06:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

See also link to Rose City Antifa[edit]

Why is this editor allowed to push right wing propaganda on this page? There should be no link to antifa as it's irrelevant and the politics section is completely false and misleading. Either get rid of it or let the truth be on it. This guy shouldn't be allowed to edit antyhing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealthballer (talkcontribs) 14:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC) WHy link to a random antifa group with no apparent link, and particularly one with a clearly biased wiki page? WHy, on a section postulating on his political beliefs can't it be pointed out he's a crypto fascist and an exposed propagandist? Both of those things are well sourced and factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealthballer (talkcontribs) 14:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

It's clear that you needed to get that out of your system, but this isn't the place for general gripes. Perhaps familiarize yourself with how Wikipedia works before publishing your feelings on talk pages. UmbraImpossible (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
The link has been there for some time - But it does seem to create an association that is not necessarily supported by sources in this article. WP:BLPSEEALSO indicates that See Also links 'should not be used to imply any contentious labeling, association, or claim regarding a living person'. Williamallison (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Position at Quillette[edit]

I've tried to find sources that report on Ngo's career, specifically his employment by Quillette. The first of sixteen articles he wrote for them was published on October 11, 2017. That's my WP:OR however, so I can't use it. An article by Ngo for the National Review from May 12, 2017 has a byline that says Andy Ngo is an editor at Quillette. [6] Does anyone have a reliable source? Thanks, Vexations (talk) 12:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, regarding his employment by PSU Vanguard, his first publication seems to be from March 27, 2016. (trying to establish a timeline). Vexations (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Change 'antifa' to 'counter protestors' in lead // Reversion of recent edits by User:Williamallison[edit]

I've reverted several edits by User:Williamallison to the lead regarding the video of Ngo from May 1 per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: Thanks for your feedback, I understand why you reverted the edits. Could I suggest that we remove the rest of the undue weight from the lead as well? Williamallison (talk) 01:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
@Williamallison: what else do you think is undue? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
@Jweiss11: This
Ngo received national attention after he was assaulted by antifa activists in June 2019 while covering their counter protest to a Proud Boys march in Portland.
Williamallison (talk) 01:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Which part of that is undue? The June 2019 assault is rather central to his notability. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
@Jweiss11: I agree with you that it has added to his notability. Since it is important to mention in Ngo's lead, could I suggest a change to using the more general, 'counter protesters' rather than the assumptive 'antifa'?
Williamallison (talk) 02:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Were some of the counter-protesters not antifa? Note that the body of the article states "On June 29, 2019, while filming a counter-protest to a Proud Boys march in Portland, Ngo was assaulted by antifa protesters." That is supported by sources that specifically state he was assaulted by antifa. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
@Jweiss11: I haven't seen any evidence that the counter protesters were pro-fascist. There is not enough support in the sources for the lead of this article to state that 'antifa' assaulted Any Ngo. The two articles that are cited don't seem to support what is written in the lead.
Williamallison, the WaPo article cited states "The senators also pointed to conservative journalist Andy Ngo, who in June was left bloodied by antifa activists in Portland, Ore.". The NBC News article cited states "Chaos also broke out during a rally in June, when masked antifa members physically attacked conservative blogger Andy Ngo in an incident shared on social media." Jweiss11 (talk) 03:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
@Jweiss11: There are many other sources that state 'counter protestors' rather than 'antifa', however. Is there a distinction between 'antifa' and 'anti-fascist' here? Could we agree on any changes to the lead that would be an improvement? Williamallison (talk) 03:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Jweiss11 that including the name of the group that attacked him is important, and more precise than the vague term of "counter protesters".UmbraImpossible (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
@UmbraImpossible: This single incident being mentioned and including the accused in the lead, is a case of giving too much weight. In addition, the sources that Jwiess mentioned, which use both the terms 'anti-fascist' and 'antifa', are biased in their own right, and deserve to be debated in their own context - not in the lead for this person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamallison (talkcontribs) 04:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that you don't like the policies of Wikipedia in how we supply sources. The source is reliable, there's video evidence, and it's important to include in the lede. You shouldn't be trying to whitewash this, and that's what you're doing here. Also, don't forget to sign your musings. UmbraImpossible (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
@UmbraImpossible: Given the variety of sources on this topic, do you agree that there is room to improve the lead for this article and that it can become more objective? Jweiss11, UmbraImpossible Williamallison (talk) 04:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
If by "improve" you mean the continued whitewashing and attempt to distance the attackers from their organization, including claiming it's a false flag conspiracy, then no, not at all. If you mean add reliable sources, remove ambiguity, not add it, and clean up any grammar or spelling mistakes, then yes. But that's the whole freaking point of Wikipedia, so I feel like that's what we should keep in mind. UmbraImpossible (talk) 05:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
@UmbraImpossible: By improve, I mean relaying the situation with all of the facts we have available, or if thats not possible to do at this point, just not including it with this exact phrasing in the lead for this article. The sources used for this phrasing are vague enough on their own, and don't need yet another re-interpretation. My favor is that relay the situation with all of the facts we have available. Williamallison (talk) 05:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
It's important we include the name of the group that attacked him. If anything changes, or more details are uncovered by reliable sources, we should add it. That's how this whole thing works. UmbraImpossible (talk) 12:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── The problem is that the group that attacked him was not a formal organization and has no specific name. He was attacked... by private citizens who don't like fascists. Simonm223 (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Simonm223. Where do we go from here to get consensus and take steps to make sure that the changes are not reverted? Williamallison (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Ngo was attacked by as-of-yet unidentified private citizens, who beyond a reasonable doubt are affiliated with antifa and were motivated to act as they did by that affiliation. We have reliable sources that clearly state this obvious point. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
We also have some sources which seem less certain as to that affiliation. And I guess I must be unreasonable, because I have some doubts. Not the first time I have acted unreasonably, though. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Which, sources doubt the affiliation? I'm sure you are generally reasonable, but seriously considering a false flag to the point where you'll edit Wikipedia accordingly strikes me as rather unreasonable. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Then, as I say, I am objectively unreasonable. So it goes! As for the sources, I believe Aquillion did a very good job of marshaling them above. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 02:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
@Jweiss11: I just updated the lead with a source that says explicitly that there is no proof of any affiliation. Williamallison (talk) 02:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Williamallison, you've misinterpreted that source—the "counterprotests" were antifa as this was an antifa counterprotest—and your edit contradicts the body. Will revert shortly. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: Do you have a source that states that the only counter-protestors where members of antifa? I've seen several sources that say there were many groups involved in the counter protest. Williamallison (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
No, but I do have multiple source that says Ngo was assaulted by antifa. Those sources are cited in the article. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
And the source you added, this Vox article, does not "Clarifie[d] that Ngo attacker has not been identified and connections to antifa are alleged". The article states "Last Saturday, the far-right Proud Boys group held a rally in Portland, Oregon. Left-wing groups, including the Portland branch of the militant antifa group, put together a counterprotest — whose attendees clashed with the Proud Boys. But the most notable instance of violence had nothing to do with the Proud Boys: It was an attack by counterprotesters on the conservative journalist Andy Ngo that reportedly sent him to the hospital". While it does not confirm that the attack was antifa, it suggests it was likely antifa, as that's the only group specifically mentioned prior. The other sources cited in the body of the article state antifa explicitly. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@Jweiss11: The body of this article actually does not say 'antifa' explicitly, but it uses 'antifascist'. I don't think there is a consensus for mentioning antifa in this article at all. Williamallison (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder of DS on this page.[edit]

DS warning to a subsequently indeffed sock. Nothing here anyone needs to worry about
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@UmbraImpossible: This page has WP:1RR and an enforced 24 hour WP:BRD cycle. Please self-revert your edit which is in contravention of arbcom sanctions on this page. Simonm223 (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@UmbraImpossible: You have now violated both the WP:1RR requirement and the WP:BRD 24 hour restriction on this article. I know you've seen the DS notice as you subsequently blanked your user talk page. I'll give you one last chance to self-revert before I ask for arbitration enforcement. Simonm223 (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Where is WP:1RR posted on this page? UmbraImpossible (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Up at the top of this talk page in the big DS warning. Along with the 24 hour BRD restriction. Which you also broke. Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
That's weird. I don't see anything. Are you sure you're on the right page? UmbraImpossible (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I am literally looking at it right now. Here's a quote copy-pasted from it: WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES The article Andy Ngo is currently subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBAPDS). An administrator has applied the following restrictions to this article: Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). 24-hr BRD cycle: If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit). Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts. Simonm223 (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Now I can't see the big warning box isn't a legitimate exemption from Arbitration remedies so would you please, kindly, comply and self-revert? Simonm223 (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
IP - if you have evidence UmbraImpossible is a sock WP:SPI is where you go. You don't spam the same insinuation over and over to the user talk page or on article talk. And your encouragement isn't helping to defuse a situation in which a new editor who, we must assume is new to Wikipedia and may not understand the gravity of willfully ignoring arbcom remediation is currently not in compliance but may very well come around. After all, they've shown great concern for Wikipedia policy in previous talk page commentary. Simonm223 (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC) The IP I was speaking to here was subsequently blocked two weeks and their comments, which went over the line to harassment, were removed per WP:DENY. Simonm223 (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The hammer attack[edit]

@Simonm223: Would you care to show where in the sources that this claim is false is shown? I mean our article goes right on to describe the attack after calling the attack false, so it seems like we've got some cognitive dissonance going on. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I mean they're already in the article, so how about you, you know, read them. Simonm223 (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I did, which is why my comment when removing the content stated not in sources. And I will again be removing it per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE seeing as it is not in the sources, and you have provided nothing new. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
The daily dot source is very explicit about the falsehood. And there are several others supporting it. If you attempt to start an edit war here, well, you've been warned about the active arbitration remediation on this article. And I am pretty certain I'm not the only one who will oppose your edit. Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
The daily dot doesn't say anything about it being false, they do promote the argument that where the hammer came from is important, but that doesn't have anything to do with how the hammer was used. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
You are wrong. Furthermore your invocation of BLP is incorrect and I strongly recommend that you promptly self-revert as you are in violation of arbitration remediations. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
You're still not demonstrating what in the source supports the claim. If you think I am completely out of line the link is to WP:AE. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
The article demonstrates that the claim was false, as in, the narrative was false. Since the counter-protesters were attacked by the hammer, managed to grab it and throw it back at the bus, it is simply false to claim that the counter-protesters attacked the bus with a hammer. This is covered in the sources. BeŻet (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
This is Synthesis, present passages in the sources, not your own narrative. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
No, this is WP:BLUESKY. He made a claim. That claim was false. This is just reality. Simonm223 (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, Essays don't override policy. Provide the passage from the source. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm agree with Kyohyi. The source doesn't say the claim was false. Provide a quote if you disagree. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
In stead of false, can we say that Ngo's statement was misleading? I don't think we should describe a response to an attack as an attack. If someone initiates an act of physical aggression against another, that's an attack, but a response is commonly called defence. Vexations (talk) 22:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't see anywhere in sourcing that the people on the bus made the initial "act of physical aggression". Please provide a quote to that effect. Moreover, there is not a consensus that this whole story is due; it was edit warred in and should be removed until consensus is reached. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Shinealittlelight, "act of physical; agression" is my term, a definition of "attack". The source we're talking about, is titled Edited videos of Portland protests are telling half-truths and subtitled The magic of editing is helping people lie about who threw the first punch. The connection to Ngo is made in A clip of one masked counter-protester throwing a hammer through the open door of the bus was used by Ngo as proof of antifa terrorism. and its use in Fox&Friends described as The clip was further edited to show the conflict out of chronological order, clip out the right-wing violence, and highlight the hammer being thrown into the bus. A fair summary of that is "misleading half-truth". Vexations (talk) 00:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I understand that "act of physical aggression" was your language. I'm not asking for you to produce a quote with that exact phrase; I'm asking for you to point where any of these sources says that the people on the bus started the fight, or concede that at best we don't know who started it. Again, the story is undue, it was edit-warred into the article, and it should be removed until consensus is achieved. Needless to say, I regard sub-titles in opinion pieces on the "daily dot" as obviously non-RS. But even if you were going to take that sub-title seriously, the sub-title seems to be talking about the edited version of the video on Fox, not the version Ngo tweeted out. The most you can say about Ngo is that he didn't say that the hammer was grabbed from the people on the bus. That's pretty far short of lying or even misleading. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Shinealittlelight, As it turns out, the man Ngo identified as a victim brought the hammer into the conflict I think that establishes that American Guard initiated the attack. There is additiona evidence that they planned it here I agree that Ngo's reporting on this specific incident is not significant enough to warrant inclusionin an article about him. Something about Ngo's fact-checking (or lack thereof) and editing of videos to leave out right-wing violence is due however. He's not exactly fairly reporting on both sides, is he? Vexations (talk) 01:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Nope. The fact that the hammer started on the bus does not mean that they started the fight. Obviously. And the other source you've provided here (without quoting anything specifically) makes it sound as if the antifa people outside the bus were the first to attack when they "charged" and "surrounded" the bus. Also: would you agree that there is not currently a consensus to include this story? Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Shinealittlelight, Sigh. No it doesn't. It is possible that the American Guard was attacked first and they used a hammer (that just happened to be there) in self-defence. That hammer was then taken from them and used to assault them further. I don't believe that is what happened.
Neither Willamette Week nor The Daily dot supports that version of the events.
Due to the poor sourcing and the tenuous relation to the subject (Ngo) I think it is best to omit this event from the article.
An article about the American Guard is due, however. They originated as the Indiana chapter of the Soldiers of Odin. Their co-founder, Brien James, was a member of Vinlanders Social Club, whose members are responsible for nine murders. Vexations (talk) 11:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
You and I are in agreement on this article, then. Good talk. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── That's a BLP violation toward the protestors. "Surrounding" a bus doesn't constitute a violent act and the source doesn't describe it as an "attack." On the other hand, the source's wording is clear that the hammer attack was initiated by the white supremacist gang member - he "brought the hammer into the conflict." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

No, it isn't a BLP vio. The article does make it sound as I said. In any case, Vexations claimed that the bus riders started the fight. We clearly don't know who started it for sure. Bringing the hammer into the situation, or even being the first to use it to attack someone, is not the same as starting the fight. Obviously. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Shinealittlelight, Vexations claimed that the bus riders started the fight. Not quite. I wrote that I thought that the fact that a member of American Guard brought the hammer with them establishes that American Guard initiated the attack. The attack I referred to is the hammer attack from the section heading. I don't claim to know who started the brawl. By initiating the attack I meant; first person to use the hammer to physically assault someone. Or as one of the American Guard said according to Willamette Week: "I smacked one of them with a hammer a couple of times".
What I find much more interesting than the hammer is this quote from the same source : "Andy Ngo was fucking told that if he wanted protection from the PBs, he went in with us and he went out with us". We need more and better sources to substantiate the claim that they have an agreement, but it seems that Ngo has received an offer for his protection by these groups without making mention of it in his reporting. Vexations (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
There are a lot of issues here, and I'm narrowly focused on the question whether the stuff currently in the article about the hammer attack should be in the article. I am of the opinion that it is undue, that there was never consensus that it was due, and that it should be removed, especially since it was only included in the article at all as a result of a fairly lengthy edit war. Apologies if I mischaracterized what you were saying before; I certainly understood you to have been suggesting that the bus riders started the fight, and I thought that you ended up changing your view of that. So sorry if I got that wrong. But, in any case, I'm not arguing for anything else but that the hammer attack should be removed because there was never a consensus that it was due, and it was only included as a result of an edit war. I am hoping that El C, the admin who was just looking at edit warring on this page, will weigh in on this, but I understand that people are busy. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Shinealittlelight, Since people have now been indicted for their involvement in the incident,[1] and the relation to Ngo's reporting on it so tenuous, I think we should let it rest for now, let the court figure out who did what, and then perhaps, perhaps, if there really is a connection with Ngo, update the article with the facts once they're known.


Vexations (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

DS notice[edit]

As mentioned on AN3, per WP:ONUS, until the potentially BLP-violating addition can be seen to enjoy consensus for inclusion, participants here are prohibited from adding it to the article. Launching an RfC, where consensus were to be made especially clear via an uninvolved closure, would be the next logical step. El_C 02:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Ditto for the edit war over falsely, which also requires consensus for inclusion. Launching an RfC about that, too, is also recommended in the interest of clarity. El_C 03:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I object to your heavy-handed abuse of authority here, El_C. Stating, factually, that sources have said the claim is false or misleading is not the same as saying it in Wikivoice, and there have been no objections to such wording. There can be no non-vexatious BLP-based objection to simply stating what undisputed reliable sources say. It is clear there isn't consensus to say that in Wikivoice, but those are two different things. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
What is the issue with getting consensus for your proposed changes? Edit warring back and fourth is unproductive, anyway. And you did use wikivoice. Please just go through the motions and get the consensus for the additions mentioned above. I really am not seeing why you so strenuously object to that. El_C 04:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
The first edit used Wikivoice; I then read the talk page, noted the issue in question, and rephrased to avoid that objection. I have no problem discussing it on the talk page, but there is no valid, non-vexatious BLP objection to my edit which simply repeated what reliable sources have said. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I was edit conflicted, so I missed that. But if it was claimed to be misleading (or was deemed "false") by several sources, then wikivoice can be used to say that it is so. Get consensus for that, formally. Yes, it may take some time, but what is the rush? Also, all the boldface is a bit much. El_C 05:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Including the story about the hammer was objected to on numerous grounds on this page above. I and others repeatedly stated that it was undue. The sourcing is poor. And no, the sources do not say that his claim was false. These issues were not addressed, and the edit war went on until the material was included in the article. In fact, the story is still in the article against consensus. Above on this page, I, @Red Rock Canyon:, @Jweiss11:, disputed the claim that this story is due at all. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Just above, @Vexations: also states that Due to the poor sourcing and the tenuous relation to the subject (Ngo) I think it is best to omit this event from the article. This has been a persistent opinion on this page among several editors since the material was first included, reverted, and then edit warred back in. The consensus for inclusion was never achieved. It should be removed. However, I will not remove it, as I don't want to participate in the ongoing edit war. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Shinealittlelight, I was referring to the "hammer attack". I do think we should make mention of the fact that Ngo's reporting has been called misleading or even false. Vexations (talk) 11:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@Vexations: Right, I'm not commenting on any passage but the hammer passage. There's never been consensus to include that story, currently sourced to Daily Dot, Huff Post, and Oregonlive. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Shinealittlelight, For clarity, I don't think it is a BLP violation to mention that Ngo has been called a right-wing troll, provocateur and a huckster [7] Vexations (talk) 11:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Shinealittlelight Consensus != Shinealittlelight agrees that it must be included; simply put it's not unanimity. Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
El_C I provided supporting RSes for the statement that Ngo's claim was false. Simonm223 (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
And yet, still no RfC that would formalize consensus about this. El_C 12:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I only recently got power back after Hurricane Dorian - have only just started reading comments from over the weekend. Simonm223 (talk) 12:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
That was a general comment, but welcome back. El_C 12:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I never said that consensus required unanimity. There were several editors who disagreed with inclusion, but despite this the content was edit warred into the article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I mentioned the refs I used at talk, and then inserted that statement with reliable sources. I don't recall personally reverting at all except for the single revert some days later when the content was removed. So claims of edit warring are falling pretty close to WP:NPA territory. Simonm223 (talk) 12:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where it was said that you, yourself, edit warred — the comment speaks to several editors having edit warred. Anyway, if each editor among several reverts only once, an edit war may still take place. El_C 12:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I've made my case; I will defer to El C's judgment. Just to be clear: in my opinion, there has been warring over both the inclusion of the hammer story at all (it is currently included), and there has also been edit warring over the word 'false' (or synonyms). El C, as I understand, has said that the latter war should stop until consensus is achieved. But so far El C has not addressed my claim that the hammer story itself (currently in the article) was edit warred into the content and should be removed. El C, if you say you disagree with me about this, I'll drop it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
That hammer story does not lack for reliable sources. If you wish to see consensus about it formalized, also, I advise you to create another RfC about whether it, overall, merits inclusion into the article. El_C 12:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Or conversely, if it constitutes longstanding text, whether it merits removal from the article. El_C 12:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Effectively the situation is that several editors have independently introduced paragraphs on the topic, with my attempt being the most recent. Previous versions were removed by two editors on grounds that they believed that it violated WP:NPOV. The version I put up, which put particular care into neutral language, such as calling Ngo's incorrect statements "false" without positing a motive or even intention behind the falsehood, has not been fully removed at any point in time that I am aware of although kyohyi removed the word "false" since they assert that returning the hammer to its rightful owner after it was removed from him in the course of his attack constitutes an "attack" and thus vindicates Ngo's claim that antifascists attacked the far-right protesters with the hammer. Simonm223 (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The way the material is currently presented in the article is problematic. It's possible Ngo was mistaken. However, it seems the presentation in the article is meant to imply, without actually stating, that this was a deliberate, dishonest claim made by Ngo. The single source suggesting that Ngo was coordinating with others is UNDUE and a BLP problem since it suggests criminal conspiracy with very limited evidence. This seems more like an attempt by some editors to include discrediting material as if Wikipedia's purpose is to tear down people we don't like vs creating neutral articles about subjects. Springee (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

That's what the RfC below aims to resolve. But if its scope is too narrow, you are welcome to launch a broader RfC that encompasses other points under contention. El_C 13:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
It would seem that certain editors mistake WP:IDONTLIKEIT for WP:NPOV. Considering Ngo's recent firing for explicitly coordinating with far-right figures, this example where far-right coordination has been implied with WP:RS is quite explicitly due inclusion. Frankly the language I used was toning down the accusations in the Oregonian which uses the word "lying" in the article lede while I made sure not to ascribe a motive to his false statement. Simonm223 (talk) 13:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
The problem is the paragraph leaves too much to the imagination. Since, as written it can easily imply dishonest intent we need to make that clear via RSs or be honest and say this isn't big picture DUE. Springee (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
If you believe that statement, as written, implies dishonesty, rather than (for instance) gross incompetence, perhaps the truth is that you believe him to be dishonest and are projecting that belief onto that statement of fact (that he made a false statement). Simonm223 (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
To assume gross incompetence you would have to show that the facts needed to conclude that his reporting was wrong were readily available to him and he just didn't look. Also, so far it appears he was correct about the hammer attack. I don't think any sources claim that was wrong. The disagreement seems to be if this should be looked at who used violence/weapons first and were they used defensively or offensively. Given what has been presented here I don't think a clear case has been made. So lets take for granted that the hammer started on the bus. Was it first used to defend people on the bus from an attack or used by people on the bus to attack. I don't see that any source makes that clear. If the initial use was defensive then I'm not sure Ngo's reporting could be seen as inconsistent with events. If the first use was offensive then it may be. Even there we have to assume Ngo had all the facts at hand. Look at the Sandman protest where so many people got the facts wrong because the videos that showed the larger picture didn't come out until after the reporting started. There simply isn't a clear narrative here. Springee (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I honestly don't know what to say to somebody who can look at the evidence presented and at Ngo's tweets and conclude that it appears he was correct about the hammer attack beyond perhaps Conservapedia would be a better fit for your editing preferences. Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
It's simple, did the people outside of the bus attack those inside the bus with a hammer? Correct me if I'm wrong but all sources say yes. Ngo's tweet said people on the bus were attacked by people outside the bus with a hammer, correct? If both of those statements are correct then Ngo's claims were factually correct (at least those I've seen, I will admit this isn't something I've researched personally). No where did I just say those outside the bus were or were not justified or acting in offense or defense. No where did I say those on the bus weren't the source of the hammer, were or were not attacked first, were or were not acting first in self defense. I think your view, which I'm not claiming is wrong, is that those on the bus brought the hammer, attacked those outside the but. The hammer was taken and then used against those on the bus. If that version is true I agree that, even if "people outside the bus attack people on bus with hammer" is factually correct, it is misleading since such a statement suggests people on the bus were victims rather than instigators. But, what I did was say we don't have enough evidence to say with certainty what happened and thus we shouldn't write the article in a way that suggests certainty or conclusions without proper RSs. Springee (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
But note that RS do say that the people outside the bus "charged" and "surrounded" the bus. So the people on the bus did not initiate the confrontation, and we don't know who committed the initial act of violence. For all we know, the people outside the bus initiated both the confronation and the violence. In that case, nothing Ngo said is even misleading. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)No, the far-right protesters on the bus attacked the antifascist counter-protesters with a hammer because having their escape route from Portland blocked made them afraid. The hammer was taken from them to end the attack and then their property was returned with all due alacrity. That is not an attack. Simonm223 (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I repeat, we do not know who initiated the violence. I don't know what RS you're depending on to explain to you what the bus riders state of mind and motive was. Please provide it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)You are mincing words here. Once the hammer was out of the bus it could have stayed out. Once it was turned and used on the bus and its occupants it was attacking the bus. The that may have been in self defense (I can "attack" someone in my home in self defense) but not linguistically incorrect to call it an attack. From the evidence presented in the 4 RfC sources, Ngo's quoted tweet seems factually correct. The question is if it was misleading via what it didn't state. Springee (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Shinealittlelight I would suggest, if you want to know who owned the hammer first, you should read the Daily Dot article which very clearly states it was the nazi. Simonm223 (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Read carefully now: I know that the bus riders had the hammer first. That does not settle who started the violence. We don't know who started the violence. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
We are not talking about who started the "violence", but who attacked whom with the hammer. We have video evidence that clearly explains what happens, who initiated lethal force first etc.. BeŻet (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Come back in a year and rewrite[edit]

The problem with the above discussion (and with the RFC below) is WP:RECENTISM. Because these events happened recently, we can not (yet) put them into a proper perspective. Do these events stand out as important turning points in the subject’s life (thus requiring detailed explanation), or are they part of a pattern of events that can be summarized? It is too soon to say. So... my advice... come back in a year and completely re-write this section of the article... by that time we will have a better grasp on whether these events should be discussed in detail or summarized. Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Do sources support calling Ngo's statements on the hammer attack "false"?[edit]

Do the following sources support inclusion of the statement that Ngo's claim that antifascists attacked far-right protesters with a hammer was false?

  1. Daily Dot
  2. Huffington Post
  3. Oregon Live
  4. Willamette Week Simonm223 (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


  • Yes These sources clearly show that Ngo made a false statement as he claimed the hammer attack was initiated by antifascists while these sources demonstrate that the hammer originated with the far right protesters and the antifascist who held it was simply returning it to its owner with force - an act of self defense rather than an attack. Particularly the Daily Dot is expressly about how editing of the hammer attack video was completed with the apparent intention to mislead. Simonm223 (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. The sources not only show the statements to have been false (SOP for Ngo) but also give compelling evidence in support of that claim, which has not been refuted as far as I can tell. Guy (help!) 12:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
See also Rolling Stone on Quilette's damnatio memoriae. Confirming the Oregon Live analysis: The Guardian / Irish Times, MMA. Guy (help!) 13:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, but... The huffpo article does not at all support what's being asked here (it mentioned the attack but nothing about the ensuing issue on Ngo's story about where the hammer originated from). Nor does the Williamette Week (it mentioned Ngo's previous run-in with Proud Boys, but not how Ngo covered the bus; the bus attac is a wholly separate part of that article). But the other two sources do clearly try to untangle the timeline of events. Looking at the text in this article, there are clearly wrong statements that need to be fixed. Ngo did provide evidence, but he doctored it to get the timeline he wanted to show (the counterprotestors attacking with the hammer) rather than the actual timeline of the bus group using the hammer first) , and there is nothing in the WW source to support that Ngo at this point in time worked with Proud Boys to influence his coverage of the bus event - yes, the WW does point out that a June altercation was a "hint" to Ngo that he should coordinate with the Proud Boys, but it is a bad, anti-BLP assumption to assume that was involved here without direct evidence. --Masem (t) 13:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes The narrative Ngo presented was false, and his claim was only technically correct on a very superficial level. The term "false narrative" is used a lot in the sources. Therefore, it is safe to say he made a false claim because the protesters did not "attack" but "retaliated". BeŻet (talk) 13:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what sources BeZet is referring to here, but FYI the phrase 'false narrative' does not appear in any of the four sources we're discussing in this RfC, nor does any of these four sources apply the word 'false' to Ngo's claims about the hammer attack. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • No. I think the whole story is undue, and the sourcing weak. Nobody will care about this little twitter fight in a year. Moreover, the sources do not say that Ngo made false statements; they only say that he failed to note that the bus riders were the ones who brought the hammer into the situation. To my knowledge, no one has yet produced a direct quote from these sources supporting the language of "false". Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes Ngo presented a false narrative, noted by multiple sources. Multiple sources go further to show that he did so using deceptive editing, with fuller, non-dishonestly-cut video of the incident clearly contradicting his claims. At this point clarity demands stating that Ngo's reporting on the incident, in both content and intent, is false. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Note 6YearsTillRetirement has been blocked indefinitely because the account owner is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts. [8]. --TFD (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Do you have those additional sources? I'm opposed to the current paragraph because it seems to take limited facts and try to imply a conclusion. If additional sourcing appears it might help clarify the gray areas here, in particular Ngo's intent. Springee (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: First, it does appear that the anti's attacked the far-righties with a hammer. Even if that hammer came from the hands of a far-righty, the statement would still be true. But that's not the bigger problem. The problem isn't if Ngo was correct or not. I wouldn't trust that sources that are so unsympathetic to Ngo are going to be 100% correct but that isn't the primary issue here. The primary issue is was Ngo deliberately misrepresenting the story? Let's assume Ngo was incorrect. What content should be added to the article? Currently the article reads like Ngo engaged in a conspiracy to lie about events and mislead the public via his reporting. Many reporters will observe a situation and get it wrong. That doesn't mean that was their intent. This is looking like a BLP problem since the text is implying this was a willful, dishonest representation of obvious facts instead of something that appears far more gray. Honestly, this whole things seems to be presented in an UNDUE fashion in the article. The sources above seem primarily to focus on the attack, not if/that Ngo got it wrong. The HuffPo, which is perhaps the most reliable of the bunch only mentions that Ngo was attacked in June. Reviewing the sources, the HuffPo doesn't really dive into the controversy and as such it's weak to say Ngo was wrong. The reporter simply didn't critically check that fact either way. The WW source only says that the far-right person used a hammer. That isn't enough detail one way or the other. Was it the only hammer? OL again many not be a very neutral source and given that this is a case where sympathy for one side or another could color reporting that is a problem. The OL source does suggest the hammer started on the bus but it's not clear if the first use was in self defense or offense. It certainly supports the claim that a hammer was used offensively against the people on the bus. Finally, the DD. The reporting again seems to have a very strong bias so we have to be careful with interpretation of facts. For example, it says antifa members assaulted Ngo. If I read up in the talk page history I see that is a point in dispute (antifa vs counter protesters vs just people in masks etc). So now we (as wiki editors) are being asked to accept some factual statements but ignore others. The DD says, "A clip of one masked counter-protester throwing a hammer through the open door of the bus was used by Ngo as proof of antifa terrorism."[emphasis mine] But the cited posts don't say "antifa terrorism". Again the DD article doesn't make it clear if the hammer was initially used only in self defense or was initially used for offense. Since the tone of the hammer material in the article is already, "Ngo is trying to mislead" I think this is just going to make things more problematic. Remove the whole thing. Springee (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • No per Shinealittlelight and Springee. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • NO - apparently antis attacked righties is correct so it is misleading to state that as false, and -after taking it from the righties - the more clearly visible actions of antis are with the hammer. I think it’s all UNDUE anyway, but poor reporting is not cured by WP doing worse reporting about it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Comment when you say "the more clearly visible actions of the antis" you circle back down to what causes the whole issue in the first place; the fact that Ngo's video, by all accounts, was dishonestly or selectively edited to make the actions of one group "more visible" by cutting out the actions of another group. I do suggest reading the sources and perhaps not using loaded phrasing such as "antis attacked righties" to begin with, though. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Is there a source that actually backs the accusation that the video was selectively presented and that cuts/edits were made to make the actions of one group "more visible"? While writing the article we can't engage in OR. However, when evaluating if a source is saying something that makes sense we can. Where is the evidence that Ngo was trying to deceive vs say reporting based on the information he had at the time. If/when cuts were made were they made with an intent to deceive or, for instance, to cut the video down to a reasonable length? Springee (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Selective editing was the focus of the Daily Dot article that I, and others, have been citing as the central source in this discussion. However the article is unclear whether Ngo did the editing himself or merely shared a selectively edited video. Considering the recent information that came to light about him offering to provide online cover to far-right groups in exchange for access, either is possible, and it's quite correct that Wikipedia should not speculate on which of those two scenarios is more likely. What the source says, and what we can say, is that the video he shared was edited selectively; if necessary I would not be opposed to qualifying inclusion of the source by saying it's unclear who edited it. Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not at all impressed with the Daily Dot article or the writer. Look at some of her other articles, they are often fluff crap. Their arguments to claim the video was misleading are weak. I see people on the street trying to get into the bus then someone on the bus trying to get them away while people on the street are trying to get in. Critically it appears the protesters on the ground are trying to stop the bus vs letting it pass. The protesters on the ground were the first to attack and things escalated from there. To be honest it looks like both sides were behaving badly so I'm not sure why we would see this as lying. It's very clear the DD editor isn't interested in discussing the assaults that both sides engaged in. Wikipedia shouldn't be picking sides. Springee (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I'll reply in the general comments area. Simonm223 (talk) 13:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment Should this RfC be rescoped to ask if the whole section is due? It seems like we are asking about a detail when the bigger picture should be if the whole topic should be included. Springee (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

It should not be. No. If you want to open a separate RfC it's up to you to post it. Simonm223 (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes The sources are clear that Ngo misrepresented the facts in order to portray antifa protesters in the worst possible light. He also recast an adult woman attacked by antifa as a young girl. TFD (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • No A "narrative" is different from a factual statement. Even the Daily Dot source supports the attack claim, but they claim that it creates a narrative that antifa initiated the encounter. We can document their argument about how they think the representation is misleading, but that doesn't make the factual statement false. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • No For one thing, all of the sources are articles written right after this happened. It's just one minor controversy involving a person whose entire career consists of stirring up controversies. There's no indication that this has any real lasting relevance. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a compendium of flash-in-the-pan events that received minor coverage for two days before being forgotten forever. Also, none of the sources verify the statement, "Ngo's claim that antifascists attacked far-right protesters with a hammer was false". The Huffington Post article barely mentions Ngo, and only then to describe him getting punched in the face as a background to the main story. Same with The Guardian and The Irish Times. Though the Williamette Week does discuss Ngo in more detail, it doesn't say that he made false statements about people getting hit with a hammer. The Oregon Live article is even worse. Here's the sentence that's being used to support the statement that he made false claims: 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 with inaccurate claims and limited context. That doesn't mean anything. It's so poorly written and vague that it's unclear what the hell the author is even trying to say. The rest of the article actually supports the claim that what Ngo tweeted was true. What he said happened did happen. He neglected to say who had the hammer first, but protesters did attack the bus, did pull people out of the bus, and did throw a hammer at someone in the bus. The only one of the sources listed that comes close is the Daily Dot, and even that one doesn't support the proposed addition. People linked videos from other angles, shared screenshots, and slowed down footage. As it turns out, the man Ngo identified as a victim brought the hammer into the conflict. The fact that this guy brought the hammer doesn't change the fact that someone else took the hammer from him and threw it at him later. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes and they also state Ngo's propensity for providing misleading information in general, and not just this one incident. Williamallison (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. The important part is the Daily Dot source (which is the one that places the most focus on Ngo personally), saying: As various clips were posted and shared, distinctly different narratives took form highlighting the ease of spreading disinformation and propaganda. In fact, misinformation made it all the way up to the president’s favorite television show, Fox & Friends. Even though he didn’t attend this time, Ngo was again involved. More generally, the people above saying that the sources support the idea that Antifa "attacked" people with the hammer are false - they seem careful to say that the hammer was thrown back onto the bus, which (with the context that the hammer was brought by the Proud Boys on the bus and was, therefore, being thrown back to them) may or may not be an attack depending on the details of the throw and where it was aimed. Either way, the sources very pointedly decline to characterize it as an attack, so we clearly can't use that in the article text here (though it may be getting too far afield from what really matters anyway, which is Ngo's involvement in the usage of the video for propaganda purposes. In fact, that is his only involvement, since he didn't shoot either video.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes - Sources are sufficient to show that Ngo's claim that antifascists attacked far-right protesters with a hammer was false. Arguing about the precise ways in which it was false is pointless and pedantic. A lie of omission is still a lie, etc. Grayfell (talk) 03:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. -- per most of the above, though I am still somewhat iffy on whether this is yet WP:DUE. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

General discussion[edit]

I have posted RfC notices to WP:BLP/N, WP:NPOV/N and WP:RS/N as relevant noticeboards. Simonm223 (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

  • This was covered on last Thursday's Behind The Bastards, if anyone's interested. Guy (help!) 13:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Springee, Oregon Live are the local newspaper and had people on the ground. This is good old fashioned journalism, and clearly establishes that Ngo's coverage of events was characteristically misleading. It's pretty clear by now that he is in the "very fine people on both sides, except the ones who aren't neo-Nazis" camp. Guy (help!) 13:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
That doesn't mean they are unbiased which is critical when we are accepting of their interpretation of events. Remember this is a BLP so we should err on the side of caution when implying dishonest or unsavory actions by the subject. Springee (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Springee: ok I'll bite. Exactly what would it take for you to consider a reputable news outlet "unbiased"? I've re-read your walls of text multiple times and you appear to be dressing WP:IDONTLIKEIT in BLP clothing without much actual argument for BLP given that the coverage is in multiple reputable sources. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Prior to today I haven't commented on this topic. Springee (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Remove the whole discussion There is really no reason this should be in the article. It's yet another case where we have some material presented in a Wiki article with no context and certainly none provided by RSs. As the text appears in the wiki article it seems to suggest that Ngo was deliberately lying. However, there is no evidence of that. Consider two lines of thought. The first is that Ngo is factually wrong. In that case did Ngo knowingly publish information he knew to be false? If yes, then we might have something. If no, then this is just another reporter who got a story wrong. The other line is that Ngo was only partially wrong. All the sources do support the claim that the bus was attacked with a hammer. The gray area was did the hammer come from the bus (sources that we can't consider unbiased say yes it did). Even less clear was did the hammer appear first in self defense or in offense? If the hammer was used initially in self defense then taken away by those outside the bus then used to attack the bus that is a different story vs used to assault those outside the bus then turn against those in the bus. Either way, there is just way to much ambiguity here to put a paragraph in a BLP that even implies this was deliberately misleading reporting. Springee (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Springee It does bear noting that Ngo was caught coordinating with far-right figures to provide them protection online in exchange for access around the same time as this event. This was a situation of a conflict of interest so dire that even Quillette saw fit to fire him coincidentally fired him the day the information came to light for absolutely no stated reason. Simonm223 (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Quilette has not stated a reason why he left their organization. This is BLP vio. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Still a BLP vio, since they have said they didn't fire him. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Come on. Let's not be silly here. He was fired. How Quillette decided to spin the firing so as not to anger their fanbase of hard-right Phrenology fans is neither here nor there. To reiterate, I dispute it's in any way, shape or form a BLP violation to say that the former journalist Andy Ngo was fired. Simonm223 (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Pretending he wasn't fired is just silliness, agreed. The video came out and within 24 hours he was removed from the masthead and booted. Quillette's claim he "resigned" instead has all the hallmarks of a classic forced resignation and a bit of a cover-up via the "official announcement". 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I believe there are some sources that dispute that coordination claim. Springee (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
It is 100% original research to tie the previous Ngo/Proud Boys thing that happened in June to how Ngo covered this event. Violates NOR and BLP, unless you have a source that explicitly makes this claim. --Masem (t) 13:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, but Wikipedia really doesn't care what Breitbart thinks about anything. Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Masem, the Willamette Week source above makes this claim pretty explicitly, saying "It is increasingly clear [Ngo] is coordinating his movements and his message with right-wing groups." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
But it does not explicitly say that Ngo's coverage of the bus event was influenced by Proud Boys. You cannot make that leap of logic without violating BLP. That his message is influenced by right-wing groups definitely should be stated as a claim in the article somewhere. --Masem (t) 13:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Masem, I guess I am missing where someone has made that claim? And, just to be clear, by "coverage," we mean the tweets sent out by Mr. Ngo's private account, yes? Dumuzid (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
The main space article, as the last line of the para on the bus/hammer story, has Audio and video recordings related to the incidents showed that Ngo had coordinated his activities and editing of videos with the white supremacist groups involved in the rally. sourced to the WW article linked above. WW does not make this direct connect - it hints it is there by acknowleding the prior Ngo/Proud Boys confrontation, but never explicitly states that the bus/hammer story was influenced by these groups. I mean, there is Occum's Razor and all, but BLP/NOR does not allow us to make that jump, particularly with only a single source behind it. --Masem (t) 16:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean. I would agree the implication there is a bridge too far, even if all the building blocks are factual. I'll think about if there isn't a way to present it more neutrally. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
As I said, the statement, applied to generally any right-wing rally/event Ngo covers, is something to include, though at least sourced/attributed to WW if there's not other soruces. It could be higher in the article. That leads the trail of breadcrumbs for the reader to go "Hmm, there might be a connection". --Masem (t) 16:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Calling to remove the whole discussion is not healthy, imho. There clearly is an important discussion happening with multiple different opinions. BeŻet (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Springee that the story should definitely be removed as there was never a consensus for inclusion, and it is undue. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
There was consensus for inclusion in a modified form. BeŻet (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
No, there was not. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Looking at the discussion here ["Ngo_made_several_inacurrate_claims_about_the_events_that_unfolded"_is_not_supported_by_the_source] it was a solid no consensus. Since it wasn't long ago I will also throw my hat into the no camp, via my recent comments. Springee (talk) 01:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Dumuzid My argument for this incident being due is that it is a clear demonstration of the ways in which Ngo fails as a journalist. As his label as a "journalist" is definitely contentious, a recent example (IE: not something dredged up from his student days) demonstrates clearly his tendency to share incorrect information and to frame stories to attack antifascists and support fascists and other far-right ideologues. And that speaks toward demonstrating how the "journalist" label is contentious as opposed to "propagandist." Simonm223 (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Since I was invoked by name, please forgive me for briefly thinking out loud: I definitely understand that point, Simonm223, but for me, we need to judge it based on the reliable sources--and they certainly exist to support your stance, but I am a proponent of seeing how things develop over time. So you can count me as still on the fence, though I lean toward inclusion. As for the "journalist" label, I haven't weighed in because I think of that as fairly neutral. There are great journalists in the world, but also schlocky journalists, deceptive journalists, and downright unintelligent journalists, just as there are members of every other profession. I therefore have no problem calling Mr. Ngo a journalist, I just think we show (through the use of reliable sources) what sort of journalist he is. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I recited that dark incantation user notification because I honestly appreciate where you're coming from on this one. The truth is I don't think Ngo is likely that encyclopedic in the long run. After his firing from Quillette, I suspect his fifteen minutes of fame, such as they were, are likely up and in a few years we'll probably be seeing an inactive page about a briefly newsworthy grifter. As such, I am not certain much of anything will develop over time. I still think his pattern of behaviour, which bears striking similarity to that of James O'Keefe, is more appropriately propaganda than journalism. However, since Ngo is a marginal figure, mostly of interest either to antifascists, pro-fa agitators, and people living in Portland, there just isn't a large body of work on his propaganda efforts within that context, particularly not from any source Wikipedia would consider reliable. It's quite frustrating that a category of people exist who are notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, but insignificant enough that few sources exist to neutrally delve into their notability. Ngo is just such a frustrating subject. Simonm223 (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I have to say, the argument (following is my paraphrase) "Other sources don't characterize the throw as an attack makes it not an attack therefore what Andy Ngo is saying is false." seems awfully like favoring one POV over another. It could just as easily be argued that "The sources don't classify the throw as a non-attack, therefore what Andy Ngo said is true." Though I think it would be more accurate to say "Since the sources do not confirm nor deny that the throw was an attack, we cannot use such sources to confirm nor deny that an attack happened. So, the sources add nothing about whether the statement is true or false." --Kyohyi (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, Springee I didn't want to have more threaded discussion in !votes. If your concern is that you don't trust the reliability of the daily dot, I'd suggest bringing the question of that source in this context to WP:RS/N. Because your opinion of that journalist's other articles isn't really appropriate to the scope of this discussion; there has been no reason to doubt the reliability of the Daily Dot as a source prior. Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Good call on bringing it down here. I'm not suggesting the DD is generally unreliable, rather than people are trying to claim, based on this story, that the subject of a BLP deliberately and in an egregious way, distorted information. If nothing else, why would we think the DD reporter is accurate for the analysis they put together? People here have repeatedly claimed that Ngo tried to mislead but the evidence is scant. Springee (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
It's probably worth noting, that the coverage by Daily Dot, Williamette week, and a few others has been criticized in sources like Reason [[9]]. The interpretation provided by those sources is disputed in other sources, we can't take what they say as inherent fact, but at best be documenting what they say. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
From like the first paragraph of the Reason article: This information strengthens concerns about the selectivity of Ngo's reporting, Simonm223 (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)While also showing there is a clear bias in the sources that are claiming more than they have evidence to support. Yet again, this is a good reason to simply remove the entire hammer attack mess from the article. The facts simply aren't clear. Springee (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
So in other words @Springee: you just don't like what it says, you don't actually question whether Daily Dot is a WP:RS? Also you might want to strike or refactor your "Look at some of her other articles, they are often fluff crap" line; accusing women reporters of writing nothing but "fluff" has misogynist connotations based in deprofessionalizing women. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Please stop with the "I don't like it" BS. It's a way for you to accuse me of bad faith and dismiss legitimate concerns that you appear to not like. Again, since this is a BLP and the material is in dispute let's just remove it and move on. That is what CONSENSUS says to do. Springee (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@Kyohyi: From the source you just posted (though I'm not sure "Reason", as a think-tank advocacy publication first and foremost, counts as WP:RS): "Critics say that Ngo selectively edits his videos of the scuffles to make it seem like antifa activists are the aggressors. Some of these critics have a point..." 6YearsTillRetirement (talk)
Reason is a published magazine with an editorial process. It's a RS, if you dispute it take it to RSN. Note the use of "Some" not "All". And more specifically he disagrees with Williamette Week's interpretation of Andy Ngo coordinating with Right wing groups. We can't be taking arguments and be presenting them as fact. That's not NPOV. We need to be documenting who's making what arguments. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@Springee: No, it's not. It's what you appear to be saying by your arguments when you claim you don't dispute Daily Dot as a WP:RS but you dispute just the one journalist while using some language with a pretty heavy root in deprofessionalizing misogyny towards women journalists. That's why I politely asked you to refactor your statement. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Just as I suggested Springee should consult WP:RS/N with regard to The Daily Dot, I'd suggest if you don't believe Reason to be reliable in this context you should consult RS/N 6Years. While I have my issues with Reason, and the "rational skeptic" movement, I wouldn't generally contend that they don't constitute an RS. However I'd reiterate that the Reason article is supportive of the idea that there are issues with Ngo's reporting - specifically selectivity, which is rather key to this discussion. I don't think the Reason source can be used to support that Ngo's statements were not false, and I don't believe, having read it, that the Reason article is very strong for contradicting the Daily Dot article. But I don't intend to suggest it wouldn't be treated as an RS by Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I think the problem here is the desire to base most of the more damning accusation on sources that Reason rightly showed to have flaws in their own reporting. Why would I trust DD's view on a subject when another source has shown that the DD has been wrong or misleading on the same topic? Since this is a BLP we really should back away from the controversy and leave it as unsolved in the Wiki article. Springee (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)We don't generally, except in the most egregious of cases, use a statement of one reliable source to declare another, otherwise reliable source as unreliable as that's not in keeping with WP:NPOV. Furthermore, as I said before, I don't think the critique of the Reason article actually does much to dismiss that Ngo said misleading things. He admits to errors of fact. Reason says explicitly that his reporting is selective. The text we've been discussing categorically did not claim he was collaborating with patriot prayer. It just said his reporting was false, inaccurate, wrong. And Reason doesn't contradict that. Simonm223 (talk) 14:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
And none of the sources say that his reporting on the hammer was false, innacurate, nor wrong. They say that it was incomplete, and paints a narrative that they disagree with. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
You have certainly made it clear that this is your opinion with regard to the sources. Others may differ. Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Right-wing conservative journalist[edit]

@Jweiss11: (regarding this revert) there are multiple sources, probably as many if not more, calling Ngo "right-wing". If you say this is redundant, I would opt for just keeping right-wing, since it is a better descriptor; Ngo's activism has little to do with the central tenants of conservatism, and more with the wider right-wing movement, hence it is a better adjective for the lead if two is too many. BeŻet (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

It's certainly shouldn't say "right-wing" and "conservative" as that is jarringly redundant. Per the previous discussion above and source cited in the article, "conservative" appears to be used more often than "right-wing". As you may know, I'm not a big fan of labeling Ngo as a conservative in the lead in Wikipedia's voice, as it stands now. I would say that Ngo's work has largely been aimed to shed light on bad behavior by far-left actors, which could as easily be described as centrist or moderate liberal as "right-wing". Jweiss11 (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I have no idea in what universe what he does could be described as centrist or moderate liberal since it's closer to far-right propaganda than anything else; however there have been plenty of more sources that have appeared since the last comparison and those need to be accounted for now. BeŻet (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
He's a conservative journalist, per the New York Times and similar high quality RS that are listed above on this page. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Like I said, there are plenty of "high quality RS" that call him "right-wing". BeŻet (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
No, there aren't. The majority call him a conservative. You're pushing Rolling Stone and Vice News over the New York Times and ABC News. It's absurd. If you like, we could go with the Washington Post, which calls him an independent journalist. But we're not going to go with a partisan music magazine over the New York Times. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
That's false per evidence below. BeŻet (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
You can claim it's false only if you treat all sources listed as of equal quality, which is of course not our policy. You might want to have a look at WP:RS. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
And what exactly are you referring to my fellow editor? Perhaps you are the one who should read WP:RS because it doesn't tell us anything about "source quality" and how somehow the sources your like are of "higher quality". BeŻet (talk) 14:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I think that as an international encyclopedia we should avoid using the term conservative which means something different in the U.S. than in the rest of world, where it refers to supporters of throne and altar. TFD (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
TFD, if reliable sources are describing a an American subject in the context of American politics with American terms, those American terms should be used. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Why? TFD (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Because that honors the fundamental principles of Wikipedia? Jweiss11 (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Which ones? TFD (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
1) Reflect the sources and 2) if terminology differs regionally, use the regional terminology local to the subject. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
while articles must reflect the source, there is no requirement to use the exact same language, particularly when it use might lead to confusion. I am unfamiliar with the second principle. Could you please point to the relevant policy or guideline. TFD (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I looked at all the sources that we currently use in the article and tried to sort out how they describe him.


  1. ^ a b
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^
  6. ^
  7. ^
  8. ^
  9. ^
  10. ^
  11. ^
  12. ^
  13. ^
  14. ^
  15. ^ a b
  16. ^
  17. ^
  18. ^
  19. ^
  20. ^
  21. ^
  22. ^
  23. ^
  24. ^
  25. ^
  26. ^
  27. ^
  28. ^ a b
  29. ^
  30. ^
  31. ^
  32. ^
  33. ^
  34. ^
  35. ^
  36. ^
  37. ^
  38. ^
  39. ^
  40. ^
  41. ^
  42. ^
  43. ^
  44. ^
  45. ^
  46. ^
  47. ^
  48. ^
  49. ^>
  50. ^
  51. ^
  52. ^
  53. ^
  54. ^
  55. ^
  56. ^
You can all draw your own conclusions, but it seem to me that conservative writer or conservative journalist are the most commonly used descriptions. Vexations (talk) 01:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for this. Good job. If you use this well-regarded "media bias" chart, and you restrict your attention to their top circle of RS, no source in your list that calls him "right-wing" appears in the top circle of the chart. Meanwhile, NYT, WaPo, The Independent, NBC News, and ABC News call him "conservative". It's not even a contest. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
That's false, there are 5 instances of 'conservative', 5 instances of 'right-wing' and 4 instances of 'far-right'. 'Conservative' clearly doesn't dominate, and quite clearly he is more often described as on the "right". To quote User:Shinealittlelight (talk · contribs), it's not even a contest. BeŻet (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Surprised I have to say this, but we don't normally treat the New York Times the same as Jacobin here at Wikipedia. High quality RS should guide the way we present the information. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Also, I count 18 sources in the list above that call him conservative, not 5. Where did you get that number? Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I mean Jacobin? Another editor rightly doubted the legitimacy of Breitbart above. We should feel the same way about Jacobin and Salon and few others here. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Comparing Jacobin to Breitbart is absolute nonsense. Utter nonsense. Jacobin, a widely respected magazine and book publisher that collaborates with scholars, professors and important and respected political figures is nothing like Breitbart, a glorifed far-right blog posting unverified claims constanly. It is utterly insanse to make that comparison. I'm stunned. BeŻet (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Jweiss11, I was reading this and it reminded me of this discussion. There is an important distinction be made between biased reporting and untruthfulness, and the author makes the case better than I could. We shouldn't be afraid to use biased sources. We will try as hard as possible to make and keep our articles NPOV, but we can't do that by only using sources that claim to have no bias. As forJacobin, the chart you cited puts them in the top left quadrant (hyper-partisan/complex analysis) of the fair interpretations of the news box, and Breitbart in the lower right (propaganda/conservative utter garbage) nonsense damaging to public discourse box. There's no equivalence. We should not feel the same about their legitimacy. Vexations (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Unlike Breitbard, Jacobin doesn't have a history of fabrication and lies. And frankly, I don't see how its editorial stance is any more or less POV than the NYT. Sorry, no. Jacobin is just fine even if far-right figures wish it wasn't so. (Honestly it isn't even that radical.) Simonm223 (talk) 12:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree that Jacobin is not Breitbart, but this is a red herring. The correct comparison here is between places like Jacobin or Media Matters, on the one hand, and places like ABC News, the New York Times, Washington Post, and so on, on the other hand. The major respected news organizations in the above list--the ones that are regarded as of highest reliability by the media bias chart I linked--are all calling him conservative. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, but your chart is pointless. Simonm223 (talk) 12:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
So you think Jacobin or Media Matters should be assigned equal weight with ABC News and NYT and WaPo? Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Jacobin certainly should. Then again, that's a low bar. I don't assign any particular significance to ABC News, the Washington Post or the New York Times. They're all just corporate media. Simonm223 (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── If you care to look through the WP:RS/N archives you'll see that my skeptical relationship toward the use of corporate media is a long-running issue not connected specifically to any given article set. Simonm223 (talk) 12:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

That view is out of step with WP:RS. I'm sure you have your reasons, but that's not a workable take on RS for Wikipedia, it seems to me, and so I don't think you're going to get consensus around here to treat Jacobin and NYT the same. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
If you want to raise the question of whether Jacobin is a reliable source you know where to go. As far as I'm concerned, the argument you presented here (including the chart) is entirely without merit. Simonm223 (talk) 12:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think you're going to get consensus around here to treat Jacobin and NYT the same – why? There is absolutely nothing in Wikipedia rules to support your statement. Read the whole of WP:RS please. Jacobin is not a WP:QUESTIONABLE source because it hasn't got a poor reputation for checking the facts or no editorial oversight. BeŻet (talk) 14:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The terms are similar, but not identical and not mutually exclusive. As both have been used in reputable reporting, we should be fine keeping both here. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 13:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I honestly don't see how WaPo is more reliable than Jacobin. Even WaPo's "fact checks" are heavily critisized for being highly biased and inacurrate. Likewise NYT has bias; all media sources are partisan and biased. But I digress: we should focus more on the sources that appeared after he was exposed as a grifter, not before when he managed to fool the media. BeŻet (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest that "conservative" is less problematic and sufficient in this case for wiki voice. I do see the concern raised that some of the sources are very left biased and seem to use "far-right" as a pejorative. This seems to be used frequently by lower quality (but still RS) such as HuffPo, Vice and Rolling Stone. The more traditional news sources, WashPo, NYT, ABC use conservative. It would be reasonable to say sources have also described him as "far-right" but given the loaded nature of that term it shouldn't be in Wiki voice. This is a BLP article so we should always err on the side of avoiding labels that could be considered controversial or include attribution in cases where they are used. Springee (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. Right-wing is a wider term and more inclusive, and encompases more of his views. Once again, look at the sources after he was exposed. Previously media called him what they were told he was, and a lot of them reported on him for the first time when he got punched and right-wing media set the narrattive. BeŻet (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I have to agree with Bezet on this one. @Springee: just to be sure, I re-read the WP:BLP policy now and your representation of it seems to be stretching the policy, especially as "far-right" is not listed in WP:LABEL to begin with (though I understand why extreme conservative activists would love to paint themselves DARVO-style as somehow victims when their positions are properly recognized in position on the political spectrum). It would be fair for the lede to point out that he has been described as conservative, as right-wing, and far-right, each sourced inline. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Considering there does not appear to be a consensus among sources about precisely how close to the far-right tNgo is, I'd say 6years' suggestion is probably the most appropriate one from a BLP perspective. Simonm223 (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I would support an attributed list. I think that plus some acknowledgement of what Ngo calls himself would probably be a good compromise. It sidesteps concerns about using Wikivoice for something that may be contentious and I suspect it would be "acceptable if not preferred" for most editors. Springee (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
@Springee: The best example I can show you is Richard B. Spencer. It is unquestionable that Spencer is a neo-nazi and white supremacist even though he personally "rejects those labels" in favor of other, weasel-wordy terms. Ngo isn't far off the mark here, the reporting is extremely solid on where his political views and rhetoric and the storylines he attempts to create with dishonest editing fall, whether or not he rejects the description.
In a related note, the sourcing on the sentence "Ngo has been widely described as right-wing and conservative, although he does not describe himself as such" in Political Views needs cleaning up. It looks like at least some of those sources only support the first clause, not the second, and sticking all the sources at the end is dubiously close to WP:SYNTH.
I don't see us disagreeing here. Something like, "Ngo is described as right-wing, conservative, X and Y [sources]. Ngo describes himself as Z[sources]". Springee (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Springee, I agree with you that the article, in lead and body, should say something like "Ngo is described as...Ngo describes himself". I've argued earlier with respect to the lead. However, other editors here want a firm declaration, in Wikipedia's voice, of Ngo's political alignment. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Ngo's self-description is irrelevant. It's a standard tactic of the far-right to claim they are closer to the center of the political spectrum than they really are in order to shift the Overton Window. Wikipedia should not be an amplification system for such antics. Simonm223 (talk) 12:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
What is the harm? Are readers of the article better or worse off by saying what NGO considers himself vs what others label him? Springee (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I mean I literally just described the harm in my previous comment. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
No, you described why you think how description is wrong. You didn't articulate how this harms the reader of the article. Why is their understanding of the subject diminished? Springee (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Then let me spell this out for you: giving any WP:DUE credence to the self-description of far-right media figures explicitly harms the neutrality of Wikipedia by using it as an amplification vehicle for the attempts of the far-right to shift the Overton Window. As such, and per WP:PROFRINGE we should use secondary sources to describe the position of fringe political actors such as Ngo. Effectively, Ngo is not a reliable source for his position within the political spectrum. Simonm223 (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Valuing the opinions and honoring the bias of politically-biased editors to the point where it distorts article content also compromises the neutrality of Wikipedia. That's exactly what's happening here. Jweiss11 (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I'll thank you to remember WP:NPA. Simonm223 (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Simonm223, remember above when when you PA'd another editor? "I honestly don't know what to say to somebody who can look at the evidence presented and at Ngo's tweets and conclude that it appears he was correct about the hammer attack beyond perhaps Conservapedia would be a better fit for your editing preferences". Jweiss11 (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Ngo is a reliable source for his statements as to what he classifies himself. The Due argument is weak since the subject of what Ngo should be classified as is already due for the article. Are we saying no sources quote Ngo claiming he is X? I haven't verified if the claim comes from or if it comes from an article/interview with Ngo. If the latter then DUE is doubly satisfied. Profringe doesn't really apply. Are we suggesting it is a fringe theory that Ngo considered himself to be X? This isn't his theory on something. We aren't trying to suggest why a flat Earth theory is actually sound. Here we are simply stating that he considers him self to be X. It's a perfectly reasonable follow up to "others consider him to be Y and Z". Not censored says being objectionable is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content and I don't see how his views are even that objectionable. Springee (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, from an earlier discussion, [[10]]. The Guardian says Ngo considers himself a journalist. So I think we can cover DUE. Springee (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Springee, repeating falsehoods credulously without accurately reporting how they are false harms reader understanding of a topic (especially in cases where someone or some group are known to misrepresent their position in the political spectrum for the purposes of mainstreaming hate and extremism). Simonm223 is correct about this as I read the policy; Ngo is not a credible source to place himself on the political spectrum and the "he considers himself" is "unduly self-serving" (point 1) with "reasonable doubt as to the authenticity" (e.g. honesty) (point 4) per WP:SELFSOURCE, since his honesty is in doubt. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
6YearsTillRetirement, apologies for removing your comment. That was an accident. I intended to revert your edit on the article, not your comment on the talk page here! Jweiss11 (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Jweiss11: I'm going to have to ask, did you even read what you reverted? None of those sources support the "although he does not describe himself as such" clause of the sentence. Unsourced or poorly sourced, dubious material and claims violate WP:BLP. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
6YearsTillRetirement, as for your last comment replying to Springee, Ngo is in, fact rather centrist politically. There's a campaign by many hard-left journalists and far-left activists to smear him as some sort of far-right extremist, and unfortunately that effort is being reinforced by a number or editors here. This article is, frankly, is disaster, and a total compromise of Wikipedia's aims for neutrality. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I'm familiar with what I reverted. Multiple editors are running a defamatory hit-job here. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, you certainly appear to have an agenda, which is pretty much evidenced when you start accusing others of "running a defamatory hit-job" and so on. There's not much I can do other than note it. I politely ask you once more to reconsider what appears to be a knee-jerk motion, since you did it so quickly and unthinkingly you admit doing it on the wrong page the first time, and in doing so you restored claims that are not supported by the inline source. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
6years, There is nothing false about saying "Ngo considers himself X". That is a fact. It is supported by The Guardian and the Rogan interview. We are not claiming in Wiki voice that Ngo is what Ngo claims, only that Ngo claims that. We are also saying what others say to the same question. It's clear there isn't a real consensus answer among the other sources. The "self-serving" claim is beyond a stretch. We aren't posting a manifesto here. As I asked Simonm223, how does "Ngo considers himself X" harm readers? With regards to your material removal [[11]], I agree with removal of the Rogan interview quotes but not the earlier line. Can we meet half way on that? Springee (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Springee, none of those inline sources support the 2nd half of that sentence. If you can show the wording they use that you believe does in this talk page, be my guest but I literally read through all four to be sure before removing that half of the sentence. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
6YearsTillRetirement, my agenda here is to build an encyclopedia. That's what hundreds of thousands of edits over a decade and half testify to. What is your agenda here? Jweiss11 (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not the one making unsupportable conspiracy theory or battleground-mentality claims like "a campaign by many hard-left journalists and far-left activists to smear him as some sort of far-right extremist" or "Multiple editors are running a defamatory hit-job here." They're not helpful to a discussion. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
It's not an unsupportable conspiracy theory. It's commonplace political collaboration. Hard-leftists have a well-documented history of labeling anyone sufficiently to their left as "far-right". Hard-righties can distort reality in similar ways as well. We've got a major bias problem here. There has to be a place somewhere on Wikipedia to discuss it with out someone crying about personal attacks or "battleground-mentality". Jweiss11 (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment It looks to me like there's some individual WP:POV issues here. "Conservative" is a more appropriate description, there's no need or call for additional wording. We wouldn't say "conservative right wing" in conversation, so it really shouldn't be put here--unless, in conversation, someone was pushing for a particular point of view--in that case, they might say "conservative right wing" or "liberal left wing" or "orange-green slippery Martian". There is no need for extra adjectives--that makes the text and content more wordy and less encyclopedic. Further, pushing for more seems to be brining editors' personal preference into the article and we seek to avoid that. Even if it isn't a case of an editor pushing a POV, it looks like it is and that should be avoided.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    • A little research Here is CNN] calling him a "young, conservative journalist." For the sake of this article, we could drop "young" and keep it at "conservative journalist" --- that should be fine and really be enough to close this big discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
If you review the full discussion you will see one of the main issues with that. It's stale and outdated due to the recent developments. The 2nd issue @Paulmcdonald: is that you've linked an opinion piece, not actual CNN, so it's not actually CNN calling him that, per WP:RSOPINION. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
The problem with terms like conservative and right-wing is that they only make sense when context is provided. Conservative for exampe could describe anyone from George H.W. Bush to David Duke, and has been applied to hardline Soviet leaders and the ayatollahs. The sources used provide context but our use of the term in this article doesn't. TFD (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree, labels like "conservative, liberal, right-wing, left-wing" all are a matter of opinion: there's no "yardstick" or "hard measurement" that is used to classify--we have to use opinions. Therefore, an "opinion piece" in a reliable source should indeed settle the issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
"Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable." - from WP:RSOPINION. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we've fully adressed the argument about how newer sources should be preferred over older sources, when the media didn't know much about Ngo. BeŻet (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Are the newer sources as reliable as the old ones? If an older article by the NYT says "conservative journalist" and a recent article by VICE or Daily Beast says "right-wing agitator" which should we trust more? I would say the NYT. Springee (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
An article based on information - particularly credulous repetition of the subject's self-labeling - before a significant sea change / powerful revelation is inherently flawed. It would be like giving weight to an interview from Mel Gibson claiming not to be a bigot from a month before his drunk driving arrest, while ignoring the transcript of the arrest replete with Gibson repeating anti-semitic slurs. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Many of the initial sources wrote about Ngo for the first time when he got punched (mainly because Andy did nothing notable before, apart from writing an offensive article about London that was talked about a bit more, mainly in negative terms). I wouldn't say those sources had a lot of knowledge regarding his activities and ideaology at the time, and it's quite possible that those sources just repeated the descriptor that appeared early on ("conservative journalist"). Now that time has passed and people had time to research him, and damning evidence has surfaced related to his actions, more revent descriptions, in my view, seem more important and valid. BeŻet (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
So we should follow the muckrakers rather than the most reliable sources. Springee (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Firstly, labelling your preferred sources as "most reliable" isn't constructive. Secondly, popularity of a source does not indicate how reliable it is. Finally, we have reliable sources who have described him in a certain way after he got "unmasked", while the past sources didn't follow up on his person later on. BeŻet (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I have more faith that the NYT, WashPo ABC news etc will be more objective and neutral than the second string reporters at things like The Daily Beast, VICE, etc. Springee (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Luckily on Wikipedia it doesn't mattter much how you personally feel about those sources. I for example think WaPo is farsically partisan and full of inacuraccies, yet I won't call for banning it as a source. BeŻet (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Luckily consensus does matter. I'm glad that neither of us have called for banning a source... I certainly didn't. Springee (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
You seem to be inconsistent on what you call objective, neutral, reliable, etc, based more on what you like and don't like. Since previously above[12] you were trying to argue that Huffington Post was more reliable than The Oregonian (whose online presence is Oregon Live). 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
"I don't like it" isn't a talisman that will save your argument. Springee (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Be that as it may, 6Years has every right to point out that your argument regarding the reliability of sources seems inconsistent - Previously you argued that you preferred the (new media) Huffington Post over the staid local Oregonian. Now you're arguing for the staid, traditional mass media over new media. There's nothing inherently more reliable about the New York Times than Vice. Both have editorial standards, both will issue corrections when they get things wrong and, frankly, both engage in a gamut of journalism from sensationalist clickbait through long-form investigative work. What's going on here is, generally a misinterpretation of WP:DUE. As I mentioned previously, when we have a variety of opinions on a topic coming from a variety of reliable sources, we should demonstrate that there is not agreement within reliable sources by stating that he has been characterized variously as a conservative, a far-right provocateur, etc. We shouldn't be deciding in Wiki voice which of the multitude of ways this BLP has been described is the most-correct one. Simonm223 (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
6years, and you are taking a comment said in one context and trying to distort it to fit in this context. None of which addresses the larger point, why should we take the opinion on news sources that are more tabloid in nature and don't have the reputation for accuracy that the NYT, WP et al. have earned and use their opinion instead? Then again, I thought we had a reasonable solution which was to attribute all the descriptions. I know we didn't agree with including Ngo's description as reported in other sources but that we can still debate. It's notable that currently we have no consensus on this so perhaps we should simply remove any contentious portion of the description from the article. Springee (talk) 12:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── You have not established that this is the case - are you actually saying you believe Vice to be a tabloid? Or The Daily Beast? I would suggest, as I have referred you regarding other rather extreme complaints you have regarding some of the sources used in this article, that this would be a matter best raised at WP:RS/N where I suspect you may face some pushback on the suggestion these sources are not reliable. Simonm223 (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

ETA Having re-read your comment I don't believe we disagree in broad-strokes that statements regarding his political position should A) be attributed to their sources and B) should come from reliable sources. It's just I contend that some of the sources that call Ngo, who has been recorded coordinating activities with Patriot Prayer, far-right should be treated as reliable and that Ngo should not himself be treated as reliable as his comments on Joe Rogan could be construed as an attempt to shift the Overton Window. After all, it's a widely discussed piece of political science that the far-right attempts to manipulate the Overton Window. And if we have a figure who is variously described by reliable third parties as conservative through far-right and he claims to be centrist. Well... That claim is [dubious ] at best. Simonm223 (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Once again, let me rephrase the issue: we have a lot of reliable sources describing Ngo in different ways, and we need to find a way to comb through them to find a good term encompassing everything. I am suggesting we express preference for more recent sources that have discussed Ngo after his mask slipped, and sources that have investigated his activities more deeply, compared to sources that just reported on him getting punched in the face (and did not follow with any story about him afterwards). BeŻet (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

And once again, I suggest we stick with the more established, reliable, less reactionary sources for the description. The "mask slipped" is a debated claim and seems to be one that some cling to as justification for biased reporting. Sorry. At this point I would suggest sticking with the current lead. It's largely unchanged from a month back and we have no consensus for "right-wing" etc. Springee (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
You have avoided answering my question concerning whether you truly believe certain sources you mentioned, including Vice Media and The Daily Beast to be tabloids and unreliable as sources. I understand you prefer the New York Times in this instance. I'm not advocating to prefer Vice over it just to give WP:DUE mention to both. Simonm223 (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Do you know what reactionary means? And one more time, painting those sources as more reliable is your own personal opinion. There is nothing present in Wikipedia guidelines that would define them as more reliable. BeŻet (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
In reply to both. This is going round and round. RS doesn't treat all sources the same. We have sources that have better and lesser reputations. The views of papers like NYT or WashPo are generally seen as more reliable than smaller papers. Sources with long standing reputations are generally seen as more reliable than sources like the Daily Beast or say Mother Jones. That doesn't mean that DB or MJ are not reliable but that we give more weight to statements made by the sources with stronger reputation. As for the question around "reactionary", I'm not trying to use it in the political sense so let's not play that game. At this point you may not like my opinion but I'm OK with the current consensus lead. Springee (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

"the mask slipped is a debated claim" sure and and De Nile is just a river in Egypt. It's a "big coincidence don't look behind the curtain" that he got his propagandist ass fired the day the video took the mask off.

@6YearsTillRetirement:, your recent changes to the lead are not supported by consensus. You have changed what appears to be a long standing version of the lead. Your arguments for removal are not sound. Here you cite SELFSOURCE. That fails because the article makes it clear the claim is attributed to Ngo directly. It is not an unduely self serving claim nor is there any rational reason to believe Ngo didn't actually say what was quoted. This edit [[13]] is misleading since you removed one source that supported it and we have The Guardian article (mentioned previously in this discussion) which also supports it. Please self revert or address the problems with your reasoning. Springee (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Having reviewed this further, I don't think the lead can be counted as long standing. For that reason I strike the request to revert. The logic for removal is still unsound but NOCON can apply. Springee (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
1 - I didn't change the lead. I changed the section on political opinions and it has been amply established in discussions above that Ngo is not trustworthy to represent his own position on the political spectrum accurately, much less in circumstances like a non-RS opinion webcast like Rogan's where there will be no editorial fact-checking or review.
2 - The secondary clause in the one sentence was not supported by the four sources. The fifth source which I removed, does not appear to qualify for WP:RS as "Slog" is a group blog that operates outside of the normal editorial review of the paper publication.
As a point of constructive criticism, I think you would be better off if you make it a practice to slow down and fully read edits before attacking them, especially when someone even does the courtesy of writing a detailed edit summary. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I did get the wrong location. Ok, that material has been in the article since July. Thus it is long standing. That Ngo's opinion of himself may not fit the facts doesn't change that we can assume Ngo's own words and other sources accurately reflect what he claims to be. We csn certainly add The Guardian to support the other two sources. Springee (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I do not fault whichever editor added the Herzog by mistake. The Stranger (newspaper) is not as good as it should be about clearly marking what is part of their opinion group blog "Slog" and what is normally vetted, fact checked, journalistic content. You have to go all the way down to the bottom to spot the disclosure in small text. The fact remains that the WP:RS-qualifying sources did not support the second half of the sentence, and clauses that are not supported by a source should be placed after the sources, not before which makes it appear as if they are supported. And since the review showed that no WP:RS supported the second clause, I removed it. Feel free to find a WP:RS to support that clause and it can be easily re-entered and sourced inline. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
So let me make sure we are clear, you are OK restoring this text [[14]] so long as we have a better source? Springee (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
" although he does not describe himself as such" in this context would require a strong WP:RS with wording that does not violate WP:SELFSOURCE as repeatedly discussed by multiple commenters, not just myself, above. If one is provided to support the wording there would be no problem. The problems were (and again you seem to be trying to goad):
1- as it existed was that no WP:RS, WP:SELFSOURCE-compatible source supported the clause.
2- The inclusion of the sources that only supported the first half of the sentence at the end, made it look as if the second clause was supported by those sources when it was not. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Collapse discussion thread opened by sockpuppet of blocked user.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

New article from 9/15/2019[edit]

As previously established in discussions here, Jacobin (magazine) is a WP:RS. They published an article Sunday, 9/15/2019 with a section specifically on Ngo. Since I can predict this will be "controversial" and we'll get someone screaming that it shouldn't be included because they don't like it, I'm starting the discussion here first rather than even attempt to add the content into the article without a discussion.

Quotes that may be worthwhile for this article, in sequence:

  • In a battlefield that is as much virtual as it is physical, Ngo uses selective editing and inflammatory language to claim Antifa is attacking innocents. It’s real-time disinformation, as deceptive video clips are uploaded rapidly to social media, where right-wing firebrands like Michelle Malkin and Jack Posobiec amplify them, enabling them to proliferate in the dense ecosystem of right-wing media, and then ooze up to Fox News.
  • His shtick is that it’s the Left that’s intolerant and violent: Black Lives Matter attacks elderly whites, he claims, anti-ICE protesters lay “siege” to an ICE facility, Antifa wants to kill border police, Muslim students talk of killing nonbelievers, the campus thought police are silencing the Right, and hate crimes are hoaxes.
  • This is the strategy Ngo and other right-wing opportunists pursued during August 17, portraying numerous fights as the work of sinister Antifa elements against defenseless innocents. In the past Ngo’s fabrications have played a role in stoking violence, such as portraying a motorist who struck a protester as the victim of Black Lives Matter mobs.
  • This time was different, however, as journalists and independent researchers who’ve been tracking Ngo and other provocateurs countered the disinformation quickly. Unpacking a few incidents shows how actors like Ngo exploit social media and rely on the right-wing echo chamber to create such a din of disinformation that their propaganda can leak into the mainstream news.
  • In all three instances, then, the individuals portrayed as victims of Antifa were right-wing extremists instigating violence, which indicates who these events really attract.

My suggested wording below. The final bullet point might also be better to have the existing paragraph on the hammer incident integrated into it. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed text

Instances of selective editing and misrepresentation[edit]

On multiple occasions, Ngo has used "selective editing and inflammatory language to claim Antifa is attacking innocents." [1]Arun Gupta of Jacobin (magazine) examined Ngo's body of work and determined that:

"His shtick is that it’s the Left that’s intolerant and violent: Black Lives Matter attacks elderly whites, he claims, anti-ICE protesters lay “siege” to an ICE facility, Antifa wants to kill border police, Muslim students talk of killing nonbelievers, the campus thought police are silencing the Right, and hate crimes are hoaxes.

That much of Ngo’s work appeals to racists, such as a “massively Islamophobic” travelogue to England, is well-suited for Fox News. Ngo is a regular guest on Tucker Carlson, who promotes “white genocide,” the white nationalist conspiracy that dark forces are plotting to exterminate whites. Ngo’s lurid claims that Portland is policed by a “leftist mob” are meant to buttress the idea that white America is under siege, and tend to whip the far right into a murderous rage.

This is the strategy Ngo and other right-wing opportunists pursued during August 17, portraying numerous fights as the work of sinister Antifa elements against defenseless innocents. In the past Ngo’s fabrications have played a role in stoking violence, such as portraying a motorist who struck a protester as the victim of Black Lives Matter mobs."[1]

Gupta reviewed four instances where Ngo either directly misrepresented events with selective editing, or "posted bits of video from other opportunists without context and with misleading wording." These included:

  • An instance in which Ngo attempted to portray a motorist who struck a protester as "the victim of Black Lives Matter mobs."
  • An instance in which Ngo attempted to portray notorious right-wing combatant John Turano and his daughter, 24-year-old Bianca, both known for picking fights, as "A large antifa mob chase & attack a man & a young girl who got separated from the others."
  • A member of white supremacist group Patriot Prayer, who along with two associates was engaged in assault and attempting to provoke a larger fight, as "The antifa mob finds and chases down a man (in the blue hat)".
  • An incident covered by multiple media in which Ngo initially claimed "Antifa attacks people on a bus. They try to pull them out and hit them with a hammer"; subsequent reporting and videos from other sources showed that the bus was full of members of the white nationalist group American Guard, listed by the Anti-Defamation League as "hardcore white supremacists"[2]; a person on the bus had used the hammer to attack first, and that protesters had disarmed him and thrown the hammer back into the bus.


  1. ^ a b Gupta, Arun. "Getting Andy Ngo and His Fascist Friends Off Our Streets". Jacobin. Retrieved 17 September 2019.
  2. ^ "Behind The American Guard: Hardcore White Supremacists". Anti-Defamation League. Retrieved 17 September 2019.
@Springee: I was going to go ahead and move the comments back but instead since I've been WP:BOLD already I'm just going to remove this proposed wording. What I have added integrates the previous sourcing as well, anyways. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
If people find the Jacobin content as WP:due it can be included. However considering it's an openly biased source, it's content should be attributed per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
The Jacobin article was given undue-weight for a BLP. Besides, we shouldn't summarize every paragraph from an article written in a strongly biased source, by some anonymous blogger, for a BLP.Mcrt007 (talk) 22:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The author of the article in question, a graduate of The French Culinary Institute, has published all of three articles at The Jacobian. Two are anti Ngo screeds [[15]]. The third was from a year back, an obituary for celebrity chef Anthony Bourdain. This writer is the author of all the Jacobian references in this article. Is there any reason to believe that this writer is consistently reliable for what amount to damning accusations in a BLP? Springee (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Springee, with all due respect, we fisk sources, not writers. That's why we stress strong editorial oversight and a reputation for accuracy. Those are our stand-ins for personal investigation of authors (which most of us are pretty poorly equipped to do and to interpret). That being said, Jacobin is a magazine with a strong and, I would say, outside the mainstream viewpoint. While I think it can be used, I would say attribution is a good idea (as suggested), and I would prefer it to be used where it can be backed up by other reliable sources. Just my take. Cheers all. Dumuzid (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I took that on when I wrote, making sure to attribute thoroughly. It's interesting that Springee and now "Mcrt007" ignore that part and have gone on to ad-hominem and just downright strange attacks on the author. The WP:IDONTLIKEIT is beyond obvious at this point. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

"As previously established in discussions here, Jacobin (magazine) is a WP:RS."

Really? Because it is not listed as a reliable source under Wikipedia's RS list and I can't find any recent noticeboard supporting your claim either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcrt007 (talkcontribs) 22:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
"This is a list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed." – it's literally in the first sentence. Do you honestly think we have a list of all reliable sources? BeŻet (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Well the appearance of "Mcrt007" is interesting. Both in timing of appearance and in copying the "attack the source/writer" conduct of other editors. Calling the author an "anonymous blogger" when the article is bylined is just downright nonfactual. And Jacobin is discussed above at length, it's a WP:RS. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Also, @Mcrt007: vastly misrepresented the list they linked, which states "If a source is not on the list, this may suggest that the source is less popular, less controversial, or more specialized than the sources on the list. The source's absence does not imply that it is more or less reliable than the sources that are present." So, first lying about the source claiming that the author is an "anonymous blogger" when the article is bylined, and then trying to claim it's not reliable because it's not on a list where "absence does not imply that it is more or less reliable than the sources that are present"... 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm curious: would those of you who think Jacobin is RS be able to identify a similar source on the right that is RS? Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
What the heck, I'll humor you. For factual coverage, Reason (magazine), though not its various blogs and opinion columns per WP:RS, would be similar. It has similar circulation and actually a longer print history. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Reason has been in publication for 51 years. The Jacobin for 8. But we can also look at the details of the article in question and find facts that are questionable. For example it claims Ngo says hate crimes are hoaxes. But that isn't what he said. He said that a particular hate crime was a hoax and provided evidence. It mentions the hammer attack. Well we have that discussion above. Again, not a clear cut case as Gupta would claim. Lot's of strong words and innuendos but very limited hard facts. Then again, look at the bias of The Jacobin and it isn't surprising they would have a strong editorial bias that clearly comes out in the sloppy, and when it comes down to it, misleading way Gupta presents facts. The irony is he is guilty of doing the same things he accuses Ngo of doing. Beyond that, as was mentioned above, the hammer story currently doesn't have consensus for inclusion in the article. Extending it based on a poor quality source isn't the best action here. Springee (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Where to begin on such a roundly dishonest misrepresentation of the article.
1 - "For example it claims Ngo says hate crimes are hoaxes. But that isn't what he said. He said that a particular hate crime was a hoax and provided evidence." It describes a pattern of rhetoric by Ngo, to wit, "His shtick is that it’s the Left that’s intolerant and violent: Black Lives Matter attacks elderly whites, he claims, anti-ICE protesters lay “siege” to an ICE facility, Antifa wants to kill border police, Muslim students talk of killing nonbelievers, the campus thought police are silencing the Right, and hate crimes are hoaxes." So, on this point Springee misrepresents.
2 - More ad hominem attacks on the author. Unsurprising, since you Springee simply doesn't like it.
3 - "The irony is he is guilty of doing the same things he accuses Ngo of doing." I believe the term for a phrase like this is DARVO.
4 - "Beyond that, as was mentioned above, the hammer story currently doesn't have consensus for inclusion in the article"; mostly what I see above is filibustering from two editors, Springee and Shinealittlelight, whose language indicates they are more interested in a POV and WP:CENSORing than in factual coverage. In fact, every time there's something that reflects poorly on Ngo, it seems he has one or two defenders pop up to start filibustering, to judge by the pattern from Red Rock Canyon above when Ngo doxxed innocent people. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
6Years, per WP:REDACT, you don't remove text from talk pages after others have replied to it. That is a Wikipedia guideline. Your "dishonest" comment directed at me is not assuming good faith. Your constant claims of "IDONTIKEIT" are counter productive and fail to even understand what IDONTLIKEIT refers to. I see no reason to try to discuss this further. Springee (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
You have no valid arguments - you throw around ad hominem at sources and attempt to goad people, because you are more interested in WP:CENSORing for your own POV. That's just a conduct observation of how you act. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
And just to be perfectly clear, the conduct that tells me you simply don't like certain coverage because you're more interested in censoring what doesn't fit your POV:
1 - When you deploy a misogynist trope by referring to a female writer's work as "fluff crap".
2 - When you attempt to attack the same female writer with "why would we think the DD reporter is accurate for the analysis they put together?"
3 - When you dishonestly try to claim that accurate, well sourced coverage is "posting a manifesto"
4 - When you refer to WP:Reliable Sources as 'the muckrakers"
5 - When you label your preferred sources as "the most reliable" without justification
6 - When you are inconsistent with your ratings based on what you like and don't like in their coverage, for example when you denigrate HuffPo in one post to claim it shouldn't be used, and later claim it's better than The Oregonian when you want to put down The Oregonian instead.
7 - When you come back round and refer to WP:Reliable Sources such as Vice or The Daily Beast, because you don't like the specifics of their coverage of Ngo, as "tabloids"
That's the conduct I'm seeing here. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
WP:FOC Springee (talk) 02:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
@Springee: were you "focusing on content" when you deployed a misogynist attack against a female journalist? I'll just have a hearty belly laugh at your troll tactics. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
6YearsTillRetirement you make some interesting claims here as well. Yet, on Vice, the WS:Reliable Sources page states the following: "There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice magazine or Vice Media websites, including Motherboard and Vice News. It is generally regarded as more reliable for arts and entertainment than for politics." On the Daily Beast, the same Wikipedia page states "Past discussions regarding The Daily Beast are lacking in depth. Multiple users have expressed the opinion that it is generally reliable, citing a history of editorial oversight and the leadership of those such as Tina Brown. However, it was also described as "largely an opinion piece aggregator", for which special care must be taken for use in supporting controversial statements of fact related to living persons." Stop trying to push a POV at any cost and try instead to represent information more accurately! Mcrt007 (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
6YearsTillRetirement first, stop misrepresenting in bad faith what other people have said. Here's my statement again "[Jacobin] is not listed as a reliable source under Wikipedia's RS list and I can't find any recent noticeboard supporting your claim either." Obviously, the perennial RS list does not include everything, that's why I also mentioned not finding it on the Reliable sources/Noticeboards either (the noticeboard and its hundreds of archives allows you to search for much more than what is listed on the perennial list). You implied Jacobin was a RS, yet you offered no proof in support of your claim. Second, Arun Gupta is a trained cook and a blogger and his only contributions to Jacobin (as Springee has pointed out) are 2 smear articles targeting Ngo and an article on another cook. On his Jacobin profile he also mentions he has written some book on food. How do these justify the lengthy piece you added to the Ngo article based on claims in Gupta's article especially since the accusations are not (yet?) backed by other RS? Mcrt007 (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Since you apparently aren't able to look up a journalist... [16]. Your POV problem is showing when you use terms like "smear articles" because you don't like it. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
6YearsTillRetirement Gupta's personal page (blog) is probably more reliable in presenting his work than your aggregator which has too many false positives and inflates the number of articles attributed to Gupta, in RS, by orders of magnitude because it can't differentiate between different individuals having the same (Arun Gupta) name. Here are some examples of articles wrongly attributed to him in the list you link to: in the NYT, Chemical Science, inc42, etc. He only seems to have one article in the Washington Post and that one is on food. Gupta does seem to have lots of articles in Counter-Punch which seems to be a rather questionable source (with a history of smear and disinformation), Telesur, described by wikipedia as "Telesur was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the TV channel is a Bolivarian propaganda outlet. Many editors state that Telesur publishes false information. As a state-owned media network in a country with low press freedom, Telesur may be a primary source for the viewpoint of the Venezuelan government, although due weight should be considered...etc.", etc. Stop trying to be so misleading! Mcrt007 (talk) 04:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
You seem to like ad hominem attacks. Perhaps you use terms like "smear articles" and attack the author because you can't actually argue the content, which was long and detailed coverage of the multiple incidents involved. Again, this demonstrates that the objections of those trying to WP:CENSOR are not based in policy but in them not liking it. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The background of the author or the publications he often writes for might say a few things about his reliability as a source. The smear and disinformation history of CounterPunch, for which he has contributed 25 articles, are well detailed in the site's Wikipedia page. Similar for Telesur, which has been discussed at length on Wikipedia and is considered a propaganda machine. These are the facts and it does not matter how many identities you use to repeat the same accusations that others reject your claims because they simply "don't like them" Mcrt007 (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
PS: here are also the definition for "anonymous" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. They include the following definitions: "lacking individuality, distinction, or recognizability". Mcrt007 (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Such amazing casual bigotry to insist that someone of indian descent should be smeared as "anonymous" for "lacking individuality, distinction, or recognizability". I'm disgusted. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 03:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Why should we care who the author is? It is Jacobin's bona fides (or lack thereof) that matter here. The source is not self-published. To the extent that fact-checking and/or a reputation for accuracy exist, they exist for Jacobin, not this author in particular. I know people like to personalize everything, but I don't think it's helpful here, either practically or in terms of Wikipedia policy. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
6YearsTillRetirement -- while I agree we're sort of sliding towards smears of the author here (and unnecessarily so), I am not sure I see the same racial overtones you do. Honestly, I think everyone needs to tone this down a notch. For me Jacobin (which I actually personally like and value) is sort of in the "not not reliable" category. This is mainly because it is just fairly recent, and I am not sure it has the sort of reputation for factual accuracy that our A+ sources have. That being said, my opinion is just one of many (and usually not worth much!). Why doesn't someone take this to WP:RSN and ask about the reliability there? I think getting some uninvolved thoughts would be beneficial for everyone. Cheers.

Dumuzid (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

A sensible suggestion. Thanks Dumuzid! WP:RSN is where typical discussions on source reliability belong. Mcrt007 (talk) 04:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
No one insisted that someone of indian descent should be smeared as you insinuate, in bad faith! Furthermore, I have shown you above that the list of credentials you provide for him is bogus and most of his political articles are in questionable sources and those which are not, are usually about food (a non-related topic, that is irrelevant to establishing his reliability as a source of political articles). Mcrt007 (talk) 04:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia, where racists can smear someone based on their country of origin and culturally common name and then lie about it. It's unsurprising that a set of white supremacist apologists are desperately trying to whitewash Ngo's article, they organize on Reddit and 8chan to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh look: an IP who started editing Wikipedia recently, just like 6YearsTillRetirement, who is active on the same pages, and who just happens to insult those who 6YearsTillRetirement insults (in similar language) and who repeats the same "shouldn't be included because you don't like it" slogan. Stop with this masquerade and disruptive behavior!Mcrt007 (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Concur with Dumuzid digging into a specific author is irrelevant. Jacobin is a WP:RS with well documented editorial controls. As such, if you want to bring up whether Jacobin is a reliable source, well WP:RS/N is that way. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, there is absolutely no doubt that currently Jacobin is a WP:RS. BeŻet (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Where is that evidence of strong editorial control? Is that editorial control sufficient in a case like this given the strong, and stated bias/POV of the source? This on top of the evidence that Gupta's claims against Ngo are either exaggerated or present only a single, very biased POV. Springee (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence that Jacobin, a respected politics magazine with a decade of history, has ever had issues with editorial control? And I don't mean "you don't agree with their POV" do you have any evidence of wrongdoing? Because you also called Vice a tabloid without proof. And Huffington Post. So I'd suggest maybe you should step back from trying to censor sources that say unkind things about Portland's least favourite troll this particular writer. Simonm223 (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Per Jacobin_(magazine) it has less than a decade of history. Springee (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Eight years - close enough. Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
So that's ~24 issues total? The source pride's itself on it's extreme left POV. The claims and evidence presented Gupta are poor yet the rhetoric is very strong. That's tabloid. The sources has shown no signs of editorial quality control and the article has questionable interpretation of facts and possible factual errors. Why should we give so much weight to the most extreme sources? This is a BLP article. Springee (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Jacobin claims to be social democratic in perspective. If you believe that to be an extreme-left position you need to adjust your Overton Window. Because it's really very moderate compared to the actual Extreme Left which is far more... activist... than reformists are comfortable with. Simonm223 (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
[[17]][[18]][[19]]. And the article was written by a food critic. Springee (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if the article was written by a chimpanzee randomly striking keys. The publisher is the key for an RS determination. Yes, I will say this every time. Dumuzid (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, WP: RS disagrees with your interpretation. Who the writer is also helps determine if a source is reliable. You can see our entry of Der Spiegel on WP: RSP as an example. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Certainly fabrication is a special sort of case. That hasn't been brought up here, nor do I think it's in play. Can you point me to the section of WP:RS you have in mind? Dumuzid (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC) ETA: I think I see what you mean. Fine. I'm out! Good luck to all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
@Dumuzid: I'd like you to explain what you "see", because in this case the journalist Mr. Gupta has no history of fabrication. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Exactly, Kyohyi! In addition: the WP:RS page says clearly that Context Matters and also that "news reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact". From its description: "Jacobin is a democratic socialist quarterly magazine based in New York offering American leftist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture". Jacobin is not a news organization, but an opinion-shop and, at the end of the day, this long discussion lacks one major thing: a real proof that Jacobin is a RS.Mcrt007 (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Mediabiasfactcheck is some guys blog. Allsides says left, not extreme left. (I am not familiar with them beyond this link so I can't speak to how accurate they might be with their assessments.) And is some guy's blog again. These are entirely irrelevant to your claim that Jacobin is extreme left. A RS is allowed to have a POV. Simonm223 (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Try this Columbia Journalism Review article. It says that Jacobin has an eye toward attracting the readers on the left edge of liberalism, and it quotes an author who writes there as saying that Jacobin created an audience for radical socialist politics among a younger generation. Finally, it quotes the editor as saying Having Sanders openly defend socialism, and contest the New Democrat record before a national audience, is a baby step in the right direction ... When he fails, there’s every reason to believe that radical voices can take his place. So yeah, they promote radical leftism by their own account. That isn't an insult, it's just a fact by their own telling. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

And how is this relevant? BeŻet (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
They're trying to claim it's proof that Jacobin is an extremist outlet. But they're cherrypicking quotes out of context since it clearly says Jacobin intended to plant a flag for a certain kind of democratic-socialist politics and nobody is disputing they're reformists - the most moderate and centrist of all socialist political philosophies. Simonm223 (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Another fun quote from the same article Lately even Francis Fukuyama, the political theorist best known for predicting the permanent triumph of market capitalism thirty years ago, has decided that socialism “ought to come back.” Oh what terrifying extremists these people are who are being compared to this guy. Simonm223 (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
But what seems indisputable is that “socialist” has been sapped, at least among Democrats, of its derisive force. thanks for this source Shinealittlelight; it's kind of making my case for me. Simonm223 (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I didn't say extremist. I said, repeating their own editor and CJR, that they are radical left. And the fact that they are radical left is relevant to assessing their work for our purposes in many ways: due weight, neutrality, attribution, etc. Their work should be treated as a source with a radical political agenda, because that's what it has. Which is not to say it can't be used, of course, but makes it not a very good source for factual information in a BLP about one of their political opponents. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Your definition of "radical" is based on assuming that socialism is intrinsically a radical political ideology. I am disputing that. Socialism encompases a broad swath of the political compass from the left edge of the center left outward and from certain branches of collectivist an-coms all the way to Stalinists. (And if you want to see a heated political fight you should see how the an-coms and the tankies can get at it.) There are definitely extreme positions within Socialism. (Third Worldism comes to mind as an example.) But it's a big tent. And you aren't seeming to grasp the nuances of that. Simonm223 (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Obviously I didn't define 'radical'; rather, I quoted to you from CJR. Your disagreement with the CJR piece has nothing to do with me. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
No, you cherry-picked a quote from the CJR article and stripped it from context. The thesis of the article is that Jacobin has been instrumental in bringing socialist discourse into the US political mainstream - so I'd suggest you need to work on your reading comprehension if you believe it was calling them radical in any real sense. Simonm223 (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I just agree with CJR and the Jacobin contributors they quote that Jacobin has an eye toward attracting the readers on the left edge of liberalism, and they created an audience for radical socialist politics among a younger generation. That's all. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Shinealittlelight is engaged in some amazingly dishonest misrepresentation here. The first quote that they sentence-chopped is in regard to the author of the piece, not the magazine as a whole. The second is an opinion quote from Doug Henwood, not in CJR's voice and should not be treated as such. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Please strike your personal attack. I clearly said who the quotes were from and provided a link so you could look for yourself. As I said, they were quotes from CJR and the Jacobin contributors they quote, and earlier I clearly indicate which quotes came from which sources. So there was no misrepresentation here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

You're cherry picking, how about you own up to getting caught with your hand in that cookie jar and move on? Simonm223 (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Saying an editor made a mistake in interpreting the facts is fine. Saying they are deliberately lying or suggesting dishonest motive is a failure to assume good faith and a problem. Springee (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
No, the case of problem behavior has been well documented both above and in other venues. Simonm223 is correct, the cherry picking and dishonest context-stripping cannot be seen as anything but deliberate. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
You need to review WP:AGF. Springee (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
No, I don't think so. Your style of behavior is interesting, as seen above; you engaged in breaches of good faith and some pretty ugly ones at that above and when it was listed out you tried to deflect screaming "focus on content" when you haven't done so. There's a difference between assuming good faith at the beginning of an interaction, which I did until you repeatedly demonstrated why the assumption was wrong, and willingly being gaslighted by someone who refuses to act in good faith while endlessly demanding that others assume it. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
6YearsTillRetirement it's interesting how you accuse others of all things while acting in bad faith, smearing and insulting others (calling them racists, white supremacists, etc) while assuming multiple identities (6YearsTillRetirement, and later creating an account (CoogLyfe) to vandalize this page. All while trying to push and give undue weight to a POV in a Jacobin article. Mcrt007 (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Now THAT is a focused non-terminal repeating phantasm, or a Class 5 Full Roaming Vaporpersonal attack. "A real nasty one, too". 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I see you've also have stalked me to a Rfc, on a topic/page you've had no previous interaction with. You've been making edits on the Ngo talk page at "14:43, 18 September 2019‎", "14:44, 18 September 2019‎" and at "15:08, 18 September 2019‎" on the other page. Doubtful you even had enough time to read the materials being discussed there or much of the discussion. Also that Rfc is more than 1 month old and not exactly at the top of any page currently hosting Rfc lists. Why are you acting like this? Mcrt007 (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
@Mcrt007: I didn't "stalk" you anywhere, I was looking at the topic of campus sexual assault hoping to find articles that my niece should read as she looks at colleges to apply to. I was hoping that something newer or up to date of this[20] might be on the page or in the discussion.
But I'm reasonably sure that you followed me to Harry Anslinger previously [21] since you went after an edit of mine from nine days ago[22]. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Your own timeline contradicts your claims. Between "00:41, 18 September 2019" and "14:44, 18 September 2019" you've made 9 consecutive edits to the Ngo talk page (while touching no other page). Even in the day before, you seemed heavily focused on this page. After "14:44, 18 September 2019", in a 20 minute window, you go to a page you had no previous involvement with and jump on an Rfc discussing studies and meta-studies you have not read and you have not had enough time to read in those 20 minutes. Sorry, but the data contradicts your excuses, it's much more likely you simply chose to engage in disruptive behavior after arguments on this talk page (especially given your past aggressive and bullying behavior). Mcrt007 (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm very sorry to hear that you're a slow reader. Some of us aren't. And I was already looking at the subject before I reached the Wikipedia page. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Jacobin, like Reason, primarily publishes opinion pieces which are rarely acceptable as reliable sources per WP:NEWSORG. TFD (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
That's incorrect, WP:NEWSORG advises caution when using opinion pieces and to use WP:INTEXT. BeŻet (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


This is a reminder to the participants in the discussions on this talk page that our civility policy is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of its five pillars. Some of you have come either very close to crossing the line to incivility or have actually crossed it. This behaviour needs to stop now. You already know what is expected of you. Stop discussing each other and work collaboratively and constructively towards improving the content of the encyclopedia. Thanks for listening. Vexations (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Concur. I know I can sometimes be sharp, or even borderline pointed when I get frustrated enough, but the level of toxicity above is getting absolutely ridiculous. I'd strongly suggest that everybody step back and give serious consideration to whether this dispute is in any way productive. Simonm223 (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)