Talk:Andy Ngo/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 18

Stepping on a minefield

I see I've stepped on a minefield of an article here, so apologies to any contributors for making edits without reading all the previous discussion, thanks to @TarnishedPath for alerting me to this, I hadn't thought of checking the talk page for such an insignificant figure.

For the record, I think the proposed lede by @Davide King is accurate and well written, but I see it remains controversial. I think all that's left to say is it's a great shame there can't be consensus through considerable compromise, as the lede is of such poor quality given it's lack of information, in comparison to the length of the article, ie it's missing the majority of the body summarised into it.

I imagine the edit I made [1] won't go down well, even though I tried to provide balance. There are reliable sources describing Ngo as conservative, as well as far-right (in some context), so reducing him to simply a right-wing influencer seems WP:UNDUE. A turn of phrase such as predominantly described as a right-wing influencer would make the most sense to me, as I don't think other descriptions of him can be ignored even if they are less significant. He's also not just an influencer, he's also referenced as a journalist, writer, blogger, etc.

I also expanded the infobox [2], but I realise even this edit could now be considered controversial. For reference sake, because it was modified after and may have been misinterpreted, I hadn't described Ngo as "known for ... far-right politics", but instead "known for ... coverage of far-right politics", so I assumed it wouldn't be controversial given his significant coverage of Patriot Prayer for example.

Anyway, will leave this article alone now, as it looks like a place to bang one's head against a brick wall. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I wish this ping meant that some progress was being made but I was wrong. The lead still does not properly summarize the body. Davide King (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Short description

Given that Ngo is no longer referred to as a journalist in the first sentence of the lede, it's no longer appropriate to refer to him as a journalist in the short description. This is all the more so true as journalism is not what brought him to notability in the first place. What do others think Ngo should be described as in the lede. Pinging @PackMecEng, @LokiTheLiar and @Springee as editors who have recently edited the short description. TarnishedPath^talk 12:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

You need to show there is consensus for a different, primary descriptor. The part about journalist in the first sentence is currently being challenged at WP:AN so at a minimum we should wait. Even then, the closing has an issue in that it doesn't say some other noun is more prominent than journalist. That is, if we don't say journalist (the most common noun per the RfC discussion) would activist, writer, blogger, grifter etc be more prominent. This really does illustrate a problem with the closing. Springee (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, please note the long term stable version is journalist. You restored the disputed change. Springee (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

See my edit summary. SPECIFICO talk 14:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, your edit summary suggests you are restoring a long term stable version. Springee (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The short description should mostly match the first sentence. If the close review changes the result, we can change the SD. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The problem is "journalist" of some sort is the only descriptor that has consensus and is clearly the most widely used descriptor. "Influencer" and "personality" were not reasonably suggested by the RfC discussion and the best summary descriptor. Springee (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The present version -- 'author and influencer' -- better reflects the first sentence of the bio. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that's an improvement too. I'd also be fine with "American right-wing author". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. We just went through a RfC where we established that "journalist" is the most common descriptor. Author and influencer are far less common. It's like we need to do a new RfC to fix the screwed up closing of the last one. Springee (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The review is probably going to be closed as no consensus to overturn. At this point consensus is assessed as leaving journalist out of the first sentence. That is good enough to cover the shortdesc. You win some, you lose some. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Sadly it probably will be because many editors have turned it into RfC2.0 rather than looking at the issues with claiming a consensus with almost no editors discussing that "consensus". This is not a good closing because it effetely reverses status quo even after saying the core question had consensus. It would be easier to understand simply saying no-consensus. Springee (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Another RfC to "fix" the previous RfC does not make sense. DN (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

We have a consensus of three editors out of 45 who argued to not use "journalist" at all yet now we have an out of the blue solution to use "journalist" anywhere other than the first sentence event though we have shown it's clearly the most common descriptor. Springee (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a short desc, not his life story. I included influencer because these are normally seen on mobile devices, and those that view WP from such are likely more familiar with influencers than authors. (He said only slightly in jest.) If I added “nonjournalist” you’d have a point. But leaving out an obviously controversial term will hopefully save months of additional debate. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes you get a closure you don't agree with. I believe you're familiar with the Hunter Biden laptop article? Sometimes you have to shrug and move on. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Albert Einstein is a bit better known than Ngo, His short desc is simply: German-born scientist (1879–1955). But then, I heard Mileva Einstein did all his work anyhow.:) O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Avi Yemini is the Australian version of Ngo, although a lot of Australians might argue a lot more identifiable as "far-right" given that he used to hang around with people who argued for putting up portraits of Adolph Hitler in classrooms. The lede and short description are very spot on without using any charged words. There's probably an argument for expanding that article given the recent coverage the bloke had during and since the pandemic, but I think there's probably a lack of interest. TarnishedPath^talk 02:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

SFR, I don't think I've ever commented on the HB laptop story. I couldn't find my self in the article talk page. I knew I commented on HB once but it took me some digging to find it. [3] I opposed including what looked like muckracking against HB related to a revolver. We really shouldn't make Wikipedia articles look like we don't like the article's subject. Springee (talk) 02:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Springee. Like you did at ANI, you keep saying "of three editors out of 45 who argued to not use 'journalist' at all" (I assume you were referring to the same "three users" who mentioned MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE like TarnishedPath and I?), but that is not true. Our position was that it should not be stated as an uncontested fact, without any caveat, and not as his main notability, which is really activist, social media influencer, and author / writer / news editor / opinion columnist.

I agree with TFD that left-wing / right-wing journalist is an oxymoron and contradiction; now left-wing / right-wing commentator, author or writer, on ther hand hand, would be fine and not an oxymoron. "That's just spin. Mainstream media don't refer to themselves and other journalists as right-wing, left-wing or whatever. Clearly they are distancing themselves from him. They don't think the quality of his work meets their professional standards. Editors should be able to identify irony when they see it."

In fact, they should not be used to support the journalist label, they should be put in the contextualized in a sentence about the various labels used to describe him, not in the first sentence, which should be about his main claim to notability. I may also add about many seeing journalist as a mere term describing "an individual who collects/gathers information" that with the rise of fake news, perhaps time has changed, and reliable news sources are simply reflecting this. Perhaps James O'Keefe is an even more extreme version of Ngo, e.g. most reliable sources do not use the journalist label to describe him, but I think Ngo is coming to be seen in that sense, e.g. more of an activist and social media personality. Rather than running yet another RfC and get yet another "No consensus" closure, we should improve the article by expanding "Credibility" and creating a section like at James O'Keefe (e.g. "Reception"), and have a sentence in the lead about labels used to describe him (including the caveated use of journalist), and the fact that a significant number of jounralists and news organizations do not consider him a journalist, by summarizing the academic sources, plus others, that were presented.

But to get back to what I was saying, I do not see this in contradiction with what TarnishedPath wrote: "If he is going to be referred to as anything in wikivoice [empshis mine]." They both agree journalist is not his main claim to notability and should not be in the first sentence of the lead or short description either, since it came this new issue. What this means is that what you wrote is a misrepresentation of our views and a strawman. We are opposed to use journalist as uncontested fact or – exactly as TarnishedPath wrote – in wikivoice. Why do you continue to assume there was no coherent argument in the "No" side? We were mostly arguing the same thing through different means.

I think the closure got our views better. For one, I do not oppose using journalist as a self-description, perhaps mentioning that a number of sources referred to him as such but usually with caveats, in a contextualized sentence (not the first sentence) in the lead that describes how many reputable journalists and news organizations rejected, dismissed, or avoided using the journalist label to describe Ngo and his notability, which would be the best solution and compromise. I do not think the other users who "!No" in the RfC would be opposed to that either, as I do not see their comments necessarily in contradiction with what Tarinished Path, others, or I have written.

Davide King (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

What I'm seeing is that you are arguing not that it's OK to call him a journalist in wiki voice in the second but not first sentence. Instead you are saying he shouldn't be called a journalist in wikivoice. The problem is the closer claims there was a consensus to use the term outside of the opening sentence. There simply isn't evidence that a "not-first but all others OK" discussion much less consensus occurred as part of the RfC. Thus it's a bad closing. Springee (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

That is besides the point, I know what you think about the closure. What I am saying is that we must reflect what reliable (not questionable or unreliable) sources say, and they are mixed about this; there is no clear consensus or clear majority (as you claimed) either way, but it is clear that a significant number of reliable sources consider it an issue or contentious, so much so that they do not use the label, implying that they do not consider him a journalist and that journalism is not his main notability, hence MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE comes in; on the other hand, I see no disagrement among reliable sources that he is not an author/writer or a social media personality. The closure concluded that the source analysis is, in fact, a no consensus on whether he is a journalist or not, and whether that is his main claim to notability. Hence, what I get from the closure and what I propose for the lead is: no wikivoice but a sentence or paragraph to contextualize this is the best solution. Is that not what Wikipedia usually does when there is no clear agreement or consensus among reliable sources? Davide King (talk) 22:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The terms “right-winger,” and “left-winger” are often employed in a way that implies intrinsic immorality or stupidity, even though neither necessitate that connotation. Independent journalist Andy Ngo was described by many news outlets not as a journalist when attacked and beaten on a Portland street by Antifa members in July 2019. Instead, various Blue tribe media referred to him as a “conservative journalist,” “right-wing journalist,” “right-wing troll,” and “grifter” (Dickson, 2019). This reflects an internal narrative. Blue tribe media do not describe their own reporters as “left-wing” or “liberal” journalists, let alone “left-wing trolls.” In such instances, the mere invoking of the name of the despised other is enough to situate them as a force of immorality or perhaps evil. In this way, their arguments can be ignored, or their abuse dismissed as unimportant.

Anthony nails it precisely, as we are seeing that same narrative play out here in this article and talk page, when we insist that a person's primary occupation is somehow now defined as a contentious term. The lead sentence clearly states that Ngo is known for covering and video-recording demonstrators, that is the job of a journalist, not an author or influencer, and the closure ignores what he is primarily "known for". Isaidnoway (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Apologies about the length, I hope that you will still read it.

That source is certainly interesting, although I agree with TFD's comments (or perhaps it was another user) that they are not used negetivaly (perhaps in the context the author is talking about it but generally not). I am curious to see what the author meant by "Blue tribe media"? Is the author referring to left-leaning mainstream sources that are still considered reliable by us? Or is the author referring to more partisan, perhaps fringe sources that even we consider questionable or generally unreliable?

"The lead sentence clearly states that Ngo is known for covering and video-recording demonstrators, that is the job of a journalist, not an author or influencer, and the closure ignores what he is primarily 'known for'." I think WP:NOTADICTIONARY applies. As I wrote elsewhere, it does not matter whether one thinks it is self-obvious he is a journalist because he fits the dictionary definition or one thinks he is awful at his job; what ultimately matters is that reliable sources either use a caveat that is not usually used to refer to most journalists (I am curious, is there any other page where we use "left-wing or right-wing journalist"?) or they do not use it at all, implying they do not consider him a journalist and that his journalism is not what he is most notable for.

From my source analysis, there is no clear majority either way, it looks like a no consensus as the closure stated. When there is a dispute, we present the various significant viewpoints in proportion to their prominence (many low-quality sources refer to him as "journalist", often still with a qualifier, higher-quality sources do not, use another label, or dismiss his journalistic value), we do not state something that, whether we like it or not, is considered an issue as a fact.

About what you wrote here, there are no reliable sources arguing about Ngo not being an author or a social influencer but there are significant reliable sources arguing about Ngo not being a journalist. Do you see the difference now? To reiterate, this is not contentious according to Davide King or other Wikipedia users; it is reliable sources themselves that have made it contentious by criticizing Ngo's work ethics, avoiding the use of journalist (perhaps some due to partisaniship as Anthony argued, perhaps simply because they do not consider him to be their peer), and significant and high-quality sources describing him as an activist or provocateur rather than a journalist.

It seems that Springee disagree with my source analysis that there is no consensus, do you share this conclusion? Or do you concede that there is no clear consensus among reliable sources but we must still call him a journalist because "Ngo is known for covering and video-recording demonstrators, that is the job of a journalist"? That may be one activities of journalists but journalism seems to cover more than that; in fact, "known for covering and video-recording demonstrators" may also provocatively mean that is the job a doxxer? But seriously, perhaps in the past this would not have happened but with the rise of fake news, many journalists (e.g. reliable sources) no longer consider journalist to be a label like any other if it is applied to those who engages in disnformation and fake news, which can be considered the opposite of journalism. Maybe if it was twenty years or even just a decade ago, this would be a no-issue but apparently it is now, whether we like it or not. Wikipedia is not about truth, it is about reflecting what reliable sources have written about a given topic, and in the case of Ngo it is a mixed bag.
Davide King (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems that Springee disagree with my source analysis that there is no consensus, do you share this conclusion? Absolutely not, and neither did the RfC closure, as they wrote - It should also be noted that for all the controversy that the "journalist" label attracts, that's what a slim, but still a majority of sources call him, so Ngo deserves that label after all somewhere in the lead - so according to Springee, myself, the RfC closer, and at least a dozen or more other editors, there is a clear consensus that a slim, but the majority of sources call him a journalist. But the closer took the liberty of deciding that it wasn't appropriate for the lead sentence, and there was no clear consensus for that argument, which is why the closure was challenged.

Honestly, in my mind, it makes no sense to say - nope, not in the first sentence, but elsewhere in the lead is just fine, so now journalist (with no qualifier) is parked in the second sentence, as if that is better??, in light of your assertion (and the closure) that saying he is a journalist in the first sentence is defined as a contentious term.

Furthermore, in my view, MOS:LABEL, which was invoked via MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE in the closure, is being misread and misapplied here, and it doesn't support the argument that Ngo's occupation as a journalist is a contentious term, and I also disagree with the argument that just because some sources disagree on his occupation as being a journalist, doesn't make it contentious either. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I do not see how that part contradicts what I wrote, since even my proposed lead includes plenty of journalist, and is in line with ethe closure stating that it should not be in the first sentence. Whathever one thinks of the closure, it is now ruled there is no consensus to reverse it, so we will just have to agree to disagree on MOS:LABEL/MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE. The part of the closure I was referring to was about the source analysis, which the closure concluded was basically a no consensus. It is this: Not only editors were unable to agree if the table presented consensus for mentioning the label "journalist", but also it is a bit of a stretch calling the slight majority of sources 'consensus to call him journalist'. If I were to summarise the discussion based on sources alone [emphasis mine], it would have been a no-consensus closure." This is clearly opposed to Springree's view that a majority of sources support the journalist label. Ultimately, whether we like it or not, it is WP:RELIABLESOURCES that matters and Wikipedia is based around them.

Now I know about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and that each article should stand by its own, but surely that does not rule out having some consistency, and I think that Max Blumenthal, Julian Assange, and James O'Keefe should serve us as consistency and as precedent. Do you consider all these three to be journalists? If so, I appreciate your consistency, and I respect you from this. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the consensus view, and I do not see why Andy Ngo should be any different, as by your dictionary journalist definition argument they should be have journalist too. In fact, on the opposite side of this argument of yours, one may use it to consider Ngo to be an activist as his actual job. That is why I am not persuaded by it.

We should stick to reliable sources, and ideally only to the best ones and from the most authorative journalistic ones. You complain about partisanship but if we remove sources that could be considered partisan or not generally reliable, I would say the most reliable and reputable sources, such as the Columbia Journalism Review, do not describe him as a journalist and in fact consider him an activist or provocateur. Davide King (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway you wrote The terms “right-winger,” and “left-winger” are often employed in a way that implies intrinsic immorality or stupidity, that might be partially true for sections of the hyper-partisan USA which is heavily involved involved in culture wars. In the rest of the world (the other 7.557 billion of us that don't live in the US) that is not so much the case. Just because "right-winger" and "left-winger" can be used as pejorative terms that is no reason to ignore that they are generally well understood terms that people can use to aid in communication. TarnishedPath^talk 04:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

You need to read the whole article written by Marcus Anthony, which I referenced, to fully understand his analysis of those terms and the point he is making in regards to labels that are often carelessly invoked. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway, I didn't need to read any further than the abstract which backed up the points I was making. TarnishedPath^talk 08:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

So in your opinion, labeling an occupation, aids in communication. Got it. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

If you google "Andy Ngo right-wing" you'll find various nouns that have the adjective right-wing applied to them in relation to Ngo. It's more about Ngo than it is the noun that it is applied to. So yes it does aid in communication because it describes something about Ngo to people who might not know much about him. TarnishedPath^talk 10:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I guess some of just don't care if our plumber, electrician, gas station-attendant, grocery store cashier, doctor, lawyer, HVAC technician, lawn-service, journalist, babysitter, favorite musician or actor is left-wing or right-wing. It certainly doesn't aid me in communication. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Isaidnoway (talk) 07:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

About the Marcus Anthony's article, can you please answer my question about it? Does the author gives clear examples of blue and red tribes? Is the author referring to left-leaning mainstream sources that are still considered reliable by us? Or is the author referring to more partisan, perhaps fringe sources that even we consider questionable or generally unreliable? Otherwise TFD was right to say that source actually support the claim that his own peers do not consider him a journalist. Davide King (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

No, he does not give clear examples of blue and red tribes. He's talking in general terms, as in MSNBC wouldn't call one of their own reporters "left-wing" and Fox News wouldn't call one of their own reporters "right-wing", but on the flip side, MSNBC would more than likely label a Fox reporter right-wing and Fox News would label a MSNBC reporter left-wing. It's all part of the hyper-partisan culture we live in now.

And since he is labeled as a right-wing journalist, his "own peers" would be from the right-wing, and they wouldn't use that label, so that argument falls flat on its face. Blue-tribe media and Red-tribe media don't see themselves as "peers", but rather foes, that are constantly using labels in a concerted effort to denigrate and dehumanize one another. Sadly, its the culture we live in now, and it isn't just confined to the media sniping at one another. ⋆｡°✩🎃✩°｡⋆ Isaidnoway (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Ultimately, WP:RELIABLESOURCES matter. Everything and everyone is biased but not everything or everyone is reliable, which is the most important thing. Also that is merely reflecting Anthony's views, which is fine and I may agree with him for all that matters, but a significant number of reliable sources have questioned Ngo's credentials as journalist; if it was something minor, it would have been different, as every journalist is criticized. But he has been described by high-quality reliable sources as a provocateur. We simply cannot ignore this. Davide King (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I support not using journalist in the short description. The RfC close was correct in determining that there is no consensus among reliable sources that the term applies, and so we cannot use it in the short description. Pretty straightforward. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Sources

Isaidnoway (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Springee, can you show the discussion in the talk page which established consensus for the short description? My search yielded no results. TarnishedPath^talk 01:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Why are you asking this question in two places. The short description has been stable since likely the time "journalist" was first shown to have consensus. It's crazy to think that "journalist" is acceptable in the second sentence but not the first based on some false idea that BIOFIRST doesn't allow it. Springee (talk) 01:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

From your lack of answering my specific question I take it you weren't able to find anything I wasn't, in which case the short decryption should follow the opening sentence. Unless you can point to some policy reason why that shouldn't be the case? TarnishedPath^talk 01:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you two stop? You're not going to convince each other, and no one else is reading your back and forth. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• The short description should reflect what he is best known as, an author is not that, he's written far more articles than he has books, which is what, one book. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. "Influencer" is a more accurate description of what he does than "author" (or "journalist"). Loki (talk) 08:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  Per RS journalist is the most common term. Springee (talk) 10:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  The lead sentence says he is known for covering and video-recording demonstrators — that is neither an author or influencer — that is the job of a journalist, which is his primary occupation. The short description should reflect what he is primarily known for.—— Isaidnoway (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  Well, but a large fraction of what he does with those videos is post them, along with inflammatory descriptions, on his personal Twitter account. Loki (talk) 01:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yes in the social media age lots of people make a living or are known for posting videos who aren’t journalists. I think influencer or vlogger or social media personality are the sorts of terms we use for these people. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, because that is what journalists do. According to Pew Research - more than nine-in-ten journalists in the United States (94%) use social media for their jobs, and around seven-in-ten U.S. journalists (69%) use Twitter for work. You can go to any journalists personal twitter page and see videos/stories they have published and/or are promoting. It's what they do. Ngo is not unique in that regard. Good lord, just look at the Israel-Gaza war going on right now, you can literally find hundreds, if not thousands of videos and stories posted by journalists on social media. So I'm not sure what your point is, other than reinforcing my point that he is primarily known as a journalist, and uses social media just like the rest of them do. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Page restriction -- how does it apply?

I received a friendly visit from my good friend PackMecEng on my talk page, in the course of which she threatened to take me to AE for reverting Springee's edit. Copied below. Could a larger group please chime in on whether the consensus version is now Springees or the one Springee removed? Thanks.

{{tq2|I see you reinstated an edit challenged by revison here. That is a violation of the Arbitration remedies on the page

Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page. Please self revert. PackMecEng (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello. The reason I reverted was that it went against "affirmative consensus" per the RfC close. The individual who made the change is aware of that close and jumped the gun on his close appeal by changing the description. If you don't mind, I'd appreciate you pursuiing this on the article talk page so that we can go with whatever is determined. OK with you? SPECIFICO talk 19:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The consensus is on the lead, not the short description. Next step is AE. PackMecEng (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

This aggressive behaviour is very much unlike you, Pack. I'll self revert and copy your threats to the talk page, where we can see what others think about the substance without threatening. Thanks for your visit. SPECIFICO talk

SPECIFICO talk 20:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

It is strange this went to an editor talk page as opposed to the article talk page, where Firefangledfeathers seemed to already clarify the logic. It also seems to escalate rather quickly to a AE threat. DN (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Most likely Pack's handle was hacked per recent report. SPECIFICO talk 01:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

A long time ago I had a random IP hopping sock from here attempt to hack my Twitter because of run ins we were having over a period of time. It wasn't fun. TarnishedPath^talk 02:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

If you're still wondering, Springee is pretty clearly fighting a WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY battle here and therefore obviously does not have consensus. Loki (talk) 08:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• Admittedly I don't know much about Ngo, I find these discussions about him problematic because there's clearly a political bias here that's making some editors ignore WP:RS and twist themselves into pretzels to call him something else. This is simply because they hold the occupation "journalist" in some kind of high regard. Springee I would recommend walking away. It's not worth it. Nemov (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  The bias around here typically goes both ways. Wouldn't it be better to WP:AGF and avoid using bias as a straw man? DN (talk) 07:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  If this person was called a "plumber" by the same number of WP:RS this wouldn't even be a dabate. I didn't say bias doesn't go both ways, but this discussion is plainly transparent. Nemov (talk) 11:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  You cannot ignore the modifiers. Take for example Bob Woodward. He is a Republican, Christian. But you don't see those qualifiers in RS. You see: American, legendary, Pulitzer Prize winning, investigative, respected, prominent, esteemed. You see adjectives that do not portray a person who doesn’t provide unvarnished accuracy. Quite different from the qualifiers used with Andy Ngo which indicate his reports are biased and must be taken with grains of salt. Whose purpose may not be that of journalism, informing the public. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  Since we have consensus to keep "right-wing" I don't see that we would be ignoring the modifier. Springee (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  As has been pointed out, this sounds like an oxymoron. Like using scare quotes, it's a way of saying pretend journalist. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  That's conjecture. People say "right-wing" isn't meant to be a pejorative. If that's the case then it shouldn't be an issue saying he is a journalist, subtype right-wing. Springee (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  Different descriptions. Difference prominence. TarnishedPath^talk 23:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Nemov: what would the political bias be? Pro-center? Pro-moderate? We treat fringe "journalists" from the left and the right consistently, see Julian Assange for a left wing examples of a "journalist" without journalist in their first sentence. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  And contrary to the accusations of editor political bias, I argued against using the term journalist for both right-wing Ngo and left-wing Assange. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Springee restored the status quo on the short description. Specifico's basis for the reverted change was that if it isn't in the first sentence it shouldn't be in the short description. The in essence is saying that the short description can't include / should exclude items from elsewhere in the article, e.g. from elsewhere in the lead. That doesn't seem right. North8000 (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Given the choice

The article has the student states, in part, "in a Muslim country, in a country based on the Koranic laws, disbelieving, or being an infidel, is not allowed so you will be given the choice [to leave]. In an earlier thread Restore quotes from PSU interfaith panel? there was agreement to restore this after an earlier deletion. But "[to leave]" is just a guess, and makes little sense to me, choices are normally about more than one option. In Willamette Week] here's a commenter's claim about the quote with quite a different ending: "And some, this, that you’re referring to, killing non-Muslims, that [leaving Islam] is only considered a crime when the country’s law, the country is based on Quranic law—that means there is no other law than the Quran. In that case, you’re given the liberty to leave the country, you can go in a different country, I’m not gonna sugarcoat it. So you can [emigrate] on a different country, but in a Muslim country, in a country based on the Quranic laws, disbelieving, or being an infidel, is not allowed so you will be given the choice [to leave or to be killed]." (As far as I know the Koran itself doesn't prescribe either of those options.) I suggest we can: remove "[to leave]", or add the fuller quote and end with "[to leave or die]", or remove the quote, or keep as is although it's speculation. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Transition

As of today, 5/3/2024 Angelina has come out as transgender on her website, the post millennial. We need to change her pronouns and address this in the article. ExpertPrime (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

You have any reliable sources for that claim? TarnishedPath^talk 04:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

It was posted on the post millennial website a couple hours ago. ExpertPrime (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

It's a hack. Nothing to see here. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Blocked as WP:NOTHERE. Why am I not surprised? TarnishedPath^talk 10:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Someone thinks they're quite the comedian. Simonm223 (talk) 11:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

There's always one. TarnishedPath^talk 11:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)