Talk:Andy Ngo/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Why is Splinter News due?

BeŻet (talk · contribs),″– can you explain why you think the Splinter News OpEd is Due here? I think Shinealittlelight (talk · contribs)'s removals were reasonable per DUE and RS. Springee (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Again, it is called racist in the title. Titles are not RS, and are not written by the author of the piece. This is pretty standard stuff. As for 'islamophobia', please provide the relevant quote. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Could you please point me towards the relevant Wikipedia guidelines regarding titles as I simply may not be aware of that. Thanks! BeŻet (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, it's not my responsibility to read sources for you, you should be doing that yourself, but just for the sake of the argument, here you go: Earlier this year, he also wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal that was widely decried as Islamophobic after he erroneously attributed "alcohol-free zones" in London's heavily-Muslim neighborhoods to Islam's prohibition on drinking - in Anti-Racist Protesters Harass Gay Asian-American Journalist. BeŻet (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I did read it and saw that quote, but I made no assumption about what quote you would appeal to. That source appears to be a blog post, which is not RS. It also seems to be referring to an arcdigital article which makes no reference to Ngo's piece being Islamophobic. Please reinstate the content you reverted if you can't give RS supporting the current version. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The Stranger (newspaper) is not a blog. You claimed the sources don't mention anything about Islamophobia, which was incorrect. Please show me the guidelines regarding article titles. Thanks. BeŻet (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

BeŻet, I agree with the concerns SaLL is making. There is still a problem with the "Islamaphobia" claim. It was made by a tabloid, The Stranger and that source is basing the claim on an article in Arc Digital, what ever they are. The Times and The Inteligencier didn't use the term so why would we use the most provocative term in a BLP? You also haven't said why The Splinter OpEd should remain in the article. Springee (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

There are no concerns anywhere expressed about "The Stranger", it is therefore an appropriate source, regardless of how you personally feel about this. The Spliner OpEd should remain because it is relevant. BeŻet (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

No concerns expressed about The Stranger doesn't make it reliable. The_Stranger_(newspaper) is listed as a tabloid. When looking at the article it makes a claim that the WSJ article was "widely" viewed as Islamaphobic but then cites what appears to be a blog/OpEd entry. Given that it's the only source that makes the claim and per this section of MOS[[1]] we should avoid using such value laden labels unless they are well supported. This one isn't. Remember this is a BLP. The Splinter OpEd is an OpEd which means the bar for both DUE and RS is high. Can you show why this particular OpEd should be included or is DUE? Springee (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, this Stranger piece is a blog post: it's in their blog, which they call "SLOG" in big letters on the top of the page. Blogs aren't normally RS, especially for negative remarks in a BLP. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I have posted an RSN inquiry on the Splinter News source here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I have also posted an RSN inquiry on the use of this SLOG blog post here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The original claim was false. Shinealittlelight claimed that the sources don't mention Islamophobia. Now it turns out that they simply don't like the source. This is not great practice. There are plenty of additional sources that can be added if necessary. BeŻet (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

You're mischaracterizing. At RSN, I've given reasons for the unreliability of these sources that have nothing to do with whether I like the source. If you have other sources you'd like us to consider, go ahead and tell us what they are. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Your edit description literally says RS don't say anything about "islamophobia" accusations, while they did. BeŻet (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Uh, a blog said something about islamophobia, but blogs aren't RS. So the edit summary was accurate. Try to keep up. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Your newly added sources don’t help. It doesn’t appear that any would meet RS standards and one is a news aggregator. Springee (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

That's not true. Even if you were to remove the news aggregator, you are still left with THREE sources. BeŻet (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, let's look at the others. Do you have any evidence that Commune Magazine is reliable? This is a "popular magazine for a new era of revolution" and we are supposed to assume its a RS? What about REporters Without Boarders? First the article isn't credited to an author. Second it seems to have only the nebulous "many accused him of being Islamphobic" phrase. OK, but were the sources reliable or just people in Twitter? Absent evidence that the claims were reliable it's a DUE issue... assuming RSF is even consider reliable. Finally we have SLOG which is already being discussed. Springee (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're being ridiculous... Reporters Without Borders is not reliable? The Commune Magazine is not reliable? Consult WP:RS and stop with this nonsense, please. BeŻet (talk) 11:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Please read what I've said. RSF/RWB isn't an news article. Rather it's a statement condemning the attack on Ngo. It says he has been accused but without any linked to notable people making the claim. Who cares if some random twitter people make the claim (or writers at low quality sources). What matters is if RSs say it. This is a BLP so we should not include innuendos just because we dislike the subject of the BLP. As for ComMag, well based on their tag line and a total lack of evidence they are reliable I'm saying you need to show they are reliable. Look, the material has been challenged by several editors. Per NOCON it should go until you can get consensus for inclusion. Adding an additional list of poor citations doesn't fix the problem. Springee (talk) 12:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

First of all, no it hasn't been challenged by several editors. You're the only person so far who is attempting to show that using RSF/RWB as a source is not appropriate, which is farcical. Secondly, how on Earth is ComMag's tagline somehow showing they are not a reliable source of information? Thirdly, if you have any concerns regarding ComMag's reliability, there is a process on Wikipedia to handle this, and you can build up your case with examples of unreliable information, and I implore you once more to learn our rules and guidelines by heart. A source isn't unreliable just because you you don't like it. Finally, it's really not helpful when you reject reliable sources you don't like and then try to claim that the reason we are saying that his article has been widely described as Islamophobic because "some random twitter people make the claim" which obviously and clearly isn't the case. Seriously, get your act together. BeŻet (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

section break 1

BeŻet (talk · contribs), this is a BLP. Per NOCON if consensus doesn't exist for material to be in then revert/remove until consensus exists. Shinealittlelight (talk · contribs) and I have both challenged this material. Editors at the RSN have questioned it's inclusion. That means NOCON. That means remove until CONSENSUS for inclusion is reached. This is a policy. Springee (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I have warned you on your talk page, and repeat what I said here. You cannot remove material by claiming there is a lack of consensus. A lack of consensus isn't present just because you're complaining about something, and a single person agrees with you. You didn't even build a proper case against it. The argument raised by Shinealittlelight that we cannot include something that is in the title isn't supported by any policy. Likewise your attempt to show that Ngo's article wasn't critisized as Islamophobic by pretending the sources used aren't "reliable" is also not supported by any policy. Please start behaving. BeŻet (talk) 13:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Let's remove that Andy is a journalist then, since that hasn't got consensus either. Show me which policy supports any of your arguments for not including this information in the article. All I see is WP:IDONTLIKEIT regarding the sources. That's it. That's not a valid argument at all. BeŻet (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Please review NOCON. Where is the consensus for inclusion? Without that consensus the material goes. You can disagree with the arguments put forth by others but that doesn't mean you have consensus which is what you need for inclusion. Springee (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)~

You're the only person really arguing that the part about the aricle being Islamophobic shouldn't be included. That is NOT lack of consensus. BeŻet (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I should add with the new sources. BeŻet (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, not seeing consensus for this material. Also, please remember this article is under a 1 revert sanction, which has already been broken. Arkon (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me? I had to revert the article again because the 24-hr BRD cycle was broken. BeŻet (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Is there any other person other than Springee who thinks that the new sources are invalid? Where is the lack of consensus? BeŻet (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. You need consensus for inclusion. Springee (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

No, you are missing the point. The original question was whether the original, single source was okay. Since then, several more were added. You're the only person here doing mental gymnastics trying to prove that somehow these sources are not adequate. I've added yet another one for your reading pleasure, so could you please stop claiming there is no consensus. BeŻet (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I see you added a new source, at least one that might count as reliable. There is still a problem. Who is saying the article was islamaphobic? The Oregonian article doesn't say. That seems to be a common problem with your sources. Unless the source is reliable then it's undue. Springee (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Here is my DUE challenge. Who actually said it was islamaphobic? We have a weak source, The Splinter's SLOG which says, in effect, "others have said this was islamaphobic". The SLOG article doesn't say it agrees. The same is true of The Oregonia, but it doesn't actually provide a link. The SLOG does but it goes Arc Digital which appears to be a subset of Medium which isn't seen as a RS. If we are going to cite that Arc Digital article we should probably include the parts where the author says Ngo, "has done excellent work covering the culture wars," and, "he has also written with sympathy and sensitivity about Muslim reformers and about the struggles of gay Muslims and their families." That article only uses the word, "Islamaphobia" but not to criticize Ngo, "But the standard progressive view in which “Islamophobia” is the only real problem has its own pitfalls: a see-no-evil approach that is just as likely to disregard facts and that ignores the real threats posed by militant or ultraconservative Islam, particularly to the groups that are normally at the center of progressive concerns such as women and gays." So at the end of the rabbit whole we don't actually know who says the article was Islamaphobic and the closest source actually says Ngo is doing generally good work. Perhaps NOCON is a better answer. Springee (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Let me just summarise things for you Springee:

• Shinealittlelight posted a RSN enquiry about The Stranger (specifically about this single source, which they reiterated in a comment)
• There wasn't much agreement with their point of view, but they themself agreed that If it is a significant opinion that Ngo's WSJ was Islamophobic trash, it shouldn't be hard to find prominent adherents of that point of view to quote
• I've added several additional sources, because it wasn't hard to do so
• You've made a claim, without any precedence, that these sources are not reliable. Nobody agreed with you.
• You've then deleted the whole sentence about Islamophobia claiming "lack of consensus"
• I've added yet another source for you, increasing the total number of sources to 5
• Only at this point, you've made a claim that this is undue
  

As everyone can see, we are not dealing with any "lack of consensus" here. In regards to your claim, all sources state that the article was widely regarded as Islamophobic, therefore there is no need to point out who is claiming that, that's just an arbitery requirement you came up with. BeŻet (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

So long as you are the only one pushing for inclusion while other editors say NO, we have NOCONSENSUS. It's that easy. Remember, policy is you have to show consensus for inclusion. Where have you shown consensus? Did you notice that Arkon said, "not seeing consensus for this material"? [[2]]

I have been watching the RSN discussion. It has not concluded that SLOG is reliable. So far only one other editor commented. If I comment then we are back at 50:50. I've also gone beyond just asking if the source is reliable and raised the question of DUE. Your several sources are largely crap and NONE actually say the article was islamaphobic. At best they say "someone else said". That doesn't support DUE. You are dead wrong that "no one" agrees with me. Shinealittlelight agrees. I was correct in stating there is no consensus for inclusion. You have now reverted two editors who have removed the material. That's a problem. Again, you need to show consensus for inclusion. It is not up to the editors who object to prove that you are correct. That's your job. Finally, yes, I've now said both UNDUE and not RS. I stand by both. Not RS because until you included the Origonian none of your sources were RS. Since none of your sources say who made the claim I'm also going to say UNDUE. If we are going to include criticism of something Ngo wrote then we should include reliable criticism from RSs. Not "they say" hearsay. Springee (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Once more time, there is no "lack of consensus" that justifies removal of content if just a single person has an objection, and a deeper discussion regarding their objections hasn't happened. If were to follow your logic, I could go all around Wikipedia and start deleting content I don't like in BLP articles claiming "lack of consensus". This is not a good way of working. BeŻet (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Let me iterate, that unless you can show that a wider discussion took place, and no consensus could be achieved, you cannot delete that content. If you will try to remove it again, your change will be reverted. BeŻet (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with Springee. There is no consensus, and very weak sourcing. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

let's see if we can sort this consensus thing out. I would like to suggest that when considering what's due or not, we want to make sure that we consider all significant viewpoints. One significant viewpoint is that Andy Ngo is an independent journalist, who reports on the violence committed by antifa because the mainstream media refuse to report on it, but not on vialence by antifas opponents because there is already plenty of mainstream coverage of that. His focus on one side of the conflict is not a caused by bias, but lack of coverage of the anti-democratic left (this also seems to be Ngo's own view). The other significant viewpoint is that Ngo is not really a proper journalist at all, but a propagandist who uses his status as a journalist to publish propaganda for neo-fascist groups, disseminates misinformation about antifascists, progressives and muslims. I think the truth is a bit more complicated than that, but I see no reason to exclude either of these views from the article. So I'd like to make a suggestion: If we can get consensus that these views exist, and are significant, then we can all work together on identifying the best sources that represent these views. And perhaps as demonstration of good will, we could help to best represent those views that we personally disagree with. I think I have done so by arguing on the basis of the sources that we should call him a journalist. My personal view of Andy Ngo is such that it isn't really suitable for polite company, but I try to leave that out of the article and go by what the sources say. Can we all try that, please? Vexations (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Vexations, your remarks seems to me to take too broad of a scope. The question in this section of the talk page is about whether his WSJ piece was called "islamophobic" or "racist" by enough (or any!) RS such that it is due. I don't see that it was, setting aside blogs and little obscure left-wing websites. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, There has been criticism of Ngo's Wall Street piece. That criticism then received attention in the press. I don't think that for example, Business Insider is a blog or a little obscure left-wing website https://www.businessinsider.com/wall-street-journals-andy-ngo-writes-cowardly-islamic-england-2018-8 If we're going to mention that Ngo wrote from the WSJ, we should also mention that the piece was received with scorn and ridicule, because his contribution to the WSJ is only notable for the criticism it received.

I'm not arguing that we should not include criticism of his WSJ piece. I'm saying that the pieces used to support the words "racist" and "islamophobic" are not RS. The BI piece you link does not use these terms. I'm not criticizing that source, but it isn't a source for "racist" and "islamophobic". Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

But that isn't true though, how are they not RS? According to which rules? If you can't point at rules, then it's just your opinion which is meaningless here. BeŻet (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

* Sure, the article doesn't explicitly call the article racist and islamophobic. A bit more meta then, is Oregon Live, which reports that other media have used those terms. [3]: "An opinion piece he wrote for the Wall Street Journal last year about his experience visiting “London’s Muslim communities" was widely panned as racist and Islamophobic." That's a secondary source; they don't call him that, they report that others do. Vexations (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I have a problem with that. Who called it racist and islamaphobic? I went down the rabbit hole from the SLOG article. It linked to a Median article but that article was more nuanced and clearly didn't claim the article was Islamaphobic. In this case I think we should avoid the "they said" type characterizations and instead use characterizations only from RSs. So if a RS said the article was Islamaphobic, so be it. However, if the RS said it was insensitive and error prone, then we use that. Springee (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Yep. Who said 'islamophobic' and 'racist'? Random people on twitter? Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Why does it matter? Why is this suddenly an arbitery requirement? The sources are clearly stating it has been widely described as Islamophobic. There is absolutely nothing requiring us to specify exactly who said that, because it has been widely described as such. Why on Earth are you expecting them to list every single person who said that? BeŻet (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

section break 2

BeŻet, at this point no editor beyond you has supported retaining the material that you restored on the 24th. Three editors have removed it starting on the 24th. There has been extensive discussions on the material and you haven't persuaded anyone. That means per NOCON the material should be removed. Springee (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Let's see if I can summarize Springee's argument charitably and as clearly as possible, and then provide a rebuttall.

Springee has a problem with calling Ngo a racist and islamophobe, because this is a BLP. I concur. I don't think we can say in Wikipedia's voice that Ngo is a racist and islamophobe. There a number of sources that say that the article he wrote for the WSJ was widely described as racist and islamophobe, but Springee has a problem with using those sources too, because it is not clear from those sources who made those claims; the sources are very vague about that. Where we can be traced back to the actual writer who made those claims that are summarized as "racist and islamophobic", it turns out that they didn't actually use those exact words. Springy says that a reliable source that directly makes that claim would be acceptable, but secondary source that summarizes it without indentifying who said it is not. Springee, have I got that right so far; is this a fair summary of your argument?

Here's where I disgree: If an article is criticized by a few people, that is typically not a notable event, unless that criticism itself draws commentary. In this case the article "briefly became a Twitter sensation" (per Ngo) and there was critical commentary on that criticism in the press. In fact this is the only reason that article is notable. Sources that commented on the criticism of the article summarized that as "widely mocked/decried/panned". We can't expect those sources to list everyone who said that, and we can't be expected to do that either. If I were to list a number of sources that call A Visit to Islamic England racist and islamophobic, and I summarized that as "widely", that would be original research. We can't come to that conclusion, we rely on secondary sources to do that. Such sources exist and I therefor support mentioning that the article was criticized as racist and islamophobic. I strongly oppose calling Ngo a racist and islamophobe, and frankly, I'm not happy about calling him a conservative or a far-right figure either. I have no idea what he believes exactly and we should be very careful when ascribing views or opinions to the subject of a BLP. Vexations (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you did a fair job of hitting on many of my concerns. However, I think you missed a few things. First, while I do have a concern regarding some of the lower quality sources. Sources like Commune Magazine, SLOG and Newser do not appear to be RSs and thus shouldn't be used for controversial claims. Second, the article says Ngo was accused of being Islamaphobic. Not the article was, Ngo himself. Third, none of the sources trace back to any individual saying Ngo was Islamaphobic. Yes, Ngo says people on Twitter called him an Islamaphobe but why would we give Twitter trolls WEIGHT in this article? Certainly there were enough respectable sources that took issue and we can say why they took issue without using LABELS. The problem with LABELS is they come across as Wikipedia editors trying to pack in their own POVs via quoting others. That's just poor editing and ignores that we should be SUMMARIZING the sources, not quoting the juicy bits. BTW, this doesn't apply to Splinter News. In that case the title (but not the text) says "Racist". I agree with Shinealittlelight that it's questionable to quote just the lead if the body of the article doesn't say "article is racist" but let's overlook that. We can at least trace that claim right to the article. It's not at all clear the opinion of the author is DUE here (the RSN discussion seems to say no) but at least we know who is making the claim. We simply can't do that with the others. We should restrict quotes to those that can be traced back to reliable sources.

I do agree with you that it is notable that this article received so much criticism. We should talk about what was wrong with it. That tells our readers what mistakes were made. That some felt the mistakes were due to racism or Islamaphobia is only DUE if the voices that made the claim have weight. Else, avoid due to being a contentious LABEL. BTW, I'm OK with "widely mocked/decried/panned" because they speak to the quality of the work rather than implying a motive. BTW, I agree that we shouldn't call him a conservative (or right wing). Rather we should say that others have said this. Based on interviews and other information about Ngo it seems that he is conservative leaning in some cases and not in others. He doesn't neatly fit into any particular category but that is my OR.

Perhaps this is all jousting at windmills. The whole article is very badly written and if there is a group of editors invested in this narrative it's hard to get consensus to fix things. Springee (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. I also support retaining the material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hungariantoast (talk • contribs) 06:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• I think one short sentence isn't WP:UNDUE given that Ngo himself isn't particularly high-profile (so sources like this are likely to be the ones providing commentary on him.) Also, the other sentence which is being removed seems to have four sources...? Five now counting the Oregon Live one. I think there's enough there to support a five-word mention that the accusation exists. --Aquillion (talk) 10:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Which one short sentence? The sentence that says "racist" is rather inflammatory and sourced to a random person. Why should we care about that writer's opinion? Hence UNDUE. The "Islamaphobia" one is a different matter and the question becomes who is actually saying it. We shouldn't include third party accusations if we can't find who is making the original claim. Springee (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• I count six sources, several of them high-quality, saying that his article was described as Islamaphobic (including Ngo, himself, referencing that description); I think that that makes it worth covering as a common descriptor. We are required to specify who when we are summarizing something, but when the sources say eg. Earlier this year, he also wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal that was widely decried as Islamophobic, we should reflect what the sources say and just say that it was widely described that way. And, of course, based on that, I don't see it as inflammatory at all - the other sources cited there use somewhat different language that makes this one worth including as one of a variety of slightly-different takes (eg. "race-baiting") but there's extensive sourcing that his article was described in those terms, making Splinter useful as one example of such a descriptor to give the reader a sense of who was saying so and how. Whether a descriptor is incendiary and WP:EXCEPTIONAL depends on whether it is rare and unusual and out of line with the other things written or said about a subject. When a description is commonplace and uncontroversial, our responsibility shifts to require that we cover it; we have a responsibility to report even uncomfortable or potentially-objectionable things. In this case it seems fairly uncontroversial that Ngo's article was widely described as Islamaphobic, and was described as race-baiting in a high-profile mainstream publication; given that, there's nothing particularly surprising, unexpected, or particularly incendiary about it also being described as racist. --Aquillion (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL is important here. It's weasel-words if we use the passive construction. I'd be fine in terms of WP:RS to say that Ngo received thousands of messages and comments on twitter and elsewhere calling him islamophobic. But then of course the question is whether that's WP:DUE, and of course it isn't. But that's all we have support for at present, certainly that's all Ngo himself said. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL specifically says: Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. That's the case here. When a source says "such-and-such was widely described as Islamophobic", we can (and should) reflect that descriptor. --Aquillion (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If you look, the Wikipedia article doesn't claim the WSJ article was Islamaphobic. It says Ngo was accused of being Islamaphobic. That actually rules out a number of the sources. So why is it so imperative to include words like "racist" and "Islamaphobic"? Those are problematic LABELs. "Racist" is attributed to a source of questionable authority/weight. The other is attributed to no one in particular. Why shouldn't we err on the side of caution and just say the article was controversial etc? Why the need to include such labels? Springee (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:LABEL, those labels are only to be avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, which is the case here. If your objection is to precisely how we word that coverage, we can definitely tweak it, but when sources widely use a particular descriptor for the subject, we're supposed to reflect that ourselves - replacing it with "controversial" would be substituting our opinions for those of the sources and is not acceptable. Also, "controversial" is also a WP:LABEL - it's one of the words specifically listed as something to watch. Why do you consider that term, a label that is not as widely-used by the sources, to be an appropriate substitute for one that is? Caution, in a situation like this, means adhering closely to what the sources say, and the term they use is "Islamophobic." It feels like you're defining caution as "avoid anything or tone down that some people could find unduly offensive", when in fact caution means "adhere as closely as possible to the sources, especially in controversial areas" - or like you're misinterpreting WP:LABEL as "never use these words ever", which is definitely not the case. (Especially since, of course, in this case we're not even using it in article text, merely reporting it as a common opinion that numerous sources confirm to be a common opinion.) Based on the sourcing, that reception is, in fact, the most notable part of this piece (perhaps the only notable part), so it's fairly shocking that you think that we could omit it. If you feel the sources are wrong or questionable, go ahead and find others that disagree with them! If you think they're going too far, find higher-quality sources to replace them with. But "this word is a potentially-offensive word, so we cannot quote sources saying it even when we have many, of high quality, describing it as a common descriptor" is not a valid argument and shows a total misunderstanding of WP:LABEL. We need to report that reception because it is what the sources say, because it's key to the notability and reception of that piece, and because the focus and framing of those sources imply that this reception is therefore an important part of understanding how Ngo himself is seen and reported on. Again, even Ngo himself does not agree with you - he clearly finds it important! He disagrees with the descriptor, of course, but even to him, this fact that his work was described as Islamophobic is important enough that he devoted significant text to discussing it; so I don't see how you can implicitly dismiss it as something we could just gloss over with your personal preference of "controversial." EDIT: Eg. for a comparable case, the lead to Donald Trump says that Many of his comments and actions have also been characterized as racially charged or racist. Obviously coverage there was higher (and higher coverage was required) due to his higher profile, but the basic principle remains the same - we report accusations and controversial descriptors, even ones people might find objectionable, provided they are widely-reported and the sources establish that they are relevant. --Aquillion (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

As you can see Springee, you are incorrect. BeŻet (talk) 13:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

If the label is widely used as you claim then point to a RS that uses it. You say we can't use "controversial" by suggesting summarizing would be OR and that wasn't the opinion of the sources. Well which souces said his article was Islamaphobic or Racist? Racist can be poorly claimed by The Splinter though only in it's title. The body, while highly critical doesn't say "racist" and that's probably not the best way to sum up the body of that article. Islamaphobic? This gets back to the point that others can't address. No RS's are using that term to sum up their own views/opinions. They are saying "others said it". Since we can't find those "others" we shouldn't pick that as our summation of their opinion. It's not a hard concept. But if you think we should quote Ngo then perhaps we should include more of his response, not just that some Twitter trolls called him racist. His replies to the controversy would be DUE. Springee (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Umm... incorrect about what? That we still have no consensus? Can you show a consensus for inclusion? We have three editors who have removed the content. Then again, maybe some of the voices at RSN were correct. The problem is we are arguing about these UNDUE and poorly sourced details when the big picture is the article is a mess because it's been turned into a dumping ground of what ever negative mentions people can find often from lower quality sources. Springee (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

That's incorrect, only very recently Shinealittlelight joined you in saying, incorrectly, without precedence, that the sources are not RS. BeŻet (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I've said the sources are generally not reliable and that the accusation is UNDUE because we don't know who makes the accusation. You just added a source Ngo says he was accused. Your earlier references largely weren't reliable. Your later additions I will grant pass RS but fail DUE. The problem is who said it. Ngo's comment makes it clear these were social media posts. That isn't encyclopedic as the claims aren't coming from authoritative sources. Why does that matter? Well remember we are not saying the article was Islamaphobic, we are saying people said Ngo is. We aren't presenting information to balance that so we are damn near Wikipedia saying Ngo is Islamaphobic. Sorry this is a BLP and that is a contentious label. If we are going to include it we need to trace it back to a reliable source. You have failed to do that just as you have failed to understand NOCON applies here. Springee (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

NOCON doesn't apply here because it's nearly entirely just you disagreeing. You can't justify removal of content in a BLP article unless there is wide disagreement, otherwise it can be viewed as an attempt at censorship. All we can see here is you constantly disagreeing and then Shinealittlelight briefly chiming in. BeŻet (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources not being RS

Springee and Shinealittlelight, please present any Wikipedia rules and guidelines that agree with you that all five (!) sources used are not RS. If you can't, the point is moot. BeŻet (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Already covered and still has DUE issues. See above. Springee (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

This is not covered. You haven't referenced any Wikipedia guidelines, and there are no DUE issues since there are plenty of sources talking about it, and it's an important aspect of the situation. Either point at specific rules that are broken by those sources or admit that you're just expressing your opinion. BeŻet (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

“Career” section is crying out for summarization

This is a problem that is quite common for articles on living people involved with current events, but... the section really could use a rewrite with a focus on summarizing the subject’s career, rather than outlining it event by event. Present broad patterns rather than individual events. Blueboar (talk) 12:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The problem here is that Ngo barely has a career. His only claim to fame is that he got punched. BeŻet (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

That isn’t an excuse for the way the article is written. That would be justification to get the article deleted as not NOTABLE. Springee (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps nominating this for deletion is something we could consider, but it we were to summarize his career, it would literally just be his widely criticized article about London and him getting punched. BeŻet (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

BeŻet, or the article could be about how a graduate student figure managed to enrich himself by biased reporting on the use of violence by the opponents of right-wing extremists. Then we could explain how the False balance that Ngo promulgates has proved useful to right-wing politicians to attenuate their responsibility for dog-whistling murderous neo-nazis and neo-fascists. I know, not forum, but that's the real story here, isn't it? Vexations (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, but then you'll have to face the group of editors who will WP:IDONTLIKEIT every source used... The real problem is that the media has been conned into accepting his false narrative when he got punched, and fooled into believing he had any credibility whatsoever. Since then, he has been largely ignored by the same media, and those outlets that do want to undo the damage and actually investigate his past are seen as "partisan" and not "RS" by certain editors (again, a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than following any Wikipedia guidelines). If we are to improve this article, we first need to accept that any early reporting regarding his person that was written around the time he got punched is not as important, valid and valuable as later articles. BeŻet (talk) 11:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

At the very least, it's true that "career" is the wrong way to organize things (I would turn it into a short single paragraph summarizing where he worked.) He's notable for a few specific incidents rather than for a body of work. Probably the way to go is to divide it up into, roughly... a section on the main incidents he was involved in, plus a section on the nature of what he does according to the sources that have covered him. In that respect it might be worth putting together some "who is Andy Ngo" sources, eg. [4][5][6][7][8][9]. --Aquillion (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it makes sense to summarize where he has worked as a section without the indications of controversy then have a section more about the controversial reports/articles he has been involved with. When doing that people should avoid slathering on the damning quotes. The current WSJ controversy paragraph is a great example. It's DUE to say that the article was widely criticized but it looks like quote like "racist" and "Islamaphobic", LABELs that should be used with care, are in there as if the intent of this article were to scorn the subject rather than be an impartial observer. Springee (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

"Islamophobic" was a common descriptor for that piece, and is crucial to understanding its reception. Our purpose (which is to actually be an impartial observer - or, at least, to impartially report the sources - rather than to merely appear to be an impartial observer) therefore requires that we note that. Suggesting that we omit that well-established fact - which would make the section harder to understand by intentionally censoring the widely-reported central descriptor of what critics objected to in the piece in question - in order to create the appearance of neutrality is textbook WP:FALSEBALANCE. I'm also raising my eyebrow a bit at your concern that such terms could look like intent of this article were to scorn the subject; please remember to assume good faith. No one here wants to scorn or flatter Ngo; nobody wants to turn the article into a draconian condemnation or a flattering puff-piece, and it would be both insulting and uncivil to suggest otherwise. We all want to report the truth as we believe the sources report it, with the weight and focus required by those sources; our differences of opinion are (I hope) just over which sources to rely on and to what extent. If your concern is merely about appearances, rest assured - we don't have to worry about that. Per WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:NOTCENSORED, our job is to report what the sources say, not to put our thumb on the scale and to try to make them look more neutral to some hypothetical observer who might be offended at what they say. --Aquillion (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Please show the RS’s that called it Islamaphobic. Not the sources that said “others” called it Islamaphobic, the ones that used it themselves. Do we have any? Why should we give voice to the rabble other sources weren’t willing to name? Are you suggesting the best summary of our sources on the subject is a few quoted LABELS? Are we that poor at SUMMARIZING? Are you truly suggesting we need to include such labels else readers won’t understand the topic? They don’t improve understanding. They basically serve no valuable purpose to the overall article. Your cry of false balance is wrong. We don’t have to include specific LABELS to achieve balance. We shouldn’t write articles that suggest our editors hate the subject vs are summarizing RS’s. Springee (talk) 22:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

There are several RS demonstrating it has been called Islamophobic, you're just refusing to accept it. BeŻet (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

That isn't my question. Show the source that, in it's own voice, says the article is Islamaphobic. Is that source a RS? Springee (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

But why? The claim made is that Ngo has been accused of Islamophobia, that the article has been described as Islamophobic. The sources say exactly that. A source calling it Islamophobic would probably have to be an op-ed, and we would use WP:INTEXT, like we did with other sources. BeŻet (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

When one goes and reads the actual sources we cite the a lot of things were said about the WSJ article, some in first person, some as "others have said". If we want WEIGHT for inclusion then we need to show that the voices that said "Islamaphobic" are reliable. So again, can you show any RS that said "Islamaphobic" in their own voice? Springee (talk) 15:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

But Springee, we are not stating that the article was Islamophobic, we are stating that it has been described as such. Therefore, we don't have to prove that the voices that said "Islamophobic" are "reliable"; what we do have to do is check how widespread those accusations were, which according to the sources, it has been widely described as such. This makes it DUE. BeŻet (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Why is it DUE to describe it as such? We only have what one RS that says the article was described as Islamaphobic (many of the sources you added aren't). Also the article currently says Ngo personally was described as Islamaphobic, not the article. We should be using SUMMARY style here and summarizing what sources said about the article. None of our sources say, in their own voice, the article was Islamaphobic. Why weren't they willing to say it themselves? Why should we give WEIGHT to the Twitter trolls? Springee (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I count six sources saying that it has been described as Islamaphobic; therefore, we must report that fact, in accordance with the weight those publications deserve. If you think they were wrong to describe it that way, or find their reporting to be unbalanced, unfair, or offensive, or if you think it's wrong for reliable sources to report on what you personally feel are just "twitter trolls", you're free to write letters to them demanding retractions (and we can update our article to remove the well-sourced, uncontroversial statement of fact you find so objectionable if and when they update their reporting in kind), but until then we're required to go with what they say and not your personal opinion on what the reporting ought to say, and their opinion of what is newsworthy rather than your personal opinion on what sources ought to cover. --Aquillion (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

If you are referring to BeŻet's 6 sources then you really don't. Only perhaps 2 would generally be considered reliable. You do your self no credit to continue to count Newser and Commune Magazine as reliable. This is rehashing old discussions that you seem to be avoiding. But let's rewind. First, the article currently says Ngo was accused of... It doesn't say The article was accused of... So that is the first problem. The only reliable source (perhaps) that says "Ngo was accused of..." is Ngo himself. But even that ignores the bigger picture problem. None of the sources say this in their own voice. We are supposed to summarize the reaction to the article, not quote the Twitter trolls. If we can't find a RS that says this in their own voice then it's UNDUE in our article. I will ask you again, do you have any RS's that say the article or Ngo is/was Islamaphobic in their own voice? Springee (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, I find it baffling that you're rejecting high-quality secondary sources and demanding primary ones; you're an experienced enough editor to understand that a WP:SECONDARY source summarizing broad opinion is the ideal source for this sort of description. Regardless of your personal opinion that this is just "twitter trolls" that the sources shouldn't have covered, they decided it was worthwhile and important to the topic; we must go by their judgment, not yours. If you disagree with the secondary coverage, or think it's wrong, send letters to the editor asking them to retract their coverage; until then, we have to treat them with the respect they deserve as reliable sources, and cover an aspect that they clearly described as central regardless of how offensive some people may find that description. Regarding the other aspects (including wording and which of these sources to use) - perhaps we should focus on one thing at a time? I think your objection to the secondary nature of these sources is, at least, clearly a nonstarter. I don't follow your logic there at all; I'm serious when I say I can only parse this as you objecting to what the sources say, ie. "they shouldn't be reporting this", which is patiently nonsense as far as arguments over content disputes go. If you'll agree to drop that one and accept that secondary sources are good for this sort of thing then we can move on to what they say, which to use, and exactly how to word our summary of them. --Aquillion (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Er, not high quality sources. The local paper is ok, but one report in the local paper doesn't make it due. And I think Springee is right that the fact that we can't identify who actually "panned" the piece as Islamophobic tends to cast at least some doubt on the report in the local paper. Here's a comparison that I think is helpful. In the Sarah Jeong article, we report the incident in which she was accused of racism for some of her tweets. The sources we use there are a piece in the Guardian, and AP piece, and a BBC piece. Those pieces identify notable individuals on the right--people like Mike Huckabee, for example, among several others--that had called her tweets racist. We then summarize in that article that her critics called her racist. This is how it is done. Here, by contrast, we have a bunch of twitter trolls that call Ngo Islamophobic, and then we source that fact to the a blog nobody has heard of called "Slog" and an article in the local paper. See the difference? I agree with Springee. This isn't due, the sourcing is poor, and it's highly dubious that anyone notable actually called his piece Islamophobic. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I posted this as a question at the BLPN. The response was both that this needs to be in summary style and that the heavy use of quotes, including the two in question, were not appropriate. [[10]] I think it's clear there isn't a consensus to include the quotes as is. Springee (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Looking at that discussion it seems clear that there is consensus around including it, but there's a discussion around in what form. Moreover, other Wikipedians are explaining to you the same things we've been explaining you here. BeŻet (talk) 10:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

You clearly aren't reading it nor the discussion here or you are confusing a lack of consensus for removal with a consensus to keep. Springee (talk) 10:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

May 2019 incident covered twice.

We have two separate paragraphs on the May 2019 incident; we should probably combine them somehow. Also, the second one was worded in a way that cast WP:DOUBT on the video that isn't in the sources (eg. ...used video evidence to suggest that...) - none of the sources, that I can see, disagree on what the video contains, so we should report that in a neutral fashion rather than expressing doubt about it with "suggest" and the like. Even Ngo himself does not dispute that he was there or what the video shows - he merely says he didn't hear what was going on. I also think had observed and saw misrepresents the sources; the Portland Mercury says that Ngo tags along with Patriot Prayer during demonstrations, hoping to catch footage of an altercation, while Salon uses showed him acting friendly with members of Patriot Prayer. "Observed" suggests that he was merely there incidentally, which directly contradicts the sources and doesn't seem to be how any of them approach it; I think we should at least say that he was present with them rather than merely observing them. Finally, the details from the Daily Dot are crucial (because they establish why some sources say he might have been fired for this) - the laughter and the fact that his coverage ultimately blamed the brawl on the people Patriot Prayer was planning to attack, in particular, are key points. --Aquillion (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

So what was this "May 2019 incident"? Has it anything to do with Cider Riot? The allusions to this "May 209 incident" suggest they are the same, but there have been so many scuffles here between RW activists & their opponents that I'm not jumping to any conclusions. (Personally, I wish those outside agitators would just stay home, & I lack any sympathy for them when they get their butts kicked by the locals) -- llywrch (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The incident where he was caught on video laughing with the Patriot Prayer members as they planned an attack on peaceful protesters in front of him, with him later blaming the attack on anti-fascist activists instead. --Aquillion (talk) 12:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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 (talk • contribs) 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)

There seems to be some more back-and-forth on this in the lead now. I think "appeared to be antifascist protestors" is the best wording (that's what we currently use in the body). We can't ignore the more skeptical sources, which generally use wording of that nature. I feel we specifically must mention that the protestors are unidentified (every source agrees that no individuals were identified or prosecuted, and the alternative wording implies he was attacked by specific, clearly-identified people with known affiliation, which isn't the case.) --Aquillion (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

NPOV disputed

"Later that year, a video of Ngo surfaced were he is seen laughing, while standing with the members of the far-right group planning the attack on anti-fascist patrons at the bar."

This claim is disputed by Ngo himself (as seen by the threat of litigation linked on the Portland Mercury story that first made the claim) and is contradicted by these sources.

The Portland Mercury which broke this story isn't a good example of a reliable source as it is an alternative weekly, which is a format described by wikipedia as: "An alternative newspaper is a type of newspaper that eschews comprehensive coverage of general news in favor of stylized reporting, opinionated reviews and columns, investigations into edgy topics and magazine-style feature stories highlighting local people and culture."

The first cited source to back up this claim, JewishCurrents describes itself in this way: Founded in 1946, Jewish Currents is a magazine committed to the rich tradition of thought, activism, and culture of the Jewish left. https://jewishcurrents.org/jewish-currents/

The third and final source was rated by mediabiasfactcheck with the following explanation: "Overall, we rate Mediaite Left Biased based on story selection that almost always favors the left and Mixed for factual reporting due to misleading sensational headlines and use of poor sources." https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/mediaite/

None of these are sources which should be relied upon to back up the claim that Ngo witnessed patriot prayer planning violence, a claim which Ngo has indicted he is willing to litigate against. This part of the article appears to be biased and I suggest that it be changed.AShalhoub (talk) 10:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I have edited the section accordingly and it was reverted by the user Calton without any explanation outside of something to the effect of Ngo not being a valid source. I find this to be a bit of a straw man as I did post other sourcesk. Saying that Ngo planned violence is a biased claim that is not backed up by any major news outlet. It should not be included in this article, which should be offering unbiased information. Please explain your reversion more adequately.AShalhoub (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps an alternative way of phrasing would work better. The current phrasing could be read to suggest Ngo was in on planning violence since "as they planned" is grammatically ambiguous. There also may be disagreement if Patriot Prayer was planning to instigate violence or was expecting a violent reply. It also seems like a jarring transition from Quillette to this incident. The reader is left wondering if leaving Quillette is related and if so how. Certainly some sources say yes but Quillette says no. This gets back to the comments several editors have made regarding summarizing his work history. This incident could be tied to the general controversy around him rather than presented as is. We should also be clear about what he is accused of. I think sources are basically saying PP was intending to act/react violently and that Ngo, by virtue of where he was, was aware this was going to happen but failed to report it. I don't think anyone is suggesting he was part of any planning. So perhaps rephrasing without removing as well as adding refuting articles would help. Springee (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The second source you've mentioned does not contradict anything. It is undisputable that Ngo was present at the time the group was discussing the attack. Ngo just denies hearing anything, because, poor little thing, he was too occupied on his phone 😂. And his sorry excuse is mentioned in the article. BeŻet (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Why are you posting this nonsense two months after the conversation died out? Springee (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you know how Wikipedia works? BeŻet (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

"Allegedly Attacked"

So, I'm looking through the talk page, and past versions, and I think the previous consensus version was what I just implemented here [11]. Sources state, as a matter of fact, that Andy Ngo was attacked. Some of them positively identify the attackers as antifa counterprotesters, but no one has been arrested or charged, so I think it makes sense to say they only appeared to be counterprotesters. That's been the long-standing version, and has some consensus on the various talkpage threads where this has been discussed, going back to July. It was changed in this edit [12], which started the current edit-war on the subject. Unfortunately, I missed the change to the lead, which should be changed back to the long-standing version, which states: "he was assaulted by unidentified assailants who appeared to be antifascist protesters". If you want to change these sections to add in "alleged", please discuss it and get consensus. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

By that standard, the other points in the article in which "alleged" or "allegedly" should be changed as well.

"He later followed the group to the bar where they allegedly attacked the patrons. The video is part of the court documents in the ongoing lawsuit against Patriot Prayer members for allegedly causing the riot."

Should be changed to:

"He later followed the group to the bar where they attacked the patrons. The video is part of the court documents in the ongoing lawsuit against Patriot Prayer members for causing the riot."

Whatever standard is used, it should be used consistently. Whenever an accusation is levied against Ngo, the Proud Boys, or related far-right groups, it uses the legal standard of "alleged". But in all other parts of the article, appearing on video or being positively identified by journalistic sources is described as undisputed fact. Shadybabs (talk) 00:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

In reply to RRC's comments, I would agree that the attack shouldn't be called "alleged" since I think the evidence is clear that it happened and I don't think we have any sources suggesting it didn't. The alleged should only refer to who carried out the attack (counter protesters, antifa etc). Springee (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Shadybabs, I don't really know about that other incident and haven't familiarized myself with the sources. Just reading it, that appears to be overuse or misuse of "allegedly", and may violate MOS:ALLEGED. One possible difference is that WP:BLPCRIME only applies to accusations about specific living person, and no person have been identified in the attack against Ngo. But that's another incident entirely and should be discussed on its own merits with the relevant sources used for evidence. I would like to use this section to settle the issue of the attack in late June, because that's what the edit warring was about, and the reason the page was protected.

Here are some of the relevant quotes from the sources used in that section:

The senators also pointed to conservative journalist Andy Ngo, who in June was left bloodied by antifa activists in Portland, Ore.

-Washington Post [13]

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.

NBC [14]

Just days after his warning, Ngo sat a few feet away from me, cut up and dazed, after a beating at the hands of left-wing protesters. As I watched him stream a close-up of his bloody face to more than a million people, it seemed like a defining moment in a new kind of media career.

Buzzfeed (this one is almost entirely about the incident, written by a journalist who saw the event first-hand; the writer goes into much greater detail later) [15]

A conservative writer has been attacked by antifascists amid violence at clashing demonstrations in Portland. Andy Ngo was surrounded and beaten by protesters wearing black with their faces concealed, while being covered in a milkshake, eggs and spray on Saturday.

The Independent [16]

This time around, it was conservative writer Andy Ngo ― who has 200,000 Twitter followers and a reactionary publication called Quillette behind him ― who was bloodied in the melee by unidentified assailants.

Huffington Post [17]

All of those sources support the claim that he was attacked. None of them qualify his attack with "allegedly" or "according to him" or anything to cast doubt. They simply state that he was "physically attacked", "beaten", "attacked", "surrounded and beaten", "bloodied", with no qualification whatsoever. If we are going to follow the sources, we have to treat this attack as an event that happened, not something that was "alleged".

Additionally, here is the relevant text from MOS:ALLEGED: Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear. So-called can mean commonly named, falsely named, or contentiously named, and it can be difficult to tell these apart. Simply called is preferable for the first meaning; detailed and attributed explanations are preferable for the others. Basically, using "alleged anti-fascist counter-protesters" implies that they weren't actual anti-fascist counter-protesters, when the fact is that simply no one knows for sure who they were (except obviously themselves). Also it leaves the question, "alleged" by whom? Most of the sources I listed about simply state that they were antifascists and leave it at that, so I guess we could say, "unidentified assailants, alleged to be anti-fascist/left-wing/antifa counter-protesters by the Washington Post, NBC News, Buzzfeed News," etc (there are a lot more sources and public figures out there that simply state Ngo was attacked by antifa, so we could just keep listing every person who "alleged" that the attackers were antifa), but that's kind of ridiculous. That's why I proposed (back in July) "who appeared to be anti-fascist counter-protesters". This is much more neutral than the "alleged" wording. It doesn't imply anything. And unless I'm mistaken, none of these sources have any positive identification of any individuals involved in the attack and are just going on eyewitness testimony and the video recording, which makes "appears" an accurate description. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

You make a solid case for the removal of "alleged" throughout the article. All I want is the usage of "alleged" to be neutral and consistent. The attacks on Cider riot have been confirmed by multiple news [18] and video sources, and have lead to indictments against those involved (members of Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer). There is absolutely no reason to include "alleged" in that section unless we were using the highest standard (actual criminal convictions), in which case it would need to be added to every criminal allegation in this article that didn't result in a criminal conviction. It is *fact* that Cider Riot was attacked by Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer members, and its is *fact* that Andy Ngo was caught on video with the attackers before the attack. The only thing that is alleged in this is Andy's exact level of involvement in the planning and execution of this violent attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadybabs (talk • contribs) 12:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is about the use of "alleged" in regards to the Ngo getting attacked on June 29th, your edit here [19], the edit-warring that followed, and the resulting page protection. Go ahead and open a new section if you'd like to discuss something else. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

The article cites two sources for the attack at the bar. Vice says "alleged". Vox doesn't seem to mention the bar fight at all so I'm not sure why it's cited. Given the sources says alleged we should as well. Springee (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

How can it be alleged if people went to court over the attack and later in the article we talk about the victims of the attack? Also, we don't just use two sources for the attack at the bar, we use at least 7 or 8 if not more, so please start sticking to facts. "Alleged" from those sentences should be promptly removed once the block is lifted. BeŻet (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Again, why reply a month and a half after the discussion died, especially to make a nonsense argument. Springee (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Why not? Do you get paid for doing work here because I don't. I write when I can. BeŻet (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The "allegedly" in this case refers to a fight at a bar between two groups, "He later followed the group to the bar where they allegedly attacked the patrons." While we can correctly say a fight occurred, we can't reliably say who started the fight. That is why allegedly is correct in this case, it's alleged that a particular group started the fight vs that a fight occurred. Using alledgely is not out of line given that Daily Dot and Vice do the same [[20]],[[21]]. Since we don't have a clear legal ruling we should say alleged. Incidentally, it appears that Ngo is looking to take legal action with regards to claims that he was aware of what the PP members were discussing in the video in question.[[22]] Again this makes the "associated with" sentence added to the lead harder to justify. Springee (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closers of discussions are cautioned to consider not merely the numbers of editors on each side of a discussion but also the strength of the arguments. Specifically, arguments ...that flatly contradict established policy, [that are]...based on personal opinion only, ...that are logically fallacious, and ...that show no understanding of the matter of issue are discarded. Once done in the context of this discussion, the relative numbers and strength of arguments, both in the !vote section and in the "General Discussion" section, are so closely-balanced that the only reasonable summary of this discussion is that no consensus has been reached for the proposed inclusion. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

---

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)

!votes

• 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. [23]. --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)

• No - That's not really what the sources say, although I think this is hardly WP:DUE. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 15:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• Yes - Clearly a false statement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. Rafe87 (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

General discussion

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 [[24]]. 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)

• This RfC has run it’s course. My read is a no consensus for inclusion. Springee (talk) 10:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I've made a BOLD edit and removed the hammer related material from the article based on my NOCON read of the RfC. If an editor disagrees, please restore the material and then request a formal closing of the RfC. Springee (talk) 01:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• This edit is to prevent archiving of this discussion prior to closing. I put in a request for closure around 18 Oct. Springee (talk) 11:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

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

29 Dec lead changes

@NorthBySouthBaranof:, I'm not sure about some of your lead changes. As a journalist it is relevant who Ngo has worked for. I don't like even including "alleged" coordination given the weak sourcing for those claim however, it's better than what we had before which stated it as fact in wiki voice. I still object to the inclusion but it's closer to acceptable. Springee (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

My justification is that the issue is highly relevant to Ngo's notability and his resulting lack of any mainstream journalistic credibility. The fact that he's written columns for several outlets is not highly relevant - we don't generally laundry-list every outlet a freelance writer has written a column for in the lede of their biography. Otherwise, wouldn't we also have to mention that he was fired from his student newspaper for misrepresenting a source? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I would add that if he currently has a regular job with a particular outlet, we should mention that in the lede. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree if the person has been a regular contributor to those sources. Certainly part of why people say he is notable was his work with the WSJ. I see your point about not listing any source that happens to have published some of his work. Springee (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

What is your evidence that Ngo is a regular contributor to the WSJ? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

At hand I have none. I know he wrote some articles for the WSJ as one was a source of controversy. I don't really know where we would draw the line between "submitted some" and "regular". Either way, I'm OK with your change. I think putting the current employer in there is good enough. It just seemed odd before when we had nothing. Springee (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

If he was writing a weekly column or something, or was on WSJ's masthead, I would agree with you - but I can only find two columns that he's published in the WSJ. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Description of 'Him Too Movement'

We have an edit amending 'antifeminist' to 'pro-male' regarding how the Him Too Movement is described under the confrontations heading. This seems controversial. Is there a consensus on how we should describe this movement? Darren-M (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

We should describe it the way reliable sources describe it. And the current sourcing doesn't use 'pro-male' or 'antifeminist', so we shouldn't either, unless other sources are found to support one of those descriptions. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The sources here, and over at the Him Too article page don't use either label. We shouldn't be using either label without an appropriate source, and the sentence should probably be re-written. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Kyohyi. Any reason not to just remove the label? Springee (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd give some time for people who want whichever label a chance to provide a source for it. But that's just my personal preference to avoid edit warring. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I think we could just remove the whole paragraph, as it seems to me the only reason it is mentioned is because he was sprayed with silly string, hardly anything newsworthy. BeŻet (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but he was also interviewed afterwords and offered a perspective on what he saw was the problem. I would be inclined to keep it but not strongly so. Springee (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about removing it either, so we can keep it until we feel it's time for it to go. BeŻet (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Position at Quillette

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. [25] 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)

Hi Vexations, I was updating the Quillette article and trying to pull some info from this article and I discovered a contradiction that may help you! He is still listed as a sub-editor at Quillette's page: https://quillette.com/2018/06/27/who-we-are/ Please ping me if you end up figuring this out, so I can update the Quillette page too. Gungb5n6nqkg (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Gungb5n6nqkg, I don't know what's going on at Quillette. The about us page seems to not have changed since June 27, 2018, and Ngo seems to have left in August 2019, “moving onto bigger & better projects”, according to Claire Lehmann. Perhaps it's just out-of-date. Vexations (talk) 04:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Vexations Thanks! Gungb5n6nqkg (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Can't find a thing about it online either. Bacondrum (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)