Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Andy Ngo/Archive 6) (bot |
|||
Line 458: | Line 458: | ||
:: We aren't supposed to be in a hurry. Keeping it out for now is probably the best call. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 16:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC) |
:: We aren't supposed to be in a hurry. Keeping it out for now is probably the best call. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 16:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC) |
||
== Ngo's credibility needs to be addressed in the header - whitewashing and false balance a problem == |
|||
There is a strong current in mainstream journalism that holds that Ngo is not a credible, good-faith journalist. While Ngo is frequently described as a "journalist" in media sources he is also frequently described as a "provocateur", a "right-wing activist" a "grifter" and a "troll". Yes I have looked at the talk page and seen the extensive discussions on this topic. And yet, the header is remarkably credulous and seems to barely address the serious questions about the sincerity and credulity of Ngo's writing. |
|||
This article whitewashes Ngo to a considerable extent - why on earth have references from the SPLC (who have called Ngo a "far-right provocateur"[[https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2021/01/07/congressmen-right-wing-media-push-baseless-claims-antifa-fueled-far-right-riot-nations]] and say that he "has been caught misrepresenting facts"[[https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2020/08/27/fascist-underpinnings-pro-trump-media-interview-author-jason-stanley]] been removed? I'm keen to hear the thoughts of other editors. Has anyone had a problem with politically partisan editing on this page? [[User:Noteduck|Noteduck]] ([[User talk:Noteduck|talk]]) 09:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:56, 21 January 2021
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lead changes
How's that for an informative heading. Anyway, there is a lot of text above but I'm having trouble understanding what people want to add/remove from the body and the lead. I would suggest that 1. we at least agree for the time to stop making changes to the lead while we sort out changes (if any) to the body. Once the body is sorted then we can revisit the lead. 2. That we discuss changes to the body below with proposed changes (quotes etc) so we can reduce the number of back and forths before a change goes live. In watching the discussion above I find that both sides are making some good points. In watching the edits to the article I think there is ample room for a compromise text. It might not make anyone happy but if both can "live with it" then it's probably a good compromise. Springee (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't like that the "social media personality" line was restored by Grayfell after being challenged, and without Grayfell even proposing this on the talk page. Of course, this is slightly different than the "activist" language and more neutral, and I was able to find it sourced to a piece in the Rolling Stone (though, again, the NYT should be our guiding star here). At this point, I think the only really necessary change is to explain how Ngo came to notoriety. He was fired from a paper for statements on Twitter perceived as misleading; he wrote an article about it claiming to be a victim of censhorship; conservative outlets and commentators jumped on his bandwagon, and thus a "star was born." Or, in other words, that's how we know who this guy is. I think it is incorrect to imply, as the lead currently does, that the firing alone is what sparked his public profile, when there were a few key events after that. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- I can’t find any mainstream articles about him since the one incident over a year ago. A story that quickly died. Fox did report on his suit against “antifa”, in a highly biased article. The suit looks like an attempt at another fifteen minutes. Nobody is talking about the incident except for us. Frankly, he’s barely notable. O3000 (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Notability isn't temporary once established. The subject's notability is derived from 1) the coverage regarding his firing from a college paper and then 2) the coverage over his attack while covering protests in Portland, (as the lead already indicates). Since the article's been up for a year, never been the subject of a del. rev., and it's never been an issue before, bringing up the fundamental issue of notability while we're hammering out details of the lead is sort of like throwing a wrench into the discussion, and I'm not sure how much good that'll do. Then again, any editor is free to open a deletion review any time they like. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- I said nothing about deletion. But, the coverage was very short-lived in RS and due to his efforts along with right-wing groups. Was there ever a police report on this attack? O3000 (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- WP:SECONDARY. We don't go off primary sources (which include court documents, police reports, and criminal complaints). If you're interested in discussing article changes, this thread is the place to do it. If you want to raise basic questions about notability, that is probably meant for a second thread; bringing up notability about the subject generally also implies that you believe the article doesn't meet GNG, which is also appropriate fodder for a del rev but not something that can be fully addressed in the article's talk page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Please stop making assumptions about what I am saying. I say what I mean. I know we don't go off primary sources. Was there ever a police report on this attack? Wouldn't that be mentioned in a secondary source? O3000 (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that no police report was filed or that Ngo didn't report the attack to the police? The police are looking for suspects which they normally wouldn't do without a police report.[[1]] Didn't take much effort to find that. Springee (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- I was looking for a serious source. "The Post Millennial is a conservative Canadian online news magazine started in 2017. It publishes national and local news and has a large amount of opinion content. It has been criticized for releasing misinformation and articles written by fake personas, for past employment of an editor with ties to white supremacist-platforming and pro-Kremlin media outlets, and for opaque funding and political connections." (According to our article) The article you linked to talks about concrete in milkshakes, that was debunked, and the quote they provide from the Portland Mayor doesn’t mention the incident or Ngo. Oh, I forgot, Andy Ngo was an editor of the source you used. O3000 (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- WP:YOUCANSEARCH. Arguments about notability and available of primary sources belong in another thread.
Separating out different discussions to consolidate those on same topic.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC) - O3000, first, are you seriously claiming that Ngo didn't file a police report? Second, that article was from shortly after the incident and quotes police with respect to the concrete part. When was that debunked, before or after 1 July? Finally, are you seriously saying Ngo didn't notify the police? Springee (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that no police report was filed or that Ngo didn't report the attack to the police? The police are looking for suspects which they normally wouldn't do without a police report.[[1]] Didn't take much effort to find that. Springee (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Please stop making assumptions about what I am saying. I say what I mean. I know we don't go off primary sources. Was there ever a police report on this attack? Wouldn't that be mentioned in a secondary source? O3000 (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- WP:SECONDARY. We don't go off primary sources (which include court documents, police reports, and criminal complaints). If you're interested in discussing article changes, this thread is the place to do it. If you want to raise basic questions about notability, that is probably meant for a second thread; bringing up notability about the subject generally also implies that you believe the article doesn't meet GNG, which is also appropriate fodder for a del rev but not something that can be fully addressed in the article's talk page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- I said nothing about deletion. But, the coverage was very short-lived in RS and due to his efforts along with right-wing groups. Was there ever a police report on this attack? O3000 (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Notability isn't temporary once established. The subject's notability is derived from 1) the coverage regarding his firing from a college paper and then 2) the coverage over his attack while covering protests in Portland, (as the lead already indicates). Since the article's been up for a year, never been the subject of a del. rev., and it's never been an issue before, bringing up the fundamental issue of notability while we're hammering out details of the lead is sort of like throwing a wrench into the discussion, and I'm not sure how much good that'll do. Then again, any editor is free to open a deletion review any time they like. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- The talk page is a good place to clarify what is sourced and what isn't. The Post Millennial isn't even close to being a reliable source. What do reliable sources say about this, and what is the due weight of this incident, per those sources? Grayfell (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm just trying to understand why O3000 is suggesting Ngo didn't file a police report. Why would we even care? Are people suggesting he wasn't really attacked? Are you suggesting the PM is lying that the police were looking for those people? I get that we might not want to quote the PM for this information though it would be questionable to say they aren't reliable for such a basic claim (weight of course is about matter). I never suggested that we should put this in the article. I'm just trying to understand why O3000 thinks we need to see a police report. Do we expect sources to specifically mentioned a police report in cases like this? Springee (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- WP is an encyclopedia based upon reliable secondary sources. Not that extremist source you provided, of which Ngo was a part. Where is the source that says an official report was made? We don't make assumptions here. And, please stop misconstruing my words. I asked if a police report was filed twice and received no evidence of such. Don't you think that's important? O3000 (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Why would you even suggest a police report want filed? Since you seem to be the only one suggesting the police weren't involved why don't you search. No one else is suggesting such a basic thing didn't happen. What article level content do you think is missing because we lack this report? What change are you proposing here? Springee (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- I tire of your AGF vios. AGAIN, this is an encyclopedia. We don't take the word of one person for anything. I asked the question because there is no source. That is my job as an editor. And of course I searched. I found nothing. You said it was easy to find a source, and provided a recently created source criticized for fake news and white supremacist and Russian ties where the accuser worked. Why have you not stricken this embarrassing "source"? O3000 (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- What are you even taking about? You asked about a police report, why? Do you think one was never filed? For what article content is this needed? Springee (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- I say again, we are an encyclopedia. We don’t assume. Do you really think it is wrong for an editor to ask for sourcing? I don’t know if a police report was filed. You don’t either – although you seem to believe a source criticized for white supremacy and Russian connections connected to the accuser. I can’t find sources that actually support the claims made by Ngo and repeated in the article. Seriously, the lead says “Ngo was attacked and injured”, with a cite that he SAYS he was attacked and injured. See the difference? It would be nice to have sources. It would be nice to see a secondary source that sys a police report was actually filed and accepted. Why do you keep questioning my reasonable questions? O3000 (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- You can say that again and again. I'm not arguing about sourcing. You asked if a police report was filed. Why. I provided a source that should at least be sufficient to convince you that the police were involved. Since I'm not proposing adding that content to the article the fact that PM isn't a generally RS doesn't matter. So since you asked about the report, why? Are you actually going suggest that Ngo wasn't attacked or injured? Are you suggesting we need to see a police report to verify Ngo was attacked? Yes, I keep questioning your questions but so far you haven't explained why they are "reasonable". Perhaps if you explained what article content you think is insufficiently sourced we might make some progress. Springee (talk) 01:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Are you kidding me? You are still relying on a source identified with white supremacy and Russian propaganda and where the accuser himself worked? Clearly, I am incapable of the articulation needed to describe the role of a Wikipedia editor. So, I’ll leave it at that. O3000 (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Objective3000, I thought I would respond to a comment you made here [[2]] in this article where it belongs. You suggested that the PM would have a conflict of interest in reporting on Ngo, "Further, Andy Ngo, who the article is about, was an editor at the source, making it an obvious COI, " But Ngo started working for the PM in November 2019 (per our wiki article). The article in question was dated July 2019. Also, looking in the archives shows the answer should have been clear. [[3]]. 05:25 5 Sept entry includes quotes from NYT and qFox 13. NYT [[4]] says, "Many have blamed Antifa for the beating, which was captured on video. No one has been charged in connection with the assault, which the police are continuing to investigate. " The Fox affiliate says, " Portland’s mayor says an investigation into the attack is ongoing.". I think that should make it clear the police were notified and a police report likely exists. Springee (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Are you kidding me? You are still relying on a source identified with white supremacy and Russian propaganda and where the accuser himself worked? Clearly, I am incapable of the articulation needed to describe the role of a Wikipedia editor. So, I’ll leave it at that. O3000 (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- You can say that again and again. I'm not arguing about sourcing. You asked if a police report was filed. Why. I provided a source that should at least be sufficient to convince you that the police were involved. Since I'm not proposing adding that content to the article the fact that PM isn't a generally RS doesn't matter. So since you asked about the report, why? Are you actually going suggest that Ngo wasn't attacked or injured? Are you suggesting we need to see a police report to verify Ngo was attacked? Yes, I keep questioning your questions but so far you haven't explained why they are "reasonable". Perhaps if you explained what article content you think is insufficiently sourced we might make some progress. Springee (talk) 01:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- I say again, we are an encyclopedia. We don’t assume. Do you really think it is wrong for an editor to ask for sourcing? I don’t know if a police report was filed. You don’t either – although you seem to believe a source criticized for white supremacy and Russian connections connected to the accuser. I can’t find sources that actually support the claims made by Ngo and repeated in the article. Seriously, the lead says “Ngo was attacked and injured”, with a cite that he SAYS he was attacked and injured. See the difference? It would be nice to have sources. It would be nice to see a secondary source that sys a police report was actually filed and accepted. Why do you keep questioning my reasonable questions? O3000 (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- What are you even taking about? You asked about a police report, why? Do you think one was never filed? For what article content is this needed? Springee (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- I tire of your AGF vios. AGAIN, this is an encyclopedia. We don't take the word of one person for anything. I asked the question because there is no source. That is my job as an editor. And of course I searched. I found nothing. You said it was easy to find a source, and provided a recently created source criticized for fake news and white supremacist and Russian ties where the accuser worked. Why have you not stricken this embarrassing "source"? O3000 (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Why would you even suggest a police report want filed? Since you seem to be the only one suggesting the police weren't involved why don't you search. No one else is suggesting such a basic thing didn't happen. What article level content do you think is missing because we lack this report? What change are you proposing here? Springee (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- WP is an encyclopedia based upon reliable secondary sources. Not that extremist source you provided, of which Ngo was a part. Where is the source that says an official report was made? We don't make assumptions here. And, please stop misconstruing my words. I asked if a police report was filed twice and received no evidence of such. Don't you think that's important? O3000 (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm just trying to understand why O3000 is suggesting Ngo didn't file a police report. Why would we even care? Are people suggesting he wasn't really attacked? Are you suggesting the PM is lying that the police were looking for those people? I get that we might not want to quote the PM for this information though it would be questionable to say they aren't reliable for such a basic claim (weight of course is about matter). I never suggested that we should put this in the article. I'm just trying to understand why O3000 thinks we need to see a police report. Do we expect sources to specifically mentioned a police report in cases like this? Springee (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- The talk page is a good place to clarify what is sourced and what isn't. The Post Millennial isn't even close to being a reliable source. What do reliable sources say about this, and what is the due weight of this incident, per those sources? Grayfell (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
break for convenience
I am incapable of the articulation needed to describe the role of a Wikipedia editor
Thankfully no one asked you to do so! He cited the source as an answer to your question of whether or not there was a police report for the attack on Ngo. If you aren't happy with his answer, then flex those fingers, crack open a Google search bar tab, and find one yourself that you believe is sufficient. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- His source is worse than The Onion. Are you actually supporting this? And obviously I did do a search. I can find no RS that says a police report was filed. WP:AGF O3000 (talk) 11:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- I never supported anything, I said that I think whether there was a police report is inconsequential, and that if you are curious about whether there was one (reported in a reliable source), you are free to search it yourself and let us know what you find. Since you didn't find one, I take it there isn't, and I assume that settles the matter! Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think you are missing the point. You, O3000 asked if a police report had been filed. Your question suggested that one hadn't. You have avoided answering the question, why are you asking. Are you suggesting one wasn't filed? How do you see this impacting the article? I provided the first source that included comments that police were looking for these people (pictures included) in connection with the attack. You seem to have fixated on the fact that the source as PM instead of answering why did you think this was an important question. I've asked if you are suggesting that Ngo wouldn't report the attack or that an attack never happened. You have remained silent on those questions. In order to shut down the red herring that was your PM rant, [[6]]. In that article, in relation to the Ngo attack, Portland police Lt. Tina Jones, bureau spokeswoman, said police were "actively looking into that incident." Does it show a police report? No. Does it say the police are looking into it, yes. Are you going to suggest they are doing this without some type of paperwork? Springee (talk) 13:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- The question I asked is a legitimate question that you have repeatedly insinuated is otherwise. I will answer yet again. I am an editor asking a pertinent question. I am allowed to do that. The source you continue to push has connections to white supremacists and Russian propagandists and the subject of this article was an editor. That obviously makes it a terrible source. Further, it did not say that police were investigating an attack on Ngo. Your statement that I have remained silent on this is false and should be stricken. Your characterization that I was ranting is a personal attack and should be stricken. I strongly suggest you not stoop to this again. As for your second source, the article on this in Wikipedia has a total of five sentences; according to you it doesn’t say there was a police report filed; and it demands that I install an app to read. I will not do this. I ask again, was a police report filed? I think this is an important question given what all the other RS say about this and other incidents related to the subject of this article. O3000 (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- You are dodging the question again and it's starting to look like you are doing this to obfuscate. Prior to providing any sources, you asked, in a way that suggested you thought the answer was no, if Ngo had filed a police report. Why did you ask? Was there some content that should be changed in the article depending on the answer/evidence provided? That should be an easy question to answer and it doesn't matter if I cite the Onion, PM or NYT. Also, speaking of comments that should be struck, since I'm not suggesting we add the PM to the article your rant about it's "Russian ties" etc are red herrings. BTW, Oregon Live doesn't require an installed app to read. I don't know where you got that idea. I agree (and said before) it doesn't say "police report filed" but it does say the police are looking into the Ngo attack. Are you suggesting they are doing that without a police report? Before you answer that one, let's start with the primary question, why are you fixated on this police report question?Springee (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- You have twice accused me of ranting and twice accused me of fixating. Now accusing me of obfuscating. I am not ranting, fixating, or obfuscating. I asked one question. You are fixating on this for some reason, and making personal attack after personal attack. I don't know why you are so upset by this simple question, but streams of personal attacks in response is unacceptable. O3000 (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Let's distill this to a simple question. You asked about a police report. How do you think the answer to that question will be used to change the article? What article edits would be made based on the answer to that question? Unless you think ONUS would apply to some article content, no editor is required to answer your question. Springee (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- You have twice accused me of ranting and twice accused me of fixating. Now accusing me of obfuscating. I am not ranting, fixating, or obfuscating. I asked one question. You are fixating on this for some reason, and making personal attack after personal attack. I don't know why you are so upset by this simple question, but streams of personal attacks in response is unacceptable. O3000 (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- You are dodging the question again and it's starting to look like you are doing this to obfuscate. Prior to providing any sources, you asked, in a way that suggested you thought the answer was no, if Ngo had filed a police report. Why did you ask? Was there some content that should be changed in the article depending on the answer/evidence provided? That should be an easy question to answer and it doesn't matter if I cite the Onion, PM or NYT. Also, speaking of comments that should be struck, since I'm not suggesting we add the PM to the article your rant about it's "Russian ties" etc are red herrings. BTW, Oregon Live doesn't require an installed app to read. I don't know where you got that idea. I agree (and said before) it doesn't say "police report filed" but it does say the police are looking into the Ngo attack. Are you suggesting they are doing that without a police report? Before you answer that one, let's start with the primary question, why are you fixated on this police report question?Springee (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- The question I asked is a legitimate question that you have repeatedly insinuated is otherwise. I will answer yet again. I am an editor asking a pertinent question. I am allowed to do that. The source you continue to push has connections to white supremacists and Russian propagandists and the subject of this article was an editor. That obviously makes it a terrible source. Further, it did not say that police were investigating an attack on Ngo. Your statement that I have remained silent on this is false and should be stricken. Your characterization that I was ranting is a personal attack and should be stricken. I strongly suggest you not stoop to this again. As for your second source, the article on this in Wikipedia has a total of five sentences; according to you it doesn’t say there was a police report filed; and it demands that I install an app to read. I will not do this. I ask again, was a police report filed? I think this is an important question given what all the other RS say about this and other incidents related to the subject of this article. O3000 (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Currently the section on the Vanguard incident cites three sources:
- <ref name="wweekJournalist">: Herron, Elise (July 14, 2017). "A Dispute Over a Muslim Student's Remarks Costs a College Journalist His Job, And Brings National Furor to Portland State University". Willamette Week. Retrieved June 30, 2019.
- <nowiki><ref name="outrage">: Wilson, Jason (March 18, 2018). "How to troll the left: understanding the rightwing outrage machine". The Guardian. Retrieved July 1, 2019.
- Leary, Colleen (May 14, 2017). "In response to 'Fired for reporting the truth'". Daily Vanguard. Retrieved August 30, 2019.
The Vanguard source is directly involved, is an opinion, and is in a student paper. There's nothing wrong with any of these, but this means it should be treated cautiously and with clear attribution. Willamette Week is a reliable source for factual information, but is a Portland-based alt-weekly that focuses on local issues (Willamette is a river that runs through Portland). Both the WW and Vanguard stories are from around the time of the incident, which means they cannot demonstrate the long-term significance of this incident.
The Guardian source is international coverage which was written several months after this incident. In this respect it is the strongest of the three sources. It is not primarily about the Vanguard incident. Instead, it spends several paragraphs discussing this as context for other, more important issues. Therefore, it makes sense to me to use this for the broad strokes, while the other two can be used to fill-in details.
As a prelude to explaining the Vanguard incident, the Guardian says this:
Ngo is no stranger to controversy, and it wasn’t his first viral video. Over the last year, the student has shrewdly inserted several into the workings of the rightwing outrage machine.
The Guardian source's main topic is this "outrage machine", and several other examples of Ngo's role in this are given. My reading of the source tells me this is important context. The Guardian is at least partly giving Ngo credit for repeatedly becoming the stories he supposedly reported on.
All three sources mention Breitbart as well as the National Review opinion. If Breitbart is the example cited by all sources, this may be important enough for the lead, as well. According to the Guardian source, Ngo himself used the opinion to frame this as a free speech issue, as well as (supposedly) being about political correctness. None of the sources I have seen treat this as having real merit. Instead, they treat this as a disputable claim used to attract attention. Including this detail without context would be misrepresenting what reliable sources are saying.
Grayfell (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Assessments of "merit" need to be de-entangled from assessments of weight. Nor does an assessment of the "merit" of a viewpoint have any place in this kind of analysis. WP:NOTFORUM. All the sources mention the conservative reaction as adding to Ngo's notoriety, namely the Williamette and Guardian piece. The third is a letter to the editor and an opinion piece, and not usable for our purposes. If there is a viewpoint expressed in those sources that the conservative backlash was wrong, it can also be included per weight. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Merit matters to the extent that reliable sources evaluate it. This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip column. We are not going to promote a WP:FRINGE perspective that Ngo is being censored for misrepresenting other people's words and actions. Sources do not accept that this is valid, so we cannot tacitly endorse this perspective by pushing it to the lead without context. Sources provide context, and we cannot ignore that context. In that respect, merit does matter. Placing this in the lead without this context would be misrepresenting sources to promote a specific point of view.
- I assume by "the third" you mean the Vanguard opinion. That isn't a "letter to the editor", it is a letter from the editor, also known as an editorial. Further, it is cited by other reliable sources. How we summarize this open to discussion, but do not misrepresent the source. Grayfell (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Assessments of "merit" need to be de-entangled from assessments of weight. Nor does an assessment of the "merit" of a viewpoint have any place in this kind of analysis. WP:NOTFORUM. All the sources mention the conservative reaction as adding to Ngo's notoriety, namely the Williamette and Guardian piece. The third is a letter to the editor and an opinion piece, and not usable for our purposes. If there is a viewpoint expressed in those sources that the conservative backlash was wrong, it can also be included per weight. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- We cannot cite editorials as reliable sources for anything other than that person's opinion.
- A WP:FRINGE view is a view that is not represented in reliable sources, not one that you believe to be incorrect. The Guardian source covers the conservative media reaction critically—this does not mean it should be excluded from the article.
When Vanguard, too, became the focus of conservative ire, it published another blogpost offering further explanation. As a result of his dismissal, Ngo got space on a major conservative platform, National Review, which he used to frame his dismissal as a free speech issue. He also did an “ask me anything” session on the subreddit r/thedonald, a major hub for Trump supporters, conspiracy theorists, and far-right sympathizers. There, he described his firing as part of a “trend towards self-censorship in the name of political correctness”, expressing a desire to appear on the show of Fox’s prime-time race hustler, Tucker Carlson. In February, another Ngo video did the rounds of rightwing media. It depicted another brief disruption of an event, this one hosted by Freethinkers of PSU, an atheist student club led by Ngo. The headliner was the fired Google engineer and author of an infamous memo on diversity at the company, James Damore.
This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip column.
Sanctimoniously repeating this over and over has nothing to do with the fact that the analysis above is heavily flawed.but do not misrepresent the source
Nothing was misrepresented. The lead as I had edited it briefly gave reference to the reaction inconservative media
as reported by the Williamette and Guardian, nothing more. This does not establish the view as correct, it merely establishes that it was their view. We do not selectively censor opinions reported in reliable sources, particularly when, as I have repeatedly noted, they form a key part of why the subject became notable. If you feel further "context" is required, then suggest that context, but stop edit-warring the material out of the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
At the very least, Ngo's response to the allegation by the paper is required. He has written, as you noted, an editorial defending his actions. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Example: Ngo framed his firing as an attempt to stifle free speech, garnering support from conservative media.
Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ngo's response to the allegations is something that is acceptable per ABOUTSELF. It may not be DUE in the lead but it would be DUE in the body. Springee (talk) 01:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- The article already mentions his op-ed. Specifically mentioning Breitbart seems like a step in the right direction, since this is mentioned by all sources, but this should also be summarized in the body as well. This illustrates a deeper problem. I have attempted to expand the lead to more accurately summarize the body of the article. Including many details of this one incident was lopsided at best, since the lion's share of sources are about other issues. Ngo's framing is not automatically included in the lead, or the body (no, that isn't how BLP works). Getting fired is not a criminal act, and Wikipedia doesn't offer the right of reply. His framing only belong as a proportionate summary of sources, so the task for us is to summarize the article in the lead and then evaluate. This may need an RFC or some noticeboard discussions. Grayfell (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- I've rolled these changes back. Too much detail and you changed the previous, consensus agreement on the description of his alleged joking with Proud Boys. Springee (talk) 10:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- Grayfell adds to the lead that Ngo was pictured "laughing" with Proud Boys members without noting that a) he denies any connections with the group and b) that this, too, is out-of-context material. Talk about "decontextualizing." This is patently ridiculous to include; it is suggestive, barely mentioned in sources, and not relevant to a summary of the article. It's a shame, because a few of Grayfell's other, more minor changes were reasonable, but I have to endorse the revert because the edits in the entirety so blatantly violate NPOV. Need to do better. And stop calling the attackers "unidentified." This is WP:SYNTH. None of the sources say that. We don't know that they haven't been identified, we just know that there haven't been any public arrests. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- And let me also put out a reminder that, per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, where an allegation has been denied, that denial is to be included. Grayfell's objection to "Ngo's framing" not belonging in the lead and claim that it isn't required does not follow from WP policy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- The article already mentions his op-ed. Specifically mentioning Breitbart seems like a step in the right direction, since this is mentioned by all sources, but this should also be summarized in the body as well. This illustrates a deeper problem. I have attempted to expand the lead to more accurately summarize the body of the article. Including many details of this one incident was lopsided at best, since the lion's share of sources are about other issues. Ngo's framing is not automatically included in the lead, or the body (no, that isn't how BLP works). Getting fired is not a criminal act, and Wikipedia doesn't offer the right of reply. His framing only belong as a proportionate summary of sources, so the task for us is to summarize the article in the lead and then evaluate. This may need an RFC or some noticeboard discussions. Grayfell (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@Cedar777:, my reversion of the lead change was not due to a single issue. There were quite a few issues with that change. Additionally, a discussion was on going with two editors objective to the change. At this point ONUS applies and the old version should be restored. That said, please join into the discussion here. I suspect your input would be good based on some of your other edits to the article today. Springee (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- Cedar777 restored a prior version of the lead which blatantly violated neutrality. Discontent with a short, neutral description is not a reason to start highlighting negative or salacious information in the lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see that it violated neutrality: [7]; my rationale was: "the lead should focus on what the subject is primarily known for". --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- K.e.coffman, as an experienced editor you should know that this is now a contested change and there isn't consensus for Grayfell's edits. The next step is to discuss the changes (not all negative in my opinion) and get a consensus change. We should not be restoring the disputed text without addressing concerns first. Springee (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- @K.e.coffman: "Primarily known for" means what's received the most coverage. That would be the firing & the assault by antifa. The rest is minutia. Balancing his blaming antifa activists for the assault with "but the attackers are unidentified" is unsupported by sources, which do not use that language, see WP:SYNTH, and contradicted by the Washington Post, which says that antifa activists "bloodied" Ngo. The rest of the lead goes well beyond a summary of what he's well-known for and creates 2 additional paragraphs, for a total of 5, violating MOS:LEAD's recommendation of four max, to mention additional disputes that are far lesser known. I suggest you restore the shorter version and read the above discussion, per WP:ONUS. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with K.e.coffman's revert. This results in a more neutral, more accurate. more representative lead. O3000 (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- So you are OK with factual errors? (Per our article Ngo was testifying on 1A issues, not 2A). We also have covered that "joking" with PB is problematic because the "source" for the video is someone who claims to be an antifa sympathizer who went "under cover" with the PBs. Also, based on the video evidence the claim is very weak and has been disputed by other sources. That shouldn't be in the lead. The old lead covered that claim already. With respect to the assault on Ngo, the "no attacker has been identified" suggests the assault didn't happen vs it did but the perps haven't been captured. We can discuss some of the details but the bulk change is less neutral and factually less accurate. Springee (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- On the whole, I think the changes are neutrally written and a significant improvement from much earlier versions of the article. However, the bit about him "joking" with activists does not belong in the lead. And as I stated already, the attackers were identified as antifa by the press (WaPo). As Springee mentioned, we shouldn't gloss over inaccuracies or undue weight issues for the sake of consensus. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- Being "identified as antifa" is misleading at best. Antifa is a loose ideology, not an identifying physical trait. All I could find was one caption to a photo which says
Unidentified Rose City Antifa members
beat up Ngo.[8] Does this mean that Washington Post identified them as unidentified? In addition to being logically incoherent, this demonstrates the flimsiness of using photo captions for factual claims. Nowhere else does the article mention Rose City Antifa. The WaPo story cited this earlier WaPo story which doesn't identify anyone or mention Rose City Antifa. That story cited this NYT story which also doesn't identify anyone or mention Rose City Antifa. So far, the only source which says anything either way says they are unidentified. All of this is very flimsy. - I have not seen any reliable sources which dispute that Ngo was laughing and smiling. The relevant footage shows Ngo with a group of people traveling with helmets, body armor, sticks, respirators (for pepper spray), etc. to a bar favored by antifa activists on May 1st. As far as I know, nobody is pretending they went for a neighborhood bar crawl with their bear mace and police batons. Ngo was present, but did not report any of this part of the event. Instead, he attributed the violence to antifa. These are the facts according to reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- We went through the "attacked by antifa" members question a while back. In the end I agree we can't say "attacked by antifa". The sources generally don't specifically call the attackers antifa members and, as others have said, if antifa doesn't have a strict membership then how can we say someone is or isn't. There litterally could be someone who is 100% on the same page as "antifa" but was a lone individual. They would be sympathetic with antifa's actions and methods but still not be a member. I would suggest the long standing phrasing from the lead simply because that was what came out of the last set of debates. Yes, if an arrest was made and the person could be identified as a Rose City Antifa member, that would be different. Incidentally, I do think "appear to be" is reasonable but again, previous text was there after a series of back and forths.
- We also had a discussion about laughing/smiling. That one again, we should stick with long standing versions. The previous lead consensus was that he was accused of associated with. That is a summary and it would not only cover that video but any other associations that may have been accused. Several commentators/op-eds noted the weak nature of this "laughing with" claim. I understand we normally don't like op-ed type materials but many of these sources on both sides are a mix of fact and op-ed. Fact is "video shows Andy Ngo". Commentary is "Ngo is doing X in video". No reason why an op-ed writer viewing the video would be more or less accurate than a strongly biased source "factually" reporting about the video content (especially if the "factual" reporting is a source like the Daily Dot). Additionally, this was problematic because the sources is an anonymous "under cover" antifa (or similar) person. So the unnamed source would have a clear perverse incentive to discredit Ngo. We then have commentators who are not sympathetic to Ngo who decide the video means X when the actual evidence in the video is unclear. It could mean X but it could also mean Y or Z. Since this is a BLP and the accusation is very damning if true as claimed we need to err on the side of caution with how this material is handled. Note that until very recently the text in the body of the article was, " Ngo, who ultimately blamed the violence on antifascist activists, is alleged to be smiling and laughing at the discussion." That is true. Sources are claiming is his laughing with. We are not stating in Wikivoice that he is doing this thing. That text in the body was changed earlier today in a disputed edit [[9]]. It has been previously discussed more than once (and probably more than just these times since I didn't search the notice boards) [[10]][[11]]. So we get back to the primary issue, some sources are making this allegation but they are low quality sources/speculative. We don't accuse someone of this sort of thing without solid evidence. The previous lead covered this in a neutral way. The updated, non-consensus lead does not. Springee (talk) 03:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Being "identified as antifa" is misleading at best. Antifa is a loose ideology, not an identifying physical trait. All I could find was one caption to a photo which says
- On the whole, I think the changes are neutrally written and a significant improvement from much earlier versions of the article. However, the bit about him "joking" with activists does not belong in the lead. And as I stated already, the attackers were identified as antifa by the press (WaPo). As Springee mentioned, we shouldn't gloss over inaccuracies or undue weight issues for the sake of consensus. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- So you are OK with factual errors? (Per our article Ngo was testifying on 1A issues, not 2A). We also have covered that "joking" with PB is problematic because the "source" for the video is someone who claims to be an antifa sympathizer who went "under cover" with the PBs. Also, based on the video evidence the claim is very weak and has been disputed by other sources. That shouldn't be in the lead. The old lead covered that claim already. With respect to the assault on Ngo, the "no attacker has been identified" suggests the assault didn't happen vs it did but the perps haven't been captured. We can discuss some of the details but the bulk change is less neutral and factually less accurate. Springee (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with K.e.coffman's revert. This results in a more neutral, more accurate. more representative lead. O3000 (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see that it violated neutrality: [7]; my rationale was: "the lead should focus on what the subject is primarily known for". --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
No consensus for lead change: I want to make it clear that at this point we don't have a consensus for the changes to the lead. The changes haven't been justified and per ONUS they should not have been restored once challenged. A primary issue is the claim that Ngo was joking with PP members and was aware of an upcoming attack. This absolutely should not be presented in wiki voice. It must be clearly indicated that this is an allegation, not a proven fact. The weak evidence has been disputed by other source [[12]].
The problem, of course, is that the video—which mostly depicts a small group of people standing around, discussing which side of the street they should walk on when and if they approach antifa, and conversing with the undercover Ben—proves no such thing. I have watched it from start to finish at least five times, and it does not even establish that the group of right-wing agitators planned an attack—let alone that Ngo was aware of such a plot. Indeed, the Portland Mercury article that received such rave reviews from The Daily Beast, Vice, Media Matters, and others makes little effort to explain what was so damning about the video, and Zielinski spends much of her article lionizing Ben's actions without offering any independent scrutiny of his claims. Ngo says she did not reach out to him before publishing the article, and she confirmed this in an email to Reason. When asked about some of the claims in her piece, Zielinski said, "I can tell you're concerned with my coverage on a larger scale, and I'm sure my response won't change that."
Additionally, The Spectator ran an article by Ngo where he refutes the allegations [[13]]. Responses to allegations by the accused are DUE in cases like this. For some time the article had stood with a consensus that this was an allegation. Yesterday, without discussion, this was changed from an allegation to a statement in wiki voice. [[14]] Such a change needs to be justified by those who wish to make the change and should not be in the article once challenged until a new consensus is clear. Springee (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- I agree. There's no consensus for the change. Frankly, I think in such a short article, it's weird how detailed the lead is, and everything past the first paragraph seems to me undue for the lead. But I agree with what Springee and Wikieditor have said about the problems with the specific changes that have been made. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Including allegations from second-tier sources that Ngo "laughed with" far-right groups, even with the qualifers that were added. This is undue for the lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Consensus isn't a vote, and an excessively lengthy post isn't a supervote. Your personal opinion that this is undue is at odds with MOS:LEAD. Your opinion that they are "second-tier" is at odds with WP:RS. The lead summarizes the body of the article, and this incident has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The lead also includes Ngo's denial. Grayfell (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- I agree, it's not a vote but if you are suggesting there is a difference between merits of the arguments then perhaps you should run a RfC or some other method. We don't have a consensus of opinion and this isn't a case where you can claim an overwhelming majority that must be right so that means we should restore the last stable text. BTW, if you want a policy based argument, BLP. You are accusing Ngo of being a party to a conspiracy to commit a crime and putting that text clearly in the lead. That's a big deal. Springee (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Nonsense. I am not accusing Ngo of anything. Sources have accurately documented that he was with armed far-right activists who walked towards a bar favored by antifa activists, and then reported on the subsequent violence by blaming antifa bar patrons. Everyone, including Ngo, agrees that violence occurred. The weapons, helmets, and "tacticool" body armor demonstrate the far-right activists expected violence. Contrary to unreliable sources, Portland is not a war zone,Patriot Prayer isn't a military force, and Ngo isn't an embedded journalist. If somehow Ngo didn't notice that the people he was with were bringing bear spay and police batons to a bar, then he was not paying attention. If that's his defense, so be it, but this doesn't change the facts of the situation according to reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- A few issues here:
- Nonsense. I am not accusing Ngo of anything. Sources have accurately documented that he was with armed far-right activists who walked towards a bar favored by antifa activists, and then reported on the subsequent violence by blaming antifa bar patrons. Everyone, including Ngo, agrees that violence occurred. The weapons, helmets, and "tacticool" body armor demonstrate the far-right activists expected violence. Contrary to unreliable sources, Portland is not a war zone,Patriot Prayer isn't a military force, and Ngo isn't an embedded journalist. If somehow Ngo didn't notice that the people he was with were bringing bear spay and police batons to a bar, then he was not paying attention. If that's his defense, so be it, but this doesn't change the facts of the situation according to reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- I agree, it's not a vote but if you are suggesting there is a difference between merits of the arguments then perhaps you should run a RfC or some other method. We don't have a consensus of opinion and this isn't a case where you can claim an overwhelming majority that must be right so that means we should restore the last stable text. BTW, if you want a policy based argument, BLP. You are accusing Ngo of being a party to a conspiracy to commit a crime and putting that text clearly in the lead. That's a big deal. Springee (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Consensus isn't a vote, and an excessively lengthy post isn't a supervote. Your personal opinion that this is undue is at odds with MOS:LEAD. Your opinion that they are "second-tier" is at odds with WP:RS. The lead summarizes the body of the article, and this incident has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The lead also includes Ngo's denial. Grayfell (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
1) Whatever beliefs you want to attribute to Ngo are utterly and completely irrelevant. 2) You do not have consensus to restore this material. Material that my be verifable is not by default WP:DUE, and it is completely unwarranted for the lead. This is reporting limited to a few second-tier sources. 3) In your last edit summary, you suggest my removal of this challenged material for which there is no consensus and possibly consensus against, as WP:BLANKing. This is a false accusation.
- You are entitled to make your case, but you are not entitled to make bad-faith accusations or restore the content while discussion is pending and consensus is not there. Please remove it.
Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't understand the comment about "beliefs". The lead should be a summary of the entire article. I am not interested in personalizing this discussion. However you wish to describe it, you removed contend from the lead. Your assessment of those sources as "second-tier" is unsupported. These sources are reliable, even if they are not perfect, and per sources this incident is associated with a significant career change. Further, many sources mention the May Day riot in relation to Ngo, and it would be a misrepresentation of the situation to ignore this context. Grayfell (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Grayfell, the previous lead which said he was "accused of" did summarize the body. You are planning undue weight on an accusation that hasn't been substantiated by additional sources (ie we have only "Ben" the undercover antifa agent and a video which commentators have used to suggest a disputed conclusion. We also have sources such as Reason which say the evidence doesn't support the conclusion. We don't include Ngo's denial of the accusation which is required per BLPPUBLIC. Finally, at least 3 editors have iobjected to this change so you don't have consensus to edit war it into the lead (and body). Springee (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- I do not know which previous lead you are referring to, as none of the recent ones I glanced at to refresh my memory use "accused" in the lead. If you are referring to the lead before my recent attempt at expanded it, then I dispute that it accurately summarized the article. Your personal distrust of "Ben" is at odds with how reliability is evaluated. It is up to sources to interpret this material, not editors. I have not seen any reliable sources which dispute that Ngo was there, was friendly with the far-right activists, etc. Grayfell (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- For clarity, I should mention that my recent revert included some other changes. I removed the detail about laughing and joking, as this seemed unnecessary. The "or report the attack" line seemed confusing, as well. Grayfell (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- That is better than before but you still are failing to follow BLPPUBLIC as you aren't including Ngo's denial of the accusation. Regardless, since this is a disputed change NOCON says it should be reverted and we can work out the difference here before it goes live. That said, let's step back and perhaps reach an agreement on the body text related to that material. Until a few days ago the body text said:
- On August 26, 2019, The Daily Beast reported that Ngo was leaving Quillette. Earlier in the day, Portland Mercury covered a video that showed Ngo standing near members of Patriot Prayer, the far-right group active in Portland, as they planned violence at a bar frequented by left-wing activists.[5][54][64] Ngo, who ultimately blamed the violence on antifascist activists, is alleged to be smiling and laughing at the discussion.[51][40]
- The two sources for "smiling and laughing" are Salon and Daily Dot. Per RSP Salon is yellow (biased and opinionated). Daily Dot is considered reliable for internet culture which this is not. Salon actually attributed their version of what the video says to The Portland Mercury News writer. The DD discussion of the video attributes specific claims to others such as the same PM writer and various Twitter users. Seriously, we are using that as our source to say, in wikivoice, Ngo was hanging out with and laughing with PP members. On the other hand we have Ngo's version of events published in The Spectator. His version of events is every bit as believable as the one being told by "Ben". We also have Reason (green per RSP) which says the evidence doesn't support the claim. [[15]]
- What was so "damning" and "incriminating" about the video was largely unexplained, though Sommer did include a quote from Quillette Editor in Chief Claire Lehmann, who explained that Ngo's departure had nothing to do with the new video footage, and had been agreed upon by both parties some weeks ago. (Lehmann confirmed this to Reason.) ... In any case, the message coming from left-of-center media was clear: Patriot Prayer planned the Cider Riot attack, Ngo was tacitly involved, and Ben's video proves it.
- The problem, of course, is that the video—which mostly depicts a small group of people standing around, discussing which side of the street they should walk on when and if they approach antifa, and conversing with the undercover Ben—proves no such thing. I have watched it from start to finish at least five times, and it does not even establish that the group of right-wing agitators planned an attack—let alone that Ngo was aware of such a plot. Indeed, the Portland Mercury article that received such rave reviews from The Daily Beast, Vice, Media Matters, and others makes little effort to explain what was so damning about the video, and Zielinski spends much of her article lionizing Ben's actions without offering any independent scrutiny of his claims. Ngo says she did not reach out to him before publishing the article, and she confirmed this in an email to Reason. When asked about some of the claims in her piece, Zielinski said, "I can tell you're concerned with my coverage on a larger scale, and I'm sure my response won't change that."
- Far from being engaged in conservation with Gibson's associates and intently involved in what they are saying, Ngo appears in the video only occasionally, and is mostly in the periphery, pacing and incessantly checking his phone. Ngo told Reason that he was scanning the internet for reports from other journalists pertaining to the earlier violence of the day, during which Ngo was punched in the stomach. He was much more interested in his social media feed than the conversations around him.
- We have a reliable source that says the video doesn't show what some claim. That means we need to say this is an allegation and not universally accepted. We also need to indicate that Ngo has disputed the claim in detail. I would propose we change things back to "alleged", add more content as to what some claim the video shows but also add the response from Ngo and Reason showing that the significance of the video is in dispute. Springee (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's completely sensationalist, limited to a few lower-quality sources, and is nowhere near worthy for the lead. It is also challenged and without consensus at this time. Please remove the content. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- We have reliable news sources documenting this. What, exactly, is he "denying"? He is not denying that he was with them prior to the riot. It is not up to Ngo or Reason or individual editors to determine why this video was significant. Quotes from an opinion at Reason.com do not change anything. The reliability of these sources is not challenged by calling them "lower-quality" or "second-tier" or whatever. They have positive reputations for accuracy and fact checking, which is what is required from WP:RS. Grayfell (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Daily Dot is considered reliable for internet culture which this is not.
Strenuously disagree with the latter part; this is clearly an internet-culture-war thing. Ngo's fame is largely online (that is where he posts almost all his things), the videos were posted on Twitter, and the other part of the dispute concerns his departure from a grindy internet-culture-war website himself. If this isn't internet culture then I'm unsure exactly what would be. Also,On the other hand we have Ngo's version of events published in The Spectator. His version of events is every bit as believable as the one being told by "Ben".
Absolutely not; that is a mere opinion-piece in a yellow / low-quality source, and we cannot cite an opinion piece for statements of fact, as you are well aware. The things he states there are obviously self-serving; it is nowhere near as good of a source as the Daily Dot's reporting. We note the bare existence of his disagreement in the article body, but unless a secondary source takes it seriously it is the typical WP:MANDY stuff - there is no reason to give it any particular weight beyond that. --Aquillion (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's completely sensationalist, limited to a few lower-quality sources, and is nowhere near worthy for the lead. It is also challenged and without consensus at this time. Please remove the content. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Grayfell, the previous lead which said he was "accused of" did summarize the body. You are planning undue weight on an accusation that hasn't been substantiated by additional sources (ie we have only "Ben" the undercover antifa agent and a video which commentators have used to suggest a disputed conclusion. We also have sources such as Reason which say the evidence doesn't support the conclusion. We don't include Ngo's denial of the accusation which is required per BLPPUBLIC. Finally, at least 3 editors have iobjected to this change so you don't have consensus to edit war it into the lead (and body). Springee (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Nov update
I've updated the lead[[16]] based on discussions[[17]] with Bacondrum. I also pinged Cedar777 as part of this lead discussion. The intent is to try to find a compromise that all will accept even if not their own preference. This version of the lead does include the video taken before the Cider Riot brawl and refers to the event as an "attack" per the RfC below. Springee (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
@LokiTheLiar:, I think this is a problematic edit [[18]]. I guess it's somewhat gray since what counts as interacting. No one disputes that Ngo was near by and visually acknowledged the PP members. What is disputed is if he overheard their conversation and thus was aware of what they were discussing. The video clearly does not show him talking to the PP members. Since what the video shows is disputed by both reliable sources and Ngo himself we have to present this this as a disputed fact, hence reportedly. That also means this sentence [[19]] needs to be restored. MANDY doesn't apply since Reason Magazine also disputes the claims. Springee (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- He follows them around for the duration of the video. He smiles at their jokes. You yourself say he "visually acknowledged" the PP members. There are multiple sections of the video where he is obviously paying attention to their conversation. The guy who filmed the video quoted as saying "He overheard everything". I don't know why you're fighting so hard about this very easily verifiable fact. It's literally on video. You can watch the video. Loki (talk) 04:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- (Also, no, an opinion column in Reason does not defeat WP:MANDY. On one side we have every factual news piece about this event plus literal court documents plus the video recording of the event itself, and on the other hand we have Ngo and an opinion piece in Reason, whose only defense of Ngo is incredulity that things that are obviously happening on video could possibly have happened. This is why I specifically mentioned Ngo's allies like the Reason piece in the edit summary as things that WP:MANDY applies to.) Loki (talk) 04:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Also here's a bit I forgot: here's the Reason piece. Note that over half of it is quotes from Ngo himself. The idea WP:MANDY doesn't apply to this is incredibly tendentious. Loki (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Mandy is a user essay so yes RS "defeat" it. Also why is it in the lead at all honestly? PackMecEng (talk) 04:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Loki, you are really stretching the definition of "interacting with" and creating a false impression with your edits. It is clear he is near the PP members and acknowledges them. The problem is some sources suggest he was able to hear what they were saying and was interacting (like talking with, laughing at things they were specifically saying). That is disputed and honestly, most of the sources that make that claim are either very weak or simply saying PM's Blogtown said X. Reason is a RS per PRS. Blogtown is a new blog (wp:NEWSBLOG) making rather significant claims based on limited evidence. It's interesting that you are critical of Reason for quoting Ngo. The Reason reporter did something that isn't part of an op-ed article, they reached out to the subject of a story and asked for comment. Note that those who are accusing Ngo didn't. Rollings Stones [[20]] seems to agree with Reason that it doesn't seem like Ngo was doing much interacting noting that he was looking at his phone for part of the time. To quote Reason, "Zielinski spends much of her article lionizing Ben's actions without offering any independent scrutiny of his claims. Ngo says she did not reach out to him before publishing the article, and she confirmed this in an email to Reason." Now we get to the real issue here. This is clearly a case where we have sources saying the video means different things. Thus we doing act as if one side or the other is correct. Instead we attribute and note that the interpretations are conflicting. That is what we had and what should be restored. Springee (talk) 05:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
RFC: "journalist"
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the lead section refer to this person as a "journalist"? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Survey "journalist"
- Incomplete RfC Please revise the RfC to include all of your recent changes, including the addition of "provocateur" to the lead. The New York Times describes the subject as a
conservative journalist
, so please also articulate in your RfC why this is a question worthy of debate. I don't understand why it's now appropriate to second-guess the most reliable sources available in favor of second-tier ones. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see why their recent changes should be in the RfC statement or why we should not have an RfC based upon one source. You can make these arguments in a discussion section or a !vote without claiming a malformed RfC. O3000 (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- The RfC opener just made a highly controversial change to the article, adding "provocateur" to the lead, yet this RfC only addresses what is basically a settled matter. And it's actually not one, but two sources we have, the NYT and WaPo, that call the subject a journalist. And we don't go by how many sources say something, we go by how much WP:WEIGHT those sources deserve. The NYT and WaPo deserve more weight than BuzzFeed, to state the obvious. So this RfC is attempting to crack open largely a settled matter, yet glosses over more controversial changes that the user is aggressively inserting into the article. I see that as a problem. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Wikieditor19920: I've come here after seeing it mentoned elsewhere, and do not intend to take part other than to say that you are completely mistaken. I've looked at the history and this RfC was set up correctly. It is a simple neutral question and should not have included the things you think it should have included. Doug Weller talk 11:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller:, Respectfully, I disagree. The filer made two changes to the article in the past week that drew debate, yet only one of them was mentioned in the RfC intro. Even so, the opener continues to argue for both changes in discussion threads. To resolve this, I've opened another sub-thread to address the issue omitted from the intro, where there is currently another active debate. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Wikieditor19920: I've come here after seeing it mentoned elsewhere, and do not intend to take part other than to say that you are completely mistaken. I've looked at the history and this RfC was set up correctly. It is a simple neutral question and should not have included the things you think it should have included. Doug Weller talk 11:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- The RfC opener just made a highly controversial change to the article, adding "provocateur" to the lead, yet this RfC only addresses what is basically a settled matter. And it's actually not one, but two sources we have, the NYT and WaPo, that call the subject a journalist. And we don't go by how many sources say something, we go by how much WP:WEIGHT those sources deserve. The NYT and WaPo deserve more weight than BuzzFeed, to state the obvious. So this RfC is attempting to crack open largely a settled matter, yet glosses over more controversial changes that the user is aggressively inserting into the article. I see that as a problem. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see why their recent changes should be in the RfC statement or why we should not have an RfC based upon one source. You can make these arguments in a discussion section or a !vote without claiming a malformed RfC. O3000 (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- No – Either both "journalist" and "provocateur" should be included for parity. Or both should be excluded. The article already cites plenty of sources that dispute the claim of "journalist". New York magazine, according to our article argues that
example of "busybody journalism", which is distinguished from experiential journalism by its "focus on the individual reporter's feelings" and absence of editorial fact-checking
. This demonstrates that even calling him a "conservative journalist" is not enough. IMO, he is a "right-wing provocateur"[21] or at best a "right-wing writer" and social media personality. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)- I think "conservative writer, activist, and social media personality" is a good descriptor if "provocateur" is to be excluded. Calling him just a "conservative journalist and social media personality" is dishonest, lacks weight, and fails NPOV. I also do not oppose calling him a "right-wing writer ..." --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Jacobin is hardly an unbiased source. – Anne drew 15:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- No – I oppose refering to the subject as simply a journalist or a conservative journalist. The RS coverage of the subject has changed over time. His notability is thouroughly entwined with the questionable nature of his activites. This June 2020 article in the Seattle Times refers to Ngo as a "conservative writer", while it is only his lawyer that refers to him as a journalist. The Oregonian similarly refers to Ngo as a conservative writer in their June 2020 coverage. Both are highly respected publishers that have been awarded numerous pulitzer prizes for the quality of their journalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedar777 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Cedar777, please indicate your !vote in the form of an answer (Yes or No or Other) to the question posed in the RfC. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes - per Springee below, it is extremely well documented that he is.
- Note 1: It would be quite understandable if there was a strong sense of WP:IDONTLIKEIT here, but as authors of an Encyclopaedia we are, of course, above that.
- Note 2: Regarding "provocateur", I have seen references that show him being called such a thing but in my opinion we should be very careful to distinguish "provoking controversy" from merely "being controversial". As such there should ideally be some explicit reference to support that he deliberately courts controversy before we label him as such. But subject to that hesitation, I do not object to that term being used in the lead as well. Dorsetonian (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes We should call him what NYT and WaPo call him, a journalist. We should not call him a provocateur in the lead, since that is a contentious label without high quality sourcing (see discussion below). Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Also, obvious Yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor19920 (talk • contribs)
- No - That he is a conservative writer appears to be an undisputed fact; that he is actually a journalist is hotly contested and not consistently applied among reliable sources; therefore, we shouldn't use the term in wikivoice. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- 'Untrue. There is no evidence the term journalist, used by the NYT and WaPo, is "hotly contested." You need to refer to a reliable source, not a Wikipedia discussion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Major problem with how this is proceeding We have two sides here. On the one hand, we have myself and several other editors who have cited highly reliable sources describing the subject as a journalist. They are a NYT piece and a WaPO article from 2019. On the other side, we have editors arguing that 1) these sources are "dated" despite being published in the past year and 2) citing second-tier sources from the same time frame, including the Independent, the Intercept, and the Rolling Stone, which call him a provocateur or "writer" as well," and 3) arguing that, by omission, these sources are stating he is not a journalist. This is a fundamental misinterpretation of how we use sources. First, we go to the most reliable sources. WaPo and NYT fall into that category. If there are additional labels, especially contentious ones like "provocateur," WP:LABEL applies and we need either all of the sources saying it or to use attribution. The opener of this filing states this policy exactly backwards, suggesting that "journalist" is a "contentious label" and out of hand dismisses two preeminent sources that do not support his point and unduly emphasizes second-tier sources that do. This is not how we treat BLPs on Wikipedia. The "No" votes are following this same pattern of deeply flawed reasoning. This is why WP:CONSENSUS is not a vote count. That two sources offer in separate tiers of reliability offer differing characterizations by omission does not mean that we omit one in favor of the other based on the subjective opinions of editors, including mine or anyone else's. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- No. While some RS have described him as a "conservative journalist", many RS also opt for terms such "activist" and "writer". When RS do not consistently describe him narrowly as a journalist (a term that infers a standard of behavior and professionalization), I think we should opt for a looser and broader term such as "conservative writer", which could include journalism, as well as conservative advocacy and activism. I think it would be a NPOV violation to opt for the narrow term when a broader term would better encapsulate a balance of how RS cover him. Here is a sampling of sources from the last year. Relying on sources from the last year is reasonable given that Ngo has developed a considerable track record on which RS can judge whether to describe him as a journalist or writer (which they did not have when covering him in, say, 2018):
- AP: "conservative writer".[22]
- WaPo: "conservative activist Andy Ngo"[23]
- The Oregonian: "conservative writer and videographer."[24]
- Oregon Public Broadcasting: "right-wing writer"[25].
- Daily Beast: "conservative writer Andy Ngo"[26]
- WaPo: "conservative activist and journalist Andy Ngo"[27]
- Politico: "conservative journalist and Quillette writer"[28]
- Politifact: "conservative journalist Andy Ngo"[29]
- In the discussion below, Springee links to a bunch of sources that refer to Ngo as a journalist. Some of these are op-eds and non-RS, so they are not very telling. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
All from the last year. Add these on to the sources that you cite which call him a journalist, and this is an open and shut matter. We go by WP:WEIGHT. Oh, he also worked as a journalist for recognized outlets for most of his career before becoming an independent journalist (which has been recognized by the sources cited).
- The New York Times:
conservative journalist Andy Ngo
- Vox
Andy Ngo, a Portland-based journalist
- The Washington Post
The conservative activist and journalist Andy Ngo
- The Hill
a conservative journalist
- CNN
Conservative journalist Andy Ngo
- ABC7
A Portland journalist
Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- All of the RS you listed are older than a year, except The Hill's "Rising" web-show (which is not a RS). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Several of your sources are from 2019 and several others are from a burst of coverage this summer. A year is not a significant passage of time in a career. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- All of the sources I listed are from the last year. A year is significant when the individual in question has become considerably more notable and when serious concerns have been raised about the accuracy of his "reporting". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- No, a year is absolutely not significant with regards to a career (careers span decades, not months). Notability isn't part of the equation, nor do I see a dramatic increase in notability from 2019. The fact that more articles were published about the subject in 2019 than 2020 does not support your proposition. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- The understanding of any living subject should improve over time. If a subject changes careers, gets married, is embroiled in a scandal, or dies in a year, Wikipedia editors reflect this with RS in the article. It is a legitimate concern that C&C and others have raised and warrants a review of recent quality sources. The vigorous discussion on this talk page in response to the RfC is a indicator that this is anything but an open and shut matter. Cedar777 (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- No, a year is absolutely not significant with regards to a career (careers span decades, not months). Notability isn't part of the equation, nor do I see a dramatic increase in notability from 2019. The fact that more articles were published about the subject in 2019 than 2020 does not support your proposition. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- All of the sources I listed are from the last year. A year is significant when the individual in question has become considerably more notable and when serious concerns have been raised about the accuracy of his "reporting". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Several of your sources are from 2019 and several others are from a burst of coverage this summer. A year is not a significant passage of time in a career. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- All of the RS you listed are older than a year, except The Hill's "Rising" web-show (which is not a RS). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, given that there are numerous RSes that describe him as being a journalists for various sources as well as an independent journalist (aka freelance). Plus, simple fact that he was employed to write news for papers, aka the very definition of a journalist. He may not work for any specific outlet now, but he still (apparently) has a career and thus would be inappropriate to discount that particularly with the recentness of the sources. Hemming or hawing over this because he sides with the alt-right is violating NPOV. --Masem (t) 15:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes This should be self evident. This does not mean he is a "good", "honest", "dishonest", "balanced", "biased" etc journalist, only that his profession fits the definition of journalism, a person who writes for newspapers, magazines, or news websites or prepares news to be broadcast. (source, OED, [[30]]). He wrote for sources we have questioned (Post Millennial) and high quality sources (WSJ) He is widely described as a journalist by both high quality and low quality sources. Vexations compiled a list about a year ago based on the sources in this article [[31]] (the collapsed content). It contained 27 sources that called Ngo a journalist in some form. Conservative journalist (the last stable lead description) was the most common. Conservative writer and independent journalist were tied for second. Sources using "journalist" include NYT, WP, ABCnews, The Hill, Fox News, Salon, Rolling Stone, VOX, local news stations, and Oregon Public Broadcasting. This is obviously a widely used description even if it is often tied with other terms (conservative, right-wing, independent, Portland, etc). Some here seem to suggest "writer" is a better term. I don't see why the lead can't say both "writer" and "journalist". As I mentioned in the discussion below, web searches for keywords can offer a rough, order of magnitude comparison between the use of various terms. It is not at all perfect but when we are trying to judge relative usage it's far better than cherry picking. I did searches of Bing and Google news for the following phrases (with quotes)
- "andy ngo" journalist -4710 Google, 98 Bing;
- "andy ngo" writer - 1830 Google, 33 Bing;
- "andy ngo" provocateur - 208 Google, 3 Bing
- Without sifting through each hit we can't know if the descriptor was applied to Ngo vs someone else or if some hits are just repeats. However, we can see "journalist" appears in an article with Ngo at a rate of about 3x "writer" and over 10x "provocateur". Any claim that "writer" or something other than journalist is more common or should take the place of the long standing term is ludicrous in view of this evidence. Efforts to add adjectives to the noun, "journalist" are understood. Efforts to claim the noun doesn't apply to Ngo don't align with reality. Springee (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- This comment is misleading. As far as I can tell, all of Ngo's writings for the Wall Street Journal are categorized by the WSJ as "opinion". The WSJ editorial page is definitely not a "high quality source". It further proves the point that "journalist" is not the appropriate way to refer to him. Someone who writes op-eds should instead be described as a writer. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Please stop talking about Google hits. They are meaningless. Rolling Stone used the term “gonzo journalism” which is not what we think of as journalism. Or, an article could say hack journalist, or refers himself as a journalist, or journalists refer to him as xxx, or any number of other uses that make Google hits highly misleading. Google is a search engine. It does not perform according to Wikipedia guidelines. O3000 (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Snooganssnoogans: There's a distinction between "not providing support for something" and "disproving something" that you are missing. Just because his publishing an editorial does not in of itself indicate someone is a journalist does not mean it "disproves" that he is, and taken with his body of work and how other sources describe him, it lends support to the notion. I suggest we draw conclusions based on the direction of the sources. This pattern of trying to push a pre-determined conclusion ("he's not a journalist even though reliable sources describe him as such") and discounting all the evidence en route to that conclusion is concerning. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- To be clear (since you left it out even though it's plainly his most common description), "andy ngo" activist has 57,300 Google hits, over ten times the number you're trying to use to push for your preferred label here. That makes it reasonably plain that he's considered an activist and that presenting any other descriptor equivalent to or alongside it would be giving WP:UNDUE] weight to a minority opinion about him. Worse, skimming the results, it seems like the sources that attempt to label him as a journalist are largely (though not exclusively) opinion or forum posts, often from people or places who share his politics; whereas "activist" seems to be a universally-accepted and neutral descriptor. Therefore, we should probably go with "activist" alone. I would further argue that the two descriptors are, largely, incomparable with each other, and that the overwhelming majority of sources characterizing what he does as activism means it would be taking a WP:FRINGE position to present it as journalism. --Aquillion (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Aquillion: I suggest you look up the meaning of WP:FRINGE. That refers to non-mainstream views. The Times is a mainstream. An editors speculations on a talk page are not. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- To be clear, "activist" still trails "journalist". As I said before, I restricted both my Bing and Google searches to their news sub-searches. So "Andy Ngo" activist returned 3500 Google news hits and 51 Bing news hits. If you do a general Google search "Andy Ngo" journalist you get 110,000 hits. The new feed hits follow the ratios we saw in my previous searches. Accepting that this is far from perfect, when looking at journalist, writer, activist and provocateur, it's clear journalist is still the word most likely to appear with Andy Ngo in a new-websearch. Springee (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- What's clear is that this subject has multiple "hats." They act as both a journalist and a commentator or advocate for conservative causes, as well as opinion writer. All these terms are used in RS, and "journalist" is used in the most and weightiest sources. What has the least support is "provocateur," yet this RfC is being used to basically advocate with replacing "journalist" with "provocateur" despite not being noted in the RfC intro per WP:RFC. This is a misuse of the RfC process. A compromise may be appropriate where we included some combination of "journalist," "writer," and "activist," but not provocateur, at least without attribution given its sparsity in the sources (and the contentious connotations of the phrase). Our use of descriptors needs to be guided by weight and prevalence in sources, not our subjective opinions of what the source is or isn't. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes Unquestionably, Ngo should be referenced in the lead as a journalist. There are numerous high-quality, reliable sources that use this epithet. Reducing his work to a "writer" is not appropriate, nor is calling him the contentious label "provocateur." Some of everything (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes - There are clearly more than enough reliable sources describing him as a “Journalist”. To the point where it would be non-neutral for Wikipedia to not do so as well. Being a Journalist does not rule out ALSO being a writer, provocateur, etc.... and vise/versa. Blueboar (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- No – This one took me a while to consider. WaPo does call him a journalist in an article. Yet, in another article, the same WaPo calls him a conservative activist. Lots of sources and different labels. This isn’t surprising as he only just recently started at a student paper, from which he was fired. His actual career appears to have started one year ago, and he now works at The Post Millennial, which according to our article has been criticized for releasing misinformation and articles written by fake personas, for past employment of an editor with ties to white supremacist-platforming and pro-Kremlin media outlets, and for opaque funding and political connections. Difficult to pin down someone with such a brief history. Seems to me we should use a broad term that encompasses the wording in the various source that are RS, as opposed to narrow wording found in only some sources. Conservative writer and activist comes to mind. He’s certainly a provocateur, and that now appears to be his main role. But, I’m fine with leaving that out of the first sentence. O3000 (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Your argument doesn't negate that Ngo is a journalist. For example, the PM is deprecated by wiki editors. OK. Does that mean it isn't a new magazine/source? It may not be a good news magazine but it is still a news magazine. Your arguments are all valid commentary on the quality of his work/employers. That doesn't negate that he is getting paid to do journalism. Springee (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- "Journalist" is the term most broadly used by the most reliable sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes - That's what reliable sources say. More high quality than the ones used to describe him as a provocateur without attribution. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, he's a journalist. Even if you hate his work and think he's a shitty journalist who's a right-wing "provacateur" (whatever the hell that term means) that doesn't make him not a journalist. "Journalist" is not a controlled term. You don't need a licence in the United States to be a journalist, you don't need to abide by any ethical rules, and there's no self-regulatory body that polices journalism. A journalist is someone who reports or otherwise deals with the news and Andy Ngo does that as established by numerous reliable sources. We can't invent our own vaguely defined "standard of behavior and professionalization" that journalists have to abide by to be considered such. That's practically WP:Original Research. I'm also seeing a lot of vaguely defined references to how Andy Ngo's status as a journalist is "hotly contested" with links to articles that describe Ngo as a "conservative writer". That's not contesting his status as a journalist; it's possible for someone to be both a journalist and an activist or political writer. Traditionally journalists have tried to be officially apolitical in a North America context with political writers not falling into the "journalist" category but nowadays with Fox News and CNN there are an incredibly large amount of people who blur those lines and openly cross it with Marci Ien being a Canadian broadcast journalist who's currently running for political office. There is no reason why the lede can't describe him as a "conservative writer and journalist". Chess (talk) (please use
{{ping|Chess}}
on reply) 02:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC) - No While he meets the definition of journalist, using that description without qualification implies that he has professional journalistic standards. If the term is used, it must be qualified, otherwise the article would be endorsing him. TFD (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- @The Four Deuces: And your comment suggests he "does not have professional standard violations." I suggest rephrasing your vote so as not to be a BLP violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor19920 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- There is no BLP violation. Ngo isn't exactly Edward Murrow or Walter Cronkite and it is misleading to imply that he is. TFD (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- It absolutely is, and you just repeated it. You are knocking the subject based on your personal opinion and applying a standard that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's not my personal opinion but the weight of opinion in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 03:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- No, it isn't. Please. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's not my personal opinion but the weight of opinion in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 03:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- It absolutely is, and you just repeated it. You are knocking the subject based on your personal opinion and applying a standard that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- There is no BLP violation. Ngo isn't exactly Edward Murrow or Walter Cronkite and it is misleading to imply that he is. TFD (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Reminder BLP applies to talk pages. When you acknowledge the sources refer to the subject as a journalist, but then include some knock about the subject's professionalism, body of work, etc., you undermine the credibility of your own vote. Follow BLP. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- While you are an encyclopedia editor, you are not a professional encyclopedia editor, at least not on this site. Neither is anyone else. That's not a BLP violation. TFD (talk) 03:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't get your point. Take a look at the sources. Two preeminent papers in the country called him a journalist. You'd think they'd be uniquely qualified to make that determination and hestitant to apply it inappropriately. Oh but wait, we have an opinion piece from Jacobin that says otherwise and a culture writer in the Rolling Stone! Yeah, OK. Your opinion of how "good" or "bad" the subject is as a journalist has nothing to do with how we structure opening sentences. A "bad" doctor is still a doctor. A "dishonest" politician is still a politician. Etc. But I'm waiting for the RfC after this proposing we add the qualifier "Andy Ngo is a journalist (but he's no Edward Murrow)". Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- It doesn't apply here (as journalist/writer does factually apply and given by RSes) but we do make sure people that self-identify themselves incorrectly/dishonestly as certain professionals are not given that title. I can't remember a specific example, but if we have some person who claims to be a medical doctor that is notable for a disproven diet, but RSes identify his profession as only a freelance writer, we're going to call him out as a freelance writer, and definitely not as a doctor as they claim. But that's the extent we'd have that. --Masem (t) 06:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes Sources that describe him as a "writer" do not indicate that he is not a journalist. All journalists are writers, some writers are journalists. Those are certainly not mutually exclusive terms. If you found a source that described him as a "non-journalist," then you would have a legitimate point.Truth is KingTALK 15:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Leave as is (
conservative journalist, social media personality, and provocateur
), which seems to encompass the various points made by the sources. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC) - No, too many high-quality recent sources seem to intentionally avoid using the term for him; "activist" seem to be far more common. Given the larger context surrounding him this can only reasonably be interpreted to mean that the label is not widely accepted. It is plain from the sources that he is considered an activist, not a journalist. --Aquillion (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, per several reliable sources mentioned above. Idealigic (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- No. Most of the sources that say he is a journalist continue by describing how he violates the standards of journalism. He is a media activist. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Can you provide examples of sources that make that claim? Do those sources actually say he isn't a journalist or do they just say he isn't a good journalist? Springee (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Violates the standards of journalism according to Binksternet, apparently, and not the sources themselves. A blatant BLP violation. I don't understand why the standard practice, even at admittedly controversial pages, is to ignore this conduct? Anyway, this vote is clearly improperly premised. It acknowledges the sources say one thing and then says they simply disagree with the sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- The Columbia Journalism Review characterizes Ngo as a writer who is a "discredited provocateur" and a "controversial right-wing writer". Jacobin magazine says Ngo violates journalist standards: "Far-right forces will converge on Portland tomorrow, incited by the right-wing provocateur Andy Ngo. Though he poses as a journalist, the purpose of his platform is to sow harassment and violence against his targets on the Left—and the mainstream media have fallen for it." Rolling Stone writes "Ngo, who describes himself as a journalist," and then talks about his very unjournalist practices such as inciting responses, and trading favorable coverage for benefits. Rolling Stone says Ngo is "a right-wing provocateur as opposed to a journalist." Binksternet (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Binksternet and Wikieditor19920, can we at least use those sources, especially the Columbia Journalism Review, in the body? Davide King (talk) 15:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, David, I think we should. I was putting that idea into action here, putting some text about being a provocateur into the article body, and summarizing it in the lead section with the sentence, "He has been described by many publications as a 'provocateur' rather than a neutral reporter." Which is of course the kernel: Ngo is an active participant in the events rather than a passive observer. Binksternet (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Binksternet, I think your edit was fine. Do you think that a sentence or two, if not a paragraph, to summarise specifically what the Columbia Journalism Review is saying is worth adding and due? Davide King (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Absolutely. The analysis in Rolling Stone and Columbia Journalism Review is high quality though damning to Ngo's journalistic credentials. It's important to include this kind of analysis per WP:NPOV. I'll propose something along those lines in a new thread. Binksternet (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- A section in the article body talking about criticism of his reporting would be very helpful and would help clean up the Carear section. That section starts not with his work history but with a statement that many call him a provocateur. I think it would be better to restructure the section to start with a simple description along the lines of Ngo worked for X from [dates]. Then worked for Y [dates]. Ngo's work has focused on the following topic areas. The next paragraph would start with something like Ngo's work has been criticized by other journalists for [high level summary of why sources use the term provocateur etc, not the labels themselves]. Then we can go into something like a specific list of sources and why they are critical of his work. The labels others apply don't do a good job explaining why he is controversial. However, sources that say he got facts wrong here or said "the left was attacking the right" while failing to mention "the right attacked the left" would be very relevant to clearing up why sources say he is failing to be an impartial or reliable journalist. An example that could support the "activist" label would be statements/claims that he is doxxing activists by tweeting their arrests photos and information would certainly support that label (though we need a RS, not me to say it). Being IMPARTIAL doesn't mean we avoid reporting what the articles say. However, it means we put our efforts into reporting the supporting arguments made in the articles rather than the subjective labels they apply when introducing the subject. It seems to me that editors are too worried about including a controversial label and less worried about including the facts that are used to justify such a label. The current NPOVN discussion related to the Proud Boys is capturing some of the same issues [[32]] Springee (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Binksternet, I think your edit was fine. Do you think that a sentence or two, if not a paragraph, to summarise specifically what the Columbia Journalism Review is saying is worth adding and due? Davide King (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, David, I think we should. I was putting that idea into action here, putting some text about being a provocateur into the article body, and summarizing it in the lead section with the sentence, "He has been described by many publications as a 'provocateur' rather than a neutral reporter." Which is of course the kernel: Ngo is an active participant in the events rather than a passive observer. Binksternet (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Binksternet and Wikieditor19920, can we at least use those sources, especially the Columbia Journalism Review, in the body? Davide King (talk) 15:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- The Columbia Journalism Review characterizes Ngo as a writer who is a "discredited provocateur" and a "controversial right-wing writer". Jacobin magazine says Ngo violates journalist standards: "Far-right forces will converge on Portland tomorrow, incited by the right-wing provocateur Andy Ngo. Though he poses as a journalist, the purpose of his platform is to sow harassment and violence against his targets on the Left—and the mainstream media have fallen for it." Rolling Stone writes "Ngo, who describes himself as a journalist," and then talks about his very unjournalist practices such as inciting responses, and trading favorable coverage for benefits. Rolling Stone says Ngo is "a right-wing provocateur as opposed to a journalist." Binksternet (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes He's clearly been a journalist at least for some of his life. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes We go by how the majority of RS describe him, which is as a journalist. PackMecEng (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Why are we ignoring so many, many RS that have a sour view of this appellation? O3000 (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Because those are by far the minority. It would a huge NPOV issue to take the fringe view over the majority. PackMecEng (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- No, they aren't. And "fringe"? Columbia Journalism Review? O3000 (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- The view not the source. Columbia Journalism Review is a fantastic source, but sometimes they are in the minority. PackMecEng (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- I see a large number of sources and think the term "fringe" doesn't close to apply. We are not talking InfoWars here. O3000 (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- There's a useful list provided below. More than half use the term journalist--the majority. That majority includes print newspapers including NYT, WaPo and other outlets like ABC and CNN. The minority that don't include magazine pieces and other online-only sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- I see a large number of sources and think the term "fringe" doesn't close to apply. We are not talking InfoWars here. O3000 (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- The view not the source. Columbia Journalism Review is a fantastic source, but sometimes they are in the minority. PackMecEng (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- No, they aren't. And "fringe"? Columbia Journalism Review? O3000 (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Because those are by far the minority. It would a huge NPOV issue to take the fringe view over the majority. PackMecEng (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Why are we ignoring so many, many RS that have a sour view of this appellation? O3000 (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, provided we report in the body his ethical journalist violations, attributed to each source such as those provided by Binksternet. I would also be fine with
conservative journalist, social media personality, and provocateur
(perhaps changing provocateur to activist or conservative/right-wing activist) as was suggested here by Rhododendrites. I am also open to the possibility of removing that in the future if we can get consensus that reliable sources avoid using the term to describe him. Davide King (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC) - No. It's clear that he is far from being a journalist, and that his purposes are to produce propaganda in affiliation with hate groups. Care especially has to be taken when outlets simply repeat (quoting or paraphrasing) his claims to be a journalist without having done their own review, since such a claim falls into the self-serving category. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/andy-ngo-right-wing-troll-antifa-877914/ 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes (Changed vote) I've looked at some of the more considered and civil discussions here and reassessed my position. I think the work he has produced is of the poorest quality imaginable, I personally struggle to see how he is a journalist, but according to reliable sources he is and on consideration of his actual job title I guess he is technically a journalist. That being said, reliable sources do note he has many ethical issues surrounding his work and many sources report on his work in a way that infers a question about whether or not he is a journalist, he regularly crosses over into punditry and activism as well as having been involved in scandals surrounding the stories he is covering. Bacondrum (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
No Absolutely not, not even close to being one. Looking at how he is reported on he is often derided by real journalists and many sources make a point of not calling him one variously describing him as a "writer", "conservative writer" "activist" or some such. He's had one brief dalliance with journalism as a student paper reporter and he was sacked. Since then he has been an occasional opinions writer and an editor (this is the closest he ever got to journalism post Vanguard, he was sacked from this job too), he is not a journalist by any stretch of the imagination. Do those who voted YES actually know what a journalist is? An editor is not a journalist, a opinions writer is not a journalist, a shit stirrer is not a journalist. According to our article he has been variously described as a "right-wing provocateur" (otherwise known as a shit stirrer) producing "media activism", "participant reporting" and "busybody journalism", but these are dumb descriptions, we have a long standing term for this kind of buffoonery - Ngo is the very definition of a Hack writer - nothing more, nothing less. This is a ridiculous argument. Bacondrum (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Bacondrum: Irrelevant vote Rife with BLP violations and makes no reference to sources or policy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Wikieditor19920: you are bludgeoning the debate and being uncivil - cut it out. I do refer to sources repeatedly and make no BLP violations. I ask that you to please withdraw that nasty and petty comment. Bacondrum (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- What was your RS on "Hack writer"? I must have missed that. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Bacondrum: Your entire vote is a tirade against the subject. You are violating BLP. You cannot describe the subject of an article as a
hack writer
andshit stirrer
. There is nothing "nasty" or "bludgeoning" about me pointing that out. You should retract your vitriolic, personalized characterizations of the subject and take a look at the sources. The NYT and other reliable print sources describe him as a journalist. Respond to that instead of making BLP violations. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)- In the context of Ngo making repeated false claims while posing as a journalist fraudulently, "But it wasn’t until Ngo was attacked at the June rally that he truly ascended to the ranks of right-wing media shit-stirrer." https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/andy-ngo-right-wing-troll-antifa-877914/ so yes, there you go @Wikieditor19920:. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:2C26:E795:C811:3DED (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Wikieditor19920: you are bludgeoning the debate and being uncivil - cut it out. I do refer to sources repeatedly and make no BLP violations. I ask that you to please withdraw that nasty and petty comment. Bacondrum (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Bacondrum: Irrelevant vote Rife with BLP violations and makes no reference to sources or policy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment seeing he has only worked as a one time journalist for a single publication and he was sacked in 2017, surely it would be more appropriate to describe him by his job title, as an editor? That is his actual job title. Maybe an editor and writer? I know we don't do truth or facts, but there are plenty of sources to demonstrate he is both an editor and writer - surely we do strive for accuracy based on reliable sources, of which many different sources say many things about this subject. We do know for certain that he is employed as an editor and writes opinions pieces on the side. Bacondrum (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes Very adequately sourced. Discussion here is clouded by irrelevant personal opinion. RandomGnome (talk) 05:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- No. Journalism is an exercise in presenting fact, with minimum standards of balance and integrity. Multiple sources document his failure to do that. Multiple sources describe him as an activist or in other terms inconsistent with journalism. Ngo has already been fired from a particularly terrible organ for falling below even their standards. All the sources make it very clear that his aim is not to expose truth, but to make an argument against one group in a way that is clearly designed to obfuscate much worse problems with another whose ideology he likes. We call that propaganda, not journalism. I find characterisations like "troll", "propagandist", "provocateur", "grifter". To then describe him as a journalist, unqualified, in wiki-voice is pretty poor. You might make a case for "right-wing journalist and..." or something, but journalist alone is woefully misleading, and the sources are very clear about that. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. He's a journalist according to our sources. Nobody's saying he's a good journalist. – Anne drew 15:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes per the the range of RSs which clearly describe him as such. Regardless of whether you think he is a good or bad journalist he very clearly is one. Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 16:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Discussion - "journalist"
Refractored. The following is in responce to Coffeeandcrumbs !vote. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Appreciate the elaboration, but you haven't changed the RfC to accord with your vote. Also, WP:FALSEBALANCE. The NYT and equivalent sources use "journalist," they do not use "provocateur." We do not strive for "parity," we strive for appropriate weight. "Provocateur" does not reflect that. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- A lot has happened since August 2019 when this was last discussed. You are welcome to make your arguments for inclusion. You are also welcome to start a separate RfC for "provocateur". My argument is that "conservative journalist" has been challenged with more recent reporting: "
Andy Ngo, a right-leaning provocateur
" The Oregonian, "right-wing provocateur Andy Ngo
" The Intercept, "Ngo is a conservative provocateur sympathizer
" VOX, "alt-right whisperer Andy Ngo
" VICE, "33-year-old provocateur
" Jewish Currents. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC) - Here is another one "
a provocateur like Ngo
" The Independent and another "Donald Trump ally Jim Jordan invited right-wing provocateur Andy Ngo
" The Independent and another "Andy Ngo, the provocateur and social media personality
" Rolling Stone. How many sources are needed before it is not a FALSEBALANCE versus The Almighty New York Times? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)- Is this a discussion about "journalist" or "provocateur"? Note that journalist is a neutral description of a profession. Once can be a good or bad journalist. One can be a neutral or biased journalist but by itself it's neutral the same way "teacher", "banker" or "manager" is neutral. "Provocateur" is a loaded term. It suggests a motive beyond just informing etc. It's also a subjective label. We went through this last year [[33]], [[34]]. Additionally, even in the last month sources still refer to Ngo as a journalist (typically "conservative journalist" [[35]][[36]][[37]][[38]][[39]][[40]]. "Provocateur" is a contentious label applied by either low quality sources, strongly biased sources or one writer at RS magazine (see biased). We note that sources call him that but such a label should not be used in wiki voice the opening sentence of a BLP. To claim provocateur is here to balance journalist is a false balance. One is a profession, the other is an accusation. Springee (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Let see: this is a local news channel, as for this see WP:FOX, this says "'Portland-based journalist who describes himself as independent and objective but who has been accused of working with far-right groups in the past", this is written by an "Opinion contributor", for this see WP:RSP. The one reliable source you cite is the WaPo which calls him a "conservative activist and journalist". All in all, doubts all around about the validity of just calling him a "conservative journalist" alone. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, no. As you say, KUSI is a news channel. Fox News is reliable for calling him a journalist vs what ever you want. You just confirmed that Aljazeera called him a journalist. Again, they aren't claiming good or bad, just that he is one. I'm OK saying the Gainesville paper isn't reliable enough. WT is still sufficient for "journalist" and WP is a clear RS. These are all recent articles (I limited the search to the past month). Springee (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Let see: this is a local news channel, as for this see WP:FOX, this says "'Portland-based journalist who describes himself as independent and objective but who has been accused of working with far-right groups in the past", this is written by an "Opinion contributor", for this see WP:RSP. The one reliable source you cite is the WaPo which calls him a "conservative activist and journalist". All in all, doubts all around about the validity of just calling him a "conservative journalist" alone. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Is this a discussion about "journalist" or "provocateur"? Note that journalist is a neutral description of a profession. Once can be a good or bad journalist. One can be a neutral or biased journalist but by itself it's neutral the same way "teacher", "banker" or "manager" is neutral. "Provocateur" is a loaded term. It suggests a motive beyond just informing etc. It's also a subjective label. We went through this last year [[33]], [[34]]. Additionally, even in the last month sources still refer to Ngo as a journalist (typically "conservative journalist" [[35]][[36]][[37]][[38]][[39]][[40]]. "Provocateur" is a contentious label applied by either low quality sources, strongly biased sources or one writer at RS magazine (see biased). We note that sources call him that but such a label should not be used in wiki voice the opening sentence of a BLP. To claim provocateur is here to balance journalist is a false balance. One is a profession, the other is an accusation. Springee (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- A lot has happened since August 2019 when this was last discussed. You are welcome to make your arguments for inclusion. You are also welcome to start a separate RfC for "provocateur". My argument is that "conservative journalist" has been challenged with more recent reporting: "
- Appreciate the elaboration, but you haven't changed the RfC to accord with your vote. Also, WP:FALSEBALANCE. The NYT and equivalent sources use "journalist," they do not use "provocateur." We do not strive for "parity," we strive for appropriate weight. "Provocateur" does not reflect that. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Provocateur is a profession. Contentious or not, people make a lot of money doing it. But in the end, I am fine with leaving it out but only including "conservative journalist" is POV because that implies that he is in the mainstream. Conservationism is mainstream. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- There are also a lot of artist provocateurs, cultural provocateurs etc... Google it. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- That is a stretch. Let's step back, do you agree it is a contentious label. Not that it's a disputed label but that it has a negative connotation when applied to Ngo? Springee (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Define "contentious label". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Cofeeandcrumbs: We're not obliged to explain the obvious to you. At WP:AE, you suggested "journalist" has a positive connotation and implies membership in a respected profession. I suggest you use that same logic and consider what "provocateur" means. Here's a dictionary definition to clear things up: [41]\[42]. It implies something negative. It is a contentious label, and the sources that you have thrown at the wall do not pass muster except for possibly the independent. You cite Vice, which has no consensus at WP:RSP, and mock The New York Times. You can add WaPo to the list of sources referring to Ngo as a journalist, albeit a "conservative journalist," but not "provocateur.
- The entire premise of this RfC is ridiculous and disruptive. The most reliable available sources on the subject refer to him as a journalist. You object to this without any basis other than subjective opinion. This is not how WP works. We assign weight to sources and build content around the weightiest sources. Editors personal opinions do not control content, and that's all that's been offered here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wikieditor19920 said:
We're not obliged to explain the obvious to you.
Please don’t use language like that or use simplistic definitions. Journalism comes in flavors. For example, gonzo journalism, which clearly applies here, is often respected as a literary style – but not as reliable journalism. “Provocateur” could apply to the Sons of Liberty, the Boston Tea Party, and other luminaries of the American Revolution. You are applying your own judgements as to what is “respected” or not without context. O3000 (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)- You are absolutely correct that there are nuances to every definition, but the commonly understood meaning of "provocateur" is negative. The two Wiktionary links I provided are a good starting point for determining why "provocateur" is negative. C&C even implicitly acknowledges this by contrasting it with "journalist" which he deems positive. WP:LABEL clearly applies, and we should err on the side of caution. WP:BLP.
- Second, my criticism of this RfC stands. It is in violation of the procedures governing RfCs. The subject of the RfC is whether or not "journalist" is appropriate for the lead, but all of C&C's arguments are why "provocateur" is the preferable label. You cannot open an RfC about "A" but really use to advocate for "B." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- And by the way, maybe "provocateur" is an appropriate label, but I think it should be used with attribution because the highest-quality sources available have avoided this terminology. Vice lacks consensus at WP:RSP. The Intercept and the Independent are fine, but rank lower than mainstream, top-tier American news outlets. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- C&C provided a rather impressive number of sources -- in my mind enough to avoid attribution (ignoring the fact that it is patently obvious). I'll take RS over your perception. As for the bounds of the RfC, let us not bind our discussions into a small box. RfCs often have proposals, multiple at times, as they proceed. Life is not black and white and we are not bound to binary decisions. O3000 (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wikieditor19920 said:
- Define "contentious label". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- That is a stretch. Let's step back, do you agree it is a contentious label. Not that it's a disputed label but that it has a negative connotation when applied to Ngo? Springee (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Exactly this. Opinion pieces in left-leaning sources like Vice, Vox, Jewish Currents, and the like, and a local news report, should not guide us in applying a contentious label in the lead when we have excellent top-tier news sources like NYT and WaPo, which do not apply this label to him. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well, you keep repeating that WaPo and NYT call him a journalist. But, in some articles they call him a writer or activist.[43] [44][45] [46] Let us look at the preponderance. And please stop using the term "left-leaning" whenever you disagree with a source. Isn't that label used for NYT and WaPo all too often here? O3000 (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'd prefer not to have to sound like a bot. If only the same points weren't raised against and again. "Preponderance" Nope, WP:WEIGHT. 1000 Tabloids =/= 1 Reliable Newspaper. Or better yet, 100 Second Tier Sources < 10 Top Notch Sources. Don't know how to make this much clearer. I'm also not interested in silly debates over whether "provocateur" is negative. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wikieditor19920, can you kindly point the discussion to the policy page that clarifies what constitutes a "First tier" or "Top Notch" source? It would also be helpful for everyone to see where in Wikipedia policy these source valuation you keep referring to are located. Thanks, Cedar777 (talk) 01:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- So, you consider four green-lighted RS as 1% to 0.1% as useful as the sources you like -- even though the sources you like have articles that I cited that do not use the term you like. And Shinealittlelight suggests we don't use "left-leaning" sources, even though the very sources you want to use are called left-leaning hundreds of thousands of times on WP TPs. O3000 (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'd prefer not to have to sound like a bot. If only the same points weren't raised against and again. "Preponderance" Nope, WP:WEIGHT. 1000 Tabloids =/= 1 Reliable Newspaper. Or better yet, 100 Second Tier Sources < 10 Top Notch Sources. Don't know how to make this much clearer. I'm also not interested in silly debates over whether "provocateur" is negative. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well, you keep repeating that WaPo and NYT call him a journalist. But, in some articles they call him a writer or activist.[43] [44][45] [46] Let us look at the preponderance. And please stop using the term "left-leaning" whenever you disagree with a source. Isn't that label used for NYT and WaPo all too often here? O3000 (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Shinealittlelight and Wikieditor19920, The elephant in the room here is the question of why. Why are there so many sources that avoid referring to Ngo as a journalist? What is it about the terminology of journalist that has left other journalists reluctant to consider Ngo one of their own? Surely they must sympathize with the plight of their fellow reporters and the complexities that any reporter faces when covering newsworthy events. Yet, it is telling that there are a number of reporters who cannot bring themselves to describe the subject as a journalist. It indicates a need for caution on the part of Wikipedia editors as there may well be a significant problem with the content and the integrity of the subject's actions. Cedar777 (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, do I need to search the bowels of WP:RSP discussions to state unequivocally that The New York Times and The Washington Post are more reliable than The Indepednent and The Intercept? I don't think so. WP:RSP answers the question "is this a usable source or is this unusable," not "how much weight does this hold." Don't try to equate the two. I also never referred to "left-leaning" or "right-leaning" sources. WP:BIASED sources are permitted, but sometimes may require attribution. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Cedar777: The explanation is very simple. Lower-quality sources tend to throw around contentious and charged labels to get clicks and are more prone to making assertions without evidence. Reliable sources are cautious, use conservative language, and only make contentious claims with indisputable evidence. The Washington Post and NYTimes adhere to the latter practice, and that's why they hold weight. Online-only sources like The Intercept and The Independent, while not completely unreliable, have fewer editorial checks and balances in place and fall into the former category. And I suggest dropping the insinuations.
- Hey, you know what, Objective3000, you're right. I'm being way to strict with all this demanding high quality sources for contentious claims at a BLP. No idea what got over me. Let's go check what the Daily Mail says! (Kidding around is fun.) Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wikieditor19920, The ranking system, as you are describing it, works well for sources at the extremes, i.e. the Daily Mail vs. New York Times, but it becomes problematic when the sources are less polarized. The Seattle Times and the Oregonian are extremely high quality sources of news in the Pacific Northwest. As I mentioned above, these publishers have each earned multiple pulitzers. They are excellent quality sources that are particularly relevant to this subject as many of the events the Ngo is known for took place within the region. The 2020 articles from these publications that I linked earlier both refer to Ngo as a writer, not a journalist. Cedar777 (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Shinealittlelight, The 2020 articles in the Seattle Times and the Oregonian are not opinion pieces. They do not refer to Ngo as a journalist. I'm still awaiting an answer as to why that might be the case. Cedar777 (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- No one's obligated to answer your every speculative question. If you want to make a claim, provide a source that makes that claim. If the source contradicts a more reliable source, it's a no go. Omissions are not statements when it comes to the use of WP:RS. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yep. Also, I find it interesting that we've gone from claims of "a rather impressive number" of sources--a claim I was responding to by criticizing most of that number--to now standing on these two local sources. Look, the archives are full of repeated arguments on this issue over the last year, and they are full of lists of additional mainstream national-level sources that call him a journalist. The Portland and Seattle newspapers simply omitting the term 'journalist' obviously isn't going to serve as a reason to depart from the practice of NYT, WaPo, etc. etc. etc. mainstream sources that do call him a journalist. I don't have to speculate as to the reason why these two much less prominent sources didn't call him a journalist to support keeping that term in the lead, following central RS. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- No one's obligated to answer your every speculative question. If you want to make a claim, provide a source that makes that claim. If the source contradicts a more reliable source, it's a no go. Omissions are not statements when it comes to the use of WP:RS. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
The root article for the June 2020 Seattle Times and Oregonian coverage is the Associated Press.
Lawsuit aims to hold nebulous ‘antifa’ to blame for injuries https://apnews.com/article/9c484adddf335e79be648e70406622ca
This highest quality, more recent international source pointedly does not refer to the subject as a journalist but rather a "conservative writer from Portland". Due to the lack of agreement in RS, it should not be stated that NGO is a journalist in Wikipedia‘s voice. Cedar777 (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, no. The archives of this topic show many examples of RS like NYT, WashPo etc calling Ngo a journalist. Within the last month the WP called Ngo a journalist. Cherry picking sources that don't call him that doesn't mean that he isn't widely called a journalist. I think it's rather disturbing that some editors think it's OK to use negative labels in wikivoice but are against using a neutral descriptor of his profession. I understand web search word counts aren't perfect but I did a Google-new search for the following terms and got the following number of hits: "andy ngo" journalist-4710; "andy ngo" writer-1830; "andy ngo" provocateur-208. I think that is pretty clear that more sources are calling him a journalist than the alternatives discussed here. Finally, let's look at the plain language definition of "journalist"; a person who writes for newspapers, magazines, or news websites or prepares news to be broadcast. Ngo currently writes for the Post Millenial. In the past he has written for even the Wall Street Journal. This shouldn't even be a question. It would be a question if we were asking "is he reliable, respected, unbiased, etc." We aren't doing that. That editors don't like it doesn't change that he is widely described by both highly respected and less respected sources as being a journalist by profession. Would you be happy if we said he is a "conservative writer and journalist"? That seems like a fair compromise for those who say "writer" instead. Springee (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- In addition to the fact that this description of his profession is widely supported by RSs, we should consider that this is the consensus text that has been widely discussed and kept in the article after a number of discussions regarding the lead. As such editor wishing to remove need to show consensus for the removal. CC has tried to argue that BLP says contentious material needs to stay out rather than in because this is a BLP. Let's review the policies (both NOCON and BLP). The BLPREQUESTRESTORE part talks about material that has been removed on good faith BLP grounds. On what BLP grounds would "journalist" be removed? It is not a value laden label. It is widely used in RSs. Prior to it's removal it had at minimum implied consensus for inclusion. So absent arguments of consensus, on what policy based grounds would it violate BLP? Both NOCON and BLP have no-consensus carve outs for contentious material. So if we were trying to include a statement that Ngo was a racist, liar, criminal etc, I think we can agree that such labels/claims are contentious. They are not neutral with respect to the subject. The same could be true for claims of positive labels like "award winning", "national treasure", "cornerstone of journalistic integrity", "god of all facts", "the next Walter Cronkite". But when we are talking about neutral descriptions or facts, then "contentious" doesn't enter into it. For example, let's assume he wrote a few articles for a paper in Kansas City and that information had been in the article for several years. Now in late 2020 editors argue that the content is UNDUE and should be removed. The talk page discussions may be contentious but the nature of the facts/claims are not. Thus we wouldn't say NOCON=remove. We would say NOCON=restore status quo. That is the case we have here. Springee (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- I got completely different Google search counts. They are meaningless. O3000 (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Please share your exact search terms and which part of Google you used. While these results are not foolproof, they are better than editors cherry picking sources. Springee (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Google searches should never be used here as an indication of anything. Firstly, they vary by person taking into account Google's idea of your personal interests. Secondly, they include massive replication due to the echo chamber in anything related to politics. As for cherry-picking, I suggest you stop using that characterization since the argument for inclusion of journalist has repeatedly picked two sources -- the definition of cherry-picking. O3000 (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- You said you did the same search. Please post your terms and results. What is significant here is the ratios. We have more that enough Hugh quality sources to say Ngo is described as a journalist. Some are claiming other terms like "writer" should be used instead. Ok, how do we judge the relative ratio of those two descriptors. A web search, while imperfect, offers an order of magnitude comparison. It's not conclusive but it's hard to ignore when combined with other evidence. Springee (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Google searches should never be used here as an indication of anything. Firstly, they vary by person taking into account Google's idea of your personal interests. Secondly, they include massive replication due to the echo chamber in anything related to politics. As for cherry-picking, I suggest you stop using that characterization since the argument for inclusion of journalist has repeatedly picked two sources -- the definition of cherry-picking. O3000 (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)For reference, I tried the same search on my phone using private mode (vs my desktop computer without privacy mode). I got 4680, 1820, and 208. Trying the same with my phone and Bing (which I normally don't use) returns 98, 33, 3 respectively. Springee (talk) 14:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Meaningless. You need to analyze search results, not count them. Search engines are a great starting tool. That's all. Further, the use of quote marks is used as a hint to such engines. If you look at results, you will see massive numbers of irrelevant hits where the quote marks are ignored. Obviously, more common words will receive more irrelevant hits. O3000 (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Objective3000 Do not accuse other editors of bad-faith WP:CHERRYPICKING. Emphasizing two pre-eminent sources (WaPo/NYT) supporting a specific characterization is exactly what we should be doing and wholly appropriate per WP:WEIGHT. Other editor's have suggested these sources are not "recent." Each were published in the past year. These same criticisms are paired with citations of sources they believe support their point by omission, and are published in the same time frame. This is ridiculous. The subject has been confirmed to be a journalist by the most reliable publications available. To replace this with "provocateur" based on the suggestions of Wikipedia editors and based on second-tier sources is a blatant BLP vio and severe departure from policy that cannot stand. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's funny. I was responding to two accusations of cherry-picking and you're claiming I'm the accuser.:) Secondly, I haven't proposed any text at all. Thirdly, we've hear your argument that we should use your two sources (even though those sources have other articles without that characterization) to the exclusion of other sources many times now and do not agree. Fourthly, if you believe I have made a blatant vio that "cannot stand", take it to the appropriate board. O3000 (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- I read your comment. You also made an accusation of cherrypicking, one apparently including me. Two wrongs don't make a right, and I haven't accused you of CP. I'm not accusing you of any vio. The entire premise of this malformed RfC is to advocate what, in my opinion, is a clear BLP vio. C&C opened it to challenge the use of "journalist" after claiming it was unsupported by sources (it is), but is primarily using it a as a vehicle to promote the use of another term, provocateur, which is not mentioned in the RfC intro. You called this a flexible use of an RfC, but I call it misuse. An RfC description is supposed to be straightforward and premised on the narrow change proposed, not suggest "A" and then surreptitiously advocate for "B." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- You accuse others of bad faith, and then engage yourself. I saw no surreptitious intent. At this point, you are bludgeoning. O3000 (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- The opener makes arguments focused on a piece of content unrelated to the premise of the RfC. This is confusing for anyone new to the conversation. And don't make accusation. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- You accuse others of bad faith, and then engage yourself. I saw no surreptitious intent. At this point, you are bludgeoning. O3000 (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- I read your comment. You also made an accusation of cherrypicking, one apparently including me. Two wrongs don't make a right, and I haven't accused you of CP. I'm not accusing you of any vio. The entire premise of this malformed RfC is to advocate what, in my opinion, is a clear BLP vio. C&C opened it to challenge the use of "journalist" after claiming it was unsupported by sources (it is), but is primarily using it a as a vehicle to promote the use of another term, provocateur, which is not mentioned in the RfC intro. You called this a flexible use of an RfC, but I call it misuse. An RfC description is supposed to be straightforward and premised on the narrow change proposed, not suggest "A" and then surreptitiously advocate for "B." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's funny. I was responding to two accusations of cherry-picking and you're claiming I'm the accuser.:) Secondly, I haven't proposed any text at all. Thirdly, we've hear your argument that we should use your two sources (even though those sources have other articles without that characterization) to the exclusion of other sources many times now and do not agree. Fourthly, if you believe I have made a blatant vio that "cannot stand", take it to the appropriate board. O3000 (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Please share your exact search terms and which part of Google you used. While these results are not foolproof, they are better than editors cherry picking sources. Springee (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- I got completely different Google search counts. They are meaningless. O3000 (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep in mind the first sentence or even the first phrase of the lede needs to be 100% objective. This should be strictly his nationality and his career facets. Whether this is writer/journalist/activist, that's the question above, but the "provocateur" absolutely needs to be kept out of that area because that is not a career thing. That is something that needs to be discussed in a second sentence or second phrase of the first sentence of the lede since it is part of why he is notable, but the first sentence is not required to spell out why a person is notable, but is required to stay neutral and impartial, and calling out someone as a provocateur which requires specific source attribution is not sticking to objective facts (it's a value-laden label). --Masem (t) 16:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Writer is the most neutral term best suited encompass the subject's activities. Cedar777 (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV is the guideline for neutrality, and this is determined by weight in sources. The sources above show the most weight for "journalist." Recognition by the preeminent print papers in the U.S. is not something we poo-poo. "Writer" is also acceptable as a secondary label. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Sources that describe him as a "writer" do not indicate that he is not a journalist. All journalists are writers, some writers are journalists. Those are certainly not mutually exclusive terms. If you found a source that described him as a "non-journalist," then you would have a legitimate point.Truth is KingTALK 15:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Survey "Provocateur"
- Since the opener of this RfC has repeatedly asserted the appropriateness of "provocateur" in the opening in this thread, but it is not reflected in the intro, this is worthy of a separate and distinct discussion. "Provocateur" has the least support in sources, behind "journalist," "writer," and "activist," in that order. It is also a contentious term. It should not be unduly emphasized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor19920 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Mixed - There are distinctly fewer sources that use “Provocateur” than use the other terms under discussion (writer, activist, etc). Those sources are also of lesser quality. Then there is the fact that it is a “loaded” term. However, it IS used, and by more than one source. So... I would mention it, but not in the opening sentence... and I would use in text attribution so it is not presented in Wikipedia’s voice. Blueboar (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Generally oppose - It could be included in the lead but with care. A number of lesser but not unreliable sources have described him as such but we shouldn't say something like, "Ngo is described as a provocateur by a number of sources." Such a sentence doesn't explain/justify why he is called that. However, why could be addressed with a neutral, impartial summary of the supporting claims made in those sources (a very high level summary). For example, "Many sources accuse Ngo of being a provocateur because his reports that are accused of vilifying groups such as..." What that sentence adds is some level of why these sources might have chosen that descriptor. Effectively a first layer of evidence. Should that be in the lead? Perhaps but only after careful discussion. Springee (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep in some form, even if in a subsequent sentence. The fact that he is a right-wing provocateur has been stated in multiple independent sources linked above in my comments about journalist. The lead section should give due weight to this, at least in passing. We can spare the 11 characters. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Coffeeandcrumbs: Watch how you phrase your vote. BLP applies to talk pages. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- [47] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Coffeeandcrumbs: Watch how you phrase your vote. BLP applies to talk pages. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Among the terms that have been suggested here, including "journalist," "writer," "activist," "provocateur" has the least support. It is sourced to several opinion columns and magazine features offering cultural commentary, not news organizations. It is relevant enough for inclusion in the article, but not in the opening sentence, and not without attribution. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Not only is this a subjective WP:LABEL, it is supported without attribution by weaker sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose with qualifications per Springee above. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Leave as is (
conservative journalist, social media personality, and provocateur
), which seems to encompass the various points made by the sources. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC) - Oppose Not a common term. It usually is a short form for agent provocateur. (Provocateur redirects to the disambiguation page for agent provocateur.) Usually this implies that someone is in the employ of the police. I don't think we should use terms which although strictly speaking are accurate give a misleading impression. For the same reason I wouldn't call him a journalist either. TFD (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose as a loaded, polemical, and vaguely defined term. It's clear that the article referring to Ngo as a provocateur was using the word as an insult and not as a serious definition of his occupation; otherwise we're saying that Ngo is someone who pretends to be a protestor in order to induce other protestors to commit crimes. Describing him in WikiVoice as a "provocateur" is laughable. Chess (talk) (please use
{{ping|Chess}}
on reply) 19:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC) - Keep He has been described as a provocateur in the press and is one, much like Milo Yiannopoulos. I don't think the word has a negative stigma, it just means someone who provokes or is provocative, in some way. Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Provocateur is used to describe "one who provokes" (or one who calls forth in others a feeling or an action). Agree with Coffee & Crumbs that some individuals, including artists, consider the role of provocateur to be a calling and find the term nothing to take offense at. Additionally, provocateur has been used by two reliable sources to describe the subject: the Oregonian (winner of 8 pulitzers) and Rolling Stone (green at WP:RSP) which are both solid backing as citations for this content, more than enough to adequately cite this term. Finally, let us not forget that Ngo is a public figure, governed by less stringent WP:BLP rules as for low-profile individuals. Cedar777 (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- [Replies moved to discussion section below]
- Keep in the article, attributed. The term has been used by multiple sources including Rolling Stone, Jacobin, Atlantic and Jewish Currents magazines to describe Ngo. We can follow WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and tell the reader which publications have called him that, and explain why, which is the real benefit to our readers. Binksternet (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, per Liz.--Jorm (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Provocateur is a highly loaded word and appears to be used only as clickbait and partisanship. More neutral terms include activist, agent and operative. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - Largely per TFD, given it is not universal and is a loaded term. I would also say it is a freedom fighter type descriptor. PackMecEng (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Mixed, perhaps reword it in a sentence or two in the lead to better describe what sources are saying when they use the term, rather than just state the blank term. I would also be fine to change provocateur with activist or conservative/right-wing activist while stating later in the lead that he has been described as such and why; or if not in the lead, better explain and clarify in the body why several reliable sources have been calling him by that term, see Jacobin and Vox. Davide King (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
WriterKeep (it's what he is known for and many sources describe him as such) I think he should be described as a writer. It is how he is described in a number of reliable sources, and it seems fairly inert as a descriptor. I think calling him a hack writer would be more accurate, but that presents many issues similar to describing him as a provocateur.Bacondrum (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- [Replies moved to discussion section below]
- Definitely. Numerous high quality sources in agreement. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Too loaded a label at this point. Not supported by the weight of reliable quality sources. Others have pointed out that the label was attached to Ngo by political source(s) as an insult. That's not nearly good enough for me to be considered encyclopedic. RandomGnome (talk) 05:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - well-sourced and the most neutral descriptor of what he does. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
All, this is an ongoing RFC. Adding the disputed RFC material to the lead while the RFC is in process is something experienced editors should know is problematic and not against policy (NOCON). If consensus says add then we should do so but not before then. Springee (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Unless it was long-standing content, in which case the default is to stay in pending consensus to remove. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose He has not been widely called a "provocateur" by RSs thus it would violate WP:LABEL to call him this especially in the lead. Moreover, it would consistute WP:UNDUE weight on the small portion of source which do refer to him as such which is especially important to avoid considering this is a WP:BLP. Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 16:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Discussion "Provocateur"
Discussion in reply to Cedar777 [moved from above]:
- I suspect Milo would revel in the idea that he is a provocateur. Do you think Ngo would find the term to be balanced? It appears that Ngo is trying to report on what he sees is a problem with left-wing activists using intimidation and violence. Calling him a provocateur appears to be an attempt to discredit his reporting. As such I don't see how we would presume it to be something other than a controversial label. Springee (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- We do not presume to call him anything. RS call him that and we are only relaying the consensus of RS. A significant number of RS call him a "provocateur", therefore, for any relevant intents and purposes on en.wiki, he is a provocateur. Asking for in-line attribution is the only argument that makes sense here, based on the argument that it is a minority view point. However, including significant minority view points is part of how we keep a neutral point of view on en.wiki. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Coffeeandcrumbs: You need to stop misrepresenting the sources and making broad, patently false characterizations of what the sources are doing. The majority of sources describe him as a journalist. A small number of op-eds and magazine pieces, maybe two or three cited here, use the term provocateur. The op-eds are not secondary and a single magazine article is not a "consensus among RS." It's not even a significant minority viewpoint, it's one limited to opinion pieces and a "culture commentary" magazine article. This can, at most, be noted in the body, with in-text attribution. You are repeating provably false characterizations in a manner that is disruptive to the discussion and has the potential to mislead others. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- [49][50][51][52], as far as I know, none of these are op-eds and all are RS. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- The Vox piece calls him a
journalist
, and suggests he is a "provocateur sympathizer," not a provocateur himself. The Independent piece is an op-ed in the "Voices" section, meaning, opinions. The Intercept piece is yet another online-only magazine by an author who has written sharply negative opinion pieces about Ngo. So I'm not sure how much weight that holds, but even if I give you that one, there is still not even an inkling of a "consensus among rs" that "provocateur" is the prevailing or even an appropriate term. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)- You ignore The Oregonian. Vox does not say a "sympathizer to provocateurs". It says "Ngo is a conservative provocateur sympathizer who has worked with militant right-wing groups", meaning that both conservative and provocateur modify symphathizer, which he is, according to Vox. The Independent has a separate properly labeled "opinion" section.[53] I do not have civil words to respond to the misguided statement "
another online-only magazine by an author who has written sharply negative opinion pieces about Ngo
". - We also forgot to mention the Rolling Stone.[54][55] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- So sticking with my comment about re-working the carer section, I think we should look at those articles when deciding how to handle them. For example, if an article claims he, "worked with militant right-wing groups" we really should include the details of that collaboration. Does this mean active coordination and collaboration? Does it mean he is sympathetic to their version of events and thus effectively aids their narrative without actually collaborating with them? Does it simply mean he challenges claims that it was "the right who hit first" if he saw "the left take the first swing"? Conversely, if a source just says "Ngo, a provocateur and right-wing hack, testified before congress." Well that's just a writer using loaded terms without justification. That should be discounted in terms of answering if we should use the label in the article. Incidentally I think there is almost certainly enough evidence to discuss the various labels in the body of the article. We just need to do it in a way that isn't like a list of names people have called him. Springee (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Coffeeandcrumbs:
I do not have civil words to respond to the misguided statement
Keeping mum when you can't say something civil is a smart move. Consider doing the same for statements that are inaccurate. "Provocateur sympathizer" calls him a "sympathizer" for provocateurs, not necessarily one himself. This poorly worded phrasing is inconclusive. You also conveniently omit any information that doesn't support your point, namely that the Vox piece sayshe is still a journalist
. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)- I have always maintained that both journalist and provocateur should be kept, together, to represent a NPOV. Keeping "journalist" and not "provocateur" is POV pushing. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- What you are advocating for is, in my opinion, a WP:FALSEBALANCE. One is the prevailing term in high-quality print and online sources. The other is limited to a select few opinion and online-only pieces. The two are worlds apart and in terms of weight and the latter is a contentious label, subject to even more stringent sourcing requirements to be used without attribution. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- "provocateur" is not a contentious label, it is simply a word that describes what he does, which is to selectively film and publish footage of events with an aim to invoke a particular response.[56] "racist" is a contentious label. "terrorist" is a contentious label. "bigot" is a contentious label. Do not cheapen truly contentious labels by putting this word in the same boat.
- Excluding "online-only pieces" has no basis in policy or guidelines on en.wiki. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- What you are advocating for is, in my opinion, a WP:FALSEBALANCE. One is the prevailing term in high-quality print and online sources. The other is limited to a select few opinion and online-only pieces. The two are worlds apart and in terms of weight and the latter is a contentious label, subject to even more stringent sourcing requirements to be used without attribution. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- I have always maintained that both journalist and provocateur should be kept, together, to represent a NPOV. Keeping "journalist" and not "provocateur" is POV pushing. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Coffeeandcrumbs:
- As any good journalistic source would, Vox points to its source for the claim that Ngo "worked with militant right-wing groups", a report by the JewishCurrents, which in turn points to a WP:NEWSBLOG by the Portland Mercury, which telling has a hatnote stating
"After publication of this story, a lawyer representing Andy Ngo contacted the Mercury, asking for a retraction and stating that Ngo denies certain claims made by a source quoted in this article. See the full contents of the lawyer’s request here. The Mercury stands by its reporting."
- I cannot help but think that editors here expect journalists use nice words to describe right-wing provocateurs. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is an great example of why we need to not just repeat what the source claims but also trace back teh evidence. In the case of "worked with right-wing groups" the evidence is the video of Ngo near PP prior to the Cider Riot brawl. What that video shows is greatly disputed. A way we can handle this is say that some sources say Ngo actively works with (or what ever language) right-wing groups. Other sources dispute this claim (Reason's arguments here). The video actually works well in this revised carer framework. Rather than just telling readers "Ngo was seen with these people..." We say "[sources] allege that Ngo has has a cozy relationship/coordinated with right wing groups. In [date] a video was released showing Ngo near PP members. Ngo is seen smiling/acknowledging the PP members. Later that day PP was involved in a brawl at Cider Riot. [Source] says this shows PP planning an attack and that Ngo heard the plans yet failed to report this when later reporting on the brawl. [Source] disputes some of these claims [details]. Ngo, via an article published by [online magazine] denied these claims saying [short denial]. Now the reader can see the accusation against Ngo, the evidence and the counter claims in a single passage. This avoids having to flood the article with labels while helping the reader better understand why some apply the labels to Ngo. Springee (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- So sticking with my comment about re-working the carer section, I think we should look at those articles when deciding how to handle them. For example, if an article claims he, "worked with militant right-wing groups" we really should include the details of that collaboration. Does this mean active coordination and collaboration? Does it mean he is sympathetic to their version of events and thus effectively aids their narrative without actually collaborating with them? Does it simply mean he challenges claims that it was "the right who hit first" if he saw "the left take the first swing"? Conversely, if a source just says "Ngo, a provocateur and right-wing hack, testified before congress." Well that's just a writer using loaded terms without justification. That should be discounted in terms of answering if we should use the label in the article. Incidentally I think there is almost certainly enough evidence to discuss the various labels in the body of the article. We just need to do it in a way that isn't like a list of names people have called him. Springee (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- You ignore The Oregonian. Vox does not say a "sympathizer to provocateurs". It says "Ngo is a conservative provocateur sympathizer who has worked with militant right-wing groups", meaning that both conservative and provocateur modify symphathizer, which he is, according to Vox. The Independent has a separate properly labeled "opinion" section.[53] I do not have civil words to respond to the misguided statement "
- The Vox piece calls him a
- [49][50][51][52], as far as I know, none of these are op-eds and all are RS. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Coffeeandcrumbs: You need to stop misrepresenting the sources and making broad, patently false characterizations of what the sources are doing. The majority of sources describe him as a journalist. A small number of op-eds and magazine pieces, maybe two or three cited here, use the term provocateur. The op-eds are not secondary and a single magazine article is not a "consensus among RS." It's not even a significant minority viewpoint, it's one limited to opinion pieces and a "culture commentary" magazine article. This can, at most, be noted in the body, with in-text attribution. You are repeating provably false characterizations in a manner that is disruptive to the discussion and has the potential to mislead others. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- We do not presume to call him anything. RS call him that and we are only relaying the consensus of RS. A significant number of RS call him a "provocateur", therefore, for any relevant intents and purposes on en.wiki, he is a provocateur. Asking for in-line attribution is the only argument that makes sense here, based on the argument that it is a minority view point. However, including significant minority view points is part of how we keep a neutral point of view on en.wiki. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- I suspect Milo would revel in the idea that he is a provocateur. Do you think Ngo would find the term to be balanced? It appears that Ngo is trying to report on what he sees is a problem with left-wing activists using intimidation and violence. Calling him a provocateur appears to be an attempt to discredit his reporting. As such I don't see how we would presume it to be something other than a controversial label. Springee (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- There is no policy basis for the claim that "
print sources like the NYT carry more weight
". I trust online sources more because they are clearer, more direct, less weighed down by status quo norms, and more likely to offer corrections. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
@Springee, yes, we can do all that in the body. However, we have enough due weight to mention that "some sources like Rolling Stone, Vox, and The Intercept refer to him as a provocateur because of allegations that he sympathizes with militant right-wing groups, a claim that has been disputed by [so and so publication]". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- What you are arguing is that there is enough weight to the criticism of his journalism to use that in the lead. That doesn't mean we should say, "RS, Vox... call Ngo a provocateur." Instead we say something more like, "[Many] sources have criticized Ngo's reporting for X and claimed he has done Y". That sources chose to apply a controversial label isn't important, why they did is. This is the difference between loading up the article with emotive terms vs an impartial description where we state the basis for the label and allow the reader to reach their own conclusion. This is inline with the IMPARTIAL policy, "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes." Offering up the contentious labels without offering up the reason for them is supporting one side of the dispute. IMPARTIAL goes on to say, "Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. " The label provocateur is an opinion, not a fact. That a particular source says Ngo misrepresented an incident is a fact. That they chose to refer to him as a provocateur is an expression of their opinion. If we are good we should be able to present all the same evidence the other sources provided without using any of their subjective labels. The reader can then decide what to think. Springee (talk) 13:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- I still object to calling him a "journalist". That is a disputable job title. We should call him a "writer" as suggested above. I have made concession to reach a consensus. You and Wikieditor19920 appear to not have any interest in reach a consensus. It appears to be your way or the highway when it comes to the lead section. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree but we seem to be repeating. I'm certainly interested in a consensus but that consensus also needs to adhere to IMPARTIAL as that is a policy. Look at the MW definition of Journalist, "1a: a person engaged in journalism especially : a writer or editor for a news medium." Ngo is an editor for the Millennium Post and writes articles for the MP [[57]]. Certainly we can agree that the MP has a poor reputation but that doesn't mean it's not a news medium nor that Ngo isn't writing and (presumably) editing and thus meeting the definition of journalist. While calling him a writer is factually correct, it's broader and less informative. Still, since, reportedly he is releasing a book, perhaps "conservative writer and journalist"? I'm just assuming conservative is in there since that was a added in a previous consensus. Perhaps a better way for us to reach a compromise is to figure out how to fix up the body first then adjust the lead. Springee (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- I still object to calling him a "journalist". That is a disputable job title. We should call him a "writer" as suggested above. I have made concession to reach a consensus. You and Wikieditor19920 appear to not have any interest in reach a consensus. It appears to be your way or the highway when it comes to the lead section. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Discussion in reply to to Davide King [moved from above]:
- @Davide King: You know that Jacobin piece is an op-ed? It's also pretty polemic and does not carry weight here. However, I thank you for citing it, because a number of other editors here have been parroting the reasoning of this single Jacobin piece with regards to the term "journalist," without citing it, and instead making arguments contrary to the prevailing reliable sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wikieditor19920, do you know that Jacobin is reliable (Reason is similarly considered reliable) and that sources are not required to be neutral (few sources, including 'centrist' ones, really are), just that they are reliable? Or that I did not even mean to use those sources to support the claim in the lead, just to use them and attribute them in the body? Both are reliable sources. Davide King (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Davide King: I haven't seen a consensus for Jacobin on WP:RSP, so I"m not clear on that. It's also an "American socialist" opinion magazine, so it's both WP:BIASED and not clearly secondary. However, I wholeheartedly agree with you that if the term "provocateur" is used, it should not be in the lead, and must be with attribution. So I think we have a lot of common ground. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wikieditor19920, I believe this was the latest RfC. I think Jacobin deserves at least a similar status to Reason. Anyway, I agree, too. If we are to use provocateur in the lead (I would prefer having one or two sentences about it, rather than the blank term; or doing the same in the body, if it is not lead worthy, i.e. expand and clarify why he has been called that way, what he has done to cause several reliable sources to call him that way or in similar terms), we would do our readers a favour by explaining why he has been called that way, rather than just use the blank term, which seems to be that the majority of reliable source are on yours and Springee's side. I also agree with this comment by Springee. Davide King (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Got it, thanks for sharing. My read on the RfC, which was not closed with any particular consensus, is that it is usable, but only with attribution. I think that's appropriate for the body, but again, WP:UNDUE for the lead. It's also an opinion piece, so the statements from the Gupta article are reliable only as an indication of what the author's opinion is. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wikieditor19920, I agree, that is why I support it only in the body, if it is not lead worthy for now. Davide King (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Got it, thanks for sharing. My read on the RfC, which was not closed with any particular consensus, is that it is usable, but only with attribution. I think that's appropriate for the body, but again, WP:UNDUE for the lead. It's also an opinion piece, so the statements from the Gupta article are reliable only as an indication of what the author's opinion is. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wikieditor19920, I believe this was the latest RfC. I think Jacobin deserves at least a similar status to Reason. Anyway, I agree, too. If we are to use provocateur in the lead (I would prefer having one or two sentences about it, rather than the blank term; or doing the same in the body, if it is not lead worthy, i.e. expand and clarify why he has been called that way, what he has done to cause several reliable sources to call him that way or in similar terms), we would do our readers a favour by explaining why he has been called that way, rather than just use the blank term, which seems to be that the majority of reliable source are on yours and Springee's side. I also agree with this comment by Springee. Davide King (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Davide King: I haven't seen a consensus for Jacobin on WP:RSP, so I"m not clear on that. It's also an "American socialist" opinion magazine, so it's both WP:BIASED and not clearly secondary. However, I wholeheartedly agree with you that if the term "provocateur" is used, it should not be in the lead, and must be with attribution. So I think we have a lot of common ground. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wikieditor19920, do you know that Jacobin is reliable (Reason is similarly considered reliable) and that sources are not required to be neutral (few sources, including 'centrist' ones, really are), just that they are reliable? Or that I did not even mean to use those sources to support the claim in the lead, just to use them and attribute them in the body? Both are reliable sources. Davide King (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Davide King: You know that Jacobin piece is an op-ed? It's also pretty polemic and does not carry weight here. However, I thank you for citing it, because a number of other editors here have been parroting the reasoning of this single Jacobin piece with regards to the term "journalist," without citing it, and instead making arguments contrary to the prevailing reliable sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Survey of Wikipedia ledes in bios of disgraced journalists
For perspective and amusement, there are numerous Wikipedia bios and BLPs under "Category:Journalistic hoaxes" and "Category:Journalistic scandals". It looks like in every single case the person is described as "journalist" (usually "former" journalist, for obvious reasons), sometimes "reporter" or "editor", but nowhere in the lede or article is there language suggesting the person was not actually a journalist while purporting to be one. The articles duly report that the subject fell into professional disrepute, committed journalistic fraud, was involved in controversy, etc, but there is no attempt to frame this as a self-exclusion from the category of Real Journalists. This should settle one ridiculous branch of the discussion above, but if not, here is a new subsection in which to pursue it. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Chetsford, thank you for closing this. I think it was a good analysis. I would like to point out that "provocateur" was not part of the stable lead at the time of the RfC. It was a recent and disputed addition thus the no consensus should not be used to keep it in the lead. Anyway, thank you for a fair closing analysis. Springee (talk) 12:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- Consensus can emerge and be formed in any discussion on a Talk page, not limited exclusively to RfCs. And, within an RfC, consensuses can also emerge outside the strict construction of options proferred by the initiator. In this case, however, no consensus emerged either way. However, to clarify, you are correct that the question as to whether or not "provocateur" should be restored to the lead is not a part of the close and my use of the word "probably" should be read only as a personal opinion as to the best way to ensure article stability. However, the editors will have to decide how to handle it and my note in that regard carries no weight beyond personal opinion. Apologies I did not make that clearer. Chetsford (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Removal of Bellingcat content
The editor "Springee" removed content sourced to Bellingcat (which is a RS per the WP:RSP) on Ngo's deceptive "reporting" on a May 2019 clash between far-right people and anti-fascists. Per Bellingcat's reporting, Ngo misleds those who follow his "reporting" into thinking the far-right people were attacked in an unprovoked manner whereas it was later revealed that Ngo had heard the far-right people plan an attack on the anti-fascists but omitted it in his "reporting." The content should be restored ASAP.[58] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- Snooganssnoogans, that seems to be due for the body and we should also add the report by the Columbia Journalism Review, among others, as suggest by Binksternet here. The biggest issue seemed to be that it was not lead worthy, not that it should not be mentioned at all in the article. Davide King (talk) 08:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- The only part I removed was this [[59]]. First, the source doesn't claim Ngo did anything "falsely". Second, this is a strongly opinionated article offering a lot of the Evens's interpretation of events rather than just black and white facts and thus should not have been put in wiki-voice. Third, the claim isn't supported by Evens's own offered facts. Ngo's Tweet only said that he was personally assaulted. Ngo's tweets say nothing about what the PP members did. Evens's claims are not supported by his own presented evidence. The follow on about the video is speculation on Evens's part. As has been previously discussed by RSs, we don't know what Ngo did or didn't hear while the video was being filmed so it's speculative to say Ngo didn't report it. Not that it would have been relevant to Ngo's claim that he was personally attacked. Evens seems to have a conclusion he wishes to reach then tries to force facts to fit his version of events. The reliability of the whole article should be questioned. Given the gross misrepresentation of Ngo's Cider Riot tweets Evens has shown his analysis can not be trusted. The criticism of the DC tweet is at least supported by the factual evidence presented (thus the reader doesn't have to trust Evens's opinions). The statements in Ngo's tweets appear factually correct but Evens is correct in saying they don't present a complete picture. Evens offers his own speculations as if they were fact when saying Ngo had the facts to know "Rome Man" was provoking a fight. This might be the case or it could be the case that in an effort to get info out fast, Ngo didn't do additional background work. Either way, based on Evens's presentation of videos, Rome Man appears to have decided he bit off more than he could chew and was trying to tuck tail and flee. He was attacked from behind when trying to leave. So Ngo's claims are factual and it would be false to say violence was only on the right (or left). As such I think this is a poor source for use in the article period and should only be used with attribution and even then WEIGHT of this claim is not clear at this point.
I won't remove it myself but I would support removal as a source.[see subsection below] Springee (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- The only part I removed was this [[59]]. First, the source doesn't claim Ngo did anything "falsely". Second, this is a strongly opinionated article offering a lot of the Evens's interpretation of events rather than just black and white facts and thus should not have been put in wiki-voice. Third, the claim isn't supported by Evens's own offered facts. Ngo's Tweet only said that he was personally assaulted. Ngo's tweets say nothing about what the PP members did. Evens's claims are not supported by his own presented evidence. The follow on about the video is speculation on Evens's part. As has been previously discussed by RSs, we don't know what Ngo did or didn't hear while the video was being filmed so it's speculative to say Ngo didn't report it. Not that it would have been relevant to Ngo's claim that he was personally attacked. Evens seems to have a conclusion he wishes to reach then tries to force facts to fit his version of events. The reliability of the whole article should be questioned. Given the gross misrepresentation of Ngo's Cider Riot tweets Evens has shown his analysis can not be trusted. The criticism of the DC tweet is at least supported by the factual evidence presented (thus the reader doesn't have to trust Evens's opinions). The statements in Ngo's tweets appear factually correct but Evens is correct in saying they don't present a complete picture. Evens offers his own speculations as if they were fact when saying Ngo had the facts to know "Rome Man" was provoking a fight. This might be the case or it could be the case that in an effort to get info out fast, Ngo didn't do additional background work. Either way, based on Evens's presentation of videos, Rome Man appears to have decided he bit off more than he could chew and was trying to tuck tail and flee. He was attacked from behind when trying to leave. So Ngo's claims are factual and it would be false to say violence was only on the right (or left). As such I think this is a poor source for use in the article period and should only be used with attribution and even then WEIGHT of this claim is not clear at this point.
Nov 2020 DC material in later work
This is recently added material [[60]] and [[61]] claiming, in effect, that Ngo's tweets suggested leftist activists were making unprovoked attacks on right wing marchers. There are a number of problems with this edit. First, the "later work" section isn't a place for reactions/commentary about his work. The section is clearly following his career path. It might make sense as part of the next section where we cover a lot of the controversies related to Ngo's reporting. However, I don't think this content is DUE. The three sources offered as support don't make a good case for DUE. Two are of lower quality and the WP simply doesn't mention Ngo. The Billingcat material is discussed above. While the source presents clear evidence that "Rome Man" was not an innocent right wing marcher, it's overall case again Ngo is of poor quality. The Daily Dot isn't a good source for this sort of social/political reporting vs fluffy internet stuff. Finally, while the WP does support the general event, it doesn't mention Ngo (I didn't see Ngo with a keyword search). As such I think this fails DUE. Springee (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Springee The phrase "fluffy internet stuff" stands out. Ngo is notable in a large part due to the way he uses media and technology. It isn't fluffy or light weight. The omission of his use of media may well be the weakest part of the current article's structure. Other editors have pointed towards this as well. The patterns of live streaming, progression and growth of the subject's twitter followers have been addressed by several RS and rather than rejecting and deleting content because it does not fit the frame/title, it makes more sense to expand the frame. Cedar777 (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Cedar777, I think if we have RSs saying Ngo frequently presents partial tellings of events (I think RS and CJR say as much) then a section saying Ngo's work has bee criticized for presenting half truths or leaving out critical background information (etc) would make sense. We could then briefly have a few examples. The May vide as well as this recent one (maybe) could be included in such a section. We should not dump a questionable criticism of a tweet at the end of a section about the places he's worked. That's just bad editing even if the content is DUE. Springee (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Springee The phrase "fluffy internet stuff" stands out. Ngo is notable in a large part due to the way he uses media and technology. It isn't fluffy or light weight. The omission of his use of media may well be the weakest part of the current article's structure. Other editors have pointed towards this as well. The patterns of live streaming, progression and growth of the subject's twitter followers have been addressed by several RS and rather than rejecting and deleting content because it does not fit the frame/title, it makes more sense to expand the frame. Cedar777 (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's obviously DUE. Half this page is various controversies that Ngo has landed himself in. This is yet another one of those controversies that's been covered in multiple reliable sources. If those sources chose to cover it, it's clearly DUE. Loki (talk) 04:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Bellingcat and the Daily Dot are both RS per WP:RSP. Springee's sloppy original research attacking these RS is not a reason to remove this RS coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- DD is only a RS in limited context,
The Daily Dot is considered generally reliable for Internet culture. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article.
. This article is outside of that context. Bellingcat was considered reliable but also something that needs to be used with attribution. So here we have an issue with WEIGHT since we have limited sources discussing this claim against Ngo. Remember, this isn't meant to be a collection of everything Ngo has done that some source has criticized. Additionally, the Bellingcat article is misrepresenting some of Ngo's earlier tweets which hurts the credibility to the article and that again goes back to WEIGHT. Per WP:ONUS, just because it can be verified doesn't mean it has weight. Finally, even if the content had weight, it doesn't fit into the article where you added it. If it doesn't fit nicely into the larger structure of the article, again one has to question if it has weight. Springee (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)- Ngo plainly falls under internet culture, and Bellingcat is clearly a good source here. I don't see any valid reason not to include it. And your personal disagreement with how Bellingcat covers some of Ngo's tweets is definitely not a reason to exclude - you might personally feel strongly that it is "misrepresentation", but by that logic, no source that says anything you disagree with could ever be used. --Aquillion (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ngo is a person, not "internet culture". Using a questionable source (see the recent RSN discussion on Andy Ngo) to make this sort of weak claim is undue. The Bellingcat article contains claims that are basically the same thing Ngo is being accused of. When a specific article is shown to contain factual errors we should discount it. Since you disagree that Bellingcat falsely represented Ngo's earlier claims please show why my analysis is wrong. DUE is a valid reason not to include it. There isn't weight for this trivial material. The article shouldn't be a laundry list of every time someone claims Ngo tweeted something they didn't like. Springee (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ngo plainly falls under internet culture, and Bellingcat is clearly a good source here. I don't see any valid reason not to include it. And your personal disagreement with how Bellingcat covers some of Ngo's tweets is definitely not a reason to exclude - you might personally feel strongly that it is "misrepresentation", but by that logic, no source that says anything you disagree with could ever be used. --Aquillion (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- DD is only a RS in limited context,
- As a way forward I would suggest a subsection before the "confrontation with Antifa" section, around 1 paragraph long, noting that Ngo has been accused of biased reporting by presenting misleading or partial versions of events. The Bellingscat source and several others would support that claim without needing to dive into excessive detail relating to any single incident. Ideally we need to find a source or two that support the high level statement then offer a few supporting examples. This helps support the comments in the lead as well. It also gives a place for critical articles such as this which have limited WEIGHT to exist. Springee (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
@LokiTheLiar:, please address the sourcing issues above. We have but two sources, one has a number of questionable claims the other is not reliable for claims that a person is lying. Why is this DUE? Also, why in a section about where Ngo had worked? Springee (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- A twitter incident reported by a couple of fourth-rate sources--one of which is only reliable for "internet culture"--is obviously not DUE in a BLP article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- If you want, we can take Bellingcat to WP:RSN for this to see if it's a "fourth-rate source". I definitely don't see it in any of the previous discussions; most previous discussions found it to be very high-quality. The Daily Dot, similarly, was repeatedly found to be a high-quality source for internet culture, which this (as an edited video posted to a tweet by someone whose fame is mostly online) clearly falls under. EDIT: I took the Daily Dot (not yet Bellingcat) to WP:RSN, since I think that that's actually a more interesting question and I'm not sure they're only reliable for internet culture anyway; you can raise Bellingcat there too if you want, but I feel that previous discussions are pretty unequivocal that they're a high-quality source in general. --Aquillion (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Ngo's reply to the May Day video
@JzG:, I think you need to better justify this reversion[[62]]. First, Ngo is being accused of being complicit with a crime. Even Blogtown, the original source for the accusation says Ngo has denied the claims. Per ABOUTSELF this is not an extraordinary claim, this is in defense of one's self. Second, Reason is a RS and the reporter's analysis says Blogtown got it wrong. That is significant. To show only one side of the story without showing the other is a WEIGHT problem. Springee (talk) 12:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Springee, your answer is in the question. The source of the allegations includes the fact of denial. Thus, we can report the fact of denial from that source and we don't need to use primary / self-sourced material. FWIW, I also think we should not use The Daily Beast, Vice or any other less than excellent sources. The Oregonian and the Portland Mercury are proper news orgs with decent editorial control, we should rely on what they say. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- The problem is the original source didn't contact Ngo and only included a letter from Ngo's lawyer. However, Reason, a RS, both includes criticism of the original source's conclusions as well as reaching out to the original source and Ngo for comments. Additionally, in the Wiki article we don't say anything about Ngo's denial of the accusations made against him nor that a RS said the video doesn't support the accusations. Both should be in the article even if they shouldn't be given as much weight as the original accusation based on the relative coverage. Springee (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Just for the record, Springee, since you keep saying this, the original source for the accusation is the Portland Mercury, not "Blogtown". Here is the Portland Mercury's online homepage. If you click on any story on this page that's not in a specific separate section, you will get a URL with "/blogtown/" in it with the big bold "BLOGTOWN" at the top. "Blogtown" is just what the Portland Mercury calls its online edition. Loki (talk) 08:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- So Reason's article is an op-ed because we say so but Blogtown isn't a news blog. Perhaps you should review the recent RSN discussion on the sourcing here. Springee (talk) 11:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Reason's article is clearly an op-ed. It uses first-person pronouns several times to express the opinions of its writer. It's in their "media criticism" section, full of other op-eds, whereas the Portland Mercury article is listed under "news". (Also, thank you for informing me of the discussion on RSN.) Loki (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- An "Op-Ed" that reached out for comment from both the PM and Andy Ngo. Did the Blogtown entry reach out to Ngo for comment? The PM is a small time, alternative paper that clearly says "Blogtown" on the entry. Both sources are mixing factual reporting with the writer's views of events. Why should we be a stickler and say Reason is "OpEd" because it's in a section titled media criticism but we accept something labeled as a blog as a solid source? Anyway, I think Masem's suggestion makes the most sense. Cut out the subjective material that claims Ngo was laughing/interacting with PP members. Stick to the more solid parts. Some sources say this video shows Ngo is too cozy with alt-right subjects and DB suggests this video was why he left Quillette, Quillette denies this to be the case. Springee (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Because an opinion section doesn't perform fact-checking on the things it posts, and because it is WP:DUE less weight in general, especially given that Reason is obviously starkly WP:BIASED when it comes to anything involving Antifa or left-right politics. An opinion piece from such a source can be used in some situations, but making controversial claims of fact that support their point of view isn't one of them, especially when it's a stark outlier that isn't covered anywhere else. --Aquillion (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Where do you see that Reason claims they don't perform fact checking? Blogtown is the source that didn't do basic fact checking like contacting Ngo for his side of the story. You say Reason is biased. I agree that Adfonts supports that POV. Reason is somewhat biased according to them (Reliability 38.27, Bias 4.12) [[63]]. Compare that to the Washington Post (R 43.73, B -4.18) or CNN (CNN.com R42.22, B -5.69; CNN cable TV news R36, B -11.87 [[64]][[65]]). The Daily Beast is R34.44, B -16.25 [[66]] or Vice at R38.58, B -10.72 [[67]] (chart here [[68]]). So yes, Reason is biased right but not by much and less than the left bias of many of the sources. Others like the Daily Dot and Portland Mercury aren't rated. So why is it controversial to claim it's not clear Ngo overheard what people were saying? Why is it controversial to say "Ngo said he was looking at his phone and didn't hear what was said"? Even the PM attributes that claim to "Ben". Springee (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Because an opinion section doesn't perform fact-checking on the things it posts, and because it is WP:DUE less weight in general, especially given that Reason is obviously starkly WP:BIASED when it comes to anything involving Antifa or left-right politics. An opinion piece from such a source can be used in some situations, but making controversial claims of fact that support their point of view isn't one of them, especially when it's a stark outlier that isn't covered anywhere else. --Aquillion (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- An "Op-Ed" that reached out for comment from both the PM and Andy Ngo. Did the Blogtown entry reach out to Ngo for comment? The PM is a small time, alternative paper that clearly says "Blogtown" on the entry. Both sources are mixing factual reporting with the writer's views of events. Why should we be a stickler and say Reason is "OpEd" because it's in a section titled media criticism but we accept something labeled as a blog as a solid source? Anyway, I think Masem's suggestion makes the most sense. Cut out the subjective material that claims Ngo was laughing/interacting with PP members. Stick to the more solid parts. Some sources say this video shows Ngo is too cozy with alt-right subjects and DB suggests this video was why he left Quillette, Quillette denies this to be the case. Springee (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Reason's article is clearly an op-ed. It uses first-person pronouns several times to express the opinions of its writer. It's in their "media criticism" section, full of other op-eds, whereas the Portland Mercury article is listed under "news". (Also, thank you for informing me of the discussion on RSN.) Loki (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- So Reason's article is an op-ed because we say so but Blogtown isn't a news blog. Perhaps you should review the recent RSN discussion on the sourcing here. Springee (talk) 11:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Inaccuracies regarding book release
The recently added content about Ngo's book needs revision as it is problematic for several reasons:
- 1) It is January and the book has not been released, yet the article states in wiki voice that it was released in February.
- 2) It inappropriately uses an unreleased primary source to verify this claim despite the existence of multiple secondary sources addressing this coming event. Secondary sources are always better. WP:PRIMARY (To clarify, although I recently added several of Ngo's articles at Quillette as a means to define only a time frame of writing activity (2017 - 2019) it is vastly preferred for this and other information to be ascertained by secondary sources (i.e. other than Ngo or Quillette). WP:SECONDARY
- 3) The majority of the media outlets addressing the book release are discussing the activities at Powell's Books in Portland rather than providing content reviews of the unreleased book. The root source of most of the recent coverage in media outlets is this January 13, 2021 article by the Associated Press: Powell’s Books says Andy Ngo’s book will not be in store
If this material remains in the article, it needs to be spoken of accuratly as a future event, sourced to the AP and/or the Oregonian which also mentioned the coming book release months ago. Cedar777 (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Ngo's credibility needs to be addressed in the header - whitewashing and false balance a problem
There is a strong current in mainstream journalism that holds that Ngo is not a credible, good-faith journalist. While Ngo is frequently described as a "journalist" in media sources he is also frequently described as a "provocateur", a "right-wing activist" a "grifter" and a "troll". Yes I have looked at the talk page and seen the extensive discussions on this topic. And yet, the header is remarkably credulous and seems to barely address the serious questions about the sincerity and credulity of Ngo's writing.
This article whitewashes Ngo to a considerable extent - why on earth have references from the SPLC (who have called Ngo a "far-right provocateur"[[69]] and say that he "has been caught misrepresenting facts"[[70]] been removed? I'm keen to hear the thoughts of other editors. Has anyone had a problem with politically partisan editing on this page? Noteduck (talk) 09:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)