PeterTheFourth (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
== Page restrictions and current disputes == |
== Page restrictions and current disputes == |
||
In lieu of fully protecting this article due to the multiple ongoing disputed, I have placed the standard [[WP:ARBAPDS|post-1932 American Politics page restrictions]] on this article. The exact language is visible both in the editnotice and in the notice at the top of this talk page. For the avoidance of any doubt, if an edit has ''already'' been challenged by reversion, then any further attempts to reinstate that edit (or revert it, if the edit is currently in place) will fall afoul of the restriction labeled '''consensus required'''. Editors who meet the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Awareness_and_alerts|awareness requirements]] and who violate these restrictions may be blocked without further warnings. Please don't hesitate to ping me if there is any question. [[User:ST47|ST47]] ([[User talk:ST47|talk]]) 01:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC) |
In lieu of fully protecting this article due to the multiple ongoing disputed, I have placed the standard [[WP:ARBAPDS|post-1932 American Politics page restrictions]] on this article. The exact language is visible both in the editnotice and in the notice at the top of this talk page. For the avoidance of any doubt, if an edit has ''already'' been challenged by reversion, then any further attempts to reinstate that edit (or revert it, if the edit is currently in place) will fall afoul of the restriction labeled '''consensus required'''. Editors who meet the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Awareness_and_alerts|awareness requirements]] and who violate these restrictions may be blocked without further warnings. Please don't hesitate to ping me if there is any question. [[User:ST47|ST47]] ([[User talk:ST47|talk]]) 01:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC) |
||
:{{re|ST47}} isn't [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andy_Ngo&diff=905267706&oldid=905252267 this] a violation of 1RR and consensus required? <span style="background-color:#cee">[[User:Wumbolo|<span style="color:#066;font-family:Symbol">w</span><span style="color:#066;font-family:Segoe Script">umbolo</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Wumbolo|<span style="color:#37C;font-family:webdings">^^^</span>]] 07:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:40, 8 July 2019
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Writer v. Journalist
Per this edit by Snooganssnoogans, it seems contentious as to whether Ngo is a journalist or just a writer. I agree with the other changes in that edit; just not the change in characterization as to Ngo's primary occupation. Multiple outlets refer to him as the former (ie not as a writer); see [1][2][3][4][5][6] as among the WP:RS that mention some variation of the term journalist. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- The Guardian says he self-describes as a journalist. OPB says he is a part-time journalist. The Willamette Weekly refers to him as a student paper journalist. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hmmm, actually the NY Times and ABC describe him as a journo.[7][8] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
He's a journalist, this discussion is absurd. Loganmac (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Conservative
Multiple RS describe him as conservative. Therefore, this Wikipedia article should, as well. Even though it's a fad for some conservatives to self-describe as something different (e.g. Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin, Bari Weiss), we should stick to what RS say. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- We should report what sources say (obviously not all describe him as conservative) and what he himself identifies as (or not), not label him as XYZ in Wikipedia's voice where there's a dispute. His political affiliation doesn't need to be in the first sentence. It's only a "fad" if you have a very simplistic world view where everyone is either conservative or liberal. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- RS that describe him as "conservative": AP[9], NYT[10], ABC News[11], The Oregonian[12], Business Insider[13], The Independent[14], Daily Beast[15]. Conservative outlets, such as Fox, Wash Ex, Wash Times, Newsmax, IJR, Newsbusters, Daily Caller and PJ Media describe him as "conservative". Please point me towards RS that dispute that he's a conservative. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Can you read? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- His views should be discussed in a well sourced, nuanced manner. NOT with a reductionist, single word label in the lede.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- @E.M.Gregory, Snooganssnoogans, and Ivar the Boneful: I don't think we should say that Ngo is a conservative in the lead necessarily, but we certainly should say that he writes for the conservative outlet Quillette. Would this be an acceptable compromise? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- "conservative" is not an accurate representation of Quillette.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think we should follow what RS say, as we do in all other Wikipedia articles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- How about we use the term
politically right-leaning
to describe Ngo instead? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)- I don't see a big difference from 'conservative' (which is the more common label), but sure, that would be OK. The Oregonian also describes him as 'right-leaning'[16]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- How about we use the term
- I think we should follow what RS say, as we do in all other Wikipedia articles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Hate crime hoaxes
@Snooganssnoogans: In this edit you removed "poorly sourced" content:
- Following the indeterminate alleged hate crime of assault on Jussie Smollett in January 2019, Ngo published a series of tweets listing hate crime hoaxes and was praised by conservatives.[1][2][3] A week later, Ngo interviewed Wilfred Reilly, a Kentucky State Associate Professor of Political Science who had written the book Hate Crime Hoax, on the prominence of hate crime hoaxes among alleged hate crimes in the United States.[4]
References
- ^ Mac Donald, Heather (February 18, 2019). "The Frenzied Search for Racism". City Journal. Retrieved July 1, 2019.
- ^ Barrett, James (February 18, 2019). "Twitter Explodes With '#HateHoax' Posts Amid New Smollett Developments". The Daily Wire. Retrieved June 30, 2019.
- ^ O'Neill, Brendan (February 21, 2019). "Why it's cool to be hated". Spiked. Retrieved June 30, 2019.
- ^ Young, Cathy (March 1, 2019). "Hate Crime Hoaxes Are Real. But So Are Hate Crimes". The Bulwark. Retrieved June 30, 2019.
The citations include several journalists, do you object to citing their articles? wumbolo ^^^ 14:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- None of those sources are RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Actually I would argue that all of these are well-established journalists writing for borderline RSes. Since the content is supported by four such borderline sources, surely it is WP:DUE, no? wumbolo ^^^ 14:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- As you are well aware of (you were misrepresenting how RS covered the outlet on RSN if i recall correctly), the Daily Wire is not a RS by any stretch of the imagination. The O'Neill, Mac Donald and Young pieces are op-eds. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Actually I would argue that all of these are well-established journalists writing for borderline RSes. Since the content is supported by four such borderline sources, surely it is WP:DUE, no? wumbolo ^^^ 14:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- The phrase "and was praised by conservatives" is too partisan ans should be dropped. The point of bringing these sources is to establish that the list of hate crime hoaxes Ngo compiled was widely covered and, therefore, can be added to the subhead on his career activities. The assertion that an an essay that ran in The Bulwark (website), and essays by Heather Mac Donald and Brandan O'Neill are not reliable sources for the fact that Ngo compiles such a list is frivolous. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Slog
@Rab V and E.M.Gregory: actually on a further look, all of the news articles of The Stranger are on the blog, which makes me believe it is a WP:NEWSBLOG which is a reliable source. I invite others to comment to avoid having to go to WP:RSN, and if there is consensus that it is reliable, this material should be restored, and otherwise, the references to Slog should be removed and content removed if not verified by other cites. I don't know if Slog being unreliable undermines the statement that Ngo denies being a conservative, but it does raise a debate on whether "conservative" belongs to the first sentence then. wumbolo ^^^ 14:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. The Stranger (newspaper) is an alt weekly with a reputation for reliable journalism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- I understand the confusion. Articles from the news portion of The Stranger would likely be a reliable source, but the Slog is explicitly a blog by the Stranger and has to be treated a bit differently. Articles on the link you included above are mostly not slog articles, articles from the Stranger online are not necessarily a part of Slog unless marked as such. The news articles in the above link that are also slog articles are roundups of links of the news from other sources. This would make them tertiary sources, meaning it'd be better to use the articles they cite directly instead of the roundup articles. For uses like stating a claim Ngo makes as long as it is attributed to him, blogs are fine though. Hope this helps. Rab V (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note WP:NEWSBLOG does not claim news blogs are necessarily reliable sources, it actually does the opposite. It states extra care needs to be taken with them since news blogs do not generally have the same editorial standards as one would expect from their main site. Rab V (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- I do not know enough about the Stranger or its blog, the Slog. The RS noticeboard should preferably be consulted. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- @E.M.Gregory: This is an in-depth article from the newspaper, if you want (or anyone else) you may add some info from it to the article. I'd highlight the county where he grew up, and the recent assault at the gym (making the assault pattern leadworthy?). It also mentions the fundraiser and some political reactions, but I'll try to add from other sources first and wait with this one. wumbolo ^^^ 16:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
RfC: "Conservative" in the lede
Should the lede say he's a "conservative"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Survey
- Support. RS that describe him as "conservative": AP[17], BBC[18], NYT[19], ABC News[20], The Oregonian[21], CNN[22], Business Insider[23], The Atlantic[24], The Independent[25], Vox[26], Daily Beast[27]. Conservative outlets (note that these are not all RS), such as Fox, Wash Ex, Wash Times, Newsmax, IJR, Newsbusters, Daily Caller and PJ Media describe him as "conservative", as well. I have not been made aware of any RS that dispute that he's a conservative. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Seems like the jury is out on this one. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support as supported by sources, and it's also the reason he was attacked in Portland so it's part of his notability. --Pudeo (talk) 11:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support. It's clear the sources support the label. This should be added with one or two of the top RS. It is WP:DUE (coverage of recent attack) and important (necessary for establishing context). WP:PUBLICFIGURE is satisfied as his denial is in the body, which is enough as the claim is not nearly as controversial as e.g. calling someone racist. wumbolo ^^^ 17:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Per Snooganssnoogans. Gerntrash (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
how is this sentence relevant?
"Robby Soave, who wrote about the incident for Reason,[34] reported on Twitter that a doctored screenshot of his article was in circulation.[35]"
How is this relevant to Andy Ngo? The sentence does not explain why this person, or this supposed doctored screenshot is relevant. I removed it but some vandal reverted it without providing an explanation. Please edit the sentence to be relevant, or delete it. In my opinion the fact someone doctored a screenshot is not relevant unless it had dire consequences. If there were dire consequences, then edit the sentence to include them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.194.179.228 (talk) 08:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- It was restored by User:PeterTheFourth. You can't call someone a vandal just because you disagree with them. It does seem like there's some missing context, as there isn't really anything tying that statement back to the subject of the article. (In what way was the screenshot doctored?) However, I don't think that "dire consequences" is the right bar. If the false screenshot got wide attention and spread incorrect information about the subject's involvement, then it seems relevant to note and correct the misinformation in our own coverage. ST47 (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- The statement is not 'irreverent' to Andy Ngo, nor is it irrelevant as it does relate to the Andy Ngo incident. It may not be due, but I didn't find the edit summary for the removal convincing, hence why I reverted it. If you don't find it due, feel free to delete it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Antifascist vs Antifa
Antifa does not mean anti-fascist (Antifa is a proper noun, that's why it's capitalized). Therefore, all instances of anti-fascist should be replaced of Antifa as that is what's typically reported. 2601:18F:602:535C:E4F2:838D:64DC:E48F (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Left-leaning language
The term "allegedly" in the sentence "Ngo was allegedly physically assaulted by anti-fascist protestors, who punched him repeatedly in the head, and threw milkshakes" is not accurate; there's abundant proof that he was assaulted and that is typically what is reported (that he was indeed assaulted). The language only serves to make the article seem ideologically bent. Further, the term anti-fascist (as I've said in my previous section) should be migrated to Antifa (regardless of what Antifa stands for, it's a proper noun. Anti-fascist is a common noun. Therefore, they cannot map to one another; at most they can resemble one another). 2601:18F:602:535C:E4F2:838D:64DC:E48F (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- The 'proof' cannot be in the form of watching a poorly shot video and analysing it yourself. Given that there have been no criminal convictions, we shouldn't definitely say a crime has taken place, per WP:BLPCRIME. Wumbolo, please stop removing this in contradiction with our BLP policies.
- As regards calling it 'Antifa' vs 'Anti-fascist' - why are some people so insistent on the weird capitalised spelling? This isn't an organisation, there's no 'membership', what's the difference between somebody who is anti-fascist and somebody who is 'Antifa'? PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- PeterTheFourth, I think we're better off with the proper name "Antifa" as we wouldn't described the Democratic People's Republic of Korea as "democratic". Jweiss11 (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- Also the passage "...Ngo was physically assaulted by Antifa protesters, who allegedly punched him and threw milkshakes on him" is strange. The article is saying here he was definitely assaulted by Antifa protesters, but the punches are alleged? Huh? Also, why does "alleged" hinged on a conviction, per various edit summaries? Granted, the culpability of any individual is still alleged, but there's overwhelming video and photo evidence that he was struck in the face and head by someone. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Jweiss11: Okay, so why are the protesters 'Antifa' and not 'anti-fascist' - explain the situation to me, as I'm having trouble understanding it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- Because they're not actually against fascism, just like Democratic People's Republic of Korea isn't actually democratic. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Jweiss11: Says who? PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- The critical, neutral voice of Wikipedia? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Jweiss11: Wikipedia is us. You're using circular arguing: We (Wikipedia) say Antifa are not anti-fascist, because Antifa aren't anti-fascist, because Wikipedia says it's Antifa and not anti-fascist. Would you please actually explain this to me? You clearly believe there's a difference, so just explain it to me. Use your words. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- The critical, neutral voice of Wikipedia? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Jweiss11: Says who? PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- Because they're not actually against fascism, just like Democratic People's Republic of Korea isn't actually democratic. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Jweiss11: Okay, so why are the protesters 'Antifa' and not 'anti-fascist' - explain the situation to me, as I'm having trouble understanding it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- Also the passage "...Ngo was physically assaulted by Antifa protesters, who allegedly punched him and threw milkshakes on him" is strange. The article is saying here he was definitely assaulted by Antifa protesters, but the punches are alleged? Huh? Also, why does "alleged" hinged on a conviction, per various edit summaries? Granted, the culpability of any individual is still alleged, but there's overwhelming video and photo evidence that he was struck in the face and head by someone. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- PeterTheFourth, I think we're better off with the proper name "Antifa" as we wouldn't described the Democratic People's Republic of Korea as "democratic". Jweiss11 (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- This seems like something that must have been discussed elsewhere already. How do we refer to them in Antifa (United States)? While we do call them an anti-fascist group, we mostly seem to use "antifa" (no capital) when describing their activities in Antifa_(United_States)#Notable_activism, although we do use "anti-fascist activists" once in that section and capitalized "Antifa" twice (both inside quotes). How do the sources about this specific protest refer to them? ST47 (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Page restrictions and current disputes
In lieu of fully protecting this article due to the multiple ongoing disputed, I have placed the standard post-1932 American Politics page restrictions on this article. The exact language is visible both in the editnotice and in the notice at the top of this talk page. For the avoidance of any doubt, if an edit has already been challenged by reversion, then any further attempts to reinstate that edit (or revert it, if the edit is currently in place) will fall afoul of the restriction labeled consensus required. Editors who meet the awareness requirements and who violate these restrictions may be blocked without further warnings. Please don't hesitate to ping me if there is any question. ST47 (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)