Wikipedia

Talk:Andy Ngo/Archive 6

< Talk:Andy Ngo
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Snooganssnoogans in topic RfC: Description of the incident at Cider Riot
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

article is edit-protected

Latest comment: 4 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion

I've locked the page down. It's already under WP:1RR and sanctions already, and protecting the page is better than admonishing/blocking multiple parties for a content dispute. Clearly consensus has not been reached, despite many edits and comments. tedder (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The current version contains content that was challenged on BLP grounds as inaccurate. It is written to link the subject's departure from an employer to presence at an event and alleged "participation" in that event, when reliable sources confirm that the two were unrelated. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
This doesn't appear to be a BLP issues. The lead of the article doesn't say they were related, and sources do not "confirm" that they were unrelated. Sources merely repeat Lehmann's comment implying that it was a coincidence. I attempted to summarize this in the lead, and all of this is explained in the body of the article. Grayfell (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Please don't frame your comments as that of an uninvolved user. You were the one who restored the content back into the article repeatedly, without consensus. Conversely, I and others attempted to remove it on this basis: Following the incident, Ngo left Quillette clearly drawls a link between "the incident" and the departure from the publication, one disproven by the source provided by another user above. A false or incorrect equation between two events is absolutely a BLP violation when it suggests someone was fired or forced out incorrectly. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I restored the content I wrote, because the lead should summarize the body. Nothing was "disproven". Are you talking about the Reason.com opinion? I do not accept that source as usable in this article at all. Reliable sources explain that Ngo's name was removed from the site hours after this footage was released. Quillette is not a reputable outlet, so its editor's PR is not inherently reliable or significant. Grayfell (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
The previous lead did summarize the body. 19920 is also correct that items in the current lead are placed in a way to imply things that have been denied. If implications are denied in the body but not in the lead you are no longer summarizing. Springee (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Using this version for comparison, I dispute that it was a good summary. The largest paragraph was on the Vanguard incident, but this isn't treated by the body of the article as all that important. The largest subsection of the article, by far, only received three sentences and glossed-over significant details. I maintain that this was a poor MOS:LEAD and I have tried to explain why I think these changes are necessary.
this version from 31 August, on the other hand, was at least a relatively proportionate summary.
Ngo left Quillette the same day as the footage was released. This detail was noted by several reliable sources, and his career change is relevant to his biography. Stating as fact the article (or the lead) that this was definitely a coincidence would be unduly favoring public relations from an involved, unreliable third party (Lehmann). Stating that it definitely wasn't a coincidence would also be inappropriate. If you can think of a way to explain this succinctly, lets see it. As a reminder, an opinion in Reason.com is neither a reliable source for factual information, nor are other editors obligated to accept the arguments it advances. Grayfell (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
There are reliable sources making that connection, so it is not a WP:BLP issue to note it; the full "requires immediate action regardless of disagreement" force of BLP only comes into play when a contentious claim is unsourced or poorly-sourced, which is not the case here. If your objection is actually just WP:THEWRONGVERSION, WP:CRYBLP isn't going to help. This is (like most of the patiently non-BLP issues raised on this article) a normal content dispute over WP:DUE and how to frame the sources, not a WP:BLP request. If you think disagree - if you genuinely think this is a red-alarm BLP issue - you are free to take Grayfell to WP:AE, since he restored the material you object to and a BLP violation of that nature would be a violation of the BLP AE sanctions - we have proper procedures for when a user ignores the red line set by BLP, which are available to you if you think that's what's happening here. If you're not confident enough to do that, then you need to drop the issue and engage with it as a normal content dispute rather than casting WP:ASPERSIONS by insinuating that such violations have occurred while being unwilling to press them in the proper manner. --Aquillion (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
The sources that make the connection are generally not the best quality and certainly not neutral on the subject. There are several related questions here. First, what does the video show. Second, did the video result in Ngo being let go? As for the second, both Ngo and his former employer say no. That should be really clear. Any accusation should be given less weight than those two as a pair. We aren't doing that in the current lead as it makes a strong implication that A lead to B yet doesn't include any of the statements saying there was no connection. So we aren't presenting an honest summary of the body. The first question was, what does the video actually show? To be clear, the video itself is a factual item. The statements of "Ben" are those of an unnamed person who is almost certainly biased against Ngo (Antifa member undercover). After that, we have many sources saying what the video shows. That is interpretation and is opinion. So it's an opinion if it's coming from an Oregon paper or Reason. To act like we can dismiss Reason's assessment of the video vs some other sources is wikilayering. Additionally, we have Ngo's article in The Spectator. In that case the editors of The Spectator decided to support what Ngo is saying so we shouldn't dismiss that either. Yes, it can't be treated as fact but it since others are accusing Ngo of being present for the planning of an assault (even that part is not 100% clear), per BLPPUBLIC the "other side" of the story should be told and at no point should we treat statements like "Ngo was laughing with" or "Ngo should have known" as facts in wikivoice. They are clearly allegations which is what the body and lead used to make clear.
I agree that the Vangard part is being given too much weight in the lead but that isn't an excuse for treating allegations as fact and implying a causal relationship that the involved parties deny. Springee (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Interpreting the video is up to reliable sources, not editors, and not opinions. It is common for a reliable source to have a position, use that position to come to conclusions, and still be a reliable source. Upton Sinclair did not take a neutral stance on food poisoning, after all.
As far as I can tell, no reliable source is disputing a set of basic facts about the existence of the footage. I genuinely tried to summarize this without editorializing, and I included Ngo's rebuttal to the only part which seems like a clear accusation. Grayfell (talk) 00:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Reason is a RS per RSP. Reason is saying that some of the "facts" are in dispute. The claim that Ngo was interacting or "laughing with" vs just being in the area and acknowledging the PP members is a point in dispute. Springee (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
No, that's not what RSP says: "There is consensus that Reason is generally reliable for news and facts. Editors consider Reason to be a biased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles. Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight."
This source is an opinion column under the "Media criticism" header. Such material would need to be attributed to Robby Soave of Reason.com, and opinions hold much lower weight for BLP articles, as you should already know.
Sorry, Reason is a green source and to pretend that we can use some other source's opinion about what the video means but we have to act as if no RS said, "no the video doesn't show that" is total BS. Remember, we are dealing with a BLP so we should always err on the side of not accepting accusatory claims as facts. Springee (talk) 04:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, the edit lock is going to be lifted today. The changes to the lead made prior to the lock are in dispute. As such the lead and this change to the body should be reverted absent establishing a new consensus. The issues with the current lead are both related to how the video of Ngo near the PP is presented.

1. It is implied in the lead that Ngo was terminated from Quillette due to the appearance of the video. Ngo and Quillette have denied this but the lead doesn't include that denial and thus is not an accurate summary of the body text. It is also not clear this material is even DUE for inclusion in the lead (note this is newly added to the lead).
2. The treatment of Ngo and the PP video is disputed. Sources hostile to Ngo are using the video to suggest a strong association/interaction with the PP. Other sources say the video doesn't prove an association nor that Ngo was aware of what was being discussed. Essentially it shows only that they were near by, acknowledged one another but nothing more. As such the article should treat accusations against Ngo based on that video as allegations.

These are issues that haven't been resolved and a number of editors on both sides of the issue have weighed in. Again at this point we don't have a consensus for the changes thus per NOCON the article edits should be rolled back. Springee (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Per NOCON I've rolled back the changes to the lead as well as restored "alleged" to the claim that Ngo was laughing with Patriot Prayer members prior to the Cider Riot brawl. These were the long standing versions of the text and consensus for the changes has not been established. Perhaps a RfC will be needed for those changes as well. The restored lead is more neutral but probably should be longer. It would be best if we discussed changes first. Springee (talk) 02:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Binksternet:, you restored disputed changes to a BLP including restoring contentious labels to the lead sentence. Please explain why? Springee (talk) 10:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Because the labels are widely applied. You apparently think they are contentious because you don't like them. Binksternet (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
There are a number of issues with your restoration. First, the content is disputed so per NOCON it should stay out until consensus says it's in. Second, this is a BLP article so contentious labels in wiki-voice should be avoided. Third there is an active discussion with !votes regarding how the term was used in the lead. That discussion is clearly NOCON if not consensus for oppose at this point. Since it's part of the RfC it's bad form to add the disputed content (which was not part of the long term lead) until the RfC is closed. Finally, consider Masem's very valid point about what goes into the opening sentence of a lead. The first sentence should be objective facts, not subjective and disputed assessments. None of this discussion justifies your other restorations of disputed content as part of the same drive by reverting. Springee (talk) 11:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Proud Boys

Latest comment: 4 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

Springee, the source includes that the Proud Boys are designated as a hate group by the SPLC. As Ngo was assualted at a Proud Boys rally in June and the Proud Boys responded to his assault by holding an additional rally shortly afterward in August, a brief mention of who they are is warranted and relevant to an article on the subject. My edit stuck to exactly what was listed in the source, which is a high quality source. It strikes me that your revert was more a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I kindly request that you reconsider. Cedar777 (talk) 02:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Accusing others of "IDONTLIKEIT" is not an effective way to get them to kindly reconsider. I removed that specific line because it was very pointy/COATRACK in the text. That the SPLC decided that they are a hate group was not relevant in context of Ngo. We need to be careful about giving too much stock to SPLC designations given they are often disputed and the SPLC is not unbiased. More to the point, that seemed like a COATRACK to express an opinion about the Proud Boys which is not relevant to Ngo himself. This seems like something that should go in an article about the PB's not Ngo. Springee (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
SPLC is GREEN at WP:RSP. It is not a contested source and it has also been utilized by the NYT, BBC, and other top notch sources when summarizing the Proud Boys in recent coverage. Ngo's article would also benefit from having a brief description of antifa for any readers coming to this article without a background in all the ongoing American drama. It makes sense to include the basic info about antifa and the proud boys as described by RS coverage of Ngo. They too, are central to his notability. The body of the article suffers from excessive detail and source attribution, due to all the disputes among Wiki editors. It is unfortunate. As the subject has spent several years covering the unrest in Portland, it is not a coatrack to address, in brief, the major players in that unrest. Cedar777 (talk) 02:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
You need to read up on the SPLC discussions but more to the point, why is that information part of an article about Andy Ngo? Look at your sources and what they actually say. Both mention Ngo only once. The ABCnews source does not say the August incidents were due to Ngo's attack in June. Note that the related End_Domestic_Terrorism_rally didn't contain mention of Ngo until you added it today using the same ABCnews source [[1]]. It only mentions Ngo in context of Gibson saying the police are biased in going after him instead of the people who attacked Ngo. The other source is Willamette Week. The author says, "Anger and frustration on the far right has grown since June 29, when conservative journalist Andy Ngo was assaulted by masked protesters in downtown Portland." However, the author doesn't say if this build up of anger and frustration is because of the attack on Ngo or if was something else from that same period. This is very shaky grounds on which to claim the August demonstrations were because Ngo was attacked. Springee (talk) 03:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Springee, this is what the ABC source states: "In a video he livestreamed on Facebook, Gibson accused the police of playing politics by arresting him but not the masked demonstrators who beat up conservative blogger Andy Ngo at a June 29 rally that drew national attention.
A video of that attack went viral and led the Proud Boys, who have been designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, to organize Saturday's event." What ATTACK do you think they are referring to if not the one against Ngo? Cedar777 (talk) 03:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Cedar777, what you added to the article says, "The video of the June 29 incident where Ngo was assaulted by masked demonstrators went viral and led the Proud Boys, a designated hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, to organize a follow up event." Thus your text added to this article says there was a direct cause (Ngo was assaulted) and effect (follow up event). The ABCnew article doesn't say that. It does say Gibson felt that the police were showing bias in going after him but (presumably) not after those who assaulted Ngo. That does not say the reason why the PBs organized the follow up event was because Ngo was assaulted. That fails verification. Springee (talk) 03:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Springee, we do actually agree on one point here. The Willamette Week article does not mention Ngo. It was included at the end of the sentence as it listed the common name for the August 17, 2019 Portland, Oregon rally as the "End Domestic Terrorism rally." Perhaps placement of this citation immediately after the name "End Domestic Terrorism rally" rather than at the end may have helped clarify my intention. As the ABC source identifies the rally by location, organizers, and date, and not the common name, the WW source provided a clearer link to our own Wikipedia page titled "End Domestic Terrorism rally." Perhaps you could have brought up your concerns first on the talk page before reverting my edits on several pages?
Other than copying ABC word for word or quoting the article directly (which generally leads to more awkward readability), is there an alternative phrasing to express this relevant content? Cedar777 (talk) 04:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
It obviously is relevant, since it explains why the issue matters at all - saying who the Proud Boys are is essential context. This is why the source highlighted it, so we ought to do the same. Your personal opinion that We need to be careful about giving too much stock to SPLC designations given they are often disputed and the SPLC is not unbiased isn't a valid reason to strip out vital context included in the source we're using; and it's particularly baffling given that this designation does not seem to be seriously disputed. If you feel the source erred in relying on the SPLC, you ought to contact them and suggest they issue a retraction; but until they do, we should reflect their context and not try to downplay why this is significant. --Aquillion (talk) 04:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps we should look past the relevance claim and go to the fails verification problem. The claim that the August PB protests are because Ngo was attacked in June simply fails verification. So really we shouldn't be debating if the SLPC's interjection belongs in the article. I wouldn't call this OR since that would imply several sources were stitched together to make this claim. Instead this is simply cannot be supported by the sources provided. Springee (talk) 04:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
From this source: In a video he livestreamed on Facebook, Gibson accused the police of playing politics by arresting him but not the masked demonstrators who beat up conservative blogger Andy Ngo at a June 29 rally that drew national attention. A video of that attack went viral and led the Proud Boys, who have been designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, to organize Saturday's event. That seems straightforward to me? I don't understand your objection to it. --Aquillion (talk) 04:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The source does not fail verification. Again, here is the source (with my modifications in parenthesis: "A (The) video of that attack (the June 29 incident where Ngo was assaulted by masked demonstrators) went viral and led the Proud Boys, a designated hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, to organize Saturday's (a follow up) event. The words "masked demonstrators" and "assaulted" came directly from the sentence that preceded it in the same source. Which of my modified words in parenthesis are causing the problem for you Springee? I sincerely cannot comprehend what the enduring issue is here with verification. Cedar777 (talk) 04:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
OK, I missed the paragraph after the Andy Ngo paragraph. I still believe this is a COATRACK since the later protest doesn't appear to involve Ngo. By that I mean the August event was had little impact on Ngo even if the feeling that the police were biased in their failure to prosecute left-wing activists while going after right-wing activists. So for that reason I still think this material should be removed. That said, the ABCnews article does state it was due to Ngo and I missed it when I read it the first time and then didn't concentrate on that material after the fact. The WWeek text is more ambiguous. If WWeek were the only source then I would still say verification is questionable. With ABCnews we can assume WWeek's intent. So, mia-culpa for missing the ABCnews claim. I still think this is UNDUE for this article. As for the SPLC part, that should either be added the first time the PB are mentioned or not at all. Adding it at this point still raises COATRACK questions. Springee (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for returning to the source. (I also stand corrected regarding the Willamette Week article as it does, in fact, mention Ngo, not just the common name of the rally). Regarding your concerns about a COATRACK, I do not see how the Proud Boys reaction differs from the related content that follows, i.e., the article currently describes a series of reactions to the assault on Ngo, including the reaction of Ted Cruz, Andrew Yang, Joe Biden, and Eric Swalwell. According to ABC, the Proud Boys also reacted to his assault and then took action with the End Domestic Terrorism rally about 6 weeks afterward. Also, are you suggesting moving the SPLC content to the first mention of the Proud Boys in that subsection? If so, that seems reasonable to me. Any earlier & it would be more awkward. Perhaps the collective reactions of political figures and the Proud Boys need to be grouped together and placed after the comments from his attorney about his injuries. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit request: "Alleged" in lede

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

The lede currently contains this sentence (where I've bolded the bits I want to edit):

In August 2019, footage from May was published showing Ngo with armed Patriot Prayer members prior to an alleged attack on a bar frequented by antifa protesters. Ngo did not film the alleged planning of the attack, but did film parts of the attack itself.

I would like to remove the word "alleged", because under MOS:ALLEGED it ought to be avoided even if there was any doubt that the attack or planning happened, and more importantly, there is not in fact any doubt that it happened. As the quote states, both the planning and the attack itself were filmed. I don't know who would even dispute that it happened. We call it just an "attack" without alleged later in the article, even. Loki (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

This is being discussed above. The issue is describing this as an attack vs brawl or alleged attack. Attack includes an assignment of motive as well as guilt. Alleged is used because, at this point, it hasn't been proven in court that this was an attack vs PB showing up to protest and a fight later broke out. Looking at the videos it seems both sides were mutually provoking one another. A number of sources use the term brawl including the Oregon Liquor Control Commission which found fault with Cider Riot (presumably as well as PP). Since we don't have a legal decision saying this was an attack we need to refer to it as alleged. I think changing the term to brawl would avoid the issue while maintaining impartiality. Springee (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you but alas, there is some resistance from a couple editors as seen above. The attack clearly wasn't alleged, the sources clearly say an attack took place, but good luck convincing them. BeŻet (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

You confuse that a brawl took place with a legal statement of fact that the PB were found guilty of attacking. Stating in wiki-voice that PP "attacked" is stating that they committed a crime. Since we don't have a conviction of that crime this would be a BLPGROUP violation. We have conflicts between the sources and this is particularly problematic when the OLCC refers to this as a brawl and notes may issues with the claims by the Cedar Riot side of things. Springee (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Following your logic, we shouldn't be saying that Ngo got attacked, because there was no conviction of that crime? BeŻet (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
No, that isn't following my logic. Ngo was clearly "attacked". However, as was previously argued, we don't know who the attacker was. Let's say we had a number of sources that said "Rose City Antifa members attacked", well we would still need to say alleged absent a conviction. It was rightly argued that we don't know who attacked Ngo thus we can't assign responsibility. We have the same case here. We know there was a brawl but we don't know who started it. Springee (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

"Ngo with armed Patriot Prayer members prior to an alleged attack"

Latest comment: 4 years ago34 comments6 people in discussion

The sentence talks about an "alleged" attack, while the attack is well documented and it's beyond any doubt that it happened. Moreover, the sentence that follows talks about Ngo filming the attack. Surely we can drop the "alleged"? BeŻet (talk) 10:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Alleged is correct because we only have proof that a fight broke out, not that an attack occurred. We do not have proof who started the fight. So just as we would say Ngo was attacked allegedly by antifa, in this case we say there was a fight and some allege PP started it. The Oregon liquor commission found the bar patrons had weapons as well. [[2]]. Absent a legal ruling of fault we can't take sides. Springee (talk) 11:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
But we have video evidence where we can hear them planning the attack, going there, and executing the attack. Ngo's original live stream (before he edited it) also showed members of PP attacking. A plethora or sources also confirm the attack took place. So what is alleged here? It just feels we are playing dumb here for no reason. BeŻet (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
This had already been covered by Reason. The things they are saying don't prove they were "planning an attack". That is an interpretation to support a pre-existing conclusion, not one that is proven by the evidence in the video. The discussions only prove that they expected a confrontation was possible. Springee (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
It "being covered by Reason" means nothing, they have expressed their opinions and interpretation about a fellow right-wing activist (and what they are basically saying is that: yes, they had weapons; yes, they were saying what to do when fighting; yes, they were talking about who to attack; yes, they were saying they are ready to fight; but perhaps them planning to go to Cider Riot with weapons doesn't mean they were planning an attack - honestly, it's extremely silly). Most sources call it an attack, attribute the attack to PP, and point out Ngo was present during the planning. The view that it wasn't an attack is WP:FRINGE, because of the weight of evidence to the contrary. BeŻet (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, Reason is a RS. Which RS say PP "attacked". The idea that this was an attack vs a brawl with no clear initiator is further emphasized by this article in the Oregonian [[3]]. This article came out after the liquor commission investigation. It suggests there was guilt all around. The liquor commission specifically accused Cider Riot employees of making false statements to investigators among other issues. We can't treat this as a clear cut case. We treat it as we do with the attack on Ngo. We can say in wiki voice their was a brawl. We can't say who started it or that one side attacked the other. We can say PP is accused of but if we to note that other sources disagree. Springee (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Reason is a RS, but firstly we are dealing with an MOS:OPED, and secondly, as explained in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources "Editors consider Reason to be a biased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles". The source you mentioned states clearly that "police and prosecutors say [Joey] Gibson and several associates took multiple steps to incite a brutal brawl". Let's stop playing dumb here and call a spade a spade. BeŻet (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Do not accuse me of "playing dumb". DS apply to this article. Why are you claiming Reason is an "op-ed" article? When it comes to analyzing what is being said why should we accept a left leaning source yet not other sources? Why are your preferred sources "correct" yet others are not. Second, the specific question here is not if Gibson did things once they were there that started the brawl, the question is if this video shows they were planning for one. That is in dispute thus we can not state they were doing X in wiki-voice. Finally, later articles on the subject are not so quick to place the blame on one side. This is why we can say the video is alleged to show something but we don't say it does show something. Alternatively, we can say source X says the video shows something but source Y disagrees. This shouldn't be an argument as we should always err on the side of caution when it comes to accusing individuals or groups of committing crimes. Springee (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Why are you claiming Reason is an "op-ed" article? …because it is? Also, we are discussing the "alleged" descriptor referencing the attack, I am not talking about Ngo's involvement in the planning. The attack absolutely took place, not "allegedly", but in terms of Ngo's involvement we already talk about his excuse he presented (he was pre-occupied with his phone…). BeŻet (talk) 11:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
You stating it's Op-Ed doesn't make it Op-Ed. The Reason article both undermines the claim that Ngo was interacting or aware of what the PP members were saying as well the claim that PP members were planning an attack vs expecting that things could turn violent. The claim that the PB planned an attack is disputed so we need to present it as such. Remember, it's not just Reason that cast doubt on the description. The Oregon liquor commission described this as a brawl and noted that the bar employees provided evasive and misleading answers. The videos don't show an attack so much as a series of escalating provocations on both sides. If you would like to change the term to brawl rather than attack that would be more neutral given the evidence. Springee (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
What on earth is an op-ed to you then? It's literally written in first person! WP:RSP literally says that Reason "primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles"! Come on now... BeŻet (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
The bigger problem is that this event, alleged or not, is even mentioned in this page's lead. Ngo only had a tangential connection; emphasizing this is WP:UNDUE. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
It is a major event that has been talked about a lot when discussing his person in the media. It's definitely due. Moreover, his connection isn't "only tangential", he kept pretending that he is a neutral actor despite a lot of evidence, and this was another solid proof that he has strong connections with far-right groups, which he supports, helps and covers up for. BeŻet (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
WIkieditor19920 is right: this is clearly undue for the lead. The sourcing is very weak: Jewish Currents, Daily Dot, Daily Beast, and Inquisitr. It was not covered by any major news organizations. RSN makes it clear that "Daily Dot" should be questionable as adding due weight, Daily Beast is a biased/opinionated source, as is Jewish Currents ("a magazine committed to the rich tradition of thought, activism, and culture of the Jewish left"), and Inquisitr is primarily an entertainment site that hasn't been discussed at RSN. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
You say sourcing is very weak and then mention several sources talking about it. There are plenty of other sources there too: Portland Mercury, Vice, Washington Examiner etc.. So yeah, it's definitely due even if you don't like it. BeŻet (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Right, the sources I mentioned are weak for the reasons given. Blog posts are weak too, and arguably not RS, though the matter is case-by-case. There's no consensus that Vice is an RS at all. So yeah, weak sourcing, nothing to do with what I like. I'm not the issue. Please FOC. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
The Washington Examiner is a blog? BeŻet (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
No, the PM link you gave was to a blog. There is no consensus on the reliability of WE according to RSN. As I say, you have provided nothing but weak sourcing. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Well no, you've just explained your personal opinion about the sources calling them "biased" etc.. Look above and see how Springee portrays Reason as an RS. BeŻet (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
No. I am telling you what RSN and WP policy says about these sources. Not my opinion at all. You may want to review what's written about these sources at WP:RSP. Reason is listed as a "green" source that is "generally reliable for news and facts", although it is a biased source and needs to be used carefully with this in mind. Please familiarize yourself with policy and previous discussion of relevant soruces. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
No, you have described certain sources as biased, even though they are not even listed at RSP, and other sources that are clearly considered as reliable as "weak". So please do not lecture me about policies when you are clearly expressing an opinion that other editors have the right to disagree with. BeŻet (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Nearly every point I'm making can be made by simply quoting policy and/or RSP without using my own voice at all:

  • Concerning Washington Examiner: according to WP:RSP, There is no consensus on the reliability of the Washington Examiner, but there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims.
  • Concerning the Portland Mercury "blogtown" piece: according to WP:NEWSBLOG, Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.
  • Concerning Daily Beast: according to WP:RSP, Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons.
  • Concerning Daily Dot: according to WP:RSP, 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.

If your idea is that Jewish Currents ("a magazine committed to the rich tradition of thought, activism, and culture of the Jewish left") and Inquisitr are strong sources here, sure, you can express that view, and yeah, it is my opinion that these are obviously weak sources for this BLP content, though I agree that they haven't been discussed much at RSN. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Once again, because you don't seem to understand my point: it is solely your opinion that the sourcing is "weak". None of the sources used are marked as unreliable, and we are using them to show due weight (i.e. a lot of sources talk about it). Referencing Springee's arguments above, he used Reason, a biased source, to justify the "alleged" descriptor that we are discussing in this section. BeŻet (talk) 11:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Nope. The points about WE, Portland Mercury, DB, and DD are not my opinion, they are policy, see above. But yeah, it's my opinion that Jewish Currents and Inquisitr are obviously weak sources for this BLP content, you're right about that much. But I repeat myself. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Ok, well we clearly are at a stalemate, because nothing you showed proves the sources are "weak" and provide no due weight, and you don't seem to understand that. BeŻet (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Nothing "weak" about Jewish Currents – they are strongly progressive and leftist. The only question we should have about the magazine with regard to this biography of Ngo is whether Jewish Currents is trustworthy and reliable, or false and misleading. Looking around at various articles talking about the magazine, nobody says anything bad about their reliability or truthfulness. This is a good signal for reliability. We should definitely respect the magazine as a good source. Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Obviously the attack should be in the lede (you all have just listed 8-9 reliable sources in an attempt to claim there are no reliable sources), and obviously it shouldn't be referred to as "alleged". I'm tempted to make an RfC about this, it seems pretty clear to me that the local consensus is being warped by POV pushers. Loki (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Why would it obviously be in the lead? Is this an article about PP, Cider Riot or Ngo? "Alleged" or similar is required by NPOVN if we use the term "attack". If we use the term "brawl" then it's not required. How is it POV pushing to be IMPARTIAL? Springee (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
It's certainly an article about Ngo, which is why it should be in the lede. He was there, with them, as they were planning the attack, and that he was there was a major controversy about him that was covered by tons of outlets.
Also, no, "alleged" is not required by NPOV. MOS:ALLEGED in fact explicitly discourages the word "alleged", and restating for the facts at hand, which in this case are that Ngo was recorded planning what the people recorded certainly seem to think was an attack, and which multiple reliable sources have described as an attack. Loki (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
And that is where you have jumped to a conclusion. It is disputed that they were planning an attack. It certainly hasn't been proven. Even the very left leaning Media Matters [[4]] says, "Gibson and others allegedly planned a confrontation at a local bar". Their phrasing is better because they use allegedly and confrontation which is a lower standard vs attack. A confrontation can be just an argument (based on what I've seen I would say its 100% clear PP intended to confront.). Here is another source saying "reportedly" planned.[[5]] Springee (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree that RfC could resolve this issue because certain editors are portraying their opinions as Wikipedia policy, which isn't helping when trying to achieve a consensus. BeŻet (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Please avoid making such accusations as they fail to FOC. The consensus policy specifically notes that consensus can't ignore policy. Springee (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and make one, one second. Loki (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
I think a RfC would be useful. I would ask that you post the question before letting it go live so we can agree on the question. There are several related questions here. 1. How should we describe the brawl ("attack", "confrontation", "brawl", other). 2. Depending on 1, should it be described as alleged or similar? 3. How should the video be described? 3a. Should the activities of PP members be described as "planning", "allegedly planning" etc? 3b. How should Ngo's involvement with the group be described, "overhearing", "interacting", "near by", "acknowledging" etc. Springee (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Slow motion edit wars

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Please remember that slow motion edit war, such as those that are happening on this article are still edit wars and can still result in sanctions even if you are respecting the 1RR --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Guerillero: Can we also see enforcement of editors engaging in talk-page BLP violations by actively disparaging the subject in their votes and comments? Wikieditor19920 (talk)
Your understanding of BLP is flawed. There is a range of acceptable behavior which you keep calling out as unacceptable. Certainly doxing and outing would not be tolerated on talk pages, but expressing negative opinions of public figures is not a problem. Binksternet (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
@Binksternet: No, your understanding of WP:BLP, which applies to talk pages, is mistaken, something which you've been informed of and ignored. It is not limited to "doxing" or "outing," which refers to conduct and statements about editors. For example, the comments on your talk page, a person clearly involved with sowing hatred, racism and division in reference to the subject, are blatant BLP violations. These expressions of opinion that contain disparaging statements about the subject that are unacceptable and have been repeated far too often here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Nope. Sorry. Binksternet (talk) 02:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I would appreciate clarification from Guerillero on this; my own understanding of BLP policy has been Wikieditor's. If I'm allowed to speak more frankly about my own unsourced opinion of various public figures on talk pages, I'd be glad to be made aware of that. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
@Shinealittlelight and Wikieditor19920: You can report things on my talk page if you would like --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
WP:DEADHORSE indeed. There appears to be consensus against "provocateur" and for "journalist" based on its usage to describe the subject in high-quality print sources like the NYT, so these RfCs put us exactly where we were before they were opened. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment I think there is a real risk here of discussions being ignored and edit-warring continuing based on the tenor of the discussion here, so I hope that we will see a consensus required DS before the article is unlocked. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Removal of content

Latest comment: 4 years ago23 comments4 people in discussion

Here, Wikieditor19920 gave a misleading edit summary (no mention of the content removal) and removed this sourced content from the whole article.

Several media outlets, including The Oregonian and The Rolling Stone, have described him as a "right-wing provocateur". BuzzFeed News said that "Ngo's work is probably best described as media activism" and that he engages in "participant reporting". New York magazine cites Ngo as an 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.

As far as I know, the issue was on 'provocateur' being in the lead, not this, which could have simply been moved down rather than removed. I re-added it at the bottom and even putting in the second paragraph rather than first but then I had to self-revert for the one-revert rule, even though in my view they are the one who first violated the rule by removing it in the first place. I believe Wikieditor199920 should self-revert as well for the same reason and re-add it. I am open to reword it and actually create a section about his violations of journalist ethical standards according to and attributed to each source, or at least a paragraph if not a standalone section, especially with the addition of the Columbia Journalism Review article, but either way it should be re-added, unless they can get consensus for its removal. Davide King (talk) 09:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Putting the criticisms at the top of his career section in non-sequential order is not neutral. His career can be described in stages, and criticism can be included at points where appropriate -- but not unduly emphasized. Sections entirely devoted to criticisms are also widely avoided on Wikipedia. WP:CRIT. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920, that is besides the point. The bottom line is that you gave a misleading edit summary and completely removed something that, as far as I am aware, has been in body for a while and I see no consensus to remove it in the first place; I even moved it to the bottom. His controversies and by extension his criticism are one of the things that make him notable. From what I can see, those are all green sources, yet we have "Ngo claimed that his firing was an attempt to stifle free speech, garnering support from some conservatives." sourced to the National Review, which is yellow and was in my view correctly removed from the lead by NorthBySouthBaranof (if 'provocateur' et al. are not lead worthy, I do not see how this is); we had this added by Wikieditor19920 that is sourced to The Daily Signal, which does not seem exactly reliable or even lead worthy; and we still have a bunch of unnecessary primary sources by Ngo himself that I removed here and here since there are already more than enough sources to verify each sentence; and I would note we still have Fox News sourced for "In May 2019, Ngo was pepper-sprayed by an antifascist activist while recording a fight in Portland. This occurred amid clashes between antifascists and the far-right group Patriot Prayer." when Fox News "is not generally reliable for politics, only for anything other than politics and science; 'There is consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science'; I could only find Newsweek and the Daily Mail as other sources." The tag I added was appropriate and should be readded, or the the ref should simply be removed. Davide King (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Davide King:, no, actually that is the entire point so I suggest you focus on content and abiding 1RR rather than nitpicking my edit summaries on the talk page. His body of work undoubtedly includes controversies and those can appropriately be covered throughout the article, not condensed in a single section. The Daily Signal, which you keep ranting about, was used only to cite the fact that he testified before a House committee. Plenty of others say the same thing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920, the one revert rule should be about actual reverts, not any single edit, including copy editing I did such as using redirect, fixing refs cite, dates format, etc. That your edit summary was misleading, you can not deny it, for then why did you even remove it from the article if "[h]is body of work undoubtedly includes controversies and those can appropriately be covered throughout the article"? It may not be perfect, but it has been like that for a good time and I think it ought to stay until we improve it. That I moved it down, I think it was a slight improvement, although I agree that ideally it should be better covered throughout the article, even as I believe a section may certainly be warranted. Then please cite other, more reliable sources than that. You did not address any of the other issues I raised about the article and some of its sources, so how am I not focusing on content? Davide King (talk) 13:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The sources criticising Ngo as a propagandist provacateur are due for inclusion. Wikieditor's concern that the criticism is the very first thing in the section is also valid. Ideally we start with a first paragraph that objectively says "worked here, next worked here... etc". My personal preference would be to next go into detail of each part of his career then finally a paragraph(s) summarizing which would included the claims he is a propagandist. However, many editors feel the propagandist part is what we need to focus on. In that case make that, with supporting evidence ( ie discuss the propagandist evidence and possibly the claims that he is to close to the right-wing) in the next few paragraphs after the opening paragraph. Finally, go over the jobs list. At a higher level the issue here is the content is due but as was it failed wp:impartial. Springee (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Springee, you seem to have missed the fact they completely removed it from the article and I merely re-added it to the bottom, so I do not see how you can criticise me about having criticism as the very first thing when I literally put it back as the last thing. Davide King (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I didn't miss that. I said it was due but how it is currently included fails impartial. It would be best if we could work too find an equitable solution rather than arguing. This is an article where many on all sides have often failed to AGF. Springee (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Springee, I agree, but I disagree that outright removal, especially of green sources, was a solution. I think my edit was actually a good enough compromise for the time being until we can word it better throughout the article. Just like I think a sentence without citation that does not sound absurd or unlikely should not be removed outright but a tag should be added for a while until a ref is found and added. Same thing here; a tag, or a move as I did, would have been better than outright removal, at least according to my honest view. Davide King (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't necessarily object to overall inclusion, but the way it was presented was out of sequence in an otherwise chronological section. It was given undue weight and I removed it for that reason. It's not a central piece of the article and I made a bold edit. I appreciate that you restored it in a more sensical portion of the page, but stop ranting about me and my "unjustified" edits. Bold edits are permitted. This is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920, as I wrote above, a tag or a move as I did would have been better than outright removal and perhaps all of this mess could have been avoided. Mine and NorthBySouthBaranof's edits, which elsewhere you described as "a mess", were just as bold edits (I believe yours was bolder since that was more controversial and still discussed). We removed yellow and unnecessary primary sources already supported by secondary green sources whereas you removed green sources content and added yellow at best source content such as The Daily Signal. Davide King (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
The Daily Signal was only used as a source for the fact that he testified before a House committee. That's an uncontroversial and well-documented fact. As for the other supposedly primary sources, you don't need to remove them if they are also accompanied by a secondary source. In fact, you should probably leave them be. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
If that is the only source reporting it, how is it not undue and how is it even lead worthy? If there are non-primary, more reliable sources, we should use them; and if there are none, it is probably undue, especially for the lead. I also always thought secondary and tertiary sources were favoured over primary ones, which should be carefully used, especially in such controversial articles. Davide King (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you're referring to exactly. The op-ed written by the subject is covered by WP:ABOUTSELF and may be used as a reliable source for statements that they made (all we need to note is that they argued or claimed X, not that X is true -- for that we can use an independent secondary source). In other instances, if you see a primary source cited alongside a secondary source, there's no reason to remove the primary. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

ABOUTSELF may apply, but I don't think it's WP:DUE or necessary in the lede to include extensive details of where and how he said it. It's enough to state that he argued the point, and leave the rest for the body. Frankly, that whole paragraph is too much detail of a single incident, and that's par for the course for the whole lede - that he filed a lawsuit is not important enough for the lede either. Too much needless detail for a section which is supposed to be a brief overview. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Your suggestions here are fine, but at odds with your edits. You selectively trimmed out op-ed and left the rest. I would agree with providing a shortened version noting 1) that he was fired and why (briefly) and 2) Ngo's response. The fact that he got a warm reception from conservatives is probably relevant. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920, I simply thought that if non-primary sources essentially say the same thing, it would be better to use them in favour of op-eds by Ngo in yellow-rated sources. That if no green source reported that, it may be undue. I could be wrong though, I am only explaining my thoughts and reasons for doing that. Nothing personal. Davide King (talk) 00:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920, here you again removed it, saying "We discussed moving these to the body." Yes, but then why you removed the wording from the whole article? Again, I believe it should stay, perhaps moving it down for the time being, until we improve the wording. In other words, you should not remove it from the article, unless your same or next edit rewords it and follows our agreement to discuss it in the body. Or perhaps I missed something, so my bad for that. Davide King (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@Davide King: I suggest you look at the article again. I didn't remove it. Do you want to relabel this conversation header now? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920, my bad about that. I thought you removed because it read -544‎ and I did not see at first the part where you moved it, which is all you did and is fine by me; and it is better than my move to Political views, so thank you. You did remove "which is distinguished from experiential journalism by its 'focus on the individual reporter's feelings" and absence of editorial fact-checking.'" Do you think it is/was not helpful? Davide King (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Everyone knows what a "busybody" is. It's clear the publication making the statement is criticizing him. Another paragraph elaborating on it adds nothing to the page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920, thanks for your response. However, I for one did not know what it meant and I found the quote helpful; second, we should not assume that everyone knows what it is meant by that; and finally, the sentence itself is a criticism and I found the quote (in addition to "absence of editorial fact-checking") useful or helping in understanding the criticism. Davide King (talk) 05:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@Davide King: No, it's an opinion piece and it is undue to emphasize every commentator who lashes the subject. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 08:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Editor

Latest comment: 4 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

Our article and all available sources relating to his current profession make it clear he is currently employed as an editor. If you were working as a painter five years ago, but now you are working as a carpenter...you are now a carpenter. I was bold and changed it, but I'm sure the fact that he is an editor, will have no impact on those arguing that he is somehow a journalist, but hey I thought I'd give reflecting reliable sources and describing his actual current job title and profession a go. Clearly the claim that he is a journalist is hotly contested and thus should not used, but meh. Bacondrum (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Bacondrum, "conservative journalist" is the long term phrase used in this case. There is an active RfC on the subject so edits shouldn't be made until that is closed. Springee (talk) 03:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
@Bacondrum: The majority of sources, which includes the best quality print sources available, call him a journalist. The majority of editors recognized this at the previous RfC. If you want to rant about Andy Ngo and what a "hack journalist" he is and continue to beat a dead horse, I suggest doing so off Wikipedia. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
all available sources relating to his current profession... Again, this is false. You going against consensus and what the sources actually say is not "bold," it's disruptive. See, e.g., the NYT, WaPo, and all the other sources that have already been provided. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. But I think you guys need to accept that there's no consensus that he is a journalist, that claim needs to go. By any measure it's now clear that the claim is seriously controversial and contested. Bacondrum (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920 civility matters, you have been bludgeoning the debate at the current RFC and many of your comments are rude and antagonistic. Cut it out. Bacondrum (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
@Bacondrum: Consensus for "journalist" is clearly apparent on the page. It is validated by its reflection in the most reliable sources available. The notion that he's not a journalist because "we don't like him" is not. Kindly stop lecturing about civility while making accusations and name-calling. Raising a stink about this long after the discussion has settled is WP:STONEWALLING and disruptive. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Really? Does this have to go to ANI? Why not just try and be a bit more civil? Bacondrum (talk) 08:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920, not as an unqualified statement it isn't. Because, you know, he's not a journalist as such, he's a "conservative-journalist-and-activist". Which is kind of like a journalist but without the journalism part. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@JzG: There's an RfC above and you're free to express your opinion there about why we should invent new labels not used by the sources. There's also a list of sources that use the label "journalist" (the majority) and that includes two of the highest quality print newspapers in the country. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 09:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920, which I did, but the RfC is specifically designed to discuss a single word, whereas most of the sources I have seen (and all the recent ones) either don't use it, or qualify it. Because, you know, he's a grifter. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Discussed and disproven. The vast majority of sources in the past year refer to him as a journalist. At most, they add "conservative," and this is already clearly implied in the lead when it notes that he works for a conservative paper. See list higher on this page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I've never seen a subject described in such a variety of ways. "Journalist" is definitely disputed, not just among editors but also among sources. These are just some of the descriptions used in reliable sources, presented on this talk page so far: "videographer and editor", "conservative journalist", "writer and photographer", "conservative media personality", "right-wing media shit-stirrer", "conservative blogger", "conservative writer", "controversial right-wing writer", "provocateur and social media personality", "discredited provocateur", "right wing writer", "conservative writer and videographer", "editor at large for the right-wing news site Post Millennial" (That's currently his actual job), "conservative media personality", "conservative writer from Portland", "conservative activist", “conservative journalist and Quillette writer“, "right-wing propagandist who has been associated with the violent far-right group, Patriot Prayer", "conservative Portland activist", "conservative media personality" etc etc etc...that's probably the most contested claim I've ever seen on wikipedia, and that's saying something. No amount of incivility is going to change that fact. The claim "journalist" is highly contested, there is no consensus among sources or editors, and Wikipedia is not a democracy. Bacondrum (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

There is a discussion above listing all sources that have mentioned Ngo in the past two years. "Journalist" is the most prevalent title, followed by "writer." "Editor" barely makes an appearance, and a couple of highly critical op-eds and other magazine pieces use an assortment of negative terms ("provocateur," "grifter," etc.). In a previous post you suggested "hack writer" is appropriate. Maybe take another look at WP:NPOV. We go by the weight of reliable sources, which favor "journalist" in this case. There is no utility in repeatedly opening discussion threads to rehash what's already been addressed in a previous one. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Review of terminology used for subject in recent RS

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Discussion listing with dates arranged chronologically to review patterns in RS terminology of subject. Items listed in GREEN have attained consensus by Wikipedia editors as generally reliable per the listing on WP:RSP.

2019

2020

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedar777 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Kindly remove the selective bolding and trim the longer quotes. You also missed a source: ABC7 called him a Portland journalist. This confirms that, among reliable sources, journalist is the most frequently used moniker, followed closely by "writer." "Activist" barely makes an appearance, and "provocateur" is used the least frequently. Advocating that we place weight on terms inconsistent with what reliable sources have done is to violate WP:NPOV. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
This does NOT confirm that he is consistently referred to as a journalist. On the contrary, it shows that reliable sources (those Wikipedia editors have collectively deemed quality in GREEN) describe him using a range of terms, with the terminology of journalist waning over time. Taken together, there is a clear pattern of hesitation to describe him as a journalist and to opt instead for either a broader neutral term (like writer, writer/photographer, writer/videographer, activist, and his job title of editor-at-large) or a term that does not indicate the highest journalistic professional ethics (such as blogger, media personality, propagandist, and provocateur). All of these terms have been used by publishers considered reliable (green) by Wikipedia standards. Cedar777 (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
There is no evidence of what you are asserting. He has received less coverage in the last year than in 2019. The vast majority of sources refer to him as a journalist, including the most reliable sources (NYT and WaPo). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
As @Objective3000: has pointed out earlier, it is important to be clear on which WaPo article you are referring to as they have described him on July 22, 2020 as a "conservative activist" and on September 10, 2020 as a "conservative activist and journalist". More generally, the consistent term in current use by WaPo for Ngo is "activist". Cedar777 (talk) 18:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Likewise with the NYT, we have the July 1, 2019 reference to Ngo as a "conservative journalist" followed by an article on August 17, 2019 describing him as a "conservative writer". The more recent coverage by NYT again shifts towards a broader term. Cedar777 (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Here is a July 2020 NYT article again calling him a journalist [[6]]. Springee (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Added the July 24, 2020 NYT article to the listing above. It is notable however that this article focuses on the deepening rift between staff in the newsroom and opinion divisions at WSJ, which are at odds over the publisher's continued support of Ngo as a contributing writer of opinion pieces. Cedar777 (talk) 17:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Adding the September 3, 2019 Reason article and the June 5, 2020 KATU (Associated Press) coverage to the list. Cedar777 (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

General suggestions

Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

Because Wikieditor is more interested in dragging people to AE over hypertechnical potential 1RR violations than working in a good-faith editorial process, I have "used" my one revert to undo their changes to status quo ante, and request that Wikieditor discuss and gain consensus for their proposed changes.

Specifically, I object to their use of a patently-unreliable source (The Daily Signal, which is the house organ of the Heritage Foundation, an explicitly right-wing pressure group), to undue highlighting of an op-ed column in the lede, removal of reliably-sourced criticism, and selective removal of possibly-negative things from the lede. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

What edit are we talking about here? Springee (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I would suggest you refactor your argument around specific content changes you disagree with. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof:, your restoration of the disputed video content to the lead is problematic. Remember this is new content in the lead and there is an active RfC so the material should be out until the RfC is closed. Also this is not a vote so 8-3 is not significant without considering the quality of the discussion... and again that would be acted on when the RfC is over. Springee (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

It's also inaccurate. The text implies Ngo's leaving Quillette was related to the made-up controversy. Quillette and Ngo confirmed it had nothing to do with it and he was already on leave. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920, I'm glad you now admit that Ngo made up the controversy, but you still seem to be arguing that it's some kind of valid journalistic work elsewhere. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
The made-up controversy is that Ngo was fired for being at an event that he was covering for supposedly being "involved" with the Cider Riot antagonizers. Quillette came out and confirmed that that wasn't the case, and no evidence has presented by these sources that he was doing anything of the sort. Suggesting a journalist is involved in planning a violent brawl falls under WP:EXCEPTIONAL and the sources are anything but sufficient to meet that standard. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 09:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
There are reliable sources that claim he did and that he was sacked for it. Bacondrum (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
The only halfway reliable source is Daily Beast, and they insist that he was fired despite evidence that he was already on leave and Quillette confirming that he was not fired. DB is a biased source that skimps on objective verification in service to politics, and this is a prime example of that. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
The daily beast is a reliable source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. But I've changed the wording to remove the "fired" claim. Bacondrum (talk) 00:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

History in the lede

Latest comment: 4 years ago20 comments4 people in discussion

I don't think we need to go into such detailed history in the lede, we should include those events (cider riot/patriot prayer and milkshake attack/proud boys) in the lede as they are prominent controversies that he is widely known for, but they should be surmised. They currently read like paragraphs cut and pasted from a history section. Bacondrum (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The cider riot controversy is very questionable. It didn't get much coverage outside of a few hard left sources. However, I think it would be reasonable to include the accusation that Ngo is too cozy with the far-right. The Cider Riot incident is part of the evidence used to support that accusation. The removal of the UNDUE tag ignores the obvious problems that we are devoting 1/4 of the lead to a supporting event that is about 1 paragraph of 19 in the article body. That is just about text book UNDUE for the lead. Springee (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
If we're going to trim the lead, then I have no idea why would we leave the most thinly sourced, contentious, and frankly contrived paragraph and remove what he's received proportionally far more coverage for. This only serves to further unduly emphasize negative controversies and gloss over everything else, a disturbing trend repeatedly advocated for here. We should start by getting rid of the Cider Riot piece.
He was present at an event and filming. Why does that imply an association with the "Patriot Prayer" and their activities? The notion that someone reporting on a counter protest or protest was involved in a scheme to do violence is WP:EXCEPTIONAL and unsupported by the available sources. I think it's fair to say that the lead does not shy away from covering Ngo's many controversies, but the Cider Riot paragraph is a step too far. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
On the other two paragraphs, I agree that there can be some trimming. I would remove the part about the milkshaking and head injury and shorten the section his firing from the Vanguard. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I think details of the Cider Riot incident and the milkshake attack should not receive so much attention in the lede, having said that, they did receive widespread coverage - I live on the other side of the planet and those two events were featured in the news here (the only times I've ever seen him in the news), so they made international news and those events seem to be the thing he is best known for. He is mostly known for this kind of behavior...a summary of this (his cozy relationship with the far-right, and accusations that he has been a willing participant/activist in some of these events) is definitely due in the lede, IMO...but yes, they receive too much attention, we can all agree on that. I also don't think the prose are very good, reads like a history section rather than a lede. Rather than adding the undue tag, lets improve the prose and summarise events (merge/shorten paragraphs). Bacondrum (talk) 05:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@Bacondrum: None of the changes you made have an iota of support in the sources. You restate as fact every accusation or controversy in the most negative light and unduly emphasize op-eds. This is laughably out of compliance with NPOV. I suggest proposing your changes on the talk page first, because your views on the subject are interfering with your ability to edit neutrally. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
"Reads like a history section" The lead reads like a neutral accounting of the subject's background. That's what we should be striving for. The recent changes flip this and turn it into a hit piece. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
You changed the lead to suggest Ngo has been "accused of falsely blaming antifa for an assault." Clearly we're now in the realm of just writing false and defamatory content, because none of this is reflected in the most reliable sources available. See NYTIMES. Do not continue edit-warring or making changes without proposing them on the talk page, because the lack of neutrality and accuracy is unacceptable. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
The attack is no longer "alleged" - Patriot Prayer members have pleaded guilty to crimes. They attacked the bar and its patrons. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't think Wikieditor was referring to the cider riot brawl. Also, pleading guilty to rioting doesn't mean guilty to a premeditated attack. I think the issue here was suggesting that Ngo was falsely accusing antifa of attacking Ngo in June. It's clear an assault occurred but it's not clear it was "antifa" vs "what appeared to be left-wing protesters". While I suspect this sentence is literally true "Ngo is accused of helping plan an armed attack by patriot Prayer members prior to an attack on Cider Riot, a cider house frequented by antifa protesters." I think the more common accusation is that he showed bias allegedly overhearing then failing to report Patriot Prayer members planning an attack on the Cider Riot bar later that day. As I said below, I think the structure is good but it needs some detail help. Springee (talk) 13:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I've restored alleged as it/and similar terms are used by RSs and Wikipedia should err on the side of caution when referring to accusations of crime. I've also reverted your section title change since that section is about why he left Quillette, not the Cider Riot brawl which is covered in an earlier section. Springee (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Bacondrum, of course we need to say all sorts of nasty things about each other's motivations ( :D ) but I actually liked the direction you went with these edits [[7]]. I think there are some details that need to be worked out but let's start with what it gets right. At a high level it's a summary of the article rather than focusing on the details. You made the second paragraph about where he's worked and then made the final paragraph about why his is controversial. I think that makes for a great structure for the lead. I think it needs some fixes in terms of being careful to not put things that are in dispute in wiki voice but from a structure POV that is much better than what we have now. Springee (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@Springee: I suggest you actually read what the edits consisted of, because they not only put disputed allegations as fact, they actually cast into doubt or attribute "falsehoods" to Ngo that were never reported on by reliable outlets. Suggesting that throwing NPOV out the window, along with accurate representation of sources, for some supposed "structure" is the opposite direction that we should be going in this or any other article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@Springee: Yes, I don't necessarily think I've used the best wording, lol. I think you should make the changes your thinking of, the tone could be made more neutral, that's for sure. Bacondrum (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920 you seem to have an issue with collaborating, my recent edits are not permanent, or indisputable...wikipedia is a work in progress. So if you want to make changes, make them, we can work through till we have improved the article, that's how this works. Drop the combative and uncivil tone and we can all work together to improve the article, that's how this is supposed to work. Wikieditor19920, I'm affraid I have to take your lack of civility to ANI, you just need to tone it down. Bacondrum (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: WP:BOOMERANG. You need spend less time lecturing everyone else on good faith while hurling accusations and making threats about ANI, and more focusing on content and proposing language changes on the talk page. Your changes are clearly contentious. The latest edits you added dramatically shifted the tone of the introduction away from a balanced, neutral accounting to an accusatory one rife with inaccuracies. Ngo was not blamed for "falsely accusing antifa" for the assault. He blamed them for the assault and the assailants were not identified. As recently as this year news reports still show him maintaining those allegations. No reliable source calls this a "false allegation." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I haven't even mentioned good faith, though now that you mention it, you have not been assuming good faith. As for focusing on content, that's exactly what I'm asking you to do, be civil, discuss content not bludgeon the debate and attack other editors. Bacondrum (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Another go

Hey all, I've tried giving the lede another go, I took a number of concerns raised into account and found some stronger sources. I hope this version is less controversial and uses more neutral prose while not ignoring the main controversies he is most widely known for (his ongoing embroilment in antifa/far-right conflicts etc). I think with these quotes from the New York Times as counter balance "he has a history of battling with anti-fascist groups, with the two sides sharing a mutual antipathy that dates back many months. The conservative journalist has built a prominent presence in part by going into situations where there may be conflict and then publicizing the results" and “he is a political pundit who certainly makes the most out of his conflicts, which sometimes turn violent on him...But to his credit, I’ve never seen him be the physical aggressor in the posts that he’s made generally.” we can leave the descriptor "journalist" as is, now that it is qualified with some of the most common complaints about his work by detractors and critic. I'd advocate maybe changing it to the New York Times descriptor of "conservative journalist", but I'm not going to push for it. Bacondrum (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think Wikieditor's change here is an improvement and seems to be inline with what Bacondrum argued during the revert. [[8]] As written I can see how this could be read as Ngo was attacked by PB vs the counter protestors. It would be helpful if we all did a bit more talk page vs activate page editing. Springee (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
It's impossible to have a civil discussion with Wikieditor, this could all have been avoided if Wikieditor had just toned down the incivility and stopped bludgeoning the debate, but alas. As for the edit, I just self reverted, my mistake...I thought that Wikieditor had removed "by counterprotestors" rather than added it, as demonstrated in my summary. Sorry about that. Bacondrum (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The video

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Why does the lead not mention the content of the video that was the basis for his firing? It currently reads as extremely vague and confusing. Previously, the lead noted that it was a video of a Muslim students remarks on Koranic law, and that the remarks were seized on by Breitbart News. An even more specific version (that I added) noted that the comments were about the alleged punishment of "apostates," which was part of why it appealed to a far-right outlet. Why was this information not deemed relevant? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I really don't want to get in another argument with you, but there is not a single mention of a panel about Koranic law on punishment of apostates in the citation, nor the far-right or far-right outlets. https://psuvanguard.com/in-response-to-fired-for-reporting-the-truth/ Bacondrum (talk) 07:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
A careful reading of the sources (see Williamette Weekly) shows otherwise.

In a video of the event, the panelist says: "I can confidently tell you, when the Quran says an innocent life, it means an innocent life, regardless of the faith, the race, like, whatever you can think about as a characteristic. […] This that you're referring to, killing non-Muslims, that is only considered a crime when the country's law, the country is based on Quranic law—that means there is no other law than the Quran. In that case, you're given the liberty to leave the country, I'm not going to sugarcoat it." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Portland State University

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is there a reliable source that states when (and if) Ngo graduated from Portland State University? Several sources mention that he was enrolled in a master's program with a specific area of study but they do not define the date of completion or the degree granted. The Early life and education section could be improved by clarification on the date of graduation. Cedar777 (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

"Opinion Journalist"

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In what way is it appropriate to state he is an "Opinion Journalist"

"Common examples include newspaper columns, editorials, op-eds, editorial cartoons, and punditry"

He publishes videos on his Twitter and written articles on thepostmillennial.com.

His articles are statements of facts, not op-eds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonycat (talk • contribs)

  • The man is not a journalist. Haha, publishing videos on Twitter, that's not journalism. If that's the case, I need a Pulitzer, because I put my videos on Instagram AND Facebook. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

RfCs closure

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Should there not be an admin closure for each RfC to summarise the argument and establish their results? Davide King (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The Cider Riot RfC is sorta moot since that section was entirely rephrased (and the hedging was removed) since I started the RfC. Loki (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Loki. I think the consensus for some type of inclusion is clear even if I disagree. Additionally, the use of the term "attack" has consensus. We can move on. Springee (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree but should there not be a closure for any RfC anyway? Especially so we can link it to those who try to change that without consensus. Davide King (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
How about a closure that says the content and "attack" have consensus for inclusion but not the specific phrasing given the evolution of the lead since this RfC was started. Springee (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Description of the incident at Cider Riot

Latest comment: 4 years ago60 comments18 people in discussion

We currently have the following text in the lede of this article:

In August 2019, footage from May was published showing Ngo with armed Patriot Prayer members prior to an alleged attack on a bar frequented by antifa protesters. Ngo did not film the alleged planning of the attack, but did film parts of the attack itself. Ngo disputes that he was aware of the details of the plan. Following this incident, Ngo left Quillette.

We also have a more detailed description of the incident later in the article.

  1. Should this material be in the lede?
  2. How should we describe the incident? In particular, should we refer to it as "alleged planning" of an "alleged attack", or "planning" of an "attack", or something else entirely?

Loki (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Survey - Cider Riot

  • Yes/"planning of an attack": The material should obviously be in the lede, as it is a major controversy involving the subject of this article that has been covered in multiple reliable sources that we already have in the article. Here is how those sources describe what happened:
  1. The Portland Mercury: Since this May Day clash, Patriot Prayer and its supporters have uploaded edited clips of the fight to social media, trying to prove that their unprovoked attack was actually an act of self defense. (also note: the Portland Mercury explicitly states in the article that it stands by its reporting after a legal threat by Ngo)
  2. Jewish Currents: Meanwhile, the footage has been deemed reliable enough to use against Patriot Prayer in court, as some members of the group are facing felony riot charges after an attack on Antifa activists at Cider Riot, a bar in Portland, on May Day this year.
  3. Inquisitr: Conservative journalist Andy Ngo, who The Inquisitr reported claims to have suffered a brain injury following a confrontation with Antifa last month during a Portland, Oregon rally, was captured on video with Patriot Prayer as they appear to plan an attack on the militant anti-fascist group.
  4. The Daily Dot: A video has surfaced on Twitter that shows conservative journalist Andy Ngo laughing as members of the far-right group Patriot Prayer plan an attack on anti-fascist patrons at a Portland bar.
I think in light of this, the idea that this is merely "alleged" is obvious bunk. Loki (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Blogtown is a blog hosted by an alternative news paper. "Inquisitr supports using "alleged" or similar. Your link uses the phrase word "appear to plan" which is effectively saying "alleged". Another Inquisitr article uses similar langauge [[9]], "reportedly planned". Springee (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
The Portland Mercury explicitly, at the top of its page, defends its reporting against a libel threat in the article you are calling "Blogtown". It's written by their News Editor, and is labeled "news" at the top of the page. It's clearly not only news but news they are backing with their institutional reputation very strongly.
Saying a video appears to be someone planning an attack is not the same as saying they allegedly planned it: who would be alleging it? The video? While both are hedges, different hedges mean different things. But regardless, since the other sources including the most reliable one (the Portland Mercury, which AFAICT originally reported it) do not hedge, we should not hedge either. Loki (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  • No/"Brawl" or "alleged attack" or other that follow journalistic norms for alleged crimes With respect to how we describe the brawl we need to be IMPARTIAL. Stating in wiki-voice that PP was "planning an attack" is accusing them of a crime in wiki-voice and thus violates BLPGROUP. No one has been convicted of planning an attack. Additionally the "planned attack" is disputed. a Reason article says the video which reports to prove this was a planned attack doesn't support the claim [[10]]. Other sources, even left leaning sources use typical "alleged" type phrasing. This Inquisitr article says "reportedly planned" [[11]]. MediaMatters [[12]] says "allegedly planned a confrontation". That is more defensible because a "confrontation" can be verbal and thus doesn't include an accusation of a crime. An attack includes the physical part which makes this a crime. We also have the Oregon Liquor Control Commission report which calls this a "Brawl" and does not assign guilt (but is critical of the police investigation). [[13]] Other Oregonlive articles use terms Brawl[[14]] and melee[[15]]. In summary, calling this a planned attack violates BLPGROUP, BLPCRIME (policy says presumed innocent) and NPOV. We should follow this lead in not stating it as fact when it's in dispute. As an encyclopedia we need to write with a presumption of innocence and follow style guides suggestions for handling such cases (I couldn't find the AP guide but this one talks about it [[16]], [[17]])
    I've removed "alledged attack" per this style guide [[18]]. The issue is the meaning of "attack" is likely to be confused with the meaning of "fight/brawl/etc" There is no dispute that a fight/brawl occurred. What is not clear is intent. Did PP go with the intent to start a fight (a crime) or just to confront/argue (not specifically a crime)? I think much of the confusion with "alleged assault" is the "fight" part of "assault" is clear while the "premeditated" part is alleged. Changing the term to brawl avoids the premeditated part and thus avoids both an accusation of a premeditated crime and the confusion that "alleged assault" would imply there was no fight at all.
    As for the video with Andy Ngo in the lead, why? Some sources claim this means Ngo was aware or even worse complicit in the attack. Again, the Reason article disagrees with that assessment. Additionally Ngo released an article in The Spectator telling his version of events. This video definitely belongs in the body of the article to support the view that Ngo is too cozy with the right-wing groups he reports on. However, it shouldn't be in the lead, at least not as being used, because it is being used in a way that implies Ngo was involved with or at least aware of an alleged planned attack. Sorry, that is absolutely not acceptable. We don't imply people are involved in illegal activities when the facts are in dispute. Springee (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
    • My comment above didn't mention the issue of DUE with respect to putting the video in the lead. The lead is meant to be a summary of the body of the article. What is proposed is making 1/4 of the lead (3-4 sentences) about a video that is only 8 sentences in the body (it exists as parts of 2 paragraphs out of 18 in the body). The video is being used as supporting evidence that Ngo is too cozy/biased/focused on negative antifa stories while ignoring negative things on the far-right. That sort of summary is lead worth but the video is only one piece of evidence supporting that conclusion, it isn't a conclusion itself. This in addition to the significance of the video is disputed by reporting by Reason magazine. Thus not due for the lead. Springee (talk) 12:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
[Replies moved to discussion section below]
Comment' The "yes" votes are accompanied by thin or no reasoning, which is concerning given that these allegations are just as thin, and potentially damaging. No mainstream sources have presented evidence that Ngo was doing anything other than reporting on the group. Another user provided a piece disproving some of the central allegations, such as that he was fired from Quilette because of it. This has received little coverage and is clearly not significant weight, but too many editors here seem to be pushing for this in the lead regardless of policy obviously counseling against because of their negative views of the subject, which have been expressed at this talk page. This is not how we determine content. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • No. This story was originally reported in a blog post at the newsblog "Blogtown" by the local alternative bi-weekly, The Portland Mercury here. According to WP:NEWSBLOG we should use this source with caution: Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. RSN has not said a lot about The Portland Mercury itself, but the short discussion that exists here seems to me pretty mixed as it relates to using the Portland Mercury (not a blog post in the case discussed at RSN, but an actual story) for controversial BLP content. Obviously the fact that we're looking at a blog post should lead us to be additionally cautious. The story was then picked up and discussed by various left-leaning media, the most notable of which (The Daily Beast here and The Rolling Stone here, for example) are regarded at RSP as opinionated sources that should be attributed. Finally, these amplifications by left-leaning media led to a small reaction from the other side of the political spectrum in Reason and Commentary. I think the fact that this was reported by a mere local news blog and not independently reported by anyone else or picked up by a national news organization shows that it is not due for the lead. It is arguably due for the body given the variety of commentary on it, but that everything we say about it should be attributed, with the language drawn from the sources to which we attribute the various claims, and we should briefly summarize all the commentary, not just the left-leaning commentary. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
WP:NEWSBLOG obviously does not apply here, because we have the clearest possible statement that Blogtown is "subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process": the statement at the top saying that they stand by their reporting even in the face of a legal threat. Loki (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Wait, why should we accept "blogtown" a blog associated with an alternative local paper but reject Reason.com (a decades old national publication)? Springee (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
The statement that they are standing by the reporting does not entail that they processed it via their normal fact-checking process; they just might not find the threat credible. So no, your point is not obvious. We should use news blogs with caution, per policy. And a story that was only reported in a local newsblog and not reported by any national news organizations is not due for the lead, especially given the mixed reception of this source at RSN, as I said. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) their report did not result in anything beyond a recommendation that the cider house owner and staff be charged with three state alcohol license violations, however, no charges were brought against the owner. The Oregonian also reported that Gibson and PP were on social media encouraging their supporters to complain to the OLCC, and that the complaints came in from people who had watched video clips well outside the area. Gibson and PP have since had their social media accounts disabled.
Multiple videos taken outside Cider Riot on May 1, 2019 during the May Day brawl (including footage filmed that day by Ngo) can be viewed as part of the Oregonian's coverage here. Cedar777 (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
@ValarianB:, Clearly I'm against this. As you aren't an involved editor do you mind if I ask a follow up questions (my intent isn't to bludgeon and if you don't want to reply I will respect that). In the current article the video doesn't get much coverage in the actual body of the article. It's currently mentioned as part of the May Day subtopic and once in the section about leaving Quillette. In context of the May Day topic it seems to be evidence that he is too chummy with the far-right. In the case of Quillette a single source suggests this is why he left Quillette (a claim that is disputed). So why would the video itself be the part in the lead vs the accusation that Ngo is too chummy with the far-right? The departure from Quillette is already in the lead. Is it OK to put a piece of evidence but not the conclusion in the summary/lead? Springee (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • No - Not seeing it as particularly lead worthy. I could see a mention in the body probably but even then meh. So there is video of him with people before something happened that he did not participate it... So what? This is more about the proud boys than it is about Ngo. In fact almost all the comments here seemed to be at that same angle, from what I can tell Ngo had no impact on what happened there and just tangentially related. PackMecEng (talk) 03:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • NoThe meaning of attack here is to throw the first physical blows. There is no reliable sourcing that he / they planned to do that, much less the particularly strong sourcing required by policy for BLP. Also, the lead needs to be a summary of the article, not just selection of items to give them more prominence. BTW this article is rife with severe POV problems. It's just loaded with coverage of the what political opponents of him said displacing coverage of him. It's also rife with stating the talking points of his political opponents as fact in the voice of Wikipedia. Also "has been accused" type wording is used with too low of a bar and without attributioon in the voice of Wikipedia; it's being used whenever it merely something said by one of his political opponents. North8000 (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes/"planning of an attack. Extensively sourced to reliable sources, which treat it as a major event in his biography. Most of the disagreement above comes down to a few arguments. First, there's an argument that we should place heavy weight on a Reason article that disagrees; however, as noted at WP:RS/P, Reason publishes largely opinion and commentary and does not make a clear distinction between the two, so it is inappropriate to rely on it to dispute factual reporting. Second, there are people who take issue with the fact that it was reported on - either disagreeing with the primary sources our secondary sources used, or disagreeing with the basic terminology they relied on. Those aren't policy-based arguments; we specifically rely on sources to resolve those questions for us, so once significant secondary sources cover something, the quality of the primary source no longer matters. If the only disagreement anyone can find is a single article from Reason (a self-avowedly biased source), then this reporting stands on very firm ground indeed. --Aquillion (talk) 03:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
    which treat it as a major event in his biography but they really don't do they? Most RS don't mention this incident and the majority of the ones that do is a passing mention. So unless you have a policy backed argument backing your claim, besides that a sources exist, you do not have a leg to stand on. The whole thing comes off as an undue mess and POV pushing undue material into a BLP is an obvious BLP violation. Because as well all know, or should know by now, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. PackMecEng (talk) 03:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
    Aquillion, your summary of the arguments is flawed. Let's start with Reason and it's claims. We have a few sources such as the blogtown one that did their own analysis/commentary on the limited information in the video and said, "it means this". We have several sources that are simply reporting what blogtown said (ie they aren't putting it in their own voice). We also have Reason which is a respected commentary source and the Reason article included contacting Ngo for comment. An OpEd doesn't include contacting involved parties for comment. They looked at the same evidence as blogtown and reached a different conclusion. That means sources don't agree. Plain and simple. I'm not arguing that we exclude, only that because sources don't agree we now have to attribute. But really that just says we need to have a more neutral discussion in the body of the article. Still, you missed a second argument which PackMecEng hit on. Is this topic DUE for the lead. That is a policy question and one you didn't address. Springee (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • 1: ambivalent, 2: remove alleged per my previous request. —PaleoNeonate – 14:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes/"planning of an attack". That is how RS cover this. Wikipedia sticks to how RS report things. The content is particularly important for NPOV given that Ngo is described as a journalist, which infers credibility and legitimacy on his "reporting", when his reporting is intentionally unreliable. It informs readers about what kind of "journalist" he is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion - Cider Riot

Discussion in reply to BeŻet [moved from above]:
The brawl clearly happened. Calling it an "attack" means it was a premeditated intent to fight (vs confront/yell/protest). Thus you want to state in wiki-voice that people committed a crime. That requires a conviction on that charge. Note that many of the sources that use the word "attack" include terms that make it clear this has not been proven, "appear to plan an attack". That conforms to the typical journalistic standard of innocent until proven guilty (a standard that Wikipedia absolutely follows). Regardless of what it's called, that doesn't address why an brawl that was clearly significant to Cider Riot, PP etc needs to be in the lead of Andy Ngo's article. Springee (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
If you want proof of their premeditated intent to fight, read the Portland Mercury article more closely (or just watch the video). They prepare and bring weapons and speak specifically about their intent to attack. (Also, a "brawl" is just as much a crime as an "attack": the reason this is an exception to WP:BLPCRIME is that both the planning and the attack are on video, and that at least two of the people involved in the attack have pled guilty.) Loki (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
As the Reason article clearly stated, their comments do not prove they intended to engage in a fight, only that they felt one could occur. That isn't surprising given the history of violence associated with Antifa. The PM is just one source and other reliable sources disagree with their conclusions. The convictions in question don't prove your case either. Those are for rioting, not for the premeditated part. Also, remember we are making a claim about a group, not individuals. Also note that your link says nothing about premeditation. This again comes back to how a responsible source handles allegations of crimes. We don't say "X did Y". Instead we say either "X was alleged to have done Y" or we say, "source Z says X did Y". This is a basic concept of IMPARTIAL writing. Springee (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
If you mean this Reason article, this is an opinion piece sourced almost entirely to a combination of Ngo himself and the author's own incredulity that a group of people carrying weapons and planning out the fight that will happen at the place they are planning to carry those weapons to could possibly be intending to attack that place. (An inference that, as he lays out quite extensively, no other journalist had any problem whatsoever with drawing.) Outside of the author's own incredulity, it's pretty much entirely a case of WP:MANDY: of course Ngo denies it, I didn't need an article to tell me that.
(Impartial writing also does not pull punches when an unambiguous description is warranted, as is the case when the incident is literally on video, which is why tons of reliable sources in newsrooms that generally avoid explicitly accusing people of crimes have explicitly accused these people of a crime.) Loki (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
It is no more an Op-Ed than the local alternative news sources adding their commentary to help readers understand the video. Even absent the Reason article, this is still a BLPGROUP and thus we need to follow BLPCRIME which says "presumed innocent until convicted". No one has been convicted of a premeditated assault which is what you are asking us to print in wiki-voice. We should follow the lead of RSs and either refer to this as a Brawl or attributed the claims of what the video shows. Springee (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Nobody has been convicted of an assault yet, but two people have been convicted of engaging in violent conduct with at least five other people, which IMO is even closer to the description of an attack than the crime of assault would be. Which is to say, we have already satisfied the explicit requirements of WP:BLPCRIME right off the bat and the following two arguments are in some sense irrelevant.
Also, WP:BLPGROUP specifically says that The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. which implies that the primary BLP interest here is Andy Ngo himself. It doesn't seem like we're accusing him of any crime.
But more than either of those is the fact that an attack and a brawl are legally the same from the POV of Patriot Prayer! The main difference is whether the Cider Riot activists would also be charged (which they don't appear to have been). Saying it was a "brawl" is just as much accusing them of a crime as saying it was an "attack": neither of those is a legal activity! If WP:BLPCRIME did apply here, we would need to excise any mention of any incident at all, which is obviously absurd since we have video of both the planning and the attack and documentations of two convictions related to the attack! Loki (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
The plea deals don't prove this was premeditated. I'm tired of my neighbors loud music. I go over to the fence and start yelling at him. He yells back. Things escalate and I punch him. That doesn't mean I went over to start a fist fight, only that one eventually broke out thus it doesn't show premeditation to start a fight. Note that the Oregon Liquor Control Commission finds a lot of fault with Cider Riot and the fact that the bar knowingly allowed their patrons to have weapons. The OLCC called it a brawl in their report. They did not say "attack". I actually find it telling that the Patriot Prayer calls this incident a riot, not an attack. Look at the sourcing and the terms they use:
police and prosecutors say Gibson and several associates took multiple steps to incite a fight The author attributes the claim to the police/prosecutors, not in their own voice. [[19]]
alleged involvement in a May attack uses the word "alleged" [[20]]
far-right protesters arrested for a May 1 riot: "Riot" not attack and note that it's a fact that people were arrested. This article doesn't claim they committed the crime. Also, this is WWeek so, not exactly encyclopedic standards here. A second WWeek article dues use "attack" but also "alledged" Police allege the men were involved in a violent altercation outside Cider Riot on May 1, after the far-right extremists attacked a group of antifascists sitting on the pub's outdoor patio.[[21]][[22]]
Joey Gibson pleaded not guilty to a felony riot charge stemming from a May Day brawl This is a CBS station. They are far more careful about following the innocent until proven guilty line. They call this a brawl. [[23]]
In the end, saying that a fight occurred is not a problem. Saying that this was a premeditated attack is a problem. Implying that Ngo was aware of plans or was complicit in plans for a premeditated attack is also not OK. Wikipedia is supposed to be IMPARTIAL and on par with other encyclopedias. This isn't supposed to be a tabloid. That means we make a clear presumption of innocence and when sources dispute claims we don't treat the claims as proven fact. Springee (talk) 05:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
The attackers discuss their intent to attack people, bring weapons to a venue where they know they will find the people they will attack, and then they attacked them, as mentioned in sources and in video evidence. Like I said a few times already, there is no reason to play dumb here given the clear cut nature of the situation. Following this logic, we can't say that Ngo was attacked because we don't know what happened before the assault and perhaps he was already involved in a brawl. Ngo was attacked, and so were the people at Cider Riot.
Willamette Weekly refers to the incident multiple times as an attack.
Portland Business Journal points out that the grand jury said [it] was an attack.
The situation is clear here. BeŻet (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
WWeek also calls it a brawl. Also, why would we put so much emphaisis on the choice of words by a strongly opinionated alternative news magazine? The Portland Business Journal makes my case for me. They don't say "attack" in their own words. They attribute the claim. Are you OK using attribution? Also, as has already been mentioned, Reason, a RS, said the statements in the video are not sufficient to claim this was an attack vs the PP members expected, given this involved antifa, that violence was possible. Per the Reason article:
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. [[24]]
Before you say, "op-ed", sorry, why is Reason's annalysis not valid but an "alternative" local paper's analysis is? Springee (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I just think it's a bit silly to be saying: "Members of Patriot Prayer armed with weapons, after expressing multiple times their intent to fight and discussing details of how to fight and what to do during the fight, made their way to a pub frequented by antifascist activists and allegadly attacked them, for which they got indicted". And the Reason article you shared is an op-ed, the WW pieces are regular articles. Please consult Op-ed, WP:RSEDITORIAL, WP:RSOPINION. BeŻet (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
The easy way to deal with this attribution. That solves the issue. Also Reason is a national, respected source offering analysis. WW is a local, alternative paper of unknown editorial standards. Springee (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but the Reason article is what would have to be attributed. BeŻet (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Since both are analysis and they disagree both should be attributed. More to the point, when sources conflict we attribute. Springee (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Willamette Week is quality, small and lean but mighty. The 2015 USA Today article covers the pulitzer they won. Cedar777 (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Reason is a long time respected source. Why are you playing favorites vs just including the claims of both and offering attribution? Springee (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Why do you keep ignoring the very clear explaination: Reason posts op-eds and opinion pieces, WW posts news articles. BeŻet (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Because Reason is a reliable source and because I see no reason why we should treat one source's analysis/commentary as more reliable than another's. Additionally, there is a difference between an "Op-Ed" and "analysis". The moment the "alternative news weekly" WW tells us what the video means they are no longer reporting and have moved to analyzing. I see no reason to trust their analysis more than Reason's. Springee (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Why in the lead? A number of editors have said the video and Ngo should be in the lead but why? A number of editors have said why they feel there is sufficient evidence to say PP "planned the attack" in wiki-voice even though not all sources say it in their own voice and a RS, Reason, says the evidences isn't sufficient for such a claim. But I don't see anyone saying why this video is DUE in the lead of an article about Andy Ngo. Let's be honest, the video is evidence supporting a conclusion, it is not a conclusion and we should never include something in a BLP that tends to lead the reader to a conclusion which we don't explicitly state in the article. Some sources claim it shows that Ngo was only interested in the side of the story that made antifa look bad. Others go farther and claim it shows Ngo is too cozy even collaborating with those on the far-right side of these conflicts. Right or wrong, that is why those sources say the video is significant. If anything goes in the lead it would be those conclusions, not the existence of the evidence. The problem is the conclusion that some sources are talking about is very much disputed. It seems like we are trying to avoid discussing that "what the video means" is disputed by just presenting part of the evidence and then letting the reader jump to their own conclusion. That is like saying "Mr Smith's wife was murdered and we found a bloody knife in his car" but neglecting to mention that sources said Smith was out of town at the time of the murder. It is absolutely not OK to include information that implies a conclusion in the lead without also including that the conclusion is clearly in dispute. Springee (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
You can say something is "clearly in dispute" all you want without it being true. I agree, that conclusion certainly is why this is news in the first place. But it is news in the first place. We know it's news because all these news sources are covering it. We don't refuse to include reliable sources in the article just because they look bad for the subject of the article even in a BLP.
Any article about a politician will mention scandals involving that politician in the lede, and almost always without coming out and saying why people think those scandals are a big deal. So for example, Hillary Clinton, a featured article, mentions Her use of a private email server when she was Secretary of State was the subject of intense scrutiny; while no charges were filed against Clinton, the email controversy was the single most covered topic during the 2016 presidential election. We don't say *why* this was such a big scandal. We don't say it made her look careless with government documents. We just mention that it was a big scandal. Applying a standard to Andy Ngo that we don't apply to Hillary Clinton in a featured article seems patently absurd to me. Loki (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Did Reason dispute what others have said this video shows/signifies? Yes. Did Ngo dispute what others have said this video shows/signifies? Yes. Did The Spectator allow Ngo to publish an article (not an OpEd) disputing what this video shows/signifies? yes. Did a number of sources who covered the video put the claims as to what the video shows/signifies in attributed form (ie they were unwilling to put the claims in their own voice)? Yes. That means it's disputed. I agree it's in the news and because it had enough coverage it is DUE in the article but we need to make sure that it's clear that what the video shows/signifies is disputed. Your statement, " We don't refuse to include reliable sources in the article just because they look bad for the subject of the article even in a BLP." is a red herring as it suggests that I'm advocating removing all mention of the video from the article. That is false. Saying it shouldn't be in the lead is different another matter. It is absolutely wrong to put in something in the lead that suggests/implies a conclusion that is disputed anywhere in the article without acknowledging the implied/stated conclusion is disputed.
What is in other articles doesn't mean they are right (wp:otherstuffexists) and I suspect in most cases what makes it to the lead will not be a disputed conclusion (and certainly not supporting evidence without a conclusion). For example, we might say "Mr Smith was found to be embezzling funds from his company SmithCo." in the lead of Mr Smith's article. In the lead we wouldn't say "Security camera footage showed Mr Smith withdrawing funds from SmithCo in June 2015". Such a statement could imply many things or nothing at all. Such camera footage might be the thing that triggers an investigation but the results are what maters. What if the footage caused a lot of noise at the time it was released (wp:NOTNEWS) and many speculated it was proof of embezzling but in the end it just died off. That is what we have here.
The real result of this video is some are more convinced than ever that Ngo has a too cozy relationship with "the far-right" while reporting on conflicts between the far-left and far-right. They feel it proves he is strongly biased and possibly in collaboration with the far-right. I'm totally OK with that accusation being in the lead (it was since last year). The many say the video supports that POV but I suspect many already felt that way before the video. Putting the video in without explaining why it matters/what it means is misleading. Putting in all the context to explain why it matters means it becomes a full paragraph in the lead and thus no longer a summary of the body and becomes UNDUE for the lead (over emphasis). Springee (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Loki: I don't know which article you are reading, but every paragraph in the lead is focused on some controversy. The one under discussion here regarding the "Proud Boys" group consists of salacious and unverified claims that have been disputed in dueling publications and received no mainstream coverage. Apples and oranges. I also suggest revisiting WP:WEIGHT. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

There's no justification for it. It's patently ridiculous, and the only reason it remains is due to edit-warring. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC) I am bringing this up at {{BLP noticeboard}} because I think that there are factual inaccuracies (and BLP concerns) being overlooked in this RfC that are worthy of attention. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note for closing editor: Some consideration should be given for the length of the text in the lead vs in the body of the article. Currently this single incident is 1/4 of the lead text. It's length in the body of the article is significantly less (about 2x the length used in the lead) and the material in the lead fails to be a summary of how the content is used in the article body. Springee (talk) 03:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I've added an undue tag given the paragraph is growing and the explanation above. Springee (talk) 10:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I've removed that tag, because you added it during an RFC about the paragraph in question, and against consensus on that RFC. I don't know why you thought this was a good idea. Loki (talk) 04:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I've restored the tag. You cannot honestly claim that 1/4 of the intro should be devoted to a video that is covered by so little of the overall article. If we want to talk about following process here, the video shouldn't be in the lead since it was disputed prior to the RfC and the RfC is still open. The extreme disparity between the length of this topic in the lead (3 sentence) vs the overall (8 sentences) article is something that any closing of this topic needs to address. Springee (talk) 04:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@LokiTheLiar: I think you misunderstand the purpose of a tag. A tag is meant to indicate an ongoing discussion or disagreement. The RfC is ongoing, and the tag can and should remain for its duration. Finally, there is absolutely no consensus on that RfC. Consensus is not a vote count, and the arguments are incredibly weak. A bunch of editors voted in favor of inclusion without even reviewing the sources and checking for inaccuracies -- namely, that Quillette confirmed Ngo was never fired in relation to the incident. Other than that, this is a made-up controversy. It insinuates that a journalist was somehow involved in a violent plot, an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim for which the sourcing is inadequate. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Springee, well, yes, because without it nobody would know or care who Ngo is. His popularity among the fash is entirely down to his crusade against Antifa and his apologia for neo-Nazis. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Guy, that is false. The antifa adult on Ngo in June was what raised him to nationalism prominence. The video was not. Springee (talk) 10:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I am sure you meant to say alleged there, as the sources do; Ngo claims the people who assaulted him were antifa, but they were never identified and his assumption has never been substantiated (and it is a fact that much of the violence at recent protests has come from counter-protestors, so the caution higher-quality sources have treated that with is generally well-grounded.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I said "adult" so clearly I missed something :D. What I meant to say was the antifa assault on Ngo. Sure, I can't prove it was antifa who decided to assault Ngo but I'm also not putting that in the article. I'm OK with the stable text we had where we said Ngo was assaulted but didn't say in Wiki voice the attackers were antifa members. Springee (talk) 03:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andy_Ngo/Archive_6&oldid=1199202954"