Talk:Andy Ngo/Archive 4

@Jweiss11: (regarding this revert) there are multiple sources, probably as many if not more, calling Ngo "right-wing". If you say this is redundant, I would opt for just keeping right-wing, since it is a better descriptor; Ngo's activism has little to do with the central tenants of conservatism, and more with the wider right-wing movement, hence it is a better adjective for the lead if two is too many. BeŻet (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

It's certainly shouldn't say "right-wing" and "conservative" as that is jarringly redundant. Per the previous discussion above and source cited in the article, "conservative" appears to be used more often than "right-wing". As you may know, I'm not a big fan of labeling Ngo as a conservative in the lead in Wikipedia's voice, as it stands now. I would say that Ngo's work has largely been aimed to shed light on bad behavior by far-left actors, which could as easily be described as centrist or moderate liberal as "right-wing". Jweiss11 (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea in what universe what he does could be described as centrist or moderate liberal since it's closer to far-right propaganda than anything else; however there have been plenty of more sources that have appeared since the last comparison and those need to be accounted for now. BeŻet (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

He's a conservative journalist, per the New York Times and similar high quality RS that are listed above on this page. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, there are plenty of "high quality RS" that call him "right-wing". BeŻet (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

No, there aren't. The majority call him a conservative. You're pushing Rolling Stone and Vice News over the New York Times and ABC News. It's absurd. If you like, we could go with the Washington Post, which calls him an independent journalist. But we're not going to go with a partisan music magazine over the New York Times. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

That's false per evidence below. BeŻet (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

You can claim it's false only if you treat all sources listed as of equal quality, which is of course not our policy. You might want to have a look at WP:RS. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

And what exactly are you referring to my fellow editor? Perhaps you are the one who should read WP:RS because it doesn't tell us anything about "source quality" and how somehow the sources your like are of "higher quality". BeŻet (talk) 14:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that as an international encyclopedia we should avoid using the term conservative which means something different in the U.S. than in the rest of world, where it refers to supporters of throne and altar. TFD (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

TFD, if reliable sources are describing a an American subject in the context of American politics with American terms, those American terms should be used. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Why? TFD (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Because that honors the fundamental principles of Wikipedia? Jweiss11 (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Which ones? TFD (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

1) Reflect the sources and 2) if terminology differs regionally, use the regional terminology local to the subject. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

while articles must reflect the source, there is no requirement to use the exact same language, particularly when it use might lead to confusion. I am unfamiliar with the second principle. Could you please point to the relevant policy or guideline. TFD (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I looked at all the sources that we currently use in the article and tried to sort out how they describe him.

You can all draw your own conclusions, but it seem to me that conservative writer or conservative journalist are the most commonly used descriptions. Vexations (talk) 01:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for this. Good job. If you use this well-regarded "media bias" chart, and you restrict your attention to their top circle of RS, no source in your list that calls him "right-wing" appears in the top circle of the chart. Meanwhile, NYT, WaPo, The Independent, NBC News, and ABC News call him "conservative". It's not even a contest. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

That's false, there are 5 instances of 'conservative', 5 instances of 'right-wing' and 4 instances of 'far-right'. 'Conservative' clearly doesn't dominate, and quite clearly he is more often described as on the "right". To quote User:Shinealittlelight (talk · contribs), it's not even a contest. BeŻet (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Surprised I have to say this, but we don't normally treat the New York Times the same as Jacobin here at Wikipedia. High quality RS should guide the way we present the information. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, I count 18 sources in the list above that call him conservative, not 5. Where did you get that number? Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean Jacobin? Another editor rightly doubted the legitimacy of Breitbart above. We should feel the same way about Jacobin and Salon and few others here. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Comparing Jacobin to Breitbart is absolute nonsense. Utter nonsense. Jacobin, a widely respected magazine and book publisher that collaborates with scholars, professors and important and respected political figures is nothing like Breitbart, a glorifed far-right blog posting unverified claims constanly. It is utterly insanse to make that comparison. I'm stunned. BeŻet (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Jweiss11, I was reading this and it reminded me of this discussion. There is an important distinction be made between biased reporting and untruthfulness, and the author makes the case better than I could. We shouldn't be afraid to use biased sources. We will try as hard as possible to make and keep our articles NPOV, but we can't do that by only using sources that claim to have no bias. As forJacobin, the chart you cited puts them in the top left quadrant (hyper-partisan/complex analysis) of the fair interpretations of the news box, and Breitbart in the lower right (propaganda/conservative utter garbage) nonsense damaging to public discourse box. There's no equivalence. We should not feel the same about their legitimacy. Vexations (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Unlike Breitbard, Jacobin doesn't have a history of fabrication and lies. And frankly, I don't see how its editorial stance is any more or less POV than the NYT. Sorry, no. Jacobin is just fine even if far-right figures wish it wasn't so. (Honestly it isn't even that radical.) Simonm223 (talk) 12:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that Jacobin is not Breitbart, but this is a red herring. The correct comparison here is between places like Jacobin or Media Matters, on the one hand, and places like ABC News, the New York Times, Washington Post, and so on, on the other hand. The major respected news organizations in the above list--the ones that are regarded as of highest reliability by the media bias chart I linked--are all calling him conservative. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but your chart is pointless. Simonm223 (talk) 12:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

So you think Jacobin or Media Matters should be assigned equal weight with ABC News and NYT and WaPo? Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Jacobin certainly should. Then again, that's a low bar. I don't assign any particular significance to ABC News, the Washington Post or the New York Times. They're all just corporate media. Simonm223 (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

If you care to look through the WP:RS/N archives you'll see that my skeptical relationship toward the use of corporate media is a long-running issue not connected specifically to any given article set. Simonm223 (talk) 12:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

That view is out of step with WP:RS. I'm sure you have your reasons, but that's not a workable take on RS for Wikipedia, it seems to me, and so I don't think you're going to get consensus around here to treat Jacobin and NYT the same. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

If you want to raise the question of whether Jacobin is a reliable source you know where to go. As far as I'm concerned, the argument you presented here (including the chart) is entirely without merit. Simonm223 (talk) 12:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you're going to get consensus around here to treat Jacobin and NYT the same – why? There is absolutely nothing in Wikipedia rules to support your statement. Read the whole of WP:RS please. Jacobin is not a WP:QUESTIONABLE source because it hasn't got a poor reputation for checking the facts or no editorial oversight. BeŻet (talk) 14:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The terms are similar, but not identical and not mutually exclusive. As both have been used in reputable reporting, we should be fine keeping both here. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 13:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I honestly don't see how WaPo is more reliable than Jacobin. Even WaPo's "fact checks" are heavily critisized for being highly biased and inacurrate. Likewise NYT has bias; all media sources are partisan and biased. But I digress: we should focus more on the sources that appeared after he was exposed as a grifter, not before when he managed to fool the media. BeŻet (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest that "conservative" is less problematic and sufficient in this case for wiki voice. I do see the concern raised that some of the sources are very left biased and seem to use "far-right" as a pejorative. This seems to be used frequently by lower quality (but still RS) such as HuffPo, Vice and Rolling Stone. The more traditional news sources, WashPo, NYT, ABC use conservative. It would be reasonable to say sources have also described him as "far-right" but given the loaded nature of that term it shouldn't be in Wiki voice. This is a BLP article so we should always err on the side of avoiding labels that could be considered controversial or include attribution in cases where they are used. Springee (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. Right-wing is a wider term and more inclusive, and encompases more of his views. Once again, look at the sources after he was exposed. Previously media called him what they were told he was, and a lot of them reported on him for the first time when he got punched and right-wing media set the narrattive. BeŻet (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree with Bezet on this one. @Springee: just to be sure, I re-read the WP:BLP policy now and your representation of it seems to be stretching the policy, especially as "far-right" is not listed in WP:LABEL to begin with (though I understand why extreme conservative activists would love to paint themselves DARVO-style as somehow victims when their positions are properly recognized in position on the political spectrum). It would be fair for the lede to point out that he has been described as conservative, as right-wing, and far-right, each sourced inline. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Considering there does not appear to be a consensus among sources about precisely how close to the far-right tNgo is, I'd say 6years' suggestion is probably the most appropriate one from a BLP perspective. Simonm223 (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I would support an attributed list. I think that plus some acknowledgement of what Ngo calls himself would probably be a good compromise. It sidesteps concerns about using Wikivoice for something that may be contentious and I suspect it would be "acceptable if not preferred" for most editors. Springee (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Springee: The best example I can show you is Richard B. Spencer. It is unquestionable that Spencer is a neo-nazi and white supremacist even though he personally "rejects those labels" in favor of other, weasel-wordy terms. Ngo isn't far off the mark here, the reporting is extremely solid on where his political views and rhetoric and the storylines he attempts to create with dishonest editing fall, whether or not he rejects the description.

In a related note, the sourcing on the sentence "Ngo has been widely described as right-wing and conservative, although he does not describe himself as such" in Political Views needs cleaning up. It looks like at least some of those sources only support the first clause, not the second, and sticking all the sources at the end is dubiously close to WP:SYNTH.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 6YearsTillRetirement (talk • contribs) 20:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't see us disagreeing here. Something like, "Ngo is described as right-wing, conservative, X and Y [sources]. Ngo describes himself as Z[sources]". Springee (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Springee, I agree with you that the article, in lead and body, should say something like "Ngo is described as...Ngo describes himself". I've argued earlier with respect to the lead. However, other editors here want a firm declaration, in Wikipedia's voice, of Ngo's political alignment. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Ngo's self-description is irrelevant. It's a standard tactic of the far-right to claim they are closer to the center of the political spectrum than they really are in order to shift the Overton Window. Wikipedia should not be an amplification system for such antics. Simonm223 (talk) 12:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

What is the harm? Are readers of the article better or worse off by saying what NGO considers himself vs what others label him? Springee (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I mean I literally just described the harm in my previous comment. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

No, you described why you think how description is wrong. You didn't articulate how this harms the reader of the article. Why is their understanding of the subject diminished? Springee (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Then let me spell this out for you: giving any WP:DUE credence to the self-description of far-right media figures explicitly harms the neutrality of Wikipedia by using it as an amplification vehicle for the attempts of the far-right to shift the Overton Window. As such, and per WP:PROFRINGE we should use secondary sources to describe the position of fringe political actors such as Ngo. Effectively, Ngo is not a reliable source for his position within the political spectrum. Simonm223 (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Valuing the opinions and honoring the bias of politically-biased editors to the point where it distorts article content also compromises the neutrality of Wikipedia. That's exactly what's happening here. Jweiss11 (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll thank you to remember WP:NPA. Simonm223 (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223, remember above when when you PA'd another editor? "I honestly don't know what to say to somebody who can look at the evidence presented and at Ngo's tweets and conclude that it appears he was correct about the hammer attack beyond perhaps Conservapedia would be a better fit for your editing preferences". Jweiss11 (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Ngo is a reliable source for his statements as to what he classifies himself. The Due argument is weak since the subject of what Ngo should be classified as is already due for the article. Are we saying no sources quote Ngo claiming he is X? I haven't verified if the claim comes from AndyNgo.com or if it comes from an article/interview with Ngo. If the latter then DUE is doubly satisfied. Profringe doesn't really apply. Are we suggesting it is a fringe theory that Ngo considered himself to be X? This isn't his theory on something. We aren't trying to suggest why a flat Earth theory is actually sound. Here we are simply stating that he considers him self to be X. It's a perfectly reasonable follow up to "others consider him to be Y and Z". Not censored says being objectionable is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content and I don't see how his views are even that objectionable. Springee (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, from an earlier discussion, []. The Guardian says Ngo considers himself a journalist. So I think we can cover DUE. Springee (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Springee, repeating falsehoods credulously without accurately reporting how they are false harms reader understanding of a topic (especially in cases where someone or some group are known to misrepresent their position in the political spectrum for the purposes of mainstreaming hate and extremism). Simonm223 is correct about this as I read the policy; Ngo is not a credible source to place himself on the political spectrum and the "he considers himself" is "unduly self-serving" (point 1) with "reasonable doubt as to the authenticity" (e.g. honesty) (point 4) per WP:SELFSOURCE, since his honesty is in doubt. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

6YearsTillRetirement, apologies for removing your comment. That was an accident. I intended to revert your edit on the article, not your comment on the talk page here! Jweiss11 (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: I'm going to have to ask, did you even read what you reverted? None of those sources support the "although he does not describe himself as such" clause of the sentence. Unsourced or poorly sourced, dubious material and claims violate WP:BLP. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

6YearsTillRetirement, as for your last comment replying to Springee, Ngo is in, fact rather centrist politically. There's a campaign by many hard-left journalists and far-left activists to smear him as some sort of far-right extremist, and unfortunately that effort is being reinforced by a number or editors here. This article is, frankly, is disaster, and a total compromise of Wikipedia's aims for neutrality. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'm familiar with what I reverted. Multiple editors are running a defamatory hit-job here. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, you certainly appear to have an agenda, which is pretty much evidenced when you start accusing others of "running a defamatory hit-job" and so on. There's not much I can do other than note it. I politely ask you once more to reconsider what appears to be a knee-jerk motion, since you did it so quickly and unthinkingly you admit doing it on the wrong page the first time, and in doing so you restored claims that are not supported by the inline source. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

6years, There is nothing false about saying "Ngo considers himself X". That is a fact. It is supported by The Guardian and the Rogan interview. We are not claiming in Wiki voice that Ngo is what Ngo claims, only that Ngo claims that. We are also saying what others say to the same question. It's clear there isn't a real consensus answer among the other sources. The "self-serving" claim is beyond a stretch. We aren't posting a manifesto here. As I asked Simonm223, how does "Ngo considers himself X" harm readers? With regards to your material removal [], I agree with removal of the Rogan interview quotes but not the earlier line. Can we meet half way on that? Springee (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Springee, none of those inline sources support the 2nd half of that sentence. If you can show the wording they use that you believe does in this talk page, be my guest but I literally read through all four to be sure before removing that half of the sentence. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

6YearsTillRetirement, my agenda here is to build an encyclopedia. That's what hundreds of thousands of edits over a decade and half testify to. What is your agenda here? Jweiss11 (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not the one making unsupportable conspiracy theory or battleground-mentality claims like "a campaign by many hard-left journalists and far-left activists to smear him as some sort of far-right extremist" or "Multiple editors are running a defamatory hit-job here." They're not helpful to a discussion. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not an unsupportable conspiracy theory. It's commonplace political collaboration. Hard-leftists have a well-documented history of labeling anyone sufficiently to their left as "far-right". Hard-righties can distort reality in similar ways as well. We've got a major bias problem here. There has to be a place somewhere on Wikipedia to discuss it with out someone crying about personal attacks or "battleground-mentality". Jweiss11 (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment It looks to me like there's some individual WP:POV issues here. "Conservative" is a more appropriate description, there's no need or call for additional wording. We wouldn't say "conservative right wing" in conversation, so it really shouldn't be put here--unless, in conversation, someone was pushing for a particular point of view--in that case, they might say "conservative right wing" or "liberal left wing" or "orange-green slippery Martian". There is no need for extra adjectives--that makes the text and content more wordy and less encyclopedic. Further, pushing for more seems to be brining editors' personal preference into the article and we seek to avoid that. Even if it isn't a case of an editor pushing a POV, it looks like it is and that should be avoided.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • A little research Here is CNN] calling him a "young, conservative journalist." For the sake of this article, we could drop "young" and keep it at "conservative journalist" --- that should be fine and really be enough to close this big discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

If you review the full discussion you will see one of the main issues with that. It's stale and outdated due to the recent developments. The 2nd issue @Paulmcdonald: is that you've linked an opinion piece, not actual CNN, so it's not actually CNN calling him that, per WP:RSOPINION. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The problem with terms like conservative and right-wing is that they only make sense when context is provided. Conservative for exampe could describe anyone from George H.W. Bush to David Duke, and has been applied to hardline Soviet leaders and the ayatollahs. The sources used provide context but our use of the term in this article doesn't. TFD (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree, labels like "conservative, liberal, right-wing, left-wing" all are a matter of opinion: there's no "yardstick" or "hard measurement" that is used to classify--we have to use opinions. Therefore, an "opinion piece" in a reliable source should indeed settle the issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

"Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable." - from WP:RSOPINION. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we've fully adressed the argument about how newer sources should be preferred over older sources, when the media didn't know much about Ngo. BeŻet (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Are the newer sources as reliable as the old ones? If an older article by the NYT says "conservative journalist" and a recent article by VICE or Daily Beast says "right-wing agitator" which should we trust more? I would say the NYT. Springee (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

An article based on information - particularly credulous repetition of the subject's self-labeling - before a significant sea change / powerful revelation is inherently flawed. It would be like giving weight to an interview from Mel Gibson claiming not to be a bigot from a month before his drunk driving arrest, while ignoring the transcript of the arrest replete with Gibson repeating anti-semitic slurs. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Many of the initial sources wrote about Ngo for the first time when he got punched (mainly because Andy did nothing notable before, apart from writing an offensive article about London that was talked about a bit more, mainly in negative terms). I wouldn't say those sources had a lot of knowledge regarding his activities and ideaology at the time, and it's quite possible that those sources just repeated the descriptor that appeared early on ("conservative journalist"). Now that time has passed and people had time to research him, and damning evidence has surfaced related to his actions, more revent descriptions, in my view, seem more important and valid. BeŻet (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

So we should follow the muckrakers rather than the most reliable sources. Springee (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, labelling your preferred sources as "most reliable" isn't constructive. Secondly, popularity of a source does not indicate how reliable it is. Finally, we have reliable sources who have described him in a certain way after he got "unmasked", while the past sources didn't follow up on his person later on. BeŻet (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I have more faith that the NYT, WashPo ABC news etc will be more objective and neutral than the second string reporters at things like The Daily Beast, VICE, etc. Springee (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Luckily on Wikipedia it doesn't mattter much how you personally feel about those sources. I for example think WaPo is farsically partisan and full of inacuraccies, yet I won't call for banning it as a source. BeŻet (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Luckily consensus does matter. I'm glad that neither of us have called for banning a source... I certainly didn't. Springee (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be inconsistent on what you call objective, neutral, reliable, etc, based more on what you like and don't like. Since previously above you were trying to argue that Huffington Post was more reliable than The Oregonian (whose online presence is Oregon Live). 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

"I don't like it" isn't a talisman that will save your argument. Springee (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Be that as it may, 6Years has every right to point out that your argument regarding the reliability of sources seems inconsistent - Previously you argued that you preferred the (new media) Huffington Post over the staid local Oregonian. Now you're arguing for the staid, traditional mass media over new media. There's nothing inherently more reliable about the New York Times than Vice. Both have editorial standards, both will issue corrections when they get things wrong and, frankly, both engage in a gamut of journalism from sensationalist clickbait through long-form investigative work. What's going on here is, generally a misinterpretation of WP:DUE. As I mentioned previously, when we have a variety of opinions on a topic coming from a variety of reliable sources, we should demonstrate that there is not agreement within reliable sources by stating that he has been characterized variously as a conservative, a far-right provocateur, etc. We shouldn't be deciding in Wiki voice which of the multitude of ways this BLP has been described is the most-correct one. Simonm223 (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

6years, and you are taking a comment said in one context and trying to distort it to fit in this context. None of which addresses the larger point, why should we take the opinion on news sources that are more tabloid in nature and don't have the reputation for accuracy that the NYT, WP et al. have earned and use their opinion instead? Then again, I thought we had a reasonable solution which was to attribute all the descriptions. I know we didn't agree with including Ngo's description as reported in other sources but that we can still debate. It's notable that currently we have no consensus on this so perhaps we should simply remove any contentious portion of the description from the article. Springee (talk) 12:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

You have not established that this is the case - are you actually saying you believe Vice to be a tabloid? Or The Daily Beast? I would suggest, as I have referred you regarding other rather extreme complaints you have regarding some of the sources used in this article, that this would be a matter best raised at WP:RS/N where I suspect you may face some pushback on the suggestion these sources are not reliable. Simonm223 (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

ETA Having re-read your comment I don't believe we disagree in broad-strokes that statements regarding his political position should A) be attributed to their sources and B) should come from reliable sources. It's just I contend that some of the sources that call Ngo, who has been recorded coordinating activities with Patriot Prayer, far-right should be treated as reliable and that Ngo should not himself be treated as reliable as his comments on Joe Rogan could be construed as an attempt to shift the Overton Window. After all, it's a widely discussed piece of political science that the far-right attempts to manipulate the Overton Window. And if we have a figure who is variously described by reliable third parties as conservative through far-right and he claims to be centrist. Well... That claim is ^{[dubious – discuss]} at best. Simonm223 (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Once again, let me rephrase the issue: we have a lot of reliable sources describing Ngo in different ways, and we need to find a way to comb through them to find a good term encompassing everything. I am suggesting we express preference for more recent sources that have discussed Ngo after his mask slipped, and sources that have investigated his activities more deeply, compared to sources that just reported on him getting punched in the face (and did not follow with any story about him afterwards). BeŻet (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

And once again, I suggest we stick with the more established, reliable, less reactionary sources for the description. The "mask slipped" is a debated claim and seems to be one that some cling to as justification for biased reporting. Sorry. At this point I would suggest sticking with the current lead. It's largely unchanged from a month back and we have no consensus for "right-wing" etc. Springee (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

You have avoided answering my question concerning whether you truly believe certain sources you mentioned, including Vice Media and The Daily Beast to be tabloids and unreliable as sources. I understand you prefer the New York Times in this instance. I'm not advocating to prefer Vice over it just to give WP:DUE mention to both. Simonm223 (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Do you know what reactionary means? And one more time, painting those sources as more reliable is your own personal opinion. There is nothing present in Wikipedia guidelines that would define them as more reliable. BeŻet (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

In reply to both. This is going round and round. RS doesn't treat all sources the same. We have sources that have better and lesser reputations. The views of papers like NYT or WashPo are generally seen as more reliable than smaller papers. Sources with long standing reputations are generally seen as more reliable than sources like the Daily Beast or say Mother Jones. That doesn't mean that DB or MJ are not reliable but that we give more weight to statements made by the sources with stronger reputation. As for the question around "reactionary", I'm not trying to use it in the political sense so let's not play that game. At this point you may not like my opinion but I'm OK with the current consensus lead. Springee (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

"the mask slipped is a debated claim" sure and and De Nile is just a river in Egypt. It's a "big coincidence don't look behind the curtain" that he got his propagandist ass fired the day the video took the mask off.

@6YearsTillRetirement:, your recent changes to the lead are not supported by consensus. You have changed what appears to be a long standing version of the lead. Your arguments for removal are not sound. Here you cite SELFSOURCE. That fails because the article makes it clear the claim is attributed to Ngo directly. It is not an unduely self serving claim nor is there any rational reason to believe Ngo didn't actually say what was quoted. This edit [] is misleading since you removed one source that supported it and we have The Guardian article (mentioned previously in this discussion) which also supports it. Please self revert or address the problems with your reasoning. Springee (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Having reviewed this further, I don't think the lead can be counted as long standing. For that reason I strike the request to revert. The logic for removal is still unsound but NOCON can apply. Springee (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

1 - I didn't change the lead. I changed the section on political opinions and it has been amply established in discussions above that Ngo is not trustworthy to represent his own position on the political spectrum accurately, much less in circumstances like a non-RS opinion webcast like Rogan's where there will be no editorial fact-checking or review.

2 - The secondary clause in the one sentence was not supported by the four sources. The fifth source which I removed, does not appear to qualify for WP:RS as "Slog" is a group blog that operates outside of the normal editorial review of the paper publication.

As a point of constructive criticism, I think you would be better off if you make it a practice to slow down and fully read edits before attacking them, especially when someone even does the courtesy of writing a detailed edit summary. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I did get the wrong location. Ok, that material has been in the article since July. Thus it is long standing. That Ngo's opinion of himself may not fit the facts doesn't change that we can assume Ngo's own words and other sources accurately reflect what he claims to be. We csn certainly add The Guardian to support the other two sources. Springee (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not fault whichever editor added the Herzog by mistake. The Stranger (newspaper) is not as good as it should be about clearly marking what is part of their opinion group blog "Slog" and what is normally vetted, fact checked, journalistic content. You have to go all the way down to the bottom to spot the disclosure in small text. The fact remains that the WP:RS-qualifying sources did not support the second half of the sentence, and clauses that are not supported by a source should be placed after the sources, not before which makes it appear as if they are supported. And since the review showed that no WP:RS supported the second clause, I removed it. Feel free to find a WP:RS to support that clause and it can be easily re-entered and sourced inline. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

So let me make sure we are clear, you are OK restoring this text [] so long as we have a better source? Springee (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

" although he does not describe himself as such" in this context would require a strong WP:RS with wording that does not violate WP:SELFSOURCE as repeatedly discussed by multiple commenters, not just myself, above. If one is provided to support the wording there would be no problem. The problems were (and again you seem to be trying to goad):

1- as it existed was that no WP:RS, WP:SELFSOURCE-compatible source supported the clause.

2- The inclusion of the sources that only supported the first half of the sentence at the end, made it look as if the second clause was supported by those sources when it was not. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Binksternet:, while your edit was BOLD[], I'm not sure it's a good summary of the long discussions above. The most consistent descriptor is conservative. I think this is a discussion that needs a closing rather than just a BOLD edit. Springee (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Really? How many sources are you ignoring, ones that call him right wing? Binksternet (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Please review the discussion above. It's should be clear that there is not consensus to make the change you just did. You are welcome to join in the discussion and disagree with various editors. Your edit was BOLD but since there is already a discussion related to the topic you shouldn't make the change without joining the discussion here. Springee (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Your complaint is merely procedural, that I did not participate in discussion here. I don't need to: the discussion was very thorough with regard to Ngo being right wing, including far-right and reactionary. "Conservative" is of course a euphemism, but we include it because the sources do. Binksternet (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Not exactly. My concern is that you made a change but there wasn't consensus to support that change and a number of editors objected to that exact change. As such we are in a NOCON state. Springee (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

BeŻet is in favor of including "right wing", Jweiss11 is against both "right wing" and "conservative" so that's a wash, The Four Deuces is against "conservative" and appears to be fine with right wing, Shinealittlelight is for "conservative", Vexations is in favor of "conservative", Simonm223 is in favor of "far right", and 6YearsTillRetirement (in his valid edits made before September 18 socking with Cooglyfe) was in favor of both "right wing" and "conservative", same as myself. Paul McDonald is in favor of "conservative" mainly because he thinks it includes the concept of right wing, which would make a redundancy if both were shown. So five in favor of right wing and six in favor of conservative. To me it's clear that both terms are sufficiently supported here. Binksternet (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I would go for "right-wing" (by my reading more recent sources have shifted towards that, especially after the recent video surfaced), but "right-wing conservative" works as well. I'd also note that very few people above have specifically opposed either term, and both are very well cited. --Aquillion (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

This issue is still a problem, with Springee disruptively removing "right-wing" despite roughly equal support seen here for right wing and for conservative. Looks to me like ownership issues, a behavioral problem. Binksternet (talk) 04:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Please wp:FOC and NPA. As you say, about half do not support the inclusion of right-wing. That means we have a NOCON for it's inclusion. Springee (talk) 05:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

You continue to ignore the fact that support voiced here for "right-wing" is roughly equal to support voiced here for "conservative", which means if someone is of the opinion that one isn't appropriate then neither is the other. Judging by talk page support and opposition, both terms should stand together or fall together. I see enough support for both. I also see that with your unbalanced application of wikilawyering, you have effectively shown your argument to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and you have become a behavioral problem. Binksternet (talk) 05:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Then get consensus. A number of editors are clearly against "right wing". Also drop the aspersions. Springee (talk) 05:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

There's no consensus for including "right wing". I'm also against it. Please focus on content. Shinealittlelight (talk) 05:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Pretending to be dense is not going to help your case. Consensus here is equally supportive of "right-wing" and "conservative". And I will continue to point out that you have become a problem on this page, as long as it continues to be apparent. Your hostility to "right-wing", a term found in many of our sources, is a barrier to progress. You are violating WP:Neutral point of view, a hard policy. Binksternet (talk) 05:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Several reliable sources call Ngo a writer to distinguish him from journalists, since his work is usually politically motivated and often contains inaccuracies. Darthmenisis (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I think we should definitely consider this, as it's true that a lot of people question the "journalist" label. BeŻet (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

It has already been discussed at length. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

That's inaccurate, it has been discussed, but not "at length", and his image in the media is constantly evolving. BeŻet (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

It's been discussed elsewhere. In any case, the current consensus is that he's a journalist. He's described that way in tons of RS across the spectrum. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

If he's been proven to give half truths and otherwise distort information on a fairly frequent basis, then we should probably consider that in addition to what RS say Darthmenisis (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I think we should consider at least calling him a "right-wing journalist" (or "right-wing conservative journalist"). He has been called right-wing by several reliable sources, and I think this description more aptly matches what he does and where he stands. BeŻet (talk) 13:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The previous discussion was closed prematurely (by someone who was involved in the discussion and wanted to call him a journalist, cutting off someone who was objecting, no less.) While some sources describe him as a journalist, others express obvious skepticism. For example:

• Oregon Live calls him right-wing writer in headline, Andy Ngo, a right-leaning provocateur with online news and opinion outlet Quillette, which identifies Ngo as an editor and photojournalist, went to the left-wing demonstration around noon on Saturday in body. Attributing his status to Quillette rather than stating it in-text is a clear indication of skepticism.
• The Guardian says that Ngo describes himself as a journalist, and his work has appeared almost exclusively in hyper-partisan conservative outlets like The College Fix. There was no media accreditation, but Ngo captured cellphone video, and this became the unchallenged record of the event. Again, "describes himself as" is a clear expression of skepticism.
• GQ describes him as a conservative activist.
• Business Insider describes him as an editor at Quillette.
• Portland Mercury describes him as a conservative writer.
• The Independent describes him as a conservative writer.
• Buzzfeed specifically notes that the descriptor is controversial, saying that Smaller, semantic debates have spun off, mostly on Twitter, about the nature of the word “journalist” as it applies to Ngo and the nature of the word “violence” as it applies to nonphysical harm.
• Daily Beast calls him a "writer".
• Huffington Post calls him a "writer"

That's enough to show, I think, that his description as a journalist is not uncontroversial and should not be stated in the lead as uncontroversial fact. Either way, both these sources and the ones referring to him as a journalist also tend to add the descriptor of conservative or right-wing, so one of those should be in the lead regardless. --Aquillion (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that there is enough skepticism around this, and some media outlets simply described him as a journalist because he self-described himself as such. BeŻet (talk) 10:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I think this source could be a starting point for discussing whether it is worth describing him here as a journalist. Moreover, after the media realised he is a grifter, a lot of them started putting "journalist" in quotation marks. BeŻet (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

He's a blogger and propagandist. Calling him a writer is overly kind, but infinitely superior to calling what he does journalism. Simonm223 (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

While I agree with this sentiment, we need to base this around what the sources say and build a case for a different name. Right now I don't think the "journalist" label dominates too much in the media, so we can definitely use a different term. BeŻet (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• I have no love for Andy Ngo, but if we're going to have this conversation we better list out the sources that have called him a journalist, too:
  • NYTimes conservative journalist
  • ABC News conservative journalist
  • The Hill, a journalist at conservative website Quilette ... journalist
  • CNN conservative journalist
  • Fox News journalist and photographer
  • Oregon Public Broadcasting part-time journalist
  • Rolling Stone right-wing journalist and provocateur
  • New York Intelligencer journalist
  • Portland Tribune, graduate student and journalist ... independent journalist
  • The Times American journalist
  • Vox conservative journalist
  • VICE News Portland-based journalist ... Right-Wing Blogger
  • The Independent conservative journalist

(It's worth noting all these pieces were written before the latest controversy, however.) WanderingWanda (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

In the arena of the written word, a journalist is a type of writer, one who writes specifically about current events. Ngo writes about current events. He is therefore a journalist. It’s pretty simple. Now one may think he is a bad or unethical journalist, and one may be even be correct about that. I have my own doubts about Ngo’s integrity. But this doesn’t make him not a journalist. The assertion that Ngo is not a “journalist” is an antifa talking point. Do we want Wikipedia to be speaking in antifa’s voice here? I suspect some regular editors here do. But what about the rest of us? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll add that calling him a "conservative journalist" has a certain appeal because people who don't like him tend to object to the "journalist" part and people who do tend to object to the "conservative" part. (The ideal compromise: one that makes no one happy!) Incidentally, regardless of what we call him, I think the fact that the "journalist" label has been debated should probably be mentioned somewhere in the article. WanderingWanda (talk) 02:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Standards people. The name *Journalist* is a designation that should be held to the highest standards.

And immediately revoked and permanently once said person showcases absolutely blantant disregard for ethics or impartiality.

The question is has Andy Ngo done this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timotam1952 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

No, “journalist” is a simple neutral descriptor for someone who produces content about current events, particularly as a paid professional in established publications. Do we really want Wikipedia speaking in antifa’s voice here? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

That is incorrect, I agree with Timotam1952 that the term "journalist" indicates some level of professionalism that Andy Ngo, when looking at his past "achievements", seems controversial. Moreover, it is not our job to decide whether he is a journalist or not, but it's our job to look at sources and what they day. In the light of recent controversies, several media outlets have questioned the "journalist" label. We are now discussing what is the most appropriate label considering all this. BeŻet (talk) 10:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Then one could simply say writer instead as a neutral term.

-- A writer is someone who is able to be paid to write

(be it a short story... or false/egregiously misleading/plagiarised/ writing about "current events" etc.)

So again the question I ask is, has Andy Ngo been egregious in any way to paint an egregiously misleading story and/or blantantly disregarded facts or ethics?

If so then I believe he should be called a writer at this stage ... at the very most.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Timotam1952 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not particularly happy that we are having this conversation when previous consensus already determined that Ngo should be called a journalist. I see nothing wrong with Wander's suggestion that we preface it with "Conservative journalist" and think that should be enough to explain to readers that Ngo is more ideological than the typical journalist (who are in fact supposed to be neutral fact finders/reporters). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• That is not a meaningful consensus. As I read it, someone objected, you disagreed with their objection, they changed their mind, and when a second objection arose you cut it off by closing the discussion despite being clearly involved in it; no discussion consisting of four people could reasonably be considered a clear-cut enough close for someone obviously involved to close it as a consensus, while an objection has just been raised. I can understand your reasoning (from your perspective, when the other person backed down it was over, and it would have been tiresome to repeat the conversation with someone else when there was a 3-1 majority.) But someone involved in a discussion can't close it that quickly while there's clear disagreement and expect it to be taken seriously as an established consensus, especially when so few people were involved in the first place. --Aquillion (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

But this discussion is now happening in the context of recent controversies surrounding him, and more media scrutiny being performed regarding his person. BeŻet (talk) 09:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• Considering BeŻet's argument that sources calling Ngo a journalist arise from prior to his firing from Quillette for getting caught on tape offering to run media interference for fascist gangs in exchange for access, I think adhering to the RSes that call him a writer is more neutral. Simonm223 (talk) 12:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223: I was not actually aware Ngo was fired for that... gosh dang. I'm fine with calling him a writer then. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Being clear, Quillette claims that it's all a big coincidence that they fired him immediately after that footage was released. But most commentators are sort of laughing at that. Simonm223 (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Bezet, opinion pieces and the reporting of opinions do no change the definition of basic words like “journalist”. Jweiss11 (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

But him being a journalist isn't WP:BLUESKY, at least in my opinion. We should go with the lowest common denominator based on all of the sources. I personally think "writer" is a good neutral term, and there seem to be other editors who concur, but I do understand other editors feel that "journalist" is adequate. BeŻet (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

"Writer" seems better, on balance. XOR'easter (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I think we are slowly reaching consensus here that "writer" is a better term. Should we give this another 24 hours and then change? BeŻet (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Strongly oppose the use of "writer" here. "Journalist" is not a moral distinction. It is a technical one that is apt here because of the type of writing and photo/video work that Ngo has done. Even if we can conclude that Ngo is an unethical journalist, that does not make him not a journalist. Note the use of "journalist" in the leads of Brian Williams, Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair despite their unethical disgraces while performaning their journalism. There's been a campaign by antifa and a number of antifa-allied or antifa-sympathizing journalists to declare Ngo "not a journalist" on what they believe are ethical grounds going to back to at least the time of his assault in June. Do we really want Wikipedia to speak in antifa's voice here? Jweiss11 (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

If we spoke in "antifa's voice", we would describe him as a "far-right propagandist" or a "grifter". Once again, it is not our job tot decide whether he is a journalist or not, but digest what the sources are saying and choose the most adequate label. Finally, comparing Brian Williams to a person who only had his first internship a mere two years ago and was a media editor, wrote his first op-ed just over a year ago, is... strange. BeŻet (talk) 10:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if my formatting is wrong, in advance. If we do not call Ngo a journalist, we would have to change a lot of other Wikipedia articles about other people who have done similar or even worse things. I looked at a lot of WP pages, and the general consensus seems to be that someone becomes a “former journalist” when they stop doing reporting. So, unless we can show some reason to go against Wikipedia’s policy of not publishing negative information about living people without a lot of evidence, it could be considered original research or libel, which I would oppose. Gonzo journalism is a type of journalism that Andy could reasonably claim to be doing. Let’s not violate WP policy. It will just get tagged and most likely reverted.

As to who “cares about him getting punched,” I find it abhorrent that anyone here would encourage violence against anyone and record it in a public forum. Many people are pacifists and oppose all violence, not just “the Breitbart set.” Your bias is showing. Please be a reasonable, neutral interlocutor if you wish to be respected.

Pammalamma (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Bezet, "not a journalist" is also antifa's voice, just like "far-right propagandist" and "grifter". I brought up Brian Williams, among others, because he is example of someone whose unethical journalism hasn't negated his status as a journalist on Wikipedia--as it should not since "journalist" is not a moral distinction. The same goes for Glass and Blair, among many others. I was making no comparison between these various journalists accomplishments or tenure. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

No it's not, what does antifascism got to do with assessing who is a journalist and who isn't? BeŻet (talk) 11:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Well ... Perhaps we *should* be changing other Wikipedia articles like the Brian Williams one.

I just cannot see how everyone who writes and gets paid is a journalist. Journalist does have a standard. You are right that some journalism might be shoddy or weak, but if someone has egregiously and intentionally mislead or obscured facts, lied etc

... I don't see how that is journalism being practiced. Perhaps that's the key word.

Is Andy Ngo practicing journalism.... Or pretending to ... and getting paid?

I don't see an issue with calling him a writer. If anything it's a more neutral term than "conservative journalist".

The distinction is to be fair ultimately one of ethics and that is subjective.

But let's look at The New York Times, it is sometimes referred to as left leaning publication, but an individual journalist that works for them is not described as "a liberal journalist". At least not on Wikipedia pages of NYT individual journalist.

You are either a journalist or you are not. You either practice some form of principled standard ethics of reporting ... or you do not.

You can be a crappy journalist who only hears from one side of an issue... But egregiously obscuring, faking or outright lying ... that is not journalism.

There is not a single journalism school or bipartisan read news organisation that would see that as journalism. Not a single. And I challenge anyone to find one that does in say a news organisations Code of Ethics page or some journalism textbook to find one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timotam1952 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

We're not the only ones struggling with what to call him. As Arun Gupta observed in Jacobin: The media don’t know what to make of Andy Ngo. The problem with "writer" is that it doesn't cover everything he does or has done. He worked as an editor, opinion-writer, reporter, photographer, videographer and podcaster. In summary: he produces content for news media. He doesn't appear to be employed, so the most accurate description is the one the New York Times uses here: "independent journalist". It doesn't matter that his adherence to journalistic standards is questioned. We still call Nazi propagandists Henri Nannen and Hermann Esser journalists. Vexations (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

We could call him a "content creator" then, however that's not a term used in any RS I think. I still think we should look at what the sources say in this case, however you are write to point out he has worn multiple hats during his (short) career. BeŻet (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, "content creator" is more accurate, but no reliable sources that I can find call him that. Maybe we should just call him a student. He doesn't appear to have graduated from PSU's Graduate Program in Political Science yet. Vexations (talk) 22:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Above unsigned comment was made by Vexations. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Eh it's 2019, everyone in digital media is going to have various roles.

Also yes there appears to be Nazi's who have the term journalist on Wikipedia. But I'm not sure we can surmise why or how they came to that point. Also one of those has Nazi propagandist right after the word journalist...

We should simply look at our own discussion/debate and how we came to it.

Andy Ngo is unlikely a journalist by any standard.

And if he is not a journalist

Does that not make him an activist?

Seems like a more apt description perhaps.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timotam1952 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Activist probably captures all of his work. Darthmenisis (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Activist does sound like a good description, probably even better than "writer", do we have consensus on this? BeŻet (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

No, we don't have a consensus on this, since to cherry pick the one obviously partisan source (GQ) that calls him an activist would be a violation of NPOV. Most major RS call him a conservative journalist, and so that's what we should call him. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

We have already achieved consensus above to call him a writer, but we gave this a bit more time. Also, it is false that most major RS call him a conservative journalist. BeŻet (talk) 12:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

He should be labeled as an "activist," because he purposefully promotes a conservative/Trump-oriented agenda and purposefully promotes an anti-liberal/anti-Democratic Party agenda. That kind of activism is, of course, protected in his country, but it shouldn't be referred to under the banner of "journalism." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.169.190 (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

This conversation is still happening? He is NOT a journalist. That word has a specific meaning. Unfortunately, that word seems to have lost its meaning. DFS (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• This conversation is laughable, Ngo is a propagandist. What are his credentials, where is the journalistic output? All I see is a man who takes a position then seeks out random crap that fits his narrative. Calling him a journalist is an insult to real journalists. He is a propagandist, at best. Bacondrum (talk) 11:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Writer or Activist nine supporters: Darthmenisis Bacondrum 98.218.169.190 BeŻet Timotam1952 Aquillion Simonm223 XOR'easter MJL

Student One supporter: Vexations

Journalist three supporters: Shinealittlelight Pammalamma WanderingWanda

Jweiss11 hasn't been counted as they are topic banned. So that's a pretty firm consensus for writer or activist, most sources say activist, so I'm going to got ahead and change that with appropriate citations. Bacondrum (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

It's misleading to just call him a journalist in the lead without any of the information on why that label is disputed. He is a biased political agent, with a history of publishing misleading information and doxxing people he doesn't like. The line "He has also been accused of using selectively edited videos to paint antifascist activists as violent, and to underplay the violence of the far-right", or something similar in effect, should be added to the lead. Shadybabs (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Calton, this content [] has been twice rejected. That means it doesn't have consensus for inclusion. The onus is on those wishing to include to justify it's inclusion. You should not be restoring it without a talk page discussion after two editors have independently removed it. Springee (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that content is a WP:POVPUSH, the article is mostly just a description of an interview with the teen. To pull one sentence, and include information that isn't supported, is not WP: NPOV. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The source is good, the text needs work. Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources "The Daily Dot is considered generally reliable for Internet culture.” The article in question is about Instagram, Twitter, and Doxxing which are all part of internet culture. I don’t think its possible to challenge them as a WP:RS in context, what we *must* do is accurately reflect the contents of the RS which the current language falls short of. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

It's a bit of a stretch to put this material under the umbrella of "internet culture" vs a portion of the culture war that happens to be expressed on the internet. There is also the issue that the text is terrible. It doesn't accurately reflect the source regardless of what we think about the reliability of the source. Finally, even if we agree the source is reliable, per ONUS we still have a question of weight. On what grounds does this even have sufficient weight for inclusion. Springee (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree that the text given did not accurately reflect the source. Since it was reported in a WP:RS the WP:WEIGHT discussion is about how much to include not whether to include it at all. We aren’t using them as a source for anything not directly related to internet culture. Whether or not its part of a larger “culture war” as you put it is irrelevant because we aren’t using this source for commentary on a “culture war” (if we can could objectively say such a thing exists). I don’t know how else to describe doxing except as part of internet culture, it certainly isn't unique to any “culture war." It appears newsworthy to me, do you object to including it if the text is short and accurately reflects the source material? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Also just a note that the phrase culture war isn't mentioned anywhere on the page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Please review Wp:ONUS. We have a semi-RS. Next we would need text that passes WP:V. At that point ONUS applies as those who wish to include need to show weight for inclusion. Simple inclusion in a (context dependent) RS doesn't establish weight. Springee (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Its green on the perennial sources page, so its a full RS albeit one with a specific area of expertise as noted. Perhaps you are unaware that an adult Doxing a minor is rather serious as far as internet culture is concerned, by definition doxing is a public act and in this case was undertaken by a public figure. I propose “In January 2020 Ngo doxed a 17 year old who had sent Ngo a photo from the July 2019 incident in which Ngo was assaulted with a milkshake. Ngo later boasted about the doxing on Twitter and linked the minor to a mass killer without providing any evidence.” I would be willing to start it with “In January 2020 The Daily Dot reported that...” if it helps us reach consensus. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

First, I don't agree that this is "internet culture" vs reporting on Ngo himself. Second, a single source picking up the story doesn't mean it has WEIGHT for inclusion. I don't see this story getting coverage beyond the Daily Dot. That means we don't have WEIGHT for inclusion. Springee (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Doxing is internet culture, that can’t be denied. For inclusion information only needs to be published in one RS, there doesn’t have to be coverage beyond that. Please be specific about which part of WP:WEIGHT you are invoking, your current policy reasoning is much too vague. What is your opinion on the text of my proposed addition? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

No, doxing is using the internet but not "internet culture". If someone uses the internet to dox a government whistleblower we don't call that internet culture. Coverage in a single RS is typically not considered sufficient weight for inclusion, especially in the case of an accusation in a BLP article. My opinion of your text is it's UNDUE. Springee (talk) 05:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

It is your opinion that doxing is not part of internet culture and I respect it as your opinion. Please provide specific policy etc which supports your assertion that "Coverage in a single RS is typically not considered sufficient weight for inclusion, especially in the case of an accusation in a BLP article.” Just to be clear you are objecting to *both* the source and the text on the basis of WP:UNDUE? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

You have already been provided with an answer but lets do this again. For content to appear in an article it must be Wp:VERIFY and have WP:WEIGHT. To meet the standards of WP:V the content needs to be sourced to WP:RSs and that it accurately reflects the source. Per the ONUS section of WP:V it's noted that verified doesn't ensure we have WEIGHT for inclusion. That is the policy that says coverage in a RS doesn't ensure inclusion. In this case we don't agree if the Daily Dot is a RS for the content in question. Even if we did agree on that the question of weight hasn't been answered. Look at the other controversial events described in this article. They are sourced to multiple sources, not just one lower quality source. That's a good indication that we don't have WEIGHT for inclusion. Additionally, several editors have opposed the addition on the grounds of WEIGHT. You haven't come up with any better argument for inclusion beyond a marginal source said it so we have to add it. BTW, that's not even going into some of the issue with how the basic facts are presented by the DD. Springee (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for concisely summarizing your points even if you didn't elaborate on the specifics of the policies etc you’re citing. If you aren’t willing to try to seek middle ground and I still want to include the source then I think its best for us to solicit 3rd party opinions. In that vein I have opened a discussion on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. You are cordially invited to continue this discussion at that venue Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes a middle ground makes sense. If we agreed on weight but not on the text then we should be looking for a middle ground. But in a case where weight is a problem what is the middle ground? Springee (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with what you just said, thats why I split the question into two on the noticeboard. I agree that there is a legitimate challenge based on weight, but as you yourself said we cant really even address that question until we determine whether or not the source is a WP:RS in context. What frustrated me was your refusal to accept that doxing is part of or related to internet culture, that is blindingly obvious and should never have been a stumbling block to us reaching consensus. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

If you were talking about Doxxing in general I would agree that it's an internet thing. However, when talking about a specific instance we have to look at the broader picture around it. For example, doxxing the whistle blower associated with the Trump impeachment. That's about politics and intimidation etc. Yes, it crosses over into online politics but only in so far as it's doxxing. The larger picture is clearly top level politics. In this case if we were talking about doxxing as a tool to intimidate opponents on line or how people are sometimes victims due to botched doxxing (providing the wrong name/address/person). Those are things I would say are part of internet culture. This story is specific to the culture war around antifa and the controversies around Ngo and the way activists have tried to harass him and how he has responded. BTW, as a way to consider weight here, Ngo was harassed by activists in masks around Halloween. That incident was reported by a number of sources including Fox News. That was deemed UNDUE. It's hard to believe this less significant incident would be DUE. Springee (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I mostly agree with you, but your claim of the context being the “culture war” is odd when that term doesn’t even appear on either this page or in the source. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

This entry is laughable. Referring to Ngo’s “alleged connections with the far-right groups Patriot Prayer and Proud Boys,” with no evidence for same embodies the worst of Wikipedia, and it’s well-earned reputation as a platform for leftists. Nicmart (talk) 13:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Nicmart, I share your concerns with having that material in the lead. I support removing it as a recent addition per WP:NOCON. Springee (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean "with no evidence"? The evidence is listed, reported and discussed further down in the article. BeŻet (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Cement4802 has been inserting "left wing" in front of many terms, which is a conservative propaganda technique. I do not believe that our article requires this level of bias, so I'm reverting those changes.--Jorm (talk) 04:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not think it needs mention every time like in that edit. But once when describing them should be fine and helpful. Just like we do with the right wing groups in this article. It is no more a conservative propaganda technique than it is a liberal propaganda technique. When used correctly it is a helpful descriptor to the reader. PackMecEng (talk) 04:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Jorm If we were to use your logic, the liberal usage of the term "far right" in this article is also an example of bias, and thus something that needs to be removed from this article. Left wing is the agreed definition for ANTIFA, it's even used to describe them on their own Wikipedia article. Ironically, not using the term left-wing is an example of political bias - Cement4802 (talk) 04:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted this large-scale, undiscussed rewrite by User:Guavabutter, on the grounds that it whitewashes Ngo's activities, ghettoizes "criticism" into a separate section rather than presenting reliably-sourced views throughout the article, misrepresents sources, and presents Ngo in ways that have been rejected by previous consensus. I invite Guavabutter to discuss, in detail, their proposed changes, and work to gain consensus for them here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

A specific example of source misrepresentation is where Guavabutter changes a sentence regarding the purported (almost certainly false) "concrete milkshake" incident to read however, little evidence of this has ever been presented - the actual source, as in the prior version, says clearly that Police have provided no evidence. Not "little," none. This intentional misrepresentation of the source cannot be accidental, and is not acceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Why do we even mention the "concrete milkshake" in this article? A single police officer speculated about it at the time of the incident without any evidence, and they never found any evidence. Some newspapers reported on it at the time because it was such a bizarre claim, and then later reported to note that no evidence was presented, but that doesn't give this story significance. This isn't even a footnote in history. It's something that was only remarked upon to note that it didn't happen. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 07:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Was there really nothing in that edit that could be retained? It looks like this editor put a lot of work into it. Do we really need to revert even the wikilinks and all the copy editing? As for your example, you're right that the Independent says "provided no evidence", but the Vox source says "at best flimsy evidence" and the Oregonian reports (in sources not appended to this sentence in the current version) that the officer claimed that at least one person at the scene had reported that the milkshakes contained quickcrete, and that he was confident that some milkshakes contained that substance based on their feel and smell and his own experience with quickcrete. I can see how an editor could intepret that as "little evidence" in good faith. So please strike your personal attack which accuses Guavabutter of intentionally misrepresenting the sources. And do consider reintroducing at least the uncontroversial copyedits and wikilinks from the edit. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I’ve looked through it and there at least four more instances like the one described by NorthBySouthBaranof and we cant take the risk of even one making it onto the page, without a photographic memory of what the sources say verifying all the changes would take literally an hour or two. Much better to just reset the board once we realize one of the players is cheating. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it doesn't take an hour or two to reintroduce the wikilinks and copy edits. It would take fifteen minutes at most. Do we have consensus to reintroduce that much? Also, I'd like to clarify: when you say "like the one described by NorthBySouthBaranof" what do you mean? Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

But you cant just copy edits, you have to confirm that each one is actually fully supported by the sources. By like the one described by NorthBySouthBaranof I mean blatantly disruptive edits like changing "He falsely connected alcohol-free zones in parts of London to the Muslim-majority populations.” to "From these experiences, he concluded that London was afflicted with "failed multiculturalism," connecting the alcohol-free zones found in parts of London to the resident Muslim-majority populations.” Its somewhere between blatant vandalism and subtle vandalism but it sure as schnitzel ain't constructive editing. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye Jack, please remember that this article is subject to discretionary sanctions. Don't call good faith BOLD edits vandalism. You don't have to agree with the edit. The edit was reverted with no edit wasting. Your claim of "vandalism" is needlessly antagonistic and also flat wrong in this case. Springee (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I don’t see how a reasonable person could read those sources and then summarize them thus, if the argument is that they never even read the sources wouldn’t that still be disruptive? The edit I highlighted *does* appear to be straight up vandalism, it is a complete reversal of what the source said and in the end Wikipedia was validating the Islamophobic no-go zone conspiracy theory. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Large-scale non-trivial edits made to a contentious article with no attempt at discussion are often challenged no matter what article they're attempted on. No, it's not up to me to hunt down all the potentially-appropriate changes and separate them out and manually undo all the inappropriate ones - the onus on any edit is on the editor proposing it. Much of the wording in this article is based on extensive workshopping and consensus, and unilaterally changing it acts to negate that consensus. Guavabutter is welcomed to engage in the discussion here and work to gain consensus and hammer out an improved article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, there is no way of presenting this article as neutral as possible without adamant push-back from those who apparently oppose Ngo. If not for users like Shinealittlelight and Springee giving my edits the benefit of the doubt and upholding the integrity of Wikipedia, I'd think that this article were a lost cause. Though I don't mean to be antagonistic in defending my edit, I may still come off that way in emphasizing the issues I take in the criticism made against me.

Many, if not most, of the sources cited throughout this article are editorial positions that are themselves published on left-leaning, if not overtly left-wing, publications. For example, Jacobin, if the name doesn't give it away on its own, is a self-admitted left-wing magazine,^[1]; and Rolling Stone has been known to demonstrate a left-wing bias,^[2] especially in having supported Clinton in 2016;^[3] These are the sources that NorthBySouthBaranof is referring to as "reliably-sourced views" (keyword: views). Presenting such editorials as outright news demonstrates more malicious intent than anything I've edited thus far, ironically, by doing exactly what critics accuse Ngo of doing when arguing against his journalistic integrity. To be clear, I take no issue in drawing from left-leaning sources. However, it's rather questionable that so much of the knowledge provided of Ngo comes almost exclusively from left-wing outlets. It's like using Fox News and The Daily Wire as major sources for an article on Matthew Yglesias. I still gave credence to these sources by not mentioning their political biases even when appropriate, such as if the article refers to some information as coming from "various media outlets."

Much of the arguments being made against my edit are essentially on the grounds that I presented Ngo in a more neutral fashion rather than as the monster he supposedly is. Red Rock Canyon asks why I'd even mention the 'concrete milkshake' issue in this article, considering that only "a single police officer speculated about it at the time of the incident without any evidence," thus arguing that the event doesn't constitute "even a footnote in history. It's something that was only remarked upon to note that it didn't happen." However, Red Rock Canyon, just as NorthBySouthBaranof and Horse Eye Jack, chooses to overlook all other instances of speculation and subjective information that's been provided throughout this article so long as Ngo is represented as a negative figure. The concrete milkshake incident is just as significant as any other event listed thus far, but, as the milkshake incident evidently made Ngo a victim, less discussion of it, the better. The fact that he was bloodied, which is mentioned in already-given sources, was also conveniently omitted. Would you consider this a misrepresentation of sources, NorthBySouthBaranof? If not, then why not? Would the bloodied face qualify as at least a footnote, Red Rock Canyon?

NorthBySouthBaranof directly accuses me of whitewashing Ngo's activities, but is seemingly perfectly content with the article's whitewashing of antifa activity as peaceful "protests" and "activism" that are just victims of Ngo and right-wing propaganda. NorthBySouthBaranof also questions my separation of criticism into its own section, despite such being a common thing to do for Wikipedia articles. Separating criticism—which is subjective—from information that is meant to provide objective knowledge about a given subject is, despite NorthBySouthBaronof's dismay, actually reduces misinformation and the graying of fact and opinion. In this sense, Horse Eye Jack labels my edits as disruptive "vandalism" not because I've altered facts, but because I've disrupted an editorialized narrative of Ngo. Hence why in their view we can't "take the risk of even one" of my edits making it through. Similarly, the accusation that Ngo misquoted or misrepresented the Muslim speaker is detailed in full, whereas the fact that another individual said that Ngo's quoting stayed true to the Muslim speaker's words is just a one-sentence tidbit that's been tagged on. Why has only one perspective been allowed to be provided in detail? Has the truth been vandalized, Horse Eye Jack?

You will note that, rather than finding my own sources, almost everything I've changed has been done using already-provided citations, including the biased sources that I'd mentioned above. Moreover, you'll notice that I actually input more information into the citations, some of which excluded authors, dates, etc. Could we "risk" one of those to make it on the page, Horse Eye Jack? If you're presenting such "reliably-sourced views," I'd expect you to at least cite them properly, NorthBySouthBaranof. Take care. Guavabutter (talk) 04:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

It's actually not a common thing to separate "Criticism" into a separate section in Wikipedia. As the essay WP:CRITICISM explains, In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Articles should present the prevailing viewpoints from reliable sources fairly, proportionately, and without bias, whether positive or negative. While there may be a few articles remaining in that structure, every major article long ago abandoned the idea of ghettoizing critical views. Do you see "Criticism" sections in the biographies of Barack Obama, Donald Trump, or Joe Biden? No, you don't. Instead, relevant views, appropriately balanced based upon due weight in reliable sources, are weaved throughout those articles. The same will be true here. There will be no "Criticism" section here.

There was no "concrete milkshake" - reliable sources analyzing the incident have debunked and dismissed the claim. Mentioning the claim may be relevant; mentioning it as anything but unevidenced is right out.

Removing his alleged connections with the far-right groups Patriot Prayer and Proud Boys from the lede is also inappropriate and unwarranted. Reliable sources fairly extensively discuss the evidence (there is far more of that than there is for 'concrete milkshakes').

Removing the description of his London "alcohol-free zones" claim as "false" is similarly unexplained and objectionable. That you may personally disagree with the cited sources is not relevant - the sources are clear that the claim was false, and as per WP:YESPOV, Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. There are no reliable sources contesting or challenging the statement, therefore we state it, the end.

... a video he is seen laughing while standing next to members of the far-right group supposedly planning the attack on antifa patrons at the bar. Later, it is said that he followed the group to the bar where they allegedly attacked the patrons is not encyclopedic writing at all. It's unattributed, uses unsourced weasel words to inappropriately cast doubt on the reporting, presents Ngo's claims as fact in a manner which contradicts the cited source (the source says Ngo claimed that antifa maced him became During the event, Ngo was apparently assaulted and maced).

This is a start in directly explaining what is objectionable about your edit. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

About the concrete milkshake incident: I think I might've been unclear. The fact that he got punched in the face and had a milkshake poured on him obviously should stay in the article. As far as I can tell, getting punched in the face during a Portland protest is what brought him more widespread fame and the only reason most people who know of him ever heard his name in the first place. But there was no concrete in the milkshakes. People were drinking them. That claim was some minor sideshow that got a few lines of coverage when it was a made and a little bit more when it was essentially debunked. It's very silly to bring it up at all just to say "a police lieutenant speculated about this publicly, but no evidence was ever found." And yes, the correct phrase is "no evidence". That document he wrote up to justify his claim doesn't contain any evidence and doesn't count as evidence. The part that I think should be removed is any mention of the concrete idea. And I'm pretty sure we had this discussion some time last year and it was removed, though apparently that didn't stick

As for Guavabutter's changes, I think the proposed change in structure is probably an improvement. Ngo is such a heavily-criticized figure that it makes sense to have a criticism section on this article, specifically for broader criticisms that don't fit naturally into other sections, of which there are a ton. Also, splitting up the currently massive "confrontations with Antifa" section is clearly necessary, and Guavabutter's proposal seems like a fairly reasonable way to do it. Some of the specific wording changes are less successful, as I think NorthBySouthBaranof has demonstrated, but if we address those then I think we could keep the main structural changes. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the issue of whether or not there was concrete in the milkshake is not really a huge thing given the sources, so I'm fine the abbreviation of that aspect of the incident. Likewise, I agree with your general response here, Red Rock Canyon, and concede that I may have missed the mark in some regard, just not to the extent that the original post asserts! My main focus when editing is syntax, structure, and the like, but a biased slant in this article appeared to me as considerably evident. Thanks for the response and take care, Guavabutter (talk) 11:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy to address the guidelines from WP:CRITICISM. As per the second sentence in the page's introduction: "Articles should include both positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources, without giving undue weight to particular viewpoints, either negative or positive." I look forward to your response on everything that I've addressed above, including my assertion that the reliable sources that you are so eager about are directing the article from a left-leaning viewpoint, especially as many of them are editorials; as well as my suggestion that the extremism/violence of antifa has also been whitewashed in this article.

You'll also be happy to note that WP:CRITICISM is perfectly accepting of a section (or "ghettoization") for negative criticism, so long as such a ghetto is not just an indiscriminate list of complaints. Given that all the opinions towards Ngo have been sourced, it seems as though a Criticism ghetto stands just fine. The weasel words that you're suggesting I used were provided in an attempt to sustain a sense of neutrality while still being able to cite the sources that have provided the information (which I argue to be biased). As such, I can't cast doubts on "reporting" if it isn't actually reporting in the first place (i.e. opinion pieces are not "reporting"). As far as the milkshake incident goes, whether or not cement was involved, the fact still remains that Ngo was assaulted by several masked individuals (antifa) on video, receiving a bloodied face and a hemorrhage. The assault is indeed mentioned in the article, but I feel that its severity seems to be purposefully downplayed by appending the information with more suggestions to Ngo's links to white supremacy. To be clear, my argument isn't to make someone look better or worse, or to say that I'm 100% correct, it's to challenge the hypocritical, or at least meager, arguments that have been given for my edits.

By saying "This is a start," you're suggesting that there is more to say in regard to my edit, so I don't understand why you haven't detailed such. I've already laid out several issues that I've taken with your claim, so there's not much more I can add until you address those issues. I agree with Red Rock Canyon that perhaps some of my wording choices were less effective, but your broad opposal to my edit is not helpful of the situation. Love, Guavabutter (talk) 11:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Your editing does not appear to have discriminated between opinion pieces/editorials and news stories, a news story does not became an editorial simply because you disagree with what it says. Please specify which sources you are arguing are opinion pieces/editorials. If you’re going to repeat your assertion that "the reliable sources that you are so eager about are directing the article from a left-leaning viewpoint” then perhaps you would be more comfortable editing at Conservapedia than Wikipedia? Here a source’s political leanings aren’t held against them if they’re generally reliable. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it's time to take this down a notch. A lot of the negative reporting related to Ngo does blur the line between reporting of facts and the reporter's opinion/commentary. That's one of the things that makes this a difficult topic, that and a lot of people here forgetting that we need to assume good faith. At this point I think it would be best if we dropped the arguments about the recent edit. Guavabutter should propose edits here and we can discuss the their merits. Springee (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

"A lot of the negative reporting related to Ngo does blur the line between reporting of facts and the reporter's opinion/commentary.” On what basis do you draw that conclusion? Taking it down a notch is all well and good, but if thats your intention don't follow it with an incendiary statement like that lol. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you need to take it down a notch. And yes, I stand by my general statement. Springee (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

″I see that you stand by it, I’m asking whether you have any evidence to support such an assertion. Generally when people claim that otherwise WP:RS are unreliable they have some sort of evidence or reasoning. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

If I propose or support any specific changes then I will go there. Springee (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The article claims Andy Gno said something about A and that later, A received death threats. Now, this kind of narrative is really going out on a limb, or even well beyond it, in terms of objectivity and balance. Unless evidence can be found that Andy Ngo directly influenced someone to send death threats, it is difficult to see why this material should remain in the article. On any other platform this could be described as smear, but on Wikipedia we assume good faith. Asgrrr (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't quite think they are unrelated because the cited source does mention Ngo. However, it's clear the author see's the Lenihan article was the reason why they say they were threatened. The Wikipedia article strongly implies that Ngo was the cause, "Ngo has labelled several journalists, including Shane Burley and Alexander Reid Ross, as "antifa ideologues" and claimed that they mainstream "extremist ideas"; subsequently, those journalists received death threats and..." The source only suggests they supported/added to the noise. Springee (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Asgrrr thank you for raising this troubling BLP issue. I have removed the disputed content as a violation of WP:NPOV. As Springee observes, the cited source asserts Lenihan's article, not Ngo's tweet, created a firestorm. So our use of "subsequently" is WP:SYNTH (correlation ≠ causation). NedFausa (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The source for that sentence is not independent. The sentence should therefore be removed. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The first sentence of the lead includes, immediately after the word journalist, a {Disputed inline} template dated August 2019. I have reviewed all relevant discussions in four talk page archives:

• Talk:Andy_Ngo/Archive_1
• Talk:Andy_Ngo/Archive_2
• Talk:Andy_Ngo/Archive_3
• Talk:Andy_Ngo/Archive_4

I found no consensus as to whether journalist should remain or be removed from its prominent placement. So here is my question: is a {Disputed inline} tag, lacking consensus, meant to be permanent?

Wikipedia's accuracy dispute guideline does not address this, but twice indicates a disputed statement should be corrected right away. To me, that suggests the framers expected timely settlement, not a longstanding advisory.

I would be grateful if other editors could clarify this for me. Thank you. NedFausa (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not quite understanding why Ngo wouldn't be considered a journalist. Given the fact that he's the editor-at-large of a media outlet, who regularly gathers and presents news and information, he fits essentially any basic definition of "journalist", if nothing more.^[1][2][3] Whether or not he's a "good" journalist is subjective, and shouldn't disqualify the fact that he is one—otherwise there would easily be plenty of other people who should lose that title as well. Thanks, Guavabutter (talk) 03:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The sources cited here for the definition of journalist do not mention Ngo, which makes this original research. Further, it is not enough for a trait to be merely verifiable. It also has to be relevant and informative. This is why we need reliable source about Ngo. Grayfell (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Grayfell: Numerous reliable sources have identified Ngo as a journalist.

• NYTimes conservative journalist
• ABC News conservative journalist
• The Hill, journalist at conservative website Quilette
• CNN conservative journalist
• Fox News journalist and photographer
• Rolling Stone right-wing journalist
• New York Intelligencer journalist
• The Times American journalist
• Vox conservative journalist
• VICE News Portland-based journalist
• The Independent conservative journalist

I hope this helps. NedFausa (talk) 01:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The tag was rightly removed. Sources call Ngo a journalist. This is the same standard we use when deciding labels to apply to may other article subjects. Additionally, the discussion had truly long since closed out. Springee (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

This is still disputed, we haven't achieved a consensus on the matter, and until the consensus is reached, the matter is still disputed. BeŻet (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Who hasn't reached consensus on this. We have a number of sources that call him a journalist. The discussion had died out and we aren't supposed to leave tags indefinitely. This isn't a contentious title. Why do you think the tag should be restored? The current consensus here is 3:1 for removal and arguments for keeping the title and thus removing the tag are far stronger than those against. Springee (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Update: I missed Grayfell's comment. I would take that to support the tag so 3:2 for removal of the tag. Springee (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Support removal per sources listed above, not to mention common sense. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Alright, as seen above we have multiple news sources from a broad spectrum of political bents calling him a Journalist. This seems to give strong support for us using that label. What are the arguments for not using that label? --Kyohyi (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The main argument presented by myself and other editors hasn't been addressed: we should be focusing more on recent sources, rather than old ones, when not much was known about Ngo and media outlets were just repeating the descriptor they were told. After the dust has settled, and people had a better chance to look into his person, media outlets stopped referring to him as a journalist, and started to use the descriptors social media personality or provocateur. If we can show that more recent media sources do indeed refer to him as a journalist, then I will concede we can call him that. BeŻet (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, no. The wide range of the most reliable sources are saying "journalist". As was mentioned above, that doesn't mean good but he is. Springee (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, yes. How Andy Ngo approaches coverage of current events is desperately partisan. He is better described as a propagandist than a journalist.

BeŻet: I suspect the truth is exactly opposite to what you claim. I did a Google search for "Andy Ngo" + "provocateur" over the past month, and found not a single WP:RS calling him that. It's mostly just posts by his political enemies on Twitter, Reddit, and other obscure commentaries. NedFausa (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Did a single reliable source mention Ngo in the last month at all? He only got attention after the incident, and when his ties with far right groups emerged (that's when his "journalist" title started being quiestioned). Don't think he's really been in the media since. BeŻet (talk) 09:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I thought I'll behave fairly and validate my own concerns. While some recent sources refer to him as a "troll" or "blogger", there are still sources (non major, but still) that refer to him as a journalist (1 2 3). While I personally strongly disagree with this label, let's go with what the sources say. BeŻet (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)