Talk:Andy Ngo/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

June 2020 edit - Ngo and Proud Boys

@Dkspartan1835, Jlevi, and Horse Eye Jack: I'm starting a discussion related to the recent edits here [[1]][[2]][[3]]. Dkspartan1835 correctly noted that the source for the claim, Willamette Week, doesn't state Ngo has been in contact with the Proud Boys, "Ngo happened because he ignored Proud Boys' offer of protection". Jlevi added and HEJ restored the following claim, "the assault on Ngo happened because he did not on this occasion take up Proud Boys' offer of protection". The source does not say on any occasion Ngo "accepted" any offers of protection. As such this edit was rightly removed. Additionally, the claims that Ngo has been in contact with the Proud Boys need to be properly sourced. Thus far we have an unnamed under cover activist who makes this claim. We also have a reporter for an alternative news outlet that clearly has a bone to pick suggesting it might be true (the Willamette article in question here). This is a BLP and such controversial claims should not be in the article if they can't be robustly sourced to RSs. Dkspartan's edit addressed these issues by acknowledging the comments attributed to the PBs but not implying that Ngo was involved or working with the PBs. We simply don't have sourcing to make that sort of claim in a BLP article. Springee (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I support removal of Jlevi's edit "did not on this occasion take up" because it implies that there were other such occasions, which the cited source does not claim. NedFausa (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I like the wording “did not take up the” better than "did not on this occasion take up” or “ignored.” Does that work for everyone? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The source actually says "ignored". It seems clear the PB offered some sort of protection but it isn't clear how Ngo responded to that offer. For example, one possibility is Ngo engaged in dialog then for what ever reason decided not to accept an offer of protection. Another possibility is Ngo received an message via his Twitter account from someone claiming to be with the PB (with Ngo having no idea if this was true or not) so Ngo completely ignores the message, perhaps even considers that it might be an Antifa trap. I invented both of the above cases but either could be true based on the information presented by WWeekly. Since we don't know we should not use phrasing that would imply a more extensive relationship than has been explicitly shown in RSs. This is especially true if we are using a source that is clearly openly hostile to the BLP subject and has a very limited record in terms of demonstrated reliability. I do think "did not take up the" reads better vs "ignored" but "did not take up" suggests a level of interaction that may not actually have happened. Springee (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that we’re sufficiently covered by "Later that year, a recording of an alleged member of Proud Boys emerged, published by Willamette Week, where the person claimed that” to say "did not take up the” but if “ignored the” is what gets us to consensus I’d be happy with that. The original "because he ignored Proud Boys’ offer” is just so clunky. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Again this is problematic when we consider the sourcing used to make damning claims about a BLP subject. We have an "undercover antifa" member making effectively anonymous claims that make a critic of antifa look bad. Sure, the article is including them as attributed claims (even the paper that publish the stuff won't take ownership of the claims). This again is a BLP where we should not imply things that are not explicitly stated by reliable sources. That said, I agree with you regarding the clunky language. What about "Later that year, a recording of an alleged member of the Proud Boys emerged, published by Willamette Week, where the person claimed that the assault on Ngo happened because he ignored the group's offer of protection."? Springee (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

That there looks like the best of all options given so far, barring any dissent from other editors I say lets go with it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Copy edit:

"Later that year, Willamette Week published a recording of an alleged member of the Proud Boys who claimed that the assault happened because Ngo ignored the group's offer of protection."

NedFausa (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Why is this even in the article? It's a contentious claim by an unknown person with absolutely no evidence backing it up. Using "alleged" and "claimed" is just covering our asses, including this material in the article violates WP:BLPGOSSIP. I am removing it. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I support Red Rock Canyon's removal of claims by an unknown person per WP:BLPGOSSIP, which cautions against relying on sources that "attribute material to anonymous sources." NedFausa (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

We have consensus to include that passage, I strongly disagree that it violates WP:BLPGOSSIP. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

To be honest I think it's better with that passage removed. I'm not strongly leaning in that direction because I think our consensus text is acceptable. Still I think Red Rock Canyon's removal is sound per BLPGOSSIP. Springee (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I dispute Horse Eye Jack's assertion that "we have consensus to include that passage." In light of Red Rock Canyon's removal of claims by an unknown person per WP:BLPGOSSIP, editors should be accorded time to reconsider their previous endorsements, if any. NedFausa (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

We had consensus when I made that comment, if you’ve reconsidered your position thats fine (consensus changes, thats how it works) but it doesnt make my statement any less accurate at the time it was made. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed June edits

Rather than be bold I thought I would ask people's opinions on a few sections.

Just after the section discussed above we have this sentence, the Portland based newspaper stated that "it is increasingly clear he is coordinating his movements and his message with right-wing groups". BuzzFeed News reported that Ngo "has been building to a dramatic confrontation with the Portland far left for months, his star rising along with the severity of the encounters...The man’s literal brand is that anti-fascists are violent and loathe him" and "He is willing to make himself the story and to stream himself doing it. He proceeds from a worldview and seeks to confirm it, without asking to what degree his coverage becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy", pointing out that Ngo even proposed going to "a far-left hangout" during the writing of the profile piece.. As an opinion about Ngo it's probably due. However, it seems like it shouldn't be placed just after a sentence talking about Ngo being violently attacked. I think it would make more sense if we had an intro paragraph for the confrontation with antifa section. We could then try to sort the rest of the material out into some sort of order. The sentence in question would make for a good, "people think this about Ngo" type paragraph/section. While it was discussed in an article about the antifa assault on Ngo, it isn't actually about the assault so much as the general antagonism between the group and Ngo. So at this point I'm open to suggestions as to where to put this sentence. Absent suggestions I might try a BOLD move (not removal).

Second edit relates to this sentence, "One of the victims of the attack was knocked unconscious with a baton and suffered a broken vertebrae – Ngo later posted a video of her being attacked and shared her personal information online.". The sentence is factually correct but misleading. It implies Ngo identified the victim and then decided to share her identity online, perhaps out of spite? This sentence incorrectly cites two sources (Vox and VICE). Only VICE actually contains the supporting material. Here is what VICE said about the identification. Ngo was criticized for broadcasting the identity of the woman he said “got knocked out cold.” In a tweet, he also noted that she’d attempted to disrupt a panel featuring a disgraced former Google employee who’d circulated a sexist internal memo. It's not clear if he identified her at the same time or at a different time. It's clear he identified her in connection with her attempt to disrupt a panel discussion. So basically she was behaving badly and he replied. It was not a case of he wanted to add insult to (literal) injury. Also, the way VICE is handling the Google memo description suggests they are VERY biased. The degree to which the engineer was disgraced or the memo was sexist is certainly debatable. To state in no uncertain terms that it was suggests that maybe she was right to disrupt the panel. That the article author handled the Google Memo case with such strong bias even thought it wasn't related to the primary focus of the article suggests they aren't worried about presenting a neutral view of events. They are writing to persuade the reader, not to inform. That puts this source into the unfortunately large bucket of oped-fact reporting hybrid articles. Anyway, I would suggest editing the sentence to make it clear the person's identity was revealed in conjunction with her attempt to disrupt an event. If we decide that is too much information then her doxxing should be removed from the article as it currently creates a misleading implication. Springee (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion about these. In terms of the first fragment, I think it belongs there; the reason being is, that this text directly references the confrontation, and how he was "building up" to this moment. That's why I think it's okay to keep it there (however I have no strong opinions about the matter, would be good to hear from other editors). In terms of the doxxing, he retweeted her being attacked and shared her details - I'll try to find a reliable source that talks about this, as obviously the Twitter screenshot is not a RS. It's also possible that he first doxxed her because of something else, and then did it again after the infamous attack on her - nonetheless, I think this is what the sources are referring to. BeŻet (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Without meaning to circumvent your discussion to achieve consensus, I made three small edits to the article space, including removal of the reference that Springee noted failed to support the sentence to which it was attached. I trust this does not interfere with your thread. NedFausa (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Ngo's reporting on Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone

I've removed this material on several grounds. First this is a case where RECENT applies. The Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone is a new, evolving thing. We should wait to see how things turn out before we add Ngo's reporting on the subject to his biography. Second, the material as added is UNDUE. It presented only a single source saying Ngo was making claims. Perhaps other sources are available talking about Ngo's reporting on the subject but at this point in time it doesn't seem like enough RSs are talking about this to be DUE. Third, the material was presented in a non-neutral way and implied something the original source did not state. It implied that Ngo was falsely claiming a crime was occurring and used the police's "no knowledge of" response to imply Ngo was lying/inventing the story. Effectively the police said they couldn't confirm. They did not say Ngo lied. The difference is big since we are dealing with a BLP. Springee (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

If there is no evidence of something being true, it's safe to assume that it isn't true. Since Ngo has made numerous false claims in the past, it is very likely that this is another false claim he made. The reason why I believe it is due is because this rumour has been circulated a bit, and the source of the rumour is Andy and a fellow The Post Millennial writer. BeŻet (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, there are a number of things wrong with the material you are suggesting. First, the police are not saying it didn't happen. They are saying they can not affirm it. You are SYNTH a leap from the SPD says they have no reports to Ngo, who per the article was repeating what another source reported, was lying. The source you provided does not say Ngo was lying, rather it says Ngo repeated the claim. Your text suggests that Ngo is the origin of the claim and that the SPD say the claim is false. Neither is supported by your source. Again, per RECENT we shouldn't be making statements that may later turn out to be false (what if evidence is found once police are able to go into the area and take statements) and per SYNTH the source doesn't support what you added to the article. Finally, per DUE this would need some real coverage, sources claiming Ngo was falsely spreading this claim, in order to be DUE in this article. Springee (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Those are some mental gymnastics. Police are saying that they received no reports of any extortion happening, therefore there is no evidence that this is happening, therefore there is no reason to believe that a guy from a different city and state somehow magically knows of some reports that are not known to local police officers and city officials. Since Ngo has a history of making false and misleading statements, he literally has no ground to stand on here, and those claims can be dismissed. However, if those claims don't go further than Fox News and minor right-wing outlets, perhaps you are right that it is not due. It's just a shame that Andy keeps fooling people into believing he has any credibility whatsoever. BeŻet (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

My logic is sound. Your last sentence suggests you are here to right great wrongs. Springee (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Should be excluded. The claims are false, and seems to have been covered only by Fox. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Blatant left wing bias

WIkipedia and all sources cited describe ANTIFA as left wing. Yet this isn't acceptable to include, but somehow using the labels "right-wing" or "far-right" are okay? This is not in line with Wikipedia's neutrality standards Cement4802 (talk) 05:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The thing is, "antifa" is basically by definition leftist. It doesn't really need the qualifier. Fascism is on the right, anti-fascist groups are on the left. By contrast, "Patriot Prayer" and "Proud Boys" are otherwise-anodyne names which don't immediately suggest a specific political position, and thus need the qualifier, because otherwise... "Patriot Prayer" sounds like a group of religious patriotic Americans? So I'm not sure the wording is necessary in the other case. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

ANTIFA is not an ideology like fascism though. The name "Antifa" doesn't indicate any political leanings, and an average reader would not be able to immediately recognise ANTIFA as a violent left-wing movement, and thus excluding all references to left wing politics, but still including references to right wing politics, is blatantly biased in portraying right wing politics as negative whilst failing to equally do so with reference to left wing politics Cement4802 (talk) 07:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Is this really worth edit-warring over? Whether we have the political identifiers or not doesn't really matter. Anyone who doesn't know Antifa is left-wing or Patriot Prayer is right-wing can just click on the links. Both terms are in the first sentence of their respective articles. Personally, I think readers are much more likely to be familiar with Antifa than with Patriot Prayer, so the "right-wing" label is probably more necessary than the "left-wing" one, but either way it's certainly not a violation of neutrality. The article would be perfectly fine with either, both, or neither of the political labels. The only question we should be asking is whether they're necessary for informing readers. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 07:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I would rather just see it consistent. If it is needed for one group we should label the opposing group. I would be fine with both being labeled or neither. PackMecEng (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that there is a consistancy issue. If we are going to say "right-wing" each time a new RW group is introduced to the aritcle we should do the same for left-wing groups. However, this edit [[4]] was overkill. The second hotlink ot the antifa article is a no-no per MOS and after the first "left-wing" the others are redundant. In this edit [[5]] the removals associated with lines 22 and 53 should be reversed as the first time the groups are introduced. Since there is more than one right-wing/far-right group in question the label can be used more than once. The uses in line 59 are redundant since Patriot Prayer was already labeled earlier in the article and in context it's clear which group is being discussed each time. Additionally, hotlinking to far-right that far into the article seems odd since that isn't the first time the term is used in the aritcle. I think if Cement4802 used the talk page rather than edit warring this might have gone along better. This is a contentious article so it's always best to propose first and get feedback. Springee (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

As a first time reader of the article, I think it feels negative and needs tags about neutrality and revision. Wikipedia articles shouldn't represent subjects negatively. I'm not going to mix into the squabble, but I think an administrator needs to put in some tags. Pkeets (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Also "appeared to be antifa protesters" is important information but isn't qualified or substantiated at all. And that's not a political thing, it's just...stating as fact something for which no fact was established with an authoritative source. I think that goes again the original research rule? 2603:9001:6B08:9E6A:BD92:1AB0:F4E8:6155 (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia's MOS:LEAD guideline directs that The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. In this case, the sources identifying Ngo's assailants as antifa are amply presented in section 2.3 Confrontations with antifa activists, and need not be duplicated in the lead.

On June 29, 2019, while filming a counter-protest to a Proud Boys march in Portland, Ngo was punched in the head and kicked by unidentified assailants who appeared to be antifa protestors. Several unidentified assailants punched, kicked, and threw milkshakes on Ngo. He walked away and reported what happened in a livestream, during which a medic arrived to check on him.

If you subscribe to the adage that a picture is worth a thousand words, here's a news photo that strongly suggests Ngo was assaulted by antifa, not by the Red Cross. NedFausa (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Conservative or right-wing?

These Terms are almost synonymes, therefore i advocate the use of the latter because it is precisser Lovemankind83 (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. Wikipedia has separate pages for Conservatism in the United States and Right-wing politics. The terms are not synonymous, particularly given today's prominence of the Radical right (United States). NedFausa (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think extended discussion on this is necessary unless additional sources or arguments are provided. A recent (very long) discussion on descriptors occurred in September 2019 here, settling on the current description. A shorter discussion occurred in July 2019 here, though it failed to come to a clear conclusion. This lead to an RfC shortly thereafter here, and its closing statement was: "There is a clear consensus that the lede should say Andy Ngo is a 'conservative'." Unless something new has come up, I see no reason why consensus should have shifted. Jlevi (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion hasn't been resolved really, there are plenty of sources describing him as right wing and we never reached consensus. BeŻet (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Right wing troll

Several outlets described Ngo as a "right wing troll", and therefore adding an attributed mentioning of this fact shouldn't be too controversial. @Springee: what are your concerns regarding this? BeŻet (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

First, of the sources you provided in your edit here [[6]] only Rolling Stones actually uses the term "troll" in the body of the article and in that cases it says he is trolling. The Daily Dot only uses it in the title, same with Salon. The WE says RS called him a troll. So this isn't extensive use of the term. Balance that with BLP and LABEL and we have a problem here. Finally, this material has been challenged. It is contentious material within a BLP and thus it needs to stay out until there is consensus for inclusion. Springee (talk) 13:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

These sources are obviously way too weak to support the inclusion of such name calling. The use of the Examiner is especially absurd, since that source is simply saying how absurd the Rolling Stone piece was. And only Rolling Stone actually calls him a troll; the other sources only have that term in their click-bait headlines, which is again obviously very weak sourcing.Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think calling the sources weak is a valid argument when we attribute the statement to said sources. BeŻet (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

You're using the plural ("sources") as if more than a single music magazine called him a troll. That's not the case, as explained. As Springee notes, WP:LABEL requires that such labels as "troll" have to be widely used by reliable sources to be included in the article. One left-wing music magazine does not amount to widely used. This is especially so given that this is a BLP. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

What exactly is the point about bringing up Rolling Stone’s political position (inaccurately I may add, they’re left of center not left-wing)? That doesn't effect reliability. Nor is Rolling Stone only reliable for music. I have no comment on OP’s post but you’re out of order Shinealittlelight. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Finding the term used one time in a partisan source undermines any claim that the term is widely used. Please FOC. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

What does partisan have to do with anything? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

On the topic of the OP as long as we attribute to Rolling Stone we’re good, per perennial sources "There is consensus that Rolling Stone is generally reliable. Rolling Stone's opinion pieces and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used with attribution.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Accusing a BLP of being a troll is a very contentious label even if we attribute it. It should only be done with very robust sourcing. A single, hostile RS article doesn't pass that bar. Springee (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Its not a *very* contentious label its a mildly contentious label. Rapist, pedophile, cheater, gangster, terrorist, etc are very contentious labels. Whether or not a reliable source’s article is “hostile” or friendly is irrelevant for our purposes. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

"Very contentious" is not the standard in WP:LABEL. Rather, the standard is value laden labels which may express contentious opinion. This meets that standard, obviously. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

If I may join in, Shinealittlelight is correct in pointing to value-laden labels, which our relevant guideline wikilinks to "loaded language," which in turn is defined as rhetoric used to influence an audience by using words and phrases with strong connotations associated with them in order to invoke an emotional response and/or exploit stereotypes.

Such is the case here. As Wikipedia's Internet troll page explains, Application of the term troll is subjective. ... Like any pejorative term, it can be used as an ad hominem attack, suggesting a negative motivation. Describing Andy Ngo as a "right wing troll" is meant to discredit him. If Wikipedia is going to join in that defamation, we'd better be on incontestable policy grounds. As far as I can see, we're not there yet. NedFausa (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Discredit? Ngo actively creates false narratives.

It wasn't just Rolling Stone calling Ngo a troll. Salon did it a year ago.[7] Jewish Currents said in September 2019 he posted some obvious troll reports at The Vanguard and that he built his career by "trolling the libs". The Daily Dot concluded recently that Ngo is a troll.[8] Jacobin magazine described Ngo's trolling activities in August 2019.[9] Way back in 2018, the UK Guardian listed Ngo in their article "How the Right Trolls the Left". Columbia Journalism Review described Eoin Lenihan as a troll and said that Ngo and Lenihan enabled each other.[10] It's perfectly legitimate to follow WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and attribute the "troll" label to Rolling Stone, Salon and the Daily Dot, followed by a description of other sources detailing his trolling style. Binksternet (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Please review those sources. Remember, this isn't saying "he trolled X". This is saying "he is a troll". Salon, as mentioned above, only used troll in the article title, not the body. I believe there is a guideline that warns against using article titles as source material. JC describes an activity but doesn't call him a troll. It's a subjective assessment of what Ngo is saying but they didn't call him a troll so it doesn't support the disputed text. The same is true for the DD and per WP:RSP DD is questionable for claims of X is troll. Jacobian is also up in the air in general and the use of this label is very opinion based. Additionally it doesn't call Ngo a troll. So again, we don't have lots of articles calling Ngo a troll. Springee (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

We only need multiple sources if we intend to say it in wikipedia’s voice instead of attributing it, if we intend to attribute all we need is one high quality reliable source and we have that... Rolling Stone. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect, as explained above. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think it has been explained, please elaborate. Its important to be constructive rather than combative, a WP:Battleground mentality won’t get you very far. Per perennial sources Rolling Stone "There is consensus that Rolling Stone is generally reliable. Rolling Stone's opinion pieces and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used with attribution.” and nobody has of yet disputed the general reliability of Rolling Stone. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Please FOC. I'm happy to repeat if that's what you need. As Springee notes, WP:LABEL requires that such labels as "troll" have to be widely used by reliable sources to be included in the article. One left-wing music magazine does not amount to widely used. This is especially so given that this is a BLP. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Just a point of order its not a left-wing music magazine... Its a liberal pop culture magazine. We can argue about whether or not left-wing or liberal is more appropriate but in no world are they primarily a music magazine. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

We appear to have both descriptions of Ngo as a troll and of his behavior as trolling, to me both of those back up the label (lets assume for a moment it falls under WP:LABEL, something we don’t have consensus on) of troll. I take it the second one doesn't support the first for you? If we need three reliable sources to straight up call him a troll thats fine, but lets be clear about where the line is. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course widely used isn't going to be sharply defined, but it's obvious that we're nowhere close to widely used, and we aren't going to be, because it isn't widely used by reliable sources. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Rolling Stone, Salon.com, Dailydot are reliable sources for the topic of popular and internet culture, of which Ngo is a part. The words "trolling" and "troll" are essentially describing the same thing. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Salon and Daily Dot use the term in their titles. That's not RS. Rolling Stone is the only one that uses the term in the article body. So we have one source. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that titles of articles can be disconnected from the articles themselves, probably because the editors and the writers have different motivations, but in every case under discussion, Ngo's activities are described in the article body text as pushing a false narrative to get a reaction, which of course is trolling. So in this case the article titles are not out of line. Binksternet (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Puff piece, totally

Where are the editors? Wikipietime (talk) 04:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Far-right label

@Volunteer Marek:As I mentioned in my edit summary,the Buzzfeed article doesn't call him far-right. This is what the article says: " His reputation among the Portland left as a far-right propagandist was cemented." Focus on "among the Portland left". So unless you come up with RS that explicitly calls him far-right propagandist I am reverting your edit. And which RS describes him as far-right propagandists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prav001 (talk • contribs)

He's putting out a false narrative on purpose. What do you call that? "Propagandist" is putting it mildly – "troll" is more apt. He's chumming up with the Patriot Prayer white nationalist far-right hate group. What do you call that?

But you asked for reliable sources, and we have discussed a ton of them on this talk page. Take a look at the discussions and the archive. Reporters Without Borders, who are friendly to Ngo, say he is a "far-right blogger". Binksternet (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I've restored the previous consensus version of the lead. It called Ngo "conservative" rather than "____-right". The discussion here [[11]] was clear that the majority of sources are using the term "conservative" not "__-right". Springee (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus about calling him conservative. BeŻet (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

BeŻet: The first sentence of the lead contains three inline citations. BuzzFeed calls Ngo a conservative media personality, The New York Times refers to him as a conservative journalist, and ABC News likewise describes him as a conservative journalist. What is your problem? NedFausa (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I can find more than three sources describing him as a right-wing person. My problem is that it is false that there has been a consensus reached regarding labelling him conservative over right-wing. Conservative was what originally was used, a consensus wasn't reached and that version was kept. It's not a consensus version, it's what was kept because of lack of consensus. BeŻet (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

BeŻet: In this context, are conservative and right-wing mutually exclusive? If reliable sources support both descriptions, perhaps you could suggest how the first sentence of the lead could be reworded to reflect that. NedFausa (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

They are not mutually exclusive and both could be included, but there were a couple editors who did not want that to be used, thus resulting in lack of consensus. BeŻet (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

BeŻet: As I understand it, if discussion fails to achieve consensus, an issue can be reexamined later. If so, please propose new wording for the first sentence of the lead in a separate section at this talk page, and see if editorial judgment has matured in the interim. NedFausa (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Concrete milkshakes

The sources talking about the concrete milkshake hoax seem to be talking about the protests in general, not Ngo specifically, i.e. none talk about concrete milkshake rumours in the context of the Ngo attack. I think it should be removed. BeŻet (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed mention of concrete milkshakes. If consensus concludes that it is indeed relevant specifically to Ngo, the content can be restored. NedFausa (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't remove. The concrete milkshake nonsense revolves around Ngo, so this is where it should be described. If you think it should focus more on Ngo, then get that going. Binksternet (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm saying that the sources don't talk about Ngo and the milkshake hoax. If you have a source that links the two, show it to me. BeŻet (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet: Please explain what you mean by The concrete milkshake nonsense revolves around Ngo. In reviewing the cited sources, I found no such evidence. NedFausa (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh for God's sake. Mother Jones leads their story with a photo of Ngo covered in milkshake liquid on June 29.

• Mother Jones
• Insider
• Vox
• National Observer, Canada
• Daily Dot
• Jacobin magazine
• Media Matters

Not all of them but a great many of the news items about the concrete hoax include Ngo in the story at the very least as one of those attacked, and at the most the whole reason that the hoax was created. First there's Ngo making a widely seen video about getting milkshaked and punched in the face. Then Jack Posobiec is seen tweeting the false claim about concrete, to make Ngo seem more of a victim, and to make the protesters seem more of a threat. Portland police then parroted Posobiec with a public announcement. Posobiec and other right-wing trolls enable Ngo in this fashion. Binksternet (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I think removal is fine. Do we have any sources saying "Ngo claimed the milkshakes were mixed with concrete powder"? If not why is it here. Looking at the sentence in context of the attack on Ngo it could be read as "Ngo firmly believes" vs "the police lieutenant firmly believes". The first citation makes it clear it was a lieutenant but it doesn't mention Ngo at all. Springee (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet: Oh for God's sake. Do any reliable sources—just one will do fine—report that Andy Ngo was hit by a concrete milkshake or that he at least made such a claim? NedFausa (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the removal makes sense. If we want to talk about how others played up the milkshake incident or the hoax that can go in their article. PackMecEng (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, please. There's absolutely no reason to have any mention of this ridiculous and immediately debunked claim in this article. It has only the most tenuous connection to the subject. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2020

ORIGINAL: "Ngo received national attention in June 2019 when he was assaulted by unidentified assailants who appeared to be antifa protesters while covering a counter protest to a Proud Boys march in Portland, and later due to alleged connections with the far-right groups Patriot Prayer and Proud Boys."

SUGGESTED EDIT: "Ngo received national attention in June 2019 when he was assaulted by unidentified assailants while covering a counter protest to a Proud Boys march in Portland, and later due to alleged connections with the far-right groups Patriot Prayer and Proud Boys."

REASON: Antifa is not an organization. The proper term is anti-fascist. There is no evidence the unidentified assailants were anti-fascists, although it's important to note that the United States has always been anti-fascist. I feel it is critical that Wikipedia not be used to promote conspiracy theories or propaganda. 2606:A000:7DC0:2200:C944:C7A2:9A32:17C8 (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Wikipedia's page Antifa (United States) defines antifa as an anti-fascist political movement in the United States. The name of a political movement is a noun but is commonly used as a contiguous noun modifier. For example:

• civil rights movement
• ecology movement
• gay rights movement
• labor movement
• women's suffrage movement

It is this in sense that "who appeared to be antifa protesters" is used in the lead. The same phrase in the Confrontations with antifa activists subsection is followed by references to reliable sources that describe the unidentified assailants as antifa protesters. For instance, The Washington Post reports, "The senators also pointed to conservative journalist Andy Ngo, who in June was left bloodied by antifa activists in Portland, Ore." Likewise, NBC News reports that "masked antifa members physically attacked conservative blogger Andy Ngo in an incident shared on social media." NedFausa (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Milkshakes

The article falsely states that Ngo was hit by "a milkshake". The Independent article give as a reference says he was "covered in milkshake". No indication of a singular. Furthermore, the video that is part of that article shows him being hit by three milkshakes. Hence, the text should be changed to "milkshakes". Str1977 ^(talk) 10:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The Independent article give as a reference says he was "covered in milkshake"

Nope. "a milkshake". Second sentence here:

Andy Ngo was surrounded and beaten by protesters wearing black with their faces concealed, while being covered in a milkshake, eggs and spray on Saturday.

Anyone can confirm that your statement is false -- not to mention that your edit summary claimed that you made the change because you watched a video, which is WP:OR. --Calton | Talk 11:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I did make the change because the video - which is a source - contradicted what the article claimed.

No, it's not OR as that video is part of the reference already there and I am merely repeating what's there. According to your logic, the current wording is just as much OR as the phrase used in the article cannot be found in the source. According to your logic, anything beyond parroting the source is OR. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I did make the change because the video - which is a source...

No, it's not: it's a video. the source is YOU, looking at a video and drawing your own conclusions -- kind of like the logic-chopping you did when confronted with the black-and-white wording you somehow missed. And it's irrelevant where you saw the video: this would be same whether it were at the Independent, YouTube, or Joe's Totally Kewl Blog.

...contradicted what the article claimed.

Then take it up with the editors of The Independent, I'm sure they'll be glad you pointed out their error to them. Come back when you have that retraction. --Calton | Talk 12:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I misread. It says "covered in a milkshake" - but that's still not the same as being "hit by a milkshake". Obviously, you cannot count how many "milkshakes" are dripping from somebody's face.

Again, the editors of The Independent will be, no doubt, glad to hear you explain things to them. --Calton | Talk 12:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The article also notes that the police "said it later received reports of individuals throwing “milkshakes” with a substance mixed in" - that the cement part appears to be false doesn't negate the report about multiple milk shakes. And, as I said, denying that multiple shakes were thrown at him is just willfully closing your eyes. Str1977 ^(talk) 12:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not OR to use the video to show that a news report got a fact wrong. I would suggest we use a neutral phrasing to avoid stating this was "one" or "more than one". It seems that would avoid the issue. Springee (talk) 11:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not OR to use the video to show that a news report got a fact wrong

Flat wrong: it's a Wikipedia editor looking at a video and deciding that they know better than the source which provided the vidoe. You know, original research. --Calton | Talk 12:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Please review WP:OR, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.". We are absolutely allowed to use things like watching a video and seeing more than one milkshake to assess that the specific "one milkshake" claim is not true. If the video shows more than one then we can discount the claim in the other source as an error. Again the easy option is to make the claim number agnostic. Springee (talk) 12:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

"looking at a video and deciding that they know better than the source which provided the vidoe [sic]"

Not only are you misinterpreting WP:OR, your claim about knowing better the source is also wrong in so far as the source never says "Ngo was hit by one milkshake". Despite my above misreading, that much holds true. So, it's not the video correcting the article but the video clarifying the article. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The sentence in our article ending "hit with a milkshake by antifa protesters" is followed by six references. The first two do not report that Andy Ngo was hit by milkshake(s). As discussed in this thread, The Independent provides text saying Ngo was "covered in a milkshake"—but I did not view the video to count otherwise. Of the three remaining references, HuffPost has a photo caption saying that unidentified individuals "splashed him with a milkshake," and OregonLive.com quotes a tweet: "Looks like @MrAndyNgo got hit by a milkshake." However, BuzzFeed News relates that after Ngo was hit by a single milkshake, he was hit by at least one additional milkshake: But then a man with a plastic foam cup sprinted past Ngo, who was suddenly covered in viscous white globs: a milkshake. … A smiling person walked up to Ngo and threw a second milkshake in his face. … People were pelting him with milkshakes and eggs, adding literal insult to injury. NedFausa (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• So the logical thing is to say "was hit with at least one milkshake". I don't think a definitive number of dairy-based missiles is really required, is it? Black Kite (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think it really matters to say how many specifically. If we have video and at least one source saying more than one we should go with that but if we can find a phrasing that avoids suggesting a specific number that would seem to address this issue. Springee (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I support saying "was hit with at least one milkshake" and additionally observe that only at Wikipedia would grownups fret over whether someone at a protest was hit by one, or more than one, beverage blending milk, ice cream, and flavorings or sweeteners such as butterscotch, caramel sauce, chocolate syrup, fruit syrup, or whole fruit into a thick, sweet, cold mixture. It's good that we all have a lot of time on our hands. Now, it would be different if Ngo had been hit by a milkshake loaded with concrete or other dangerous substance, but as discussed above, no reliable source reported any such thing or even that Ngo had claimed it was so. NedFausa (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you aware of the Wp:NPA policy? Please don't accuse us of being "grownups" :D Springee (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Though I'd prefer "hit by one or more milkshake" I can also live with "hit with at least one milkshake".

Fretting over how many milkshakes hit Ngo might sound silly but should this complaint not rather be laid at the feet of those who repeatedly insisted that it was only one milkshake and refused to watch a video? Str1977 ^(talk) 17:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Str1977: Please, let's not play the blame game over trivia. I remind you that of the four references in our article supporting "hit with a milkshake" that mention it, half report Ngo being hit by one, not multiple beverages. Editors such as I who refuse to watch The Independent video may have perfectly valid reasons. That particular video begins with a WARNING – VIDEO CONTAINS VIOLENCE THAT SOME VIEWERS MAY FIND DISTRESSING. Being too squeamish to subject myself to images of graphic violence, I for one must rely on textual reports. This single-frame news photo is as much as I can stomach of Antifa USA's brutality that day against Andy Ngo. NedFausa (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa: I have no interest in the blame game, which you seem to have started in your earlier comment.

Your point out references however does not lead to the same conclusion. Supposing four articles support "Hit with a milkshake", they do not contradict that he was hit by more than one. They just report one.

Are you now saying that anyone refusing to watch the video does so out of "squeamishness"? If that is so, it is still not a valid reason to disregard the contents. I have no intention of forcing anyone to watch it, but then please do not force the article to ignore it. While I don't have as much a problem in watching the video as you apparently do, we do share the same distaste of that violence. This is exactly why I don't want to have it swept under the rug (which currently seems to be a thing in the US). If you can't watch the video, fine. But those who can, can also see multiple milkshakes being thrown at Andy Ngo. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Name diacritic

In his twitter profile uses Andy Ngô, this should be added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.16.86.106 (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

It's already in the lead, in bold as part of his full name. If you mean, however, that Ngo should be globally replaced in the BLP with Ngô, doing so would put us at odds with the preponderance of reliable sources. NedFausa (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with NedFausa’s points and want to add that universally changing the o to an ô would probably be more of a hassle than its worth especially as it will introduce errors for readers on some mobile platforms. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Which mobile platforms can't show "ô"? -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

NPOV, lead issues

There are myriad issues with this article.

1) There are a number of disputes that are central themes to this BLP. Most of them seem partisan in nature, for example, his firing from a college paper. Reliable sources have documented the justification for the firing offered by the newspaper board members and the conservative media criticisms. Both are DUE viewpoints; only one is reflected in the article.

2) The lead describes him as being a participant in a "confrontation" with activists. News reports reported he was assaulted by Antifa members. This non-synchronous description between the Wiki article and what the sources have reported is not in compliance with policy, namely WP:BLP.

3) The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article body. Where in the body does it say that Ngo gained "national attention" for the protester confrontation?

Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Where to start? Your citation of the Willamette Week source ignored the context provided by that source to merely say criticism "exists". Wikipedia isn't a gossip column, so this kind of context-free trivia is inappropriate. The WW source mainly discusses Brietbart, but hopefully we all know that WP:BREITBART is garbage as a reliable source. The WW source provides context, so they can use "conservative media" as shorthand for Brietbart. We do not have that option, at least not without a disproportionate level of context. Reducing that in the article to the even more simplistic "conservatives" is both euphemistic and misrepresents the source. There is some deep irony in selectively ignoring context from a source which clearly explains that Ngo was fired for selectively ignoring context from his own sources.

Antifa is not a gang, is not organized, doesn't have formal members, and doesn't need to be capitalized. Prior to this confrontation, Ngo had a long history of antagonizing and doxing left-wing protesters and activists in Oregon. This, too, is important context. Per the Vox article: But the aftermath of the attack — the narratives both sides have spun out of the basic facts established by the footage — is much trickier to assess. The term "assaulted" would be presuming that one narrative is correct, and the other narratives are not worth mentioning. This is non-neutral, and would be non-synchronous with sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that start, @Grayfell:. My response:

1) Your citation of the Willamette Week source ignored the context provided by that source to merely say criticism "exists". Wikipedia isn't a gossip column, so this kind of context-free trivia is inappropriate. The WW source mainly discusses Brietbart, but hopefully we all know that WP:BREITBART is garbage as a reliable source. It's not whether criticism exists. It's whether a viewpoint has been reported in a reliable source. The cited source was not Breitbart,'' as you acknowledge, but The Williamette Week. Reliability of Breitbart or lack thereof has nothing to do with it, nor do editor's opinions on the merits of those viewpoints. See WP:DUE, WP:NPOV. If it's political victimhood by the conservative media over nothing, then so be it, but that can't be omitted from a summary of what propelled him to "national attention" as the article states.

2) If "Antifa" is properly capitalized as "antifa," that is a stylistic change I will agree with. It didn't require deleting the entire sentence. Nowhere did my edits characterize it as a gang or organized.

3) The description in reliable sources was an assault, including in the sources already cited in the article. This is not qualified or counterbalanced by the unsourced background you've provided here. If there's a source that does not describe it as an assault and provides a different "narrative" as you put it, I'd be glad to review that and take it into account. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Do not ping me again. As I said, a source provides context. You cannot strip that context away to include an isolated detail. Edits like this replace encyclopedic information with trivia and factoids. Summarize what sources are actually saying, not the parts you happen to find interesting. Grayfell (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

A bunch of bad faith accusations that have nothing to do with policy. "Important information" to one editor is "trivial factoids" to another (but if you read WP:CIVIL, we don't call it that.) We don't go by these subjective standards, what matters are what are reported in the sources and policy. Your omissions of "factoids" in this case remove key information in the article about the subject's background and notoriety and violates NPOV, and your suggestion that Ngo was an antagonizer of what reliable sources describe as an assault (you say it wasn't) is a blatant BLP violation. This is unacceptable, and kindly do not remove NPOV tags unilaterally. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Your edit was inappropriate, because it decontexualized reliable sources to emphasize a specific, non-neutral point. Describing content issues in direct language is perfectly WP:CIVIL, even if you dislike or disagree with what I am saying. My assessment of sources and the facts reported by those sources is not a personal attack, and it is disruptive to imply that it is.

Sources explain why the confrontation was not a simple issue despite initial coverage, so we should use a broader, more neutral term.

Improvement tags are meant to prompt improvement to the article. They are not meant to be badges of shame. There is clearly an active talk page, so the purpose of this tag is poorly justified. Further, your actions are just as "unilateral" as mine. Grayfell (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting my use of the tag. The tag is meant to draw attention to a specific issue on the talk page. One shouldn't automatically assume a tag is a badge of shame. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, I think you are viewing my edits in a vacuum, as opposed to their place in the entire article. I am adding context, not removing it. Almost all of the "counter" points (if we're going to call them that) that you raise are already in the article. What I added were perspectives that were reported in those same sources that are cited but are curiously missing, i.e. what the conservative position was on his firing, the alleged assault, and his lawsuit, among others. These details are not "trivia"; they flesh out key points in an article that mostly describes disputes between the subject, who is highly controversial, and other groups/figures/organizations. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

You added details, but I dispute that you added the necessary context for those details, nor do I accept that those details belong in the lead, nor do I accept that your summary was from a neutral point of view. The lead is intended to summarize the body. Using the lead to emphasize specific, politically suggestive points is non-neutral. If there is room to contextualize these details in the body of the article, so be it. This isn't an excuse to hint at conclusions in the lead. Grayfell (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I generally think Wikieditor19920's edits are an improvement. I see some issues where things were worse but those could be corrected without a total revert. I like that 19920 had a three paragraph layout that started with a clear "Ngo is X and Y and works for Z" That makes for a clean opening paragraph vs being merged into the rest of the lead as we have now. I think adding some sort of counterbalance to the student paper part is important, especially since it is the event that got Ngo recognized by an outside publication. The last paragraph I think is more problematic. The argument that "we don't know it was Antifa" should be respected (see the talk page history there). I don't think Ngo's lawsuit, is lead worthy. I'm not even sure it's closed. However, in the previous lead I think the implication that he was coordinating with right wing groups is getting too much attention. Still, that was another one that had a lot of discussion so I would be reluctant to just ditch it. I guess that means I think this 19920's edit was about 50% better. I would say break it up into the 3 paragraphs (is that a contentious change), add something like what 19920 added to the middle paragraph. Restore the original text for the last paragraph. Springee (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not his coordination is getting "too much attention" should be primarily determined by the weight of sources. The Beachamp source used by Wikieditor19920 (which was already redundantly cited in the article) specifically also supports this coordination. Further, since this has been covered by multiple sources, we have to look at the larger picture. Later sources (etc.) specifically contextualize this incident as being directly related to his cozy relationship with neo-fascist groups such as the Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer. It is not enough to pick a detail from a source to add a detail the lead out of balance, because this leads to false balance. Encyclopedic writing means including a longer-view of the story. If we cannot explain these incidents neutrally in context, we should not cram them salaciously into the lead as a half-assed compromise. Grayfell (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

This is something we went over in the past. It looks like a couple of sources that are politically opposed to what Ngo has been reporting took a video of Ngo being near the PB's and spun that into something. Did we ever have a high quality source make the connection? This seems to be more an effort to discredit than anything else. I oppose inclusion in the lead but I'm not sure my opposition is sufficient to say consensus has shifted. I'm not sure what you mean by your last comment. What incident are we cramming in? I thought fired from his school paper and the associated story was significant because it resulted in his opportunity to write for a national site. Springee (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• The coverage of his association with Patriot Prayer is pretty extensive - we devote, by my count, two fairly large paragraphs to it totally a bit under 10% of the article (and they have a bunch of independent sources, so that seems appropriate.) It also provides extremely vital context to both the videos and confrontations that made him famous, and the sources covering it generally treat it that way. I absolutely don't think we can omit it from the lead. I'd be especially reluctant to cover confrontations he's been in in the lead while ignoring followup coverage from many of the same sources that indicate that he may have been involved with the groups responsible for those confrontations - that seems like it would be giving WP:UNDUE focus to just one side of the story. We can be (and are) cautious with our wording, and we note Ngo's denials in the article (though further down because they're not given any credence in secondary sources AFAIK.) But Ngo himself seems to be the only person who thinks that that association is still in doubt, at which point WP:MANDY probably applies. --Aquillion (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

That link has always been questionable. It was an example of sources that clearly didn't like Ngo or what he was reporting suggesting a connection based on very questionable evidences and "an undercover source". Certainly that undercover source would have no perverse incentive to lie right? If this were covered by more mainstream sources or if the evidence were more substantial I would be more sympathetic to the efforts to that really look like little more than an effort to discredit a political opponent. This sort of effort to control the narrative isn't something that others have failed to notice [[12]]. Springee (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The WP:STONEWALLING at this article is shocking. Nowhere in the article does it indicate that this is the reason he received "national attention," yet @Grayfell: continues to restore it while calling terms like "conservative media" unsupported because he attributes to to Breitbart, a view this editor deems non-credible. Meanwhile, the Williamette Weekly uses precisely those terms: [13].

The only "links" between Ngo and Patriot Prayer that I can find are in the context of one specific protest, yet @Aquillion:, in disregard of BLP, asserts "extensive" links without sources, and synthesizes by claiming that what was reported as an assault really isn't because of the actions of organizations that the subject was allegedly loosely "associated" with in one particular context. The emphasis on "alleged connections with Patriot Prayer" in the lead is a misleading and flat-out BLP violation, and the description of what transpired with the "confrontation" in painting him as an aggressor, contrary to what the sources have reported, is equally unacceptable. Efforts to restore neutrality to this article are being painted as "decontextualizing" and other bad-faith accusations, creating further problems. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

And Grayfell needs to read sources before he accuses other editors of editorializing. Here is the source where the "free speech" bit comes from. Sloppily skimming sources, missing information, and then accusing other editors of contrivances is not what should be occurring here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)\

Grayfell violates BLP by suggesting the subject has "cozy relations" with "neo-fascist groups" and the line in the lead that suggests "alleged connections" with a far-right group called Patriot Prayer is broader than what the sources describe—this is an inference apparently drawn by an editor, and it is one that is inappropriately being repeatedly restored to the article. The sources describe him tagging along at events. The Rolling Stone reports that the group allows him at events to report and offers protection—Ngo denied to the publication that there was an implicit agreement. The "broader connections" language is conspiratorial and suggests something beyond what the sources have reported, yet it is persistently being reinserted. Again, this absolutely can not continue, especially because the line was already challenged. It should not have been restored so promptly. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC) Characterizations of proper efforts to flesh out perspectives reported in reliable sources as "false balance" has nothing to do with what that policy stands for—that refers to opinions in unreliable sources. That is not what is occurring here. Including all perspectives reported in reliable sources is called compliance with WP:NPOV, the exact opposite of false balance Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

"Stonewalling"? How about WP:SEALIONing.

Per several sources, including ones you link, Ngo had or has a cozy relationship with Patriot Prayer and the Proud Boys, which are a neo-fascist group. Me explaining this on a talk page is not a BLP violation, and calling this a BLP violation is WP:CRYBLP.

The first significant national sources which mention Ngo do so because he was fired from Vanguard and then took a tour on the outrage circuit to complain about it.

As I have already explained, in the article, you must summarize what sources are actually saying, not just the bits you find interesting or compelling. Stripping context away from a single sentence in a local news source to emphasize "free speech" in the lead is inappropriate and non-neutral. That this was not even explained in the body makes this worse, but that's not an endorsement of cherry-picking this kind of thing there, either. Grayfell (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Your characterization of any attempt to improve the neutrality of this article as "POV" is patently ridiculous.

• "Per several sources, including ones you link, Ngo had or has a cozy relationship with Patriot Prayer and the Proud Boys, which are a neo-fascist group. There are two sources on this talk page that cover this: the first alleges that he had some sort of understanding with the group in order to tail them and report on their activities, and the second source is entirely based on the first and relies on it as a source for all of its information. They also mention that Ngo disputes that this occurred through an attorney. The fact that you believe this information can be presented without noting Ngo's dispute, and that you rehash the allegations in your own words on the talk page without acknowledging it (and believe that being called on this is "crying blp) is flat-wrong, indeed a violation of BLP.
• In case it wasn't clear the first time: your dismissive characterizations of the "conservative media" perspective reported by the Williamette have approximately ZERO to do with how we assess weight. It is a perspective reported in a reliable source (The Williammette, not Breitbart), and it belongs in the article for neutrality.

You are also repeatedly mischaracterizing relevant policies. WP:FALSEBALANCE is when an editor wrongly equates information from a reliable sources from a fringe sources, not opposing views reported in a reliable source. As for the rest, and I suggest deferring to policy rather than essays. Other editors have agreed with me that there is a problem and that some of the recent changes were an improvement. Edit warring is unhelpful and unwarranted. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• Just did a search and found plenty of RS saying that Ngo claimed he was attacked by antifa. But, none that actually said it was antifa. O3000 (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Vox says the attack was carried out by participants from an antifa-organized counter protest against a far right group.

Last Saturday, the far-right Proud Boys group held a rally in Portland, Oregon. Left-wing groups, including the Portland branch of the militant antifa group, put together a counterprotest — whose attendees clashed with the Proud Boys. But the most notable instance of violence had nothing to do with the Proud Boys: It was an attack by counterprotesters on the conservative journalist Andy Ngo that reportedly sent him to the hospital.

Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

It said antifa organized the protest. It did not say they were involved with this clash. Later in the article, it says: We don’t yet have proof that the people who assaulted Ngo were antifa members (though it seems likely given their history). That's not strong enough to even suggest it was antifa. O3000 (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Then we can add the above context and attribute the description of the attackers as "antifa" to Ngo. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

We can say he blamed antifa, but there is no evidence. O3000 (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

WaPo said he was left bloodied by antifa activists. See here: [14] Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

At a protest organized by antifa and other leftist groups, Ngo was attacked and injured in a confrontation with counterprotesters. Ngo blamed antifa members for the assault." I would not say there is "no evidence," but we don't weigh evidence either. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Not only is it not true that there's no evidence; we in fact have an excellent source, WaPo, which confirms that he was attacked and injured by antifa activists. Link above. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

In each of two articles, WaPo refers to others parties making the claim that it was antifa. First, the publisher is refering to specific polititans. 1 "The senators also pointed to conservative journalist Andy Ngo, who in June was left bloodied by antifa activists in Portland, Ore." The linked article within that passage refers to a Proud Boys organizer by stating 2 "But Proud Boys leader and event organizer Luke Rohlfing told the Daily Beast that the event is also aimed at left-wing anti-fascist activists after a violent clash in Portland last week left conservative writer Andy Ngo bloodied, shaken and doused in a vegan milkshake." This differs from the Washington Post stating directly that Ngo was definitavely attacked by antifa, or antifa supporters/affiliates. It appears that there were no charges or named suspects in this assault on Ngo, making it difficult to discern the affiliations of the individuals involved. I agree with Objective3000 the the most factually accurate statement we can say is that Ngo (or Luke Rohlfing/Proud Boys or Senator Cruz) blamed antifa, but it is not clear that the individuals who assaulted Ngo were antifa proper. Cedar777 (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

No, the first source puts it in WaPo's voice. WaPo does not attribute the claim that the attackers were antifa activists to the senators. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Short version, who was arrested and when is the trial? O3000 (talk) 00:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cedar777: You are incorrect in your description of the WaPO source. It restates the charge that "antifa activists" were responsible for "bloodying" Ngo in their own words. This source qualifies for what Shinealittlelight presented it for, and shows why more in-depth research and providing links to sources can be more helpful than making a blanket claim that sources don't say something based on a cursory search. I don't know whether there are sources that cast doubt on whether it was "antifa activists" repsonsible, but it'd be helpful if any arguments along those lines referenced such sources. In the meantime, I think we have a suitable compromise above. Lastly, the line that Ngo drew "national attention" for "alleged connections" to Proud Boys is patently false and needs to be removed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: Goodness, your disagreement with my interpretation of two WaPo sources quoted from and linked to above does not justify condescension. Upholding WP:CIVIL is equally valid to upholding WP:BLP.

Text from the WaPo article Shinealittlelight first pointed towards contains a hotlink to the second WaPo article (which in turn quotes the Daily Beast and links to a NYT article). As these WaPo articles are referring to the response of two senators and a Proud Boys organizer respectively, caution is advised as to how each sentence is interpreted, particularly when there are other sources that do not make this claim. Cedar777 (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Hyperlinks are much harder to interpret than plain english. The wording of the WaPo story is perfectly clear as it is, and they literally misspoke if they meant to attribute the "bloodied by antifa activists" claim to the senators they mentioned. I see no reason to accuse WaPo of erring in the way you are suggesting. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The WaPo article is a tad unusual as it appears to be written entirely from the view of the senators and Proud Boys, unlike most other RS. O3000 (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The WaPo article straightforwardly says in WaPo voice that Ngo was left bloodied by Antifa activists. I'm not going to pretend that this is not what it said because someone feels like the article may have been attributing it to Cruz since he is also mentioned in the same sentence. That's an absurd argument. I'll email the reporter to see if she stands by her report. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly absurd that the reporter wrote this, without any evidence. I haven't seen any other RS report this. O3000 (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Please strike your statement that Washington Post reporter Marisa Iati is publishing reports without evidence unless you have a clear source to that effect. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a bit like not calling a mob hit a "mob hit" because, absent knowing who the killer is, we don't have "proof" the killer was acting for the mob. Even if we had an arrest and the person claimed to be an antifa activist since antifa has no membership list etc how would you "prove" they were an antifa member. Most RS don't specifically state this attack was carried out by antifa members so I think those opposed to stating it as such are correct. However, I think something like "appeared to be" or similar is warranted. This was not just Ngo getting in a fight with a random person. This was multiple rioters attacking him. We don't need to try to down play this sort of behavior by the mob. Springee (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The "activist" label is yet another BLP violation. The New York Times and Vox refer to him as a journalist. The "activist" label is basically sourced to a Buzzfeed piece that reads like an opinion column. Buzzfeed is not a reliable source and it is ridiculous that this career label is given weight over the New York Times and Vox, which refers to Ngo as a journalist. So I'm removing this, and any efforts to restore it will be treated like a BLP violation. There is no contrary position here. The most reliable source available (NYT) receives the most weight, low-quality opinion pieces from second-tier sources do not. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 11:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Buzzfeed News is not the same as Buzzfeed's clickbait. Per WP:RSP, this distinction has already been discussed on Wikipedia countless times. Vox calles him a "conservative journalist". Using only half of a description would be editorializing. The NYT sometimes calls him a "conservative journalist", but also sometimes a "conservative writer" or just "writer". I cannot actually find the NYT calling him just "journalist" without the "conservative" part, although I didn't look that hard. The emphasis on "conservative" tells us that "journalist" by itself is too simplistic. If sources almost always contextualize this in a certain way, we should avoid over-simplifying by removing that context. Grayfell (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Buzzfeed news is hardly unbiased and using a single reference to add "activist" to the lead is undue. At best it should be attributed in the body. Grayfell, are there other issues with the version of the lead you reverted? Springee (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Buzzfeed news is green at wp:RSP. That you think it is biased does not override community consensus. O3000 (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

There isn't a community consensus for "activist". That was an edit you snuckadded in recently. [Correction: O3000 was not the editor who added it] Springee (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Not only is there no consensus on the "activist" line, there is no community consensus that Buzzfeed carries more weight than the New York Times. WP:RSP recommends caution for articles published after January 2019 for a drop in editorial qualify due to layoffs. The cited piece, calling him an "activist," was published in July 2019. The New York Times piece cited covering Ngo exclusively refers to him as a journalist and not once as an activist. We do not apply career labels based on what's reported in a single second-tier source when that is not also reflected in high-quality sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The emphasis on "conservative" tells us that "journalist" by itself is too simplistic. This is completely baffling to me. The title "journalist" is not complicated in any sense of the word. It's only complicated when you try to draw a connection from "journalist" to "activist" based on low-quality sources, and which is not reflected in high-quality ones. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about? "Snuck". Strike that. And I didn't add it anyhow. O3000 (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Springee's correct that there's no consensus for the line. He mistakenly thought you added it; it was in fact Grayfell. I think that's cleared up now. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't "snuck" in by anyone. It is sourced and obvious to everyone. Let us not stoop to incivility and bad faith edits. O3000 (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The line was re-added without consensus, despite the obvious BLP implications and sourcing issues, and WP:ONUS. That's the problem. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

If the rule is that you must obtain consensus for every edit, you have violated that a dozen times in the last day. Stop supporting a WP:CIV WP:AGF vio. All I have to say on the matter. O3000 (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I removed it per WP:ONUS. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. When we're talking about BLP sensitive content—I can't think of anything more BLP sensitive than the career label in the first sentence, other than something scandalous—WP:ONUS applies. I don't know what else you're referring to. If you have a specific problem with any other changes I've made, feel free to articulate them if you haven't already. Thanks! Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

You restored far more controversial, challenged claims. I suggest you revert them. O3000 (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

If you have a specific problem with any other changes I've made, feel free to articulate them if you haven't already. Thanks! Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I am responding to Shinealittlelight. Does anyone here understand threading? O3000 (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I removed the disputed claim, and I have made no other edits to this page in over a month. Do remove your BLP violation against the WaPo reporter above, though. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Your edit removed more than what you claim here. And I made no BLP vio. It is absolutely within our bounds to comment on reporting. We do this constantly. Just stop. O3000 (talk) 01:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll stop responding to you when you stop talking to me. The diff of my edit is here for all to see: [15]. I simply removed the claim that he is a social media activist from the lead, since that is currently in dispute, and in the opinion of several of us, undue in the lead sentence. If you have something substantive to say, please say it. You're welcome to comment on reporting, of course, but when say without evidence that a journalist at WaPo is publishing unfounded claims, you're crossing a line. WaPo is a central RS, and if you have evidence that she erred, go ahead and present it. But if you're just soiling her name for no reason, please remove it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I said "without evidence" because she gave no evidence. She didn't even say anonymous sources, much less according to authorities. No one has been identified, much less arrested. I don't even see anything about a suspect or person of interest. I do see that the paragraph starts with the resolution by Ted Cruz and the sentence starts with "The senators also pointed to", suggesting that she was just parroting an accusation by two senators, also in the article title, in a failed resolution. In the sentence we are using as a source, there is also an odd link in “who in June was left bloodied by antifa activists” that points to a different protest, a year earlier, saying nothing about antifa engaging in any violent action. This appears to be an error. The article is specifically about a resolution, not the incident, and it talks to the claims and substance therein. And yes, I am allowed to talk about this. Articles are not above reproach. O3000 (talk) 10:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so you did not mean that she has no evidence for the claim that Ngo was attacked by Antifa activists, but only that she did not present such evidence in the article. That seems right. Previously, you said she was making a claim with no evidence. That would have been a baseless smear, so I'm glad to hear that it is not what you meant. I have emailed her, so we will see if she responds. But the default of course is that facts reported in WaPo are reliable unless contradicted by other sources. I place no weight on the link, so that's beside the point. And no, she clearly wasn't attributing it to the senators. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. As a journalist, she has a duty to provide some indication of why she is making an accusation in WaPoVoice if it is not widely known. Perhaps you are smearing her. O3000 (talk) 12:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

There's no such duty. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The sentence has a link that makes no sense and is a sole source. In my mind, there is if it wishes to be used here. It is not a "smear" to question the usefulness of a sentence in an RS that is problematic. Daily journalism is difficult. We all make mistakes. O3000 (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry, and why has the second paragraph been trimmed again? It makes zero sense now. The reason that Ngo got famous was because of "conservative media," whatever you think of him, championing his cause. This is precisely what the cited source from the Williamette says. The firing alone didn't do it. The lead needs to summarize this simple fact. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Your attempted summary of the Vanguard incident was non-neutral. Reliable sources agree that the quote was out-of-context. MOS:ALLEGED is a form of editorializing. For the lead, the reason he came to national attention was for being fired. Anything beyond that is subjective, and your opinion that this is a simple fact is WP:OR. None of this really belongs in the lead at all based on these relatively flimsy sources. The "conservative media" line was a single sentence from a single source which is already over-used in the article. If this is so vitally important that it needs to be included in the lead, it should be supported and contextualized by more than this one mention.

As for the first sentence, I have restored an older version of the first paragraph, since that had consensus for at least several months. Citing WP:ONUS doesn't work as a justification for only including changes you agree with. The purpose is to build consensus, not to game the system.

As for being "attacked by Antifa activists" the Wikipedia article spends significantly more time discussing his laughing with the Patriot Prayer members who organized an attack on Cider Riot. If the lead is supposed to summarize the article, the lead should be roughly proportionate in which things it covers. Painting him as the victim of an attack by "Antifa activist" is non-neutral, because it's emphasizing the most salacious detail without regard to the weight of sources.

Since this seems like a point of confusion: Patriot Prayer is an organization which has members. Patriot Prayer is also loosely a far-right movement. Rose City Antifa is also an organization with some members. Just as not everyone who is far-right is Patriot Prayer, not everyone who is "antifa" is part of an organization. Attributing crimes to "Antifa" is simply not going to work without attribution. Patriot Prayer members are specifically accused of crimes. Antifa members cannot be accused of crimes, because "antifa members" don't exist. This is an encyclopedia, if you need to be specific, be specific. Grayfell (talk) 04:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The sources say His dismissal has drawn national attention from conservative media, which see it as an example of left-wing campuses muzzling free speech. His editorial piece and the conservative reaction--again, regardless of what you think of it--that brought him to national attention. But for that, he would have been fired for the tweet and we would never know who he is. I obviously agree with noting precisely what he was fired for--misrepresenting a Muslim student's remarks. In fact, I was the one who added it. But the other part of the story, and again, whatever any of us thinks of the conservative media (per WW) taking on his cause--whether they were right or wrong--it's a crucial piece of his notoriety and public profile. If the manner I've added this to the lead is "non-neutral," I would appreciate suggestions as to how this can presented in a more neutral fashion.

Painting him as the victim of an attack by "Antifa activist" is non-neutral, because it's emphasizing the most salacious detail without regard to the weight of sources. The lead does not say antifa activists carried out the assault, it says Ngo blamed them for the assault. Second, the WaPo names antifa activists or members for the assault (the sources describe antifa as a group--groups have members. This is how the English language works.). So either version would be acceptable. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Podcast blurb

@Prisencolin: We need a specific reason to include a quote from an interview. This podcast is 1 hour and 20 minutes long, so presumably it has many quotes. It is non-neutral to use this quote, and none of the others, based on nothing but editor opinion. If there is some specific reason to include this line, support it with an WP:IS. Grayfell (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

This was a previous discussion topic. It was included per ABOUTSEFL as it allows Ngo to describe his own political POV. Springee (talk) 10:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I do not see any strong support in the talk page's archives for this specific quote. We can summarize his own views without cherry-picking a sensationalist quote from a lengthy podcast. Looking at these sources closer, it appears this is WP:SYNTH, as well. It appears that none of these sources mention whether or not he "describes himself as such". A more neutral summary would be something like this:

Ngo describes himself as center-right.[podcast] He has been described by others as right wing,[specific sources] or conservative.[specific sources].

At least some sources, such as the RSF.org one, also describe him as "far-right", so this could be included as well. If Ngo directly disputes being called a conservative journalist, let's see a source for that. If he only indirectly disputes this by calling himself "center-right", then having the article say "he describes his political views as center-right" or similar is sufficient. Grayfell (talk) 02:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Please see this discussion at NPOVN [[16]]. The critical points are that we have a number of sources that tell us what they think Ngo's political views are. Since this describes an individual, that individual's view's of himself are inherently relevant even if they are a minority POV in RSs. For this reason the Rogan quote was in the article despite being sourced to a podcast. It should be noted that Rogan's show has viewership numbers that would be respectable on any cable news channel. "Far-right" vs conservative, is a different question. "Far-right" is not used as it becomes a contentious label and not one used by more mainstream, centrists publications. Springee (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with your summary of that discussion.

Again, what is accomplished by this salacious, conversational quote about "a gun to his head" that isn't better accomplished by "he has described himself as politically center-right"? This seems to be a point that was also raised at that discussion, but not, as far as I can see, answered.

As for avoiding far-right, this seems like political correctness, at best. A personal dislike of a term doesn't make it any more or less significant than a some other one. To only use some terms, strictly based on some editor's opinion of how "contentious" they are, would be a form of editorializing. This would be removing sourced content based on one editor's own appraisal of that source's conclusions. It is not up to editors to make conclusions, it is up to sources. If being far-right is contentious, then there would have to be a more-neutral way to explain the same underlying concept without resorting to WP:EUPHEMISMs. "Far-right" is the neutral term for this political position, so it is appropriate language for an encyclopedia. Grayfell (talk) 03:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

No, we go by what the most reliable sources have reported—not on opinion pieces, and not according to second-tier sources, particularly with contentious labels. The New York Times has written on Ngo and used the term "conservative," never "far-right." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The accusations of "editorializing" and "decontextualizing" are getting tiresome. Whether something is controversial or contentious is an objective determination. "Far-left," "far-right," "militant," are all WP:LABELS for whichpolicy requires we use only the highest tier of sources. The best sources available, namely WaPo and NYT, have used no such labels for the subject of this article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The NYTimes rarely uses the term far-right when discussing US politics. Can't remember the last time. O3000 (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Grayfell, are you concerned about the specific wording or simply the source itself? Changing the wording might be OK but allowing Ngo to have his own statements linked via the podcast is a good ABOUTSELF option. The other links are not as effective at communicating Ngo's own POV on the subject and remember, this is a question that was asked and answered in response to the number of sources that were calling him far-right etc. The article is better for offering more depth in this area. Springee (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

It is correct that the NYT is more circumspect about labels like "far-right" or equivalently "far-left," though it does use them. That's because they are indeed a high quality source and are careful to use such labels without extensive evidence. Second-tier sources are more looser about throwing around contentious phrases and descriptors. That's why we follow the former and not the latter. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

For the third time, I propose replacing the full quote from the Rogan podcast with Ngo has described himself as politically center-right and removing the "but doesn't describe himself as such" line as editorializing that is not directly supported by the attached sources.

If reliable sources describe him as far-right, we can discuss the merits of those sources. The NYT is not so reliable that it trumps all other sources. Grayfell (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

As has been explained: WP:RELIABILITY and WP:WEIGHT are not yes/no questions. They are a matter of degree. The NYT is indeed reliable enough that, if it does not use a label, we take that heavily into account. We do not place the same weight on Buzzfeed or a magazine op-ed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. It is not a yes/no question. If a generally reliable outlet like Buzzfeed News publishes an article describing Ngo as far-right, we well have to evaluate that source on its own merits. Invoking "Buzzfeed" to imply clickbait is a deflection, since the only source I specifically mentioned was RSF.org, and only as a potential example.

For context, that source is categorized by the site as news, not an opinion. It includes an editorial comment from the RSF condemning violence against Ngo and affirming his right to report without being attacked. And again, it describes him as "a far-right blogger". This demonstrates that the RSF considers "far-right" as a neutral description. It is context they provide to readers.

As for whether or not "we take that heavily into account"... Not exactly. This is not matched by my experiences on Wikipedia. I have had very similar discussions about this issue on several other BLP articles. If multiple reliable sources use different, overlapping terms, we can evaluate the best way to convey that information to readers without presuming this is a contradiction. The NYT's manual of style is not our manual of style, and we are not a newspaper anyway. The absence of a term in some sources doesn't invalidate it in others. Nobody is saying we should ignore the NYT. We should look at all reliable sources and weigh them accordingly. Grayfell (talk) 09:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. We are not discussing a "manual of style." The NYT's apparent refraining from using contentious labels is a journalistic practice, and it is one indicative of reliability. Buzzfeed News articles dated after their layoffs are marked with a proceed with caution at RSP. We do not defer to your cherrypicked sources, we defer to the most reliable sources, especially when it involves WP:LABEL, which labels suggestive of extremism or "far-right/far-left" are relevant to. There is no "overlap" on the use of the term "far-right" between the NYT and WaPo. Both describe Ngo as conservative. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I am going to suggest a compromise that I believe is compliant with policy: Clearly you feel this content is relevant to the article. It may well be, and I agree that Buzzfeed News is not unreliable, even though it is probably in the middle-tier of reliability. If you want to use that phrase in the article, it should be attributed. I.e. Buzzfeed News has described Ngo as . . . etc. I believe this is compliant with BLP and LABEL, and would not object to its addition. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Please start indenting your comments consistently, per WP:TPG.

My response regarding Buzzfeed was intended to indicate that all outlets are judged in context. It is not possible to precisely rank outlets by reliability, as this is subjective. It is also likely unproductive for any specific change to an article.

We have many sources which us various similar terms. This article is not the place to discuss whether or not "conservative", "right wing" and "far-right" are exclusive or overlapping in a general sense. As I said, I have already had this discussion on several other talk pages. In this particular article, sources which otherwise agree often use different words to describe Ngo's political position. Some likely favor specific terms based on their own MoS, which is why this is relevant to this discussion. The use of "conservative" by one source doesn't challenge the use of "far-right" by another source. The NYT's manual of style is conservative (in the non-political sense) and differs from Wikipedia's in many ways. Other sources use different language to describe the same thing. As a tertiary source, we should sample broadly from reliable sources.

I think it would be unnecessary to attribute every single source, since sources do not treat this as a subjective opinion. From Wikipedia's perspective, it is just as possible for someone to be objectively far-right as it is for them to be objectively conservative. The article already establishes that these descriptions are external to Ngo. If any of these sources explain why they use these terms, this should be used to expand the section and provide more context. In that case, attribution might make a lot more sense. "According to the Podunk Times, Ngo's sympathetic coverage of neo-nationalist groups like Patriot Prayer suggests a far-right political ideology ..." Something like that. Since a large number of sources call him "conservative" as a factual description, there is no particular reason to attribute this, and I don't preemptively assume that a source which uses a different term must be handled with kid gloves. If a source is reliable enough to be cited in a BLP, and the RSF one appears to be reliable, then it is reliable for statements of fact. It is not presented by the source as an opinion. Attributing this as an opinion would imply to readers that this should be doubted, but we have not demonstrated any reason this is unreliable in this context. Grayfell (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

We do not need to "rank" sources to know that the New York Times and WaPo are top-tier and Buzzfeed News is marked as "use caution" at WP:RSP. Four paragraphs are not required on this subject to establish this. If you want to use second-tier sources for contentious labels, attribute them. End of story. Nor did I suggest that "every source" needs to be attributed, nor does "every source" use the label that you are aggressively pushing for. Case in point, WaPo and NYT do not. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't introduce Buzzfeed into this discussion, you did, and again, any specific Buzzfeed News article will have to be evaluated on its own merits. The use of different terminology indicates a different point of view, but it is not necessarily a contradiction. Therefor including information from RSF (such as "far-right blogger") is not a challenge to the NYT's reliability when they say "conservative journalist". Grayfell (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

If you cannot understand this fundamental concept, then you shouldn't be editing a contentious page. Persistently and aggressively pushing for content that is close to or actually violates BLP without consensus is going to get us nowhere. Contentious labels require high quality sources and showing that such use is widespread in those sources. "RSF.org" is nothing close to a mainstream reliable source. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I dunno, maybe if you add some more html code, I'll start agreeing with you...

Your dislike of a term doesn't make it inaccurate, therefore it is not automatically contentious. As I have said, "far-right" is the neutral term for a non-neutral position. Wikipedia is not censored, so we have to be able to use direct language to describe these topics. There really isn't a more neutral way to explain this, so avoiding the term would be euphemistic. Reporters Without Borders is mainstream, especially for issues of journalism, and this source is already cited in the article. We have a lot of reliable sources using different terms. It's not clear that any one of them is definitive in isolation. Lumping together a handful which use anodyne terms, but not any other terms, is cherry-picking. It is using Wikipedia for public relations, which is explicitly contrary to Wikipedia's mission.

Here are how some sources describe Ngo. I have added bold for relevant terms, strictly to make this wall of text more digestible:

• "Reporters Without Borders (RSF) condemns protesters who physically attacked far-right blogger Andy Ngo during a demonstration in Portland, Oregon, on June 29."[17]
• "That quote was in a tweet from Andy Ngo, a right-wing propagandist who has been associated with the violent far-right group, Patriot Prayer."[18]
• "That same day, conservative Portland activist Andy Ngo shared Gray's name and mug shot on Twitter."[19]
• "Andy Ngo, an online provocateur ... Ngo aligned himself with the right-wing groups."[20]
• "The 33-year-old provocateur, despite his pretenses to the contrary, wasn’t a reporter." (and a lot more about his "chummy" relationship with the far-right)[21]
• "The conservative activist and journalist Andy Ngo sued Hacker and several other people earlier this year, alleging they harassed him over his unfavorable coverage of antifa."[22]
• "He believes the retraction was spurred by right-wing agitator Andy Ngo, who tweeted that the company was 'offering to donate ice pops to the Portland antifa rioters.'"[23]
• "He has retweeted posts by Andy Ngo (a right-wing provocateur who fashions himself as a gonzo journalist), George Soros conspiracies, and seems to believe there is a communist conspiracy to take guns away from American citizens."[24]
• "But the issue wasn’t so much that Ngo had finally been “exposed” as a right-wing provocateur as opposed to a journalist. It was that he’d managed to successfully convince so many ostensibly reasonable people otherwise, despite significant evidence to the contrary — and, in so doing, did some serious damage in the process."[25]
• "But the most notable instance of violence had nothing to do with the Proud Boys: It was an attack by counterprotesters on the conservative journalist Andy Ngo that reportedly sent him to the hospital. ...But according to a second narrative, offered primarily by less well-known left-liberal writers and social media accounts, the mainstream media is getting it all wrong. Ngo is not an innocent victim but a far-right sympathizer who has doxxed antifa members in the past, potentially facilitating their harassment, and provokes them so that he can broadcast the result." The source is not picking sides, but explicitly does not discount the "far-right" perspective.
• "In the hour before airing President Trump’s interview, OAN ran a segment on nationwide anti-racism protests that focused on “leftist rioters” and “antifa” and that used footage from far-right media activist Andy Ngo."[26]

I could keep going, but a there is enough here to make an observation: None of these sources present his political position as separate from his career. All of them use it as a defining trait in relation to his activities. Having a subsection for "Political views" is misrepresenting how sources describe him. He is not notable as a journalist who happens to have views, he is notable as an "activist", "agitator", "provocateur", "busybody journalist" etc.

To avoid hagiography or PR, we should either integrate this information into the rest of the article, or we should have a proper "Reception" section. I'm not optimistic about the former. The latter has WP:CSECTION issues, but it would be a much better way to contextualize how sources view his work instead of his "views", which are not actually all that important anyway. Grayfell (talk) 05:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

This isn't the first or second time you've tried to push "right-wing" vs conservative etc. You don't have consensus for this change. I think it was last December when a more expansive list of sources made it clear that conservative was used more often and by the more reliable, mainstream sources. The same is true of attempts to replace journalist with other descriptors. Springee (talk) 10:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Grayfell can call compliance with BLP and sourcing standards "hagiography," but this aggressive POV pushing and mis-use of low-quality and opinion pieces has no place in the article. If yu want to provide a list of sources, include the names of the publications and dates next to each bullet point. To reiterate: the most reliable, neutral pieces on the subject (WaPo/NYT) have used no such terminology (except calling him conservative), and those our are default. And by the way, since when do we start identifying journalists' political views in the lead sentence? When did this become standard practice? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Possibly since we started calling political bloggers journalists. O3000 (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Why would we call him a blogger vs editor at large or what ever the WSJ called him? This has been beaten to death, conservative journalist was the result from the last time. Why change it now? What has changed? Springee (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say call him a blogger here, although some sources do and it seems to fit better. I was just answering the question. O3000 (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Any user using the term "blogger" here appears not to have read the sources. See The New York Times, which calls him a conservative journalist. "Blogger" may be a fun euphemism, but I see no link to a source on this page using that terminology and I see no "Andy Ngo blog." BLP applies to talk pages as well as main pages, and we have a responsibility not to throw around inaccurate labels here or anywhere else. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Accusations of vandalism are some of the worst personal attacks on WP. I suggest you self-rvt. O3000 (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

My edit was serious, not vandalism as you called it. Some cites for blogger. [27], [28], [29], [30], [31] O3000 (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

My apologies for misinterpreting. I was not accusing you of vandalism. The AP source is helpful. Howeve,r the Vox piece does not call him a blogger, it cites a tweet calling him a blogger, and there's no consensus on Vice and I would tend to consider it unreliable in most instances and non-mainstream, and Business Insider isn't great. However, "blogger" is a bit of misnomer even used by the AP. Is he a "blogger" because he's on social media? I don't think "blogger" is a very current term. I think "social media personality" hit it best, and even there, the NYT and WaPo kept it to "conservative journalist." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

You missed The Independent, which is RS and called him a conservative blogger. O3000 (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

It calls him a blogger in the headline, and a "writer" in the article. I'm not sure how someone can be a blogger without a blog, but maybe I'm missing something. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the self-rvt. O3000 (talk) 22:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Headlines are generally not considered reliable. If the labels don't appear in the body then we assume they aren't there. Anyway, we really shouldn't be re-litigating either "conservative" or "journalist" given the large numbers of editors who have weighed in on those questions. Honestly, the same is true of the Rogan link and quote. It's the best example of Ngo's reply to what others say about his political beliefs. Yes, other sources might offer an abridged summary but Ngo's own words are the most authoritative with respect to his self declaration. Springee (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Self declarations are not particularly useful. Every terrorist calls himself a freedom fighter. Note from The Guardian, a highly regarded source, Ngo "describes himself as a journalist, and his work has appeared almost exclusively in hyper-partisan conservative outlets like The College Fix" [32] I think this article needs some work. But, unlike what normally happens, I won't tag it. O3000 (talk) 00:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Fortunately we have the NYT to rely on. Soon the tensions escalated, with a black-clad activist striking the conservative journalist Andy Ngo in the face while others slimed him with what protesters said were vegan coconut milkshakes. Mr. Ngo was left bloodied and obviously shaken, reporting the attack in a video livestreamed to his more than 140,000 Twitter followers when a city medic arrived to check on him. [33]. Note that the article is currently locked. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Please realize that we use a prevalence of info in RS -- not a single RS. O3000 (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT means we defer to the highest quality sources, not what appears more often in lower-quality sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying The Associated Press and The Independent are lower-quality? You keep quoting one source -- and that one source has an editorial policy to avoid certain terms. That's why we use multiple sources. And, I'm not even arguing for a change anyhow. O3000 (talk) 01:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Editorial policy counseling hesitancy to apply contentious labels is a hallmark of reliability and precisely why the NYT is accorded the weight it receives. The Independent only used the word "blogger" in the headline, not the body of the article. If you're not advocating for a specific change, I'm not going to continue down this path just for the sake of debate, as interesting as it is. I think we have a clear hierarchy of sources and NyT/WaPo are rightfully at the top of that list. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The entire purpose of a tertiary source (like Wikipedia) is to summarize sources. In Wikipedia's case, this almost always means multiple reliable sources. There is no hierarchy that places NYT at the top in these simplistic terms, but even there were, it would not justify ignoring other reliable sources which use slightly different language. There is no substantial dispute between sources here. It is possible to be "right wing", "conservative", "far-right", a "journalist", a "provocateur", a "propagandist" an "activist", a "blogger" and a butcher, baker, candlestick maker, tinker, tailor, solider, spy, etc. Our goal is to weigh all reliable sources and summarize accordingly. It doesn't mean we completely ignore sources some editors deem slightly less reliable. Reliable sources us a broader range of terms, in a broader range of contexts, than the article currently explains. This is a gap in Wikipedia's coverage of Andy Ngo as an encyclopedia topic.

As for "contentious labels", BLP says this: "Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources." I do not accept as a premise that "far-right" is always contentious, but it doesn't even matter in this case. We still use sources either way, and we favor WP:IS. Further, "far-right" is more precise. In this context, "conservative" lacks precision. Both the letter and spirit of BLP is that we should summarize reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Conservative is a rather neutral descriptor as might be right leaning. "Far-right", "provocateur", "propagandist"? No, those are cleearly value laden, as is "activist" as being used here. Our best sources said conservative and journalist. You don't have to like it but please respect prior discussions and consensus. Springee (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I can think of many examples of people who have bridled because reliable sources were saying they were "conservative". Is "conservative" more neutral because it's more open to interpretation, or because of its emotional connotations? Neither of these are valid reasons for using a euphemism. It would be a disservice to readers, and as I said, it would be less precise. So in your opinion conservative is a rather neutral descriptor. Ngo is a political social media personality. Readers will expect to know the the activities and political position of a political personality.

Labels can be "value laden". The problem is that Wikipedia needs labels. We need to be able to use words to describe people, even if those people would rather we use different words. We do not allow self-descriptions and PR to over-ride reliable sources, because Wikipedia isn't a platform for PR. Favoring language strictly because it's inoffensive to some is political correctness.

To be clear, I am not saying we should call him a "far-right propagandist" or something as a factual label in the lead. I am saying we must properly weigh sources which use terminology like this. If we're going to say "some sources call him conservative" we must also be open to sources which call him "far-right", or the sources which specifically dispute his legitimacy as a journalist. Disliking these sources doesn't invalidate them. Grayfell (talk) 23:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Alleged bar attack

The article suggests that it's questionable although it's not supported by sources like [34]. What seems alleged is Ngo's participation in the planning, more than that an attack occurred at the bar? —PaleoNeonate – 01:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I was being over-cautious. As far as I know, nobody is disputing that this was an attack. I'm just now noticing that the bar, Cider Riot, has its own article. Grayfell (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Nobody disputes that a fight occurred. It is not known who "threw the first punch". Just as we aren't saying Antifa attacked Ngo in June (we are only saying Ngo was attacked) we also shouldn't say PP attacked, after all, we don't have the court cases, judgements etc. The line in the wiki article saying that PP was "planning violence" should probably be changed to "planning for violence". The first says they were going with the intent to start a fight. The second says they were expecting that violence may be an outcome of what ever happens. This sentence is also a BLP issue, "Ngo, who ultimately blamed the violence on antifascist activists, is seen smiling and laughing at the discussion." since it is not clear if Ngo heard what was actually being said (that is an allegation, not a proven fact) and it creates the impression that Ngo's reporting of who started the violence was perhaps coordinated with PP. From Reason's article on the subject, "the underlying evidence is incredibly thin. At worst, new video footage reveals Ngo to be inattentive and preoccupied with his phone at key moments. This information strengthens concerns about the selectivity of Ngo's reporting, but falls far short of proving that he knew about a planned attack."[[35]] And more, "Regarding Ngo, while the claims being made about him do contain "kernels of truth," as he concedes, there is a vast chasm between what the video actually shows versus what it is alleged to show.

Far from being engaged in conservation with Gibson's associates and intently involved in what they are saying, Ngo appears in the video only occasionally, and is mostly in the periphery, pacing and incessantly checking his phone." Reason is a good source but only one. That means it can't be used to say "this is what really happened" However, it can be used to say that sources disagree regarding the significance or meaning of the video. Springee (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

A Reason.com opinion column is absolutely not a reliable source for any factual claims about this incident. Repeating juicy quotes from this opinion over and over again in multiple sections of this talk page is disruptive. Take it to WP:RSN if you intend to cite this in the article, otherwise drop it and find an actual reliable source.

As for sentences being "a BLP issue", Wikipedia is not The Daily Beast! Reporting in a source cannot be a BLP issue because Wikipedia is not responsible for how sources report on things. According to all reliable sources, Patriot Prayer showed up at Cider Riot, during a May Day event, with weapons and body armor. There is nothing extraordinary about this observation that they planned violence, and this is supported by multiple reliable sources and primary footage. Nobody seems to be talking about "who threw the first punch", nor would this necessarily matter, so this is a deflection which is not based on sources or Wikipedia policy. Now, if Ngo had documented who threw the first punch as a journalist, and if he were a reliable source, this still wouldn't make a difference. He didn't, and he isn't, so it doesn't. Your disagreement or dislike of reliable sources has no weight here. Grayfell (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Why do you think that was an opinion column vs a column reporting on the reports of others? You seem to want to throw out any analysis that doesn't support your POV but keep that which does. BTW, not all sources said PP showed up and started the fight. I believe this was already discussed in the past. Yes, they are alleged to have but Antifa members were alleged to have attacked Ngo. Springee (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The BLP issue is that claiming a journalist was somehow connected with a planned attack because he was present and filming at an event just before is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL and dubious claim. WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims require only the highest quality of sources for inclusion. That is absent here. The burden is on the editors seeking inclusion to show those sources exist, not on the editors opposing inclusion to show that they don't. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The sourcing for this material is insufficient for inclusion. Due weight, especially for a claim like this in a BLP, must be established by being reported by prominent RS. None of the current sources--a blog post on Portland Mercury being the main source--is in any reasonable sense prominent. I'm not sure the Portland Mercury post--which I am calling a blog post because the heading says "Blogtown" in big letters--is RS at all, since blogs typically aren't. But even if it is RS, it isn't prominent, and does not establish that the report is due. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

In justifying restoring this content repeatedly (before the article was locked), Grayfell stated Consensus isn't a vote, and an excessively lengthy post isn't a supervote. Your personal opinion that this is undue is at odds with MOS:LEAD. Your opinion that they are "second-tier" is at odds with WP:RS. The lead summarizes the body of the article, and this incident has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The lead also includes Ngo's denial. Grayfell (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC) A few points of clarification:

• At least as many editors oppose inclusion of the last paragraph of the lead based on sourcing issues than have supported inclusion. The support votes have not been accompanied by any rationale that satsifies the following objections: 1) the sourcing is poor, 2) the sourcing does not give it sufficient weight for the lead, 3) the claim is WP:EXCEPTIONAL.
• Grayfell calls my and others' objection our "personal opinion." Wrong. These are our editorial opinions. Dismissing those who disagree with you out of hand and accusing them of merely acting on personal, non-editorial reasoning is a violation of WP:CIVIL.
• this incident has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The lead also includes Ngo's denial. I have seen no mainstream coverage for this "incident," unlike for his firing, his testimony before Congress, or the attack in Portland, which were covered by the likes of the NYT, WaPo, The Independent, and others. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
• Just to clarify my original post: I propose removing alleged from "In August 2019, footage from May was published showing Ngo with armed Patriot Prayer members prior to an alleged attack on a bar frequented by antifa protesters." —PaleoNeonate – 17:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Social media personality or photojournalist

I failed to understand the usage of social media personality while the main work of Andy Ngo is documenting arrest records of Antifa members. what is the justification of the particular choice of words? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElleShd (talk • contribs) 05:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 September 2020

To change "social media personality" to "photojournalist"

The main work of Andy Ngo is documenting arrest records of Antifa members and publishing video of antifa violence. Contents were accompanied with minimal text reports, with no opinions. I am afraid social media personality is not an appropriate description of him. ElleShd (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Labels in the lead

Coffeeandcrumbs, added the label provocateur to the lead in Wikivoice. What sources in the body or in general support using a contentious LABEL of BLP subject in wikivoice in the opening sentence? Springee (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Several media outlets, including The Oregonian and The Rolling Stone, have described him as a "right-wing provocateur".[36][37][38][39][40][41][42] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Here are more RS:[43][44] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

What I actually object to is the word "conservative". That is a LABEL we do not use on the opposite side. We do not label people as "liberal", so why does this first sentence include "conservative". I also doubt we have the sources to label him a "journalist" with due weight in the lead. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Springee, since I have now challenged your assertion that he is a "journalist", you should also self-revert. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Journalist is long standing and has previously been discussed. It's not something I just added. Springee (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Does not matter. Per WP:BLP it should have a citation. I do not see anywhere on the page where it is cited. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

You are wrong, first, this is not only long standing but material that exists due to previous consensus for it to be in the article. Second, BLP removal statement applies when the material doesn't already have consensus. This material does. The use of the term journalist is strongly supported by RSs [[45]]. We aren't saying he is a good or bad journalist, only that journalism is his profession. This is not a contentious label (ie it's a description of his profession vs applying a subjective term like "racist" [46]] Springee (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The previous discussion you link to was inconclusive. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Where is the discussion that support "provocateur"? You added that label twice today even though it's clearly disputed and it's a contentious LABEL (journalist is not). Springee (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

How is a self-revert of a self-revert adding "that label twice today"? I self-reverted in good faith while we discussed it here. But in the mean time a different editor added "journalist" back creating a POV issue. I located the best sources to add to the lead and added provocateur back (now with LEADCITE) for parity. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

You are correct, that add then revert was effectively a null edit but it occurred only after other editors asked to to consider your edits. However, you still violated 1RR and it's clear that is a disputed label. You felt it was OK to remove "journalist" (a job description) but felt "provocateur" was fine. That's questionable. Either way, we can let ARE decide if you violated 1RR. Springee (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

C&C says he "doesn't believe" that there are sufficient sources to use the term journalist. User links to a discussion where the NYT and WaPo are provided, using just that term, C&C calls it "inconclusive." This doesn't follow. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)