Talk:Andy Ngo/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Ambiguous sentence

"Activists consider Ngo a threat to their safety because he regularly posts their mug shots and personal information to social media resulting in harassment and death threats"

The wording on this sentence is borderline WP:BLP, reading almost like an accusation that he himself intentionally provokes these instances of harassment and death threats. The last part of the sentence is sourced to "KOIN" and "jacobinmag" which are pretty weak to make such bold claims. In any case KOIN says "Ngo has faced significant criticism from activists who say his coverage spurs death threats and harassment.", this wording is way more clear and unambiguous.

Similarly the next sentence and his frequent collaboration and advocacy for White Nationalist groups like the Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer. is completely unsourced or at best WP:SYNTH. None of the sources use the word "advocacy". The closest thing Portland Mercury says is Ngo tags along with Patriot Prayer during demonstrations, hoping to catch footage of an altercation. Ben says Ngo doesn’t film Patriot Prayer protesters discussing strategies or motives. He only turns his camera on when members of antifa enter the scene. “There’s an understanding,” he says, “that Patriot Prayer protects him and he protects them.”. This is hardly a collaboration or advocacy, and in any case the source says "there's an understanding", meaning that's his subjective interpretation, which is stated here as fact in Wikipedia's voice. Interestingly enough, even that wording alone is part of ongoing litigation as noted at the top of the Portland Mercury article. The Rolling Stone source, which quotes the Portland Mercury, directly contradicts this suppossed collaboration, saying he refused an offer of protection and for that he got attacked. Neither the word advocacy or collaboration are used. Loganmac (talk) 07:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I think Loganmac raises some good points. First, this basically confirms that this edit[[1]] should largely be reverted (the removal of what Ngo was wearing being the exception). Based on the original 3 sources that Cedar777 added I think the relevant sentences are:

Oregonean: "Ngo has angered activists by frequently publicizing the identities of demonstrators, often after they’ve been arrested or accused of crimes at protests."

WWeek: "...Ngo, whom they consider a threat to their safety because he regularly posts their mug shots and personal information to social media following their arrests."

KOIN: "Ngo has faced significant criticism from activists who say his coverage spurs death threats and harassment."

Article sentence prior to edit mentioned above: "Activists consider Ngo a threat to their safety because he regularly posts their mug shots and personal information to social media following their arrests, resulting in harassment and death threats."

I think the it might be better to say something like "Ngo has angered activists by frequently publishing mug shots and identities of activists on social media after their arrests. Activists also say his coverage has resulted in death threats and harassment." Alternatively using the article sentence, "Activists consider Ngo a threat to their safety because he regularly posts their mug shots and personal information to social media following their arrests, which they say results in harassment and death threats." I don't like the second one as much since only one of the three sources actually claims the activists feel threatened vs they are simply angered. I think the critical part is to keep it clear that it's the activists who are making the claim that Ngo's coverage results in harassment and threats. This is not something that the sources are confirming as true. Springee (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Either way the current text is problematic. It is basically the talking points of people who view him as a political opponent. Moving info about anybody into the daylight could potentially result in negative consequences for the individual, and talking points of people who see him as an opponent would be to raise and emphasize that hypothetical possibility. North8000 (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed that the current version isn't fully supported by the sources but I don't like splitting it up into two sentences. I'm fine with the "which they say" version, though. Loki (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Condense citations?

A number of citation were recently condensed in this edit Diff 1. Ngo's article has a history of edit warring between those who have debated, in particular, the terms journalist and provocateur. Instead of reverting this recent edit on the grounds that citations were condensed for unfavorable content while leaving the long lists for favorable content (in both the lede for journalist and in the personal life section for Ngo's self description of his political stance) I wanted to first raise this issue at talk.

Another article with hotly contested terminolgy, the Proud Boys, lists the condensed citations in a drop down format in the lede rather than showing only the numbers. Ngo's article needs to be as consistent as possible across viewpoints. If editors wish to condense citations, it is preferable that Ngo's article adopts the format that lists the citations in drop down for both favorable and unfavorable content so readers can quickly see the publishers and authors that support these terms. Or perhaps it is best to go back to the numbered citation lists behind each statement, both favorable and unfavorable. Cedar777 (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't like the way it's done in the Proud Boys article. The issue is a single source cited in the drop down has to be added as a second source if it's to be added again. I do not think we should give the same source more than one entry. I do get the issue with hovering over the link just shows a few new links but I prefer that to either the long list (Proud Boys) or a long list of [1][2][3][4][5][6] in the visible article itself. This might be a good question for VP or a MOS talk page. Springee (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Springee, you stated “ I do not think we should give the same source more than one entry.” If a specific QUOTE is included for a source, it does require that the general entry for the same source be listed separately. Try to merge them and the article often gets the RED cite errors. Without separating them, it not only creates confusion for readers who reference the source and try to make sense of how an unrelated specific quote is relevant to a statement that comes instead from the article’s content more generally. This is the reason that not all sources have only one entry.

In a nutshell, some sources need to be listed more than once as : A) the general entry and B) the same with a specific quote. Cedar777 (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

This issue is one of consistency. The changes were applied inconsistently throughout the article.

It is unlikely the divergent narratives regarding Ngo will be resolved any time soon and a consistent citation format for multiple sources reduces the perception of bias from editors. Cedar777 (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it would have been better to apply this across the article any time we have more than 3 citations (the typical OVERCITE limit). Would you be opposed to applying that standard? I don't think this is a huge deal either way but I do think it was an improvement. Springee (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

applying it across the article is certainly preferable to an inconsistent application. However my view, as stated above, is that since there is a high likelihood for disagreements between editors to continue at Ngo’s page - the best remedy for more than 3 citations is to have them presented in a drop down format. Cedar777 (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that the quotes were needed in any of those cases. If quotes are needed then the correct way to do it is something like the Harvard citation templates [[2]]. That way the source is only cited once but multiple footnotes to that same source are there. This is very useful in cases where we are referencing a book or a long source where finding the specific supporting page is often difficult. I don't think that applies to any of our sources here (at least not most of them) as they are typical news article length. The MOS discourages repeating citations (but prefers it over no citations) wp:DUPCITES. Springee (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Cedar777, as Springee said, I made the edit because of WP:OVERCITE. OVERCITE says:

One cause of "citation overkill" is edit warring, which can lead to examples like "Graphism is the study of ..." [...] as an editor desperately tries to shore up one's point or overall notability of the subject with extra citations, in the hope that their opponents will accept that there are reliable sources for their edit.

As you described, this indeed displays edit warring, which is detrimental to readability per OVERCITE.

Another reason is that When citing material in an article, it is better to cite a couple of great sources than a stack of decent or sub-par ones. In the lead section, there are many highly biased opinion pieces and tabloid-like reporting stacked up together. The sentional language of their titles do a diservice to this article's reliability when readers hover over the citations. So it's best that we eliminate some of those in addition to merging. Thomas Meng (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Thomas Meng, I strongly disagree that the solution is eliminating a large number of sources as you appear to be suggesting above. There are divergent narratives that persist, i.e., two different stories about who Ngo is and what he represents that have lasted for years. The Wikipedia article doesn’t “succeed” when one of those narratives goes away or is eliminated. We simply cannot adequately explain Ngo’s notability without addressing both narratives. A number of high quality sources do exactly that, including Bernstein. Cedar777 (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

The way you had it[3] was good. I don't think the styles e.g. Proud Boys or Nick Fuentes uses are that great here because of the repeated references (as Springee pointed out), though I do think you should combine it for "journalist" as well, which would also eliminate Cedar777's consistency concerns. Having to churn through a provocateur,[14][15][16][17][18][19][20] and sucks for readability. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I've gone and done just that, as there seems to be a consensus in favour of trying to cull the citation overkill here. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 08:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Volteer1, thank you for acknowledging the consistency issue and that cite rules should be applied equally across the article. Cedar777 (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I grouped the other examples were more than 3 citations were used. I think there were 3 or so examples in the article body. I also combined citations were the same RS article was given two separate citations. Finally, I removed one sentence noting that two sources didn't use the term "journalist" when referring to Ngo. It seems like a trivial claim or alternatively a type of OR. I also removed a claim that PF had criticized several of Ngo's claims. While this might be true, only one claim was cited by PF and based on the article it PF isn't saying Ngo made or shared the disputed claim. It only appears that Ngo shared video which others cited when making the claim. Springee (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The removal of existing content and sources (in excess of 1RR) has gone beyond a discussion of how to consistently handle multiple citations and is complicated enough to warrant a new thread. Cedar777 (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck, your edits here [[4]] are problematic. Per 1RR I am reverting them. The summary of the PolitiFact article is problematic. First, this refers to only one attack, not several. Second, while PF says no evidence was presented saying the attackers were associated with Antifa they also don't say they were not. So at best we have the weak claim that PF says Ngo said the attackers were associated with antifa without providing support for that claim in the tweet. That is hardly DUE content. We can't say "misrepresenting" since that could only be the case if we knew the people were not associated with antifa. Linking the PF article to the next sentence via "Accordingly, several sources have declined to refer to Ngo as a "journalist"." is SYNTH and OR. Both sources predate for the second claim predate the Politifact article and thus the second claim must stand on its own (combining the two is SYNTH). Neither source says Ngo "isn't a journalist". Jacobian is a biased source and clearly very critical of Ngo's work and it's impact on his subjects but it doesn't say he isn't a journalist (even a biased far-right one). RS's mention about journalism and Ngo was to claim he wasn't acting like a jounralist when he failed to note what the Patriot Prayer members were discussing during the video. In effect they are saying he should have been doing his job at that time vs messing around on his phone. That might be a fair criticism but it isn't saying he isn't a journalist. For any of this to be DUE we would need a RS looking at these sources and specifically noting that they didn't call Ngo a journalist. We can't be the ones to decide to do that since it would be interpreting the sources (hence OR). Even if it wasn't there is still a question of DUE for any of this material. (updated) Springee (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Springee, what do you mean by "per 1RR"? You've already reverted today and I'm not seeing where any of the WP:3RR exemptions would cover this latest revert. –dlthewave ☎ 22:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Dlthewave, this was a new edit I made today. Noteduck's questionable restoration was the first revert. Regardless, as a show of good faith I have restored the content. However I may take it to the noticeboards since it violates a number of policies/guidelines.

Springee your summary of the Politifact article above is frankly quite difficult to understand and you'll need to rephrase it. The article clearly accuses Ngo as misrepresenting material related to purported violent antifa attacks on social media. From the Jacobin article: But it would also be a mistake to see Ngo as an innocent or as a journalist. It repeatedly makes this point. From Rolling Stone: But the issue wasn’t so much that Ngo had finally been “exposed” as a right-wing provocateur as opposed to a journalist. In accordance with WP:ROWN you should have looked for another place to integrate this material rather than a block revert. Please read the sources before you make a block revert, especially given the contested nature of this page and your long history of involvement with it. This material should be restored ASAP, though of course I'll observe the 1RR policy. I'm open to suggestions of amended wording Noteduck (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck, my summary was spot on. Politifact only said that Ngo made the claim that the people were associated with antifa without additional support. That was not the focus of the PF article. Your linking of the PF material to the earlier content was pure SYNTH. The PF content is simply UNDUE. The other sentence was rightly removed as OR. Springee (talk) 23:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with both points and think the OR claim is quite perplexing. dlthewave et al, happy to hear additional input on this. Noteduck (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

You have decided that it's important to note that these two sources, in your view, chose to make an issue of not calling Ngo a journalist. However, the sources didn't make that point themselves. Since no RS specifically said, "several sources have decided not to call Ngo a journalist" then we can't add that text. The other issue is taking the conclusion PF reached regarding a specific incident and then saying "Accordingly..." to tie it to the "not calling Ngo a journalist. That implies that the RS and Jacobian authors made choices based on the events described in PF. That isn't possible since the PF events occurred in 2020 while the other articles were published in 2019. Springee (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Springee, I understand your concern about linking Politifact's findings with the journalist bit. Would it help to remove "accordingly" and instead list the specific sources that dispute his status as a journalist? –dlthewave ☎ 01:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

That would correct one problem. Let's go over each thing in detail. The original problem with the PF sentence as of yesterday was it said, " Some of Ngo's contentions about antifa have been rated as "false" by fact-checker Politifact." That was wrong because the PF article only mentioned a single example (not "some") and PF's "false" rating referred to the FB claim, not Ngo's claim. PF only says that Ngo "identified the attackers as "antifa"" (they don't even imply that Ngo claimed the attacked person died). As to if the "antifa" claim was correct, PF only says this claim is not substantiated. The article text now reads, "Ngo has also been accused of misrepresenting violent attacks as being linked to antifa without evidence on social media." That significantly overstates PF's comments/conclusion (There is no evidence that the attackers are part of the antifa movement. ). PF did not say the attackers weren't associated with antifa, only that it wasn't shown one way or the other. That does not support the current "misrepresenting" in the article. I think it's UNDUE simply because the article hardly focused on Ngo at all yet it's being presented as if the PF article clearly stated Ngo was making false claims. The current sentence is better but would still fail WP:V.

The second issue is "Accordingly, several sources have declined to refer to Ngo as a "journalist"." It appears we agree that "Accordingly" implies a cause and effect that is impossible in this case. So then we are left with "several sources have declined to refer to Ngo as a "journalist"." Neither of those sources said, "we will not refer to Ngo as a journalist". So it was a Wikipedia editor who decided to point out that several sources weren't calling Ngo a journalist. That is OR. We can't read between the lines then state it as a DUE fact in the Wiki entry. Per this NORN discussion [[5]] we can't decide we see a pattern in sources and point it out even if we feel the pattern is obvious. Neither of the two sources say "we decline to refer to Ngo as a journalist" so observing they don't is OR (and fails WP:V). Springee (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

If you think it could be worded differently, feel free to suggest a rewrite. There's no need to delete the whole thing just because you don't like it. –dlthewave ☎ 02:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

How would you rewrite the second sentence to keep it? It currently is WP:OR. We already have a section where we say "sources call Ngo a...". The PF comment could be corrected to say, "PF said Ngo's claim that the people who attacked [person on this day/location] were antifa members was not supported. That is about the only thing we can take from the PF source that is both stand alone and passes WP:V. I guess we can keep that but it begs the question, why? What makes that now relatively minor claim DUE? Springee (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Ngo, of conservative Canadian website The Post Millennial, on May 31 posted a compilation of pictures similar to those seen in the Facebook post and identified the attackers as "antifa."...Portland police said in their statement that "the male victim sustained serious injuries but is not deceased." Sgt. Michael Roberts told PolitiFact that the police currently have no evidence of antifa being involved in this incident. The summary given was broadly accurate - the only way I can think of changing this is perhaps making it "Ngo has been accused of attributing violent attacks to antifa without evidence". As for the second point, those two RS's dedicate whole sentences to specifically rejecting the idea that Ngo should be considered a journalist (Jacobin does so repeatedly) as I've indicated in the green text above. For someone who has a huge social media reach and has testified before Congress as a political journalist I'd say this is highly significant. I'm honestly baffled by the WP:OR claim and how you reach that conclusion Noteduck (talk) 05:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Jacobin is not a reliable source as far as Wikipedia is concerned, at least for a matter like this. The line in Rolling Stone, Ngo, who describes himself as a journalist,... is not even remotely a source for the statement several sources have declined to refer to Ngo as a "journalist", your claim that it is is definitely more "baffling" to me than the claim that it isn't. Regarding Politifact, they didn't accuse Ngo of anything in that article. Saying that Ngo identified the attackers as "antifa", then saying that Sgt. Michael Roberts told PolitiFact that the police currently have no evidence of antifa being involved in this incident, is not being accused of misrepresenting violent attacks, he was not accused of anything at all by Politifact. If this information is as "highly significant" and verifiable as you say it should be easy for you to find sources for it, you shouldn't need to misrepresent existing sources or make up your own interpretation of events. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 05:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Volteer1 go through the RS archives and tell me why it's not appropriate to use Jacobin as a source (with attribution) here. I have pored through both articles methodically - go CTRL+F and search "journalist" in each. Both repeatedly and pointedly make the claim that they do not regard Ngo as a journalist - though of course, I'm open to adding the direct wording, "poses as a journalist", "fraudulent journalist" etc. This is DUE because it's a remarkable claim - for instance, most media outlets do not take Milo Yiannopoulos seriously, but I've never any source state that he should not even be considered a journalist Noteduck (talk) 08:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I've had discussions about Jacobin before, and my understanding looking through WP:RSN discussions is that Jacobin is recognised to be an openly biased socialist magazine. It would suffice for WP:V reasons to attribute opinions to Jacobin, but I would question why it would be WP:DUE to quote/attribute the opinions of a source that isn't an RS in the first place. As I said, if dispute over whether Ngo is a journalist or that he falsifies details regarding violence in protests is "highly significant" (i.e. due) it should be easy to find reliable sources making these statements, we shouldn't need to attribute opinions to non-RS magazines. As a minor note, WP:DUE is just about fairly reflecting what has been published in reliable sources, that a specific claim is remarkable would not count in its favour.‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

good thing the Jacobin piece is buttressed by Rolling Stone, a green-lit source on WP:RSP then Noteduck (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see it that way. Consider a case where we list sources that call Ngo a "provocateur". Each example is independent. In this case the commentary is not about Ngo rather it is about how the sources treat Ngo, that is, it is about the source. Springee (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

so we have a greenlit RS plus a source that is fine to use with attribution, making the same strident point, to contribute to a short, attributed sentence. At a pinch, the Politifact source can be struck, but there really isn't any basis for excluding the Rolling Stone/Jacobin sentence. Be mindful of WP:FILIBUSTER. Cedar777 dlthewave I'd be interested in hearing your input Noteduck (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

So many sources address that there are concerns about Ngo's reporting, stating that his coverage is unusual, that it strikes me as odd that this material was recently removed from the article rather than modified. It seems the only way to address the objections is to painstakingly re-read and list a handful or two of the 100 existing sources. Before I do that, I'll keep it simple and state that the bit about other journalists resisting the idea that Ngo is a standard journalist exists in a concentration sufficient over a long enough period of time to modify the statement rather than delete it. Cedar777 (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck, this edit is still a problem [[6]]. Jacobin is not a strong enough source to make such a comment DUE. The RStone comment is being distorted to claim he isn't a journalist since it is contrasting the author's view with Ngo's stated profession. The fact that we already have RS quoted as saying Ngo is a provocateur makes this already distortion of their opinion UNDUE. Also, since RStones is already cited, it is sloppy editing to create a new citation for the source. Springee (talk) 01:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Springee respectfully, you've had considerable difficulty understanding WP:DUE and other policies in the past, including on this page, so please use direct extracts rather than just brandishing them in caps and demonstrate where this interpretation is coming from. I see no reason why Jacobin is not fine here with attribution, plus the point is supported by RS Rolling Stone, for what is after all, a few words of material. I've repeatedly referred to the exact wording of both the Jacobin and Rolling Stone sources, which you've just ignored in your rebuttals. The wording could be changed to "legitimate journalist" at a pinch. There are many other parts of this page that need work and your fixation on my edits is peculiar. It's hard not to see a double-standard in your unequivocal rejection of Jacobin given your advocacy of including material from the dubious LaCorte News just two months ago on this very page.[7] My good-faith interpretation is that you are having difficulties comprehending Wiki's editorial policies, which I'm more than happy to discuss with you on my talk page if you wish. Here's Ngo described as a "pseudo-journalist" which buttresses the point the two sources given are making.[8] If the citation is incorrect, perhaps you could amend it, which you're likely to be familiar with given your decade-plus of Wiki experience. Oh, and I've referred directly to the quotes from the sources - did you read my edits to the page? Frankly, I ask you to familiarise yourself with with Wikipedia:HOUND and WP:FILIBUSTER and ask yourself why you you continue to persist with challenging this exceedingly minor edit Noteduck (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

can other editors weighing in here please pay attention to direct quotes from the relevant articles I've added in the page's edit summary and please keep WP:ROWN in mind. This discussion on Wikipedia:RSN was instructive regarding Jacobin's reliability [9] Noteduck (talk) 03:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

This is simple. RStones doesn't support the specific claim in question. Jacobin may or may not but as it's a low weight, yellow source so it doesn't establish WEIGHT for such a claim. If this is a minor edit and since it fails WP:V leaving this content out doesn't hurt the article. This was the case made by Volteer1 when they reverted it [[10]] (it was immediately restored). Springee (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

The Rolling Stone source does make this exact claim. Please check the diffs on the edit history Noteduck (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

RStones does not support the claim and ONUS is on you to show it before restoring the distorted text. I started a NORN discussion on this content where you can make the case and get consensus. Currently consensus doesn't exist. Springee (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Rolling Stone quote 1:Ngo had finally been “exposed” as a right-wing provocateur as opposed to a journalist. Rolling Stone quote 2: Even if Ngo himself were a fraudulent journalist, and the victim narrative he promoted was also under fraudulent pretenses, his ability to get bad ideas in front of a mainstream audience was all too real. Please pay more attention to sources. It could be changed to "legitimate journalist" at a pinch. Noteduck (talk) 10:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Kirkus Reviews

Cedar777, I don't think it is appropriate to summarize Kirkus Reviews by using their pithy "sound bite" quote from the end of the article. If they say specific things wrong with the book then we should summarize that. The quote in question makes it clear they don't like it but other than that, leaves the reader and thus the wiki-readers asking why. That means we are failing to summarize the review.

quite interested to hear and consider your alternative summary of Kirkus. Please provide. Cedar777 (talk) 06:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I will when I get the chance. Springee (talk) 03:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, the 2021 assault really should not be under the book review. While it might have happened while researching a new chapter, none of the sources say he was attacked due to the book. This is a case where I wish it was easy to do something like we do for talk pages with tabbed spacing. Something like tabbing over the paragraphs about the book and then untabbing when we talk about the attack. It would keep it chronological order but also make the nesting clear. (not suggesting tabbing the article) Springee (talk) 09:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

"widely accused"?

I'm not sure the following sources: JewishCurrents, Al Jazeera, Jacobin Mag, Daily Dot, are reliable sources for anything politically controversial, but certainly citing those four "special interest" outlets as sufficient for the wording "widely" seems quite ridiculous to me. "widely" would be a series of mainstream, non-special interest outlets (NY Times, BBC, CNN, etc) either themselves accusing him, or citing him as being "widely accused" of such. Seems very weasel-ish to me. (and I've just heard of Andy Ngo after the Mumford & Sons debacle, so I've no dog in this fight, I just literally read the lede, and saw the wording was POV). TomReagan90 (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that "wdiely" is subjective and should be avoided. I also agree that at least sources like Jacobin and Daily Dot are not good enough to include them in "widely" anything. It would be better to just avoid the word and say something like "has been accused of" as that is factually defensible and adds no editor assessment. Springee (talk) 09:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

He has been widely accused (there are a lot more sources available), but I agree with Springee's suggestion that perhaps just saying that "he has been accused of" without a descriptor would work better. BeŻet (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

(as a side note) NY Times, BBC, CNN, etc. are not non-special interest outlets, and definitely not less than Al Jazeera. BeŻet (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that "widely" is Wikipedia-editor opinion and should be removed (not replaced), but will ping editors who were involved earlier by giving a possibly-incomplete history. Noteduck on February 22 added "widely" etc.. CaptainPrimo on February 23 added "by leftists". Black Kite on February 23 removed "by leftists". Thomas Meng on March 16 changed to "Multiple sources have accused".NorthBySouthBaranof on March 16 reverted Thomas Meng. TomReagan90 on June 29 changed to "by some". BeŻet on June 29 reverted TomReagan90. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

There are many variations on this theme but I think this is entirely commensurate with the view of most RS's I've seen, which don't treat Ngo as a credible journalist or someone who can be trusted to give an honest account of events. I honestly don't have time to run through the many examples of good sources reporting on Ngo as dishonest/misleading/not credible, but for a start: see Rolling Stone, CNN, Harvard academic Joan Donovan for MIT Technology Review, Salon (magazine) The Oregonian, Media Matters for America, BuzzFeed News, The Intercept, The Guardian, NME,[11] Los Angeles Times[12], New York (magazine)[13], renowned public intellectual and Yale Professor Jason Stanley in an interview for the SPLC,, Columbia Journalism Review, plus[14][15], a report by Harvard's Nieman Foundation for Journalism by four subject-matter experts with impeccable credentials, Above the Law. In fact, I haven't found many RS's that do treat Ngo as a credible journalist. In the absence of more contrary opinions from RS's, I'd recommend a direct quote in the header that roughly aggregates what the majority of good sources have said about Ngo - one possibility is something like:

Ngo has been widely accused of sharing misleading or selective material,[SOURCES] described as a provocateur,[SOURCES] and accused of having links with militant right-wing groups in Portland[SOURCES]. Accordingly, Columbia Journalism Review has described Ngo as a "discredited provocateur".

Widely is your subjective opinion. Additionally the CJR opinion is not sure for specific mention in the lead. Removing widely and leaving the rest as is is a sufficient fix. Springee (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

in line with WP:BOLD I went ahead and removed "widely", which drew objections, to the more value-neutral term "frequently". Given the volume and quality of source material that has been adduced to support this point, I think this is unproblematic. Noteduck (talk) 05:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Frequently is weasely and again subjective. It's not a good fix. Springee (talk)

Springee, I'm curious as to what evidentiary standard you would require and what terminology you feel would be appropriate. "Frequently described" gets hundreds of hits on Wiki pages,[16] as does "widely described".[17] Of course, there are many, many more variations of this theme Noteduck (talk) 06:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck "Accordingly, Columbia Journalism Review has described Ngo as a "discredited provocateur." - Can you help me find this source? The link doesn't seem to be working for me, maybe I'm doing something wrong... the URL https://www.cjr.org/special_report/newsweek.php doesn't seem to contain any mention of Ngo? TomReagan90 (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

TomReagan90 it's about two-thirds down the article - just do a Ctrl+F text source. Myself and others have provided a great deal of source material of Ngo recently that you largely haven't engaged with, and some of your rhetoric comes across as quite uncivil. Please pay closer attention to sources.

The space freelancers once occupied has been partially taken up by new, inflammatory opinion writers like Ben Shapiro, Nigel Farage, and Newt Gingrich, who wrote the magazine’s May 10 cover story about China. Some of these writers, I’m told, do get paid. Other recent Newsweek writers have included Charlie Kirk, discredited provocateur Andy Ngo, and former Blink-182 frontman Tom DeLonge, who wrote a thinly veiled advertisement for his new TV show about UFOs.

There is a wealth of sourcing that supports the fact that Ngo’s name is frequently mentioned in terms that express concerns regarding his credibility. Many qualified journalists have addressed this broader issue. Noteduck’s list is extensive and the text should remain as is. Cedar777 (talk) 06:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Frequently has the same problem as widely, it is a subjective claim. What rate is "frequent"? This is important since this is a BLP and we are trying to say something negative/controversial about the person. Also, not all the sources Noteduck has included support the basic claim or are of questionable reliability. It's sufficient to just say he is accused of in the lead. Springee (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Again, Springee, I'd ask what level of evidence you would need to ever consider the adverb "frequently" to be appropriate. I think a distinction has to be made: if the header just says "he has been accused of..." that could mean a single source, but as you see I've been quite thorough in providing a wealth of convincing sources (plus relevant quotes) here. Be careful to pay close attention to sources - I think you misinterpreted Rolling Stone here.[18] All things considered, the current header is HIGHLY flattering to Ngo, so I'm surprised it's being contested Noteduck (talk) 11:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Impartial takes precedent over your sense of flattery. I think it's best to see what others feel. I am basing my view on your provided quotes. Also, when an editor is an active participant in a current discussion there is no reason to ping them. Springee (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm delighted that so much discussion and research has gone into this, and Noteduck’s list of sources denigrating the journalistic integrity of this person is persuasive. Nevertheless, in order to "speak in the voice of an encyclopedia", none of them, as far as I can tell, support the wording "has been widely/frequently accused of sharing misleading or selective material". Likewise, the following sentence "accused of having links with militant right-wing groups in Portland" seems a bit much for a lede of a BLP. Let the evidence convince the reader, don't bludgeon them on the head with scary labels and "accusations". At the moment it just looks like someone at a student union newspaper has written - and, I'm going to paraphrase slightly here - "There's this guy called Angy Ngo who says a bunch of lies about Antifa but don't listen to him because everyone says he's a liar and he's friends with far right fascists by the way.......[next paragraph]....Ngô was born and raised in Portland, Oregon". Not quite the encyclopedic tone we're after, is it? TomReagan90 (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd also wish to reiterate, it's what mainstream, non-partisan, non-special interest sources say, that count. I doubt Ngô has graced the pages of many respected peer-reviewed academic journals, so if you're gonna say "Ngô has been widely/frequently accused of x", you need to find something of the caliber of the NY Times or the BBC (or better yet, any of the wire services: AFP, AP, Reuters) saying "Ngô has been widely/frequently accused of x". Otherwise you're just making Wikipedia look silly and unencyclopedic. By the way, this article is now bigger than the one on Maria Ressa... is this really what we want Wikipedia to be? TomReagan90 (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Here: [19] this is an AP article on Ngô published on June 5, 2020, entitled "Lawsuit aims to hold nebulous ‘antifa’ to blame for injuries". For lessons on tone, wording, context, and an example of what an NPOV article might look like, you need look no further. Wikipedia should aim to be at least as neutral in tone and language, if not in content, as AP. Ideally, an encyclopedia would include even less opinion, innuendo, trivia, localism than an AP news report. But could we at least start by agreeing that the lede of this article is an embarrassment to all of us? If I had no idea who Ngô was (and I still don't, really, and I don't care, to be honest) this Wikipedia article as it now stands, does not give me an adequate explanation as to why this person is notable or how they've been able to just publish a best-selling book. I've had to furiously Google and look elsewhere for that information. TomReagan90 (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck, in reply to your question what level of evidence we would require to say "frequently," the answer is that per no original research and unsupported attributions, we can never form conclusions about how supported various opinions are in the literature. We always need a source that makes that conclusion.

However, our current wording does not reflect the sources. Al Jazeera's article says Ngo "has been criticised for sharing misleading and inaccurate information about anti-fascist demonstrators in his hometown." It doesn't say he has been accused of sharing misleading and inaccurate information, it says he has done this. Since the source reports it as a fact, we must also. Otherwise we are raising doubt about the facts. It's as if a source said that Trump was criticized for moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and we report that as he was accused of moving the U.S. to Jerusalem.

TFD (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

"Since the source reports it as a fact, we must also. Otherwise we are raising doubt about the facts." You're joking right? You're being very clever, and I'm just not getting your point? Sorry for being dense, I just don't follow... because I know, surely, an editor of your standing, doesn't regard anything written by any journalist at all, in an outlet such as Al Jazeera, as an indisputable fact, simply by virtue of it being written? I mean, Al Jazeera once broadcast a Fatah founding member stating that Mahmoud Abbas collaborated with Israel to assassinate Yasser Arafat - can I insert that as a "fact" now in the respective articles? Of course not, you must be making some larger, satirical or ironic point that I'm too thick to understand... TomReagan90 (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The wording was originally "widely accused" of course. By the way, per the Daily Dot in 2020: "Right-wing activist Andy Ngo is frequently accused of trying to dupe the public with deceptively edited videos that paint left-wingers and “antifa” as violent and dangerous." Noteduck (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

And why would you believe the Daily Dot is an encyclopedia-worthy source for a WP:BLP? TomReagan90 (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The Daily Dot is only a RS for "internet culture". Their opinion of Ngo is outside of that window. Additionally, if that is the only source claiming "widely" then we have to ask about weight. DD may be fine for telling us about new internet technologies but they have very little in the way of WEIGHT outside of that area. Springee (talk) 03:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Springee, what would you think about "multiple sources" or "several sources", which just refer to numeric values? I think you've made an extremely narrow reading for a media figure whose fame is largely drawn from online work (hence a whole subheading devoted to social media on his page), DD is used for all kinds of pages on Wiki,[20] and furthermore, one can aggregate the remarks of other sources. See:

• "However, critics of Ngo say he often publishes selectively edited and misleading content in order to paint left-wing activists as violent while downplaying similar conduct on the right.[21]
• Alternatively, Al Jazeera simply puts: "Ngo, who last year made headlines when an anti-fascist punched him, has been criticised for sharing misleading and inaccurate information about anti-fascist demonstrators in his hometown."
• ""Finally, Ngo is often accused of bias, because, as Mullen points out, in the past he focused exclusively on Antifa and did not report on street violence on the part of far right groups, such as Patriot Prayer and the Proud Boys—a questionable choice, but still no excuse for violence."[22]

This is pretty incongruous with your references elsewhere on this page to discussing sources in context without rejecting them. [23] and adding material based on very niche and untested sources.[24] I recommend focusing on providing sources instead of contesting others' edits. If WP:CIR relating to evaluating sources is an issue I'm very happy to discuss locating good sources on my talk page. Use of Google News and getting around boolean operators makes it quite easy to find relevant keywords and sources. Noteduck (talk)

Read the whole sentence -- "Ngo, who last year made headlines when an anti-fascist punched him, has been criticised for sharing misleading and inaccurate information about anti-fascist demonstrators in his hometown." Anti-fascist rather than antifa is the author's opinion; Singular anti-fascist rather than plural group of counter-protesters is not what the evidence indicates; Punched rather than "punched, kicked and hit with at least one milkshake" (the current Wikipedia phrase) is like saying a senator hit Caesar on the Ides of March. Given that the sentence has such distortions, it would be wrong to think that a nuance in one phrase must be used for a fact in a Wikipedia BLP. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

TomReagan90, if a source is reliable, it means we can rely on it for factual accuracy and we can report those facts with inline citation. Articles would be unreadable if we presented every fact as possibly inaccurate. "Joe Biden of the United States, which is a country according to the UN Website, was sworn in as its president according to CNN." If Al Jazeera reports what someone says, we can treat it as a fact the person said that. That does not mean of course that what the person said is necessarily true. In cases where reliable sources get their facts wrong, we determine which is correct through discussion. TFD (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh my god, you were being serious. So, for example, Al Jazeera "is reliable... we can rely on it for factual accuracy and we can report those facts with inline citation." OK, a quick 60 second experiment. Let's take a look at the Al Jazeera website then (only the English version, I won't trouble you with the Arabic)... So I just typed in the words "Syria War Iran" into the search engine, and this was the first article that came up: https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2017/1/19/why-thousands-of-iranians-are-fighting-in-syria. A quote: "For some [Iranian] recruits, fighting ISIL in Syria is a way to help stem the group’s spread. Others see it as an opportunity to honour the tens of thousands of Iranian soldiers who died in the crippling eight-year Iran-Iraq war – or as one sociologist puts it, being “present” for what they believe is a sacred war." - Can I go and cite that as a "fact" now in the Syrian Civil War article? "Some Iranian recruits have traveled to Syria to honor the tens (!?) of thousands [sic] of Iranians who died in the 1980s war with Iraq" - that's acceptable fact-checking for an encyclopedia in your mind? TomReagan90 (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

TomReagan90 see WP:RSP for WP:GREL entry on Daily Dot or see pages using DD here.[25] By itself its merits might be less, but it's backed up the volume of evidence I've provided about Ngo, which as you've noted is persuasive Noteduck (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see anything there that is factually inaccurate. I think for example that there is nothing exceptional about the claim that some Iranian recruits want to fight ISIL in order to prevent the spread of ISIL. Which facts do you question? TFD (talk) 02:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Wow. 1) Hundreds of thousands of Iranians died in the Iran-Iraq War, perhaps over a million; 2) Sepah and Qods Force in the last decade fighting Da'esh (Islamic State) to "honour" the dead of the 1980-1989 Iran-Iraq War? That's a "fact" to you? You're obviously not from the Middle East, or a Muslim, or ever set foot 1,000 miles near al jazira, but do you know what a "Sunni" and a "Shi'i" is? Do you know what "Qatar" is? Do you know what the "Syrian Civil War" is? So, Google those things, then browse the Al Jazeera website, and tell me it is a reliable source for "facts" such as the "facts" I cited above that you didn't "see anything there that is factually inaccurate"! Ya 'Ali madad! Give me strength! TomReagan90 (talk) 04:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

TomReagan90, if I were to wade into this I think I'd side with you. But please be nice to TFD. They are an expert editor who does their best to try to find neutral wikipedian solutions. Even when I disagree with them. BTW I'd put Springee in that same category even though the have a bullseye painted on them by some due to the nature and place of their wikipedia work. North8000 (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough North8000, point taken. But the credulousness of stating that anything written by any individual contributor, from any outlet that has at one time been deemed a RS by a bunch of Wikipedians, should be taken as sufficient to establish a "fact" fit for an encyclopedia... just boggles the mind. I mean, in that case, there would literally be no need for fact-checking, editorial oversight, withdrawals, corrections, apologies - it really is the same as saying "They can't print it if it's not true!" One would think that in the internet age - especially regarding Americans with their fiercely bipolarized media landscape these days, and especially a long-time Wikipedia editor - people would demand somewhat higher standards for establishing what an encyclopedia (remember, not a blog or tabloid, Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia!) states as "fact". And I honestly can't believe I just typed that out. I think the project is gone as far as contentious, controversial issues go. There simply needs to be editorial oversight and fact-checkers for articles such as these (and I haven't even begun to look at topics even more sensitive such as various claims and denials of genocide, etc). Otherwise we have absolute messes like this article, which will never be encyclopedic. And there's tonnes of these articles, literally an infinite supply. As soon as someone pops up and goes viral on social media, hits the news, if it's a left/right thing in the US, then immediately an article is produced with greater content and scrutiny than freakin' Montesquieu! Am I the only person who's ever attempted to edit Wikipedia that is bothered by this? Andy Ngo is, according to Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, more notable than the guy whose theories literally originated some of the most fundamental principles of the modern constitutional liberal democracy... the freakin' Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu! Unless admins step in, this madness, this slow but steady deterioration of the Wiki Project, will only get worse as mob rule and the "Twitterization" of Wikipedia becomes further entrenched. TomReagan90 (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

TomReagan90, your first point is that instead of saying tens of thousands, they should have said hundreds of thousands. Estimates for the number of iranian casualties vary, as the Wikipedia article, Iran–Iraq War, notes. It puts Iranian military dead at between 200,000 and 600,000 with 100,000 total civilian deaths on both sides. Charles Kurzman says that total deaths may have been lower than the official total of 155,000 for Iran.[26] Saying tens of thousands does not preclude that the numbers could be at the high range.

Al Jazeera's article does not say that the Quds Force is fighting ISIL to honor the dead, it says that "some Iranian recruits" (you provided the quote) did. There is a distinction between why a government pursues a war and the motivations of some soldiers who enlist. Many American soldiers for example enlisted in the Second Gulf War in order to avenge the attacks of 9/11. That doesn't mean that is why the U.S. government went to war.

The article is by Shenaz Kermalli a journalism instructor who worked varously at Ryerson University and Humber College and has also written or produced for the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star, the Ottawa Citizen, CTV News, The Guardian, Foreign Policy, the BBC and CBC.[27] If you think Al Jazeera is unreliable because it published her work, do you also think these other sources are?

This may all be moot because per News organizations, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The article is clearly labelled analysis.

Also, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Al Jazeera is deemed to be "generally reliable," the highest category. So per Wikipedia it is in the same league as ABC News, AP, BBC, Bloomberg, CNN and so on throughout the alphabet.

Incidentally, you might want to tone down your rhetoric and avoid personal attacks. If you want to deprecate Al Jazeera as a news source, the place to do it is at the reliable sources noticeboard. In the meantime, we are all obligated to follow Wikipedia policy, guidelines and decisions.

TFD (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

That's some mighty impressive sophistry. Really, congrats. Well done. I'm still absolutely staggered that your defending your initial stance, that anything reported on "the news", even on the most contentious of issues, can be immediately added to an encyclopedia as "fact". Al Jazeera has been banned in many countries, not as many as Press TV, but, as I'm sure you're unaware, Sunni Islamism is a lot more popular than Velâyat-e Faqih.

"Others see it as an opportunity to honour the tens of thousands of Iranian soldiers who died in the crippling eight-year Iran-Iraq war – or as one sociologist puts it, being “present” for what they believe is a sacred war." - You said you didn't find anything factually incorrect with that. And you said that "tens of thousands" is a reasonable description of Iranian casualties during the Iran-Iraq War, so, again, somehow, that's not factually incorrect either.

OK. TomReagan90 (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

If you think that Al Jazeera should be downgraded, then post to Reliable sources noticeboard. Also, could you please avoid personal attacks. As you go through life, you will find that not everyone agrees with your opinions and you will be more persuasive if you remain calm and polite. TFD (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

On one structural note, if somebody says "widely" based on an editor finding publications that said that, then that is not wiki-sourcing. It is editor OR/Synthesis from publications or speakers. Those otherwise-secondary sources are primary sources at best with respect to that statement. IMO you would need extraordinarily strong secondary sourcing to put in such a claim. And since it is not really adding information, just information-free opinions and talking points, why not just leave it out either way? North8000 (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Reminder: Wikipedia Policy on Biographies of Living Persons

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Some editors may have forgotten or be unaware of Wiki policy on WP:BLP. Some salient reminders:

Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately; do not move it to the talk page.

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. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking.

Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone.

Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral.

Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words.

And a word on RELIABLE SOURCES WP:PARTISAN:

Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."

WP:QUESTIONABLE sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.

Beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that this guideline requires.

TomReagan90 (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

You have not raised any specific, actionable objections to any material you removed, all of which was reliably sourced to established reliable sources - There is consensus that The Intercept is generally reliable for news, The Independent, a British newspaper, is considered a reliable source for non-specialist information and Vox is considered generally reliable, etc. That you disagree with the established consensus conclusions about those sources is neither here nor there - if you wish to change or dispute them, you'll need to raise those specific issues here and gain clear and unambiguous consensus, likely through an RFC, that your removals are appropriate. I have reverted your removals. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

note - the "specific, actionable objections" to the material I removed, was mentioned in my edit summaries: "Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral." TomReagan90 (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

That would be all fine and dandy, but you didn't just revert my removals (which in itself I believe to be a breach of WP:BLP) but you also reverted my four subsequent edits. So that's 6 reverts, disguised as one edit, and described as something completely different in your edit summary than what it actually was. I assumed you made a good faith mistake, but you have yet to respond to my polite request to rectify your mistake, so now I'm not so sure... TomReagan90 (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Your other edits are also at least partially objectionable. This edit is specifically prohibited by policy - we never link directly to a bookseller in an effort to drive sales of a book to one particular outlet. The linked ISBN is the appropriate way to allow readers the opportunity to access the book through a variety of outlets.

You have it all wrong here - your bold edits have been reverted, and it's now incumbent on you to discuss each edit and gain consensus for your proposed changes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

So you at least admit that your edit summary was misleading? Deliberately or accidentally? TomReagan90 (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Not interested in playing gotcha games. You need to detail your proposed changes and gain consensus for them - that's how Wikipedia works. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

No, read WP:BLP. See, I even copy+pasted the pertinent parts above, to make it real easy like. Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately; do not move it to the talk page. TomReagan90 (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Which material do you claim is unsourced or poorly sourced? It is patently obvious that the removed sections in question contain extensive sourcing to consensus-determined reliable sources such as Vox and The Independent - thus the burden falls on you to explain your objections and detail what you claim is unsourced - and be judicious in pruning only those passages, not the entire section.

You cannot be claiming that the entire section is poorly sourced, can you? Because that would require you to reject a broad consensus on multiple sources. And that you are not permitted to do. Your personal opinion of those sources is irrelevant - they are consensus-determined reliable sources and your only option for challenging them is to overturn that consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

For the 7th time (I think, I've lost count), from WP:BLP: Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. I never challenged the sources in the two sections ("Credibility" and "Doxxing"), not a once. It doesn't matter if what the sources say are 100% accurate, it is not encyclopedic. Are you trying to create an encyclopedia or a tabloid? This whole article, like so many recentist (not a word) BLPs, is an absolute disgrace. Wikipedia loses so much credibility by maintaining these high-traffic articles on relatively insignificant individuals, which become nothing more than a repository of "all-the-junk-we-can-find-on-the-internet-about-this-person-who-barely-deserves-an-article-in-the-first-place-but-is-current-and-in-the-online-news-and-US-culture-wars-so-now- they're-more-notable-according-to-Wikipedia-than-real-influential-journalists/writers/academics/intellectuals." I mean Daily Dot as a reliable source? FFS. TomReagan90 (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

If you never challenged the sources, why did you use an edit summary which specifically quoted and invoked that section of policy regarding unsourced and poorly-sourced material?

And if you're not challenging the sourcing or proposing that the sections are materially false, there are no grounds for immediate unilateral removal. You are welcome to propose its removal and gain consensus for it, but the sections in no way facially violate the BLP policy. I disagree with your contention that the credibility of a journalist is not encyclopedic. To the contrary, the debate over Ngo's credibility as a journalist strikes to the heart of why he's in Wikipedia at all. Of course, if you can get a consensus that it's not encyclopedic, I'll yield to that consensus. But you'll need to get that consensus first. You're welcome to initiate a Request for Comment to draw in broader discussion.

As for the rest, thank you for letting me know how you feel. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Journalist in lead

SPECIFICO, per a RfC last fall there is consensus to call Ngo a journalist in the lead [[28]] Springee (talk) 02:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh my god! Seriously? The New York Times article cited here wrote of him in 2019: "Mr. Ngo is an independent journalist in the Portland area who works with the online magazine Quillette". He has 326 by-lines listed at Muckrack FFS![29] I just can't, this place is crawling with wing-nuts who not only have no concept of encyclopedic neutrality/objectivity, but who can't even be bothered to Google!? WTF?! I'm out! TomReagan90 (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Ta-ta, Reagan. Thanks for the info Springee! SPECIFICO talk 15:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

One side said he meets the definition of a journalist, while others said he would not meet the criteria most people would understand. (There was btw a similar discussion for Julian Assange.)

Since words may have different meanings depending on context, the RfC question seems simplistic. However I noticed that most of the sources cited in the RfC described him as a "conservative journalist," which is what this article calls him. That seems fair to me. We use terms such as creation science, conversion therapy, enhanced interrogation, so why not conservative journalism?

TFD (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

"We use terms such as creation science, conversion therapy, enhanced interrogation, so why not conservative journalism" - that's rather a bizarre free association display you made there. So "conservative" in your mind brings up "creation science, conversion therapy, and enhanced interrogation"? Why not just say "far right", "white nationalist", "fascist", "neo-Nazi"? All those things are explicitly or implicitly associated with him throughout this article as it stands (despite guilt by association being expressly cautioned against in WP:BLP.... for all I know he could be all of those things, but that's not the point, it doesn't come from RS it comes from a smattering of random online, partisan sources, and in the case of the "white nationalist" association, not a single cited source at all... which kinda makes sense, seeing as, he isn't, ye know, white). But policy doesn't matter when there's mob rule. And if no admin step in... who wants to bet this article will never be NPOV or achieve "Good Article" status? TomReagan90 (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Why not just say "far right", "white nationalist", "fascist", "neo-Nazi"? Well this is really gonna bake your noodle, but, we...already do. Nick Fuentes (far-right, white nationalist), Richard B. Spencer (neo-Nazi, antisemitic conspiracy theorist, white supremacist), Marjorie Taylor Greene (far-right, conspiracy theorist) etc... These are positions that are inherently conservative. ValarianB (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Are you arguing or implying that Andy Ngo is some or all of those things? (He might be, I don't know) If not, what was the actual logical thought process that led you to post that? Do you think I am unaware of the existence of "far right", "white nationalist", "fascist", "neo-Nazi" people? (Although I admit to only having heard of the names of one of those people you mentioned) Did you think it would offend my taste or sense of honor, in the false assumption that I am a political conservative? As in "Hitler was a conservative/vegetarian, and so are you!" type argument? For the record, I am not, never have been, couldn't possibly be described as any type of conservative that's ever been defined (that I'm aware of). I have the lifetime party dues and the blood of dozens of dead relatives to testify to that. So what was your thought process there? What were you trying to achieve? Who exactly do you think I am? Really, I'd love to know where you were going with this line of.... Far-Right individuals from the United States educational session? TomReagan90 (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Didn't you say you were quitting? SPECIFICO talk 23:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

No. taking a few days off. I've been held up. got a lock of things to sort in town before I drive to a lovely spot and go jump in the the Pacific! TomReagan90 (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

There's no need to quote me in your replies. I am well aware of what I wrote and can read my posts if I forget. it doesn't come from RS? In fact the term "conservative journalist" does come from rs. that's rather a bizarre free association display you made there? No, that's an association a reasonably informed reader would make. In this context, "conservative" is a euphemism for the U.S. extreme right, people who believe in creation science, conversion therapy, and enhanced interrogation. They are not referring to the ideology of Pitt the Younger, Disraeli and Quinton Hogg. I am not, never have been, couldn't possibly be described as any type of conservative? I agree. It is ahistorical and confusing that the U.S. adopted the terms liberal and conservative, and the confusion has spread to other countries. There was an interesting example where a Tory accused Tony Blair of being a liberal and he in turn accused the Tory of being a liberal. TFD (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

My English isn't perfect, but I feel as though the misreadings of what I thought were clear sentences is way above average! I'm the one that just referred to the NY Times article that calls him both an independent and conservative journalist. It was the The "guilt by association" I was objecting to, which is explicitly discouraged in Wiki Policy on WP:BLPs. Saying he hung around with "Far Right" types (among whom apparently white nationalists recruit - no citation for that claim - irrelevant anyway) and spending too much time around controversial individuals and groups (that's a journalists' job quite often). That's guilt by association. I've spent time with.. well I won't say, but it didn't make me into a Jihadist.

But again, an astounding statement from an established editor. "In this context [which context precisely?), "conservative" is a euphemism for the U.S. extreme right, people who believe in creation science, conversion therapy, and enhanced interrogation." So when people say conservative in the United States, you claim that people understand that to mean that Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Glenn Loury at Brown University and John McWhorter at Columbia University are universally supportive of those vile things you listed? What do you, personally, call people so are just ever-so-slightly right-of-center? TomReagan90 (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

In some contexts, that's what it means, in others it doesn't. See for example Sara Diamond's book, Roads to Dominion where she argues that we should call them conservatives instead of right-wing extremists. A lot of editors argue we should call them fascists, which I oppose. The problem I see with calling them conservatives is that it confuses them with people like Clarence Thomas et al. But then it depends on context. Context. Words mean different things depending on context. If someone calls the Democrats the Left, they mean they are the most left-wing party in the U.S. two-party system. It doesn't mean they are Maoists. TFD (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

TFD I also disagree with "conservative" is a euphemism for the U.S. extreme right." Even with all of the complete butchery of such labels going on the US right now, I don't think that anybody claims that. North8000 (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

TFD, if there's anywhere that language should be deserving of the utmost respect and care, it is encyclopedias - especially on WP:BLP articles. " A lot of editors argue we should call them fascists," I mean, what can you say to that. That seriously scares me. If mainstream, Trump-loyalists, or even the Rightst of the right of the GOP conservatives are to be labeled "fascists", then what word is left to use for actual existing real life fascists? The Russian NazBols, the Turkish Grey Wolves, the Islamic Republic of Iran's Akhhoundis, North Korea, Turkmenistan, Nordic Resistance Movement, etc? TomReagan90 (talk) 02:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

As I have always argued, people such as Ngo should not be called fascists. My argument is based on the fact that fascism experts say they are not fascists or neo-fascists. Fascism is a political movement that existed in the inter-war era and neo-fascists are people who self-identify with them. When we call Ngo a fascist we trivialize fascism (if Ngo is a fascist, how bad could they be?) and slander him on guilt by association (he's a fascist so must be bad.) I have even argued that the term far right is too extreme to describe people like him, since it usually refers to neo-fascists, the Aryan Nation and similar groups. TFD (talk) 03:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Couldn't agree with your more there Agha Jan. TomReagan90 (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

As Diamond wrote in her book, "Others have adopted, wholesale, the vague label many on the Right apply to themselves, "conservative."" (p. 5) Do you think that when sources use the euphemism conservative, they are putting Ngo into the same ideological group as Bismarck, Disraeli and De Maistre? TFD (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC

Sorry, you've stumped me there. 1) why is "conservative" a euphemism?; And I'm guessing you're being sarcastic in saying that they're not equating Ngo with Bismarck? OK... Ah, so, I think I've got it: you're arguing that today's conservatives in the US, are essentially all racist xenophobes, Bible-bashing creationists, anti-LBGTI+, and pro-torture", but "conservative" is just the polite way to describe these anti-scientific, irrational just, all round bad guys, right? TomReagan90 (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

TomReagan90, could you please explain what you mean by "Agha Jan"? Many thanks. – bradv^🍁 04:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I obviously can't speak for Tom, but I seem to recall that Agha Jan Motasim was a ranked Taliban member who advocated for diplomatic rather than military interactions with the Afghan government. Make of that what you will. In any case, Tom can no longer reply here, as they've been page blocked by Bishonen. FWIW, it reads to me like a PA to me, with a highly subjective severity (an Afghan vet might find it extremely offensive, whereas others mind find it rather mild). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bradv:{{@MjolnirPants: :-) It simply means "Sir" in Persian. As always, as few seconds Googling could've sorted this out... but apparently it was a likely a personal attack by associating (talk) with some Taliban figure - which, according to "MjolnirPants", "an Afghan vet might find it extremely offensive"? I don't even know at what angle he's coming at me with that, but this makes it as obvious as it ever needed to be that this is obviously a forum for children and adolescents. Enjoy, Aghayan Aziz! :-) TomReagan90 (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

They've only been blocked from the article; thy can still edit this talk page. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Then they should definitely explain what they meant by that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I thought if you were blocked from an article then you were also tbanned from the talk page (narrowly construed). Am I incorrect about that? I just assumed the article block was like a tban you couldn't accidentally violate (at least at the article level). Springee (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Bishonen can obviously clarify, but she could have blocked TomReagan90 from the talk page as well, but didn't, and there's no mention of a ban from the talk page at ANI or on Tom's user talk. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

MP and Springee, you may be thinking of how topic bans work. Naturally enough, as topic bans are familiar and classical, whereas none of us are probably really used to partial blocks yet. But a block from a page is simply a block from that page. I deliberately left this talkpage open for TomReagan. That may have been overly nice of me, considering how they talk above ("this place is crawling with wing-nuts", "Agha Jan", etc). But they haven't edited this page since my block, so I have no reason to block them from it now. (I agree they need to answer Bradv's question, but they can hardly be blocked from a page for not editing it.) Bishonen | tålk 09:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC).

I just assumed that you'd blocked both the article and talk page, because I've seen other admins specify when they weren't blocking the talk as well.

FWIW, I think being blocked from the article but not the talk page should be the default for page blocks, because it puts the page blocks down a level of severity from topic bans, and a light touch can often be much more effective than a heavy hand when dealing with these issues. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Note that Tom is either lying or mistaken: "Agha" Jan is a given name, not an appellation. "Agha" by itself is an appellation, cognate with the Arabic "Ali", and just like "Ali", it's often used as part of a name or even on it's own as a given name, which is clearly the case with "Agha Jan". See Agha. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I thought my post was clear. Sources sometimes refer to people such as Ngo as conservatives. Euphemism means "the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant." (Merriam Webster)[30] The source I provided says that some sources use the term conservative, while others would use radical right or similar terms. Conservative and liberal were terms used for the two major political parties in 19th century Europe countries, which for some reason have been adopted in 21st century America. TFD (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

TFD and all. I agree that the best political term to use for him is conservative. I quibbled on the "euphemism of the subset" part. North8000 (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• "Journalist" should be removed from the first sentence in the lead; has not been one for years. Can now be replaced with "author" since the book has garnered some reviews. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Since the publication of the book, there has been a considerable jump in the number of sources who use author as the primary discriptor for Ngo. Cedar777 (talk) 11:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• That goes against the consensus of a less than year old RfC. Springee (talk) 09:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

It is worth noting that there is, of course, another consensus from exactly the same time period that this article has gone against. It is the one specifying that Ngo was with Patriot Prayer prior to the May Day riot that several of their members pleaded guilty to inciting. (Third member convicted May 2021 see source). If there is a rule that a consensus should remain unchanged in an article for a year, this article is doing a poor job of honoring that. Cedar777 (talk) 11:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Sounds like the time is ripe for a new one, then. ValarianB (talk) 13:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I see no reason to deviate from the RFC (closed late Nov 2020) which found consensus to include the description of "journalist" in the lead. The closer assessed the "no" votes as "largely" original research, and instead placed more weight to the RS calling Ngo a journalist. Unless such a shift has occurred in RS, I don't see a reason to not go with the consensus view (which is not really that out of date). The onus would be on those seeking to change the consensus to do that before removing the descriptor from the lead. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, I am not seeing any reason we would not go by the RFC. Nothing has changed from what I can tell. So I am rather concerned and perplexed why this battle continues. PackMecEng (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Quite a few sources take issue with the idea that Ngo is primarily a journalist. He is also being more frequently referred to as an author/writer in RS following the publication of his book. Cedar777 (talk) 11:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

And the majority do not take issue with him being referred to as a journalist. It is an exceptionally low bar to hit. But that has nothing to do with my comment about community consensus and nothing having changed. PackMecEng (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I won't weigh in too heavily given that I'm involved in a WP:ANI dispute around Ngo's page,[31] but I think the following (by no means complete) list provides interesting accounts of how many sources see Ngo as dishonest/misleading/lacking credibility as a journalist: Rolling Stone, CNN, Harvard academic Joan Donovan for MIT Technology Review, Salon (magazine) The Oregonian, Media Matters for America, BuzzFeed News, The Intercept, The Guardian,[32] NME,[33] Los Angeles Times[34], New York (magazine)[35], renowned public intellectual and Yale Professor Jason Stanley in an interview for the SPLC,, Columbia Journalism Review, plus[36][37], a report by Harvard's Nieman Foundation for Journalism by four subject-matter experts with impeccable credentials, Above the Law. In fact, I haven't found many RS's that do treat Ngo as a credible journalist. Noteduck (talk) 02:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

If I had sole editorial control over this page, I wouldn't call Ngo a journalist. However, since that's one of the few matters we've been able to settle I'm not in favor of revisiting it, especially when it's not a terribly important point anyway. Remember, whether Ngo is a credible person is a separate matter from whether he is a journalist. Loki (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Credibility has a lot to do with whether he is a journalist. Ngo is known for spreading disinformation, lies, and fake news. That is the opposite of journalism. Some articles:

NYT reporter says "Ngo willfully deceives his followers into a frenzy that results in death and rape threats"

Jacobin: Andy Ngo Grifter

UCS: "Andy Ngo often spreads misinformation and disinformation around Antifa.

––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 02:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

No, it's not. Have you ever heard of yellow journalism? That's an entire type of journalism known for being uncredible. Also see tabloid journalism. Loki (talk) 07:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Andy Ngo is not an example of yellow journalism. Yellow journalism is based on five characteristics:

1. scare headlines in huge print, often of minor news

2. lavish use of pictures, or imaginary drawings

3. use of faked interviews, misleading headlines, pseudoscience, and a parade of false learning from so-called experts

4. emphasis on full-color Sunday supplements, usually with comic strips

5. dramatic sympathy with the "underdog" against the system.

Fake news is based on:

1. Satire or parody ("no intention to cause harm but has potential to fool")

2. false connection ("when headlines, visuals or captions don't support the content")

3. misleading content ("misleading use of information to frame an issue or an individual")

4. false context ("when genuine content is shared with false contextual information")

5. impostor content ("when genuine sources are impersonated" with false, made-up sources)

6. manipulated content ("when genuine information or imagery is manipulated to deceive", as with a "doctored" photo)

7. fabricated content ("new content is 100% false, designed to deceive and do harm")

That's why Andy Ngo isn't an uncredible journalist, he is not a journalist at all. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 07:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

FormalDude So, even in your completely unsourced WP:OR definition of a "journalist" you're still contradicting yourself. Somehow, you've managed to draw a distinction in your made-up definition between "use of faked interviews, misleading headlines, pseudoscience, and a parade of false learning from so-called experts" which is low quality journalism and "fabricated content" or "misleading content" which is not journalism at all. How the hell does "faked interviews" not count as "fabricated content"? How does "misleading headlines" not count as "misleading content"? Even if the definition your providing was sourced it's blatantly contradictory. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 05:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Chess My definitions were taken directly from Fake news#Types and Yellow journalism#Definitions... ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 07:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:CIRCULAR. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 17:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

"An exception is allowed when Wikipedia itself is being discussed in the article" ––FormalDude^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 04:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Just as you wouldn't call a military impostor an "uncredible soldier", you wouldn't call a fake journalist an "uncredible journalist". ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 08:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Hard to believe people are still trying to call Ngo a journalist. They'd likely call Steven Crowder a journalist too. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 04:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  I support calling him a journalist (but not implying that he's respectable in any way) unless and until a new RfC concludes otherwise (hint hint). And I've little doubt a new RfC would conclude otherwise.

  For minor stuff like this, I think it's important to let process wonkery rule the day. It makes the process wonks feel better about themselves, and they need all the help they can get. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

  Fair enough. I'll refrain from extending the discussion any further then. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 01:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

  Why not start the RfC? If you don't, and no-one gives me a reason not to, I might well start one tomorrow. K. e. coffman and Cedar777 have made a reasonable case that things have changed since that RfC.

  I mean, an RfC is a process. Starting a new one should make anyone prone to process wonkery happy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  Somehow I missed the hint there. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 04:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  You can't just insult living people who are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 17:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Chess: Fuck Steven Crowder. What's the issue with that? ––FormalDude^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 21:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  @FormalDude: Come on, do you really want to go to WP:AN to see if "Fuck Steven Crowder" is an appropriate comment to make in a talk page discussion? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Chess: No, but it sounds like you might. I'll hate on Steven Crowder if I damn well please, especially if it has relevancy to people calling Andy Ngo a journalist. ––FormalDude^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 04:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  Chess, in my opinion the American politics topic area would be vastly improved if we actually enforced WP:BLP (which applies to talk pages) for people talking about their political enemies. And I say this as someone who does not watch or care about Crowder at all. It's just a consistent pattern by many editors in the topic area. I don't see how editors who can't resist going off on the talk page about their political opponents can be trusted to edit neutrally on these articles. People can go to Twitter and Reddit to grind their axes, like I do. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  Crossroads, I'm not going to edit Steven Crowder's article and I never have. It's quite the accusation to say I can't be trusted to edit neutrally on other articles solely because I personally find Steven Crowder vehemently immoral, after consuming hours of his content (which you also accused me of not doing). I rebut your statement against my neutrality: I have never had an arbitrated, contested, or disputed edit in the mainspace that wasn't an honest good faith mistake on my part. ––FormalDude^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 04:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Crossroads: I've gone ahead and brought this to AN/I. These comments are just too much. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  I said that I don't watch Crowder; I didn't comment on you doing so. I'm not familiar with your editing but if that is so, then good. But saying stuff like you did comes off a certain way, and generally strong political feelings aren't limited to one person but apply to a whole side. You are entitled to your strong feelings in your personal life, but we need to do our best to set those aside on Wikipedia. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

You're right on both accounts. I suppose I thought it was okay because it's not on Crowder's talk page, but that is a twisted thinking. I am trying my best to set them aside and apologize for this lapse. ––FormalDude^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 05:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Sources

What is the relationship between provocateur and journalist?

The term provocateur has come up repeatedly in relation to Ngo (10+ times in RS as per the above discussion). After encountering this abstract yesterday, I've become more curious about the relationship between the terms journalist and provocateur in current academic use.

• September 12, 2020 The media provocateur: A rhetorical framework for studying an emerging persona in journalism

Interested if others care to expand on this question. Cedar777 (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Consensus required is now in effect

Please be mindful, everyone. El_C 01:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Restore Ngo Breitbart denial

The current "consensus required" policy makes editing this article tedious, but here goes. In 2017, the editor of the Portland State Vanguard insinuated that Andy Ngo had some relationship with Breitbart News; Ngo denied it. Cedar777's rather sweeping edit from last week kept the insinuation but removed the denial. I think the denial should be re-added - or, barring that, the insinuation should be removed. Does anyone agree or disagree? Korny O'Near (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Major content changes were made each day on July 27, July 28, and July 29 by yourself Korny O'Near. One might describe the series of changes over a three day period as rather drastic (even sweeping) and less than respectful of an article under a 1RR restriction. But alas, here we are under consensus required. Including Ngo's denial seems reasonable. Cedar777 (talk) 05:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, my edits were rather sweeping also. Korny O'Near (talk) 06:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Given this is an accusation against Ngo and the reply was covered by the same source as the accusation I can't see why we wouldn't include both parts per IMPARTIAL. Springee (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• Agree: The denial should be included or the insinuation should be removed. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 07:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments; I added it back in. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Is the allegation also made or debunked by other sources? SPECIFICO talk 17:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: It doesn't look like it. We should probably remove both the allegation and the denial if that is indeed the case. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 06:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• A few days late, but a courtesy ping for Cedar777, since they're mentioned here. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Symmachus Auxiliarus So much material was changed recently that its hard to know were to begin. Cedar777 (talk) 05:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I removed the allegation and denial; one student newspaper editor's opinion probably doesn't need this much coverage. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: and @FormalDude: there are several additional sources that do address the significance of Breitbart picking up the tweet prior to Ngo being sacked.

The Guardian "The footage was picked up by a far-right news site, Breitbart, and led to a social media firestorm. The video was exactly the kind of material that has been Breitbart’s bread and butter since the college tours of its former tech editor, Milo Yiannopoulos: on-campus exposés of PC or identity politics, served up to inflame its rightwing populist and “alt-right” readers."

Commentary "By Ngo’s account, published at National Review, Vanguard editor in chief Colleen Leary confronted him with the Breitbart article and referred to his “history” of affiliation with conservative media. Leary told Willamette Week that she fired Ngo because his tweet was a “half-truth” that “incited a reaction and implicated the student panelist.” She denied her decision was political but added, “It was reasonable to ask about Breitbart collusion because he has [worked with the network] before.” Ngo denied contacting Breitbart about his tweet, and he had declined a previous offer to write there."

Jewish Currents "One day after Ngo—at this point still an obscure college journalist—tweeted the video, Breitbart pushed out its own screed. “WATCH: MUSLIM STUDENT CLAIMS THAT NON-BELIEVERS WILL BE KILLED IN ISLAMIC COUNTRIES,” screamed the headline. The video, as Portland-based journalist Jason Wilson would explain later in the Guardian, was almost tailor-made for Breitbart, which thrived off of “on-campus exposés of PC or identity politics, served up to inflame its rightwing populist and ‘alt-right’ readers.” Ngo leaned into the controversy. Not long after Breitbart’s coverage thrust the story into the heart of the right-wing outrage machine, The Vanguard sacked Ngo, citing “ongoing breaches in trust and actions that were counterintuitive to the [paper’s] mission and editorial expectations.”"

Willamette Week originally interviewed Leary. Commentary magazine also covers Leary (& Breitbart). I disagree with the "simplification" of Leary's views. Leary was the editor of the Vanguard, a role and title quite relevant to roles Ngo has pursued since. Cedar777 (talk) 05:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, @Cedar777, for your diligent explanation. I agree that it should be included given those sources, and I'm not sure it actually warrants including Ngo's denial now. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 05:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think these quotes add any new information. Yes, it's relevant that Breitbart News picked up the video - that was Ngo's first introduction to the public sphere. The question, though, is just whether Ngo and Breitbart had a previous relationship - and still, as far as we can tell, it was only Leary who implied that they did. Korny O'Near (talk) 06:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

It's the significance of the coverage in three separate reliable sources that makes me see this as worth including. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 06:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The above quotes show that we should include that Breitbart's coverage was significant. That doesn't address the core part of this discussion which is if the student editor's accusation that Ngo and Breitbart coordinated. I don't think that accusation needs to be included but if it is, then Ngo's denial needs to be included as well per IMPARTIAL. I think we all are in agreement on that point. Can we close this up by simply including Ngo's denial? Springee (talk) 11:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

 Works for me ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 19:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, done. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

We agree that Ngo's denial belongs in the article. However, other key portions of the text are still relevant. I partially restored the content as regarding a "violation of journalistic ethics" as this is a key aspect and is repeated over years by various voices. If this was just one person, at one point in time, giving voice to this criticism, it would be easier to disregard. However, the reality is, it comes up again and again, regardless of whether all readers agree with that view. Cedar777 (talk) 06:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Like Cedar777's revision. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 06:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Fine with me; I don't see a real difference between "unethical" and "violation of journalistic ethics" in this context. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)