Talk:Andy Ngo: Difference between revisions

LaCorte News

LaCorte News was founded by Ken LaCorte, a former Fox News executive with an expressed partisan purpose. I dispute whether this source has the reputation for accuracy required for a reliable source - a cursory look suggests not. In November 2019, a New York Times investigation found that LaCorte used "Russian tactics" to push inflammatory content on websites Conservative Edition News and Liberal Edition News which he controlled. LaCorte's ownership of the sites was not known until the Times investigation, which was jointly conducted with the Virginia security firm Nisos.[2] The investigation found no ties between LaCorte and Russia, and stated: "Security experts said the adoption of Russian tactics by profit-motivated Americans had made it much harder to track disinformation." LaCorte defended himself to the Times, saying that he ran the politically-charged sites as a way to drive traffic to his centrist site LaCorte News. LaCorte said “I wanted to try to find middle ground.”[2] LaCorte admitted that he had had been secretly operating the partisan websites and had hired Macedonian teenagers to write the content. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi NorthBySouthBaranof, NYT's investigation only said that Conservative Edition News and Liberal Edition News are partisan sites owned by the same person as LaCorte News, but it didn't dispute LaCorte News's reliability. Ken LaCorte also explained that those partisan sites are meant to draw traffic to his centrist site LaCorte News.

Additionally, Ngo's testimony on June 29 is an undisputable fact and LaCorte News didn't fabricate any information. I don't think we should exclude truthful and widely covered information simply because of the news agency's owner's personal beliefs, or else it would be bias by omission, which violates NPOV. Thomas Meng (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Thomas Meng, if this event is "widely covered", could you identify a few reliable sources that have covered it? Maybe we could use one of those instead. –dlthewave ☎ 17:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I think this is where we need to look at RS, specifically context matters. This is not an extraordinary claim. We have a primary source record of what Ngo said. So long as the source is simply saying, "this is what Ngo said" it shouldn't require a gold standard source to support the statements. As for the "partisan purpose" concern, why isn't that applied to other sources? Biased sources aren't automatically excluded and again, the claims in question are not controversial (ie no source would question that Ngo said what the congressional record says he said). I think this should be restored. Springee (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I cannot find any evidence that LaCorte News has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, as policy requires of a reliable source. To the contrary, someone who admits to deceptively operating fake news sites has lost any claim to credibility as the operator of a legitimate journalism operation. An examination of the site's articles reveal it to be little more than rewritten partisan clickbait, with no original reporting that I can find, and its staff listing includes only one named writer, who lives in Macedonia. This does not have any of the hallmarks of a legitimate reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Does the news site have the things we normally expect from a RS (editorial board etc)? Do we have evidence they have fabricated or otherwise reported false information? You said someone admitted to deceptively operating a fake news site but I don't see a link. Again, in this case we can verify their claims since the congressional record is available. Springee (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

So they have a staff writer and editorial staff. I guess I am not seeing the issue. You have to remember not liking a source personally is obviously not a reason to exclude it. PackMecEng (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

You have it precisely backward - the onus is on the person proposing disputed material to gain consensus for its inclusion, and to gain consensus that the proffered sourcing is reliable. We have neither here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks like consensus to me. PackMecEng (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Further, the site was permanently banned from Facebook for intentionally spreading the Trump whistleblower's name. Yeah, seems like a source we really ought to be avoiding. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, that is meaningless. Facebook also blocked all mention of the Hunter laptop story which later turned out to be true. FB isn't a new site and we can't assume they are a reliable adjudicator of good vs bad news. Springee (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Springee, the best solution, always, is to fall back to reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Secretly running two opposing POV outlets to drive traffic to your site isn't exactly a hallmark of trustworthiness, and this young site doesn't seem to have established a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy yet. Best to steer clear. –dlthewave ☎ 17:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Since we can fact check the claims in question what is the issue? Remember that RS says context matters. If this were an interpretive claim I would agree but this is simply a statement saying "He said X" which can be verified via videos of the testimony as well as by the congressional record. Are you saying Ngo didn't say the things attributed to him? Springee (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources and is not an appropriate location for lengthy content additions that are better suited to a personal blog about his testimony (that any editor is free to construct away from Wikipedia).

We already have Courthouse News in the article as a much more solid and grounded source for reporting on the gist of Ngo's views expressed in the testimony. There is no need to quote his testimony at length, verbatim, in the Wikipedia article and attempt to justify that this is DUE by using a severly problematic source that has admitted to using Macedonian troll farms in an effort to drive viewers to their "real" news site. Cedar777 (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Which testimony. I believe he has testified before congress 3 times. I have real trouble understanding why we wouldn't include at least a limited summary of what he testified to each time. That seems like it would be an IAR issue. Springee (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Springee, but your argument that it's OK to use an unreliable source because it can be fact-checked against a primary source didn't work with the Daily Caller/Daily Signal source and it's not going to work here. There's nothing about congressional testimony that makes it inherently noteworthy; we cover what reliable sources have covered, and reliable sources just don't seem to have paid much attention to the June 29 testimony. If you'd like to include it, WP:ONUS is on you to find sourcing that meets WP:DUE. Please stop wasting our time trying to pass off obviously terrible sources as reliable. –dlthewave ☎ 05:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

This is an extremely worrying double standard on Springee's part, given that they insist on the most uncompromisingly high standards on sources they disagree with. If Springee finds it difficult to evaluate sources, it might be best to stand aside and listen more Noteduck (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Dlthewave, if you feel this isn't worth your time you can always choose not to reply. My concern here is that a number of right leaning sites did report on this (Daily Caller, Daily Wire, PM, WesterJournal, the site discussed above) We also have left leaning sites saying Ngo is going/did testify (Meaww [[1]] Oregonian [[2]]). Even if we don't see the sites who reported on the testimony as reliable we clearly have a number of sources that think this is important. We also don't have to worry about verifiability since we have C-SPAN and the congressional record to verify any claims. This is an article that has been criticized for issues with IMPARTIAL. We are happy to have rather tabloid like claims such the one from BC and others yet we are very concerned about keeping out factual statements that can be easily verified when presented by sources that are claimed to be unreliable. If the statement can be verified is that particular claim still unreliable? Springee (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Springee, you're well aware that all of the "right leaning" sources you've linked are generally unreliable per consensus and thus can't be used to establish due weight. We don't give a shit what they have to say and you would be well advised to stop bringing them up before it lands you at AE. As for Meaww (I've never heard of this one before, have you?) and OregonLive, they don't actually cover the content of the testimony that you're proposing we include. –dlthewave ☎ 04:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Dlthewave, you totally missed the point of the argument. It's clear a lot of sources think the content is important yet we are using process to leave it out. Since I haven't added the content to the article (that was another editor) your AE comment is not helpful. Beyond that, we have several editors who say the source in question is reliable for the content in question so it's not like I'm the only editor making this case. Springee (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggest just building an article with objective content (not characterizations). And if we rule out biased or "biased" sources that would zap 90% of the sources for this article. A more usable standard is expertise and objectivity with respect to the content that they are supporting. Suggest just using sources to support verifiable objective content. And suggest laying off of the insulting and negative assumptions and characterizations of editor Springee.North8000 (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

North8000, if you remove opinions, you're left with the inescapable conclusion that Ngo isn't actually important at all. He's just a fascist apologist grifter who is being promoted because it's useful to those who want to pretend that BLM and Antifa, rather than out of control far-right militias, are the real problem. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Why not just include encyclopedic information rather the opinions of political opponents thus provide encyclopedic information for others to decide? North8000 (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

off topic

:::::::I am gobsmacked by Springee's discouragement of participation. This is so abusive that it's a wonder they weren't reported immediately, doubly so given that they have a history of canvassing, and are constantly trying to introduce unreliable sources whilst simultaneously making a fuss over actually reliable sources. They know PRECISELY what they are doing, stop giving them the benefit of the doubt. 69.158.90.121 (talk) 05:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

LaCorteNews is far from established. Oregonian (cited above as [3]) is, but the sum total of their reporting was He has twice testified before Congress ... . He’s been invited twice by Republican lawmakers, including once by Cruz, to testify before Congress. starship.paint (exalt) 06:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Starship.paint, and, let's face it, the bar is pretty low there. In recent hearings we have heard from promoters of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, anti-maskers, and sundry other cranks. With the exception of serious work like the first impeachment hearing, being summoned to Congress these days is a much debased currency. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Michael Strickland

Cedar777, thank you for the effort you put into rearranging the article. I think it's better for it. A small thing, is the Michael Strickland material really due here? I don't see sources making a big fuss about Ngo's reporting with respect to this story nor do I see articles about Strickland saying much if anything about Ngo. The Strickland article suggests he is a BLP1E case as it links to the Don't Shoot Portland group and says very little about Strickland himself. I would suggest removal as undue. Again, I think the overall edit was good. Springee (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Springee Back in October, I raised the question at talk that the article would benefit from clarity on the subject’s education/graduation at PSU. [[4]]

Biographical Wikipedia articles are frequently structured with an Early life & education section that ends when the formal period of study ends, followed by the Career section. Ngo’s education and career overlap so it was more challenging untangling the two. With the recent revision of Ngo’s page, I set out to answer two questions that pertain to the material you recently deleted: A) When did Ngo cease to be a student at PSU? and B) When did he begin to cover stories for the Vanguard as a student reporter?

Answer A: Several sources clearly list Ngo as a PSU graduate student in 2018, so the article now accurately reflects that RS say he enrolled in a graduate program in 2015 and continued his studies, at least, until mid-2018.

To date, no editors have found a source stating that he graduated from PSU but perhaps one does exist, and if so it would be good to get it added to the article.

Answer B: Ngo covered a story for the Vanguard in 2016 that was picked up by KATU, the local ABC News affiliate. His reporting (as a PSU graduate student for the Vanguard) was relevant and recognized beyond the Vanguard by this RS news org. Ngo is named in their coverage and his video as the Vanguard reporter is used in their story.

Ngo’s coverage of the 2016 BLM event was reported on again in the College Fix (a source we are already using for other content in the article).

I disagree with your assertion that the material is undue. KATU’s coverage substantiates the story and Ngo’s role in reporting it. The article heading states that Ngo’s time period at the Vanguard was from 2016-2017 but the RS legitimizing 2016 has been deleted from the article by your last edit. It is not clear what could be objectionable about this content. The sources should be restored. Cedar777 (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how that justifies the inclusion of Strickland by name or action in this article. I'm not opposed to saying he covered the Don't Shoot Portland event but I have two issues with the mention of Strickland himself. First, it seems like a coatrack since Ngo's coverage of DSP and Strickland is minor and uncontroversial. Strickland is hardly notable and even less so in context of Ngo so why mention him at all? His name redirects to the short DSP article. The other issue is to mention that Strickland pulled a gun without mentioning the actions of the crowd first (the DSP article does mention this). This is not a case where a person just decided to wave a gun at a group because they didn't like that group's message. Would a partial restore work? Something like "In 2016, he covered a Black Lives Matter related protest called Don't Shoot Portland for the Vanguard."? Springee (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Springee, https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2019/03/fox-news-laura-ingraham-calls-for-rico-prosecution-of-liberal-campus-agitators-cites-portland-state-cowbell-disruptor.html Guy (help! - typo?) 21:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Springee, I don't have a strong opinion, but some sources do specifically link the two specifically due to this incident. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

JzG, I agree they are mentioned in the same article because Ngo tried to help Strickland speak on campus. However, I don't see much in the way of significance here. Consider your comments about too much insignificant content making it into articles like this one. ALso, consider how this was presented in the Ngo article. It wasn't presented as, Ngo hosted Strickland [rest of that story]. Instead it was Ngo reported on an event that happened to be the event where Strickland did X. While Ngo and Strickland have a small tie, the tie between Ngo and X is that much smaller. Springee (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Springee, yes, he gave Strickland's career-o'-grifting a head start. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Cedar777, I'm still not sure this content is due. The CollegeFix content was removed as UNDUE. With that removed I just don't see how this is content that should be included when we are already concerned about too much stuff getting jammed into this article. Springee (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Springee, The content was modified to remove mention of Strickland by name per your request, and yet still reflect what KATU, the local ABC news affiliate said about the event, which featured Ngo's reporting/video.

As Politico reported in 2020 that Ngo is a mega infleuncer and a "key source for rightwing audiences in search of news about the Black Lives Matter movement", it logically follows that the point at which Ngo takes an interest in (and reports on) BLM and the charged protest atmosphere in Portland where violence might erupt at any moment is relevent to his bio. This should prove true regardless of which side, if any, a reader might be inclined to blame for the violence. BLM marches took place in several major US cities in July 2016, with horendous violence breaking out at the 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers on the same day that Strickland brandished his weapon in Portland.[5] The point being that the atmosphere was much larger than Strickland, thus we don't need to name him. Ngo's coverage of the 2016 Don't Shoot Portland event was a harbinger for what has become his multi-year focus on emotionally charged protest environments. Ngo, then a PSU college student reporter, covered Strickland at the original 2016 event. When Strickland returned to campus in 2018 following his conviction and 2-year ban from PSU (and an indefinite ban from the PCC campus), Ngo's coverage of the drama is another matter that may warrant a mention of Strickland farther into the timeline.[6] Cedar777 (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Cedar777, do we have other sources that would explain why this material is DUE in Ngo's BLP? Simply showing an example where a news source used some of Ngo's reporting doesn't seem like a good standard to establish WEIGHT. Springee (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Bernstein's Buzzfeed opinion piece

As proposed, I'll discuss my removal of the quotes here:

• The first reason is that these quotes seek to legitimize Antifa's violence on Ngo. The author, Joseph Bernstein (Buzzfeed's tech reporter), says that Antifa beat Ngo because Ngo himself has been building to a dramatic confrontation with the Portland far left for months. Bernstein says this with the only evidence being that Ngo's twitter banner says: Hated by Antifa. So it somehow became Ngo's own fault that Antifa beat him. The quotes also say that with his star rising along with the severity of the encounters...[Ngo] is willing to make himself the story and to stream himself doing it. So how does Bernstein know that Ngo's willing to get severely beaten and suffer brain hemorrhage? These are quite unreliable speculations.
• Another issue is that Berstein is not a qualified expert for this Wikipedia article to cite, because he is a only a technology reporter.

Hope my reasoning makes sense. Thomas Meng (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

User:BeŻet perhaps of interest to you too. Thomas Meng, Buzzfeed News is listed as an RS at WP:RSP. Everything I see argued in this article is broadly in line with what other RS's have said about Ngo. This article is not an opinion piece like you stated in your diff. I don't think these objections are strong and don't think this material should be removed again Noteduck (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

First, RSP green doesn't mean any BFN article is always reliable for any claim it makes nor that any claim is automatically DUE. Thomas Meng's concern regarding the analysis/opinion of a tech writer about Ngo is legitimate. I recall at least a few sources were critical of the media in general for not loudly condemning this attack. I do agree that this passage in some sense tries to justify the attack by saying Ngo was asking for it. While not in WP voice we still should ask, why is this one passage due. If a number of sources say something similar then we should bundle those opinions (and this is an opinion) into a single summary sentence saying several sources said X and follow it with sources that condemned the victim blaming. If no other sources say this then removal as an undue opinion offered by a tech writer is reasonable. Springee (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

this is not an opinion piece so please stop using that term. Bernstein's conclusion is in line with many others that argue that Ngo's coverage is manipulative and dishonestly made to portray him as a victim (arguably vindicated by the Patriot Prayer video). Bernstein sums up Ngo well when he describes him as the kind of participant reporting that alternates freely between mocking the far left, anthropologizing it, and cowering from it. Springee, you recently narrowly avoided a sanction for adding a deprecated source on this very page so it might be best to step back and listen more. Also, I now assume you have no problem with me commenting on your edits, since you've responded to mine here Noteduck (talk) 11:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Opinion and commentary can be mixed with factual reporting as is the case here. If many people have said something similar we can summarize it as well as responses to that summary. Regardless, the material in question is not factual reporting. The author is providing his own view, not reporting the view of someone else. There is no need to ping me as I am watching this talk page. Springee (talk) 11:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Thomas Meng Could you elaborate on why the author would need to be a "qualified expert" instead of a news reporter? I'm not familiar with this requirement. –dlthewave ☎ 12:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe they are referring to WP: RSEDITORIAL. Specifically "The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." Thus the opinions of non-specialists and non-recognized experts are less likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. So, why are the opinions and analysis of this tech writer sufficiently reliable and why does it reflect a significant enough viewpoint for inclusion are the questions that should be answered. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The Buzzfeed News article by Bernstein is a nuanced and thorough assesment of the subject at a given point in time. It is arguably the highest quality coverage we have of him from 2019. Bernstein was with Ngo while he was attacked during the Proud Boys rally and counter protest, as well as before and after this event. Bernstein raises a number of relevant questions as a journalist, about the shifting nature of journalism and of Ngo's role within that context. I strongly disagree that Bernstein can be dismissed as "just a" technology reporter or that his statement has the severity and malice attributed to him by some editors.

It is an established fact that Ngo has a large number of followers on social media. It is also an established fact that Ngo has a large number of detractors (see the Christian conference that he was disinvited from and the uproar and backlash that the Mumford and Sons musicians received). Many of Ngo's detractors can be found throughout society, not just in black bloc in the streets of Portland. Quite a few articles take care to unravel why this may be the case. Bernstien's 2019 coverage is relevant and addresses this reality.

The statement is correctly attributed to Bernstein and not presented in wiki voice. Many reporters suffered from pepper spray, tear gas, and worse while covering the unrest but they did not center or reframe the story on themselves. Cedar777 (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

this article is based on hard analysis and the repeatedly used term opinion is a misnomer in this discussion. I'd say this is one of the most detailed and thoughtful journalistic analyses of Ngo out there, well in line with what other RS's have said about Ngo, and there's zero reason to exclude it Noteduck (talk) 02:57, 11 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 [[7]]. 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[8] 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 [[9]] 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 [[10]] 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 [[11]]. 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.[12] 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.[13] 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 [14] 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 [[15]] (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)

Recent attack (the second one in three years) by left-wing protesters

Hi, recently Ngo was again attacked by left-wing protesters [16]. I think this is significant enough for us to include. Could someone add it in? Thanks. Thomas Meng (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

You can add it yourself. Note though that since all we have is a statement by Ngo, we would have to attribute the information to him in text. TFD (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC) -

Thanks for the proposal The Four Deuces. I didn't want to add this myself because the majority of my edits on this page have been reverted by a few left-leaning editors (see discussions above). So I think it might be better for more qualified editors to do it (maybe you can). Best, Thomas Meng (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

It could be how you phrase things. For example you say that Ngo was attacked, when we don't know that with certainty. You also said he was attacked by left-wing protestors, instead of calling them antifa, which is what the source says. When a tiny group within the Left carries out an attack, collective responsibility should not be assigned to the entire Left. Incidentally, since left can mean different things, its meaning should always be clear about what we mean when we use the term. TFD (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I would prefer calling them "left-wing protestors", a real thing that definitely exists, rather than "antifa", a boogeyman that, while based on a real thing, does not exist in the terms Ngo believes they do. (I'd be okay with attributing "antifa" to Ngo, but the article in its own voice only calls them "rioters" or "a group of masked individuals", which we should probably stick to.) Loki (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thomas Meng, if you are concerned about how an edit may be seen by others just propose the change here. Others can suggest changes without concerns related to revert limits. I think most editors view that as a show of good faith if there is a concern about disputed edits. Springee (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Cedar777 did a nice job with an addition here [[17]]. I am a bit concerned that we include a speculative motive that suggests the attackers were acting in some form of self protection. All three sources did say something similar but in every case the statements were speculative on the part of the sources. I would be interested in thoughts on how this should be handled. It is clearly sourced and several sources said something similar (did they all reach the same conclusion or just re-report what others said first). At the same time none present evidence to support that this was the reason for the attack and it does look like victim blaming. Springee (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Cedar777, any thoughts on my comment above? Since I posted that another editor has expanded the part that seems to blame Ngo. I think that expansion needs to be reverted. I would prefer something that doesn't victim blame Ngo here since none of the sources directly linked their speculation to this attack but I think group input would help since this is clearly in the sources. Perhaps this is a good NPOVN question. Springee (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Springee, I do not agree that a simple statement, listed in multiple sources, as to what activists are angry about constitutes victim blaming. It is explaining the broader multi-year conflict between the parties where Ngo believes that antifa is looking to destroy democracy and activists believe that Ngo is provocateur willing to pander to far right sentiments at the expense of their personal safety. Both parties feel unsafe by the existence of the other. Cedar777 (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

My concern is the sources don't actually link the motivations for this attack with something they said Ngo has done in the past. If none of the attackers say what their motivations actually were then the sources are really speculating. We could also speculate that the motives were exactly the same as those in 2019. Was Ngo posting mug shots and arrest records back then? Regardless, what you actually wrote was 100% WP:V to the sources even if the sources are speculating. Springee (talk) 02:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

SomerIsland, I think this addition is SYNTH [[18]]. The recent sources do try to pass the blame onto Ngo but they don't make any claims of collaboration with white nationalists etc. Even stating that Ngo collaborates with white nationalists in Wiki voice is a BLP violation. While I think the victim blaming in the sources Cedar777 used is questionable, it is 100% verifiable. Your edit is not and, in my view, should be reverted as both SYNTH and BLP violation. Springee (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Rather than "pass the blame", the recent sources merely reinforce the pre-existing information that activists 1 and other journalists 2 have had issues with Ngo pronouncing them antifa and/or antifa-ideologues. While the edit by SomerIsland made some changes I support, such as removing the description of Ngo's disguise if it is taken from his twitter and only in one source, I am much less comfortable with the added information about Proud Boys, Patriot Prayer and white nationalists as part of the same sentenceas none of the recently listed sources mention those three things in the context of the latest attack. Cedar777 (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I can see the argument as to why it shouldn't go in that section, in that case though the whole phrase about why left-wing activists take issue with Ngo should be removed, since its equally irrelevant. I was trying to expand on that phrase, since its inaccurate to say its just him posting mug shots thats the issue. I think the sources do absolutely support that he collaborates with white nationalists, though maybe they don't use the word "collaborate". I don't know what other word to use to describe what the articles talk about, him being present at their meetings, taking instruction from them on when to film, and generally acting as their PR. All of that is supported by the sources I added, though I can see why people take issue with the word "collaborate". SomerIsland (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with removing the claim as to what Ngo was wearing which was part of SomerIsland's edit. I strongly suspect that SomerIsland was correct that there reasons other than just posting mug shots but absent statements from the attackers we really can't know for certain. Do we have a consensus to stick with just what the cited sources said (Cedar777's original edit minus the disguise)? Springee (talk) 02:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Red cite errors

Volteer1 I also noticed the cite errors you mention trying to fix in this edit 1. I nearly always do visual editing (not source code) and start citations with the automatic feature (with manual corrections for accuracy). It seems the recent cite errors appeared out of the blue with my last edit and that they even persist with your correction. I think the root source of the cite errors was unintentionally introduced when editors condensed the citations earlier that day. Not sure what the solution is. Cedar777 (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they came about because your edit defined ref names ":11" and ":12" despite them already being defined – I don't use visual editor so I don't know how it works, but I presume it was a problem with that. Either way I think it's fixed now. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I don’t type in the definition ( numbers or letters) in manually but I will keep an eye out to see if this happens again when editing on this page. Cedar777 (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Strange that visual editor does that, no idea why ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I've never learned to use the automated editing tools. I don't think the automated ":11" type ref names are a good idea. I've used various names over the years but I think something like "LastnameYear" works nicely. It helps others who come back and edit things later as ":11" doesn't mean anything while something like last name + year generally is sufficient and makes finding the original source easier. Springee (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

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[[19]] 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)

"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,[20] Harvard academic Joan Donovan for MIT Technology Review, Salon (magazine) The Oregonian, Media Matters for America, BuzzFeed News, The Intercept, The Guardian,[21] NME,[22] Los Angeles Times[23], New York (magazine)[24], renowned public intellectual and Yale Professor Jason Stanley in an interview for the SPLC,, Columbia Journalism Review, plus[25][26], 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".

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.

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)