Talk:Andy Ngo/Archive 1

Writer v. Journalist
Per this edit by, it seems contentious as to whether Ngo is a journalist or just a writer. I agree with the other changes in that edit; just not the change in characterization as to Ngo's primary occupation. Multiple outlets refer to him as the former (ie not as a writer); see as among the WP:RS that mention some variation of the term journalist. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 06:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The Guardian says he self-describes as a journalist. OPB says he is a part-time journalist. The Willamette Weekly refers to him as a student paper journalist. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, actually the NY Times and ABC describe him as a journo. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So that settles it? &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 07:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

He's a journalist, this discussion is absurd. Loganmac (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

and how is it absurd? what's you're definition of a journalist? I would prefer if my journalists didn't make stuff up engage in slander tactics or exaggerate things if you didn't pick up on that in citation 19 or the Willamette weekly I don't have anything else to say pc or not he is usually branded as an opinion giver, given the lack of accuracy an ethics.--Moredps (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We're not here to define what is or isn't a journalist. If he's described as such in most WP:RS, he is. Loganmac (talk) 01:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Conservative
Multiple RS describe him as conservative. Therefore, this Wikipedia article should, as well. Even though it's a fad for some conservatives to self-describe as something different (e.g. Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin, Bari Weiss), we should stick to what RS say. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We should report what sources say (obviously not all describe him as conservative) and what he himself identifies as (or not), not label him as XYZ in Wikipedia's voice where there's a dispute. His political affiliation doesn't need to be in the first sentence. It's only a "fad" if you have a very simplistic world view where everyone is either conservative or liberal. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * RS that describe him as "conservative": AP, NYT, ABC News, The Oregonian, Business Insider, The Independent, Daily Beast. Conservative outlets, such as Fox, Wash Ex, Wash Times, Newsmax, IJR, Newsbusters, Daily Caller and PJ Media describe him as "conservative". Please point me towards RS that dispute that he's a conservative. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you read? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * His views should be discussed in a well sourced, nuanced manner. NOT with a reductionist, single word label in the lede.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should say that Ngo is a conservative in the lead necessarily, but we certainly should say that he writes for the conservative outlet Quillette. Would this be an acceptable compromise? &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "conservative" is not an accurate representation of Quillette.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I think we should follow what RS say, as we do in all other Wikipedia articles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * How about we use the term politically right-leaning to describe Ngo instead? &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see a big difference from 'conservative' (which is the more common label), but sure, that would be OK. The Oregonian also describes him as 'right-leaning'. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "I think it's fair to describe me as center-right."  w umbolo   ^^^  14:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That should be added to the body, replacing the line where he disputes that he is a conservative. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Hate crime hoaxes
In this edit you removed "poorly sourced" content:


 * Following the indeterminate alleged hate crime of assault on Jussie Smollett in January 2019, Ngo published a series of tweets listing hate crime hoaxes and was praised by conservatives.  A week later, Ngo interviewed Wilfred Reilly, a Kentucky State Associate Professor of Political Science who had written the book Hate Crime Hoax, on the prominence of hate crime hoaxes among alleged hate crimes in the United States.

The citations include several journalists, do you object to citing their articles? w umbolo  ^^^  14:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * None of those sources are RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually I would argue that all of these are well-established journalists writing for borderline RSes. Since the content is supported by four such borderline sources, surely it is WP:DUE, no? w umbolo   ^^^  14:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As you are well aware of (you were misrepresenting how RS covered the outlet on RSN if i recall correctly), the Daily Wire is not a RS by any stretch of the imagination. The O'Neill, Mac Donald and Young pieces are op-eds. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the three are in order: news analysis by a contributing editor, an editorial, and a political analysis article, all of them written by well-established journalists. None of them are op-eds as you claim. w umbolo   ^^^  14:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The phrase "and was praised by conservatives" is too partisan ans should be dropped. The point of bringing these sources is to establish that the list of hate crime hoaxes Ngo compiled was widely covered and, therefore, can be added to the subhead on his career activities.  The assertion that an an essay that ran in The Bulwark (website), and essays by Heather Mac Donald and Brandan O'Neill are not reliable sources for the fact that Ngo compiles such a list is frivolous. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Have any RSes been found for Ngo's recent hammer hoax? You know, the one where a nazi attacked some counter-protesters with a hammer, one of the counter-protesters took the hammer and threw it back at the nazi who initiated the attack and then Ngo claimed antifa was attacking people with hammers? I mean, it certainly speaks to his credibility as a "journalist". Simonm223 (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually I answered my own question  . Simonm223 (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Slog
actually on a further look, all of the news articles of The Stranger are on the blog, which makes me believe it is a WP:NEWSBLOG which is a reliable source. I invite others to comment to avoid having to go to WP:RSN, and if there is consensus that it is reliable, this material should be restored, and otherwise, the references to Slog should be removed and content removed if not verified by other cites. I don't know if Slog being unreliable undermines the statement that Ngo denies being a conservative, but it does raise a debate on whether "conservative" belongs to the first sentence then. w umbolo  ^^^  14:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The Stranger (newspaper) is an alt weekly with a reputation for reliable journalism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand the confusion. Articles from the news portion of The Stranger would likely be a reliable source, but the Slog is explicitly a blog by the Stranger and has to be treated a bit differently. Articles on the link you included above are mostly not slog articles, articles from the Stranger online are not necessarily a part of Slog unless marked as such. The news articles in the above link that are also slog articles are roundups of links of the news from other sources. This would make them tertiary sources, meaning it'd be better to use the articles they cite directly instead of the roundup articles. For uses like stating a claim Ngo makes as long as it is attributed to him, blogs are fine though. Hope this helps. Rab V (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note WP:NEWSBLOG does not claim news blogs are necessarily reliable sources, it actually does the opposite. It states extra care needs to be taken with them since news blogs do not generally have the same editorial standards as one would expect from their main site. Rab V (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I do not know enough about the Stranger or its blog, the Slog. The RS noticeboard should preferably be consulted. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * This is an in-depth article from the newspaper, if you want (or anyone else) you may add some info from it to the article. I'd highlight the county where he grew up, and the recent assault at the gym (making the assault pattern leadworthy?). It also mentions the fundraiser and some political reactions, but I'll try to add from other sources first and wait with this one. w umbolo   ^^^  16:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That is also a blog. It has the title of the Stranger's blog in the header and url. Rab V (talk) 02:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just like all of their news. w umbolo   ^^^  06:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

how is this sentence relevant?
"Robby Soave, who wrote about the incident for Reason,[34] reported on Twitter that a doctored screenshot of his article was in circulation.[35]"

How is this relevant to Andy Ngo? The sentence does not explain why this person, or this supposed doctored screenshot is relevant. I removed it but some vandal reverted it without providing an explanation. Please edit the sentence to be relevant, or delete it. In my opinion the fact someone doctored a screenshot is not relevant unless it had dire consequences. If there were dire consequences, then edit the sentence to include them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.194.179.228 (talk) 08:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It was restored by User:PeterTheFourth. You can't call someone a vandal just because you disagree with them. It does seem like there's some missing context, as there isn't really anything tying that statement back to the subject of the article. (In what way was the screenshot doctored?) However, I don't think that "dire consequences" is the right bar. If the false screenshot got wide attention and spread incorrect information about the subject's involvement, then it seems relevant to note and correct the misinformation in our own coverage. ST47 (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The statement is not 'irreverent' to Andy Ngo, nor is it irrelevant as it does relate to the Andy Ngo incident. It may not be due, but I didn't find the edit summary for the removal convincing, hence why I reverted it. If you don't find it due, feel free to delete it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I notice you removed this sentence. Given that there's a consensus required remedy on the page, perhaps you'd like to participate in the talk page section and get consensus before removing it? Self-revert would be wise too. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPREMOVE is an exception to WP:3RRNO. The content is a BLP violation (WP:BLPSPS). w umbolo   ^^^  13:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPSPS says Never use self-published sources [...] as sources of material about a living person. We are not using the self-published source as a source of material about a living person, we use it as a source of material to say that there is a doctored screenshot of an article. Do I need to take this to arbitration enforcement, or would you please just abide by the remedies in place? PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The article in Reason (magazine) was titled "Antifa Mob Viciously Assaults Journalist Andy Ngo at Portland Rally", so it was clearly relevant to the article. Robby Soave, the article's author, tweeted that a doctored version had changed the titled to "Andy Ngo hires Proud Boys to pose as Antifa and attack him at Portland rally." This altered version clearly completely misrepresents the original article and (if it were the original headline) could see Soave sued by Ngo if he could not prove the allegation.  If there is reason to use the Soave piece in Ngo's BLP, I think there is plenty of reason to include at least a note that a doctored version of the article is circulating.
 * is correct, the issue is why use the Soave article (is it WP:DUE)? If it is, is the doctoring something to footnote for the reader's sake, or is there any aspect of the doctoring that reliable sources have addressed in relation to Ngo that warrants including it in the text rather than as a footnote.
 * , WP:BLPSPS clearly applies to Soave commenting that his own article in the magazine has been doctored, and taking this to WP:AE is would have beeb a poor decision, in my opinion., threatening AE is equally unhelpful.  Would you both consider being more colleagial?  More discussion and seek to understand / persuade rather than to bludgeon with "I'm right" or "you don't immediately agree so lets go to AE and see if someone might get blocked"?  Less reverting and edit summary "discussion"?  EdChem (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)  Comment edited as it was PTF not W who filed at AE.  EdChem (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I asked Wumbolo to self revert, and they did not. It's regrettable, but the remedies are in place for a reason. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are... their purpose is to avoid edit wars, to promote cooperation, to encourage developing and respecting consensus. What they are not meant to be is weapons to eliminate adversaries.  EdChem (talk) 04:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. I was on Twitter and because I follow Reason saw this pop up. I added it to the article, and now we're here. My best defense for the addition was here. However, I rather more so agree with that this content may not be WP:DUE. Perhaps this should be relegated to a footnote? &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't belong, there's no WP:RS claiming this to be relevant, and while some WP:PRIMARY sources like Twitter are allowed when talking about oneself, I fail to see where the relevance lies, so this falls into WP:OR, since only the Wiki editor judged its relevance to the article in question. Right now the sentence reads like and awkward afterthought/footnote inside a section talking about anything other than supposed misinformation. I'm removing it per WP:BOLD Loganmac (talk) 03:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a consensus required remedy on this page. You require consensus for this challenged edit. WP:BOLD does not trump discretionary sanctions. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Antifascist vs Antifa
Antifa does not mean anti-fascist (Antifa is a proper noun, that's why it's capitalized). Therefore, all instances of anti-fascist should be replaced of Antifa as that is what's typically reported. 2601:18F:602:535C:E4F2:838D:64DC:E48F (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We go by what the sources say. They use the term "anti-fascist" or "antifascist" repeatedly: .  Therefore we should use both terms to reduce confusion. --Aquillion (talk) 05:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if we agree that Antifa are indeed primarily "anti-facist", Antifa is the more specific proper noun for them and should be used. Looks like the article already reflects this now though. Galestar (talk) 04:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Left-leaning language
The term "allegedly" in the sentence "Ngo was allegedly physically assaulted by anti-fascist protestors, who punched him repeatedly in the head, and threw milkshakes" is not accurate; there's abundant proof that he was assaulted and that is typically what is reported (that he was indeed assaulted). The language only serves to make the article seem ideologically bent. Further, the term anti-fascist (as I've said in my previous section) should be migrated to Antifa (regardless of what Antifa stands for, it's a proper noun. Anti-fascist is a common noun. Therefore, they cannot map to one another; at most they can resemble one another). 2601:18F:602:535C:E4F2:838D:64DC:E48F (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The 'proof' cannot be in the form of watching a poorly shot video and analysing it yourself. Given that there have been no criminal convictions, we shouldn't definitely say a crime has taken place, per WP:BLPCRIME., please stop removing this in contradiction with our BLP policies.
 * As regards calling it 'Antifa' vs 'Anti-fascist' - why are some people so insistent on the weird capitalised spelling? This isn't an organisation, there's no 'membership', what's the difference between somebody who is anti-fascist and somebody who is 'Antifa'? PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Antifa is a movement and anti-fascist is an adjective. They typically correlate but that does not mean they describe the same thing. It would not be a WP:NPOV to confuse them; it only serves to make the movement seem cleaner and a bigger tent than they actually are. SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * PeterTheFourth, I think we're better off with the proper name "Antifa" as we wouldn't described the Democratic People's Republic of Korea as "democratic". Jweiss11 (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also the passage "...Ngo was physically assaulted by Antifa protesters, who allegedly punched him and threw milkshakes on him" is strange. The article is saying here he was definitely assaulted by Antifa protesters, but the punches are alleged?  Huh?  Also, why does "alleged" hinged on a conviction, per various edit summaries?  Granted, the culpability of any individual is still alleged, but there's overwhelming video and photo evidence that he was struck in the face and head by someone.  Jweiss11 (talk) 01:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, so why are the protesters 'Antifa' and not 'anti-fascist' - explain the situation to me, as I'm having trouble understanding it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Because they're not actually against fascism, just like Democratic People's Republic of Korea isn't actually democratic. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Says who? PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The critical, neutral voice of Wikipedia? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is us. You're using circular arguing: We (Wikipedia) say Antifa are not anti-fascist, because Antifa aren't anti-fascist, because Wikipedia says it's Antifa and not anti-fascist. Would you please actually explain this to me? You clearly believe there's a difference, so just explain it to me. Use your words. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * PeterTheFourth, do you get why we wouldn't wouldn't describe the Democratic People's Republic of Korea as democratic even though "democratic" is the first word in their name? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, because reliable sources say that the DPRK is not a democracy. Please explain why in this instance the protesters are 'Antifa', and why we cannot use anti-fascist to refer to the protesters. It's a simple question. Stop wriggling. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This seems like something that must have been discussed elsewhere already. How do we refer to them in Antifa (United States)? While we do call them an anti-fascist group, we mostly seem to use "antifa" (no capital) when describing their activities in Antifa_(United_States), although we do use "anti-fascist activists" once in that section and capitalized "Antifa" twice (both inside quotes). How do the sources about this specific protest refer to them? ST47 (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned above, we should go by what the sources say; they use the terms "anti-fascist" or "antifascist" repeatedly, especially when characterizing the protestors as a whole:
 * : Right-wing protesters clash with anti-fascists as Portland march gets violent, headline, Clashes between anti-fascist and right-wing protesters boiled over in August 2018 as well, many other uses, only uses "antifa" in quote and captions.
 * Uses "antifa" in headline, but A conservative writer has been attacked by antifascists amid violence at clashing demonstrations in Portland in the summary.
 * : First sentence.  Amid clashes between right-wing demonstrators and anti-fascist counter-protesters on June 29, 2019, Portland police issued a troubling tweet...  No use of the term "antifa."
 * : Uses antifa in headline, but describes the protestors like so: The attack happened during a clash between right-wing protesters and anti-fascists.
 * Therefore we should use both terms to reduce confusion, but should probably primarily use "anti-fascist" when describing the protest's purpose (without quotes, attribution, or anything else that could imply skepticism or doubt, since the majority of sources reporting on the incident describe the protests as anti-fascist in nature and present that description as fact.) Omitting anti-fascist entirely is leaving out a key point covered in almost every source, while casting doubt on it would be a violation of WP:ALLEGED. --Aquillion (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * They are more often referred to by their proper noun: Antifa. Arguing to use a less-specific noun when the proper noun is readily available is very suspect.  Galestar (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect. The term "antifa" occurs much more frequently in the English corpus online. SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * that could easily be explained by the fact that there are more recent online sources than the historical (much longer) offline ones for antifascist.&#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That is irrelevant. In the current state of the English language online, Antifa is the much more frequently used version. I don't believe it is the duty of Wikipedia to dig up historical or formal terminology for a group that is neither easily formally observed nor very old (let alone typically spoken of informally/colloquially). SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The article should only use one of {"antifa", "Antifa", "antifascist", "anti-fascist"} as per MOS:CONFUSE. w umbolo   ^^^  07:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The words have related but distinct meanings, since one describes a loose movement and one describes the goals of that movement; they couldn't always be used interchangeably, so WP:CONFUSE doesn't apply.  The sources themselves quite frequently use both terms in different contexts, so we cannot omit one or the other while remaining neutral - in particular the categorization of the protests as anti-fascist in nature isn't sufficiently covered by just using the term Antifa and has to be included in the article per the sources above.  (I mean, clearly people agree that the words have distinct meanings or we wouldn't be having this debate - if you think they're identical in meaning, can I count you as neutral with respect to whether we use "antifa" or "anti-fascist" as long as we only use one of the two?  Because that seems to be the position you're taking by citing WP:CONFUSE.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you've written, but to answer your question, I am taking the opposite position by citing CONFUSE. If they were identical in meaning, I would support using both to avoid repetition. w umbolo   ^^^  16:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Double checking here: How do we feel about 'alleged'? Am I fine to revert back to the language from before made his changes? PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think "alleged" is wrong to include. Newspapers are treating this as an attack that actually happened, and there's a video of people throwing shit on him and hitting him. Using "alleged" doesn't make any sense. BLPCRIME only applies when making accusations about specific people; saying a person was assaulted during a protest does not implicate any specific people in any crime. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose There's countless WP:RS saying he was attacked, WP:BLPCRIME doesn't apply here as we're not talking about identifiable individuals, there's videos of it, cmon bruh Loganmac (talk) 04:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with Loganmac, stick to the sources and BLPCRIME doesn't apply. Adding alleged is quite literally MOS:ALLEGED Galestar (talk) 04:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Purported concrete milkshake claim
There is no evidence presented in the cited sources that any milkshake thrown at Ngo contained concrete; it is highly prejudicial and prohibited original synthesis to link this (debunked as false) claim to the milkshake thrown at Ngo. Unless there is a reliable source which specifically makes the claim that a milkshake thrown at Ngo contained concrete, it doesn't belong in his biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There's endless sources talking about the subject when the news broke, after Portland police made the claim on Twitter they had recieved reports about it (nothing else). Wikipedia is about Verifiability, not truth. If there's sources saying this may be false, include them, anything else is WP:OR.

     Loganmac (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, there's lots of discussion of the claim. There is zero discussion of any claim, which may or may not exist, that Ngo was targeted by one of these purported nonexistent concrete-containing milkshakes. So it doesn't belong in this article; rather, it belongs in the article about milkshaking, where it helpfully exists. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Disagree, the cement point was one of the major talking points due to the fact police talked about it, then were later criticised, it was talked just as much as the attack itself. You seem to be confusing what Wikipedia is about, this isn't about what may have happened, but the fact it was widely discussed in WP:RS. Loganmac (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You're confusing two different things. The cement point was certainly discussed as part of a discussion about milkshaking, which is why it's in that article. There is, to my knowledge, no reliable source which has reported that Ngo was targeted or hit by a milkshake containing concrete. That's why it doesn't belong in this article. If there is such a source, I invite you to cite and quote it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's mentioned in a few sources, but only based on some preliminary observations, and later the police said there was no evidence to support it. Instead of putting in some long explanation that's barely relevant to this article, it'd be better to leave it out. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Page restrictions and current disputes
In lieu of fully protecting this article due to the multiple ongoing disputed, I have placed the standard post-1932 American Politics page restrictions on this article. The exact language is visible both in the editnotice and in the notice at the top of this talk page. For the avoidance of any doubt, if an edit has already been challenged by reversion, then any further attempts to reinstate that edit (or revert it, if the edit is currently in place) will fall afoul of the restriction labeled consensus required. Editors who meet the awareness requirements and who violate these restrictions may be blocked without further warnings. Please don't hesitate to ping me if there is any question. ST47 (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * isn't this a violation of 1RR and consensus required? w umbolo   ^^^  07:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Check the timestamps: that diff was prior to (and was what prompted) my imposing 1RR. ST47 (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. w umbolo   ^^^  07:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC: "Conservative" in the lede

 * 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.

Should the lede say he's a "conservative"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support. RS that describe him as "conservative": AP, BBC, NYT, ABC News, The Oregonian, CNN, Business Insider, The Atlantic, The Independent, Vox, Daily Beast. Conservative outlets (note that these are not all RS), such as Fox, Wash Ex, Wash Times, Newsmax, IJR, Newsbusters, Daily Caller and PJ Media describe him as "conservative", as well. I have not been made aware of any RS that dispute that he's a conservative. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems like the jury is out on this one. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 06:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as supported by sources, and it's also the reason he was attacked in Portland so it's part of his notability. --Pudeo (talk) 11:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. It's clear the sources support the label. This should be added with one or two of the top RS. It is WP:DUE (coverage of recent attack) and important (necessary for establishing context). WP:PUBLICFIGURE is satisfied as his denial is in the body, which is enough as the claim is not nearly as controversial as e.g. calling someone racist. w umbolo   ^^^  17:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Per Snooganssnoogans. Gerntrash (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure - It would also be helpful to include some description of how he describes himself. Unfortunately, he largely demurs saying "it's complicated" in the source we have.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. We follow the sources. R2 (bleep) 19:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment, is it common to state the political view of a journalist in the lead section of a biography article? If not, why here? To include it in the body of the article sure, but I am curious as to why it needs be in the lead section. Above, in the source provided Darryl Kerrigan, the subject of the article identifies as being gay, and it can be referenced to multiple reliable sources. Should that be included in the lead as well? If not, why not? Why does one identifier be included, when another is not?-- RightCow LeftCoast ( Moo ) 01:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * More of a question than a comment lol. Generally, for folks in the news-reporting business known to have an ideological bent, we put their ideology in the lead. For example, Laura Ingraham ✅; Rachel Maddow ✅; Anderson Cooper ❌. IMO, we should avoid (as a general rule) putting people's sexuality and gender identity in the lead unless it's especially notable about them. WP:RS don't refer to Ngo as much as a Gay reporter than they do a Conservative reporter. Hope that answers your question! { &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 07:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * To build on and clarify MJL's comment... Yes, it is quite common when it is verifiable. There are many journalists, such as Anderson Cooper, whose political views haven't been be succinctly described by independent reliable sources; while there are other journalists, such as Ingraham, Maddow, or Ngo, whose political views have been succinctly described by independent reliable sources. R2 (bleep) 17:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 'Hell yes - We follow the reliable sources. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – I don't even think this is really in dispute. "Conservative" is a pretty mild label (compared to the full range of characterizations of his viewpoints out there) and, as MJL has shown, the word reflects a consensus description of Ngo's political views. He's even characterized himself as "center-right", per the Joe Rogan interview cited in the section on his political views; I was thinking it might be reasonable to counterbalance the description as "conservative" with Ngo's own self-description, if he had represented his own views by some other different name, but there's no tension between "conservative" and "center-right". And after his most recent kerfuffle in Portland, the object of controversy hasn't been whether he has right-wing views—it's pretty obvious he does—but whether those views and/or his actions warranted a violent response and, relatedly, whether what he does can be rightly described as journalism or as something else instead: activism, provocation, "material support" for the far-right, pure media spectacle, etc. —BLZ · talk 05:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Wait, why is there an RfC for this? Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Without a doubt - clear consensus among RS. --MrClog (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion
FYI. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Duly noted. Nonetheless, I have reverted the lead back to a more precise description of his political views, really the views about his political views.  I will respect the RFC here that the lead should make mention that he is considered to be conservative--that's what the reliable sources say.  However, it's undue weight to assert "conservative" as the first meaningful word in article, and, moreover, as if it is an undisputed fact, rather than the opinion of many. PeterTheFourth, please stop stacking the references in an inappropriate style, where reference #9 is a reference to other references.  Also, your recent edit summary "Restore references Jweiss11 deleted" was inaccurate.  I did not delete references.  I deleted duplicate instances of references that were unneeded in the lead as they appear in the body. Jweiss11 (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * per your revert; please discuss. Please also clean up the inappropriate stacking of the references that I resolved.  Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You were WP:BOLD changing the lede contrary to what's pretty clear page consensus. I reverted. The WP:ONUS is on you to make your case. Thanks. Simonm223 (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Simonm223, I have made my case to promote more neutral, precise wording. Given that you self-identify on your user page as far left politically, have you considered recusing yourself from this issue? Jweiss11 (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * LOL No. Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Per, your rude edit summary, yes, you are allowed to have an opinion. But what we should all be concerned about here is far-left or far-right or far-anything-else activist editors compromising the neutral voice of Wikipedia. Jweiss11 (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the last time I will caution you about WP:NPA please immediately cease and desist. In addition I ask that you immediately strike through or delete your personal attacks against me. Simonm223 (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not a personal attack. I'm merely describing how you describe yourself on your user page.  It may be relevant to the nature of your edits here. Jweiss11 (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you don't understand, it doesn't matter if I describe myself as a socialist. You are attempting to use that self-description to invalidate my argument on an article talk page and that contravenes WP:NPA. It's not a personal attack to say, "you are a socialist." But it's very much a personal attack to say Given that you self-identify on your user page as far left politically, have you considered recusing yourself from this issue? Furthermore, it's a personal attack to call me rude. And it's very explicitly a personal attack to say we should all be concerned about here is far-left or far-right or far-anything-else activist editors compromising the neutral voice of Wikipedia - so that's three personal attacks, two after I cautioned you at user talk and on this page and one of which you reverted back in. Now, for the last time, strike through or delete these three comments. Simonm223 (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Lol, No" and "Go away" = rude. Jweiss11 (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I feel like both of you need to take a step back. Jweiss11, there's a pretty clear consensus above to refer to him as a conservative early in the lead. Asking one of the ten contributors to recuse isn't going to materially affect the consensus, even if he does withdraw his vote (which he is under no obligation whatsoever to do). Maybe you should instead explain what you're trying to accomplish? ST47 (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ST47, the RFC says "Should the lede say he's a "conservative". It doesn't say "early".  As I clearly stated above, I'm trying to accomplish is a more precise, factual, and neutral description of Ngo's political views and also to fix the inappropriate stacked style of the references. Jweiss11 (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * more precise, factual, and neutral Not everything is neutral. If he is a conservative, then it isn't a violation of WP:NPOV to call him a conservative. Are there WP:RS to support that it is not precise or not factual to call him a "conservative journalist"? Because consensus above seems to support calling him exactly that. fix the inappropriate stacked style of the references What part of policy or the MOS are you referring to? It looks like your edit removed multiple references. ST47 (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My edit retained the conservative label with more precision. My edits also did not remove references from the article in total--or at least that was my intent.  I removed duplicate instances of the same references that were unneeded in the lead.  Per the style point, take a look at reference #9.  Should a reference be merely citations of other references in an article?  This does not strike me as good style. Jweiss11 (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why refn is used here in that way, I've seen that usage around but I'm not familiar enough with WP:MOS to know whether it's encouraged or not. It's possible that it was intended to limit the appearance of WP:REFSPAM in the lead - one footnote looking cleaner than five. Given the nature of this case, I understand why someone wanted to use multiple references, as it has been the cause of edit wars before. See MOS:CITELEAD and especially The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. ST47 (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just note that naming someone's political positions and then suggesting they should recuse themselves is considered a personal attack. See this quote from WP:NPA: "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" ". --MrClog (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2019 (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.

'Punched repeatedly in the head and face'
Hi, I've been reading through our sources to find those which repeat this claim Ngo made. Can anybody link me something other than the independent article? Preferably those which state it in their own voice, rather than just quoting Ngo. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you looking for a source that uses those exact words or just that he was attacked? Galestar (talk) 06:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * and go into some detail about the attack. I don't know if "repeatedly punched" is supported by exact text. I'd say something like "attackers punched him in the head, kicked him, poured a milkshake on him, and threw things at him." That seems to reflect the sources. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 07:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Punched is supportable, as is kicked - we're currently almost directly quoting Ngo rather than going off any RS, so I'd like to move to different, less emotional wording. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please stop trying to sugarcoat and cast expressions of doubt Loganmac (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Focus on the content, not the editor. How do you feel about 'attacked' or 'assaulted' instead of the current emotive wording? PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Attacked is way too general, the article mentions he was thrown milkshakes, that is already an assault. Loganmac (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Pouring a milkshake on somebody is not 'assault', don't be hysterical. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend looking up the actual definition of "assault" before you start throwing around words like "hysterical". The crime of assault includes "knowingly causing physical contact with another person knowing the other person will regard the contact as offensive or provocative". Just the act of throwing a milkshake on someone could very easily meet the legal definition of assault, especially in circumstances like these where multiple people gang up on a single person in a threatening manner and go on to inflict physical harm. "Assault" and "attacked" are very general terms, and the article benefits from describing exactly what happened, since the sources include details of the manner in which he was attacked. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yikes. Talk about snowflakes. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If demanding that legal terms like "assault" or "attacked" be redefined to fit your feeble worldview isn't being a snowflake, I don't know what is. SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hah. Well put. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It may be better going back to the 'assaulted' wording.PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree, the specificity is helpful.  If "punched" and "kicked" is supported, is it just "repeatedly" that you have a problem with?  I'm tempted to revert your recent change, but looking for a compromise.  Galestar (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If we are looking to summarise WW2, do we say 'there were a lot of soldiers and they used rifles to shoot bullets at each other repeatedly which impacted the other soldiers and caused them to be injured' or do we say 'there was a large war with many casualties'? If you think you should revert, go ahead, but due weight of the sources does not support directly quoting Ngo on this. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually the WWII article reads "World War II was the deadliest conflict in human history, marked by 50 to 85 million fatalities, most of whom were civilians in the Soviet Union and China. It included massacres, the genocide of the Holocaust, strategic bombing, premeditated death from starvation and disease, and the only use of nuclear weapons in war." so it specifies the different kind of attacks/assaults/violence. Loganmac (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Urgh. Give me more motivation and I'll fit it into a catchy soundbite to aid comprehension. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's useful to explain what "attacked" means, since that's kind of a vague term. The sources don't specifically support "punched repeatedly in the head and face" but they do support "punched and kicked", and this discussion seems to be leaning in that direction, so that's what I've changed it to. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Speech and accent
An edit arising which purports that Andy Ngo's manner of speaking is a result of having lived in the UK in his "adolescence" - despite said 'accent' being absent from his speech in videos and audio-recordings only two years ago.

The edit is sourced by a June 11 interview Andy Ngo conducted on the Larry Elder radio show. Within said interview, Andy also affirms that he was "born and raised" in Portland. Furthermore, Ngo's demonstrable attendance at Benson Polytechnic High School and PSU place him in Portland during his adolescence and early adulthood.

The preponderance of evidence against Ngo's claim for his accent ought to at the very least, negate it's addition to a fact of his biography unless/until the inconsistencies and/or evidence of UK residency can be demonstrated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accuracy161 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that's what he sounds like, but that's WP:OR until a reliable source says the same. Either way, I listened to the good portions of the interview, and Ngo doesn't seem to mention living in the UK (just visiting for that piece). I'm inclined to agree with that we shouldn't state in Wikipedia's voice Ngo lived in the UK. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

It's easy to miss, but he is asked straight-up why he has the accent if he admits to having been born/raised in Portland Oregon (and just after characterizing his trip to the UK as a "visit" per a WSJ article which had a correction issued because Andy was unaware that the anti-drinking signs were common around London and not part of some insidious creeping sharia-law as he claimed in the article) - Andy's response is that he lived in the UK during his "adolescence". However ample video exists of him speaking without a trace of English/UK accent in 2017. Vic Berger recently created a video using 2017 footage and 2019 footage of Andy to demonstrate the new use of an English accent in the past two years. FURTHERMORE - tax, property, business and legal records as well as timeline (i.e. HS graduation in 2004...college...present) prove his he & his family never lived anywhere but Portland Oregon and in-fact his parents still live in the same home they purchased in 1985.

The available evidence suggests strongly that he's invented this accent (and lying about how he acquired it) and certainly there is no good evidence to prove it's genuine or that his claims of having resided in the UK for long-enough to have acquired an accent exist - nor does (again) any of that explain the absence of an accent just two years ago. In any event - a statement of fact that said accent is genuine is unverifiable and until/unless evidence to the contrary can be produced it's a dubious claim at best. If anything, it's the aforementioned discrepancies which belong on the bio page vis-a-vis andy/accent/demonstrable-facts etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accuracy161 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem to have a poor understanding of how idiolects work, but I generally agree with you; this seems like a construct in the vein of William F. Buckley Jr.'s. SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

'Attacked by Antifa'
In the same way we don't say somebody was 'attacked by Fascist' or 'attacked by Capitalist', we shouldn't be saying '[Andy Ngo] was attacked by Antifa during a protest in Portland.' I don't believe the ungrammatical construction is 'more neutral',. Thoughts? PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not an ungrammatical construction; Antifa is typically rendered as a noun, and almost never an adjective. It could only be considered an adjective exclusively in a prescriptive or etymological grammar of English. I recommend not using prescriptive grammar enforcement in WP. I concede, saliently, that the noun Antifa only takes articles when specified (compare "the Antifa" versus "the Seattle Antifa (chapter)," although certain sources do use the former construction) SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Post scriptum, I request consider that anti-fascist (assuming that to be an expansion of "antifa," which I do not believe is accurate) is both an adjective and a verb; therefore, assuming "antifa" is exclusively a natural shortening of "anti-fascist" (which, again, I believe is not the case in modern descriptive English) it could be used either way. Capitalizing Antifa is optional, as it can either be a proper noun (for example, the sentence "the Chicago antifa" would not be correct in prescriptive English while "the Chicago Antifa" would be fine) or a common one (exemplum gratia "antifa protestor" as opposed to "Antifa protestor," although both forms are correct the former would be more general). SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Added the word "protesters". Jweiss11 (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Was that so hard? Take a second and read the sentences before you revert to them. Second question - why capital 'A' antifa? At our article, we use either anti-fascist or antifa - no capital. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also the identity of Ngo's assailant(s) is unknown. As such, we can state his claim that the people who beat him and threw a blunt dairy treat at him were antifascist protesters but can not say so as a statement of fact in wikipedia voice per WP:NPOV and WP:PRIMARY. Simonm223 (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * They are typically reported as being antifa, therefore that is how WP should portray them. The most salient incognito Google result for "andy ngo attack" has the term "antifa" in their headline, and is a WP:RS AFAIK. SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would concede, however, many sources portray them as merely left-wing protestors. If that is indeed the communis opinio, we ought to say that instead. I would not recommend this as it could portray all left-wing protestors in a bad light (not to mention giving WP a biased voice), but perhaps it's a preferable alternative to saying "antifa." SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Here only to point out that we don't use headlines as sources. They're usually written not by the author of the artic but by someone else and are written to grab attention. Doug Weller  talk 20:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think many of the sources themselves claim he was attacked by anti-fascist protesters. A conservative writer has been attacked by antifascists amid violence at clashing demonstrations in Portland. From  (this source is probably the best one, a long-form article by someone who was there the whole time): Just days after his warning, Ngo sat a few feet away from me, cut up and dazed, after a beating at the hands of left-wing protesters. I think "unidentified assailants who he claimed were antifa protesters" is inappropriate use of "claimed", since he's not the only one claiming that. "Who appeared to be antifa protesters" would be a more accurate representation of sources. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think most sources are being more cautious, so we should reflect that caution. The Hill:  Ngo said on Twitter that he was assaulted by antifa members.  Buzzfeed is likewise more cautious than you're crediting it - it carefully just describes the attackers in physical terms, and even the bit you cited doesn't mention antifa.  See also some of the quotes in the discussion above; the sources don't use antifa consistently and unambiguously the way Ngo himself did or the way people are pushing it to be used here. --Aquillion (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Both of the sources I linked describe the attack as being carried out by antifa. I don't think it really matters that the Buzzfeed reporter calls them "left-wing protesters" in that particular sentence; he calls the people harassing him antifa elsewhere in the article Hostility toward Ngo started out with the odd, weirdly cheerful “Fuck you, Andy”; progressed to groups of two to three unmasked men half-menacingly following him around the park; and arrived at a very clear strategy, by which a group of five thin, masked antifa stood in a half arc around him wherever he walked, obstructing his view. They were pretty clearly teenagers. An older observer, also in black, reminded them repeatedly not to surround Ngo, to always leave him a path out of the park. It turned into an awkward shuffling circle around the monument that slightly resembled good team defense in basketball. In the section where he describes the attack itself, he doesn't explicitly call them antifa, he just describes their appearances and what he directly observed, but that doesn't nullify the statement about his attackers from the beginning of the article. I think "appeared to be" is a good reflection of the sources as a whole, and reflects the fact that currently it's impossible to say who exactly the attackers were and everyone is just going on what it looked like. But "attackers he claimed were antifa" is just inaccurate; independent sources and other people at the scene say antifa attacked him as well. And that wording heavily implies he might be wrong, or lying, which doesn't reflect the sources at all. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I see your point. After looking at it again, I think the old woman thing can be dropped entirely - Ngo is barely mentioned in the source and wasn't involved in any confrontation, so it's not actually about him.  For the silly string one, how about just going with WP:SAY and saying In November 2018, Ngo live-streamed the antifeminist #HimToo Rally by a Patriot Prayer member in downtown Portland, later saying on Twitter that, while doing so, he was sprayed with silly string by antifa protesters.  This is how the source portrays it (it's careful to say it's just something he said rather than undisputed fact), and WP:SAY usually avoids any implication that he was necessarily wrong or lying while making it clear that he's the only source for this one.  Putting it in the objective article voice makes it sound like there were other sources, which the Hill, at least, is careful to avoid implying. --Aquillion (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There are some sources that use caution and some that plainly state that it was Antifa. Also: please stop edit-warring to force the changes you want.  You don't have consensus to add all that MOS:ALLEGED wording in, please follow WP:BRD. Galestar (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree we should respect WP:BRD and stop reverting... but this is a recent event; both versions are new, meaning that you need to demonstrate consensus for your preferred version as well.  The version you're revert-warring to keep in the article is, obviously, not longstanding either; for now, until we have a clear consensus, we should stick with the more cautious version.  If you object to that (or feel that it's so biased that having nothing at all would be preferable), the solution is to remove everything that's currently contested (since none of it has ever been stable in the article), which in this case would mean removing any mention of the incident entirely (since it has never been stable since any mention of it was added.)  We can do that if you want, but your preferred version here is itself clearly a WP:BOLD addition itself; you need to demonstrate consensus for your version as well if you want to keep it in the article.  If we fail to reach consensus on either, then the default would be no mention at all, not a default to your preferred version simply because it was the first WP:BOLD addition.  If you want to revert to the last stable version per WP:BRD, basically, you need to completely remove all contested text, not just force it to your version.  --Aquillion (talk) 22:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you mind compiling the sources that 'plainly state' this? We should keep in mind that we err on the side of the more reliable sources and don't base our article's language on e.g. the new york post. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * First I should note that there's a lot more whitewashing and MOS:ALLEGED going on in this article and this edit that is trying to be forced in by Aquillion and others.  I'll stick to just June 29th for now to not conflate them.  Just looking at the sources that are *already there*:
 * Independent: A conservative writer has been attacked by antifascists
 * BuzzFeed News: These guys: Hostility toward Ngo started out with the odd, weirdly cheerful “Fuck you, Andy”; progressed to groups of two to three unmasked men half-menacingly following him around the park; and arrived at a very clear strategy, by which a group of five thin, masked antifa stood in a half arc around him wherever he walked, obstructing his view.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galestar (talk • contribs)
 * The BuzzFeed News article does not 'plainly state' that anti-fascist protesters attacked Ngo. It specifically describes the incident as "I looked down at my notebook. I looked up. It was quick. Men were running in to throw punches at Ngo. A churning crowd formed around him. In the few seconds it took me to run to Ngo, several people in the scrum pushed his attackers away.". This does not attribute any violence to anti-fascist protesters. I suggest you read the sources you cite. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read it. Just because they didn't plainly state it in your quote doesn't mean they didn't do so elsewhere, which I quoted.  Stop misrepresenting the sources and WP:IDHT to other editors.  Galestar (talk) 03:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have read it. I even sampled the relevant part. You can't pretend the sources say something that they don't. By all means, if the article plainly states that anti-fascist protesters attacked Ngo, quote it, but you haven't, because it doesn't. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * but you haven't, because it doesn't I see you still refuse to WP:LISTEN, since I did quote it. Galestar (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As I previously said - obstructing someone's view is not an assault. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey you finally decided to actually read my comment and notice that I did quote something! Now maybe read the whole quote - there's much more to it than your misrepresented oversimplification of it. Galestar (talk) 05:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ???? PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And for the record, 'obstructing his view' is not an attack and anybody suggesting it is would be laughed out of any reasonable society. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

If you'd read the thing, you'd see that one of the first sentences is Just days after his warning, Ngo sat a few feet away from me, cut up and dazed, after a beating at the hands of left-wing protesters, like I quoted above. Later in the article, he specifies that "left-wing protesters" refers to antifa. Either you cannot understand basic English, or you're being deliberately obstructionist. On top of that, you're ignoring the Independent. Multiple sources state directly that he was attacked by antifa. No "people he claimed to be" or any clarification like that.Can you just give it up and quit bickering? Can we just agree to compromise with "assailants who appeared to be antifa protesters"? Is that so unacceptable? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, are you Galestar? I'm responding to a very specific thing he quoted, not something you quoted, and it's honestly kind of annoying to have the goal posts moved like this. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If your goal is to argue pointlessly over minutia with another editor, go do it somewhere else. This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the article. Red Rock Canyon (talk)
 * Put simply - "What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?" You were responding to something I said in response to something, saying I'd failed to read your comment. No, genius, I just wasn't responding to your comment, I was responding to something else. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Is there a reason why the attackers are not labeled as Antifa attackers? There seems to be a lot of whitewashing of Antifa in this article. There was an Antifa march, Andy was attacked by people in that march, and those people attacked him. Why are we labeling those people as "supposed" or similar? RS state they are Antifa members. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Because reliable sources don't unambiguously describe the protesters as being adherents to antifa ideology. We don't make a positive assertion in Wikipedia's voice on Ngo's say-so. Furthermore, antifa isn't an organized group and as such isn't a proper noun and doesn't take a capital. So this article will not ever talk about Antifa attackers, though, if reliable sources can be found it might talk about antifa attackers. Simonm223 (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest you take a look at the RS again, they say, not Ngo, that he was attacked by Antifa. I do understand your point in trying to whitewash Antifa, but he was attacked during a march of Antifa by marchers in that march. And RS clearly state that the marchers who attacked him were Antifa, indeed, the RS used in the article now, state that he was attacked by Antifa, so not sure why we have it as "purported." And your claim that this article will not "ever: talk about Antifa attackers shows that perhaps this article is not the place for you to edit. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please cite which sources you are referring to for review. Simonm223 (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * They are the news sources cited in the article. I mean, in one of the news articles, it's in the first sentence, "A conservative writer has been attacked by antifascists amid violence at clashing demonstrations in Portland." Just look at the rest, it's clear you are trying to whitewash the growing violence of the antifa movement. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Which article? Simonm223 (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Because the Buzzfeed one has already failed verification. And a single column in a British news source is hardly sufficient for us to ignore WP:BLPCRIME and start making positive assertions about the identities (political or otherwise) of anonymous attackers. Simonm223 (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you just want to whitewash this article. If someone marches in an antifa march, and wears a mask, and attacks people, then they are antifa. I get that you don't like the extra media scrutiny on your organization beating people up merely for not sharing the same opinion, but that's how a democracy works. Andy was attacked by antia thugs and the fact that you are going over backwards to do all you can to eliminate it from the article here is a disgrace to Wikipedia. "purported", "alleged", we all saw the video of him being attacked, who do you think attacked him? Sir Joseph (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We also all saw on video Donald Trump declaring that he wanted Russia to dig up dirt on Hillary Clinton, yet our article about Donald Trump doesn't say he's guilty of colluding with Russian foreign intelligence. That's because we don't rely on our lying eyes, we rely on what reliable sources say about something. If reliable sources generally attribute the attack on Ngo to antifa protesters, our article should do so. However, if they do not make that specific attribution, then our article should not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Precisely. And right now, we've got a grand total of one source, a column written by a British author who was not a witness to the event, unambiguously calling the incident an attack by antifa protesters. I mean what if it was just anarchists who wanted to punch a conservative? What if it was anti-racists who wanted some payback for Ngo's racebait articles on Quillette? What if it was alt-right agent provocateurs. We just don't know. Only that people dressed for Black bloc activity beat him up. Simonm223 (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * At best that single source might allow us to say, Ngo was attacked by masked assailants who Lizzie Dearden, writing for The Independent characterized as antifa. Simonm223 (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Lead and other changes
What was wrong with this? I had liked 's version. If I didn't just waste my 1RR, I'd have probably restored it. / &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC) (1) Okay, so let's just let the discussion play out? (2) I agree with you there and happily support that change. My main concern was the change to the lead. (3) That whole sentence was just deleted by. (4) I just fixed that. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Its been contended ever since it was first put in a couple days ago. There's multiple changes here, all wrong for their own reason:
 * 1.There is an ongoing discussion about the June 2019 assault that doesn't have consensus.
 * 2. In May 2019, Ngo said he was pepper-sprayed by an antifa protester was changed to In May 2019, Ngo said he was pepper-sprayed by a purported antifa protester, adding purported even though its already not in WP voice and already uses Ngo said. Original content was accurate and we don't have to add another MOS:ALLEGED word when its already in Ngo's voice.
 * 3. Ngo filmed antifa protesters insulting an old woman in a wheelchair changed to Ngo filmed people he described as antifa protesters insulting an old woman in a wheelchair. It was the source that described them as antifa, not Ngo.
 * 4. It also deleted this for no apparent reason: Front runner Joe Biden and then-candidate Eric Swalwell condemned the attack as well.
 * Really the whole edit is just a whole lot of MOS:ALLEGED that is either inaccurate, redundant, or currently being discussed. Galestar (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out these issues. Looks like we've already resolved 3 & 4. Unsure about 1 - best to let that discussion continue and keep to the less contentious version for now I think. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * (I prefer to be pinged btw)
 * I added a bit about these further up, but my thought on the old lady thing is that Ngo's involvement there is tangential (he filmed it but just gets a passing mention in the source and wasn't actually involved in any conflicts over it), so it's not worth mentioning. The lead of Ngo received national attention in June 2019 when he was assaulted while covering an antifa counter protest to a Proud Boys march in Portland. seems relatively neutral (ie. it doesn't say anything controversial or disputed,  while avoiding casting doubt on Ngo.)  For the silly-string incident, I proposed a solution above, but simply put, In November 2018, Ngo live-streamed the antifeminist #HimToo Rally by a Patriot Prayer member in downtown Portland, later saying on Twitter that he was sprayed with silly string by antifa protesters.  Or words to that effect, but we mostly need to make it clear that Ngo is the only source for this, since that's how our source describes it.  For the rest, we're discussing it above, but I do want to point out that the article itself is new, so it's incorrect to imply that the previous version had any consensus about it - none of these parts have ever enjoyed consensus, so it doesn't make sense to revert back to one particular version under WP:BRD; certainly Galestar's preferred version is a WP:BOLD addition itself.  If we absolutely fail to reach any sort of consensus then we'd go back to the version prior to all this started (ie. prior to June 30), which would mean removing the contested text entirely.  I don't think we want to do that, but for now we should try to go for more cautious wording. --Aquillion (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding that text about Nov 2018: attributed statements are good. I argue for attribution a lot.  Its the claimed, purported, or people he believed to be that I find problematic and your wording cleanly avoids it while still avoiding writing in WP voice. Galestar (talk) 23:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That proposed lead text only appears neutral because it avoids the matter of who were the perpetrators of the assault entirely. Assuming I can't convince others to use my preferred version (doesn't look like it) then I'm not sure which would be better: your version, or some hypothetical alleged version, which I would actually detest but omitting the accusation entirely would be undue.  Galestar (talk) 23:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * re:"the old lady thing": also agreed, his involvement was tangential and you were right to just delete it. Galestar (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

More sources
Finally got around to looking for more sources. My above investigation into sources was Just looking at the sources that are already there. This is the results of a quick search for articles that accuse antifa in their own voice rather than just Ngo's:

(below sources are previously unknown to me, not sure what the consensus for reliability is) Galestar (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Vox But the most notable instance of violence had nothing to do with the Proud Boys: It was an attack by counterprotesters on the conservative journalist Andy Ngo that reportedly sent him to the hospital.
 * Vice a right-wing writer was beaten up by antifascist activists during a protest over the weekend.
 * Quillette The Antifa thugs who attacked Quillette editor and photojournalist Andy Ngo in Portland yesterday
 * Reason Andy Ngo, a photojournalist and editor at Quillette, landed in the emergency room after a mob of antifa activists attacked him on the streets of Portland during a Saturday afternoon demonstration.
 * Washington Examiner the journalist who was attacked by antifa on Saturday
 * Mediaite Andy Ngo was beaten up and had milkshakes thrown at him by Antifa protestors during a rally in Portland.
 * American Greatness Video posted by Oregonian reporter Jim Ryan shows the antifa mob swarming Ngo, punching him, kicking him, spraying silly string and pepper-spray on him, and throwing milkshakes at him that may have been laced with cement.
 * cnsnews.com Ngo was taking pictures at a June 29 demonstration when he was beaten by Antifa members
 * townhall.com Antifa attacked journalist Andy Ngo at a protest in Portland on Saturday
 * The Independent A conservative writer has been attacked by antifascists amid violence at clashing demonstrations in Portland.
 * Haaretz Unidentified Rose City Antifa members beat up Andy Ngo, a Portland-based journalist, on June 29, 2019 in Portland, Oregon. (Note: this is a caption to a photo in the article; not sure if that matters.) Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Questionable how Haaretz was able to determine their membership in Rose City Antifa from a photo where they're wearing masks. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This standard is clearly too strict, as with the Independent above. Haaretz is RS, and they don't need to tell us how they came by every fact they report in order for us to reasonably believe them. The photographer was on scene of course, so there are lots of ways that he or she might have confirmed what was reported. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This article is under WP:1RR and that applies to the talkpage. Please self-revert your refactoring of my comments. Simonm223 (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I've added comments to each source separately. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Haaretz used a photo by Moriah Ratner that has been used by other sources as well. Typoically, the photojournalist provides an imge description that is then used as a caption. Haaretz clearly hasn't done their own reporting, and I don't see why they should be used. The exifdata of the photo carries this description: "PORTLAND, OR - JUNE 29: Unidentified Rose City Antifa members beat up Andy Ngo, a Portland-based journalist, on June 29, 2019 in Portland, Oregon. Several groups from the left and right clashed after competing demonstrations at Pioneer Square, Chapman Square, and Waterfront Park spilled into the streets. According to police, medics treated eight people and three people were arrested during the demonstrations. (Photo by Moriah Ratner/Getty Images)". Vexations (talk) 23:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No comment on WaPo? Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't see WaPo on the list, and as I don't have a subscription to WaPo (and have no intention of getting one as I dislike giving Amazon my money) I generally leave scrutiny of that source to people who can read it. Simonm223 (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Vox Does not mention antifa. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Vice This appears to be a new and reliable source, but I still think two news articles are weak to say, prior to any arrests, "members of this group did the thing." Per WP:BLPCRIME. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Disagree. We have reports that he was attacked by antifa from Independent, Haaretz, and the WaPo (see below). That should be sufficient for establishing that he was attacked by antifa. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Quillette Not a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Reason Not a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Washington Examiner It's a tabloid. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Disagree. It's not tabloid. It's just a partisan source sort of like Vox or Vice, and must be used with care. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's worse than Vice certainly with regard to being a straight-up tabloid style piece of yellow journalism and, being perfectly honest, if Vox and Vice were both blacklisted as RSes by Wikipedia tomorrow I'd shed no tears as long as it was part of a larger movement away from the use of journalistic sources on Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Mediaite Appears to be a blog. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * American Greatness Clearly not a RS. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * cnsnews.com Not a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * townhall.com Not a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The Independent I've addressed this previously, it's reliable for the columnist's opinion but shouldn't be used in Wikipedia's voice as she was in the UK at the time and is not a witness. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Disagree. It's standard for reliable news stories not to give every detail of their process of discovery. Independent is RS, and they don't need to tell us how they came by every fact they report in order for us to reasonably believe them. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

you noted here that Washington Post says he was left bloodied by antifa activists in Portland, Ore. . Unfortunately its pay-walled, and I can't read it. Can you expand that quote for us? Galestar (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's the paragraph from that Washington Post story The resolution, which also is sponsored by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), would not change U.S. law. It cites antifa activists occupying the road outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement office and “doxing” ICE officials by posting their personal information online. The senators also pointed to conservative journalist Andy Ngo, who in June was left bloodied by antifa activists in Portland, Ore. Some of those sources may not be reliable on for this claim. For example, Quillette is Ngo's employer, so it cannot be considered an independent source on this topic. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to hopefully get us back on track here, I think the best sources above are WaPo, Independent, and Haaretz. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would include Vox and Vice in that list. They are both partisan but they typically have left-bias and when even they point the finger squarely at antifa, I think we have enough RS here to do so in WP voice.  Galestar (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The Vox piece says he was attacked by counterprotesters, and says that antifa was among the counterprotesters. But they don't quite say that the attackers were antifa, do they? Vox is a poor source in my opinion anyway. Almost everything on the site should in my view be classified as opinion. Same goes for Vice as far as I'm concerned. It has a "no consensus" status on RSN. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Basically any source you don't like is not reliable? I don't think that's how it works. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The reasoning is more along the lines of 'any source that's not reliable shouldn't be used here'. Even if we get like 10 blogs saying for sure the moon is made of cheese, etc. 's analysis here seems good. A lot of low quality sources are being cited here to put in something quite contentious and I'd like to wait for a good source. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We have three excellent sources: WaPo, Independent, and Haaretz. All three have a "green check mark" at RSN. WaPo in particular is a top-tier source. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , I pointed out above why I think Haaretz shouldn't be used. The Washington post is a usually a reliable source, but it's worth pointing out what they say and who their sources are: in this article they say: "The senators also pointed to conservative journalist Andy Ngo, who in June was left bloodied by antifa activists in Portland, Ore." The phrase "by antifa activists" is hyperlinked to a second article that mentions Ngo. That article makes this statement about Ngo: "But Proud Boys leader and event organizer Luke Rohlfing told the Daily Beast that the event is also aimed at left-wing anti-fascist activists after a violent clash in Portland last week left conservative writer Andy Ngo bloodied, shaken and doused in a vegan milkshake." I don't think the Proud Boys, or any of thir members are a reliable source, and even when a claim is properly attributed to them, it should not be presented as fact. Vexations (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I think you are inferring too much from the hyperlinking of that other story. WaPo says in this article, in their own voice, that Ngo was attacked by antifa activists. I don't know what their basis for this claim is, and I don't think they say, but it's totally implausible that WaPo is using the Proud Boys as a source for a statement they make in their own voice. The link is just another story about the event in question; it provides no reason to think that the Proud Boys were their source. If they did use that source, it would be a scandal! As for the Haaretz, I agree that the issue of photo captions is a somewhat tricky issue. The photojournalist was obviously on site, though, and is a journalist, who is trusted by Haaretz and others. So that's arguably RS. But it might be worth approaching RSN about this if we can agree about the WaPo and Independent pieces. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Haaretz is just too passing a mention to trust. It's a photo caption of a photo of masked individuals. It's more trust than I'm willing to put in literally any journalistic organization to believe the photo caption editor thoroughly fact-checked that beyond confirming that the organized anti-fascist and anti-racist group in Portland calls itself "rose city." I have addressed why the independent is insufficient, IMO, to make a comment in Wikipedia's voice, though I'd concede it's a reliable source and would accept the statement attributed to the columnist who said it (as I've said previously). Finally with WaPo, again as I've mentioned, I have no intention of giving that organization a nickel of my money so the paywall prevents me from directly scrutinizing the contents. But if is accurately interpreting the source and the statement that the people who beat Ngo up were antifascists came from members of a white chauvinist gang. Well. Remember where I speculated that Ngo could have just as likely been beaten up by white supremacist agent provocateurs? Simonm223 (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , I have quoted the relevant sections. There is no other mention of Ngo in those articles. Vexations (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So then I'd oppose use of the Washington Post as a reliable source for this assertion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , the WaPo is referring to the Daily Beast, which says: "According to Proud Boy leader and event organizer Luke Rohfling, though, the event is also aimed at left-wing antifascist activists after Quillette writer Andy Ngo was attacked last weekend in Portland." "was attacked" hyperlinks to an AP article that is no longer available on the New York Times. I'll note that the Haaretz article was from the same news agency, Associated Press. The NYTimes article by the Asssociated Press is archived here, and credits The Oregonian as its source: "Information from: The Oregonian/OregonLive, http://www.oregonlive.com" Vexations (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In other words, the ultimate source for the NYT / Haaretz quote to be used to say Ngo was attacked by antifa was... Ngo. Simonm223 (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The earliest mention of Ngo in the Oregonian, related to the events we're trying to descibe is which says: "Among the people injured over the course of the afternoon was Andy Ngo, the conservative writer who appeared to be attacked by antifa members." Vexations (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The AP article you linked quotes Ngo's twitter. They're referencing the Oregonian as their primary source, but if the claim that made it to Haaretz and NYT are sourced from a wire service quoting Ngo's twitter, it's definitely not reliable. Simonm223 (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * To sum up your response every source ever: Its either not an RS or they can't possibly mean that. You're just grasping at straws, guessing that of course they must just be parroting Ngo and even though they said it it must not be true.  That's all it is though - your guess.  As soon as we encounter a source that you can't dispute reliability on all you can do is start speculating to try to downplay them. Galestar (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And, specifically, the WaPo source is clearly RS. The criticism of that source is based on speculation about where they got their info. But we don't know where they got their info, and WaPo news reports are clearly RS. Similar points hold for the speculation about the sources of the Independent. We don't need to be able to identify their sources. We rely on the fact that they are respected, reliable news organizations who know how to do their jobs. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please focus on the content and not the editor - not very convivial to claim that another editor is 'grasping at straws' when they specifically analyse each and every source you've brought to the table, even those that are clearly not reliable. All you have to do is get a reliable source, and we've already made changes based on when you have gotten a reliable source. Continue to do so. It's nothing personal, this is just the way Wikipedia works. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * my comment was about the editors arguments not the editor themselves. Galestar (talk) 07:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Which is why I didn't remove it as a personal attack - but that being said, your assertion is incorrect. We aren't guessing. Because the thing is that provided evidence. And that evidentiary trail is what we're reacting to. Not a guess. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to think that we know what the WaPo or the Independent (or the Haaretz photo caption) were basing their assertions on, and what I see on this topic above is entirely speculative and not very plausible. WaPo and Independent are standard RS for this sort of info. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Excluding the Independent, which is a different kettle of fish, the WaPo article eventually cites the AP article, which quotes Ngo directly. It's silliness like this, these broken telephone quote chains, that make me regularly calling for the exclusion of journalistic sources at WP:RS/N - so it is an issue far beyond the confines of an article about this contributor to a popular phrenology website but it means, yes, in this case, we're dealing with a laundered WP:SPS claim. Simonm223 (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * They didn't cite anything. Linking is not citing. I repeat: we don't know what their source is. They don't generally cite their sources at newspapers. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, we are reading the same articles, yes? They did link to it very directly when discussing the claim, in a way that seemed to me to as a summary of a portion of the article that was linked e.g. click here for more information about this thing. Is my reading incorrect? PeterTheFourth (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, they linked it when discussing the claim. Yes, that suggests "click here for more information about this." No, that isn't the same thing as saying "this is our sole source for this information." They have editors and fact checkers and a huge news gathering network. They don't always detail exactly what their process is for verifying every fact they publish, and they certainly link other stories without implying that the linked story was their basis for the reported fact. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Splitting up another user's comments
Please do not break up my comments, as you did here and then reverted my attempt to fix this here. Please see WP:TPO Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points; this confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent. In your own posts you may wish to use the or templates to quote others' posts. Galestar (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Respectfully, if you believe I have violated discretionary sanctions please speak to an uninvolved administrator. At this point I might actually welcome an admin's involvement. Just be careful of the boomerang. Galestar (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure admins are already watching this page. As a sign of good faith I'll propose this compromise - as you refactored my comment in such a way as to render it unreadable, you go back and include which article each statement was regarding within my comment. Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * While I disagree with your reasoning, the end result would be acceptable. Will do that shortly.  Galestar (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Simonm223 (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Done here. Galestar (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Breitbart article about Wikipedia coverage
Breitbart has launched an attack on Wikipedia editors for allegedly protecting Antifa by censoring Wikipedia entries on Andy Ngo and the Portland attack on him. The article cannot be linked to from here because Breitbart.com has been blacklisted by Wikipedia so articles on it can not be linked to on Wikipedia either in articles or on talk pages. - Embram (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Unsurprising, that's par for the course from Breitbart's Trumpist propaganda machine. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * That would explain the suddenly-increased agitation in this topic area, yeah (I thought it was a bit odd, since nothing interesting has happened that recently.) We'll have to keep a closer eye on this and related articles. --Aquillion (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Major deletions to the lede
I reverted the major deletions of sourced material to the lede that happened today once already but the WP:BOLD editor who made the original change just reverted the edit back again to their preferred version. I've asked the editor to self-revert and come to talk but if someone could please restore the lede to the consensus version pending that discussion I'd be most obliged. Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)