Talk:Andy Ngo/Archive 10

Aggressively covering and photographing demonstrators?
This line seems very biased and can be demonstrated to be false because he hasn't even been able to attend protests with him being attacked the last time he was present at one in a significant manner. Also, since the attack a lot of his shared videos have been taken by others so he himself is not photographing anyone. I suggest this phrasing be changed to something more neutral. CaptainPrimo (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The phrasing "known for aggressively covering and video-recording demonstrators" comes directly from the Associated Press and was used by the news agency in 2021. Please review the inline citation in the article. It is neither inaccurate nor outdated. To put it another way, he is known for aggressively covering demonstrators and he is known for video-recording demonstrators. The modifier aggressively is placed in front of covering which means to "investigate, report on, or publish or broadcast pictures of (an event)". He certainly continues to do this regardless of his physical location. It is also important to note that several sources (including the recent 2021 piece in The Oregonian) have stated that Ngo claims to still appear in person at demonstrations but he attends in disguise. Cedar777 (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * should you be lifting lines from sources directly instead of paraphrasing them in a neutral manner into the article? Isn't it the protocol when its a direct quote to put it in quotes and attribute the opinion in the line to its author? Does Andy Ngo wear a disguise but still get in the faces of people who want to assault him negating the use of said disguises? CaptainPrimo (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In this case, yes, Wikipedia editors should stick to what reliable sources actually say even if that mean repeating a handful of words. Shifting the language of the AP would be editorializing and is not advisable for the lede. Cedar777 (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd like to ask, what exactly does 'aggressively' mean in this context. Presumably he doesn't shout at people while he records them? Presumably he isn't rude or disrespectful? So how exactly is he aggressive? I've never heard an act like this be described as aggressive. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 13:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * yeah, and he is supposed to be hiding but he's also aggressively getting into the faces of people who would attack him on sight to film them. 15:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC) CaptainPrimo (talk)
 * It is an error to interpret this word in the most limited sense. It also refers to a disposition, not simply a physical posturing. Aggressively is defined as: "in a determined and forceful way" with an example "foreign-owned banks are aggressively marketing credit cards". In this example, foreign-owned banks aren't getting into anyone's face, yet they can also be considered aggressive. Cedar777 (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I see the issue. I take aggressive to mean Ngo tries to be at the events in person, close to the action.  It's quite possible that antifa's threats against Ngo have forced Ngo to stay away but that doesn't mean they weren't originally known for their first hand accounts.  Do note that this doesn't mean the accounts were considered accurate, just that they were first hand vs after the fact.  Springee (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue is that when people read aggressive they don't take it to mean close to the action but rather being violent so its disingenuous to have it in the article to mean he's close to protesters. If that's what you think it should convey why not use phrasing that gets the point across more clearly? CaptainPrimo (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The word aggressively doesn't mean "close to the action" it means "in a determined and forceful way". The definition for aggressive, the root word, is "pursuing one's aims and interests forcefully, sometimes unduly so: an aggressive businessman". The rest of the article should help summarize why the top news agency, the Associated Press, describes him that way. They didn't pick the wrong word. Cedar777 (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * However you and the Associated Press feel about his work, Wikipedia shouldn't be casting value judgements. Show me another article that uses "aggressive" in the lead the same way. I don't see any businessman called aggressive in their Wikipedia lead. CaptainPrimo (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Mick Mars: Robert Alan Deal[1] (born either May 4, 1951[1] or April 4, 1955),[2] known professionally as Mick Mars, is an American musician, lead guitarist and co-founder of the rock band Mötley Crüe. He is known for his aggressive, melodic solos and bluesy riffs.[3] (emphasis mine) Loki (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I think being agressive in music does not have the negative connotations as it does in journalism. If someone plays aggressively in music, it simply means that the person plays loudly. But in journalism, in my opinion, it might suggest that the journalist harms others or does something inappropriate in their reporting. Thomas Meng (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * and : A large number of reliable sources do address this topic of Ngo's journalistic credibility and, it is worth mentioning, quite a few of them use a range of significantly less flattering terms to describe his notability. See the section in the talk page archive 6 linked here that lists a number of ways Ngo had been described, with green highlighting the sources considered reliable by a consensus of Wikipedia editors per WP:RSP. Since that list was compiled several months ago, there have been even more articles written where the highest quality sources routinely touch on the issue of Ngo's journalistic credibility. While there are a few outlier articles that express a contradictory viewpoint, they are sourced to low quality publishers (such as The Post Millennial and others not considered usable per WP:RSP. The Associated Press is a top tier source that is known to be measured, cautious, and judicious in its use of language which is why it is so well suited to be cited in the lead sentence for clarity on Ngo's notability. Cedar777 (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Further this is giving undue weight to one source's subjective claim as an objective claim. You haven't presented any counter argument since I last commented. Another user :::::: insists its irrelevant what other articles say - I disagree - you can't have different standards based on the subject matter on a neutral website. CaptainPrimo (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The AP is not a lightweight source. It has been awarded 54 Pulitzer prizes and tends to be a good go-to for clear unbiased language, especially when a subject is polarizing and divisive. The cited article by AP is not an outlier as there are dozens of other sources that point to the subject's style of news coverage over a four-year period. Cedar777 (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The issue is that I still don't understand how in a "forceful way" can be used to describe journalism. The definition of forceful is "strong and assertive; vigorous and powerful." but how can that be used to describe journalism. Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 17:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The term aggressively is used by The Associated Press to describe how Ngo is known to cover news events, i.e, that his style of coverage is known to be aggressive or assertive or forceful. In July 2020, The New York Times reported on a rift between journalists in the news and opinion divisions at The Wall Street Journal in which the WSJ's newsroom staff, in an open letter, took issue with Ngo's journalistic coverage, among other concerns and were opposed to WSJ's retention of Ngo as an opinion contributor. Many other quality sources have addressed his credibility using less charitable terms.(Columbia Journalism Review, for example, has referred to Ngo as a "discredited provocateur".) The lede is not sourced to Columbia Journalism Review, but to the AP which is making a measured an judicious statement about what Ngo is known for. Cedar777 (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: In an effort to keep Wikipedia neutral and to avoid reflecting the negative connotations of the word "aggressively", while keeping the original meanings of the aforementioned AP report, would editors here agree to change it to "actively"? Thomas Meng (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I support that. CaptainPrimo (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The AP did not use the word "actively". This is a divisive figure and it is important to stick to the highest quality sources and not distort their words when addressing notability.  Cedar777 (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Using reliable sources doesn't mean you blatantly lift their sentences word to word instead of paraphrasing. CaptainPrimo (talk) 08:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

, while I think we can all agree there isn't consensus to change aggressively to a different word, there also isn't consensus to keep it which means, per NOCON it should be removed, not restored as you just did. Note: this comment didn't apply to the other changes you made with that edit. Springee (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I tend to read "aggressively" as something like vigorously as opposed to recklessly or some other negative version which might apply. Still, this article doesn't need to be a quote farm and "aggressively" is a vague term and specifically attributed to a single source (ie not a summary of sources).  This is especially true since this is in the opening sentence of the lead.  If this were in the body I think I would be OK with keeping it as an attributed claim.  Since this is specifically the opening sentence this should be kept out.  The opening sentence in particular should avoid hype and be the most strictly impartial part of the article.   Springee (talk) 05:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with . I think though AP is considered an RS, it may not always absent bias, which is allowed on WP, but has to be attributed.Thomas Meng (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Disagree with this change. The AP is one of the highest-quality sources available, and misrepresenting how he's described in such sources substantially obscures why he is so controversial, which is central to his notability; therefore, it's appropriate to cover it accurately in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 12:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not misrepresenting since the lead is meant to be a summary. You do raise a good question, if we don't use the word aggressively do we need this exact citation here? Springee (talk) 12:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, Springee, NOCON requires legitimate policy-based disagreement. This is just a bunch of editors opining on specific definitions of words (which is irrelevant, since the source tells us what to use) or objecting just because it seems neagative. –dlthewave ☎ 12:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Dlthewave, this is a legitimate policy based disagreement. "Aggressively" is a term used by a single source and thus is not a good summary of what he is known for.  I'm not in favor of "actively" since I think it has the same issue as "aggressively", if we can't agree on a summarizing modifier then we just drop the modifier.  Springee (talk) 12:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * well said, Springee. Also I found a neutral source that notes that Associated Press practices "left leaning editoralization." https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/associated-press/ CaptainPrimo (talk) 06:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * They're also categorized as "least biased". If you want to claim that the AP is too biased to be reliable here, take it to RSN. –dlthewave ☎ 12:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)


 * No, we do not replace the word used by the source (aggressive) with a word that means something else (active) just because we don't like it or it gives a negative connotation. That is called whitewashing. I've added a "failed verification" tag to reflect this. There is also no justification for removing the word entirely while it is under discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 12:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So you are admitting you want to convey a negative connotation with the word and it is in fact not neutral? Thanks for the clarification. I don't think its Wikipedia's policy to present an opinion on its subjects especially in the lead. CaptainPrimo (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My intention is to convey what the sources say, regardless of whether it's positive, negative or indifferent. I find it far more concerning that editors are going to such lengths to avoid certain connotations. –dlthewave ☎ 22:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, according to WP:NPOV, "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." CaptainPrimo (talk) 05:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's a reliable source of someone who followed Ngo at events and didn't see any aggressive behavior from him: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/andy-ngo-portland-antifa

There is disagreement in reliable sources. One shouldn't be given more weight than another per policy. CaptainPrimo (talk) 05:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I do agree we don't need to add a different modifier. Springee (talk) 12:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Disagreement in RS is not grounds to overwrite the AP which is the gold standard for the least biased and most reliable content. The Andy Ngo page has nearly 100 cited sources - quite a lot of coverage in RS. Naturally, they don't all agree. There are dozens of RS that describe Ngo as a provocateur. The AP article sourced in the lede is measured and specifically addresses his notability, i.e., it states what Ngo is known for: aggressively covering and video recording demonstrators.
 * CaptainPrimo, the Buzzfeed article you pointed towards covers a lot of ground including that it's easy to see "Andy Ngo as one vision of the journalist of the future" where "media workers will be ambitious, ideological, incurious, self-promoting, social media native, willing to force the story, and very, very vulnerable." Interesting, isn't it, that journalists can be described as both aggressive (ambitious, self-promoting, + willing to force the story) and very, very vulnerable. Cedar777 (talk) 06:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of Wikipedia policy where certain reliable sources are given precedent over others. All those other claims are attributed and not stated as a matter of fact. Its interpretation to derive aggressive from the Buzzfeed article or to deem those verbs you listed as amounting to being aggressive. Another user derived actively from the AP article so it appears to be up to interpretation what even the AP meant. The journalist of the Buzzfeed article states that Ngo's actions at the events he covered were not aggressive in its most basic sense. CaptainPrimo (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The Epoch Times source
Per WP:RSP, The Epoch Times is considered unreliable, however, this does not mean that The Epoch Times can no longer be used, just that it can never again be used as a reference for facts. The news article in question contains plenty of quotations from Ngo, some of which could be used in the article as they aren't "facts". Would like to hear what others have to say. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 21:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * First thing is that an unreliable source is also unreliable for quotes.
 * Second thing is that The Epoch Times is citing Fox News. If you wanted to use the quotes, you would be better off arguing for the original Fox News source. It was written by Stephanie Pagones, a career journalist. Binksternet (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Would you care to enlighten me on why it is unreliable for quotes? Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 22:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Their penchant for conspiracy theories makes pretty much anything they say suspect. If someone's words are quoted in multiple sources, one of which is the Epoch Times, then it is a simple matter to go to one of the other sources. ValarianB (talk) 11:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , The Epoch Times was deprecated as a source two years ago, according to Reliable sources/Perennial sources, which is a big list of sources. They had been somewhat reliable for standard news items before that, but they took a nose dive in reliability after they hitched their wagon to Trumpism in the US and spewed far-right advocacy in Germany. After COVID-19, it got even worse, with hoaxes on Facebook and other nonsense. So The Epoch Times is not allowed. Binksternet (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, you raise a very good question. I think ET is reliable and can be used for these verifiable quotes. The Epoch Times has won The Society of Professional Journalists’s Sigma Delta Chi Award , the Front Page Award , among others. However, none of these awards are included in its Wikipedia article because some editors feel that it's “undue” when no “reliable” secondary source covered it. Welcome to participate in this discussion here.


 * ET is also very impartial in their reporting. According to AllSide’s 2020 Full Editorial Review, The Epoch Times bias rating is Lean Right, though perhaps close to Center. Much of The Epoch Times’ reporting is balanced; a slight right-wing bias is mostly displayed via story choice. It also has a section named The Epoch Times Reporting Absent Many Types of Bias. However, this is not allowed to be included on WP either.


 * In addition, ET's WP article states left-wing media’s characterizations of ET as facts but lacks ET's responses to these accusations. And interestingly, even when Epoch Times’s response is published on the Wall Street Journal, it is not allowed to be included because Binksternet says: "In no sense does Falun Gong organ Epoch Times 'compete with' mainstream NBC News. Falun Gong does not get a rebuttal". I think this is discrimination here and disregard for NPOV. Thomas Meng (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * P.S. For those unfamiliar with the Falun Gong topic area, please read this Freedom House article here. Thomas Meng (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The quotes in question are Ngo's claims about Antifa, so they fail WP:ABOUTSELF #2. In any case we would need a reliable secondary source to establish due weight, so why not simply use a reliable source in the first place? –dlthewave ☎ 15:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Congressional Testimony
, I have a concern with this edit []. Ngo's testimony is here [] and we can see the videos here []. I think stripping out a key part of his testimony is problematic. Let's use the CN tag rather than stripping out content. Testifying before congress is a big deal and should be part of the article as should some limited summary of his testimony. Springee (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you would like to include a summary of the testimony, I would suggest choosing material that has been covered by secondary sources. –dlthewave ☎ 12:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is you removed the whole section because you didn't like that it was sourced to the DailyCaller. I think this would be a reasonable time to use the DailyCaller since we can verify the claims via CSPAN and the congressional records.  Regardless, a CN tag is the appropriate thing here unless your argument is a summary of Ngo's congressional testimony is somehow not relevant to this article.  Springee (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, we're not going to use the Daily Caller, it's a deprecated source and would fail WP:DUE even if we were to use it. Editors who would like to include this content should do the work of writing reliably-sourced content. –dlthewave ☎ 15:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you think the content of his testimony is something readers wouldn't want to know? Is it not relevant that he pointed out that violence against reporters was coming from the far-left, not police?  Why not restore the text and include a CN tag?  Springee (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would certainly be appropriate to include a brief reliably-sourced summary of the testimony, but let me ask you this: Why would we include the bit about antifa attacking journalists (even with a CN tag) if it hasn't been covered by secondary sources? –dlthewave ☎ 15:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your summary here [] is incorrect and fails IMAPRTIAL. It fails IMPARTIAL because the juxtaposition of what Ngo says with the next sentence suggests wikipedia is saying his testimony was false.  Second, the summary is not accurate to what was said. The added claim is, "However, there was no evidence that any of the people arrested in Portland were linked to Antifa." That suggests that after searching no evidence was found.  That is not what the source said.  The source said: U.S federal prosecutors have produced no evidence linking any of the dozens of people arrested in Portland to Antifa. “We have not alleged defendant affiliation with any specific groups or ideologies in our cases stemming from recent Portland protests,” Kevin Sonoff, spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Portland, told Reuters. “Our cases focus purely on the criminal conduct alleged.” Note the critical part, "Our cases focus purely on the criminal conduct alleged."  That is, if a person was arrested for assaulting a reporter, they didn't check to see if that person had antifa affiliations.  They are only looking to build a case related to the assaults.  This also means that if a Proud Boy's member was arrested they aren't looking for that evidence either.  This edit needs to be fixed as it violates NPOV. Springee (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you don't like the summary as written, perhaps you could suggest a change and try to gain consensus. –dlthewave ☎ 17:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Why didn't you do the same before changing long standing text? I propose removing the misleading sentence as it fails V. Springee (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Remember, FOC. Instead of removing the sentence and leaving the passage without a summary of the testimony, I changed the wording to reflect the fact that evidence of antifa affiliation was not presented, avoiding the implication that it did not exist. Would you agree that this passes WP:V and more closely reflects the source? –dlthewave ☎ 18:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If third-party sources mention the testimony then we mention it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Having reviewed this further, the original source deletion was incorrect. Dlthewave deleted an article sourced to the Daily Signal based on the deprecation of the Daily Caller.  I don't see how that can be justified in this case.  The source should be restored along with the text it supported.  The RSN discussions I found do not support this view.  Those discussions did raise concern with TDS for use on climate change topics but that wouldn't apply here.  The source, in general, has been used by others.  Since the Daily Signal is not run or operated by the same organization as The Daily Caller.  Springee (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The Daily Signal source is syndicated content provided by the Daily Caller News Foundation. Note the Daily Caller banner below the second paragraph and the notice at the bottom, "Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org." I really don't see any justification for using this deprecated source, especially when the marginally better Fox News source is available. –dlthewave ☎ 16:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Daily Signal is not a deprecated source. Unless you can show that this is some sort of pay to play vs the DS simply deciding to run a DC story (and thus taking ownership of the editorial issues) this should remain. This is especially true since the content in question s easily verified by the congressional record. If CNN chooses to run an AP story we can assume CNN has reviewed it and put their editorial backing on the story. That isn't the case if CNN called it sponsored content. So long as this is going to the Daily Signal you need to show that the Daily Signal is not reliable for claims which we can show to be true via the congressional record. Springee (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If anything the USEBYOTHERS of The Daily Caller by The Daily Signal suggests we were wrong to deprecate the former. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this in any way indicates it was an error to deprecate that source. There are almost always better sources available, that don't have the litany of issues that deprecated sources tend to have. If you feel this is in error, take it up at RSN. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The Daily Signal is a house organ of The Heritage Foundation. What you've proven is that The Heritage Foundation and The Daily Caller share ideologies (shocking!), and nothing more. It certainly demonstrates nothing about the source's reliability. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We can verify the claims simply by looking at the written testimony sourced to congress. The reliability of the claims in question is all but perfectly proven.  The bias of the DS is acknowledged but that's not really a factor here.  I don't see that we have a consensus to remove this simply statement of fact.   Springee (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Springee, I'm confused, does WP:NOCON mean that we include or exclude the challenged content? What's different about this instance compared to your previous assertions ? Wouldn't this be considered a low-weight author published by a low-weight source? –dlthewave ☎ 00:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's easy, the relevant part of NOCON is this, "However, for contentious matters related to living people,". So if this source were being used to say Ngo was an evil person or a super person I would agree.  Comparing someone to a Nazi is clearly contentious.  Stating someone is doing something "aggressively" is less contentious but it is also recent material.  However, it is a recent addition and was challenged just a few days later.  Thus even if this weren't a BLP case, this is a change that is being rejected thus needs consensus to stay.  In the case of the details of Ngo's testimony, what is contentious in this claim?  Are you suggesting the content is false or Ngo didn't say what teh DS claimed?  Is it recent content?  It appears to have been in the article since July 2020.  This looks like content that needs consensus to remove, especially if your justification is only that DS isn't reliable for the claim in question given we have the congressional record to support the claim.  Springee (talk) 01:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The sourcing on this content is low quality, at best. In June 2020, Fox News came under fire for the inaccurate images used to report on the Capitol Hill Organized Protest in Seattle. See the WaPost article and Snopes . Fox was downgraded on Wikipedia for politics and science. What Fox has to say about the subject's congressional testimony (the journalistic interpretation of the significance of Ngo's appearance) is not usable in light of Fox being caught misrepresenting Seattle as "helpless" and literally on fire when it was not (the photos were of Minneapolis on fire while other erroneous images were of the wrong neighborhood of the city). Fox and the Daily Signal are problematic.  However there are two reliable sources that made mention of Ngo's testimony:


 * August 5, 2020 The Intercept (green at WP:RSP) mentioned the first round of testimony here: Stating: "The only member of the media called to testify was right-wing provocateur Andy Ngo. Ngo spoke of the long history of antifa organizing in Portland, but unsurprisingly omitted the most obvious reason for it: In recent years, Portland has become an epicenter of far-right violence, to which anti-fascist action is a rightful response."
 * February 25, 2021 The Independent (green at WP:RSP) mentioned the second round of testimony here: by stating: "But Republicans on the committee – some of whom were connected to the “stop the steal” campaign that encouraged rioters on 6 January and supported overturning Electoral College results – insisted “antifa” remained a threat as they condemned political violence without connecting it to their own rhetoric. Their sole witness, Andy Ngo, has promoted deceptively edited videos from protests, criticised as dishonest reporting to deflect attention from far-right violence." Cedar777 (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You are failing to consider a critical aspect of WP:V, an exceptional claim requires an exceptional source. This is not an exceptional claim.  This is a basic claim that he went before congress (Dlthewave actually removed that fact as well), and he said X.  We can verify what he said by looking at CSPAN videos and the congressional record thus a basic statement of fact "Ngo said X" is not an extraordinary claim.  The Daily Signal + congressional record is sufficient for this claim.  However, if editors still disagree perhaps once again we need to go to RSN to verify this.  Also, your claim that what Fox says is not usable is wrong.  Fox was not deemed unreliable, only that care should be taken.  The congressional record to back claims is such care. Springee (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Why use a red (The Daily Caller) or yellow (Fox News politics) source where there are two green sources available? Cedar777 (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The Daily Signal is the source as it takes editorial responsibility for the article. Fox is perfectly reliable for this sort of content.  As for why not the two sources you have suggested?  Look at the original content  added.  It's a simple statement of fact, Nog testified and his testimony said X.  It doesn't contain any commentary and what he said can be confirmed.  Compare that to using The Independent.  Per your text they offered only a limited summary of Ngo's testimony and put more effort into labeling Ngo as well as criticizing him for what they felt he left out. That is effectively a mix of opinion into fact based reporting and that commentary can't be confirmed via the congressional record.  The Independent isn't talking about his first appearance before congress.  Adding material like "stop the steal" seems to be an effort to poison the well.  Did Ngo say anything about the 2020 election validity in his testimony?  Is a discussion of stop the steal germane to Ngo's statements?  If not then we should question why a "factual account" would include such content if not to bias the reader.  Do keep in mind that the RSP list is not policy and we should use our heads when examining sources.  Since the statements we are discussing can be verified by the congressional record this line of questioning the DS or Fox seems little more than wikilawyering.  Springee (talk) 02:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Context does matter, and we do prefer sources that provide it. Imagine a set of news articles about a murder trial: Would you really choose a piece that only repeats hand-picked bits of testimony from the defendant's best friend over one that speaks to the bigger picture beyond what was said that day in the courtroom? Could the decision of what pieces of testimony to include introduce bias to that source or even create a misleading narrative, even without added commentary? We don't have evidence that the Caller actually did that in this case but we also can't trust them not to. –dlthewave ☎ 03:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) This is basic RS/verifiability/weight stuff. Reliable secondary sources don't just verify that something is true, they also establish due weight as well as context and analysis. Obviously we don't include the entire CSPAN segment in our article and we don't go by what we personally like or dislike; we include what reliable secondary sources tell us is relevant. The Intercept and Independent sources carry far more weight than Signal, and they both contrast Ngo's statements with right-wing violence that was also occurring. Daily Signal carries little if any weight, particularly when the content was written by a deprecated source, and the piece is of little value since it simply repeats bits of the testimony. There's no reason to use this source. –dlthewave ☎ 03:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * When the commentary is opinionated and not backed by additional information isn't not very useful. Conversely, the statements from the Daily Signal are clearly backed by primary sources (I assume you agree with that).  Also, I'm not sure we should put much stock in two sources that are so clearly mixing their own opinions in when facts.  Not that any of this should matter.  The content is long standing and the sourcing is reliable for the statement in question.  The Intercept looses credibility when they put so much commentary into their statements.  It doesn't appear that the Independent is covering the first congressional testimony and again, if they want to poison the well we shouldn't use them. Springee (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

RSN discussion has been opened. Springee (talk) 04:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * At a bare minimum, Fox News politics requires in-text attribution. The publisher's demonstrated misrepresentation of the CHOP in Seattle was egregious enough that they were downgraded for politics generally and have lost all credibility on the subject of antifa in particular. Cedar777 (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Really? So you are saying we would need to say "According to Fox News Ngo testified before congress[cite]" vs just "Ngo testified before congress[cite]".  I'm sorry, this is where we need to use some level of common sense.  Are you suggesting that Fox invented the story about Ngo testifying? Springee (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Direct quotes from Ngo and the fact that he testified obviously aren't in question, but Fox does add their own analysis (Analysis is good, but only from a reliable source) and they don't even mention the actual name of the hearing. I'm not sure that we can trust them to provide a summary that reflects a mainstream viewpoint. –dlthewave ☎ 17:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

A link to the recent RSN involving The Daily Signal which resulted in a consensus against its use can be foud here: Cedar777 (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Which testimony?
Taking a closer look at the sources, it's clear that we're looking at three different appearances by Ngo: Liberties (Written testimony submitted by Andy Ngo, Daily Signal) I couldn't find any reliable secondary sources covering 29 June, but the second two might merit a few sentences on house/senate testimony. –dlthewave ☎ 14:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 29 June 2020 House Committee on Oversight and Reform, Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil
 * 4 August 2020 Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing (Fox News, The Intercept)
 * 24 February 24, 2021 House Judiciary Committee hearing (The Independent)
 * This is an excellent point. The section of the Wikipedia article covering testimony clearly needed to undergo a review. There were indeed three instances as of late February 2021.


 * The Oregonian on February 13, 2021 stated “He’s been invited twice by Republican lawmakers, including once by Cruz, to testify before Congress.”
 * The Oregonian’s February 13 report occurred just prior to the most recent testimony on February 24, as reported by The Independent.

Statement attributed to Fox News
Dlthewave, the comment you restored to the article fails V.[]. You added a sentence that says, "However, prosecutors had not provided evidence that any of the people arrested in Portland were linked to Antifa." It was set to contrast with Ngo's statement, "He disputed media coverage of protests and criticized Democrats for not condemning Antifa for violence in Portland." The problem is the original source notes that:
 * Antifa is viewed by many as a loosely organized, unstructured movement. Despite statements from President Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr, U.S federal prosecutors have produced no evidence linking any of the dozens of people arrested in Portland to Antifa. “We have not alleged defendant affiliation with any specific groups or ideologies in our cases stemming from recent Portland protests,” Kevin Sonoff, spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Portland, told Reuters. “Our cases focus purely on the criminal conduct alleged.”

That is the US Attorney's Office in Portland is not alleging affiliation with any specific group thus they won't produce any evidence to support or deny such associations. It's the difference between "I looked and didn't find it" vs "I didn't look". Implying that they looked but didn't find is synthesis and not acceptable. Springee (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Springee, why did you delete the sentence entirely instead of trying to gain consensus for a rewrite as you often ask other editors to do? How would you suggest we word this to better reflect the source? Given the questionable reliability of Fox News for political topics, it might be best to rewrite the summary based on The Intercept. –dlthewave ☎ 22:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Why did you add the sentence in the first place? I don't see it as needed and done the sentence is misleading why try to fix it vs remove it.  The intercept had shown a clear bias and willingness to mix commentary/opinion with fact in this instance.  Their opinion as to what Ngo didn't talk about is problematic in this case.  Springee (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I added it as part of a balanced summary of the testimony; we should present not just Ngo's viewpoint but also the context around it. Why are you so opposed to this?
 * That sentence is a very close paraphrase of the source. If it's misleading, would that not mean that the Fox News article is questionable as well? –dlthewave ☎ 02:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * But it didn't balance anything. First, we don't need to add something to "balance" Ngo's testimony.  We can simply say what Ngo said.  Second, your summary was misleading as you left out the very critical reason why no evidence was found.  The agent in charge said they aren't looking for connections.  To say nothing was found but leave out that they weren't looking for connections totally changes the implication of "no evidence found".  Springee (talk) 03:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Omitting the context would also be misleading, as it would imply that Ngo's testimony regarding Antifa violence is factual when in fact there do not seem to be any sources supporting his claims. I went ahead and added the bit about focusing on criminal conduct, does that help? –dlthewave ☎ 03:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that addition addresses the issue. Springee (talk) 04:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Opinion by The Intercept regarding what Ngo didn't say when testifying before Congress
Recently an opinion by The Intercept was added to Ngo's congressional testimony section which stated, "while Ngo pointed to the long history of antifa activity in Portland during his testimony, he neglected to address that anti-fascict action was in response to Portland's growing status as an epicenter of far-right violence." The problem is this is an opinion as to what caused the anti-fascict violence and doesn't address if that was relevant to Ngo's actual testimony or the questions he was asked. This is an example of mixing straight reporting (what did Ngo say or was Ngo asked) and commentary (what do we think Ngo should have said, why we don't like what Ngo said). Regardless, this new content was added as part of 's larger edit here []. removed that specific section, restored it, I removed it a second time. At this point there was no consensus so it should have gone to the talk page before any additional restorations. restored the content so I'm coming here to ask why this material is DUE. I would understand reporting specifically on what Ngo said but I find it questionable to include the opinion of a writer as to what they feel Ngo should have said. Springee (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * it's what? 30 words, in a 3200 word article? seems proportionate. This is now a content dispute involving multiple editors, RfC would be appropriate at this juncture. Acousmana 18:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The question is why do we need to inject a contrarian opinion as to what has caused the unrest? Why is that writer's opinion significant? Springee (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * And why is your opinion of an attributed WP:RSP source more important here than community consensus on use of said source? This is a content dispute involving 5 editors:
 * Thomas Meng: Deletion - "removed tabloid news, per WP:BLP source quality requirements."
 * Acousmana: Reversion - "revert removal of WP:RSP source, "generally reliable for news" and properly attributed"
 * Springee: Deletion - "Their opinion on what Ngo should have said is not DUE"
 * Noteduck: Reversion - "this is generally treated as an RS. No quote or excerpt has been provided from WP:DUE to justify the claim that this material is not due for this page. This is a single, short sentence and there does not seem to be any sound basis for rejecting it."
 * Arkon: Deletion - "rv, agree this is UNDUE"


 * an RfC on the question of "due" usage is the next step. Ac<b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 21:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm not necessarily disputing the reiliability of this Intercept article, as your edit summary suggests. According to WP:BLP, the material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. If this were plain news reporting by the Intercept, it would've been fine to include. But because it is highly sensationalized, it does not abide by WP BLPs rules. Thomas Meng (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * your edit summary states that this WP:RSP source is a "tabloid" item. Are you sure characterizing said source in this fashion is accurate? <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 09:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , you revered content sourced to a green publisher per WP:RSP with the edit summary "removed tabloid news". Thomas, can you kindly explain how you arived at the conclusion that The Intercept is a tabloid? If we look to the Wikipedia guidelines at WP:RSP, there is a clear precedent set with editors in agreement that The Intercept is reliable, best used with attribution (naming the source within the article), a practice which was adhered to when the content was added. Previously, the material covering Ngo's congressional testimony relied on sources considered dodgy (at best), i.e. The Daily Signal/The Daily Caller (red at WP:RSP for stop! big problems) and Fox News politics (yellow at WP:RSP for slow down! serious issues here). When Fox News was added as a source by in this edit, it was not attributed to Fox News, as suggested by Wikipedia policy for a source that a large number of Wikipedia editors have deemed problematic. More specifically, Fox News made the news themselves in June 2020 with international  coverage  for their tabloid-like reporting on antifa supposedly burning down Seattle with fabricated and misleading images of the wrong city! If there is a publisher in the congressional testimony section that should be pulled for tabloid behavior - it is Fox News not The Intercept.  In this edit, the edit summary clarifies that I disagreed with the use of Fox as a source of political news as the section was not adequately reflecting the subject as reported by RS.
 * User Springee asks: Why do we need to interject a contrarian opinion as to what has caused the unrest?
 * A) Ngo is a controversial subject. Guidance for controversial subjects advises: Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy."
 * made a valid discovery that the Wikipedia article was neither reflecting accurate dates, titles, nor the the correct number of testimonies Ngo has given. The section was clearly in need of correction. The content from the Intercept was literally sandwitched in between sources that state Ngo's views directly that he felt the media was to blame. If we retain Fox News as any sort of source, it is entirely warranted that the views of other more reliable publishers are also mentioned. Without The Intercept, we are doing a poor job of presenting the controvery to readers, by failing to adress relevant content after introducing the matter using the problematic and low quality source of Fox News. (For anyone left who still feels compelled to argue that Ngo is not controversial, keep in mind that he was recently disinvited by conservatives  from a Christian conference  and was at the center of public falling out between a group of musicians.  and ) Let's not loose sight of the fact that Ngo is a public figure that is almost universally discussed in RS within the context of one controversy or another. The Intercept content is due and relevant to understanding the controversy. Cedar777 (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Cedar777, there is a significant difference between the content from the Daily Signal (content I didn't originally add) and the material from the Intercept. The DS content was 100% impartial.  It stated what his testimony was.  We didn't use it to support opinion/commentary regarding the hearings nor what Ngo should have stated nor issues with Ngo's statements.  If we were using The Intercept to say, "Ngo testified that antifa has a long history of violence in Portland" it wouldn't be an issue as that is a factual summary of Ngo's testimony.  However, once we put in an opinion about the hearings ("spectical") and claim a root cause/excuse for antifa violence ("well the other side did it first" implying violence on the part of either side is somehow OK).  That shifts from factual reporting to something that is a mix fact and opinion.  A discussion of who started it etc is beyond the scope of this article and likely hotly disputed.  Springee (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Did Portland become an "epicenter" of far-right violence? Yes
 * Was Ngo the only "media" representative at Cruz's showcase hearing? Yes
 * Did Ngo ignore the correlation between an upsurge in far-right violence and the antfifa presence? Yes
 * Is the intercept journalist stating facts? Yes
 * Was the Intercept attributed in the content added? Yes
 * Is the Intercept WP:RSP? Yes
 * Is 30 odd words on this in a 3200 word article UNDUE? No <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 12:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You are using The Intercept as proof to support their own claims. That's rather circular.  The Intercept appears to be claiming that the far-right (the chicken) came before the far-left (the egg).  Your claim of correlation doesn't address who started or who escalated etc.  It's almost certainly a complex question and shouldn't be treated with a one line explanation. You also missed the point.  The Intercept is no longer just reporting on Ngo's claims but is now injecting their own commentary as to the validity and extenuating circumstances related to those claims.  That moves this from arguably DUE presentation of Ngo's testimony to UNDUE commentary on Ngo's testimony.  If you want to use The Intercept to only state what Ngo testified to I'm OK with that.  We should not be using a biased source to try to undermine what Ngo's basic (and as far as I can tell, correct) statement.  Sadly, this article really highlights the issues with sources mixing factual reporting and commentary.  Springee (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you claiming that Portland's history of far-right violence is a recent phenomenon? And, you believe there are no doubts about Ngo's objectivity with respect to a factual assessment of antifa as a genuine threat? <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 13:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not making claims one way or the other. I'm saying we shouldn't use a single claim from a source with a clear bias to make that claim.  Nor should we suggest Ngo's testimony was materially incomplete based on the claims of a writer from The Intercept.  Springee (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * you are claiming this is a "complex" question - which is essentially you obfuscating and demonstrating a lack of historical awareness. Why is it you feel your view is more credible than the WP:RSP. <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 15:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please stick with facts rather than accusations related to the knowledge of other editors. I'm not putting my views in the article.  I'm also not trusting that a single source that starts by saying Ngo is a right wing provocateur is going to be neutral in it's presentation of information.  Do you disagree with Ngo's specific claim even if you think it is lacking a complete picture?  Regardless, the part that is factual is what Ngo said.  The commentary is sources saying what Ngo should have said.  Springee (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * facts have been stated, but you are still refusing to accept the due nature of the WP:RSP presented. <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 15:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What Ngo said is a fact. What The Intercept feels Ngo should have said is their opinion.  We are not obliged to indulge them in our coverage.  Springee (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Where does our NPOV policy say anything about facts being DUE and commentary being UNDUE? This sounds like a rule that you've made up on the spot to exclude content that you don't like. –dlthewave ☎ 13:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Dlthewave, why should we give WEIGHT to the opinion of the writer as to what Ngo should have mentioned in the opinion of the writer? Adding a biased opinion related to the facts does take away from IMPARTIAL.  The correct place for this sort of opinion would be an article covering the history of far-left vs far-right conflicts in Portland.  That isn't this article.  Springee (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The opinion of a reliable source is DUE here. Events do not take place in a vacuum and analysis of the surrounding circumstances enhances, not detracts, our coverage of the topic. –dlthewave ☎ 13:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah... you just said it, "the opinion". No, the opinion of a single, clearly hostile source is not automatically DUE here.  You haven't tried to find other sources to see if Ngo's testimony is correct (even if those sources don't mention Ngo). If you present only one side of things and not the other then you hurt, not help, the coverage of the topic. It's really disappointing that people will fight to keep negative opinion related to Ngo's claims in but will fight equally hard to keep clearly supportable statements regarding what Ngo said in a prior testimony out.  It is yet another example of the way this article fails IMPARTIAL.  Springee (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "clearly hostile source" according your POV, would it to be fair to suggest that what we have here is actually an editor who "fails IMPARTIAL." <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 15:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Springee, we do include reliably-sourced opinions. Why are you so opposed to including any sort of analysis here? Of course nothing is "automatically" due, but I would urge you to respect the opinions of editors in favor of inclusion and refrain from rebutting every comment that you disagree with. You're heading into WP:BLUDGEONING territory. –dlthewave ☎ 02:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn't a RS opinion. The person offering the opinion/commentary is just a reporter, not some sort of expert.  Even then there is no reason to include "soundbite" quotes such as calling this a spectacle.  Your comment about bludgeoning is unproductive and ignores that I'm not the only editor who as objected to this content.  Three have so far.  Springee (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you perhaps thinking of WP:RSOPINION? That guideline covers opinions in self-published or otherwise unreliable sources, so it doesn't apply here. An opinion doesn't have to come from a subject matter expert to be reliably sourced. Analysis by a journalist under the auspices of a reputable editorial board would generally be considered RS for an attributed opinion, is there something special or different about this case? –dlthewave ☎ 11:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Replying to and 's comments:

There are several misunderstandings here. First, it’s the definition of tabloid journalism: being tabloid doesn't contradict RSP's consensus on reliability. For example, The Daily Beast is green on WP:RSP, but its own Editor-in-Chief says that the publication is high-end tabloid. This simply means that they prefer biased reporting in order to cater to their audience's tastes.

Tabloid journalism is a type of sensationalist journalism. According to its Wikipedia definition, This style of news reporting encourages biased or emotionally loaded impressions.

Taking a look at this Intercept article, it fits into the definition above quite precisely. I’ll give some examples.This Intercept article says:


 * Ted Cruz’s Hearing on Anarchist Protest Violence Was a Total Farce. Per journalistic standards, a news article should describe what happens neutrally and let the readers judge if the hearing is a “farce” or not.
 * Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, brought together a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee to propagandize. Same problem as above; Sensationalist word: “propagandize”.
 * The hearing was just the latest stage for baseless overtures on the threat of the far left Sensationalist wording; also, is the problem “baseless” when so many people were killed/injured and buildings were vandalized by far-left protesters?

...The sensationalism goes on and on.

Again, I’m not disputing Intercept's overall reliability. All I’m saying is that this specific article does not meet the source quality requirement per WP:BLP. Thomas Meng (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree strongly and believe there is no reason to exclude this material. Most RS's seem to believe that Ngo lacks credibility as a journalist - just see the page header - and some even decline to refer to him as a "journalist". Given this I don't think it's surprising that the Intercept has taken a withering, scathing tone here. Did you click the Guardian article? It seems to say there has been only one person on the far-right who has been killed by someone on the far left in recent decades - another indication of what Jason Stanley has described as a false equivalence between the far left and far right propounded by Ngo and enabled by politicians like Cruz. Can editors please be reminded that simply typing "UNDUE" or "NOT DUE" in a revert without referring to specific grounds for why that is is not a helpful way to build consensus, and that you should revert only when you have to Noteduck (talk) 06:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I understand your concern. Actually, a major part of my concern is this Intercept article's "withering, scathing tone". A normal news article should not take on any hostile tone against its subject. Its job is to report the facts and let the readers form their own opinions. That's why this Intercept article differentiates itself from standard news and fits into the definition of tabloid journalism. And according to WP:BLP, the material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. Thomas Meng (talk) 02:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Thomas Meng, Public figures who contribute to the discourse of high profile political issues are regularly assessed by cultural observers (other journalists, academics, and hate watch organizations). Your assessment that we can toss out a green source and keep a yellow one is not aligned with how Wikipedia evaluates various sources as a community. The subject is frequently discussed in terms of one controversy or another by reliable sources. A quality article addresses the controversy rather than dumbs down the content to pretend that there isn’t one. Cedar777 (talk) 01:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Cedar777, it is a misuse of the RSP page to treat any source that is green as automatically more reliable as any source that is yellow. This is actually one of the big issues with RSP.  It can be helpful but reliability isn't determined solely by the source publication.  It's a combination of what claim is being made and if that particular article is reliable for that claim.  Even if a source is reliable for a claim weight must still be considered.  Things are that much harder as sources are becoming far worse about mixing facts with opinion. Springee (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * please stop removing this RS content. I don't think there is any basis to conclude that this is "tabloid journalism" simply because it is critical of Ngo and uses some fairly strident language. Noteduck (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

17 April Edit
, I half disagree with this edit[]. I don't mind changing where things are located in the article but I disagree with the justification to remove Fox News. Fox is not considered unreliable. Rather it is "use with caution". In this case I don't see that including the view of Fox is an issue. The Reason article was backed by Commentary Magazine []. I don't think this is the same as the concerns regarding the Intercept. In this case we have sources that are telling one version of events. We have other sources that dispute it. We are including both. In the case of The Intercept and the testimony we are using one source and allowing it to offer an opinion on what Ngo should have said rather than just stating what he did say. If baised sources is our biggest concern then anything from writer Alex Zielinski (Portland Mercury) should be seen as material written by a biased and involved source [][]. That means here claims are no longer that of a 3rd party. Yes, PM is not a great source but her tweet telling people where Ngo was when he was reporting crossed the line from just reporting to active involvement. I'm not proposing any of this as content to add to the article, rather that any of her claims have to be treated as involved. Springee (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you think Reason publishes falsehoods and is not "reality based", that would be a matter for WP:RSN, asserting your opinion on that as an argument here is meaningless when it goes against established consensus. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , all I want is sources outside the ideological echo chamber of the right wing media bubble if we're to challenge the dominant narrative. Reason and Fox are both highly partisan pro-Fa sources. Reason is marginally better than Fox, which doesn't belong here at all for obvious reasons. But is it so much to ask for fact-based reporting within the reality-based media to support the point you're trying to make, rather than this absolutely predictable WP:MANDY-level opinion stuff? Guy (help! - typo?) 21:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Guy, let's not start making echo chamber claims. Reason is a RS per prior discussions and even if we agree Fox is less than ideal, it is acceptable as a source replying in opposition to the others.  Additionally, we have to consider that Reason and Commentary are specifically noting how biased and problematic the reporting by other sources, sources we are quoting, has been.  Springee (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , that's an opinion piece, though. What I am looking for is reality-based analysis of the situation that goes beyond the obviously predictable denial of the right for any criticism of a pro-Fa activist. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's wholly inappropriate to continue to make arguments that Reason is not "based in reality" as a reason to remove content from articles when there is already existing consensus that it is a reliable source. This is not the place to dispute established consensus on sourcing at Wikipedia, and as a sysop you should really know why this is inappropriate to do. There are no issues of reliability using a piece from Reason with attribution. If you were to think it is undue or something else, that would be a different matter, but to say it is not "based in reality" is ridiculous. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Reason is a right wing partisan source, and the article is an opinion piece so (a) primary and (b) biased. Are there any sources that are not pro-Fa talking heads, which challenge the mainstream conclusion about Ngo's work? That's what I'm asking for here. "This is rejected by pro-Fa talking heads, source, pro-Fa talking head rejecting it" has always been a terrible idea. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Bellingcat content
The editor "Springee" removed content sourced to Bellingcat (which is a RS per the WP:RSP) on Ngo's deceptive "reporting" on a May 2019 clash between far-right people and anti-fascists. Per Bellingcat's reporting, Ngo misleds those who follow his "reporting" into thinking the far-right people were attacked in an unprovoked manner whereas it was later revealed that Ngo had heard the far-right people plan an attack on the anti-fascists but omitted it in his "reporting." The content should be restored ASAP. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , that seems to be due for the body and we should also add the report by the Columbia Journalism Review, among others, as suggest by here. The biggest issue seemed to be that it was not lead worthy, not that it should not be mentioned at all in the article. Davide King (talk) 08:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The only part I removed was this []. First, the source doesn't claim Ngo did anything "falsely".  Second, this is a strongly opinionated article offering a lot of the Evens's interpretation of events rather than just black and white facts and thus should not have been put in wiki-voice.  Third, the claim isn't supported by Evens's own offered facts.  Ngo's Tweet  only said that he was personally assaulted.  Ngo's tweets say nothing about what the PP members did. Evens's claims are not supported by his own presented evidence.  The follow on about the video is speculation on Evens's part.  As has been previously discussed by RSs, we don't know what Ngo did or didn't hear while the video was being filmed so it's speculative to say Ngo didn't report it.  Not that it would have been relevant to Ngo's claim that he was personally attacked. Evens seems to have a conclusion he wishes to reach then tries to force facts to fit his version of events.  The reliability of the whole article should be questioned.  Given the gross misrepresentation of Ngo's Cider Riot tweets Evens has shown his analysis can not be trusted.  The criticism of the DC tweet is at least supported by the factual evidence presented (thus the reader doesn't have to trust Evens's opinions).  The statements in Ngo's tweets appear factually correct but Evens is correct in saying they don't present a complete picture.  Evens offers his own speculations as if they were fact when saying Ngo had the facts to know "Rome Man" was provoking a fight. This might be the case or it could be the case that in an effort to get info out fast, Ngo didn't do additional background work.  Either way, based on Evens's presentation of videos, Rome Man appears to have decided he bit off more than he could chew and was trying to tuck tail and flee.  He was attacked from behind when trying to leave.  So Ngo's claims are factual and it would be false to say violence was only on the right (or left). As such I think this is a poor source for use in the article period and should only be used with attribution and even then WEIGHT of this claim is not clear at this point. I won't remove it myself but I would support removal as a source. [see subsection below] Springee (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Nov 2020 DC material in later work
This is recently added material [] and [] claiming, in effect, that Ngo's tweets suggested leftist activists were making unprovoked attacks on right wing marchers. There are a number of problems with this edit. First, the "later work" section isn't a place for reactions/commentary about his work. The section is clearly following his career path. It might make sense as part of the next section where we cover a lot of the controversies related to Ngo's reporting. However, I don't think this content is DUE. The three sources offered as support don't make a good case for DUE. Two are of lower quality and the WP simply doesn't mention Ngo. The Billingcat material is discussed above. While the source presents clear evidence that "Rome Man" was not an innocent right wing marcher, it's overall case again Ngo is of poor quality. The Daily Dot isn't a good source for this sort of social/political reporting vs fluffy internet stuff. Finally, while the WP does support the general event, it doesn't mention Ngo (I didn't see Ngo with a keyword search). As such I think this fails DUE. Springee (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The phrase "fluffy internet stuff" stands out. Ngo is notable in a large part due to the way he uses media and technology. It isn't fluffy or light weight. The omission of his use of media may well be the weakest part of the current article's structure. Other editors have pointed towards this as well.  The patterns of live streaming, progression and growth of the subject's twitter followers have been addressed by several RS and rather than rejecting and deleting content because it does not fit the frame/title, it makes more sense to expand the frame. Cedar777 (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think if we have RSs saying Ngo frequently presents partial tellings of events (I think RS and CJR say as much) then a section saying Ngo's work has bee criticized for presenting half truths or leaving out critical background information (etc) would make sense. We could then briefly have a few examples.  The May vide as well as this recent one (maybe) could be included in such a section.  We should not dump a questionable criticism of a tweet at the end of a section about the places he's worked.  That's just bad editing even if the content is DUE.  Springee (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's obviously DUE. Half this page is various controversies that Ngo has landed himself in. This is yet another one of those controversies that's been covered in multiple reliable sources. If those sources chose to cover it, it's clearly DUE. Loki (talk) 04:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, if Billingcat and DailyDot are the only sources it's not DUE. Additionally, this section is about the places he's worked not controversies so it doesn't belong there.  Springee (talk) 12:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Bellingcat and the Daily Dot are both RS per WP:RSP. Springee's sloppy original research attacking these RS is not a reason to remove this RS coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * DD is only a RS in limited context, The Daily Dot is considered generally reliable for Internet culture. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article.. This article is outside of that context.  Bellingcat was considered reliable but also something that needs to be used with attribution.  So here we have an issue with WEIGHT since we have limited sources discussing this claim against Ngo.  Remember, this isn't meant to be a collection of everything Ngo has done that some source has criticized.  Additionally, the Bellingcat article is misrepresenting some of Ngo's earlier tweets which hurts the credibility to the article and that again goes back to WEIGHT.  Per WP:ONUS, just because it can be verified doesn't mean it has weight.  Finally, even if the content had weight, it doesn't fit into the article where you added it.  If it doesn't fit nicely into the larger structure of the article, again one has to question if it has weight.  Springee (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ngo plainly falls under internet culture, and Bellingcat is clearly a good source here. I don't see any valid reason not to include it.  And your personal disagreement with how Bellingcat covers some of Ngo's tweets is definitely not a reason to exclude - you might personally feel strongly that it is "misrepresentation", but by that logic, no source that says anything you disagree with could ever be used. --Aquillion (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ngo is a person, not "internet culture". Using a questionable source (see the recent RSN discussion on Andy Ngo) to make this sort of weak claim is undue.  The Bellingcat article contains claims that are basically the same thing Ngo is being accused of.  When a specific article is shown to contain factual errors we should discount it.  Since you disagree that Bellingcat falsely represented Ngo's earlier claims please show why my analysis is wrong.  DUE is a valid reason not to include it.  There isn't weight for this trivial material.  The article shouldn't be a laundry list of every time someone claims Ngo tweeted something they didn't like.  Springee (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * As a way forward I would suggest a subsection before the "confrontation with Antifa" section, around 1 paragraph long, noting that Ngo has been accused of biased reporting by presenting misleading or partial versions of events. The Bellingscat source and several others would support that claim without needing to dive into excessive detail relating to any single incident.  Ideally we need to find a source or two that support the high level statement then offer a few supporting examples.  This helps support the comments in the lead as well.  It also gives a place for critical articles such as this which have limited WEIGHT to exist.  Springee (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

, please address the sourcing issues above. We have but two sources, one has a number of questionable claims the other is not reliable for claims that a person is lying. Why is this DUE? Also, why in a section about where Ngo had worked? Springee (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A twitter incident reported by a couple of fourth-rate sources--one of which is only reliable for "internet culture"--is obviously not DUE in a BLP article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want, we can take Bellingcat to WP:RSN for this to see if it's a "fourth-rate source". I definitely don't see it in any of the previous discussions; most previous discussions found it to be very high-quality. The Daily Dot, similarly, was repeatedly found to be a high-quality source for internet culture, which this (as an edited video posted to a tweet by someone whose fame is mostly online) clearly falls under. EDIT: I took the Daily Dot (not yet Bellingcat) to WP:RSN, since I think that that's actually a more interesting question and I'm not sure they're only reliable for internet culture anyway; you can raise Bellingcat there too if you want, but I feel that previous discussions are pretty unequivocal that they're a high-quality source in general. --Aquillion (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We should take the specific Bellingcat article to RSN vs the source in general. The fact that the article in question misrepresents some of Ngo's other tweets is quite relevant in this case.  Springee (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Bellingcat and the Daily Dot remain green at WP:RSP. The content should be restored. For those who disparage the sources, this is why we use attribution for some green sources. It is important to keep in mind that the subject’s own publishers (Quillette and the Post Millennial) are considered RED (unreliable) by a consensus of Wikipedia editors. Deleting RS content because it is in the “wrong” section is nonsense. Cedar777 (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Nov 2020 DC material in Social media influence

 * The viral video content was revised and restored in the article. Then it was deleted. The retweeting echo chamber of Ngo's content that occurred following the Million Maga March in November 2020 was reported on by THREE reliable sources. It is relevant and DUE since it fits into a broader pattern of behavior that has been repeatedly covered (before and after this event) by quality media outlets and has now also been addressed by leading academic researchers at Harvard and Yale.


 * The content is relevant and essential as we are describing Ngo as a social media personality in the lede, the same terminology used by reliable sources. It is entirely fitting to clarify the facts surrounding his social media involvement, i.e. number of followers, growth of followers, platforms used, audience, and reach of his content as reported by RS. Regarding objections raised earlier:
 * 1) The Washington Post article does indeed address the video clip from Ngo following the Million Maga March that Trump then retweeted. (It requires reading the image embeds.)
 * 2) The Bellingcat content is in a stand alone section for social media influence, not the career section
 * 3) There has been no actual evidence presented as to anything problematic with Evans reporting on the million MAGA march (please point to or link to this here on the talk page, if it exists)


 * It is furthermore relevant to the article if an authority figure retweets Ngo's content several times, even more so if it is frequently retweeted in a short span of time. There was zero need quote directly the wording of the LA Times author for simple factual information unless one is POV pushing (LA Times is green and solidly reliable for factual information) per the edit by . There was also no need nor any explanation offered by user  for deleting the modified content regarding the frequency with which an authority figure retweeted the subject's content, reliably sourced to LA Times. Cedar777 (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * In what way was this modified? You were using the same poor sources as last time.  The WP article doesn't mention Ngo so it doesn't add weight for inclusion.  The rest is the same content.  The LA Times book reviewer should not be quoted as if they are an LA Times reporter (they certainly aren't the voice of the LAT.  Also that content isn't related to the Bellingcat content.  You linked them together in a way that neither source supports.  Springee (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That ANY of these three sources are "poor" is entirely your opinion, NOT the opinion of a consensus of Wikipedia editors who have designated all of these sources GREEN per WP:RSP. As to your second argument that factual information about Trump retweeting Ngo 11 times being off topic and unrelated, this simply has no legs to stand on. It is in a section about social media influence. What could be more influential than a national leader repeatedly retweeting one's content? Furthermore, my edit included the content as a separate paragraph; another editor rewrote and conflated the two paragraphs in edits I do not agree with. Review the diffs of how the content was changed before you deleted it outright. Edit 1 Edit 2. Cedar777 (talk) 05:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is this time you are trying to synthisize material to force inclusion of material that didn't have consensus last time. The Bellingcat article was bad because the author setup a conclusion that was not supported by the facts he presented (see my earlier discussion).  The DD is a RS for internet trends, not contentious claims about BLP (it was green only for a narrow focus).  Even if a source is green on the RSP list that doesn't mean every article they write is green.  Also that only would mean we would, in general, consider their claims factual, not that they would have weight.  The WP article doesn't mention Ngo in the article.  You claim he is mentioned in a click through picture thing but that isn't the article body.  The book review doesn't discuss this content specifically so it shouldn't be used to add weight to Bellingcat's false claims.  This material simply isn't needed in this article.  Springee (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Repeatedly overriding the contributions of three separate editors who have added this reliably sourced content is not productive. Several editors clearly disagree that it is not needed otherwise they would not have added it into the article.
 * The original contribution from : Addition 1a + sources in Addition 1b
 * Springee deletes content: Deletion 1
 * Content restored by on Dec 1: Addition 2
 * The second deletion by user Springee: Deletion 2
 * The most recent addition Feb 12: Addition 3
 * Which was again deleted by user Springee: Deletion 3


 * The specific Bellingcat article "Unraveling a Violent Viral Video" under discussion here offers a careful analysis of how content was captured on video, then was pared down and reduced to the point at which viewers miss the forest for the trees. Evans provides the lengthy, detailed dissection of how this video content unfurled following the Million MAGA March on Nov 14, 2020. The Daily Dot and The Washington Post both address the significance of the video but do not go into the depth of detail that Evans does. What paragraph and/or wording from the Bellingcat article is objectionable? It is a long article, yet your statement that Evans had made false claims remains vague and undefined. Cedar777 (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * This obviously doesn't pass the 10 year test, and DD and Bellingcat don't show it is DUE in my opinion. But, even if you ignore those issues, the proposed content provides a misleading summary. The first sentence of the proposed content states: Bellingcat reported that on November 14, 2020, Ngo retweeted a selectively edited video clip with a misleading and inaccurate description which appeared to show counter-protesters, whom Ngo described as "BLM-antifa thugs" knocking out a man unprovoked who was participating in the Million MAGA March. But in fact the Bellingcat article goes out of its way to say that while Ngo's description appears inaccurate (note the word 'appears' here!), the first video clip he posted was not selectively edited, but provides a fuller accounting of events for the viewer. The source then goes on to say that a subsequent excerpt of the video which he also tweeted was selectively edited, and it casts some shade on Ngo for that subsequent tweet. So we'd need to provide this context to make this an accurate summary. But this additional information renders the content even more UNDUE, since it would require additional space to make all this clear, all for a minor incident that has little interest in the larger context of the topic of the article. This is in addition to the reasonable concerns that Springee raises above about SYNTH. So I'm against including this. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We are in agreement that the wording that I contributed to the article in the most recent addition of this content could be improved upon. We disagree that the appropriate course of action is to throw everything out as worthless. Let us keep in mind that you recently referred to three green sources as "a couple of fourth-rate sources" in the above discussion. One must wonder what actually constitutes a first or second rate source in your book.
 * The information that you refer to as "minor" is an example, covered in depth by a credible source, of Ngo's actions that constitutes a large amount of the broader reporting on the subject. The article in its current state is skewed to suppress the numerous green sources that have already reported on the subject and the way he uses media and technology.  There are two areas in the article where we have 6+ sources crammed into a bland blanket statement to cover what was actually quality in-depth reporting. This is a significant problem! The suppression of the Bellingcat content is the tip of the iceberg in regards to this much larger issue.
 * Regarding claims of SYNTH, please be more specific on what content you feel was synthesized. It appears that several editors have not actually read through most of the credible (green) articles covering Ngo (not just the three specific articles mentioned here but a number of others). Many sources have reinforced this content about Ngo. More clarification of the parameters of your objection are needed.Cedar777 (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, I think these are low quality sources. High quality sources would include for example the New York Times or another major news organization like NPR or BBC or the AP, or a highly cited refereed journal article, or a book from a prominent press like Oxford University Press. I don't think this should be surprising, and it's obviously would be absurd not to make some distinction between say NYT and Bellingcat. Our own WP:DUE policy uses "prominent adherents" and "commonly accepted reference texts" to get at this idea; I'm trying to apply that policy in a reasonable way, and obviously Bellingcat is not "prominent" or as far as I can tell a "commonly accepted" source. Unlike, say, NYT or WaPo or a book from OUP or what have you. So yeah, thought of in that way, Bellingcat is plainly fourth-rate at best. And if you think that you can substantiate the sort of content you want to include by appealing to prominent and commonly accepted sources, I welcome your doing so. If you had a NYT piece and a OUP book that were saying these things about Ngo, I'd agree that we should absolutely include it. But scraping little click-bait stories from tiny little "internet culture" sites is exactly what WP:DUE is supposed to prevent. Meanwhile, you aren't really responding to my worry about the proposed content. I am not claiming it needs improvement; I'm claiming that an accurate summary of the sources would be undue: something like "He posted this one video, but then he went on to post a clip of the video that Bellingcat thought was misleading!" I mean, this is just clearly UNDUE. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmmmmm. Interesting. What tier does Sky News Australia fall under in this system? Cedar777 (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. What do you think. By "this system" I assume you mean WP policy. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems to be an RS (Bellingcat) making a point that has been frequently made by others - that Ngo misrepresents information in order to make a right-wing partisan political point. Why on earth would this not belong on Ngo's page? Noteduck (talk) 06:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make the article DUE. The fact that they misrepresent Ngo's comments (as can be seen by their own arguments and evidences) is that much worse and means we shouldn't use this article is it can be shown to be unreliable. Springee (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Repeating your opinion about Bellingcat doesn't make it a fact. How has Bellingcat misrepresented Ngo? If it is a fact, as you claim, then simply define what exactly has been misrepresented. Who said that it was misrepresented? Who reported on the misrepresentation by Bellingcat? Cedar777 (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I explained that the last time we discussed this same source. Back in November I noted that Bellingcat was misrepresenting some of Ngo's Tweets.  A source that makes errors or misrepresents the facts is not a RS.  That doesn't mean all BC articles are out but it does mean this one is not reliable.  We shouldn't give it any weight.  The DD is only reliable for internet culture.  This isn't internet culture (look at our own article saying what internet culture is).  Additionally, DD is simply too narrow a source to establish weight for the particular claims of misrepresentation.  If you want to say in more general terms that people have retweeted things Ngo has said, fine.  However, we need better sources for that.  I would also note the controversial LAT book review writer shouldn't be a source for such a claim with out attribution. Springee (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There has yet to be a single fact listed that Bellingcat has distorted. Cedar777 (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not correct. To refresh, towards the bottom of the Bellingcat article the writer claims, "In 2019 Ngo reported in-person on a mass brawl at a Portland area bar named Cider Riot. His tweets framed it as an unprovoked assault by anti-fascists."  To 'prove' this claim the writer included a tweet where Ngo said he was personally attacked.  The provided tweets from Ngo didn't say anything about either side attacking the other first or without provocation.  They only said that Ngo was personally assaulted.  Unless we can show Ngo attacked the anti-fascists how can this be proof that Ngo framed anything other than an attack on him personally?  The fact that the writer screws up something that significantly should tell us this person hasn't done their homework and that this article is not reliable.  That should be the end of this discussion. Again, if this video were significant then we would see it covered in some form in good sources.  We aren't.  I said as much 18:18, 21 November 2020 at the top of this section.  Springee (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Springee, Bellingcat IS a good source. That's the heart of the matter. This logic is odd for a number of reasons. Any reporter, whether at Bellingcat, the BBC, the NYT, or Reason, is not somehow required to PROVE every statement they relay with "evidence". The publisher's reputation as reliable is key. If the NYT reports that someone has died, readers do not need them to provide an image of the death certificate as proof that this has, in fact, occurred. Readers trust that the NYT can be relied upon to get it right. On those rare occasions where they make a mistake, the publisher can also be relied upon to own up to the error by swiftly issuing a public correction. The same can be said of Bellingcat, where a consensus of Wikipedia editors have agreed that this publisher is generally reliable for news. A publisher does not need to prove every statement made by a reporter with evidence in the form of an embedded tweet or document. An image embed (such as a tweet, a captioned photo, or a document) can be helpful to provide additional details on the content. It is your interpretation that a single tweet embedded by Evans was not simply additional information but instead some sort of required proof(!) of his statement that "In 2019 Ngo reported in-person on a mass brawl at a Portland area bar named Cider Riot. His tweets framed it as an unprovoked assault by anti-fascists." Also note here that Evans refers to tweets in the plural sense. How many tweets does he need to embed in the article to satisfy your need for proof? Evans needs to provide zero tweets. Readers are relying on the publisher, Bellingcat, to uphold their reputation for journalistic integrity. If a mistake had been made, thay would have issued a correction.
 * Second, it is odd that you have previously argued against including the content of a tweet, AKA an image embed, from Ngo when used to interpret the Washington Post article about this event while here also using the content of a tweet by Bellingcat to argue for disqualification of the legitimacy of that article about the event. You can't have it both ways.Cedar777 (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, BC isn't a good source. The source makes a clearly false claim that means, even if BC as a whole is reliable, this specific article is not.  Additionally, BC isn't a source that generates enough WEIGHT to justify including this "controversy".  The WP embeded image is not part of the WP article any more than the title is and if the writer wanted to point out Ngo then it would have been in the text.  Again, we don't need to jam every possible item into the article just because a source that has a beef with Ngo includes it.  Springee (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Noteduck, you're not responding to the points I made in my last comment. So your question, "Why on earth...?" is answered by my last comment. In short, the sourcing (which is weak anyway) does not support the proposed content, and to alter the content so that it accurately summarizes the source results in content that is cumbersome and UNDUE. And there are other problems as well, per Springee. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Real collaboration among edits to improve the page would be great but it only works if editors are willing to read a large quantity of the credible sources that cover the subject and then recognize the content that is most consistent. That isn't SNYTH as much as it is a matter of making informed decisions.Cedar777 (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Trying to dump every bit of negative commentary from low impact sources into this article is not improving things. If you want to find a range of decent sources that say something and summarize them please do so.  Don't take sources that have factual errors or are not reliable for contentious claims about BLP expect them to have weight for inclusion.  Springee (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Please take a moment to list a single fact that Bellingcat has distorted. Cedar777 (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The March 2021 RSN discussion related to the publisher Bellingcat once again upheld the WP:RSP status of Bellingcat as reliable. Here is a link to the content at the RSN archives:   Cedar777 (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

, Bellingcat is not an acceptable source for the claim you added here []. I have already shown that BC's claim as to Ngo's 2019 tweets are not supported by the text of the tweets the provide. That means that article is not reliable for the claim in question even if people feel the source is reliable overall. If you disagree we can take this specific claim to RSN. Remember that no source is considered universally reliable. Springee (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Bellingcat is green on WP:RSP. I have no problem with you taking this to RSN as I strongly suspect you will lose there. Loki (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That RSP is a supplement page. It is not WP:RS. No source is considered automatically reliable and when the source can be shown to be wrong we have to treat that claim as unreliable even if we treat the source as reliable in general. Do you feel that BC is accurately reporting on the content of Ngo's tweet? Springee (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Springee, Let’s back up a moment to clarify- which one of the statements added to the article today are causing the problem for you? Is it the first statement related to Cider Riot? Is it the fact that Trump recirculated Ngo’s content following the million MAGA March? Or both of these? Cedar777 (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I just removed the claim here []. BC claims Ngo's 2019 tweets said PP was attacked without provocation when they confronted people at the Cider Riot bar.  BC:"In 2019 Ngo reported in-person on a mass brawl at a Portland area bar named Cider Riot. His tweets framed it as an unprovoked assault by anti-fascists.".  Which assault in BC referring to; Ngo getting sprayed with pepper spray or the PP members fighting with the bar patrons?  Well a few lines later BC talks about the "under cover video".  With that I think we can be certain they are referring to PP and the bar patrons and not the assault on Ngo himself.  I don't think anyone has claimed Ngo has initiated any physical confrontation even if they think his reporting is crap.  So what evidence does BC provide to suggest that Ngo was talking about the PP-bar patron fight as an unprovoked attack?  Here are the two tweets [].  The higher level tweet (presumably the later one in time) Ngo says he was assaulted.  That doesn't say anything about the PP-bar patron fight or who started what.  The second tweet also says Ngo was assaulted and provides a bit more detail.  Again it doesn't say anything about the PP-bar patron fight.  I would agree if we are saying Ngo's tweets frame the assault on Ngo as unprovoked.  Is there any evidence Ngo was personally provoking anyone?  Such a claim would need some strong sourcing given we have another source that says Ngo personally doesn't start any physical confrontations.  So all we are left with is that BC is claiming those tweets, tweets which only say Ngo was assaulted and ask for help in identifying the assailant, somehow are actually Ngo saying that Antifa attacked PP.  Sorry, that's just not credible.  The only way this claim could be viewed as true is if we squint and assume BC meant Ngo was talking about the assaults on Ngo himself.  If that is the case then we would need to make that clear in our article.  Springee (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , your analysis hasn't gained much traction here over the past several months. Why don't you open an RSN discussion as others have suggested? –dlthewave ☎ 01:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Springee, Ngo was one of dozens of people at the brawl to be sprayed with pepper spray. He was not even the only video blogger or livestreamer to be temporarily blinded at the brawl. BC is referring to the brawl itself. The subject of BC’s article and the specific section in the article makes this clear.
 * ”The cycle of right-wing social media personalities sharing decontextualized videos to spark rage against the left has gone on for years. In 2019 Ngo reported in-person on a mass brawl at a Portland area bar named Cider Riot. His tweets framed it as an unprovoked assault by anti-fascists.”
 * It isn’t just Bellingcat that has said this. Many of the other sources have pointed it out as well including The Daily Dot “Ngo covered the event on Twitter and blamed the brawl on antifa.” and “In Ngo’s coverage of the riots, he posted misleading videos that crop out violent actions from Patriot Prayer members, putting the blame fully on antifa.”Cedar777 (talk) 01:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I think then we all agree BC's was referring to the PP-bar patron fight and not to any attack against or instigated by Ngo himself. In that case why would they present two tweets where Ngo says he was personally assaulted as "proof"?  They are claiming Ngo is posting misleading tweets yet the tweets they present only say that Ngo himself was assaulted and asked for help identifying a person.  Do you agree that the tweets presented do not support BC's claim?  Springee (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

RSN discussion
Please see related RSN discussion regarding Bellingcat here. –dlthewave ☎ 03:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I have no idea who this person Ngo is, but in the context of the Russian invasion of Ukraine we treat have been treating Bellingcat as a very serious source. I looked into this carefully because it is one of those supporting Russian deepfakes Anyone asserting it is not reliable deserves at a minimum a trouting. Elinruby (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Killing of Aaron Danielson
The article states that nobody has been murderer by antifa terrorists. This is false, as there is at least one example (Aaron Danielson). Jason Stanley is a liar, and his opinion should be removed from the article or stated as false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.209.100.92 (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

That claim made by Jason Stanley was made just 3 days (Aug 27, 2020) before the killing of Aaron Danielson (Aug 30, 2020). But yes, it is no longer true that no one has been killed by antifascists and it should be at least added afterwards that fact. Jrfrettlohr (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

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, 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)
 * , 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)
 * , 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 [] Oregonian []).  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.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , 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? <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * 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 ) 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)
 * , 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
, 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)
 * Back in October, I raised the question at talk that the article would benefit from clarity on the subject’s education/graduation at PSU. [|diff]
 * 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)
 * , 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)
 * , 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)
 * , 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)
 * , yes, he gave Strickland's career-o'-grifting a head start. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


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

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)

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)

Red cite errors
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. &#8209;&#8209;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)_/¯ &#8209;&#8209;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)

Recent attack (the second one in three years) by left-wing protesters
Hi, recently Ngo was again attacked by left-wing protesters. 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 . 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)
 * , 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)


 * did a nice job with an addition here []. 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)

, I think this addition is SYNTH []. 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 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)