Talk:Andy Ngo/Archive 2

BRD: "twitter account of a primary subject is not a reliable source"
you have reverted this change claiming, that a "Twitter account of a primary subject is not a reliable source". This makes no sense. The accusation is the tweet, how on Earth can a different source be more reliable than that? Could you please quote related Wikipedia rules, otherwise I will reintroduce the change. BeŻet (talk) 10:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPSPS: Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. That's pretty cut and dry. An accusation about a living person only supported by a self-published source absolutely violates WP:BLP and should be removed on sight. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * unless written or published by the subject of the article - this rule applies to self-published sources talking about a different person, it doesn't discourage using Tweets as sources of information especially if the tweet itself is made by the person you are talking about, in this case, the member of DSA. This is exactly why we have the cite tweet template. Following your logic, a tweet would never ever be appropriate as a source of information. Since we are talking about a member of DSA accusing Ngo, and we literally point at the tweet where he is doing it, it seems like a no-brainer to me that this is allowed by the rules. BeŻet (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The subject of the article is Andy Ngo, not the DSA, nor this member of the DSA. Aside from the potential bias/POV issue with using this tweet, this tidbit isn't notable unless some reliable third-party source wrote about it.  Did they? Jweiss11 (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly what Jweiss11 said. Using a tweet as a source to make accusations about a living person is the definition of content forbidden by BLPSPS. It's the entire reason that policy exists. The only exception to BLPSPS is that we can use a person's self-published writing about themselves as a source for basic facts about them, and even that usage is strictly limited.
 * Look at the next section of the policy, which further defines and limits even that already limited exception. So even if this were an article about whoever the fuck @alsoconnor is, this tweet would still be unusable as a source. It's self-serving, it makes a claim about a third party (Andy Ngo), and there is no reason to believe that this tweet is a genuine record of something that actually happened to a member of the DSA. It's a tweet, it could be something some random person just made up. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Clearly unacceptable; tweets by a random DSA member are not remotely a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So your argument is basically that this is not notable, which is an argument you can defend, but that's different from it not being reliable. BeŻet (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is neither reliable nor notable. If you don't believe us, then take it to WP:RSN or WP:BLP. That tweet can't be used as a source in any article for any reason. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I saw that the other source for similar content in that paragraph is also unreliable, and have removed it. The source,, is clearly labelled "blog". According to WP:NEWSBLOG: Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. According to the author's biography,, he is a student and neither a professional journalist nor a regularly contributor to The Spectator, so it's not reliable source for factual claims, and the author's opinion is not relevant to the article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The doxxing thing is mentioned in Vox, already cited elsewhere in the article but not (previously) used for this; that seems like a usable source. --Aquillion (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right. That Vox article supports the claims of doxxing and is a reliable source for that material. I forgot that was in there, I should've just added that source instead of removing the material entirely. I'm not so sure about Jacobin though. I think they're a questionable source at best, and this particle article may be even worse than most of their work, so the claims that are only mentioned there might need to be removed. I'll look into it more later. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone reverted it; I think they're confused, since it's clearly more reliable than the other source, which they left in, and is already cited elsewhere in the article anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 02:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I think I was confused. I did try to fix some things in that passage. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard on this subject. In particular, I'm worried that the claim according to Jacobin, friends of two activists said that they had to go into hiding after Ngo revealed their names because they became subjects of harrassment violates BLP because even with attribution, we're just reporting on someone else repeating second-hand allegations. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Portland 2019
I suppose we'll have to wait for the articles if they haven't already been written but Andy falsely claimed that antifa attacked facists with a hammer and then when it was pointed out that the facists brought the hammer claimed it was probably self-defense. [Tweet for now]. He also suggested anti-facist protesters were attacking a father with a child but well known ["Based Spartan"] is with [his 24 year old daughter] and is a known [agitator]. [Tweet for now]. [Vice Profile]

I propose this could potentially be a new section to his bio.

Ramdomwolf 24.52.199.240 (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Due to his profuse, abundant and plentiful lying, can we please just add a section of all the instances where he publicly went and lied to people? I believe this to be both relevant and easily obtainable information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.27.190.162 (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Rock or brick thrown with force that struck his head
It's clear an antifa member threw a brick or rock with force that hit Andy at the back of his head while Andy was walking away. No doubt that was the cause of his serious brain injury. Why is there not word about this in this article?? --IHTS (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It has to be reported in a reliable source. All these articles (are supposed to) do is summarize reliable sources. So if you want to add some information, you have to give the other editors a reliable source for that information. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't really have a reliable source that explains how Ngo came to have brain damage, we can just report that he is brain damaged at the moment. PeterTheFourth (talk)
 * Right. (Funny though, it's WP:BLUESKY that 1) his brain injury was incurred as a result of the attack in the park, & 2) nobody in the world receives a brain injury from a thrown milkshake.) --IHTS (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What I'd like to see more of from reliable sources is the impact his brain damage has on his politics. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ??? --IHTS (talk) 08:17, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess I figured it was his being hit in the head by the guy at the beginning of the video that caused the brain hemorrhage. There's no evidence I'm aware of that he has ongoing brain damage, and the suggestion that he does is a violation of WP:BLP and should be struck. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The widely circulated video shows nothing of that sort and I can't see any major source reporting on this. Where did you find this specific information? BeŻet (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah "it's clear" is not good enough. The article has has to be based on what reliable sources specifically say. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to point out that it's absolutely not WP:BLUESKY that he suffered any brain damage at all, since the only source of this information is his attorney and a single person that supposedly received a *copy* of his hospital records. Therefore, any assumptions and declarations about how he got the supposed brain damage is completely WP:OR. BeŻet (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The "single person" that he gave his discharge papers to was a journalist working for Buzzfeed news, which is regarded here as RS. That journalist published this report: Ngo sent me a copy of his discharge paperwork from the hospital. The document confirmed his claim that he had suffered a subarachnoid hemorrhage — a brain bleed. If this doesn't show us that he had a subarachnoid hemorrhage, then what would? Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The discharge paperwork itself, of course. BeŻet (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be a primary source in this case, and not usable on Wikipedia. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I implore you to read Identifying and using primary sources. Secondly, if the discharge paperwork was made public, a secondary source would be surely available. Ngo is known for manipulations and making false and inaccurate statements, therefore him sending someone a "copy" of that document isn't undeniable proof. BeŻet (talk) 09:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I did read that. The documents themselves would be a primary source in this case. We do have a secondary RS reporting on the documents. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not write that it was WP:BLUESKY Ngo suffered a brain injury. (A fact like that needs RSs.) I wrote that it is WP:BLUESKY the (presumed RS-supported) injury was incurred as a result of the attack in the park. --IHTS (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * But how is it BLUESKY? BeŻet (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Reverts by Granarkadis
Hi, would you please explain the reverts you did to several editors work? These are the only three edits you've made in roughly 2 years, it would be a decent thing to elaborate on your reasoning behind them. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to know the reasoning, especially that it's difficult to see how talking about his reporting on antifascist activists, which is most of what he does, is "oddly specific". BeŻet (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * He has also left Quillette immediately after the video came out, and The Daily Beast is connecting these two things, although Quillette denies it. I'd want a second source making the connection before adding that part to the article, but the Daily Dot seems sufficient to at least mention the video.  It also says a lot more than we're saying in the article: The antifa members were having a peaceful May Day celebration when Patriot Prayer members came to protest, according to the Portland Mercury. Several fights broke out, and now the bar is suing the Patriot Prayer members for allegedly causing the riot. Ngo covered the event on Twitter and blamed the brawl on antifa. ... 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. Since then, videos have emerged that discredit several of his tweets.  There's more like that.  I don't see how that can be described as a "mistake", as the edit summary did, and clearly that's not how the source describes it. --Aquillion (talk) 04:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that at this stage we have plenty of sources and evidence suggesting malicious behaviour on Ngo's side. Arguments presented by a couple editors saying that this is not worthy of inclusion in our article are no longer defensible in any way. BeŻet (talk) 09:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Frequent reverts
I cannot assume good faith any more while you keep reverting my changes. It is rude, inconsiderate and authoritarian. You have a very biased view of what is worthy of inclusion in the article. Somehow every time Andy gets silly stringed, we have to include it, but when he gets implicated in a criminal case, being present at planning an assault as part of an ongoing lawsuit, that's somehow not important. Please stop abusing the revert button. Please start behaving in a respectful and considerate manner, and stop posting links to rules you haven't even read: how is WP:COATRACK related to this, for instance? A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely. It doesn't make sense for you to point at it. Likewise, WP:NOTNEWS isn't a problem here, because this is a significant development, not simply a mentioning that Andy had a burger at his favourite bar. BeŻet (talk) 09:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem to believe that any time any website publishes anything about Andy Ngo, it is immediately worthy of inclusion. I don't believe you've read BLP, and if you have, then you haven't understood it. See WP:BLPPUBLIC in regards to your latest edit: If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. You can't just accuse a living person of committing a crime off the back of a single, borderline reliable source. But you don't care about that. If a single source publishes anything negative about this guy, you add it the second you see the article. In this case, I believe you waited all of two hours after seeing this single article come up to add it to the article. Is that "multiple reliable third-party sources"? No. In fact, at this moment, that is still the only thing close to a reliable source documenting this incident. Here's another policy I've already quoted here, which I will assume you have simply neglected to read, since the alternative is that you lack the competence to understand our policies or simply don't believe they apply to you: An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. If you want me to stop reverting your edits, then read Wikipedia's content policies and stop making garbage edits.
 * You do have a point; I should've removed the whole paragraph about that incidence, instead of just your addition to it. The fact that he was pepper-sprayed in May is probably not important enough to include in this article. I see no evidence that that incident has the kind of lasting coverage that would make it relevant. Ideally, if we had better sources, we could describe his clashes with protesters in summary style instead of focusing on each incident individually. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem to not realise that literally the only reason this article exists is because of Ngo getting punched in the face. This is his only claim to fame. If you don't believe me, check when the article was created. You seem inconsistent in your arguments: when I did find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, it was still not good enough for you. It seems quite clear to me that since the violence he is involved in is the only reason he's on Wikipedia, significant incidents/events revolving around that subject are worthy of inclusion. I implore you to stop reverting edits whenever you dislike something or personally disagree with something, as this is not a good way to work together on Wikipedia. BeŻet (talk) 11:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Also I should add that Ngo is not a public figure (WP:NPF) and is essentially notable for one event (WP:BLP1E), therefore WP:BLPPUBLIC does not fully apply (i.e. the requirement of multiple sources in order to include anything). BeŻet (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So first of all, the requirement for inclusion of controversies on public figures is supposed to be less strict than the requirement for inclusion on non-public figures. Non-public figures receive a higher level of protection from the inclusion of controversial material. If Andy Ngo were a non-public figure, then you should be even more restrained in including claims about criminal activity and the like. Did you even read WP:NPF before linking it? But that's irrelevant because he is a public figure. Let's go through the list on WP:LOWPROFILE:
 * He checks at least three of those boxes. More importantly, he definitely fits the headline requirement: Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. This is a man who constantly promotes himself, who publishes videos about himself, who goes on television frequently, who livestreams his attendance of public events, who publicizes his opinions on issues of public concern, who claims to be an expert.
 * Second, if I appear to be "inconsistent in my arguments", that is simply because your inclusions often fail more than one policy. First of all, they often fail verification, because the source is either not reliable or the source doesn't back up the claims being made. Second, they are often BLP violations. The sources might be sufficient for verification, but they fail to meet the higher standard applied to controversial changes about living people. Third, they tend to be inclusions of petty, minor events, things that have no lasting significance, and thus fail WP:DUE. I revert not out of some personal animus, but because your edits are just bad. They fail multiple content standards. They're sloppily worded. They don't quite convey what is written in the source. This article is already a mess (a list of individual events instead of a summary of what is notable about the topic), and your edits make it worse. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So first of all, the requirement for inclusion of controversies on public figures is supposed to be less strict than the requirement for inclusion on non-public figures - That is simply false.
 * Him being "high profile" does not make him a public figure.
 * because the source is either not reliable or the source doesn't back up the claims being made - this is false, stop claiming sources are unreliable because you don't like them! This is a totally unacceptable behaviour here, and I implore you one final time to amend your behaviour.
 * And one more time: there wouldn't be an article about Ngo if he wasn't punched; therefore any news around his confrontations with antifa are worthy of inclusion. Like I've mentioned in a message to you, please consult WP:REVERT, WP:BRD and related policies, especially BRD which clearly and unequivocally states that BRD is not an excuse for a revert. If you do keep reverting changes you don't like, I will forward this issue to an arbiter. BeŻet (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * BeŻet, I find your various arguments here bizarre. You're arguing that Andy Ngo is less well-known, and therefore we can be more lax about including negative information about him? That's the reverse of how its supposed to work. The less well-known a figure is, the more cautious we have to be. A giant chunk of the WP:BLP policy is devoted to emphasizing this, see: Biographies of living persons. And, really, it should almost go without saying.
 * Him being "high profile" does not make him a public figure.
 * because the source is either not reliable or the source doesn't back up the claims being made - this is false, stop claiming sources are unreliable because you don't like them! This is a totally unacceptable behaviour here, and I implore you one final time to amend your behaviour.
 * And one more time: there wouldn't be an article about Ngo if he wasn't punched; therefore any news around his confrontations with antifa are worthy of inclusion. Like I've mentioned in a message to you, please consult WP:REVERT, WP:BRD and related policies, especially BRD which clearly and unequivocally states that BRD is not an excuse for a revert. If you do keep reverting changes you don't like, I will forward this issue to an arbiter. BeŻet (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * BeŻet, I find your various arguments here bizarre. You're arguing that Andy Ngo is less well-known, and therefore we can be more lax about including negative information about him? That's the reverse of how its supposed to work. The less well-known a figure is, the more cautious we have to be. A giant chunk of the WP:BLP policy is devoted to emphasizing this, see: Biographies of living persons. And, really, it should almost go without saying.


 * You also pointed to WP:BLP1E. I don't see how that guideline helps your case. It's a guideline that discourages the indiscriminate inclusion of info about a living person. When someone cites it, its usually to argue that something should be removed from an article, not that something should be added.


 * (Incidentally, if Ngo is genuinely only notable for the single event where he was roughed up, this page should be moved to something like "The assault of Andy Ngo".) WanderingWanda (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Or more to the point, the article should be deleted outright. I think his fifteen minutes may be up. Simonm223 (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And nobody outside the Breitbart set is going to care that he got punched. Simonm223 (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I am not saying that less scrutiny is required. The rule regarding multiple sources for public figures is based around the idea, that since they are a public figure, a lot is being written about that person, and therefore multiple sources reporting on a specific thing implies something more worthy of inclusion. This is something that is hinted in the very first sentence in that section: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources. It would be silly to suggest that a less known person needs even more sources to include anything. Anyhow, this point is now moot as at this stage there are multiple sources reporting on the accusations. BeŻet (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Reminder of DS on this page.
This page has WP:1RR and an enforced 24 hour WP:BRD cycle. Please self-revert your edit which is in contravention of arbcom sanctions on this page. Simonm223 (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You have now violated both the WP:1RR requirement and the WP:BRD 24 hour restriction on this article. I know you've seen the DS notice as you subsequently blanked your user talk page. I'll give you one last chance to self-revert before I ask for arbitration enforcement. Simonm223 (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Where is WP:1RR posted on this page? UmbraImpossible (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Up at the top of this talk page in the big DS warning. Along with the 24 hour BRD restriction. Which you also broke. Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * That's weird. I don't see anything. Are you sure you're on the right page? UmbraImpossible (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am literally looking at it right now. Here's a quote copy-pasted from it: WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES The article Andy Ngo is currently subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBAPDS). An administrator has applied the following restrictions to this article: Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). 24-hr BRD cycle: If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit). Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts. Simonm223 (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Now I can't see the big warning box isn't a legitimate exemption from Arbitration remedies so would you please, kindly, comply and self-revert? Simonm223 (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * IP - if you have evidence UmbraImpossible is a sock WP:SPI is where you go. You don't spam the same insinuation over and over to the user talk page or on article talk. And your encouragement isn't helping to defuse a situation in which a new editor who, we must assume is new to Wikipedia and may not understand the gravity of willfully ignoring arbcom remediation is currently not in compliance but may very well come around. After all, they've shown great concern for Wikipedia policy in previous talk page commentary. Simonm223 (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC) The IP I was speaking to here was subsequently blocked two weeks and their comments, which went over the line to harassment, were removed per WP:DENY. Simonm223 (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Replacing 'alleged' with 'masked'
Hi, why did you replace instances of 'alleged' with 'masked'? PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Because we now have sources say that Ngo was attacked by antifa, which was obvious as day in the absence of some sort of false-flag operation. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you please link those sources here? Some appear to have failed verification. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * See https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/20/senators-want-antifa-activists-be-labeled-domestic-terrorists-heres-what-that-means/ and https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/proud-boys-rally-portland-latest-test-police-n1043526.  Those are two sources I added today.  The other sources marked "failed verification" can serve to verify other elements of the preceding sentence or be removed. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe we've discussed the WP post in previous sections extensively and ultimately rejected its use for this claim, but I'll read through the NBC News article and see if I can put some thoughts down. Thanks! PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I reject the rejection of a reliable source reporting basic facts that are patently obvious. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand that you have your own personal opinions about what is and isn't obvious, which you've talked about before. We mustn't let this bias effect how we cover stuff in the article - we go by reliable sources, emphasis on reliable, and we do check up and make sure that things are reliable for what we cite them for. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Peter, let's get real. We have other editors here tanking basic facts and dismissing reliable sources because of their biases. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The placement of the word 'alleged' does seem odd to me. The implication seems to be that the point under contention is that his assailants have antifa affiliation. Do we have reputable sources identifying this as a claim under active dispute? DerEnglischsprachigerHelfer (talk) 04:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , The current phrasing is a bit unfortunate then. The structure of the sentence "Subject was A and B by X, who also C" is such that it makes two claims, one of which is supported by most references, (C), but not A and B. Perhaps this can be rewritten to more accurately summarize what the sources say. Vexations (talk) 11:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Considering Ngo's entanglements with white supremacist groups, it's fully possible the masked assailants were white supremacists who thought beating up Ngo and blaming it on antifa would be a PR win for them. So yeah, alleged. Nobody has demonstrated conclusively the identity of his assailants. Simonm223 (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Simonm223, there's no evidence of a false flag here and no reliable source has reported such. Perhaps, Ngo has been an antifa mole the whole time just to make Quillette and friends look bad?  It's nonsense to seriously consider that possibility at this point, as it is obstructive nonsense to consider yours. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The video provided by the Oregonian shows masked members of the Antifa group, bearing Antifa flags and symbols, attacking Ngo. Unless you can provide proof of a conspiracy frame to Antifa and its members, it needs to be included. I've fixed it for now. UmbraImpossible (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , do you mean the video embedded in this article: https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2019/06/portland-mayor-police-come-under-fire-after-right-wing-writer-attacked-at-protest.html? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WzMZxT-41k) Can you point out to us where you see flags and symbols (and which symbols specifically) that allow you to identify the assailants? Vexations (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * At around 0:02 and 0:26 you can clearly see members of the mob that are attacking the journalist bearing the "three arrows" symbol. A symbol linked to Antifa as well as far-left militancy. UmbraImpossible (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , The video is black at 0:02, but at from the start at 0:04 to 0:05 I see someone wearing a cap, a bandana, a white T-shirt with a red crewneck and olive pants with the Three Arrows. That person disappears from view and does not reappear until 0:14 when we see him again, this time only his body, which shows him wearing shorts and low converse (or similar) sneakers. At 0:26 I see nothing that looks like the three arrow. The man in the white T-shirt never participates in the attack. So much for the video. Now regarding your assertion that the video shows masked members of the antifa group, bearing antifa flags and symbols, attacking Ngo. First of all the three arrows were designed for the Iron Front, an organization of the German social democratic party (SPD), and, to put it mildy, not exactly friends of the Antifaschistiche Aktion, organized by the German communist party (KPD). You come to the conclusion that antifa attcked Ngo because you saw a man who did not particpate in the attack (that we can see) wear a logo of a rival group. That's very poor evidence. I disagree with you that if nobody can prove that the attack on Ngo was a false flag operation to discredit antifa we it needs to be included, your orginal research is flawed, not supported by reliable source and we should simply state the truth: we don't know who Ngo's assailants were. Until they're arrested and convicted I prefer that we simply state that the Ngo was attacked by masked, unidentified assailants. Vexations (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just go ahead and watch the video again. There are multiple members of Antifa displaying the three arrows symbol while attacking the journalist in question. You're just really, super wrong here. We don't assume conspiracy theories about false flags without proof. Antifa attacked a journalist, there's reliable sources and video evidence. It's a bummer that you don't like it. But thems the facts. UmbraImpossible (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , Yup. I have watched that video frame-by-frame over-and-over again. Your claim doesn't hold up. Provide better evidence. For what it's worth, and in case that wasn't clear: I don't support a conspiracy theory about a false flag operation. I do think we simply don't know the identity of the assailants. Until we do, we don't speculate, and we most definitely don't identify people wearing a logo of a rival group who don't participate in the attack as members of antifa attacking Ngo. Vexations (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You should definitely watch that video again. It shows members of Antifa attacking a journalist. The facts don't support your conspiracy theory and the consensus doesn't support your plans to whitewash an attack on a journalist. You should drop this issue, you're wrong. UmbraImpossible (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I have just told you I don't think there is a false flag operation. Vexations (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I watched it again, and I see what you're referring to as occurring at 0:26. At 0:22 (frame 12) a man enters the frame from the right who at 0:24 can be seen throwing something, spilling a liquid. I can't tell if Ngo is hit, but he doesn't respond. At 0:25 (frame 12) he turns, revealing his courier bag, which has a the three white arrows in a circle, against a black background. At 0:27 (frame 18) he disappears from the frame. My reading of that scene is that someone tried to throw a milkshake at Ngo (and missed). If that's the evidence, we should wait to render judgment until a court has evaluated the evidence and convicted them of a crime. Vexations (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yo, you need to drop it, dude. You're wrong, there's no false flag operation and there's an abundance of video evidence that the Antifa group attacked a journalist. Step away from this one. UmbraImpossible (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

, you've again made changes to remove the 'alleged' and also removed some of the failed verification tags. Do you believe you have consensus to remove 'alleged'? Why did you remove the failed verification tags? 11:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I removed "alleged" because is an accepted fact that Ngo was assaulted by antifa. Sources provided back it up and logically the only way it couldn't be true is in the case of a false flag, for which we have no evidence.  I restructured the passage to resolve all the failed verification tags. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Disagree that it's a universally-accepted fact; the sources differ, with some hedging more cautiously (using 'appeared' and the like.) We can't present something that is in dispute as being uncontroversial universally-accepted fact. --Aquillion (talk) 05:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * which reliable sources dispute that the attackers were antifa? We do have some sources published in the immediate wake of the assault that use the cautious language of "appeared", but as far I know no reliable sources have indicated anyone other than antifa. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's a few:
 * New York Times: Many have blamed Antifa for the beating, which was captured on video. No one has been charged in connection with the assault, which the police are continuing to investigate.  (From 8/17, not remotely immediately afterwards.)  That's not the sort of language that justifies the "it was definitely Antifa and we should indicate so unequivocally in the article voice" position you're taking here.
 * Vox, which is careful to only state exactly what can be seen in the video without labeling anyone, and which says in summary that Whoever punched Ngo, antifa or otherwise, committed a crime.
 * Wilmette Week pointedly merely says masked protesters (again, over a month after the event) in an article urging general skepticism.
 * qFox 13, Andy Ngo, a journalist for a conservative website, was among those caught up in the violence and blamed Antifa protesters for the attack, and says on Twitter that they took credit for the attack. Rose City Antifa denied that claim on Twitter, saying they have not claimed responsibility for the attack. Portland’s mayor says an investigation into the attack is ongoing.
 * CNN says Andy Ngo, a journalist for a conservative website, was among those caught up in the violence and he blames Antifa protesters for the attack. CNN has not been able to confirm that those who attacked Ngo were Antifa protesters.
 * We have to consider all the sources. Taken collectively, there clearly isn't enough to say that it was definitely antifa in the article voice. You also removed "unidentified", which several sources emphasize - your version gives the (inaccurate) impression that specific attackers have been identified and that the investigation mentioned above completed with a clear conclusion. --Aquillion (talk) 05:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * makes an excellent point. Even though it may seem obvious to every casual reader that antifa is responsible for attacking Ngo, obviousness is not evidence, and any responsible publication, and that includes us should not draw conclusions that are not supported by evidence. Until the individual attackers have been identified and their membership of antifa proven, directly attributing the attack to antifa is irresponsible. We could perhaps say a bit more about why antifa dislikes Ngo so much: they claim he is responsible for outing the victim of the May 1, 2019 attack by Proud Boys member Ian Kramer. That's an example of a  case where we do have good evidence that someone did something. Vexations (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, for your POV, Wikipedia does not do original research and repeats what reliable sources say. If the reliable source says it's members of Antifa that attacked him, that's what we put in the article. Unless you can find a RS for your conspiracy theory that it isn't Antifa, it needs to be included. That's how Wikipedia works and we shouldn't suspend the rules in order to make you happy. UmbraImpossible (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the article as it is currently written is irresponsible. The language should be changed until a time when conclusive evidence presents itself. Williamallison (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Antifa has no "membership", so describing the attackers as "members of antifa" is already innacurate. The best way to describe this would be "participants of an antifascist counter-protest". BeŻet (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's an opinion and one I don't care about. We should stick to the rules and only apply what articles say directly. Not your fringe take on it. UmbraImpossible (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyway, if we exclude the sockpuppet, I'm definitely not seeing consensus for these changes here, so I've reverted the relevant text back to where it was at the end of last month. There's too many sources expressing skepticism for us to report it as fact in the article voice. I do think we could go for something other than "alleged" in the lead, but we need to capture the caution present in the sources I linked above in some form - especially the NYT one, which is fairly recent, says "many have blamed", and is careful to note that nobody was charged, though CNN noting the lack of confirmation is also important.  --Aquillion (talk) 06:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

BRD: "Ngo made several inacurrate claims about the events that unfolded" is not supported by the source
the source clearly states all the inaccurate claim he made and why they were inaccurate:
 * "Two flare-ups caught on video have become the latest flash points between ideological opponents, racking up millions of views online and spreading chaotic scenes that were cast with inaccurate claims and provided limited context. Both were promoted by local conservative writer Andy Ngo (...)"

I will reintroduce the change immediately after 24 hours of your revert. Please consult the source and do not remove content without reading sources properly. BeŻet (talk) 13:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see that the article clearly says that Ngo made inaccurate claims. The quote you provide was so poorly written that it's hard to tell what it is saying. In particular, it isn't clear to me that the article is saying that Ngo made inaccurate claims. It might just be saying that the video itself was misleading, or that the video has led to unspecified subjects making inaccurate claims, or who knows. It is so poorly written that I don't think it is a great source. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's nonsense. He made widely misleading, manipulative and inaccurate claims, and the article clearly and thoroughly explains why they were inaccurate. Literally the whole article talks about Ngo's claims. Are we both looking at two different articles? BeŻet (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, we are looking at the same article. I did look at the whole article, but I focused on the quote you provided above. That quote does not say that Ngo made inaccurate claims, nor does the piece ever directly say that. It says that Ngo promoted some videos that spread "chatotic scenes that were cast with inaccurate claims". But the passive construction here "were cast with inaccurate claims" leaves the subject unclear. Later in the article, for example, it says that There have been widely circulated claims, including those made by reporters at the scene, that those riding in the shuttle bus were Proud Boys. It appears that they are actually members of the American Guard, a group the Anti-Defamation League labels a white supremacist organization. The inaccurate claim under discussion here is not due to Ngo, but to unspecified reporters and others, some of whom were at the scene. What the piece appears to do is to add additional information to the claims Ngo made. I don't even see that any added info ever contradicts what Ngo said. But the source certainly never directly says that Ngo made inaccurate claims. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, that's nonsense. The article directly quotes the claims made by Andy, presents it as a narrative he attempted to present and then explains why the narrative was misleading and lacked context. These mental gymnastics attempting to obfuscate what the article is about are quite worrying. BeŻet (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * First, Shinealittlelight is correct that that sentence is poorly written and hard to understand. Second, the rest of the article neither claims nor demonstrates that Ngo made inaccurate claims. Here's the paragraph that includes the phrase "inaccurate claims" and then a grammatical breakdown where I rewrite it as a series of simple sentences, laying out which nouns are grammatically associated with which verbs:
 * Quite frankly, it's a complete mess. Some of those verbs are probably meant to be associated with different nouns, but the author has no idea how to structure clauses and attributive phrases. It's unclear what the hell "chaotic scenes that were cast with inaccurate claims" is supposed to mean. To the extent that it's possible to tell what the author is saying, he's not saying Ngo made inaccurate claims.
 * But that paragraph is not the whole article. The rest of the article discusses two particular incidences caught on film and Andy Ngos' tweets about them. It does not explicitly say or demonstrate that Ngo made inaccurate claims. In the first one, Andy Ngo said this: Antifa attacks people on a bus. They try to pull them out and hit them with a hammer. The article then describes what happened. Protesters attacked a bus and tried to pull people out. Apparently, someone in the bus pulled out a hammer. One of the protesters grabbed the hammer and threw it back at them. The author also notes that they haven't been able to confirm who had the hammer first, they're just going by footage that is "grainy and hard to see." The next claim is this: A large antifa mob chase & attack a man & a young girl who got separated from the others. No police. The article then describes what happened: Some counterprotesters appear to throw liquid on the man, who responds by wildly swinging his shield at people near him. The crowd then begins to move in on the man and his female companion, who retreat. The crowd continues to pursue them for more than a minute as they eventually make their way onto the Morrison Bridge and take off. The article then goes into slightly more detail about who this man is, but nothing contradicts the claim Andy Ngo made.
 * Bezet, you have added quite a few poorly sourced accusations about Andy Ngo to this article. This is the third that I've seen. I haven't removed the stuff sourced to Jacobin yet because I'm waiting for more opinions on the BLP noticeboard, but everyone who's responded so far thinks that it should be removed from the article. Please familiarize yourself with WP:BLP and be more cautious when adding controversial material. You should perhaps wait to get confirmation from multiple high-quality sources before adding accusations against a living person. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I find it quite ironic to be talking about "poorly sourced accusations" when discussing Any Ngo. You can't dismiss a source you don't like as "poor". It is absolutely clear what the article is talking about, the misleading claims Andy made without providing any context. You are trying to defend Andy by stating that what he said wasn't false. It wasn't false, but it was utterly misleading and manipulative, which is what the article is clearly discussing. The article is not saying that he made a false statement, but a misleading one. "Inaccurate claims and provided limited context", this is what Andy "promoted", according to the article. I'm not sure how clearer this could be. BeŻet (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to defend Andy Ngo. I don't give a shit about Andy Ngo. I hadn't even heard his name until I saw something about this article on a noticeboard a month ago. I am trying to defend Wikipedia's policies, in this case WP:BLP. That article is not a source for the claim you are attributing to it because it doesn't support it. Do not read in between the lines of sources to come to your own conclusions. If the source does not explicitly say Ngo's claims were inaccurate or show that his claims were contradicted by reality, then we cannot say that. And so far I've only talked about verifiability. What about WP:DUE? Verifiability is a prerequisite for inclusion; it does not **guarantee** inclusion. Even if the source did support these claims, why should we include them? From what I can tell, Ngo tweets a lot. Online blogs and newspapers mention his tweets a lot. His entire careers seems to consist of tweeting things that newspapers and news channels will repeat, either to support or condemn. Why should these tweets in particular be in the article? This is supposed to be a biographical article about Ngo, not an exhaustive list of times he was mentioned in the news. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Once again, the article clearly presents a narrative by using a direct quote from Andy. How is this reading in between the lines? We should be taking all thtis at face value. BeŻet (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Possible source: https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2019/08/1-hammer-1-antifa-mob-chase-a-closer-look-at-portlands-viral-protest-moments.html  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's the source we've been discussing. They've apparently altered the language that was quoted above; now the relevant passage says Two flare-ups caught on video have become the latest flash points between ideological opponents, racking up millions of views online and spreading chaotic scenes riddled [previously: that were cast] with inaccurate claims and limited context. So now the piece says that the scenes were riddled with inaccurate claims. Not sure what that even means. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

My mistake... one more source that might be helpful here: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/us-far-right-group-vows-to-march-monthly-following-portland-rally-1.3990110 which states:  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This source excludes the seemingly important detail that the Antifa member threw the hammer at his opponent. Also, no mention of Ngo in this source (not in connection with the two events in question, I mean). Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Threw back, but yes. I was searching "Andy Ngo hammer" and this came up... but the mentions are separate. This might be something we need to wait on until RS pick it up more. It seems clear that Ngo's account(s) are contested.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think "throw back" is inaccurate, but let's let that go. I haven't yet heard an RS that questions Ngo's account (as opposed to elaborating on it). Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Re-adding the material
I see you've added the material in again. This time, you have two sources (the Daily Dot and Huffington Post) that do support the claim. I still don't think this material should be in the article for the other reason I mentioned: it doesn't satisfy WP:DUE. Ngo tweets dozens of times a day, and many of those tweets are later challenged as inaccurate. I do not see what makes this latest event worth inclusion. If we included every time some online news site said Andy Ngo tweeted something that distorts the truth, then this entire article would consist of single sentences saying, "on x day, Andy Ngo tweeted y and was accused by z of distorting the truth." This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not an exhaustive list of times Ngo was mentioned in the news.

WP:VERIFIABILITY is the minimum requirement for inclusion; it is not sufficient reason for inclusion. WP:NPOV is also a policy, and part of that reads: An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Ngo's habit of distorting the truth is probably significant enough for inclusion, but that does not mean that each individual time he tweets some claim that lacks context should be included in the article.

If you were able to find sources to support a general statement describing criticism Ngo has received for making inaccurate claims and distorting the truth, I would support including that. However, I do not believe we have sufficient perspective to include some minor controversy that happened three days ago. Maybe some day in the future, these stupid tweets will be seen as some kind of major aspect of Ngo's life and work, and will be worthy of inclusion. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is WP:NOTNEWS: most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. You added this material, it was reverted and challenged by two editors. Please remove it and do not add it again unless there is consensus for inclusion. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Red Rock Canyon, and I want to add that I don't think these additional pieces are RS for the statement that was added to the article. Neither of them uses the word 'inaccurate' or identifies what statement is supposed to be untrue. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur with Red Rock Canyon and Shinealittlelight and removed this content. It's obvious POV-pushing. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how this content is 'POV-pushing'. Care to explain, ? PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . You removed the content, claiming it was 'POV-pushing'. Please explain how it is. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

This is ridiculous on several levels. It is very due to report on Andy's repeated misinformation. It has been doing rounds all over the internet, and multiple media outlets have reported on it. Describing this as "exhaustive list of times Ngo was mentioned in the news" is extremely dishonest. There are THREE sources now talking about how much he distorted the truth (which also fits all of his previous "achievements" listed in the article). This is not a minor controversy – it's a series of misleading statements that have been picked up by the media. BeŻet (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I repeat: the articles do not use 'inaccurate', and they do not identify any false statements he made. Also, those who are reinstating the content are doing so against consensus, and are edit warring. Please remove until we have consensus. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually the term used is 'distortion of the truth' which is harsher, and they identify several misleading statements he made. Also I'd like to remind people that we should be reverting only when necessary, not when you disagree with something or you don't like something. I will reintroduce the change after 24 hours and I implore you to discuss why you feel this should be removed because there isn't any rule broken, just a non-objective opinion that somehow, despite three sources talking about it, it's not important. BeŻet (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Huff post says distortion, which is not the same as inaccurate, and is not very precise. What false statement did Ngo make? Also: I haven't reverted, I'm not participating in the edit war, and your reinstatement was an edit war against consensus. BRD please. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Since the edit was removed despite not breaking any rules, it's arguably a trigger-happy use of the revert functionality. Yes, distortion implies that Andy has purposefully manipulated his followers, while "inaccurate" is a more delicate way of describing it. I'm happy to use "distortion of truth" instead. If you read the articles, you will learn what misleading statements Andy has made: implying that antifascist activists attacked "a man" with a hammer (without clarifying that the man was a far-right thug who attacked first with said hammer), implying that antifascist activists have been attacking a "man" who is seen lying on the floor with his wife/spouse (without clarifying that said man was agitating and attacking antifascist activists with his taped up fists) etc. etc. You can read the articles if you want to learn more. BeŻet (talk) 11:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's an edit war. BRD is the process, and you reinstated without consensus. And right, Ngo said they attacked a man with a hammer, and that's what they did, so his statement was true. You can add more information, but that doesn't make him not a man, and it doesn't make it false that they threw a hammer at him. Similar remarks apply to the other statement. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not "reinstate without consensus", the previous argument presented was that the source wasn't clear about Andy making misleading statements, so I've added two more sources clearly stating that to resolve the issue. It has now been removed because a different excuse has been established, that for some reason this is not WP:DUE, which I think is not a valid reason for a revert, and the removal of the content should be first discussed before removing it. BeŻet (talk) 12:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The content was just reinstated again against consensus. I request that self revert and continue discussion here, and not add the content again unless consensus to do so is reached. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not how this works. You cannot remove portions of the article and then claim that there is no consensus, because you don't agree with it. I'd like to point you at BRD: Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen. There are FOUR sources talking about Ngo's manipulations, so stating that it is now WP:DUE is not objective by any means. Therefore it is quite dishonest to use that as an argument for reverting. BeŻet (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is how it works. Three editors have told you that they disagree with this material being added. We have given you reasons for our opposition. You must demonstrate consensus before making any change to the article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * But it's impossible to discuss this since hasn't explained why it's "obvious POV-pushing" and I've already addressed the other editor's comment regarding language. It is also unclear what are "sources to support a general statement describing criticism Ngo has received for making inaccurate claims and distorting the truth", if you don't treat the existing sources as such. Perhaps if you explained what you would find satisfactory this situation could be resolved. BeŻet (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you really want to add this material, then I suggest you open a (neutrally-worded) RFC on the question of whether this material should be included. Then that can be publicized with (neutrally-worded) notifications at relevant noticeboards, WP:NPOV, WP:AmPol, etc. That will bring in new editors to the discussion and we can have a formal determination of consensus. Personally, what I'm looking for in material added to this article is some indication that discussions of Andy Ngo years from now will include descriptions of it. We cannot see the future, obviously, but my view is that in 5 or 10 or 20 years, if anyone were to write a biography of Andy Ngo, they might mention that time he had milkshakes poured on him and was punched in the face. At the very least, that's what he's known for most right now, and it happened a couple months ago. They might describe a general tendency towards stretching the truth, or leaving out inconvenient facts. But those tweets you're trying to add to the article are going to be forgotten within weeks. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe it's fair to say Jweiss11 is challenging the additions as I've invited him to talk about any objections he has twice and he's declined to do so. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't get to decide whether another editor's concerns are valid. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 09:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes he does as if we want to work on Wikipedia in a fair and respectable way, editors should explain themselves and not just post baseless acusations. BeŻet (talk) 09:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Gentle reminder that Wikipedia is not decided by vote, and that consensus takes into account the strength of arguments. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * BeŻet and PeterTheFourth have asked me to explained why I thought BeŻet's edit, which I reverted here, was POV-pushing. The editorializing of "that he wasn't present at" strikes me as POV-pushing.  Journalists and opinion-writers report on events at which they aren't psychically present all time.  This is not remarkable.  It's only remarkable if you're on a mission to neg Ngo for anything and everything.  I also don't think it's fair and neutral to say that Ngo's reporting on the event was "inaccurate".  He may indeed have been selective in what he reported.  But this again makes him totally unremarkable as a journalist or opinion-writer.  The balancing of "neo-fascist groups and anti-fascists" also seems like a political hand-tipping.  A neutral, rationale presentation of confrontations like we've seen in Portland of late either wouldn't make that sort of qualitative judgement of a vast disparity between two opponent's relative authoritarianism, or it would present the conflict as one between two illiberal, politically extreme groups on opposite poles of the political spectrum. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to explain your revert. I've addressed the concerns about 'wasn't present at', as it doesn't seem particularly important (people often write about things they weren't present at, both untruthfully and truthfully.) If somebody disagrees, they're welcome to re-add that part. I've tried to lean closely to what reliable sources say - I'm aware that you have your own personal opinions about the events and the media's coverage of Ngo, but we must adhere to what the reliable sources say. We are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You may believe that you have addressed Jweiss11's concerns, but you haven't addressed mine. I still believe that this is a minor story that will completely disappear within weeks, if not days. Let's look at the sources: you've got three news articles all published within a 36 hour period, and a link to an advocacy group (also published within 24 hours of the others). To me, this does not demonstrate that this event carries the kind of lasting significance that justifies its inclusion. This is an encyclopedia, not a compendium of times people lied on Twitter. You still don't have a consensus for inclusion, please stop adding this material until you do. If you're so sure that this is necessary, then hold an RFC. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with Red Rock Canyon. Also, I don't see that anyone ever addressed the concern of Jweiss11 that it isn't fair and neutral to say that Ngo's reporting on the event was "inaccurate". That was also a concern of mine above, which was never addressed. "Inaccurate" is not the term used by any of these sources, and nobody has identified any statement from Ngo that was inaccurate. Finally: please stop edit warring. If you want to address our concerns, try proposing language and additional sources here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Daily Dot: A video has surfaced on Twitter that shows conservative journalist Andy Ngo laughing as members of the far-right group Patriot Prayer plan an attack on anti-fascist patrons at a Portland bar. The incident, which happened in May, is now at the center of a lawsuit. The antifa members were having a peaceful May Day celebration when Patriot Prayer members came to protest, according to the Portland Mercury. Several fights broke out, and now the bar is suing the Patriot Prayer members for allegedly causing the riot. Ngo covered the event on Twitter and blamed the brawl on antifa. ... 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. Since then, videos have emerged that discredit several of his tweets. Since the videos and his confrontations with antifa are what he's famous for, a WP:RS saying that he edits his videos misleadingly and has worked with a group intentionally planning violent confrontation, only to try and blame the people they attacked after the fact, certainly both seem worth mentioning. --Aquillion (talk) 04:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I believe this point is now moot as the coverage of his manipulations and ties to far-right groups is widely covered now in articles that appeared in the last couple days. BeŻet (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

This discussion looks like a solid non-consensus so I'm not sure why the material was added to a BLP. I have to say I think those rejecting the material are correct. See my comments in the RfC below. Springee (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The hammer attack
Would you care to show where in the sources that this claim is false is shown? I mean our article goes right on to describe the attack after calling the attack false, so it seems like we've got some cognitive dissonance going on. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean they're already in the article, so how about you, you know, read them. Simonm223 (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I did, which is why my comment when removing the content stated not in sources. And I will again be removing it per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE seeing as it is not in the sources, and you have provided nothing new.  --Kyohyi (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The daily dot source is very explicit about the falsehood. And there are several others supporting it. If you attempt to start an edit war here, well, you've been warned about the active arbitration remediation on this article. And I am pretty certain I'm not the only one who will oppose your edit. Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The daily dot doesn't say anything about it being false, they do promote the argument that where the hammer came from is important, but that doesn't have anything to do with how the hammer was used. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. Furthermore your invocation of BLP is incorrect and I strongly recommend that you promptly self-revert as you are in violation of arbitration remediations. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You're still not demonstrating what in the source supports the claim. If you think I am completely out of line the link is to WP:AE.  --Kyohyi (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The article demonstrates that the claim was false, as in, the narrative was false. Since the counter-protesters were attacked by the hammer, managed to grab it and throw it back at the bus, it is simply false to claim that the counter-protesters attacked the bus with a hammer. This is covered in the sources. BeŻet (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is Synthesis, present passages in the sources, not your own narrative. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, this is WP:BLUESKY. He made a claim. That claim was false. This is just reality. Simonm223 (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Essays don't override policy. Provide the passage from the source.  --Kyohyi (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm agree with Kyohyi. The source doesn't say the claim was false. Provide a quote if you disagree. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In stead of false, can we say that Ngo's statement was misleading? I don't think we should describe a response to an attack as an attack. If someone initiates an act of physical aggression against another, that's an attack, but a response is commonly called defence. Vexations (talk) 22:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see anywhere in sourcing that the people on the bus made the initial "act of physical aggression". Please provide a quote to that effect. Moreover, there is not a consensus that this whole story is due; it was edit warred in and should be removed until consensus is reached. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , "act of physical; agression" is my term, a definition of "attack". The source we're talking about, https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/antifa-portland-protests-disinformation-propaganda/ is titled Edited videos of Portland protests are telling half-truths and subtitled The magic of editing is helping people lie about who threw the first punch. The connection to Ngo is made in A clip of one masked counter-protester throwing a hammer through the open door of the bus was used by Ngo as proof of antifa terrorism. and its use in Fox&Friends described as The clip was further edited to show the conflict out of chronological order, clip out the right-wing violence, and highlight the hammer being thrown into the bus. A fair summary of that is "misleading half-truth". Vexations (talk) 00:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand that "act of physical aggression" was your language. I'm not asking for you to produce a quote with that exact phrase; I'm asking for you to point where any of these sources says that the people on the bus started the fight, or concede that at best we don't know who started it. Again, the story is undue, it was edit-warred into the article, and it should be removed until consensus is achieved. Needless to say, I regard sub-titles in opinion pieces on the "daily dot" as obviously non-RS. But even if you were going to take that sub-title seriously, the sub-title seems to be talking about the edited version of the video on Fox, not the version Ngo tweeted out. The most you can say about Ngo is that he didn't say that the hammer was grabbed from the people on the bus. That's pretty far short of lying or even misleading. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , As it turns out, the man Ngo identified as a victim brought the hammer into the conflict I think that establishes that American Guard initiated the attack. There is additiona evidence that they planned it here https://www.wweek.com/news/courts/2019/08/28/right-wing-brawlers-discussed-a-hammer-fight-while-being-filmed/  I agree that Ngo's reporting on this specific incident is not significant enough to warrant inclusionin an article about him. Something about Ngo's fact-checking (or lack thereof) and editing of videos to leave out right-wing violence is due however. He's not exactly fairly reporting on both sides, is he? Vexations (talk) 01:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope. The fact that the hammer started on the bus does not mean that they started the fight. Obviously. And the other source you've provided here (without quoting anything specifically) makes it sound as if the antifa people outside the bus were the first to attack when they "charged" and "surrounded" the bus. Also: would you agree that there is not currently a consensus to include this story? Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , Sigh. No it doesn't. It is possible that the American Guard was attacked first and they used a hammer (that just happened to be there) in self-defence. That hammer was then taken from them and used to assault them further. I don't believe that is what happened.
 * Neither Willamette Week nor The Daily dot supports that version of the events.
 * Due to the poor sourcing and the tenuous relation to the subject (Ngo) I think it is best to omit this event from the article.
 * An article about the American Guard is due, however. They originated as the Indiana chapter of the Soldiers of Odin. Their co-founder, Brien James, was a member of Vinlanders Social Club, whose members are responsible for nine murders. Vexations (talk) 11:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You and I are in agreement on this article, then. Good talk. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You and I are in agreement on this article, then. Good talk. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

That's a BLP violation toward the protestors. "Surrounding" a bus doesn't constitute a violent act and the source doesn't describe it as an "attack." On the other hand, the source's wording is clear that the hammer attack was initiated by the white supremacist gang member - he "brought the hammer into the conflict." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't a BLP vio. The article does make it sound as I said. In any case, Vexations claimed that the bus riders started the fight. We clearly don't know who started it for sure. Bringing the hammer into the situation, or even being the first to use it to attack someone, is not the same as starting the fight. Obviously. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , Vexations claimed that the bus riders started the fight. Not quite. I wrote that I thought that the fact that a member of American Guard brought the hammer with them establishes that American Guard initiated the attack. The attack I referred to is the hammer attack from the section heading. I don't claim to know who started the brawl. By initiating the attack I meant; first person to use the hammer to physically assault someone. Or as one of the American Guard said according to Willamette Week: "I smacked one of them with a hammer a couple of times".
 * What I find much more interesting than the hammer is this quote from the same source : "Andy Ngo was fucking told that if he wanted protection from the PBs, he went in with us and he went out with us". We need more and better sources to substantiate the claim that they have an agreement, but it seems that Ngo has received an offer for his protection by these groups without making mention of it in his reporting. Vexations (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of issues here, and I'm narrowly focused on the question whether the stuff currently in the article about the hammer attack should be in the article. I am of the opinion that it is undue, that there was never consensus that it was due, and that it should be removed, especially since it was only included in the article at all as a result of a fairly lengthy edit war. Apologies if I mischaracterized what you were saying before; I certainly understood you to have been suggesting that the bus riders started the fight, and I thought that you ended up changing your view of that. So sorry if I got that wrong. But, in any case, I'm not arguing for anything else but that the hammer attack should be removed because there was never a consensus that it was due, and it was only included as a result of an edit war. I am hoping that, the admin who was just looking at edit warring on this page, will weigh in on this, but I understand that people are busy. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , Since people have now been indicted for their involvement in the incident, and the relation to Ngo's reporting on it so tenuous, I think we should let it rest for now, let the court figure out who did what, and then perhaps, perhaps, if there really is a connection with Ngo, update the article with the facts once they're known. Vexations (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , Since people have now been indicted for their involvement in the incident, and the relation to Ngo's reporting on it so tenuous, I think we should let it rest for now, let the court figure out who did what, and then perhaps, perhaps, if there really is a connection with Ngo, update the article with the facts once they're known. Vexations (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

DS notice
As mentioned on AN3, per WP:ONUS, until the potentially BLP-violating addition can be seen to enjoy consensus for inclusion, participants here are prohibited from adding it to the article. Launching an RfC, where consensus were to be made especially clear via an uninvolved closure, would be the next logical step. El_C 02:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Ditto for the edit war over falsely, which also requires consensus for inclusion. Launching an RfC about that, too, is also recommended in the interest of clarity. El_C 03:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I object to your heavy-handed abuse of authority here, El_C. Stating, factually, that sources have said the claim is false or misleading is not the same as saying it in Wikivoice, and there have been no objections to such wording. There can be no non-vexatious BLP-based objection to simply stating what undisputed reliable sources say. It is clear there isn't consensus to say that in Wikivoice, but those are two different things. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What is the issue with getting consensus for your proposed changes? Edit warring back and fourth is unproductive, anyway. And you did use wikivoice. Please just go through the motions and get the consensus for the additions mentioned above. I really am not seeing why you so strenuously object to that. El_C 04:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The first edit used Wikivoice; I then read the talk page, noted the issue in question, and rephrased to avoid that objection. I have no problem discussing it on the talk page, but there is no valid, non-vexatious BLP objection to my edit which simply repeated what reliable sources have said. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I was edit conflicted, so I missed that. But if it was claimed to be misleading (or was deemed "false") by several sources, then wikivoice can be used to say that it is so. Get consensus for that, formally. Yes, it may take some time, but what is the rush? Also, all the boldface is a bit much. El_C 05:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Including the story about the hammer was objected to on numerous grounds on this page above. I and others repeatedly stated that it was undue. The sourcing is poor. And no, the sources do not say that his claim was false. These issues were not addressed, and the edit war went on until the material was included in the article. In fact, the story is still in the article against consensus. Above on this page, I,, , disputed the claim that this story is due at all. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Just above, also states that Due to the poor sourcing and the tenuous relation to the subject (Ngo) I think it is best to omit this event from the article. This has been a persistent opinion on this page among several editors since the material was first included, reverted, and then edit warred back in. The consensus for inclusion was never achieved. It should be removed. However, I will not remove it, as I don't want to participate in the ongoing edit war. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I was referring to the "hammer attack". I do think we should make mention of the fact that Ngo's reporting has been called misleading or even false. Vexations (talk) 11:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, I'm not commenting on any passage but the hammer passage. There's never been consensus to include that story, currently sourced to Daily Dot, Huff Post, and Oregonlive. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , For clarity, I don't think it is a BLP violation to mention that Ngo has been called a right-wing troll, provocateur and a huckster Vexations (talk) 11:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Consensus != Shinealittlelight agrees that it must be included; simply put it's not unanimity. Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I provided supporting RSes for the statement that Ngo's claim was false. Simonm223 (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And yet, still no RfC that would formalize consensus about this. El_C 12:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I only recently got power back after Hurricane Dorian - have only just started reading comments from over the weekend. Simonm223 (talk) 12:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That was a general comment, but welcome back. El_C 12:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I never said that consensus required unanimity. There were several editors who disagreed with inclusion, but despite this the content was edit warred into the article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I mentioned the refs I used at talk, and then inserted that statement with reliable sources. I don't recall personally reverting at all except for the single revert some days later when the content was removed. So claims of edit warring are falling pretty close to WP:NPA territory. Simonm223 (talk) 12:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing where it was said that you, yourself, edit warred — the comment speaks to several editors having edit warred. Anyway, if each editor among several reverts only once, an edit war may still take place. El_C 12:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've made my case; I will defer to El C's judgment. Just to be clear: in my opinion, there has been warring over both the inclusion of the hammer story at all (it is currently included), and there has also been edit warring over the word 'false' (or synonyms). El C, as I understand, has said that the latter war should stop until consensus is achieved. But so far El C has not addressed my claim that the hammer story itself (currently in the article) was edit warred into the content and should be removed. El C, if you say you disagree with me about this, I'll drop it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That hammer story does not lack for reliable sources. If you wish to see consensus about it formalized, also, I advise you to create another RfC about whether it, overall, merits inclusion into the article. El_C 12:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Or conversely, if it constitutes longstanding text, whether it merits removal from the article. El_C 12:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Effectively the situation is that several editors have independently introduced paragraphs on the topic, with my attempt being the most recent. Previous versions were removed by two editors on grounds that they believed that it violated WP:NPOV. The version I put up, which put particular care into neutral language, such as calling Ngo's incorrect statements "false" without positing a motive or even intention behind the falsehood, has not been fully removed at any point in time that I am aware of although removed the word "false" since they assert that returning the hammer to its rightful owner after it was removed from him in the course of his attack constitutes an "attack" and thus vindicates Ngo's claim that antifascists attacked the far-right protesters with the hammer. Simonm223 (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The way the material is currently presented in the article is problematic. It's possible Ngo was mistaken. However, it seems the presentation in the article is meant to imply, without actually stating, that this was a deliberate, dishonest claim made by Ngo. The single source suggesting that Ngo was coordinating with others is UNDUE and a BLP problem since it suggests criminal conspiracy with very limited evidence. This seems more like an attempt by some editors to include discrediting material as if Wikipedia's purpose is to tear down people we don't like vs creating neutral articles about subjects. Springee (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's what the RfC below aims to resolve. But if its scope is too narrow, you are welcome to launch a broader RfC that encompasses other points under contention. El_C 13:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * It would seem that certain editors mistake WP:IDONTLIKEIT for WP:NPOV. Considering Ngo's recent firing for explicitly coordinating with far-right figures, this example where far-right coordination has been implied with WP:RS is quite explicitly due inclusion. Frankly the language I used was toning down the accusations in the Oregonian which uses the word "lying" in the article lede while I made sure not to ascribe a motive to his false statement. Simonm223 (talk) 13:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is the paragraph leaves too much to the imagination. Since, as written it can easily imply dishonest intent we need to make that clear via RSs or be honest and say this isn't big picture DUE.  Springee (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you believe that statement, as written, implies dishonesty, rather than (for instance) gross incompetence, perhaps the truth is that you believe him to be dishonest and are projecting that belief onto that statement of fact (that he made a false statement). Simonm223 (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * To assume gross incompetence you would have to show that the facts needed to conclude that his reporting was wrong were readily available to him and he just didn't look. Also, so far it appears he was correct about the hammer attack.  I don't think any sources claim that was wrong.  The disagreement seems to be if this should be looked at who used violence/weapons first and were they used defensively or offensively.  Given what has been presented here I don't think a clear case has been made.  So lets take for granted that the hammer started on the bus.  Was it first used to defend people on the bus from an attack or used by people on the bus to attack.  I don't see that any source makes that clear.  If the initial use was defensive then I'm not sure Ngo's reporting could be seen as inconsistent with events.  If the first use was offensive then it may be.  Even there we have to assume Ngo had all the facts at hand.  Look at the Sandman protest where so many people got the facts wrong because the videos that showed the larger picture didn't come out until after the reporting started.  There simply isn't a clear narrative here.  Springee (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know what to say to somebody who can look at the evidence presented and at Ngo's tweets and conclude that it appears he was correct about the hammer attack beyond perhaps Conservapedia would be a better fit for your editing preferences. Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's simple, did the people outside of the bus attack those inside the bus with a hammer? Correct me if I'm wrong but all sources say yes.  Ngo's tweet said people on the bus were attacked by people outside the bus with a hammer, correct?  If both of those statements are correct then Ngo's claims were factually correct (at least those I've seen, I will admit this isn't something I've researched personally).  No where did I just say those outside the bus were or were not justified or acting in offense or defense.  No where did I say those on the bus weren't the source of the hammer, were or were not attacked first, were or were not acting first in self defense.  I think your view, which I'm not claiming is wrong, is that those on the bus brought the hammer, attacked those outside the but.  The hammer was taken and then used against those on the bus.  If that version is true I agree that, even if "people outside the bus attack people on bus with hammer" is factually correct, it is misleading since such a statement suggests people on the bus were victims rather than instigators.  But, what I did was say we don't have enough evidence to say with certainty what happened and thus we shouldn't write the article in a way that suggests certainty or conclusions without proper RSs.  Springee (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * But note that RS do say that the people outside the bus "charged" and "surrounded" the bus. So the people on the bus did not initiate the confrontation, and we don't know who committed the initial act of violence. For all we know, the people outside the bus initiated both the confronation and the violence. In that case, nothing Ngo said is even misleading. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the far-right protesters on the bus attacked the antifascist counter-protesters with a hammer because having their escape route from Portland blocked made them afraid. The hammer was taken from them to end the attack and then their property was returned with all due alacrity. That is not an attack. Simonm223 (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I repeat, we do not know who initiated the violence. I don't know what RS you're depending on to explain to you what the bus riders state of mind and motive was. Please provide it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * You are mincing words here. Once the hammer was out of the bus it could have stayed out. Once it was turned and used on the bus and its occupants it was attacking the bus. The that may have been in self defense (I can "attack" someone in my home in self defense) but not linguistically incorrect to call it an attack. From the evidence presented in the 4 RfC sources, Ngo's quoted tweet seems factually correct. The question is if it was misleading via what it didn't state. Springee (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I would suggest, if you want to know who owned the hammer first, you should read the Daily Dot article which very clearly states it was the nazi. Simonm223 (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Read carefully now: I know that the bus riders had the hammer first. That does not settle who started the violence. We don't know who started the violence. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We are not talking about who started the "violence", but who attacked whom with the hammer. We have video evidence that clearly explains what happens, who initiated lethal force first etc.. BeŻet (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Come back in a year and rewrite
The problem with the above discussion (and with the RFC below) is WP:RECENTISM. Because these events happened recently, we can not (yet) put them into a proper perspective. Do these events stand out as important turning points in the subject’s life (thus requiring detailed explanation), or are they part of a pattern of events that can be summarized? It is too soon to say. So... my advice... come back in a year and completely re-write this section of the article... by that time we will have a better grasp on whether these events should be discussed in detail or summarized. Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder
This is a reminder to the participants in the discussions on this talk page that our civility policy is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of its five pillars. Some of you have come either very close to crossing the line to incivility or have actually crossed it. This behaviour needs to stop now. You already know what is expected of you. Stop discussing each other and work collaboratively and constructively towards improving the content of the encyclopedia. Thanks for listening. Vexations (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Concur. I know I can sometimes be sharp, or even borderline pointed when I get frustrated enough, but the level of toxicity above is getting absolutely ridiculous. I'd strongly suggest that everybody step back and give serious consideration to whether this dispute is in any way productive. Simonm223 (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

New article from 9/15/2019
As previously established in discussions here, Jacobin (magazine) is a WP:RS. They published an article Sunday, 9/15/2019 with a section specifically on Ngo. Since I can predict this will be "controversial" and we'll get someone screaming that it shouldn't be included because they don't like it, I'm starting the discussion here first rather than even attempt to add the content into the article without a discussion.

Quotes that may be worthwhile for this article, in sequence:
 * In a battlefield that is as much virtual as it is physical, Ngo uses selective editing and inflammatory language to claim Antifa is attacking innocents. It’s real-time disinformation, as deceptive video clips are uploaded rapidly to social media, where right-wing firebrands like Michelle Malkin and Jack Posobiec amplify them, enabling them to proliferate in the dense ecosystem of right-wing media, and then ooze up to Fox News.
 * His shtick is that it’s the Left that’s intolerant and violent: Black Lives Matter attacks elderly whites, he claims, anti-ICE protesters lay “siege” to an ICE facility, Antifa wants to kill border police, Muslim students talk of killing nonbelievers, the campus thought police are silencing the Right, and hate crimes are hoaxes.
 * This is the strategy Ngo and other right-wing opportunists pursued during August 17, portraying numerous fights as the work of sinister Antifa elements against defenseless innocents. In the past Ngo’s fabrications have played a role in stoking violence, such as portraying a motorist who struck a protester as the victim of Black Lives Matter mobs.
 * This time was different, however, as journalists and independent researchers who’ve been tracking Ngo and other provocateurs countered the disinformation quickly. Unpacking a few incidents shows how actors like Ngo exploit social media and rely on the right-wing echo chamber to create such a din of disinformation that their propaganda can leak into the mainstream news.
 * In all three instances, then, the individuals portrayed as victims of Antifa were right-wing extremists instigating violence, which indicates who these events really attract.

My suggested wording below. The final bullet point might also be better to have the existing paragraph on the hammer incident integrated into it. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Instances of selective editing and misrepresentation
On multiple occasions, Ngo has used "selective editing and inflammatory language to claim Antifa is attacking innocents." Arun Gupta of Jacobin (magazine) examined Ngo's body of work and determined that:

"His shtick is that it’s the Left that’s intolerant and violent: Black Lives Matter attacks elderly whites, he claims, anti-ICE protesters lay “siege” to an ICE facility, Antifa wants to kill border police, Muslim students talk of killing nonbelievers, the campus thought police are silencing the Right, and hate crimes are hoaxes.

''That much of Ngo’s work appeals to racists, such as a “massively Islamophobic” travelogue to England, is well-suited for Fox News. Ngo is a regular guest on Tucker Carlson, who promotes “white genocide,” the white nationalist conspiracy that dark forces are plotting to exterminate whites. Ngo’s lurid claims that Portland is policed by a “leftist mob” are meant to buttress the idea that white America is under siege, and tend to whip the far right into a murderous rage.''

''This is the strategy Ngo and other right-wing opportunists pursued during August 17, portraying numerous fights as the work of sinister Antifa elements against defenseless innocents. In the past Ngo’s fabrications have played a role in stoking violence, such as portraying a motorist who struck a protester as the victim of Black Lives Matter mobs.''"

Gupta reviewed four instances where Ngo either directly misrepresented events with selective editing, or "posted bits of video from other opportunists without context and with misleading wording." These included:
 * An instance in which Ngo attempted to portray a motorist who struck a protester as "the victim of Black Lives Matter mobs."
 * An instance in which Ngo attempted to portray notorious right-wing combatant John Turano and his daughter, 24-year-old Bianca, both known for picking fights, as "A large antifa mob chase & attack a man & a young girl who got separated from the others."
 * A member of white supremacist group Patriot Prayer, who along with two associates was engaged in assault and attempting to provoke a larger fight, as "The antifa mob finds and chases down a man (in the blue hat)".
 * An incident covered by multiple media in which Ngo initially claimed "Antifa attacks people on a bus. They try to pull them out and hit them with a hammer"; subsequent reporting and videos from other sources showed that the bus was full of members of the white nationalist group American Guard, listed by the Anti-Defamation League as "hardcore white supremacists" ; a person on the bus had used the hammer to attack first, and that protesters had disarmed him and thrown the hammer back into the bus.


 * I was going to go ahead and move the comments back but instead since I've been WP:BOLD already I'm just going to remove this proposed wording. What I have added integrates the previous sourcing as well, anyways. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * If people find the Jacobin content as WP:due it can be included. However considering it's an openly biased source, it's content should be attributed per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.  --Kyohyi (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The Jacobin article was given undue-weight for a BLP. Besides, we shouldn't summarize every paragraph from an article written in a strongly biased source, by some anonymous blogger, for a BLP.Mcrt007 (talk) 22:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The author of the article in question, a graduate of The French Culinary Institute, has published all of three articles at The Jacobian. Two are anti Ngo screeds []. The third was from a year back, an obituary for celebrity chef Anthony Bourdain. This writer is the author of all the Jacobian references in this article. Is there any reason to believe that this writer is consistently reliable for what amount to damning accusations in a BLP? Springee (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Springee, with all due respect, we fisk sources, not writers. That's why we stress strong editorial oversight and a reputation for accuracy.  Those are our stand-ins for personal investigation of authors (which most of us are pretty poorly equipped to do and to interpret).  That being said, Jacobin is a magazine with a strong and, I would say, outside the mainstream viewpoint.  While I think it can be used, I would say attribution is a good idea (as suggested), and I would prefer it to be used where it can be backed up by other reliable sources.  Just my take.  Cheers all. Dumuzid (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I took that on when I wrote, making sure to attribute thoroughly. It's interesting that Springee and now "Mcrt007" ignore that part and have gone on to ad-hominem and just downright strange attacks on the author. The WP:IDONTLIKEIT is beyond obvious at this point. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

"As previously established in discussions here, Jacobin (magazine) is a WP:RS."
 * Really? Because it is not listed as a reliable source under Wikipedia's RS list and I can't find any recent noticeboard supporting your claim either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcrt007 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "This is a list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed." – it's literally in the first sentence. Do you honestly think we have a list of all reliable sources? BeŻet (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well the appearance of "Mcrt007" is interesting. Both in timing of appearance and in copying the "attack the source/writer" conduct of other editors. Calling the author an "anonymous blogger" when the article is bylined is just downright nonfactual. And Jacobin is discussed above at length, it's a WP:RS. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, vastly misrepresented the list they linked, which states "If a source is not on the list, this may suggest that the source is less popular, less controversial, or more specialized than the sources on the list. The source's absence does not imply that it is more or less reliable than the sources that are present." So, first lying about the source claiming that the author is an "anonymous blogger" when the article is bylined, and then trying to claim it's not reliable because it's not on a list where "absence does not imply that it is more or less reliable than the sources that are present"... 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm curious: would those of you who think Jacobin is RS be able to identify a similar source on the right that is RS? Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What the heck, I'll humor you. For factual coverage, Reason (magazine), though not its various blogs and opinion columns per WP:RS, would be similar. It has similar circulation and actually a longer print history. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Reason has been in publication for 51 years. The Jacobin for 8.  But we can also look at the details of the article in question and find facts that are questionable.  For example it claims Ngo says hate crimes are hoaxes.  But that isn't what he said.  He said that a particular hate crime was a hoax and provided evidence.  It mentions the hammer attack.  Well we have that discussion above.  Again, not a clear cut case as Gupta would claim.  Lot's of strong words and innuendos but very limited hard facts.  Then again, look at the bias of The Jacobin and it isn't surprising they would have a strong editorial bias that clearly comes out in the sloppy, and when it comes down to it, misleading way Gupta presents facts.  The irony is he is guilty of doing the same things he accuses Ngo of doing.  Beyond that, as was mentioned above, the hammer story currently doesn't have consensus for inclusion in the article.  Extending it based on a poor quality source isn't the best action here.  Springee (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Where to begin on such a roundly dishonest misrepresentation of the article.
 * 1 - "For example it claims Ngo says hate crimes are hoaxes. But that isn't what he said.  He said that a particular hate crime was a hoax and provided evidence." It describes a pattern of rhetoric by Ngo, to wit, "His shtick is that it’s the Left that’s intolerant and violent: Black Lives Matter attacks elderly whites, he claims, anti-ICE protesters lay “siege” to an ICE facility, Antifa wants to kill border police, Muslim students talk of killing nonbelievers, the campus thought police are silencing the Right, and hate crimes are hoaxes." So, on this point Springee misrepresents.
 * 2 - More ad hominem attacks on the author. Unsurprising, since you Springee simply doesn't like it.
 * 3 - "The irony is he is guilty of doing the same things he accuses Ngo of doing." I believe the term for a phrase like this is DARVO.
 * 4 - "Beyond that, as was mentioned above, the hammer story currently doesn't have consensus for inclusion in the article"; mostly what I see above is filibustering from two editors, Springee and Shinealittlelight, whose language indicates they are more interested in a POV and WP:CENSORing than in factual coverage. In fact, every time there's something that reflects poorly on Ngo, it seems he has one or two defenders pop up to start filibustering, to judge by the pattern from Red Rock Canyon above when Ngo doxxed innocent people. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 6Years, per WP:REDACT, you don't remove text from talk pages after others have replied to it. That is a Wikipedia guideline.  Your "dishonest" comment directed at me is not assuming good faith.  Your constant claims of "IDONTIKEIT" are counter productive and fail to even understand what IDONTLIKEIT refers to.  I see no reason to try to discuss this further.  Springee (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You have no valid arguments - you throw around ad hominem at sources and attempt to goad people, because you are more interested in WP:CENSORing for your own POV. That's just a conduct observation of how you act. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And just to be perfectly clear, the conduct that tells me you simply don't like certain coverage because you're more interested in censoring what doesn't fit your POV:
 * 1 - When you deploy a misogynist trope by referring to a female writer's work as "fluff crap".
 * 2 - When you attempt to attack the same female writer with "why would we think the DD reporter is accurate for the analysis they put together?"
 * 3 - When you dishonestly try to claim that accurate, well sourced coverage is "posting a manifesto"
 * 4 - When you refer to WP:Reliable Sources as 'the muckrakers"
 * 5 - When you label your preferred sources as "the most reliable" without justification
 * 6 - When you are inconsistent with your ratings based on what you like and don't like in their coverage, for example when you denigrate HuffPo in one post to claim it shouldn't be used, and later claim it's better than The Oregonian when you want to put down The Oregonian instead.
 * 7 - When you come back round and refer to WP:Reliable Sources such as Vice or The Daily Beast, because you don't like the specifics of their coverage of Ngo, as "tabloids"
 * That's the conduct I'm seeing here. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:FOC Springee (talk) 02:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * were you "focusing on content" when you deployed a misogynist attack against a female journalist? I'll just have a hearty belly laugh at your troll tactics. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 6YearsTillRetirement you make some interesting claims here as well. Yet, on Vice, the WS:Reliable Sources page states the following: "There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice magazine or Vice Media websites, including Motherboard and Vice News. It is generally regarded as more reliable for arts and entertainment than for politics." On the Daily Beast, the same Wikipedia page states "Past discussions regarding The Daily Beast are lacking in depth. Multiple users have expressed the opinion that it is generally reliable, citing a history of editorial oversight and the leadership of those such as Tina Brown. However, it was also described as "largely an opinion piece aggregator", for which special care must be taken for use in supporting controversial statements of fact related to living persons." Stop trying to push a POV at any cost and try instead to represent information more accurately! Mcrt007 (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * 6YearsTillRetirement first, stop misrepresenting in bad faith what other people have said. Here's my statement again "[Jacobin] is not listed as a reliable source under Wikipedia's RS list and I can't find any recent noticeboard supporting your claim either." Obviously, the perennial RS list does not include everything, that's why I also mentioned not finding it on the Reliable sources/Noticeboards either (the noticeboard and its hundreds of archives allows you to search for much more than what is listed on the perennial list). You implied Jacobin was a RS, yet you offered no proof in support of your claim. Second, Arun Gupta is a trained cook and a blogger and his only contributions to Jacobin (as Springee has pointed out) are 2 smear articles targeting Ngo and an article on another cook. On his Jacobin profile he also mentions he has written some book on food. How do these justify the lengthy piece you added to the Ngo article based on claims in Gupta's article especially since the accusations are not (yet?) backed by other RS? Mcrt007 (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Since you apparently aren't able to look up a journalist... . Your POV problem is showing when you use terms like "smear articles" because you don't like it. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 6YearsTillRetirement Gupta's personal page (blog) is probably more reliable in presenting his work than your aggregator which has too many false positives and inflates the number of articles attributed to Gupta, in RS, by orders of magnitude because it can't differentiate between different individuals having the same (Arun Gupta) name. Here are some examples of articles wrongly attributed to him in the list you link to: in the NYT, Chemical Science, inc42, etc. He only seems to have one article in the Washington Post and that one is on food. Gupta does seem to have lots of articles in Counter-Punch which seems to be a rather questionable source (with a history of smear and disinformation), Telesur, described by wikipedia as "Telesur was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the TV channel is a Bolivarian propaganda outlet. Many editors state that Telesur publishes false information. As a state-owned media network in a country with low press freedom, Telesur may be a primary source for the viewpoint of the Venezuelan government, although due weight should be considered...etc.", etc. Stop trying to be so misleading! Mcrt007 (talk) 04:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem to like ad hominem attacks. Perhaps you use terms like "smear articles" and attack the author because you can't actually argue the content, which was long and detailed coverage of the multiple incidents involved. Again, this demonstrates that the objections of those trying to WP:CENSOR are not based in policy but in them not liking it. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The background of the author or the publications he often writes for might say a few things about his reliability as a source. The smear and disinformation history of CounterPunch, for which he has contributed 25 articles, are well detailed in the site's Wikipedia page. Similar for Telesur, which has been discussed at length on Wikipedia and is considered a propaganda machine. These are the facts and it does not matter how many identities you use to repeat the same accusations that others reject your claims because they simply "don't like them" Mcrt007 (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * PS: here are also the definition for "anonymous" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. They include the following definitions: "lacking individuality, distinction, or recognizability". Mcrt007 (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Such amazing casual bigotry to insist that someone of indian descent should be smeared as "anonymous" for "lacking individuality, distinction, or recognizability". I'm disgusted. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 03:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Why should we care who the author is? It is Jacobin's bona fides (or lack thereof) that matter here.  The source is not self-published.  To the extent that fact-checking and/or a reputation for accuracy exist, they exist for Jacobin, not this author in particular.  I know people like to personalize everything, but I don't think it's helpful here, either practically or in terms of Wikipedia policy.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 6YearsTillRetirement -- while I agree we're sort of sliding towards smears of the author here (and unnecessarily so), I am not sure I see the same racial overtones you do. Honestly, I think everyone needs to tone this down a notch.  For me Jacobin (which I actually personally like and value) is sort of in the "not not reliable" category.  This is mainly because it is just fairly recent, and I am not sure it has the sort of reputation for factual accuracy that our A+ sources have.  That being said, my opinion is just one of many (and usually not worth much!).  Why doesn't someone take this to WP:RSN and ask about the reliability there?  I think getting some uninvolved thoughts would be beneficial for everyone.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A sensible suggestion. Thanks Dumuzid! WP:RSN is where typical discussions on source reliability belong. Mcrt007 (talk) 04:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No one insisted that someone of indian descent should be smeared as you insinuate, in bad faith! Furthermore, I have shown you above that the list of credentials you provide for him is bogus and most of his political articles are in questionable sources and those which are not, are usually about food (a non-related topic, that is irrelevant to establishing his reliability as a source of political articles). Mcrt007 (talk) 04:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia, where racists can smear someone based on their country of origin and culturally common name and then lie about it. It's unsurprising that a set of white supremacist apologists are desperately trying to whitewash Ngo's article, they organize on Reddit and 8chan to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.105.123 (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh look: an IP who started editing Wikipedia recently, just like 6YearsTillRetirement, who is active on the same pages, and who just happens to insult those who 6YearsTillRetirement insults (in similar language) and who repeats the same "shouldn't be included because you don't like it" slogan. Stop with this masquerade and disruptive behavior!Mcrt007 (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Concur with digging into a specific author is irrelevant. Jacobin is a WP:RS with well documented editorial controls. As such, if you want to bring up whether Jacobin is a reliable source, well WP:RS/N is that way. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, there is absolutely no doubt that currently Jacobin is a WP:RS. BeŻet (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Where is that evidence of strong editorial control? Is that editorial control sufficient in a case like this given the strong, and stated bias/POV of the source? This on top of the evidence that Gupta's claims against Ngo are either exaggerated or present only a single, very biased POV. Springee (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence that Jacobin, a respected politics magazine with a decade of history, has ever had issues with editorial control? And I don't mean "you don't agree with their POV" do you have any evidence of wrongdoing? Because you also called Vice a tabloid without proof. And Huffington Post. So I'd suggest maybe you should step back from trying to censor sources that say unkind things about Portland's least favourite troll this particular writer. Simonm223 (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Per Jacobin_(magazine) it has less than a decade of history. Springee (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Eight years - close enough. Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So that's ~24 issues total? The source pride's itself on it's extreme left POV.  The claims and evidence presented Gupta are poor yet the rhetoric is very strong.  That's tabloid.  The sources has shown no signs of editorial quality control and the article has questionable interpretation of facts and possible factual errors.  Why should we give so much weight to the most extreme sources?  This is a BLP article. Springee (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Jacobin claims to be social democratic in perspective. If you believe that to be an extreme-left position you need to adjust your Overton Window. Because it's really very moderate compared to the actual Extreme Left which is far more... activist... than reformists are comfortable with. Simonm223 (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * [][][]. And the article was written by a food critic.  Springee (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if the article was written by a chimpanzee randomly striking keys. The publisher is the key for an RS determination.  Yes, I will say this every time. Dumuzid (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, WP: RS disagrees with your interpretation. Who the writer is also helps determine if a source is reliable.  You can see our entry of Der Spiegel on WP: RSP as an example.  --Kyohyi (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Certainly fabrication is a special sort of case. That hasn't been brought up here, nor do I think it's in play.  Can you point me to the section of WP:RS you have in mind? Dumuzid (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC) ETA: I think I see what you mean.  Fine.  I'm out!  Good luck to all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd like you to explain what you "see", because in this case the journalist Mr. Gupta has no history of fabrication. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly, Kyohyi! In addition: the WP:RS page says clearly that Context Matters and also that "news reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact". From its description: "Jacobin is a democratic socialist quarterly magazine based in New York offering American leftist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture". Jacobin is not a news organization, but an opinion-shop and, at the end of the day, this long discussion lacks one major thing: a real proof that Jacobin is a RS.Mcrt007 (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Mediabiasfactcheck is some guys blog. Allsides says left, not extreme left. (I am not familiar with them beyond this link so I can't speak to how accurate they might be with their assessments.) And Benjaminstudebaker.com is some guy's blog again. These are entirely irrelevant to your claim that Jacobin is extreme left. A RS is allowed to have a POV. Simonm223 (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Try this Columbia Journalism Review article. It says that Jacobin has an eye toward attracting the readers on the left edge of liberalism, and it quotes an author who writes there as saying that Jacobin created an audience for radical socialist politics among a younger generation. Finally, it quotes the editor as saying Having Sanders openly defend socialism, and contest the New Democrat record before a national audience, is a baby step in the right direction ... When he fails, there’s every reason to believe that radical voices can take his place. So yeah, they promote radical leftism by their own account. That isn't an insult, it's just a fact by their own telling. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And how is this relevant? BeŻet (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * They're trying to claim it's proof that Jacobin is an extremist outlet. But they're cherrypicking quotes out of context since it clearly says Jacobin intended to plant a flag for a certain kind of democratic-socialist politics and nobody is disputing they're reformists - the most moderate and centrist of all socialist political philosophies. Simonm223 (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Another fun quote from the same article Lately even Francis Fukuyama, the political theorist best known for predicting the permanent triumph of market capitalism thirty years ago, has decided that socialism “ought to come back.” Oh what terrifying extremists these people are who are being compared to this guy. Simonm223 (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * But what seems indisputable is that “socialist” has been sapped, at least among Democrats, of its derisive force. thanks for this source Shinealittlelight; it's kind of making my case for me. Simonm223 (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't say extremist. I said, repeating their own editor and CJR, that they are radical left. And the fact that they are radical left is relevant to assessing their work for our purposes in many ways: due weight, neutrality, attribution, etc. Their work should be treated as a source with a radical political agenda, because that's what it has. Which is not to say it can't be used, of course, but makes it not a very good source for factual information in a BLP about one of their political opponents. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Your definition of "radical" is based on assuming that socialism is intrinsically a radical political ideology. I am disputing that. Socialism encompases a broad swath of the political compass from the left edge of the center left outward and from certain branches of collectivist an-coms all the way to Stalinists. (And if you want to see a heated political fight you should see how the an-coms and the tankies can get at it.) There are definitely extreme positions within Socialism. (Third Worldism comes to mind as an example.) But it's a big tent. And you aren't seeming to grasp the nuances of that. Simonm223 (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously I didn't define 'radical'; rather, I quoted to you from CJR. Your disagreement with the CJR piece has nothing to do with me. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you cherry-picked a quote from the CJR article and stripped it from context. The thesis of the article is that Jacobin has been instrumental in bringing socialist discourse into the US political mainstream - so I'd suggest you need to work on your reading comprehension if you believe it was calling them radical in any real sense. Simonm223 (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I just agree with CJR and the Jacobin contributors they quote that Jacobin has an eye toward attracting the readers on the left edge of liberalism, and they created an audience for radical socialist politics among a younger generation. That's all. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Shinealittlelight is engaged in some amazingly dishonest misrepresentation here. The first quote that they sentence-chopped is in regard to the author of the piece, not the magazine as a whole. The second is an opinion quote from Doug Henwood, not in CJR's voice and should not be treated as such. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Please strike your personal attack. I clearly said who the quotes were from and provided a link so you could look for yourself. As I said, they were quotes from CJR and the Jacobin contributors they quote, and earlier I clearly indicate which quotes came from which sources. So there was no misrepresentation here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You're cherry picking, how about you own up to getting caught with your hand in that cookie jar and move on? Simonm223 (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Saying an editor made a mistake in interpreting the facts is fine. Saying they are deliberately lying or suggesting dishonest motive is a failure to assume good faith and a problem. Springee (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the case of problem behavior has been well documented both above and in other venues. Simonm223 is correct, the cherry picking and dishonest context-stripping cannot be seen as anything but deliberate. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to review WP:AGF. Springee (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think so. Your style of behavior is interesting, as seen above; you engaged in breaches of good faith and some pretty ugly ones at that above and when it was listed out you tried to deflect screaming "focus on content" when you haven't done so. There's a difference between assuming good faith at the beginning of an interaction, which I did until you repeatedly demonstrated why the assumption was wrong, and willingly being gaslighted by someone who refuses to act in good faith while endlessly demanding that others assume it. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 6YearsTillRetirement it's interesting how you accuse others of all things while acting in bad faith, smearing and insulting others (calling them racists, white supremacists, etc) while assuming multiple identities (6YearsTillRetirement, 129.7.105.123) and later creating an account (CoogLyfe) to vandalize this page. All while trying to push and give undue weight to a POV in a Jacobin article. Mcrt007 (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Now THAT is a focused non-terminal repeating phantasm, or a Class 5 Full Roaming Vapor personal attack. "A real nasty one, too". 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I see you've also have stalked me to a Rfc, on a topic/page you've had no previous interaction with. You've been making edits on the Ngo talk page at "14:43, 18 September 2019‎", "14:44, 18 September 2019‎" and at "15:08, 18 September 2019‎" on the other page. Doubtful you even had enough time to read the materials being discussed there or much of the discussion. Also that Rfc is more than 1 month old and not exactly at the top of any page currently hosting Rfc lists. Why are you acting like this? Mcrt007 (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't "stalk" you anywhere, I was looking at the topic of campus sexual assault hoping to find articles that my niece should read as she looks at colleges to apply to. I was hoping that something newer or up to date of this might be on the page or in the discussion.
 * But I'm reasonably sure that you followed me to Harry Anslinger previously since you went after an edit of mine from nine days ago. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Your own timeline contradicts your claims. Between "00:41, 18 September 2019" and "14:44, 18 September 2019" you've made 9 consecutive edits to the Ngo talk page (while touching no other page). Even in the day before, you seemed heavily focused on this page. After "14:44, 18 September 2019", in a 20 minute window, you go to a page you had no previous involvement with and jump on an Rfc discussing studies and meta-studies you have not read and you have not had enough time to read in those 20 minutes. Sorry, but the data contradicts your excuses, it's much more likely you simply chose to engage in disruptive behavior after arguments on this talk page (especially given your past aggressive and bullying behavior). Mcrt007 (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry to hear that you're a slow reader. Some of us aren't. And I was already looking at the subject before I reached the Wikipedia page. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Jacobin, like Reason, primarily publishes opinion pieces which are rarely acceptable as reliable sources per WP:NEWSORG. TFD (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's incorrect, WP:NEWSORG advises caution when using opinion pieces and to use WP:INTEXT. BeŻet (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

See also link to Rose City Antifa
Why is this editor allowed to push right wing propaganda on this page? There should be no link to antifa as it's irrelevant and the politics section is completely false and misleading. Either get rid of it or let the truth be on it. This guy shouldn't be allowed to edit antyhing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealthballer (talk • contribs) 14:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC) WHy link to a random antifa group with no apparent link, and particularly one with a clearly biased wiki page? WHy, on a section postulating on his political beliefs can't it be pointed out he's a crypto fascist and an exposed propagandist? Both of those things are well sourced and factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealthballer (talk • contribs) 14:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's clear that you needed to get that out of your system, but this isn't the place for general gripes. Perhaps familiarize yourself with how Wikipedia works before publishing your feelings on talk pages. UmbraImpossible (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The link has been there for some time - But it does seem to create an association that is not necessarily supported by sources in this article. WP:BLPSEEALSO indicates that See Also links 'should not be used to imply any contentious labeling, association, or claim regarding a living person'. Williamallison (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Attacking Hend Amry a "minor detail"
I would like to kindly remind you that BRD is not an excuse for reverting. Treating an attack on a famous social media personality as "undue" and a "minor detail" is very subjective, and does not justify a revert. I'd appreciate if you discussed any objections on the talk page first rather than reverting something according to your own subjective view, especially when something does not break any rules whatsoever. BeŻet (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please AGF. Your edit added a trivial detail from the past.  It's undue in an article filled with minor, UNDUE statements.  Even in the single article to which you sourced that fact, it's given only minor prominence, especially since the same source says Ngo apologized for the statements. Springee (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Don't link to WP:AGF. This is just your personal, subjective opinion, so it doesn't warrant a revert. BeŻet (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't there reverse true? This is just your subjective opinion that the content is due.  It doesn't warrant inclusion. Springee (talk) 11:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly, it is my opinion, just like it is your opinion, and you can't justify a revert with just your opinion. BeŻet (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)