Talk:Andy Ngo/Archive 8

RFC: "journalist"
Should the lead section refer to this person as a "journalist"? --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Survey "journalist"

 * Incomplete RfC Please revise the RfC to include all of your recent changes, including the addition of "provocateur" to the lead. The New York Times describes the subject as a conservative journalist, so please also articulate in your RfC why this is a question worthy of debate. I don't understand why it's now appropriate to second-guess the most reliable sources available in favor of second-tier ones. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see why their recent changes should be in the RfC statement or why we should not have an RfC based upon one source. You can make these arguments in a discussion section or a !vote without claiming a malformed RfC. O3000 (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The RfC opener just made a highly controversial change to the article, adding "provocateur" to the lead, yet this RfC only addresses what is basically a settled matter. And it's actually not one, but two sources we have, the NYT and WaPo, that call the subject a journalist. And we don't go by how many sources say something, we go by how much WP:WEIGHT those sources deserve. The NYT and WaPo deserve more weight than BuzzFeed, to state the obvious. So this RfC is attempting to crack open largely a settled matter, yet glosses over more controversial changes that the user is aggressively inserting into the article. I see that as a problem. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've come here after seeing it mentoned elsewhere, and do not intend to take part other than to say that you are completely mistaken. I've looked at the history and this RfC was set up correctly. It is a simple neutral question and should not have included the things you think it should have included.  Doug Weller  talk 11:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Respectfully, I disagree. The filer made two changes to the article in the past week that drew debate, yet only one of them was mentioned in the RfC intro. Even so, the opener continues to argue for both changes in discussion threads. To resolve this, I've opened another sub-thread to address the issue omitted from the intro, where there is currently another active debate. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is an RfC, not a filing on a drama board. The RfC can be about what the RfC filer wishes, so long as it is formed correctly -- which it is. O3000 (talk) 00:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * No – Either both "journalist" and "provocateur" should be included for parity. Or both should be excluded. The article already cites plenty of sources that dispute the claim of "journalist". New York magazine, according to our article argues that example of "busybody journalism", which is distinguished from experiential journalism by its "focus on the individual reporter's feelings" and absence of editorial fact-checking. This demonstrates that even calling him a "conservative journalist" is not enough. IMO, he is a "right-wing provocateur" or at best a "right-wing writer" and social media personality. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think "conservative writer, activist, and social media personality" is a good descriptor if "provocateur" is to be excluded. Calling him just a "conservative journalist and social media personality" is dishonest, lacks weight, and fails NPOV. I also do not oppose calling him a "right-wing writer ..." --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Jacobin is hardly an unbiased source. – Anne drew  15:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No – I oppose refering to the subject as simply a journalist or a conservative journalist. The RS coverage of the subject has changed over time. His notability is thouroughly entwined with the questionable nature of his activites. This June 2020 article in the Seattle Times refers to Ngo as a "conservative writer", while it is only his lawyer that refers to him as a journalist.  The Oregonian similarly refers to Ngo as a conservative writer in their June 2020 coverage.  Both are highly respected publishers that have been awarded numerous pulitzer prizes for the quality of their journalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedar777 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , please indicate your !vote in the form of an answer (Yes or No or Other) to the question posed in the RfC. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes - per below, it is extremely well documented that he is.
 * Note 1: It would be quite understandable if there was a strong sense of WP:IDONTLIKEIT here, but as authors of an Encyclopaedia we are, of course, above that.
 * Note 2: Regarding "provocateur", I have seen references that show him being called such a thing but in my opinion we should be very careful to distinguish "provoking controversy" from merely "being controversial". As such there should ideally be some explicit reference to support that he deliberately courts controversy before we label him as such. But subject to that hesitation, I do not object to that term being used in the lead as well. Dorsetonian (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes We should call him what NYT and WaPo call him, a journalist. We should not call him a provocateur in the lead, since that is a contentious label without high quality sourcing (see discussion below). Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, obvious Yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor19920 (talk • contribs)
 * No - That he is a conservative writer appears to be an undisputed fact; that he is actually a journalist is hotly contested and not consistently applied among reliable sources; therefore, we shouldn't use the term in wikivoice. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 'Untrue. There is no evidence the term journalist, used by the NYT and WaPo, is "hotly contested." You need to refer to a reliable source, not a Wikipedia discussion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Major problem with how this is proceeding We have two sides here. On the one hand, we have myself and several other editors who have cited highly reliable sources describing the subject as a journalist. They are a NYT piece and a WaPO article from 2019. On the other side, we have editors arguing that 1) these sources are "dated" despite being published in the past year and 2) citing second-tier sources from the same time frame, including the Independent, the Intercept, and the Rolling Stone, which call him a provocateur or "writer" as well," and 3) arguing that, by omission, these sources are stating he is not a journalist. This is a fundamental misinterpretation of how we use sources. First, we go to the most reliable sources. WaPo and NYT fall into that category. If there are additional labels, especially contentious ones like "provocateur," WP:LABEL applies and we need either all of the sources saying it or to use attribution. The opener of this filing states this policy exactly backwards, suggesting that "journalist" is a "contentious label" and out of hand dismisses two preeminent sources that do not support his point and unduly emphasizes second-tier sources that do. This is not how we treat BLPs on Wikipedia. The "No" votes are following this same pattern of deeply flawed reasoning. This is why WP:CONSENSUS is not a vote count. That two sources offer in separate tiers of reliability offer differing characterizations by omission does not mean that we omit one in favor of the other based on the subjective opinions of editors, including mine or anyone else's. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No. While some RS have described him as a "conservative journalist", many RS also opt for terms such "activist" and "writer". When RS do not consistently describe him narrowly as a journalist (a term that infers a standard of behavior and professionalization), I think we should opt for a looser and broader term such as "conservative writer", which could include journalism, as well as conservative advocacy and activism. I think it would be a NPOV violation to opt for the narrow term when a broader term would better encapsulate a balance of how RS cover him. Here is a sampling of sources from the last year. Relying on sources from the last year is reasonable given that Ngo has developed a considerable track record on which RS can judge whether to describe him as a journalist or writer (which they did not have when covering him in, say, 2018):
 * AP: "conservative writer".
 * WaPo: "conservative activist Andy Ngo"
 * The Oregonian: "conservative writer and videographer."
 * Oregon Public Broadcasting: "right-wing writer".
 * Daily Beast: "conservative writer Andy Ngo"
 * WaPo: "conservative activist and journalist Andy Ngo"
 * Politico: "conservative journalist and Quillette writer"
 * Politifact: "conservative journalist Andy Ngo"

All from the last year. Add these on to the sources that you cite which call him a journalist, and this is an open and shut matter. We go by WP:WEIGHT. Oh, he also worked as a journalist for recognized outlets for most of his career before becoming an independent journalist (which has been recognized by the sources cited). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In the discussion below, Springee links to a bunch of sources that refer to Ngo as a journalist. Some of these are op-eds and non-RS, so they are not very telling. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 *  The New York Times : conservative journalist Andy Ngo
 *  Vox  Andy Ngo, a Portland-based journalist
 *  The Washington Post  The conservative activist and journalist Andy Ngo
 *  The Hill  a conservative journalist
 *  CNN  Conservative journalist Andy Ngo
 *  ABC7  A Portland journalist
 * All of the RS you listed are older than a year, except The Hill's "Rising" web-show (which is not a RS). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Several of your sources are from 2019 and several others are from a burst of coverage this summer. A year is not a significant passage of time in a career. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * All of the sources I listed are from the last year. A year is significant when the individual in question has become considerably more notable and when serious concerns have been raised about the accuracy of his "reporting". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, a year is absolutely not significant with regards to a career (careers span decades, not months). Notability isn't part of the equation, nor do I see a dramatic increase in notability from 2019. The fact that more articles were published about the subject in 2019 than 2020 does not support your proposition. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The understanding of any living subject should improve over time. If a subject changes careers, gets married, is embroiled in a scandal, or dies in a year, Wikipedia editors reflect this with RS in the article. It is a legitimate concern that C&C and others have raised and warrants a review of recent quality sources. The vigorous discussion on this talk page in response to the RfC is a indicator that this is anything but an open and shut matter. Cedar777 (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, given that there are numerous RSes that describe him as being a journalists for various sources as well as an independent journalist (aka freelance). Plus, simple fact that he was employed to write news for papers, aka the very definition of a journalist. He may not work for any specific outlet now, but he still (apparently) has a career and thus would be inappropriate to discount that particularly with the recentness of the sources. Hemming or hawing over this because he sides with the alt-right is violating NPOV. --M asem (t) 15:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes This should be self evident.  This does not mean he is a "good", "honest", "dishonest", "balanced", "biased" etc journalist, only that his profession fits the definition of journalism,  a person who writes for newspapers, magazines, or news websites or prepares news to be broadcast. (source, OED, []).  He wrote for sources we have questioned (Post Millennial) and high quality sources (WSJ)  He is widely described as a journalist by both high quality and low quality sources.   compiled a list about a year ago based on the sources in this article  [] (the collapsed content).  It contained 27 sources that called Ngo a journalist in some form.  Conservative journalist (the last stable lead description) was the most common.  Conservative writer and independent journalist were tied for second.  Sources using "journalist" include NYT, WP, ABCnews, The Hill, Fox News, Salon, Rolling Stone, VOX, local news stations, and Oregon Public Broadcasting.  This is obviously a widely used description even if it is often tied with other terms (conservative, right-wing, independent, Portland, etc).  Some here seem to suggest "writer" is a better term.  I don't see why the lead can't say both "writer" and "journalist".  As I mentioned in the discussion below, web searches for keywords can offer a rough, order of magnitude comparison between the use of various terms.  It is not at all perfect but when we are trying to judge relative usage it's far better than cherry picking.  I did searches of Bing and Google news for the following phrases (with quotes)
 * "andy ngo" journalist -4710 Google, 98 Bing; 
 * '''"andy ngo" writer - 1830 Google, 33 Bing;
 *  "andy ngo" provocateur - 208 Google, 3 Bing
 * Without sifting through each hit we can't know if the descriptor was applied to Ngo vs someone else or if some hits are just repeats. However, we can see "journalist" appears in an article with Ngo at a rate of about 3x "writer" and over 10x "provocateur".  Any claim that "writer" or something other than journalist is more common or should take the place of the long standing term is ludicrous in view of this evidence.  Efforts to add adjectives to the noun, "journalist" are understood.  Efforts to claim the noun doesn't apply to Ngo don't align with reality.    Springee (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This comment is misleading. As far as I can tell, all of Ngo's writings for the Wall Street Journal are categorized by the WSJ as "opinion". The WSJ editorial page is definitely not a "high quality source". It further proves the point that "journalist" is not the appropriate way to refer to him. Someone who writes op-eds should instead be described as a writer. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please stop talking about Google hits. They are meaningless. Rolling Stone used the term “gonzo journalism” which is not what we think of as journalism. Or, an article could say hack journalist, or refers himself as a journalist, or journalists refer to him as xxx, or any number of other uses that make Google hits highly misleading. Google is a search engine. It does not perform according to Wikipedia guidelines. O3000 (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a distinction between "not providing support for something" and "disproving something" that you are missing. Just because his publishing an editorial does not in of itself indicate someone is a journalist does not mean it "disproves" that he is, and taken with his body of work and how other sources describe him, it lends support to the notion. I suggest we draw conclusions based on the direction of the sources. This pattern of trying to push a pre-determined conclusion ("he's not a journalist even though reliable sources describe him as such") and discounting all the evidence en route to that conclusion is concerning. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear (since you left it out even though it's plainly his most common description), "andy ngo" activist has 57,300 Google hits, over ten times the number you're trying to use to push for your preferred label here. That makes it reasonably plain that he's considered an activist and that presenting any other descriptor equivalent to or alongside it would be giving WP:UNDUE] weight to a minority opinion about him.  Worse, skimming the results, it seems like the sources that attempt to label him as a journalist are largely (though not exclusively) opinion or forum posts, often from people or places who share his politics; whereas "activist" seems to be a universally-accepted and neutral descriptor.  Therefore, we should probably go with "activist" alone.  I would further argue that the two descriptors are, largely, incomparable with each other, and that the overwhelming majority of sources characterizing what he does as activism means it would be taking a WP:FRINGE position to present it as journalism. --Aquillion (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest you look up the meaning of WP:FRINGE. That refers to non-mainstream views. The Times is a mainstream. An editors speculations on a talk page are not. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear, "activist" still trails "journalist". As I said before, I restricted both my Bing and Google searches to their news sub-searches.  So "Andy Ngo" activist returned 3500 Google news hits and 51 Bing news hits.  If you do a general Google search "Andy Ngo" journalist you get 110,000 hits.  The new feed hits follow the ratios we saw in my previous searches.  Accepting that this is far from perfect, when looking at journalist, writer, activist and provocateur, it's clear journalist is still the word most likely to appear with Andy Ngo in a new-websearch.  Springee (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * What's clear is that this subject has multiple "hats." They act as both a journalist and a commentator or advocate for conservative causes, as well as opinion writer. All these terms are used in RS, and "journalist" is used in the most and weightiest sources. What has the least support is "provocateur," yet this RfC is being used to basically advocate with replacing "journalist" with "provocateur" despite not being noted in the RfC intro per WP:RFC. This is a misuse of the RfC process. A compromise may be appropriate where we included some combination of "journalist," "writer," and "activist," but not provocateur, at least without attribution given its sparsity in the sources (and the contentious connotations of the phrase). Our use of descriptors needs to be guided by weight and prevalence in sources, not our subjective opinions of what the source is or isn't. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes Unquestionably, Ngo should be referenced in the lead as a journalist. There are numerous high-quality, reliable sources that use this epithet. Reducing his work to a "writer" is not appropriate, nor is calling him the contentious label "provocateur." Some of everything (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes - There are clearly more than enough reliable sources describing him as a “Journalist”. To the point where it would be non-neutral for Wikipedia to not do so as well. Being a Journalist does not rule out ALSO being a writer, provocateur, etc.... and vise/versa. Blueboar (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No – This one took me a while to consider.  WaPo does call him a journalist in an article. Yet, in another article, the same WaPo calls him a conservative activist. Lots of sources and different labels. This isn’t surprising as he only just recently started at a student paper, from which he was fired. His actual career appears to have started one year ago, and he now works at The Post Millennial, which according to our article has been criticized for releasing misinformation and articles written by fake personas, for past employment of an editor with ties to white supremacist-platforming and pro-Kremlin media outlets, and for opaque funding and political connections. Difficult to pin down someone with such a brief history. Seems to me we should use a broad term that encompasses the wording in the various source that are RS, as opposed to narrow wording found in only some sources. Conservative writer and activist comes to mind. He’s certainly a provocateur, and that now appears to be his main role. But, I’m fine with leaving that out of the first sentence. O3000 (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your argument doesn't negate that Ngo is a journalist. For example, the PM is deprecated by wiki editors.  OK.  Does that mean it isn't a new magazine/source?  It may not be a good news magazine but it is still a news magazine.  Your arguments are all valid commentary on the quality of his work/employers.  That doesn't negate that he is getting paid to do journalism.  Springee (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nor does it negate using the broader term writer, which includes journalist and other labels in RS. O3000 (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Journalist" is the term most broadly used by the most reliable sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes - That's what reliable sources say. More high quality than the ones used to describe him as a provocateur without attribution. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, he's a journalist. Even if you hate his work and think he's a shitty journalist who's a right-wing "provacateur" (whatever the hell that term means) that doesn't make him not a journalist. "Journalist" is not a controlled term. You don't need a licence in the United States to be a journalist, you don't need to abide by any ethical rules, and there's no self-regulatory body that polices journalism. A journalist is someone who reports or otherwise deals with the news and Andy Ngo does that as established by numerous reliable sources. We can't invent our own vaguely defined "standard of behavior and professionalization" that journalists have to abide by to be considered such. That's practically WP:Original Research. I'm also seeing a lot of vaguely defined references to how Andy Ngo's status as a journalist is "hotly contested" with links to articles that describe Ngo as a "conservative writer". That's not contesting his status as a journalist; it's possible for someone to be both a journalist and an activist or political writer. Traditionally journalists have tried to be officially apolitical in a North America context with political writers not falling into the "journalist" category but nowadays with Fox News and CNN there are an incredibly large amount of people who blur those lines and openly cross it with Marci Ien being a Canadian broadcast journalist who's currently running for political office. There is no reason why the lede can't describe him as a "conservative writer and journalist". Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 02:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No While he meets the definition of journalist, using that description without qualification implies that he has professional journalistic standards. If the term is used, it must be qualified, otherwise the article would be endorsing him. TFD (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And your comment suggests he "does not have professional standard violations." I suggest rephrasing your vote so as not to be a BLP violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor19920 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no BLP violation. Ngo isn't exactly Edward Murrow or Walter Cronkite and it is misleading to imply that he is. TFD (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It absolutely is, and you just repeated it. You are knocking the subject based on your personal opinion and applying a standard that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not my personal opinion but the weight of opinion in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 03:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. Please. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Reminder BLP applies to talk pages. When you acknowledge the sources refer to the subject as a journalist, but then include some knock about the subject's professionalism, body of work, etc., you undermine the credibility of your own vote. Follow BLP. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * While you are an encyclopedia editor, you are not a professional encyclopedia editor, at least not on this site. Neither is anyone else. That's not a BLP violation. TFD (talk) 03:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't get your point. Take a look at the sources. Two preeminent papers in the country called him a journalist. You'd think they'd be uniquely qualified to make that determination and hestitant to apply it inappropriately. Oh but wait, we have an opinion piece from Jacobin that says otherwise and a culture writer in the Rolling Stone! Yeah, OK. Your opinion of how "good" or "bad" the subject is as a journalist has nothing to do with how we structure opening sentences. A "bad" doctor is still a doctor. A "dishonest" politician is still a politician. Etc. But I'm waiting for the RfC after this proposing we add the qualifier "Andy Ngo is a journalist (but he's no Edward Murrow)". Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't apply here (as journalist/writer does factually apply and given by RSes) but we do make sure people that self-identify themselves incorrectly/dishonestly as certain professionals are not given that title. I can't remember a specific example, but if we have some person who claims to be a medical doctor that is notable for a disproven diet, but RSes identify his profession as only a freelance writer, we're going to call him out as a freelance writer, and definitely not as a doctor as they claim. But that's the extent we'd have that. --M asem (t) 06:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes Sources that describe him as a "writer" do not indicate that he is not a journalist. All journalists are writers, some writers are journalists. Those are certainly not mutually exclusive terms. If you found a source that described him as a "non-journalist," then you would have a legitimate point. Truth is King TALK 15:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Leave as is (conservative journalist, social media personality, and provocateur), which seems to encompass the various points made by the sources. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, too many high-quality recent sources seem to intentionally avoid using the term for him; "activist" seem to be far more common. Given the larger context surrounding him this can only reasonably be interpreted to mean that the label is not widely accepted.  It is plain from the sources that he is considered an activist, not a journalist. --Aquillion (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * How do you know they intentionally avoid the word? What evidence do you have that activist is more common (see my amended results above, journalist was 4710, 98 vs 3500, 51 (Google, Bing)). Springee (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, per several reliable sources mentioned above. Idealigic (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Most of the sources that say he is a journalist continue by describing how he violates the standards of journalism. He is a media activist. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you provide examples of sources that make that claim? Do those sources actually say he isn't a journalist or do they just say he isn't a good journalist? Springee (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Violates the standards of journalism according to, apparently, and not the sources themselves. A blatant BLP violation. I don't understand why the standard practice, even at admittedly controversial pages, is to ignore this conduct? Anyway, this vote is clearly improperly premised. It acknowledges the sources say one thing and then says they simply disagree with the sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The Columbia Journalism Review characterizes Ngo as a writer who is a "discredited provocateur" and a "controversial right-wing writer". Jacobin magazine says Ngo violates journalist standards: "Far-right forces will converge on Portland tomorrow, incited by the right-wing provocateur Andy Ngo. Though he poses as a journalist, the purpose of his platform is to sow harassment and violence against his targets on the Left—and the mainstream media have fallen for it." Rolling Stone writes "Ngo, who describes himself as a journalist," and then talks about his very unjournalist practices such as inciting responses, and trading favorable coverage for benefits. Rolling Stone says Ngo is "a right-wing provocateur as opposed to a journalist." Binksternet (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * and, can we at least use those sources, especially the Columbia Journalism Review, in the body? Davide King (talk) 15:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, David, I think we should. I was putting that idea into action here, putting some text about being a provocateur into the article body, and summarizing it in the lead section with the sentence, "He has been described by many publications as a 'provocateur' rather than a neutral reporter." Which is of course the kernel: Ngo is an active participant in the events rather than a passive observer. Binksternet (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think your edit was fine. Do you think that a sentence or two, if not a paragraph, to summarise specifically what the Columbia Journalism Review is saying is worth adding and due? Davide King (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. The analysis in Rolling Stone and Columbia Journalism Review is high quality though damning to Ngo's journalistic credentials. It's important to include this kind of analysis per WP:NPOV. I'll propose something along those lines in a new thread. Binksternet (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * A section in the article body talking about criticism of his reporting would be very helpful and would help clean up the Carear section. That section starts not with his work history but with a statement that many call him a provocateur.  I think it would be better to restructure the section to start with a simple description along the lines of Ngo worked for X from [dates].  Then worked for Y [dates].  Ngo's work has focused on the following topic areas.  The next paragraph would start with something like Ngo's work has been criticized by other journalists for [high level summary of why sources use the term provocateur etc, not the labels themselves].  Then we can go into something like a specific list of sources and why they are critical of his work.  The labels others apply don't do a good job explaining why he is controversial.  However, sources that say he got facts wrong here or said "the left was attacking the right" while failing to mention "the right attacked the left" would be very relevant to clearing up why sources say he is failing to be an impartial or reliable journalist.  An example that could support the "activist" label would be statements/claims that he is doxxing activists by tweeting their arrests photos and information would certainly support that label (though we need a RS, not me to say it).  Being IMPARTIAL doesn't mean we avoid reporting what the articles say.  However, it means we put our efforts into reporting the supporting arguments made in the articles rather than the subjective labels they apply when introducing the subject.  It seems to me that editors are too worried about including a controversial label and less worried about including the facts that are used to justify such a label.  The current NPOVN discussion related to the Proud Boys is capturing some of the same issues [] Springee (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes He's clearly been a journalist at least for some of his life. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes We go by how the majority of RS describe him, which is as a journalist. PackMecEng (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Why are we ignoring so many, many RS that have a sour view of this appellation? O3000 (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Because those are by far the minority. It would a huge NPOV issue to take the fringe view over the majority. PackMecEng (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, they aren't. And "fringe"? Columbia Journalism Review? O3000 (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The view not the source. Columbia Journalism Review is a fantastic source, but sometimes they are in the minority. PackMecEng (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I see a large number of sources and think the term "fringe" doesn't close to apply. We are not talking InfoWars here. O3000 (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a useful list provided below. More than half use the term journalist--the majority. That majority includes print newspapers including NYT, WaPo and other outlets like ABC and CNN. The minority that don't include magazine pieces and other online-only sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, provided we report in the body his ethical journalist violations, attributed to each source such as those provided by . I would also be fine with conservative journalist, social media personality, and provocateur (perhaps changing provocateur to activist or conservative/right-wing activist) as was suggested here by . I am also open to the possibility of removing that in the future if we can get consensus that reliable sources avoid using the term to describe him. Davide King (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No. It's clear that he is far from being a journalist, and that his purposes are to produce propaganda in affiliation with hate groups. Care especially has to be taken when outlets simply repeat (quoting or paraphrasing) his claims to be a journalist without having done their own review, since such a claim falls into the self-serving category. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/andy-ngo-right-wing-troll-antifa-877914/ 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes (Changed vote) I've looked at some of the more considered and civil discussions here and reassessed my position. I think the work he has produced is of the poorest quality imaginable, I personally struggle to see how he is a journalist, but according to reliable sources he is and on consideration of his actual job title I guess he is technically a journalist. That being said, reliable sources do note he has many ethical issues surrounding his work and many sources report on his work in a way that infers a question about whether or not he is a journalist, he regularly crosses over into punditry and activism as well as having been involved in scandals surrounding the stories he is covering. Bacondrum (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC) No Absolutely not, not even close to being one. Looking at how he is reported on he is often derided by real journalists and many sources make a point of not calling him one variously describing him as a "writer", "conservative writer" "activist" or some such. He's had one brief dalliance with journalism as a student paper reporter and he was sacked. Since then he has been an occasional opinions writer and an editor (this is the closest he ever got to journalism post Vanguard, he was sacked from this job too), he is not a journalist by any stretch of the imagination. Do those who voted YES actually know what a journalist is? An editor is not a journalist, a opinions writer is not a journalist, a shit stirrer is not a journalist. According to our article he has been variously described as a "right-wing provocateur" (otherwise known as a shit stirrer) producing "media activism", "participant reporting" and "busybody journalism", but these are dumb descriptions, we have a long standing term for this kind of buffoonery - Ngo is the very definition of a Hack writer - nothing more, nothing less. This is a ridiculous argument. Bacondrum (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant vote Rife with BLP violations and makes no reference to sources or policy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * you are bludgeoning the debate and being uncivil - cut it out. I do refer to sources repeatedly and make no BLP violations. I ask that you to please withdraw that nasty and petty comment. Bacondrum (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What was your RS on "Hack writer"? I must have missed that. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your entire vote is a tirade against the subject. You are violating BLP. You cannot describe the subject of an article as a hack writer and shit stirrer. There is nothing "nasty" or "bludgeoning" about me pointing that out. You should retract your vitriolic, personalized characterizations of the subject and take a look at the sources. The NYT and other reliable print sources describe him as a journalist. Respond to that instead of making BLP violations. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In the context of Ngo making repeated false claims while posing as a journalist fraudulently, "But it wasn’t until Ngo was attacked at the June rally that he truly ascended to the ranks of right-wing media shit-stirrer." https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/andy-ngo-right-wing-troll-antifa-877914/ so yes, there you go . 2601:2C0:C300:B7:2C26:E795:C811:3DED (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks 2601:2C0:C300:B7:2C26:E795:C811:3DED, I wasn't going to respond to these editors as they are simply being disruptive and bludgeoning the debate. I can't see how it's was BLP violation anyway, but thanks i really appreciate you taking the time. Bacondrum (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment seeing he has only worked as a one time journalist for a single publication and he was sacked in 2017, surely it would be more appropriate to describe him by his job title, as an editor? That is his actual job title. Maybe an editor and writer? I know we don't do truth or facts, but there are plenty of sources to demonstrate he is both an editor and writer - surely we do strive for accuracy based on reliable sources, of which many different sources say many things about this subject. We do know for certain that he is employed as an editor and writes opinions pieces on the side. Bacondrum (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes Very adequately sourced. Discussion here is clouded by irrelevant personal opinion. RandomGnome (talk) 05:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Journalism is an exercise in presenting fact, with minimum standards of balance and integrity. Multiple sources document his failure to do that. Multiple sources describe him as an activist or in other terms inconsistent with journalism. Ngo has already been fired from a particularly terrible organ for falling below even their standards. All the sources make it very clear that his aim is not to expose truth, but to make an argument against one group in a way that is clearly designed to obfuscate much worse problems with another whose ideology he likes. We call that propaganda, not journalism. I find characterisations like "troll", "propagandist", "provocateur", "grifter". To then describe him as a journalist, unqualified, in wiki-voice is pretty poor. You might make a case for "right-wing journalist and..." or something, but journalist alone is woefully misleading, and the sources are very clear about that. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. He's a journalist according to our sources. Nobody's saying he's a good journalist. – Anne drew  15:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes per the the range of RSs which clearly describe him as such. Regardless of whether you think he is a good or bad journalist he very clearly is one. Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 16:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion - "journalist"
Refractored. The following is in responce to Coffeeandcrumbs !vote. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the elaboration, but you haven't changed the RfC to accord with your vote. Also, WP:FALSEBALANCE. The NYT and equivalent sources use "journalist," they do not use "provocateur." We do not strive for "parity," we strive for appropriate weight. "Provocateur" does not reflect that. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * A lot has happened since August 2019 when this was last discussed. You are welcome to make your arguments for inclusion. You are also welcome to start a separate RfC for "provocateur". My argument is that "conservative journalist" has been challenged with more recent reporting: "Andy Ngo, a right-leaning provocateur" The Oregonian, "right-wing provocateur Andy Ngo" The Intercept, "Ngo is a conservative provocateur sympathizer" VOX, "alt-right whisperer Andy Ngo" VICE, "33-year-old provocateur" ''Jewish Currents. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is another one "a provocateur like Ngo" The Independent and another "Donald Trump ally Jim Jordan invited right-wing provocateur Andy Ngo" The Independent and another "Andy Ngo, the provocateur and social media personality" Rolling Stone. How many sources are needed before it is not a FALSEBALANCE versus The Almighty New York Times? --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Is this a discussion about "journalist" or "provocateur"? Note that journalist is a neutral description of a profession.  Once can be a good or bad journalist.  One can be a neutral or biased journalist but by itself it's neutral the same way "teacher", "banker" or "manager" is neutral.  "Provocateur" is a loaded term.  It suggests a motive beyond just informing etc.  It's also a subjective label.  We went through this last year [], [].  Additionally, even in the last month sources still refer to Ngo as a journalist (typically "conservative journalist" [][][][][][].  "Provocateur" is a contentious label applied by either low quality sources, strongly biased sources or one writer at RS magazine (see biased).  We note that sources call him that but such a label should not be used in wiki voice the opening sentence of a BLP.  To claim provocateur is here to balance journalist is a false balance.  One is a profession, the other is an accusation.  Springee (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Let see: this is a local news channel, as for this see WP:FOX, this says "'Portland-based journalist who describes himself as independent and objective but who has been accused of working with far-right groups in the past", this is written by an "Opinion contributor", for this see WP:RSP. The one reliable source you cite is the WaPo which calls him a "conservative activist and journalist". All in all, doubts all around about the validity of just calling him a "conservative journalist" alone. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. As you say, KUSI is a news channel.  Fox News is reliable for calling him a journalist vs what ever you want.  You just confirmed that Aljazeera called him a journalist.  Again, they aren't claiming good or bad, just that he is one.  I'm OK saying the Gainesville paper isn't reliable enough.  WT is still sufficient for "journalist" and WP is a clear RS.  These are all recent articles (I limited the search to the past month).  Springee (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Provocateur is a profession. Contentious or not, people make a lot of money doing it. But in the end, I am fine with leaving it out but only including "conservative journalist" is POV because that implies that he is in the mainstream. Conservationism is mainstream. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There are also a lot of artist provocateurs, cultural provocateurs etc... Google it. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a stretch. Let's step back, do you agree it is a contentious label.  Not that it's a disputed label but that it has a negative connotation when applied to Ngo?  Springee (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Define "contentious label". --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We're not obliged to explain the obvious to you. At WP:AE, you suggested "journalist" has a positive connotation and implies membership in a respected profession. I suggest you use that same logic and consider what "provocateur" means. Here's a dictionary definition to clear things up: \. It implies something negative. It is a contentious label, and the sources that you have thrown at the wall do not pass muster except for possibly the independent. You cite Vice, which has no consensus at WP:RSP, and mock The New York Times. You can add WaPo to the list of sources referring to Ngo as a journalist, albeit a "conservative journalist," but not "provocateur.
 * The entire premise of this RfC is ridiculous and disruptive. The most reliable available sources on the subject refer to him as a journalist. You object to this without any basis other than subjective opinion. This is not how WP works. We assign weight to sources and build content around the weightiest sources. Editors personal opinions do not control content, and that's all that's been offered here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikieditor19920 said: We're not obliged to explain the obvious to you. Please don’t use language like that or use simplistic definitions. Journalism comes in flavors. For example, gonzo journalism, which clearly applies here, is often respected as a literary style – but not as reliable journalism. “Provocateur” could apply to the Sons of Liberty, the Boston Tea Party, and other luminaries of the American Revolution. You are applying your own judgements as to what is “respected” or not without context. O3000 (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely correct that there are nuances to every definition, but the commonly understood meaning of "provocateur" is negative. The two Wiktionary links I provided are a good starting point for determining why "provocateur" is negative. C&C even implicitly acknowledges this by contrasting it with "journalist" which he deems positive. WP:LABEL clearly applies, and we should err on the side of caution. WP:BLP.
 * Second, my criticism of this RfC stands. It is in violation of the procedures governing RfCs. The subject of the RfC is whether or not "journalist" is appropriate for the lead, but all of C&C's arguments are why "provocateur" is the preferable label. You cannot open an RfC about "A" but really use to advocate for "B." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And by the way, maybe "provocateur" is an appropriate label, but I think it should be used with attribution because the highest-quality sources available have avoided this terminology. Vice lacks consensus at WP:RSP. The Intercept and the Independent are fine, but rank lower than mainstream, top-tier American news outlets. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * C&C provided a rather impressive number of sources -- in my mind enough to avoid attribution (ignoring the fact that it is patently obvious). I'll take RS over your perception. As for the bounds of the RfC, let us not bind our discussions into a small box. RfCs often have proposals, multiple at times, as they proceed. Life is not black and white and we are not bound to binary decisions. O3000 (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Quality over quantity? He provided: 1) Vice, a source for which there's no consensus, 2) a local publication, 3) a British online newspaper. I provided the two preeminent print and online newspapers in the United States: Washington Post and the New York Times. And "provocateur" is an adjective, not a profession, as C&C asserts. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly this. Opinion pieces in left-leaning sources like Vice, Vox, Jewish Currents, and the like, and a local news report, should not guide us in applying a contentious label in the lead when we have excellent top-tier news sources like NYT and WaPo, which do not apply this label to him. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, you keep repeating that WaPo and NYT call him a journalist. But, in some articles they call him a writer or activist.  Let us look at the preponderance. And please stop using the term "left-leaning" whenever you disagree with a source. Isn't that label used for NYT and WaPo all too often here? O3000 (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer not to have to sound like a bot. If only the same points weren't raised against and again. "Preponderance" Nope, WP:WEIGHT. 1000 Tabloids =/= 1 Reliable Newspaper. Or better yet, 100 Second Tier Sources < 10 Top Notch Sources. Don't know how to make this much clearer. I'm also not interested in silly debates over whether "provocateur" is negative. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikieditor19920, can you kindly point the discussion to the policy page that clarifies what constitutes a "First tier" or "Top Notch" source? It would also be helpful for everyone to see where in Wikipedia policy these source valuation you keep referring to are located. Thanks, Cedar777 (talk) 01:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So, you consider four green-lighted RS as 1% to 0.1% as useful as the sources you like -- even though the sources you like have articles that I cited that do not use the term you like. And Shinealittlelight suggests we don't use "left-leaning" sources, even though the very sources you want to use are called left-leaning hundreds of thousands of times on WP TPs. O3000 (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight and Wikieditor19920, The elephant in the room here is the question of why. Why are there so many sources that avoid referring to Ngo as a journalist? What is it about the terminology of journalist that has left other journalists reluctant to consider Ngo one of their own? Surely they must sympathize with the plight of their fellow reporters and the complexities that any reporter faces when covering newsworthy events. Yet, it is telling that there are a number of reporters who cannot bring themselves to describe the subject as a journalist. It indicates a need for caution on the part of Wikipedia editors as there may well be a significant problem with the content and the integrity of the subject's actions. Cedar777 (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, do I need to search the bowels of WP:RSP discussions to state unequivocally that The New York Times and The Washington Post are more reliable than The Indepednent and The Intercept? I don't think so. WP:RSP answers the question "is this a usable source or is this unusable," not "how much weight does this hold." Don't try to equate the two. I also never referred to "left-leaning" or "right-leaning" sources. WP:BIASED sources are permitted, but sometimes may require attribution. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, this will save a lot of time. Let's just remove all the sources from RSP and leave two. Hey, let's shut down Wikipedia and just redirect to them. O3000 (talk) 01:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The explanation is very simple. Lower-quality sources tend to throw around contentious and charged labels to get clicks and are more prone to making assertions without evidence. Reliable sources are cautious, use conservative language, and only make contentious claims with indisputable evidence. The Washington Post and NYTimes adhere to the latter practice, and that's why they hold weight. Online-only sources like The Intercept and The Independent, while not completely unreliable, have fewer editorial checks and balances in place and fall into the former category. And I suggest dropping the insinuations.
 * Hey, you know what,, you're right. I'm being way to strict with all this demanding high quality sources for contentious claims at a BLP. No idea what got over me. Let's go check what the Daily Mail says! (Kidding around is fun.) Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikieditor19920, The ranking system, as you are describing it, works well for sources at the extremes, i.e. the Daily Mail vs. New York Times, but it becomes problematic when the sources are less polarized. The Seattle Times and the Oregonian are extremely high quality sources of news in the Pacific Northwest. As I mentioned above, these publishers have each earned multiple pulitzers. They are excellent quality sources that are particularly relevant to this subject as many of the events the Ngo is known for took place within the region. The 2020 articles from these publications that I linked earlier both refer to Ngo as a writer, not a journalist. Cedar777 (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Contrary to what O3K said above, I didn't say we can't use left-leaning sources. I said we should not use opinion pieces from left-leaning sources to apply contentious labels in the lead. And, for the record, yes, WaPo and NYT are left-leaning. Moreover, "left-leaning" is not an insult, it's a description. But nobody is proposing to use opinion sources from NYT and WaPo to apply contentious labels in the lead, and, if someone were proposing to do this, I'd be against it. Anyway, we obviously need high-quality, non-opinion sources to place a contentious label in the lead. And yeah, it's our place as editors to determine what is and is not a high-quality source. Reference to "high quality" is all over the place in source-related policy, I don't need to link WP:RS do I? NYT and WaPo are high-quality, prominent sources, and VICE is not. NYT and WaPo pretty much paradigmatic in this regard, despite the fact that, yes, they are left-leaning. They do call him a journalist, they do not call him a provocateur. That's it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Shinealittlelight, The 2020 articles in the Seattle Times and the Oregonian are not opinion pieces. They do not refer to Ngo as a journalist. I'm still awaiting an answer as to why that might be the case. Cedar777 (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No one's obligated to answer your every speculative question. If you want to make a claim, provide a source that makes that claim. If the source contradicts a more reliable source, it's a no go. Omissions are not statements when it comes to the use of WP:RS. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep. Also, I find it interesting that we've gone from claims of "a rather impressive number" of sources--a claim I was responding to by criticizing most of that number--to now standing on these two local sources. Look, the archives are full of repeated arguments on this issue over the last year, and they are full of lists of additional mainstream national-level sources that call him a journalist. The Portland and Seattle newspapers simply omitting the term 'journalist' obviously isn't going to serve as a reason to depart from the practice of NYT, WaPo, etc. etc. etc. mainstream sources that do call him a journalist. I don't have to speculate as to the reason why these two much less prominent sources didn't call him a journalist to support keeping that term in the lead, following central RS. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you guys stick to the policies and guidelines and stop making up new rules? O3000 (talk) 11:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate? What rules are being invented? Springee (talk) 12:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The root article for the June 2020 Seattle Times and Oregonian coverage is the Associated Press.

Lawsuit aims to hold nebulous ‘antifa’ to blame for injuries https://apnews.com/article/9c484adddf335e79be648e70406622ca

This highest quality, more recent international source pointedly does not refer to the subject as a journalist but rather a "conservative writer from Portland". Due to the lack of agreement in RS, it should not be stated that NGO is a journalist in Wikipedia‘s voice. Cedar777 (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. The archives of this topic show many examples of RS like NYT, WashPo etc calling Ngo a journalist.  Within the last month the WP called Ngo a journalist.  Cherry picking sources that don't call him that doesn't mean that he isn't widely called a journalist.  I think it's rather disturbing that some editors think it's OK to use negative labels in wikivoice but are against using a neutral descriptor of his profession. I understand web search word counts aren't perfect but I did a Google-new search for the following terms and got the following number of hits: "andy ngo" journalist-4710; "andy ngo" writer-1830; "andy ngo" provocateur-208.  I think that is pretty clear that more sources are calling him a journalist than the alternatives discussed here.  Finally, let's look at the plain language definition of "journalist"; a person who writes for newspapers, magazines, or news websites or prepares news to be broadcast.  Ngo currently writes for the Post Millenial.  In the past he has written for even the Wall Street Journal.  This shouldn't even be a question.  It would be a question if we were asking "is he reliable, respected, unbiased, etc."  We aren't doing that.  That editors don't like it doesn't change that he is widely described by both highly respected and less respected sources as being a journalist by profession.   Would you be happy if we said he is a "conservative writer and journalist"? That seems like a fair compromise for those who say "writer" instead.  Springee (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * In addition to the fact that this description of his profession is widely supported by RSs, we should consider that this is the consensus text that has been widely discussed and kept in the article after a number of discussions regarding the lead. As such editor wishing to remove need to show consensus for the removal. CC has tried to argue that BLP says contentious material needs to stay out rather than in because this is a BLP.  Let's review the policies (both NOCON and BLP).  The BLPREQUESTRESTORE part talks about material that has been removed on good faith BLP grounds.  On what BLP grounds would "journalist" be removed?  It is not a value laden label.  It is widely used in RSs.  Prior to it's removal it had at minimum implied consensus for inclusion.  So absent arguments of consensus, on what policy based grounds would it violate BLP?  Both NOCON and BLP have no-consensus carve outs for contentious material.  So if we were trying to include a statement that Ngo was a racist, liar, criminal etc, I think we can agree that such labels/claims are contentious.  They are not neutral with respect to the subject.  The same could be true for claims of positive labels like "award winning", "national treasure", "cornerstone of journalistic integrity", "god of all facts", "the next Walter Cronkite".  But when we are talking about neutral descriptions or facts, then "contentious" doesn't enter into it.  For example, let's assume he wrote a few articles for a paper in Kansas City and that information had been in the article for several years.  Now in late 2020 editors argue that the content is UNDUE and should be removed.  The talk page discussions may be contentious but the nature of the facts/claims are not.  Thus we wouldn't say NOCON=remove.  We would say NOCON=restore status quo.  That is the case we have here.  Springee (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I got completely different Google search counts. They are meaningless. O3000 (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please share your exact search terms and which part of Google you used. While these results are not foolproof, they are better than editors cherry picking sources.  Springee (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Google searches should never be used here as an indication of anything. Firstly, they vary by person taking into account Google's idea of your personal interests. Secondly, they include massive replication due to the echo chamber in anything related to politics. As for cherry-picking, I suggest you stop using that characterization since the argument for inclusion of journalist has repeatedly picked two sources -- the definition of cherry-picking. O3000 (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You said you did the same search. Please post your terms and results.  What is significant here is the ratios. We have more that enough Hugh quality sources to say Ngo is described as a journalist.  Some are claiming other terms like "writer" should be used instead.  Ok, how do we judge the relative ratio of those two descriptors.  A web search, while imperfect, offers an order of magnitude comparison.  It's not conclusive but it's hard to ignore when combined with other evidence. Springee (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * For reference, I tried the same search on my phone using private mode (vs my desktop computer without privacy mode). I got 4680, 1820, and 208. Trying the same with my phone and Bing (which I normally don't use) returns 98, 33, 3 respectively. Springee (talk) 14:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Meaningless. You need to analyze search results, not count them. Search engines are a great starting tool. That's all. Further, the use of quote marks is used as a hint to such engines. If you look at results, you will see massive numbers of irrelevant hits where the quote marks are ignored. Obviously, more common words will receive more irrelevant hits. O3000 (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Do not accuse other editors of bad-faith WP:CHERRYPICKING. Emphasizing two pre-eminent sources (WaPo/NYT) supporting a specific characterization is exactly what we should be doing and wholly appropriate per WP:WEIGHT. Other editor's have suggested these sources are not "recent." Each were published in the past year. These same criticisms are paired with citations of sources they believe support their point by omission, and are published in the same time frame. This is ridiculous. The subject has been confirmed to be a journalist by the most reliable publications available. To replace this with "provocateur" based on the suggestions of Wikipedia editors and based on second-tier sources is a blatant BLP vio and severe departure from policy that cannot stand. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's funny. I was responding to two accusations of cherry-picking and you're claiming I'm the accuser.:) Secondly, I haven't proposed any text at all. Thirdly, we've hear your argument that we should use your two sources (even though those sources have other articles without that characterization) to the exclusion of other sources many times now and do not agree. Fourthly, if you believe I have made a blatant vio that "cannot stand", take it to the appropriate board. O3000 (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I read your comment. You also made an accusation of cherrypicking, one apparently including me. Two wrongs don't make a right, and I haven't accused you of CP. I'm not accusing you of any vio. The entire premise of this malformed RfC is to advocate what, in my opinion, is a clear BLP vio. C&C opened it to challenge the use of "journalist" after claiming it was unsupported by sources (it is), but is primarily using it a as a vehicle to promote the use of another term, provocateur, which is not mentioned in the RfC intro. You called this a flexible use of an RfC, but I call it misuse. An RfC description is supposed to be straightforward and premised on the narrow change proposed, not suggest "A" and then surreptitiously advocate for "B." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You accuse others of bad faith, and then engage yourself. I saw no surreptitious intent. At this point, you are bludgeoning. O3000 (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The opener makes arguments focused on a piece of content unrelated to the premise of the RfC. This is confusing for anyone new to the conversation. And don't make accusation. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind the first sentence or even the first phrase of the lede needs to be 100% objective. This should be strictly his nationality and his career facets. Whether this is writer/journalist/activist, that's the question above, but the "provocateur" absolutely needs to be kept out of that area because that is not a career thing. That is something that needs to be discussed in a second sentence or second phrase of the first sentence of the lede since it is part of why he is notable, but the first sentence is not required to spell out why a person is notable, but is required to stay neutral and impartial, and calling out someone as a provocateur which requires specific source attribution is not sticking to objective facts (it's a value-laden label). --M asem  (t) 16:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Writer is the most neutral term best suited encompass the subject's activities. Cedar777 (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV is the guideline for neutrality, and this is determined by weight in sources. The sources above show the most weight for "journalist." Recognition by the preeminent print papers in the U.S. is not something we poo-poo. "Writer" is also acceptable as a secondary label. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly. This isn’t a case of either/or.  We can use “and”. We can say “Andy Ngo is a journalist, writer and conservative activist.” (For example). Blueboar (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Sources that describe him as a "writer" do not indicate that he is not a journalist. All journalists are writers, some writers are journalists. Those are certainly not mutually exclusive terms. If you found a source that described him as a "non-journalist," then you would have a legitimate point. Truth is King TALK 15:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Survey "Provocateur"

 * Since the opener of this RfC has repeatedly asserted the appropriateness of "provocateur" in the opening in this thread, but it is not reflected in the intro, this is worthy of a separate and distinct discussion. "Provocateur" has the least support in sources, behind "journalist," "writer," and "activist," in that order. It is also a contentious term. It should not be unduly emphasized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor19920 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Mixed - There are distinctly fewer sources that use “Provocateur” than use the other terms under discussion (writer, activist, etc). Those sources are also of lesser quality.  Then there is the fact that it is a “loaded” term.  However, it IS used, and by more than one source. So... I would mention it, but not in the opening sentence... and I would use in text attribution so it is not presented in Wikipedia’s voice. Blueboar (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally oppose - It could be included in the lead but with care. A number of lesser but not unreliable sources have described him as such but we shouldn't say something like, "Ngo is described as a provocateur by a number of sources."  Such a sentence doesn't explain/justify why he is called that.  However, why could be addressed with a neutral, impartial summary of the supporting claims made in those sources (a very high level summary).  For example, "Many sources accuse Ngo of being a provocateur because his reports that are accused of vilifying groups such as..."  What that sentence adds is some level of why these sources might have chosen that descriptor.  Effectively a first layer of evidence.  Should that be in the lead?  Perhaps but only after careful discussion.  Springee (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep in some form, even if in a subsequent sentence. The fact that he is a right-wing provocateur has been stated in multiple independent sources linked above in my comments about journalist. The lead section should give due weight to this, at least in passing. We can spare the 11 characters. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Watch how you phrase your vote. BLP applies to talk pages. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Among the terms that have been suggested here, including "journalist," "writer," "activist," "provocateur" has the least support. It is sourced to several opinion columns and magazine features offering cultural commentary, not news organizations. It is relevant enough for inclusion in the article, but not in the opening sentence, and not without attribution. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not only is this a subjective WP:LABEL, it is supported without attribution by weaker sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose with qualifications per Springee above. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Leave as is (conservative journalist, social media personality, and provocateur), which seems to encompass the various points made by the sources. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not a common term. It usually is a short form for agent provocateur. (Provocateur redirects to the disambiguation page for agent provocateur.) Usually this implies that someone is in the employ of the police. I don't think we should use terms which although strictly speaking are accurate give a misleading impression. For the same reason I wouldn't call him a journalist either. TFD (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as a loaded, polemical, and vaguely defined term. It's clear that the article referring to Ngo as a provocateur was using the word as an insult and not as a serious definition of his occupation; otherwise we're saying that Ngo is someone who pretends to be a protestor in order to induce other protestors to commit crimes. Describing him in WikiVoice as a "provocateur" is laughable. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 19:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep He has been described as a provocateur in the press and is one, much like Milo Yiannopoulos. I don't think the word has a negative stigma, it just means someone who provokes or is provocative, in some way. Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Provocateur is used to describe "one who provokes" (or one who calls forth in others a feeling or an action). Agree with Coffee & Crumbs that some individuals, including artists, consider the role of provocateur to be a calling and find the term nothing to take offense at. Additionally, provocateur has been used by two reliable sources to describe the subject: the Oregonian (winner of 8 pulitzers) and Rolling Stone (green at WP:RSP) which are both solid backing as citations for this content, more than enough to adequately cite this term. Finally, let us not forget that Ngo is a public figure, governed by less stringent WP:BLP rules as for low-profile individuals. Cedar777 (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * [Replies moved to discussion section below]


 * Keep in the article, attributed. The term has been used by multiple sources including Rolling Stone, Jacobin, Atlantic and Jewish Currents magazines to describe Ngo. We can follow WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and tell the reader which publications have called him that, and explain why, which is the real benefit to our readers. Binksternet (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Liz.--Jorm (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Provocateur is a highly loaded word and appears to be used only as clickbait and partisanship. More neutral terms include activist, agent and operative. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Largely per TFD, given it is not universal and is a loaded term. I would also say it is a freedom fighter type descriptor. PackMecEng (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Mixed, perhaps reword it in a sentence or two in the lead to better describe what sources are saying when they use the term, rather than just state the blank term. I would also be fine to change provocateur with activist or conservative/right-wing activist while stating later in the lead that he has been described as such and why; or if not in the lead, better explain and clarify in the body why several reliable sources have been calling him by that term, see Jacobin and Vox. Davide King (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Writer Keep (it's what he is known for and many sources describe him as such) I think he should be described as a writer. It is how he is described in a number of reliable sources, and it seems fairly inert as a descriptor. I think calling him a hack writer would be more accurate, but that presents many issues similar to describing him as a provocateur.Bacondrum (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * [Replies moved to discussion section below]


 * Definitely. Numerous high quality sources in agreement. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too loaded a label at this point. Not supported by the weight of reliable quality sources. Others have pointed out that the label was attached to Ngo by political source(s) as an insult. That's not nearly good enough for me to be considered encyclopedic. RandomGnome (talk) 05:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - well-sourced and the most neutral descriptor of what he does. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

All, this is an ongoing RFC. Adding the disputed RFC material to the lead while the RFC is in process is something experienced editors should know is problematic and not against policy (NOCON). If consensus says add then we should do so but not before then. Springee (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless it was long-standing content, in which case the default is to stay in pending consensus to remove. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , agreed. In this case it was recently added and immediately disputed. The first addition I've found was October 1 [].  The only time this hasn't been in hot dispute is when the article was locked. Springee (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose He has not been widely called a "provocateur" by RSs thus it would violate WP:LABEL to call him this especially in the lead. Moreover, it would consistute WP:UNDUE weight on the small portion of source which do refer to him as such which is especially important to avoid considering this is a WP:BLP. Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 16:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion "Provocateur"
Discussion in reply to Cedar777 [moved from above]:
 * I suspect Milo would revel in the idea that he is a provocateur. Do you think Ngo would find the term to be balanced?  It appears that Ngo is trying to report on what he sees is a problem with left-wing activists using intimidation and violence.  Calling him a provocateur appears to be an attempt to discredit his reporting.  As such I don't see how we would presume it to be something other than a controversial label.  Springee (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We do not presume to call him anything. RS call him that and we are only relaying the consensus of RS. A significant number of RS call him a "provocateur", therefore, for any relevant intents and purposes on en.wiki, he is a provocateur. Asking for in-line attribution is the only argument that makes sense here, based on the argument that it is a minority view point. However, including significant minority view points is part of how we keep a neutral point of view on en.wiki. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to stop misrepresenting the sources and making broad, patently false characterizations of what the sources are doing. The majority of sources describe him as a journalist. A small number of op-eds and magazine pieces, maybe two or three cited here, use the term provocateur. The op-eds are not secondary and a single magazine article is not a "consensus among RS." It's not even a significant minority viewpoint, it's one limited to opinion pieces and a "culture commentary" magazine article. This can, at most, be noted in the body, with in-text attribution. You are repeating provably false characterizations in a manner that is disruptive to the discussion and has the potential to mislead others. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , as far as I know, none of these are op-eds and all are RS. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The Vox piece calls him a journalist, and suggests he is a "provocateur sympathizer," not a provocateur himself. The Independent piece is an op-ed in the "Voices" section, meaning, opinions. The Intercept piece is yet another online-only magazine by an author who has written sharply negative opinion pieces about Ngo. So I'm not sure how much weight that holds, but even if I give you that one, there is still not even an inkling of a "consensus among rs" that "provocateur" is the prevailing or even an appropriate term. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You ignore The Oregonian. Vox does not say a "sympathizer to provocateurs". It says "Ngo is a conservative provocateur sympathizer who has worked with militant right-wing groups", meaning that both conservative and provocateur modify symphathizer, which he is, according to Vox. The Independent has a separate properly labeled "opinion" section. I do not have civil words to respond to the misguided statement "another online-only magazine by an author who has written sharply negative opinion pieces about Ngo".
 * We also forgot to mention the Rolling Stone. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So sticking with my comment about re-working the carer section, I think we should look at those articles when deciding how to handle them. For example, if an article claims he, "worked with militant right-wing groups" we really should include the details of that collaboration.  Does this mean active coordination and collaboration?  Does it mean he is sympathetic to their version of events and thus effectively aids their narrative without actually collaborating with them?  Does it simply mean he challenges claims that it was "the right who hit first" if he saw "the left take the first swing"?  Conversely, if a source just says "Ngo, a provocateur and right-wing hack, testified before congress."  Well that's just a writer using loaded terms without justification.  That should be discounted in terms of answering if we should use the label in the article.  Incidentally I think there is almost certainly enough evidence to discuss the various labels in the body of the article.  We just need to do it in a way that isn't like a list of names people have called him.  Springee (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not have civil words to respond to the misguided statement Keeping mum when you can't say something civil is a smart move. Consider doing the same for statements that are inaccurate. "Provocateur sympathizer" calls him a "sympathizer" for provocateurs, not necessarily one himself. This poorly worded phrasing is inconclusive. You also conveniently omit any information that doesn't support your point, namely that the Vox piece says he is still a journalist. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have always maintained that both journalist and provocateur should be kept, together, to represent a NPOV. Keeping "journalist" and not "provocateur" is POV pushing. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What you are advocating for is, in my opinion, a WP:FALSEBALANCE. One is the prevailing term in high-quality print and online sources. The other is limited to a select few opinion and online-only pieces. The two are worlds apart and in terms of weight and the latter is a contentious label, subject to even more stringent sourcing requirements to be used without attribution. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "provocateur" is not a contentious label, it is simply a word that describes what he does, which is to selectively film and publish footage of events with an aim to invoke a particular response. "racist" is a contentious label. "terrorist" is a contentious label. "bigot" is a contentious label. Do not cheapen truly contentious labels by putting this word in the same boat.
 * Excluding "online-only pieces" has no basis in policy or guidelines on en.wiki. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As any good journalistic source would, Vox points to its source for the claim that Ngo "worked with militant right-wing groups", a report by the JewishCurrents, which in turn points to a WP:NEWSBLOG by the Portland Mercury, which telling has a hatnote stating "After publication of this story, a lawyer representing Andy Ngo contacted the Mercury, asking for a retraction and stating that Ngo denies certain claims made by a source quoted in this article. See the full contents of the lawyer’s request here. The Mercury stands by its reporting."
 * I cannot help but think that editors here expect journalists use nice words to describe right-wing provocateurs. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is an great example of why we need to not just repeat what the source claims but also trace back teh evidence. In the case of "worked with right-wing groups" the evidence is the video of Ngo near PP prior to the Cider Riot brawl.  What that video shows is greatly disputed.  A way we can handle this is say that some sources say Ngo actively works with (or what ever language) right-wing groups.  Other sources dispute this claim (Reason's arguments here).  The video actually works well in this revised carer framework.  Rather than just telling readers "Ngo was seen with these people..." We say "[sources] allege that Ngo has has a cozy relationship/coordinated with right wing groups. In [date] a video was released showing Ngo near PP members.  Ngo is seen smiling/acknowledging the PP members.  Later that day PP was involved in a brawl at Cider Riot.  [Source] says this shows PP planning an attack and that Ngo heard the plans yet failed to report this when later reporting on the brawl.  [Source] disputes some of these claims [details].  Ngo, via an article published by [online magazine] denied these claims saying [short denial].  Now the reader can see the accusation against Ngo, the evidence and the counter claims in a single passage.  This avoids having to flood the article with labels while helping the reader better understand why some apply the labels to Ngo.  Springee (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I cannot help but think that editors here expect journalists use nice words to describe right-wing provocateurs. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is an great example of why we need to not just repeat what the source claims but also trace back teh evidence. In the case of "worked with right-wing groups" the evidence is the video of Ngo near PP prior to the Cider Riot brawl.  What that video shows is greatly disputed.  A way we can handle this is say that some sources say Ngo actively works with (or what ever language) right-wing groups.  Other sources dispute this claim (Reason's arguments here).  The video actually works well in this revised carer framework.  Rather than just telling readers "Ngo was seen with these people..." We say "[sources] allege that Ngo has has a cozy relationship/coordinated with right wing groups. In [date] a video was released showing Ngo near PP members.  Ngo is seen smiling/acknowledging the PP members.  Later that day PP was involved in a brawl at Cider Riot.  [Source] says this shows PP planning an attack and that Ngo heard the plans yet failed to report this when later reporting on the brawl.  [Source] disputes some of these claims [details].  Ngo, via an article published by [online magazine] denied these claims saying [short denial].  Now the reader can see the accusation against Ngo, the evidence and the counter claims in a single passage.  This avoids having to flood the article with labels while helping the reader better understand why some apply the labels to Ngo.  Springee (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is an great example of why we need to not just repeat what the source claims but also trace back teh evidence. In the case of "worked with right-wing groups" the evidence is the video of Ngo near PP prior to the Cider Riot brawl.  What that video shows is greatly disputed.  A way we can handle this is say that some sources say Ngo actively works with (or what ever language) right-wing groups.  Other sources dispute this claim (Reason's arguments here).  The video actually works well in this revised carer framework.  Rather than just telling readers "Ngo was seen with these people..." We say "[sources] allege that Ngo has has a cozy relationship/coordinated with right wing groups. In [date] a video was released showing Ngo near PP members.  Ngo is seen smiling/acknowledging the PP members.  Later that day PP was involved in a brawl at Cider Riot.  [Source] says this shows PP planning an attack and that Ngo heard the plans yet failed to report this when later reporting on the brawl.  [Source] disputes some of these claims [details].  Ngo, via an article published by [online magazine] denied these claims saying [short denial].  Now the reader can see the accusation against Ngo, the evidence and the counter claims in a single passage.  This avoids having to flood the article with labels while helping the reader better understand why some apply the labels to Ngo.  Springee (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:LABEL applies to terms with distinctly negative connotations, and provocateur is once such term. I am not arguing for excluding online-only sources, I am explaining (correctly) that print sources like the NYT carry more weight. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no policy basis for the claim that "print sources like the NYT carry more weight". I trust online sources more because they are clearer, more direct, less weighed down by status quo norms, and more likely to offer corrections. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Springee, yes, we can do all that in the body. However, we have enough due weight to mention that "some sources like Rolling Stone, Vox, and The Intercept refer to him as a provocateur because of allegations that he sympathizes with militant right-wing groups, a claim that has been disputed by [so and so publication]". --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What you are arguing is that there is enough weight to the criticism of his journalism to use that in the lead. That doesn't mean we should say, "RS, Vox... call Ngo a provocateur."  Instead we say something more like, "[Many] sources have criticized Ngo's reporting for X and claimed he has done Y".  That sources chose to apply a controversial label isn't important, why they did is.  This is the difference between loading up the article with emotive terms vs an impartial description where we state the basis for the label and allow the reader to reach their own conclusion.  This is inline with the IMPARTIAL policy, "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes."  Offering up the contentious labels without offering up the reason for them is supporting one side of the dispute.  IMPARTIAL goes on to say, "Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. "  The label provocateur is an opinion, not a fact.  That a particular source says Ngo misrepresented an incident is a fact.  That they chose to refer to him as a provocateur is an expression of their opinion.  If we are good we should be able to present all the same evidence the other sources provided without using any of their subjective labels.  The reader can then decide what to think.  Springee (talk) 13:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I still object to calling him a "journalist". That is a disputable job title. We should call him a "writer" as suggested above. I have made concession to reach a consensus. You and Wikieditor19920 appear to not have any interest in reach a consensus. It appears to be your way or the highway when it comes to the lead section. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree but we seem to be repeating. I'm certainly interested in a consensus but that consensus also needs to adhere to IMPARTIAL as that is a policy.  Look at the MW definition of Journalist, "1a: a person engaged in journalism especially : a writer or editor for a news medium."  Ngo is an editor for the Millennium Post and writes articles for the MP [].  Certainly we can agree that the MP has a poor reputation but that doesn't mean it's not a news medium nor that Ngo isn't writing and (presumably) editing and thus meeting the definition of journalist.  While calling him a writer is factually correct, it's broader and less informative.  Still, since, reportedly he is releasing a book, perhaps "conservative writer and journalist"?  I'm just assuming conservative is in there since that was a added in a previous consensus.  Perhaps a better way for us to reach a compromise is to figure out how to fix up the body first then adjust the lead.  Springee (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion in reply to to Davide King [moved from above]:
 * You know that Jacobin piece is an op-ed? It's also pretty polemic and does not carry weight here. However, I thank you for citing it, because a number of other editors here have been parroting the reasoning of this single Jacobin piece with regards to the term "journalist," without citing it, and instead making arguments contrary to the prevailing reliable sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , do you know that Jacobin is reliable (Reason is similarly considered reliable) and that sources are not required to be neutral (few sources, including 'centrist' ones, really are), just that they are reliable? Or that I did not even mean to use those sources to support the claim in the lead, just to use them and attribute them in the body? Both are reliable sources. Davide King (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen a consensus for Jacobin on WP:RSP, so I"m not clear on that. It's also an "American socialist" opinion magazine, so it's both WP:BIASED and not clearly secondary. However, I wholeheartedly agree with you that if the term "provocateur" is used, it should not be in the lead, and must be with attribution. So I think we have a lot of common ground. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I believe this was the latest RfC. I think Jacobin deserves at least a similar status to Reason. Anyway, I agree, too. If we are to use provocateur in the lead (I would prefer having one or two sentences about it, rather than the blank term; or doing the same in the body, if it is not lead worthy, i.e. expand and clarify why he has been called that way, what he has done to cause several reliable sources to call him that way or in similar terms), we would do our readers a favour by explaining why he has been called that way, rather than just use the blank term, which seems to be that the majority of reliable source are on yours and 's side. I also agree with this comment by Springee. Davide King (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks for sharing. My read on the RfC, which was not closed with any particular consensus, is that it is usable, but only with attribution. I think that's appropriate for the body, but again, WP:UNDUE for the lead. It's also an opinion piece, so the statements from the Gupta article are reliable only as an indication of what the author's opinion is. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree, that is why I support it only in the body, if it is not lead worthy for now. Davide King (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Survey of Wikipedia ledes in bios of disgraced journalists
For perspective and amusement, there are numerous Wikipedia bios and BLPs under "Category:Journalistic hoaxes" and "Category:Journalistic scandals". It looks like in every single case the person is described as "journalist" (usually "former" journalist, for obvious reasons), sometimes "reporter" or "editor", but nowhere in the lede or article is there language suggesting the person was not actually a journalist while purporting to be one. The articles duly report that the subject fell into professional disrepute, committed journalistic fraud, was involved in controversy, etc, but there is no attempt to frame this as a self-exclusion from the category of Real Journalists. This should settle one ridiculous branch of the discussion above, but if not, here is a new subsection in which to pursue it. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

, thank you for closing this. I think it was a good analysis. I would like to point out that "provocateur" was not part of the stable lead at the time of the RfC. It was a recent and disputed addition thus the no consensus should not be used to keep it in the lead. Anyway, thank you for a fair closing analysis. Springee (talk) 12:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Consensus can emerge and be formed in any discussion on a Talk page, not limited exclusively to RfCs. And, within an RfC, consensuses can also emerge outside the strict construction of options proferred by the initiator. In this case, however, no consensus emerged either way. However, to clarify, you are correct that the question as to whether or not "provocateur" should be restored to the lead is not a part of the close and my use of the word "probably" should be read only as a personal opinion as to the best way to ensure article stability. However, the editors will have to decide how to handle it and my note in that regard carries no weight beyond personal opinion. Apologies I did not make that clearer. Chetsford (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Ngo's reply to the May Day video
, I think you need to better justify this reversion[]. First, Ngo is being accused of being complicit with a crime. Even Blogtown, the original source for the accusation says Ngo has denied the claims. Per ABOUTSELF this is not an extraordinary claim, this is in defense of one's self. Second, Reason is a RS and the reporter's analysis says Blogtown got it wrong. That is significant. To show only one side of the story without showing the other is a WEIGHT problem. Springee (talk) 12:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , your answer is in the question. The source of the allegations includes the fact of denial. Thus, we can report the fact of denial from that source and we don't need to use primary / self-sourced material. FWIW, I also think we should not use The Daily Beast, Vice or any other less than excellent sources. The Oregonian and the Portland Mercury are proper news orgs with decent editorial control, we should rely on what they say. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is the original source didn't contact Ngo and only included a letter from Ngo's lawyer. However, Reason, a RS, both includes criticism of the original source's conclusions as well as reaching out to the original source and Ngo for comments.  Additionally, in the Wiki article we don't say anything about Ngo's denial of the accusations made against him nor that a RS said the video doesn't support the accusations.  Both should be in the article even if they shouldn't be given as much weight as the original accusation based on the relative coverage.  Springee (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just for the record,, since you keep saying this, the original source for the accusation is the Portland Mercury, not "Blogtown". Here is the Portland Mercury's online homepage. If you click on any story on this page that's not in a specific separate section, you will get a URL with "/blogtown/" in it with the big bold "BLOGTOWN" at the top. "Blogtown" is just what the Portland Mercury calls its online edition. Loki (talk) 08:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So Reason's article is an op-ed because we say so but Blogtown isn't a news blog. Perhaps you should review the recent RSN discussion on the sourcing here. Springee (talk) 11:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Reason's article is clearly an op-ed. It uses first-person pronouns several times to express the opinions of its writer. It's in their "media criticism" section, full of other op-eds, whereas the Portland Mercury article is listed under "news". (Also, thank you for informing me of the discussion on RSN.) Loki (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * An "Op-Ed" that reached out for comment from both the PM and Andy Ngo. Did the Blogtown entry reach out to Ngo for comment?  The PM is a small time, alternative paper that clearly says "Blogtown" on the entry.  Both sources are mixing factual reporting with the writer's views of events.  Why should we be a stickler and say Reason is "OpEd" because it's in a section titled media criticism but we accept something labeled as a blog as a solid source?  Anyway, I think Masem's suggestion makes the most sense.  Cut out the subjective material that claims Ngo was laughing/interacting with PP members.  Stick to the more solid parts.  Some sources say this video shows Ngo is too cozy with alt-right subjects and DB suggests this video was why he left Quillette, Quillette denies this to be the case.  Springee (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Because an opinion section doesn't perform fact-checking on the things it posts, and because it is WP:DUE less weight in general, especially given that Reason is obviously starkly WP:BIASED when it comes to anything involving Antifa or left-right politics. An opinion piece from such a source can be used in some situations, but making controversial claims of fact that support their point of view isn't one of them, especially when it's a stark outlier that isn't covered anywhere else. --Aquillion (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Where do you see that Reason claims they don't perform fact checking? Blogtown is the source that didn't do basic fact checking like contacting Ngo for his side of the story.  You say Reason is biased.  I agree that Adfonts supports that POV.  Reason is somewhat biased according to them (Reliability 38.27, Bias 4.12) [].  Compare that to the Washington Post (R 43.73, B -4.18) or CNN (CNN.com R42.22, B -5.69; CNN cable TV news R36, B -11.87 [][]).  The Daily Beast is R34.44, B -16.25 [] or Vice at R38.58, B -10.72 [] (chart here []).  So yes, Reason is biased right but not by much and less than the left bias of many of the sources.  Others like the Daily Dot and Portland Mercury aren't rated.  So why is it controversial to claim it's not clear Ngo overheard what people were saying?  Why is it controversial to say "Ngo said he was looking at his phone and didn't hear what was said"?  Even the PM attributes that claim to "Ben".  Springee (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Inaccuracies regarding book release
The recently added content about Ngo's book needs revision as it is problematic for several reasons:
 * 1) It is January and the book has not been released, yet the article states in wiki voice that it was released in February.
 * 2) It inappropriately uses an unreleased primary source to verify this claim despite the existence of multiple secondary sources addressing this coming event. Secondary sources are always better. WP:PRIMARY (To clarify, although I recently added several of Ngo's articles at Quillette as a means to define only a time frame of writing activity (2017 - 2019) it is vastly preferred for this and other information to be ascertained by secondary sources (i.e. other than Ngo or Quillette). WP:SECONDARY
 * 3) The majority of the media outlets addressing the book release are discussing the activities at Powell's Books in Portland rather than providing content reviews of the unreleased book. The root source of most of the recent coverage in media outlets is this January 13, 2021 article by the Associated Press: Powell’s Books says Andy Ngo’s book will not be in store

If this material remains in the article, it needs to be spoken of accuratly as a future event, sourced to the AP and/or the Oregonian which also mentioned the coming book release months ago. Cedar777 (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * We aren't supposed to be in a hurry. Keeping it out for now is probably the best call.  Springee (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit that misquotes and fails verification
I made this edit: before remembering that this article is 1RR, so I self-reverted. But my points are valid. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

"Fails verification?" Please explain. Also - "misquote"? Is this the quote you're referring to -"A large man in a Proud Boys shirt says the June 29 assault on Ngo happened because he ignored Proud Boys' offer of protection"? Noteduck (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Verification" refers to one of our basic policies, WP:V. The WW source did not "question Ngo's account of events", so the proposed content fails verification. The current version fixes the misquote, so it's moot. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, where is the misquote? Also regarding verification, "I can see Ngo has claimed to be an independent journalist. It is increasingly clear he is coordinating his movements and his message with right-wing groups." Is this not questioning his account of events? Does Ngo agree with this? I believe you should strike through this entire subheading, thanks Noteduck (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, the misquote has been fixed and is moot. No, the WW source does not question his account. If you disagree, please identify (i) what his account was, and (ii) what part of that account they question. What they question here is whether he is an "independent journalist". Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

So Ngo has admitted he coordinates with right-wing groups? That's remarkable I guess. At any rate it was totally unnecessary to create this subheading and attempt to find pedantic criticisms of good-faith edits. I appreciate that you've seen Wiki as biased in favor of the left in the past, but we're all just trying to improve the page here. Noteduck (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, FOC. This is where we talk about content. That's what I'm doing. The misquote was fixed, so that's an improvement, and I thought that the proposed content, which I agree was in good faith, was not correctly reflecting the content of the source, which did not question his account of events. So yeah, fixing that would be an improvement, unless you want to tell me what part of Ngo's account was questioned and provide a quote to that effect. BLP articles require great care in being sure to make sure all content is verified, since these are living people whose lives are affected by what we write here. Anyway, it's fixed now, so none of this matters. Let's move on. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Jan 2021 edits to lead
, while I appreciate cutting down the length of the lead, I think splitting the last paragraph into two single sentence paragraphs and removing the context of why we care about the cider riot video is a mistake. Last fall Bacondrum and I worked on this material []. My concern with just stating the video exists is it lacks any sort of context. Why should we tell people about it. He was near people who weren't being violet at the time, so what? The what is that the video was used to support the view that he is too close with the right. Perhaps we can cut the length of that paragraph down further but I think the previous version was better. What about:
 * Ngo's coverage of anti-fascist groups has been controversial including accusations that Ngo focuses on violence committed by the far-left while ignoring the violent actions of the far-right. Claims of bias increased after video footage surfaced which showed Ngo close by Patriot Prayer members who were planning an attack on patrons of the Cider Riot bar.

Note that doesn't address NedFausa's concerns which we could also discuss here. Springee (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

One bar, not two (Cider Riot again)
In the section “Patriot Prayer video and departure from Quillette”, this recently edited sentence is not supported by the sources: “On August 26, 2019, the Portland Mercury reported on a video that showed Ngo standing near members of far-right group Patriot Prayer in a Portland bar and smiling and laughing as the group planned a violent attack at a different bar, frequented by left-wing activists.” There is only one bar, the Cider Riot. The Patriot Prayer conversations that Ngo was present for (as described by the Mercury) happened in the street enroute to Cider Riot - not in front of another bar. This is also directly observable in the video. Is there another source that lists a second bar? If not, this content needs to be corrected in the article. Cedar777 (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with this concern. I think it's a minor thing but I don't recall any sources saying exactly where the video was taken nor do I think it would matter much.  Springee (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing this out. I have corrected my mistake, which stemmed from the former wording: …video that showed Ngo standing near members of far-right group Patriot Prayer in a Portland bar and smiling and laughing as the group planned a violent attack at a bar frequented by left-wing activists. To me, that suggested two different bars. NedFausa (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Cedar777 (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

No deaths by Antifa
this article in conflict with the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_of_Aaron_Danielson_and_Michael_Reinoehl which clearly states his antifa leanings and he killed some one. As has not been tested in court would not go as far as say murdered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K1w1.Troll (talk • contribs) 08:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * At the time our source was published (August 27th, 2020), that statement was true. Aaron Danielson was shot August 29th, 2020. We probably should clarify, though. Loki (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Recent edit
This edit summary did not make much sense to me "Comparing Ngo to Goebbels is absolutely not acceptable in a BLP even if the source attributed to a book review". Wikipedia is not censored. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah no, we are not going to compare him to Joseph Goebbels. That is just inappropriate, fringe, and asinine. PackMecEng (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "We" are not comparing Ngo to anyone; note that this is not rendered in wiki-voice. The book review does: "'According to Nazaryan, Ngo describes every act of violence by antifa 'so meticulously and ominously'...'. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You say that like it makes a difference. It does not my friend. Not even a little bit. Yes, it is attributed to someone else and not in Wiki's voice. So what? It is still inappropriate, fringe, and asinine. PackMecEng (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The review is "inappropriate, fringe, and asinine"? This does not make much sense since the review is still cited in the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is an example of finding the "sound bite" in the article rather than the substance. We can summarize the review without using it's inflammatory language.  That is especially true when the language compares the person to a literal Nazi.  If nothing else it's very unencyclopedic to use such terms even in an attributed quote.  Springee (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Then provide a better summary of the review. The comparison of Ngo to historical propagandists is an essential part of that review and the understanding of Ngo's work. No reason to censor the comparison outright.Shadybabs (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A better summary of the report was already there. PackMecEng (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , once that edit was reversed twice it should have been clear that there wasn't consensus for such a statement in the article. Restoring it tends towards disruptive editing. Springee (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that apply more directly to PackMecEng? "Yeah no" is not a justified edit summary.Shadybabs (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion here before you restored the recently added, non-consensus text which compares a BLP subject to a literal Nazi. Springee (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * On the one hand, I don't think Nazi comparisons are 100% out of bounds in any article even a BLP. Ultimately we go by the sources, and if all the sources say someone is like Goebbels then we shouldn't override them with our own personal bias. On the other hand, however, it seems in this case it's just one line in one source, which is certainly not enough to implicitly call someone a Nazi. Loki (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As editors we are using our personal bias to decide which, if any, lines to quote from the review. Comparing living people to Nazi's is always going to be problematic even if it comes from a book reviewer who clearly has a bone to pick.  Springee (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't think that it's appropriate in this particular case, where we only have one line from one source. But surely in a hypothetical case where we have tons of sources comparing the subject to Nazis, we wouldn't hesitate to include that, right? E.g. I'm sure lots of sources have compared Richard Spencer to Nazis, and it would certainly be strange to leave that comparison out of that article. (In fact, there's a comparison in that article of Spencer to Goebbels specifically.) Loki (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I mistook your earlier comment. Regardless, you are right.  Just like we might include a statement that a person is widely viewed as a racist, Xist, Xphobe etc, yes, if a wide range of sources called the person a Nazi we could say the same in attributed voice. Springee (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The LA Times writer clearly disagrees with Ngo. It would be best to summarize the writer's opinion. That's somewhat hard to do since the writer seems to engage in the same vilification for which he condemns Ngo. It would be impartial to say the writer claims Ngo ignores facts that don't support the narrative of the book and the writer feels the book is propaganda that tries to vilify those Ngo doesn't like. To use the Nazi parallel, even if attributed, fails wp:impartial. Springee (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In presenting a book review, Wikipedia editors have the option to either paraphrase or attribute quotations to capture the review's essence. In this case, paraphrasing is inadequate. Alexander Nazaryan does not merely pan Unmasked, he calls it "supremely dishonest" and accuses Ngo of "churning out the very kind [of] propaganda that keeps authoritarians in power." Ngo writes "in the tendentious, pedantic tone of a Wikipedia enthusiast," Nazaryan sneers, and "crosses the line into truly despicable." Ngo describes every act of violence by antifa "so meticulously and ominously," declares Nazaryan, "that Herr Goebbels would have been proud." To ensure that we take this over-the-top rhetoric literally, Nazaryan adds, "In no way do I make that allusion flippantly." This is not just a bad review, it's a public excoriation that willfully invokes the most evil parallels. To fairly represent such bias, we must quote Nazaryan directly and, most importantly, on point. His personalized comments about Ngo's parents' immigration from Vietnam, which the author relates only in the book's final pages, are a tangential afterthought. The point of Nazaryan's review is to vilify Ngo as a Nazi propagandist of the first magnitude. Please, let's not lose sight of that. Give Alexander Nazaryan his due. NedFausa (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Is Nazaryan worthy of that deference? His review seems more like an angry rant than a careful, critical review.  If the reviewer is over the top we should probably discount their review.  Regardless, choosing to highlight that inflammatory text bite is not encyclopedic and should be replaced with a more impartial description (WP:IMPARTIAL is policy).  Springee (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:IMPARTIAL advises: Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone. That policy does not, however, prohibit us from quoting directly if, as in this case, the content cannot otherwise be accurately represented. NedFausa (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The actual arguments can be summarized without the hyperbolic language used in this review. Springee (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * They cannot be accurately summarized without being watered down. NedFausa (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure they can. We simply remove the hyperbole.  I can say "I would rather eat dog [poop] than food from Burger-Mart!".  That can be sumarized as "Springee expressed great dislike of Burger-Mart's food".  Yes, the hyperbole was removed but the core idea is still there.  It might be helpful to get some NPOVN feedback on this question.  Springee (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Then you have to define hyperbole. When Alexander Nazaryan calls Unmasked a "supremely dishonest" book, is that hyperbole? NedFausa (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that you can draw a clear line in the sand but I think when you start to add modifiers to your descriptions you are certainly moving towards hyperbole. Take your example, I think we can define dishonest.  If Ngo states things he knows to be false that is dishonest.  How do we decide when something is "supremely" vs "very" vs "really" etc.  A way to handle this would be say "Nazaryan described the book as dishonest citing examples... X, Y and Z."  If Nazaryan can't provide an example to show the dishonesty then we shouldn't credit his claim.  In the case of the Goebbels comment we can just say, "Ngo's writing attempts to vilify those he wants the reader to dislike".  Honestly, reading it as the text appears in the wiki article the reason for the Goebbels comparison is less clear.  In the actual article the next paragraph says why the reviewer makes the connection.  That part, not the shock value name is more significant.  Imagine if a text described a politician as, "The person was like Hitler.  Both are 1.75m tall."  Now imagine we said, "Senator X was compared to Hitler by [reporter]".  Being the same height as Hitler is hardly a sin but the comparison is certainly going to raise eyebrows.  Anyway, I'm happy to raise this as a NPOVN question if it will help. Springee (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Why does Alexander Nazaryan liken Ngo to Goebbels? Because, he explains, "Maligning the opposition was central to the Nazi strategy, and it is critical to today's far-right extremists. Ngo's intention here seems not just to discredit antifa, but to run a diversionary tactic for Patriot Prayer and other groups that are far more dangerous than their leftist counterparts." We could add that if editors believe it somehow softens the blow as Nazaryan assassinates Ngo's character. NedFausa (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Incidentally, I noticed there are hyperlinks inside the quotes which, while not prohibited are questionable per MOS:LWQ. Springee (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Here in full is the disputed paragraph as it now stands. In the Los Angeles Times, Alexander Nazaryan reviewed Unmasked as a "supremely dishonest new book on the left-wing anti-fascist movement known as antifa". According to Nazaryan, Ngo describes every act of violence by antifa "so meticulously and ominously" that Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda of Nazi Germany, "would have been proud. In no way do I make that allusion flippantly." Nonetheless, Ngo's book became an Amazon bestseller.

There are no hyperlinks within quotations. NedFausa (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see why I was confused. The mixing of quoted and paraphrased made it look like the mention of Nazis was a direct quote.  Since it wasn't a direct quote there is even less reason to summarize it.  Springee (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am also having a hard time finding Nazaryan qualified to even make that comparison. I see nothing in his background that would make him authority on nazi propaganda or Goebbels. Finally he seems basically alone in making such a comparison. Why would we want to amplify such a fringe viewpoint? PackMecEng (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please, can you identify something in Alexander Nazaryan's review that does not represent a fringe viewpoint? NedFausa (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Why? You are making a case for including that specific content and I am explaining why we should not include it. PackMecEng (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You are the first editor in this 1,800-word thread to mention "fringe," although you did mention it in a previous thread. Now that you raise the issue here, it strikes me that Alexander Nazaryan's entire review is fringe, and therefore ought not to be included in this BLP. However, I asked for your input because I am prepared to defer to your judgment as to whether his review contains anything that is not fringe, and might therefore qualify for inclusion. NedFausa (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My fringe reference was him making the comparison as the comparison is not made anywhere else really. So that is a fringe view. His other views may share more wide spread support, and then not be fringe, I do not know. I have not looked too deeply into those, only the one presented for inclusion into the article. PackMecEng (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, Alexander Nazaryan's is the only review of Unmasked to appear in a mainstream news outlet. It stands to reason then, that nothing he wrote in attacking this book and its author shares widespread support. Accordingly, Nazaryan's entire review is fringe and should not be used. Don't you agree? NedFausa (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I've opened a NPOVN discussion regarding the topic here []. Springee (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Given the contentious nature of comparing a BLP subject to a Nazi, even with attribution, I've reverted the text to the previous version. This is consistent with wp:NOCON. Springee (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree but wish you hadn't called the reviewer an "LA Times writer" above since, as stated at the end of the article, he actually works for Yahoo. And, having seen "Newsweek apologizes after writer Alexander Nazaryan compares Ted Cruz fans to Nazis", I conclude he is indeed capable of using that critique method "flippantly". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Fled for his life
made this edit, and I don't understand why. The source here says Mr Ngo ... is now living in London having fled Portland fearing for his life. This is reported in the reporter's voice, not attributed to Ngo. But Noteduck is insisting on attributing it to Ngo anyway, and moreover his edit does so in a way that violates MOS:CLAIM. When I reverted, the content was reversed again, apparently in violation of 1RR and the normal BRD process. Noteduck, please self-revert and discuss here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Is the pull-quote not linked to the next sentence, though? "Mr Ngo – who recently published a book, ‘Unmasked’, covering the inner workings of Antifa – is now living in London having fled Portland fearing for his life. “For a number of months now there’s just been increasing threats of violence against me, promises by Antifa extremists to kill me.”"  Otherwise that quote is an orphan?  And the reporter is clearly basing that sentence on Ngo's statement. Black Kite (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that the reporter is basing his statement, made in his voice, that Mr Ngo ... is now living in London having fled Portland fearing for his life, on the statement from Ngo. Reporters often report things as being true based on the testimony of other people and without attributing the statement to the source. They don't always attribute. Presumably they attribute when they're not confident of the truth of the statement, and they say it in their own voice when they're confident. So should we attribute? We should follow the RS judgment on this: in this case, the reporter didn't attribute so neither should we. Moreover, we should also follow MOS:CLAIM, 1RR, and BRD. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * All of this information, sourced only to Sky News Australia, is best left out of an encyclopedia article until there are other sources confirming it. Cedar777 (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It has also been reported in the Oregonian here that Because of increasing concerns about his personal safety, Ngo said he recently left his hometown for London. This is a tricky sentence. As I read it, they are saying (i) there are increasing concerns about his personal safety, and (ii) Ngo says these concerns are why he left his hometown for London. Do you think that this additional source makes it DUE for inclusion? I'm on the fence. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What you call "a tricky sentence" in The Oregonian is followed by this, which you omitted: He filed at least 10 reports with Portland police about threats made toward him or his family since last June, said Sgt. Kevin Allen, a bureau spokesman. (Emphasis added.) As I read it, that gives additional, official weight to Ngo's fear for his personal safety. NedFausa (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point, I missed that, I agree. I think the text reverted to its previous state and the Oregonian source should be added. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Oregonian article is quality and contains a lot of usable content on the subject (however, its worth noting that it is only a few hours old at this point, having just been published this morning). The Oregonian is clearly the better source for content about the relocation to London as it covers the subject in depth, not to mention it has a reputation for producing Pulitzer-prize-winning journalism. More caution is required when using Sky News Australia to source content as it is considered to be a strongly biased source. It is not necessary to quote Ngo per Sky News Australia. From WP policy WP:QUOTE: "It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words." The Oregonian does a much better job maintaining NPOV in their coverage of the material. Cedar777 (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)