Talk:Andy Ngo/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Is "conservative" appropriate?

There are sources from several years ago that call Ngo "conservative" but the current view of him is that he's alt-right or similar. I am concerned that on this and other articles we not dilute or negate the meaning of conservative prior to the very recent rise of overt anti-American extremism on the far right. Thoughts? SPECIFICO talk 12:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Taking a look at recent sources:

The Dartmouth On Jan. 20, the Dartmouth College Republicans invited conservative journalist Andy Ngo

NH Journal Members of New England-based Antifa groups are planning to stop right-wing provocateur Andy Ngo (no byline)

NH Journal Dartmouth College administrators canceled an on-campus appearance by conservative journalist Andy Ngo’s Thursday night after a deluge of online threats from Antifa members.

Boston Herald Dartmouth College canceled a planned in-person appearance by conservative journalist Andy Ngo Thursday night in response to threats of violence from the left-wing activists who call themselves Antifa.

The Intercept Andy Ngo, a right-wing Twitter star (biased source at WP:RSP)

Oregon Live lawsuit against Andy Ngo, a right-wing author and media personality

The Hollywood Reporter book by right-wing provocateur Andy Ngo...Ngo, a conservative journalist who rose to prominence filming left-wing protests in Portland, has become notorious for his associations with the neofascist white nationalist groups the Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer.

Willamette Week believed to be right-wing author Andy Ngo

Colorado Politics conservative journalist Andy Ngo

Rolling Stone Andy Ngo, a right-wing provocateur who condemned Antifa...tweeted at Ngo, a conservative journalist who came to prominence for his reporting of the Antifa protests in Portland.

I see no use of alt-right, plenty of conservative or right wing, or both. I think conservative is fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

There have been a few discussions about this in the past. He clearly isn't "conservative", and more "right to far-right" based on his associations, actions and ideology, however I think the decision was to go with what the sources say. BeŻet (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The New Hampshire and Boston Herald refs are just parroting The Dartmouth, a student publication.. Most of the others say "right" in some form. I think we should reflect that and choose the best form among recent sources. SPECIFICO talk 15:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I would be very curious if someone here who's opposed to the current labelling could offer definitions of "conservative", "alt-right" and "far right" that explain why Ngo fits the latter two but not the first. As far as I can tell, "far right" in the U.S. means a conservative who's opposed to illegal immigration, while "alt-right" means someone who's racist against non-whites (which presumably doesn't fit Ngo to a tee). Korny O'Near (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe the Boston Herald, or one of the two NH Journal articles are "parroting" a student newspaper, seeing as they were published before the Dartmouth article. (Herald January 22, 2022 at 12:04 a.m., NH Journal Posted to Politics January 20, 2022 and January 19, 2022, Dartmouth 1/25/22 5:10am) Hollywood Reporter, Colorado Politcs and Rolling Stone all use conservative journalist. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

OK Thanks. The point stands, however. These outlets are not RS to characterize him. What's worse, I think they may be parroting this Wikipedia page, "conservative journalist" when he popped up in this backwoods location. SPECIFICO talk 19:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes, the backwoods of Dartmouth College, a private Ivy League research university in Hanover, New Hampshire, United States. Established in 1769 by Eleazar Wheelock, it is the ninth-oldest institution of higher education in the United States and one of the nine colonial colleges chartered before the American Revolution. And the unreliable Boston Herald. How could we expect those backwards New Englanders to understand something as complex as a routine news story? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I guess you're not familiar with the area. The college is not the backwoods. The surrounding local smalltown media are not experienced in reporting or sourcing the distinction that apparently even the exceptionally well-informed gathering of WP editors cannot easily parse. Please curb the snark. SPECIFICO talk 21:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The Boston Herald is hardly "local smalltown media." I'm not sure why you'd have an issue with any of the sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It is a dying shadow of its former stature, no longer a major news outlet or a fallback source for issues that are more incisively covered by media that have survived the death of print. I think it's highly probable a reporter at such a publication and certainly at the local NH publications would google Ngo and stumble on our miserable little article that says "conservative journalist" SPECIFICO talk 22:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Do any of those labels really fit him that well? It seems labels are often applied uncritically by sources because other sources have said the same thing. The problem is they also come with a lot of implications that may not be at all accurate. Do Ngo's views on things like healthcare, abortion, education, gay/lesbian rights, etc align with typical views of conservatives/the right? Yet another reason to generally avoid such labels, even relatively no-controversial ones like "conservative". Springee (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

My emphasis is usually to try to make the article informative and avoid being misleading. Labels with widely varying meanings (= vague) are really not informative. And for those that are also value laden, there is a second reason to leave them out or minimize them. Better to put in actual information / specifics instead.North8000 (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

There is disagreement in reliable sources on the U.S. Right (that is, among sociologists, political scientists and other experts) on the terminology to use. As a result, these terms are not clear and the meaning requires context. I think though that the term "conservative journalist" is self-explanatory. TFD (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree. North8000 (talk) 10:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

"Accordingly" is a violation of NPOV.

Although I can't make changes to the article, Under the credibility section the wording suggests that Wiki agrees with the source's characterizations. The word accordingly should be removed. 69.145.47.64 (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Dec 2021 video lawsuit against Ngo

Cedar777, the accusations that Ngo is using videos without credit[1] were based on lawsuits that were dropped two weeks after they were filed. We should not be crediting such accusations of wrong doing given then were withdrawn by the people who made them. Including a list of various accusations made by people who are ideological opposed to Ngo is not something we should be indulging in. Springee (talk) 04:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

As a side note, since your edit also removed the reference from PM Blogtown, the source for the WW claim, I can see removing "Blogtown" though it is the section of the PM where the information came from. It is typical to cite something to "an OpEd in the NY Times" vs just to the NYT. However, I will grant WW didn't make that clear. However, WW did make it clear the content they were reporting came from PM and not from themselves. We should not present it as if WW was independently corroborating the claims made by the PM. Honestly, we should just replace the WW reference with PM since it's similar to a new article saying "according to the Associated Press". Why not just quote the AP? Springee (talk) 04:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

A review of the talk page archives will show that there have been extensive discussions about The Portland Mercury, Willamette Week (awarded a Pulitzer), and how to name and attribute these publishers. Neither of them are called "blog town". Cedar777 (talk) 12:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Accusations of Far-Right Ties

The accusations of "ties" to the far-right are absurd to include in this article and constitute a BLP violation by painting Ngo as some kind of far-right domestic terrorist when he has never done any such thing. Even the idea that he is far-right is so preposterous, what other gay Asian atheist in the United States is somehow a Christian nationalist white supremacist? The supposed ties should not be included in the lead or the body. Bill Williams 18:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

One of the sources (Willamette Week, some minor source with no credibility to pain someone as "far-right") just quotes the other source (Portland Mercury, another minor source without the backing to paint him as far-right), and Portland Mercury quotes a single person, "Ben," who accuses Ngo of being "protected" by Patriot Prayer. Then the third remaining source just says he has "ties to the far-right" with zero evidence or sources to back it up. That is some insane "sourcing" to use to claim that Ngo is far-right or allied with them. Bill Williams 18:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

After reading through all three sources, there is a sum total of one line of evidence provided in all of them to claim that Ngo "accused of having links with militant right-wing and far-right groups in Portland, Oregon" as the lead of this article claims. This one sentence is "There's an understanding,' he says, 'that Patriot Prayer protects him and he protects them." A single sentence from a single unreliable and anonymous source in a single minor newspaper article, which is absolutely asinine to use in this Wikipedia article to claim that Ngo has ties to the far-right in the lead of the article. Bill Williams 18:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the concern is legitimate and support the change on the grounds that the sourcing for a concern with strong BLP implications is weak. Springee (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that should be fixed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I've restored the longstanding content per WP:STATUSQUO, and added a verifying reliable source, of which there are many for this. If a change is to be made to the lead, more discussion should be had. ––FormalDude talk 20:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The source you added doesn't support the claim. Springee (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes it does: "Ngo faced allegations of cooperating with far-right groups." ––FormalDude talk 23:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

You are correct. I missed that the first time (need to slow down when reading :( ). However, SPLC Hatewatch is not a great source and repeating the claim is kind of a "they say" sort of accusation. The original source for the claim is poor (local alternative press writer). Springee (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I think most of the existing sourcing is very strong. The current lead wording is a compromise already. If it was up to me, I would have put the assertions in wikivoice rather than attributing them. Loki (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

None of those are strong sources. The PM's writer is arguably involved as she has tried to interfere with Ngo's work. The "strong" source we used to have was Rolling Stone. We have no strong sources now. Springee (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Cedar777, Bill's original concern still stands. Only a single source has actually made the far right collaboration claim. The others agree still just "others claim" remarks. That source is the Portland Mercury and written by a writer who tried to out Ngo to Antifa [2]. This makes her involved and should cause any reasonable reader to question if her unsubstantiated claims can be trusted. This is a BLP and should err on the side of caution. Also your addition of the DD to support "reusing video content" is not reliable. DD is a marginal source and is green only for a narrow range of topics. Accusing a BLP of copyright violations is not one of them. Springee (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The allegations are due for the lead, where a little content is needed to summarize a few sections of the article. The new sources added should be summarized in the body, and the lead overview should probably be longer than it is currently. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

While the original source for the claim is very poor I can see an argument to mention it in the article body. However, due to the nature of the claim, the poor evidence and this being a contentious claim about a BLP this should not be in the lead. Springee (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The sourcing is just name-calling; there is an exception to WP:STATUSQUO for living persons; SPLC Hatewatch is a blog. I agree with Bill Williams. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Besides, this is half the lead, and it's not even directly about him, it's about what his political opponents said about him. North8000 (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, as Peter Gulutzan and Springree stated, you cannot claim that someone cooperates with far-right terrorists in the lead of their article without violating BLP unless there is sufficient sourcing, and in this case there is not. These allegations are completely undue because they have no evidence behind them, and at the very least should be kept in the body with context. Bill Williams 16:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

There is exactly one single source that quotes one anonymous individual only going by a first name who provides zero proof of anything to claim that Andy Ngo cooperates with the far-right. Every other source just says "he has been accused of" without citing anyone who provides evidence that he cooperated with the far-right. Millions of people accuse Bill Gates of putting microchips in vaccines, far more attention than the accusations toward Andy Ngo, but Bill Gates' accusations also have zero evidence whatsoever and are treated as a joke, the same should be said here. Bill Williams 16:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The slander towards an atheist gay Asian child of refugees by labeling him as "far-right" is one of the most pathetic things I have ever seen in the lead of a Wikipedia article. He's an atheist but supports Christian nationalists, he's gay but he supports homophobes, he's Asian but supports white supremacists, and he's a child of refugees but supports xenophobes. Please look at all of that combined and tell me he cooperates with the far-right. Read the article that "far-right" hyperlinks to and tell me that belongs in the lead of Andy Ngo: "Fascism, Nazism, and Falangism, far-right politics now include neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism, and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, and/or reactionary views" Bill Williams 17:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Bill, your WP:OR based remarks are not likely to convince anyone. You seem intensely emotional about this, perhaps you should take a temporary break from the page or this discussion. ––FormalDude talk 00:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

You have zero sources proving that he has far-right ties, making it a BLP violation. It's not emotion, it's purely a fact that every basic definition of far-right and the people involved in it goes against Andy Ngo, and to link far-right in his lead when everything the lead of the far-right article states is against Andy Ngo, shows how absurd that is. Bill Williams 01:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Hearsay sourcing does not count as a legitimate accusation of far-right ties, with zero actual sources besides a single sentence from a single anonymous man in a single news article. Bill Williams 01:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Also it is not that I feel personally emotional regarding Andy Ngo, but articles concerning the far-right on Wikipedia diminish its danger to society and the people it hates. Calling people far-right when they are no where near far-right makes people begin to doubt if someone is far-right or not, when there are still plenty of far-right people in America today. It is the epitome of absurd to accuse someone like Andy Ngo of collaborating with the far-right. Bill Williams 01:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, posting three replies to yourself within the space of ten minutes is not going to help your point. Loki (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, if you have an actual disagreement, please post a single source that proves Andy Ngo has ties with the far-right, otherwise my point still stands. Bill Williams 16:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not care how "absurd" it is, we care if it's been reported in reliable sources–and it has, multiple times over. ––FormalDude talk 02:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Bill's concern is 100% valid. We do have a number of sources who have repeated a "that's what they say" type accusation. Discussing the accusation in the body of the article is perhaps reasonable. The problem is the only source is a writer for a local, alternative news paper (the kind alternative papers that used to be free in the arts district in various cities). This is not a well respected paper of record. In addition to trying to out him on twitter when he was trying to report on a black block group. We have to trust her and her "under cover source" to accurately describe Ngo's "far-right" ties. That is very weak sourcing to put such a claim in the lead of a BLP article. Springee (talk) 03:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, it is not "reported in reliable sources... multiple times over" it has been reported in one single local newspaper and its supposed evidence is quoting one man by his first name and having one sentence accusing Ngo of collaborating with the far-right. Ngo has had dozens of major news articles written about him and has done many major things that make this one local news article about him irrelevant in the bigger picture, UNDUE for the article. No other reliable source reports on these accusations with any merit by providing any other sources to accuse him. Bill Williams 16:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Another reason it should go is because it's not in the body of the article. The lead should be a summary of the content which is in the body and there's no content to summarize. North8000 (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

This is evidently well-verified encyclopedic content. I'd suggest that those who are concerned about it offer some specifics of his views and actions that give broader context that would mitigate any misimpression from, once again, well-sourced content about such associations. SPECIFICO talk 16:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

That's asking people to prove a negative. Conversely, if this is DUE for the lead it needs to be very robustly sourced. While we do have some sources (not a majority just some) that say he has been accused of this (ie "others have said this") we only have one source that has made the actual accusation and it is a low quality source. Springee (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Evidence, statements or contex reported in proportion to RS narratives is not at all "proving a negative". Just ordinary content souring for NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 18:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I did a recent source analysis back in February, and one did mention the ties to far right groups. That discussion is at Talk:Andy Ngo/Archive 13. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. I think you were referring to this source [3]. I wouldn't consider that a good reference for this sort of claim. Basically we have a music star who is getting backlash for liking Ngo's book. The Hollywood Reporter writer is trying to summarize who Ngo is for a presumably uninformed audience. They say, "Ngo, a conservative journalist who rose to prominence filming left-wing protests in Portland, has become notorious for his associations with the neofascist white nationalist groups the Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer." First, it provides no supporting evidence. The writer is conveying common knowledge (like the common knowledge that the Ford Pinto was a fire trap. Also, it is arguably true that Ngo's reporting is "associated with" PB and PP etc but that doesn't mean he "has links to". The first can be a mental association while the second says outreach/collaboration between Ngo and these groups. Ngo is also associated with Antifa though they aren't "linked". Anyway, in that context I would take that to be a writer trying to quickly summarize without all the extra words to say, "he has been accused of having associations with XYZ". We would also need to ask, is a pop-music article about an artist a good source for factual claims that Ngo has links to the alt-right? Springee (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think all we need to point to is the total lack of evidence presented by any source beyond the original one. A writer who shows her bias by outing Ngo in a way that puts him at risk of harm said an unnamed person made claims that Ngo works with the far-right. We don't have other sources showing additional examples of this. We don't have independent corroboration of the original claim nor other similar claims. That brings me back to the BLP part where we err on the side of do no harm. Springee (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Most of conversation is not about the actual claim made in the article, that NGO has been "accused of having links with militant right-wing and far-right groups in Portland, Oregon." It does not say he has such links or that he himself is far right. There is significant mention of the accusation that establishes weight for inclusion. The claim made in the Portland Mercury, that he had links with Patriot Prayer and the Proud Boys, whether right or wrong, damaged Ngo's reputation and became part of his story. TFD (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

One single source making an unsubstantiated claim is a BLP violation in this lead by further damaging his reputation; if a local newspaper damaged his reputation, what do you think this Wikipedia article is doing? It does not benefit the reader to mislead them by implying that there are widespread accusations against Andy Ngo. Accusing him of collaborating with the far-right is the same as calling him as far-right to the average reader, why else would a reader think he collaborates with the far-right if he is not part of them? One local newspaper quoting one anonymous person for one sentence does not belong in the lead of the article when there are far more notable things about Ngo. Bill Williams 21:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

If it was one source that took the issue seriously, particularly if they had retracted it, I would agree. But extensive sources have reported the accusations. While Ngo has not been accused of a crime, "People accused of crime" is helpful:

"A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured."

So we can report negative accusations against public figures, so long as they have weight. It is not up to editors to determine what claims should be reported, but to report claims considered important by sources.

Incidentally, the claim is not unsubstantiated. The informant provided a video, which is available on youtube and Ngo's links to the Proud Boys was supported by recordings of their conversations. But it's moot, since it is not up to editors to determine how credible claims are, just whether they are widely reported.

One reason claims should only be mentioned if widely reported, is that it allows different views of the claims and the subject's views to be included. If there are any, they might be included, but I have not seen any. Another reason is, as you have inferred, that we should not magnify accusations beyond what appears in reliable sources. But if anything this article minimizes them.

TFD (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

"accused of having links with militant right-wing and far-right groups" is false to begin with because the allegations refer to one specific group, therefore that specific group, Patriot Prayer, should replace "militant right-wing and far-right groups" even if you take the single person source at face value. Contrary to what you claim, it is actually "one source that took the issue seriously" with that being a local newspaper, the Portland Mercury, and the even smaller and more irrelevant Willamette Week article repeating it, actually referring to this specific allegation. Nobody else claims that Ngo "has ties to the far-right" based on the Portland Mercury allegation, all the other sources listed in the lead of this article say that Ngo has been accused of having ties to the far-right without any reference to the story you claim is proof. You say the accusations have been covered extensively but I think two very minor local news sources does not count as extensive enough to accuse Ngo of collaborating with the far-right in the lead of his article, at the very most it belongs in the body. Bill Williams 23:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Every single other article that I have found (e.g. Salon, Vice) which mentions this story never says he "has ties to the far-right," they simply complain that he selectively edited the videos he took of the far-right and Antifa and that he downplayed the violence from the far-right. This is completely different from claiming some sort of conspiracy between him and the far-right, which is an allegation that only one minor local news organization actually claimed, no where near due for the lead of this article. Bill Williams 23:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

A Rolling Stone article says, "The source told the Mercury that Ngo and Patriot Prayer have an “understanding” that the group offers him protection when he covers rallies in exchange for favorable coverage. While this has not been confirmed, and Ngo strongly denies these allegations, an audio conversation between members of the Proud Boys, released by Willamette Week seemed to confirm that such discussions between Ngo and the Proud Boys had occurred, as one man is recorded saying that Ngo was attacked on June 29th because he refused an offer of protection." TFD (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Three sources barely quote a vague story about a conspiracy theory pushed by an anonymous individual, and that is enough proof to put "far-right" in the lead? Regardless of whether or not he denies the allegations, they do not belong in the lead without significant backing, because any mention of such allegations will make a majority of readers believe he is far-right. Look at the wording of numerous other Wikipedia articles, many people are said to be "accused" of something that is extremely backed up, you think most readers are going to look into this and realize it has almost no evidence? They will see the wording in the lead of the Wikipedia article and assume that significant evidence shows he has worked with the far-right. Bill Williams 04:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

It is not up to us to evaluate the claims, just report them if they have widespread coverage. Are they significant to the subject? See for example "Review: Andy Ngo’s new book still pretends antifa’s the real enemy" (A. Nazaryan, LA Times, FEB. 8, 2021}: "Ngo had a history of “embedding” with right-wing groups — including, according to persuasive allegations he has denied, the white supremacist outfit Patriot Prayer." So the allegations are considered credible in reliable sources and are frequently mentioned. This article maintains neutrality by not treating those allegations as fact. TFD (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a BLP violation if all of these hearsay sources are used to claim he is far-right, it is just a echo chamber, they're repeating the same thing without going back to the basic story, which is one sentence from an anonymous man in a local newspaper. At the very least it belongs in the body, with proper context. In the lead with an overload of citations and claims about "far-right" just implies he is a supporter of the far-right, while the sources just claim that he spreads misinformation about them by not showing their violence in his videos etc. The body can provide the necessary context, but at the very least remove "groups" and replace with Patriot Prayer specifically because that is all the sources discuss. Bill Williams 18:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

And since the accusations of video editing (which is what the Patriot Prayer accusation refers to) is already covered by "frequently accused of sharing misleading or selective material" there is no reason to add conspiracies that he collaborates with the far-right in the lead. Bill Williams 18:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

While it might be a BLP violation to CLAIM that Ngo was far right (in addition to being OR), no such claim is made. And also per NOR, it is not up to editors to evaluate claims, but to rely on the evaluations made in reliable sources. In any case, no statement is currently made in the article about the credibility of the allegations. The fact that the ties have not been proved is the reason they are referred to as claims, rather than facts. TFD (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I think there needs to be an RfC on the topic as myself and three other editors have expressed disapproval of this being in the lead, while yourself and four other editors on this talk page have expressed support for it belonging in the lead. It is my opinion that it should only be in the body with proper context, because the lead implies that there is merit to the accusations when you leave them without context in the lead and provide a citation overload. In the body they could be described as to exactly what he is accused of. Bill Williams 06:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Reply to OP: Many of the biographical details about Ngo came from early coverage in Willamette Week, Jewish Currents, and especially from an early interview he gave to Oregon Public Broadcasting. He identifies as gay, was raised Buddhist, was drawn first to Christianity, and then embraced organized skepticism. Since his parents suffered under a communist regime to the extent that they fled Vietnam as boat people, it seems reasonable that RS are accuratly reflecting that he holds certain views that are hallmarks of liberalism while also harboring deep intergenerational distrust of anything that might be perceived as communist group think to the extent that multiple RS reference the far-right as a key aspect of his followers and rise to prominance. Ngo writes for the New York Post and the Post Millenial, two sources that Wikipedia editors describe as unreliable at WP:RSP. We need to be careful with content that is only sourced to Ngo. In reviewing a number of the esisting sources (no shortage of them), the term far-right comes up repeatedly in connection with Ngo and in reference to his followers. Has Ngo openly stated that he does not support the Proud Boys or Patriot Prayer? or has he taken steps to distance himself from the far right followers on twitter and/or elsewhere? The article does not suffer from a lack of sourcing and the majority of those sources cover that there has been long standing controversy with Ngo's coverage. Cedar777 (talk) 12:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Controversies over his coverage are completely different from Wikipedia accusing him of collaborating with far-right groups in the lead of the article. "But it isn't in Wiki voice" when you spam five citations and write a whole sentence that implies he collaborates with the far-right, 99% of viewers aren't going to bother to click a single one of those sources, they are going to assume the allegations are true even though there is no evidence of them besides a single anonymous man in a single local newspaper. They should only be mentioned in the body, in context. You can't honestly tell me the average reader is going to look through the citations and realize the "allegations" are just an echo chamber between different media outlets with no legitimate source but a single anonymous man. Bill Williams 00:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

The article does not accuse him of collaborating with far-right groups, nor do the sources cited. If you have a problem with sources mentioning the accusations against him, you should discuss it with them. Wikipedia does not decide what is significant, but merely reports facts, opinions and accusations in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Primary publishers Ngo writes for

The lede describes Ngo as a writer for the Wall Street Journal and the Spectator but these are overemphasized relative to how RS describe his career and contributions. The first paragraph of the lede should be changed to reflect that Ngo writes most frequently for the New York Post. I propose that we remove the Spectator and WSJ from the lede and replace it with "He is a regular contributor to Fox News and the New York Post." This is more accurate as he repeatedly and currently contributes to the NYP in addition to the Post Millenial. Cedar777 (talk) 12:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

They are not overemphasized, he has written half a dozen articles for the second largest newspaper by circulation in the entire country. That is significant enough for his lead. [4] Bill Williams 01:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

He has written zero articles for WSJ... He's only written opinion pieces for them, theres no interest in him as a journalist from WSJ just as an opinion commentator. Note that the editorial pages he wrote for are entirely independent of WSJ's news side, saying he wrote articles for WSJ is misleading at best. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Journalists can write opinion articles... Plenty of journalists' Wikipedia articles mention how they're contributors to newspapers like the WSJ. Example is Jamal Khashoggi's article where it mentions the Washington Post [5] even though he only wrote opinion articles for it. Bill Williams 03:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Of course journalists can write opinion articles, thats exactly what Ngo has done here, but they are not works of journalism. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The New York Post lists 22 articles by Ngo (both News and opinion) here: https://nypost.com/author/andy-ngo/ versus the 6 at WSJ - all of which are classified as opinion/commentary. The Spectator shows 5 articles by Ngo https://spectatorworld.com/author/andy-ngo/ The numbers indicate that the primary publishers of his work are The Post Millennial and the New York Post. The difference in quantity is significant. He has published 3-4 times the content of the others listed in the lede. The Spectator and WSJ should be listed and sourced in the body but removed from the lede. The NYPost can replace them. Cedar777 (talk) 03:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree . ––FormalDude talk 23:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

It would be better to expand rather than change the list. I think Ngo has also done stuff for Newsweek. It's fine to say his work for outlet A or B was an editorial vs straight reporting but we shouldn't act as if his work was never published by those sources. Springee (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, especially considering the Wall Street Journal is a significantly larger newspaper by circulation than the New York Post anyway, so just because he wrote 1/3 the articles does not mean they were 1/3 as significant. The WSJ has more than twice the circulation of the NYP. Bill Williams 03:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Jacobin reference in lead

Cedar777, you have twice added this reference to the lead [6]. I don't see that it supports the claim in question. Can you prove the quote that supports using it? I read your edit summary to say it does so I'm a general sense but I think this is a specific claim, not a general one. Springee (talk) 10:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The article calls him a "right-wing agent". ––FormalDude (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

That does not mean he had ties to right wing groups. A writer might continuously come up with reasons why the group's behavior is ok but that doesn't make them "linked". People may see them as enabling bad behavior by causing public doubt it's "that bad". That can be seen as being an agent of but not having actual links/connections. This is a specific claim and that quote doesn't support it. Springee (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps it doesn't verify that he has ties to specific right wing groups, but it does verify his association with the far-right in general. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

But that's not the claim. The claim is here has links to. Not that he carries water for or is associated in the minds of others. The source fails wp:v which is what it was removed by two editors. Springee (talk) 12:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The status of two sources used in this article changed at WP:RSP in the last year: Rolling Stone (September 2021) and Jacobin (February 2022). User @Springee: addressed The Rolling Stone content in this edit [7] by deleting most of it in January, two months after the source's political coverage was downgraded, and one month prior to Jacobin's upgrade to green/generally reliable. Just as the article was revised to reflect the change for Rolling Stone, so the article warrants adjustments based on the ruling a few months later for Jacobin. I have been aware for some time that this still needed to be done.

The 2019 Jacobin piece is a lengthy article that directly addresses Ngo's role and reputation. They stated that Ngo "uses social media to push biased opinions in conjunction with selectively edited videos that play to the bigotry of his audience. His followers get worked up, and this is often followed by a deluge of threats against his subject." This content has since been reinforced by notable academics at Harvard (Donovan) and Yale (Stanley), currently listed in the article. In 2022, Donovan and two other researchers also included Ngo as among the "right wing social media influencers" they studied in the Routledge publication The Social Media Debate: Unpacking the Social, Psychological, and Cultural Effects of Social Media.[8]

"Jacobin has talked to six people in Portland, including journalists, political officials, and activists, who described harassing messages and threats of violence resulting from Ngo’s work or political involvement in Portland." It's publication preceded the complaint where the Post Millennial, unreliable per WP:RSP and Ngo's direct employer, tried to malign Zelinski a year later in 2020.

The Jacobin article goes on to detail far-right depictions of violence towards antifascists, discussing the mobilization of far-right groups at several events, particularly the End Antifa rally on August 17, 2019, where "Individuals affiliated with Patriot Prayer and the Proud Boys talk of wanting to “slaughter” Antifa."

"What connects these dots is Andy Ngo." While I am certain that there are editors here who disagree with the consensus to upgrade Jacobin there isn't an argument that the article fails to supports the statement that Ngo has been "accused of having links with militant right wing and far right groups." Wikipedia is not saying he is a member of Patriot Prayer or the Proud Boys but it is accurately stating that multiple sources reflect that Ngo has been accused of being connected/linked to right wing groups that have a history of engaging in violence.

"Ngo promoted the article [by Lenihan for which Lenihan was suspended from Twitter] and more significantly continues to promote it — just as eight months after the fact, Ngo continued to claim that striking the protester from the Patrick Kimmons march is really evidence of Antifa taking their anger out on an elderly man." Respectable journalists and publishers make corrections and dissociate themselves from violent or criminal actors, yet Ngo has refrained from doing so on many occasions. Cedar777 (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

First, none of this supports the clear statement that Ngo has links with far-right groups. Second, the Jacobine RfC closing is questionable but more to the point it's clear that Jacobin is a very biased/opinionated source. This is further supported by Adfontes's ratings which put Jacobin at the very edge of acceptable due to a very strong bias and heavy opinion/analysis. The problem here is you are relying on analysis by a biased source and even then it doesn't really support the claim in question. That is the primary reason to remove it from the lead. The text you claim supports it has the issue I outlined above. Springee (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The consensus per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is that "Jacobin is a generally reliable but biased source. My question is why, when there already four sources, we need to add a fifth one. While it is just an essay, Wikipedia:Citation overkill explains why use of multiple citations is usually a bad idea. TFD (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The Jacobin citation is counterproductive. I'd be hesitant to use it at all because it's an opinion from a partisan source, but in this case it also doesn't support any information that isn't already supported by other sources on this article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Saying it's partisan doesn't advance the argument. All media is partisan. Just because a news source supports status quo politics and economics in the U.S. doesn't mean it has no political position. It's political position is supporting the dominant ideology of the country. TFD (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia gives WP:WEIGHT to orthodox ideas in a given field. While WP:FRINGE and other heterodox positions should be covered when appropriate, they should not be given equal validity. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The source is not just "partisan," they are self proclaimed socialists who are ranting against a man they deem a fascist, so their commentary on him is completely unreliable and undue, not to mention that they don't even accuse him of "links to far-right groups" so it is irrelevant regardless. Bill Williams 12:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Request for Comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I have reviewed the discussion and there is a rough consensus that opposes inclusion of the phrase in the lead of the article per WP:BLP-related policies. That being said, many of the !oppose votes do not object to the inclusion of the phrase in the body of the article. Academic Challenger (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

---

Should the lead of the article contain the words "and [he has been] accused of having links with militant right-wing and far-right groups in Portland, Oregon."? Bill Williams 13:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose @Pickalittletalkalittle sums it up well enough to me.

Nemov (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Notified: WT:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment, WT:WikiProject Journalism, WT:WikiProject LGBT studies, WT:WikiProject Oregon, WT:WikiProject Politics/American politics, WT:WikiProject Asian Americans. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose there is only one source for this accusation, which I believe is a BLP violation based on reliability and noteworthiness. The accusation comes from a single anonymous source ("Ben") in a local news article (Portland Mercury), with other sources repeating hearsay to state "he has been accused" without stating who accused him. It all originates with Portland Mercury, repeated by Willamette Week, both of which are locals news sources that are not notable to put something as controversial as this in the lead. As for the other three sources, The Daily Dot article is an opinion piece, while Al-Jazeera and SPLC mention for a single sentence that he has been "accused of" ties but once again makes no mention of who accused him and do not elaborate further. This is not enough to put this in the lead, especially since the actual accusation from a single anonymous source in a local newspaper referred to a single group, Patriot Prayer, with no further sources directly accusing him of ties to any other "groups". The nuances of this can be discussed in the body of the article, not the lead, yet the body only has two sentences on the matter, clearly not enough to justify this being in the lead. The content clearly damages Ngo's reputation (this article receives around 20,000 monthly views) and should stay in the body. Bill Williams 13:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • There's absolutely no basis for dismissing multiple reliable sources as "hearsay" simply because a claim has been repeated in other publications. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Fruit of the poisonous tree may apply, since all the sources provided clearly point to the Mercury as the origin of the claim without adding any additional confirmation. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    • This fits the precise definition of hearsay, which is "information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate" because there is zero evidence of what "Ben" the anonymous local news source stated, and no other reliable source provides additional evidence. That cannot be enough for a BLP violation in the lead defaming Ngo. It paints him as a Nazi without sufficient evidence. Bill Williams 00:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
      • That would apply if there was any problem at all with Mercury, but there isn't. It's a reliable source. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
        • I have no doubt the Mercury is accurately reporting what "Ben" told them. But do we want to trust "Ben" for a controversial BLP claim? The article was published in 2019 and said "Ben"'s real identity would be released "in a matter of weeks." Did that ever happen? Argento Surfer (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

      The fruit of the poison tree is a good analogy here. The author of the Mercury article seems to have it out for Ngo. After the article in question she live tweeted Ngo's location to her followers during an Antifa related protest. The Mercury isn't some paper of high esteem, it's a local alternative weekly. Given the actuation we shouldn't accept such a weak source Also, Reason magazine reviewed the evidence and said it isn't sufficient to support the claim. This is a BLP so we clearly need to err on the side of caution. Springee (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support inclusion This is said several times in the article text. There are plenty more sources not currently in the article. The article text should avoid weasel and should attribute the statements. The lead summary does not need to attribute. SPECIFICO talk 15:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support inclusion - Summoned by bot. Salon, Rolling Stone and the LA Times all discuss a video showing him meeting with a right wing group ahead of a planned riot. The implications of the meeting are also discussed. The coverage absolutely shows that has a link with the group, Patriot Prayer. Rolling Stone also mentions the coordination with Proud Boys, hence "groups" works, and not just a group. If it said he was a member of the far right groups, that would be problematic. "Links" is supported. And indeed, a coordination link to the enemies of the group his entire career is based on vilifying (Antifa) makes the connection a significant enough fact to include in the lead. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  Rolling Stone isn't a reliable source. Reason refuted the basic claims [9]. Springee (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  "A video showing him meeting with a right wing group" ventures too far into WP:SYNTH. Pickalittletalkalittle (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose not a strong or compelling enough argument nor consensus to make that sort of claim in the intro. Have no issues with it being mentioned in the body.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. This is a defining characteristic of Ngo. His biography here on Wikipedia was started on June 30, 2019, the day after the protest which made him famous. The video proof is clear that he is linked to the PBs. Salon, Rolling Stone, and the LA Times concluded that Ngo had made an arrangement with the PBs. Binksternet (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  Except a RS says it doesn't. Also, those sources didn't conclude he had an agreement, they said he is accused of it. Springee (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Reason says Ngo did not know about a planned attack. Reason certainly links him to the PBs. Reason supports inclusion. Binksternet (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

It says he is reporting on them. It doesn't support a claim of any sort of collusion or "links with" the PBs. Springee (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

It says Ngo was hanging out with the PBs. If he had been reporting on them, he would have been asking them questions and filming them, which it says he was not doing. Binksternet (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Please provide the quote. Springee (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

"Ben's video—which shows Ngo in the company of a small group of Gibson's associates immediately prior to the Cider Riot battle—is being widely cited in the media as evidence that Patriot Prayer did indeed conspire to attack Cider Riot, and that Ngo was tacitly involved. The coverage all but brands him as a co-conspirator." ––FormalDude (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

That is the writer summarizing what others are claiming, it isn't agreeing that he was "linked with" the PB. Springee (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree it's not agreement from Soave, but it is further support and weight for our article language, that Ngo is "accused of having links with" groups like PB. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I haven't decided where I lie on whether or not this should be included in the lead (I'm leaning no), but you make a really good point here. Pickalittletalkalittle (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers Pickalittletalkalittle (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - it's been a pretty sweet ride for "Ben", the anonymous undercover source: he just had to make one comment to a reporter in 2019 about Andy Ngo's supposed deal with Patriot Prayer, and since then he's gotten quoted or referred to every time some hack journalist has wanted to cast doubt on Ngo's reporting about antifa or whatever it is. Enough: we don't know Ngo's relationship with Patriot Prayer or anyone else and we may never know, so until there's some sort of proof, I think WP:NOTGOSSIP applies. By the way, it's not clear to me that a protection deal with a right-wing group like Patriot Prayer - if that is the case - even counts as something nefarious, given that Ngo is trying to report on people who very literally want him dead, and could use any protection he can get. Perhaps he's just being pragmatic in his alliances, sort of like... Ben. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Except that they're not just quoting him, they're analyzing his public video evidence as well. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, that's right - it wasn't just Ben's quote, there was also a video of Ngo following a group of Patriot Prayer members, where he "was seen smiling and laughing at certain points". One would think that, if Ngo really did have "links to the far right" (whatever exactly that means), there would be somewhat firmer evidence of that at this point than facial expressions from three years ago. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  I understand that you may question the credibility of Ben, however several sources state that law enforcement found the video evidence credible enough to criminally charge affiliates of Patriot Prayer after the violence at Cider Riot. The video footage, taken by "Ben" was used by law enforcement to press charges against 6 members of PP, several of whom pleaded guilty to felony riot incitement. The Bellingcat article stated: "Based on the strength of those leaked videos, six members of Patriot Prayer were charged with felony riot incitement.[10] Jewish Currents also confirmed that this was the case: "the footage [taken by Ben] has been deemed reliable enough to use against Patriot Prayer in court, as some members of the group are facing felony riot charges after an attack on Antifa activists at Cider Riot"[11] Cedar777 (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  That's very much a bait and switch. There were a number of videos from the actual Cider Riot confrontation. Are you saying this one made any difference? Did the police say it provided useful information or simply that they asked/demanded all available video and this was part of that haul? It is also worth noting (and this article needs to) that two, Gibson and Scultz, had the charges dismissed by the judge saying the prosecutors had failed to make their case [12]. Two plead to something (was it actually felony riot?) and one was indicted on other charges. The devil is in the details here. So was this "Ben's" video or was it the videos taken by others at the actual time of the confrontation? Springee (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. Extensive coverage across multiple high-quality sources. The argument people are making above ("well, I think the sources are all ultimately based on the same root source, with no verification or independent reporting") isn't... based on anything, and flies in the face of how we're supposed to use WP:RSes. If people think the numerous sources that have covered this screwed up, they should contact them and ask for retractions, but it's WP:OR / WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS to cast aspersions on them here and demand that their coverage be downplayed or omitted based on that. Also, Reason is a biased or opinionated source per WP:RSP, and the particular source cited is to their media criticism section, which is opinion (they often don't clearly distinguish between reporting and opinion, but that one is clear-cut.) It's completely inappropriate to try and use it to rebut multiple higher-quality sources. --Aquillion (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Why is Reason a biased opinionated source but so many of the others aren't? The sources that make a "they say" reference and bring factual but only by towing a biased analysis, or opinion as you would call it. You would be correct to say Reason actually looks at the evidence and says the video doesn't support the claim (which should be obvious to anyone who watches the video as Ngo is apart from and doesn't interact with the group). Reason also points out the journalistic failings of the original source and it's use of an anonymous "under cover" Antifa member. Is such a member likely to be truthful? Reason offered an analysis of the evidence. Why is their analysis discounted but you treat the analysis of The Daily Dot or Mercury as factual? Springee (talk) 10:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Nowhere does it say the anonymous source is an Antifa member. It says they're a U.S. Navy veteran. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  It's irrelevant what they are, they're an anonymous person who spoke to a local news source, not enough to call Andy Ngo a Nazi in the lead of his article that receives 20,000 views per month. This clearly has direct harm to his reputation and going off of one accusation made by one anonymous individual in one local news source is no where near enough evidence to put it in the lead. Bill Williams 12:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Except law enforcement also found the video footage taken by Ben to be credible and used it to prosecute several members of Patriot Prayer per Bellingcat and Jewish Currents. Cedar777 (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  Do you have a good source for that? As I said in the reply above, the news stories say that "Ben's" video was one of a number of videos reviewed for evidence. It doesn't say that "Ben's" video showed anything of merit. Perhaps it contained some of the evidence that resulted in the judge dropping all charges against Gibson and Schultz. Springee (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. Aquillion nails it on the head. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion in lead. First, this is a BLP so we need to err on the side of caution when considering contentious claims about a BLP subject. Putting such a claim in the article body may be DUE but in the lead where it will be read by many as true is a violation of BLP never mind the weak sourcing of this claim. Contrary to Aquillion's view, the sourcing here is weak. The original source is from a questionable writer in the "blogtown" section of a lifestyle paper. It's not clear what "blogtown" is vs the Mercury's standard reporting. As a section it doesn't seem to exist anymore. The author has shown herself to have less than ideal journalistic integrity and clearly doesn't mind getting involved with her work. During one of the antifa related disturbances she tweeted Ngo's location to her followers. Is that something an observer does? If she were an impartial observer why would she do something that puts a person's life in danger? [13] We only have her word on what "Ben" claims and she has shown that she doesn't have journalistic ethics. Additionally, the Reason source notes that she didn't contact Ngo for comment (according to Ngo) and refused to comment on the Reason story. So she didn't give the subject she was going to target a chance to respond nor was she willing to back her own claims when placed under review? Again, all of this suggests very poor journalistic ethics. If nothing else she can't be considered an independent source given she actively worked against Ngo's own reporting on Antifa. Looking at the other sources, do keep in mind there is a difference between a "they say" type of statement and a "we vouch for the veracity of the claim" statement. What about the other sources? Rolling Stone is not considered reliable after a series of stories long on hype but short on fact. WW is a minor source. Daily Dot seems to be a source about random things on the web. Most of their home page is crap like this [14]. Are we saying that is a source that is going to be reliable and show strong journalistic standards? The AJ source hedges their claim with a "they say" comment rather than making it a statement of fact. Such a comment perhaps offers sufficient weight for the body but not the lead. The SPLC, even in an attack piece only says it's an allegation, not a fact. At the same time we have an article by Reason that says the video doesn't show what is claimed by some and we have no additional evidence of collaboration. As was said above, this is a single, poorly supported claim that has been repeated by weak sources or referred to as an allegation by others. It is the very definition of a contentious claim in a BLP article and thus should be treated with care and the DO NO HARM principle that we apply to BLP articles. Putting it in the body where context can be included is one thing. In the lead without context is not acceptable. Springee (talk) 03:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support inclusion per Aquillion. Tajaditas^(talk) 05:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support: The sourcing on this has always been quite strong, and certainly hasn't gotten any weaker since the last time we had this discussion. As far as I was able to tell from the last time, a large part of the dispute is based on the Reason source's analysis of the video, but we certainly can't weight one Reason op-ed against the Portland Mercury, the LA Times, and several other reliable sources. Loki (talk) 10:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  The sourcing for the facts of the claim are week. The sources that say the claim was made are stronger. That we have a green source that disputes the evidence makes a good case for this to be a dispute in the body, not a claim in the lead with no reference to it's disputed nature. Springee (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  The babble about Reason or other sources is irrelevant, the source is a single anonymous person who spoke to a local news outlet, neither due not reliable whatsoever for the lead. The LA Times never accuses Ngo of "ties to the far-right" and regardless their articles about him are not reliable either, they're opinion pieces. Not a single reliable source accuses Ngo of ties to the far-right with any evidence. Bill Williams 12:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - Am I the only one who noticed the editor's note at the top of the Mercury article saying they were contacted by Ngo's lawyer because he disputes the claims made in the article? The contentious claim originated with from anonymous source that promised to identify himself in 2019, but has yet to do so, and has been denied by the subject. All sources that are not the Mercury point to the Mercury as their evidence for parroting the claim (see A Rape on Campus for an example of how that can go wrong). That is wide coverage of the claim, but not strong sourcing for it. The video may be accurate, or it could be misleading - remember the January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I guess when Firefangledfeathers pinged me (below) due to "previous discussion" the reference was to thread Accusations of Far-Right Ties. I still agree with Bill Williams. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as unsupported by the sources. I've read through all five, and as far as I can tell none of them support the claim that the groups Ngo is accused of being associated with are militant groups. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - biased journalism tends to conflate militant with simple opposition – it is the modern clickbait approach in online journalism. Any editor who is truly being neutral when researching RS already knows to what I am referring, and it happens on both sides of the political aisle in the US because of their 2-party political system. As far as WP is concerned, we use in-text attribution placed somewhere in the body, provided enough editors consider that particular journalist's opinion to be notable enough to include, and by notable, I am excluding the biased echo chamber and expect a wider ranging, non-partisan view. Atsme 💬 📧 15:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  Editors can be neutral without subscribing to the same view of U.S. political media as you and I don't think it's appropriate to imply otherwise. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Springee.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. Article has some 100 sources and Jacobin also supports that Ngo has been accused of being connected to right wing groups known for violence. In a similar time frame that Rolling Stone was downgraded by a consensus of Wikipedia editors from green for politics (not culture) it is important to also recognize that Jacobin was upgraded to green at WP:RSP. The Jacobin source, from 2019, extensively covers the broader patterns of Ngo's behavior that have since been expanded on by several journalists and notable academics at both Harvard, Joan Donovan, & Yale, Jason Stanley. As for the Mercury, Ben is descibed as a Navy veteran not an "antifa member". Willamette Week was previouly awarded a pulitzer for their reporting and they do a solid job of covering the local news in the Pacific Northwest. Some editors here seem to be completely unaware of or are simply not interested in the fact that RS describe significant overlap between key members of Patriot Prayer and the Proud Boys, e.g. Tusitala Toese a joint member of PB/PP, known for violence at rallies and little else, a fact entirely ignored by Ngo in his years of coverage of the PNW. His link and connection is not limited to the video of the Cider Riot incident but is much broader. The article is not stating that Ngo IS connected to PP and/or PB but rather that he has been accused of it which is, in fact, quite accurate per muiltiple RS. Cedar777 (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Jacobin is a socialist opinion newspaper, completely unreliable and undue to be claiming that a man known for being ardently anti-socialist is "far-right". It does not have any specific evidence that Ngo has ties to the far-right, the closest it gets is that a video shows him smiling and laughing next to someone. I guess every U.S. president has been both far-right and communist since they've smiled or laughed next to leaders of those types. The accusations that claim he has ties to "far-right groups" all lead back to a single unreliable source, an anonymous man in a local news article whose identity would supposedly be revealed within weeks but never was three years later. Nothing relates to any other "groups" besides Patriot Prayer, the supposed connection of them to Proud Boys has zero to do with Ngo. Bill Williams 12:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe any one has disputed that the claim has been made. The dispute is over 1) whether the sources all base the claim on the anonymous source in the Mercury article and 2) whether the allegation is worthy of inclusion or a BLP concern, considering Ngo has disputed the allegation. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

In this specific case Bill is correct that Jacobin doesn't support the claim in the lead (see the discussion topic below). Even if we accept Jacobin as gold standard reliable, it basically says he is part of a far-right ecosystem but doesn't support "links to/ties to", ie some level of coordination/communication of efforts like the Mercury implies. Of course Jacobin isn't a gold standard and is actually strongly biased and much of what they claim about Ngo is analysis/commentary based on a limited set of facts. Springee (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Reason and Jacobin have a very similar ratings per WP:RSP. We also have the Bellingcat, an even higher quality source per WP:RSP Million MAGA March: Unravelling a Violent Viral Video which does not mention the Mercury by name but also states this "Yet several weeks later, an infiltrator inside the right-wing group Patriot Prayer released hours of videos captured undercover at rallies. Video recorded before the fight at Cider Riot clearly shows members of Patriot Prayer checking their weapons and discussing their plans to assault the bar. One person standing near Ngo says clearly: “There’s going to be a huge fight,”. Ngo’s only response during all of this was to smile several times. He did not report on what he had heard while marching to Cider Riot." We have multiple sources that address this matter in both the narrow sense (Cider Riot) and the broader sense. It is not logical to rewrite an article according to one source: Reason magazine. "Editors consider Reason to be a biased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles. Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight." Bellingcat does not have these disclaimers. Cedar777 (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Bellingcat is again a biased source and a source with very limited history/legacy on which to draw. That speaks against weight. That Ngo could hear what was being discussed in the video is speculation implied by the author. It's actually a weaselly comment since it suggests/implies something without actually saying it so they can't be "wrong". "Near" is not well defined. I'm not sure about you but I've been in university classes where the whole point was to hear what the professor said yet I would still get distracted and miss things. Basically it is speculation that Ngo was listening even though the video shows him paying more attention to his phone than anything else. "He didn't report on what he heard while marching..." implies without evidence that there was something he was both aware of and should have reported. That again is speculation vs factual reporting. Bellingcat has effectively the same warning as Reason, ie that it is viewed as a biased source and use with attribution. Additionally, Bellingcat is only 8 years old so we don't have a long history and not a lot of sources are looking into it's overall accuracy. So we are back to where we started, we only have one source that actually made the link to claim. The others just say a source made the claim. We have several that say he did a bad job reporting and speculate what he heard but they are also biased. We have Reason which says the video doesn't support the claims in question. Reason is also biased (though no more than most of the other sources we are using). Springee (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Bellingcat is green RSP with no qualifications. It's equivalent to a news article from a respected newsorg. (In fact, this is because it *is* a respected newsorg and this is a news article from it). I see you continue to grasp at straws to assert there aren't any reliable sources for this information. Loki (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

You are incorrect. From the RSP entry, "should preferably be used with attribution. Some editors consider Bellingcat a biased source, " It is also a very new source with limited long term history. That doesn't address the other issue which is Bellingcat doesn't verify the claim in question so even if it was certified by several difference gods it still isn't usable for the claim in question. Springee (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Accusing someone in the passive voice, without stating who is doing the accusing, is unfair. Furthermore, "having links with" is vague. Have they met once a day? Once a month? Once a year? Once? Adoring nanny (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with the questions being posed by Adoring nanny above. After reading the Portland Mercury article from its Blogtown section, which all the other sources are based on, it is clear that this quote from an anonymous source has been given undue weight by the quote being placed in the short lead of a biography of a living person in the wikipedia voice manifestation as "[he is] accused of having links with militant right-wing and far-right groups in Portland, Oregon." The clause being placed in the lead goes against the policy WP:NPOV and guideline MOS:LEAD:

Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. WP:WEIGHT

According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article. MOS:LEADNO --Guest2625 (talk) 02:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support inclusion, but I think a RfC specifically about the phrase "militant right-wing" would have gotten us closer to the issue here. His associations with far-right groups in Portland are significant to his notability and hard to dispute, and its removal would harm the article. His level of association with "militant" groups seems to be more contentious. I would also be okay with removing the Willamette Week citation as it cites one of the other citations, which seems to be bothering some users. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  The difficult thing here is what do we mean by "associated"? Eliot Ness is associated with Al Capone but certainly didn't work with Capone. The current material in the lead implies Ngo was collaborating/coordinating in some capacity. That is different than say, people mentally associate Ngo with the defense of far-right groups and universally condemning far-left groups. I mean, Ngo, in a sense, is associated with Antfia since he arguably would loose a lot of material if Antifa and the far-left protesters gave him nothing to write about (right or wrong). Springee (talk) 03:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose As Wikipedia editors, when dealing with a BLP, we must have the highest level of scrutiny for anything new added to an article, especially in the lede. If the statement includes such wishy washy language as "has been accused", we should err on the side of caution and ensure the sources cited are iron-clad AND that the info truly merits inclusion: MOS:BLP, MOS:UNDUEKerdooskis (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  Except the lede content under discussion is not new, it is established content that has been in the article for the last year and a half - since late February 2021.[15] The multiple existing sources that support the content are not adequately represented by the wording of the RfC. Law enforcement found Ben's video credible enough to charge 6 members of Patriot Prayer with felony riot incitement, per the existing article sources from Bellingcat and Jewish Currents. There is also the Vox piece "Antifa ; Expained" written by Zach Beauchamp in which he states Ngo is a conservative provocateur sympathizer who has worked with militant right-wing groups; he seems to delight in antagonizing antifa members and broadcasting the results.[16] Cedar777 (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  It has also been in dispute for a long time. More importantly, per NOCON, when dealing with a BLP NOCON should result in removal of the disputed content. Since this is the third time you have made the "Ben's video was credible" claim, I will note I pointed out the failures of that argument above. I can also add a new one. Most people wouldn't doubt the raw footage of the video. What they can doubt is Ben's claims regarding what was said off camera and what footage he may not have shared. Again, here we are two years later and the reporter has never produced "Ben". Springee (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  Like Cedar stated the sourcing here is very strong, so I really don't understand all these oppose votes. Loki (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  Strong in what capacity? Strong in that we can be confident the accusation was made? Sure. Strong in that we can trust Ben's claims are legitimate? Strong in that we can be certain "Ben" and Zilenski's interpretation of the video is beyond reproach? No, we don't have that. Add to it that this is a BLP, "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. " Springee (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  So to be clear, the sourcing is not just the video, but stuff like the Vox piece linked above or the Al-Jazeera article in the cites below which don't specifically mention the Patriot Prayer video, instead simply mentioning Ngo's far-right ties. Loki (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  They reference "Ben" who's claims have never been substantiated by any other source and who has never come forth and who is only vouched for by a reporter who was happy to later rat out Ngo's location to far-left activists... but I'm sure she is maintaining all sorts of journalistic standards despite that. Springee (talk) 02:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  But specifically the two sources I mentioned do not reference "Ben". We have no idea whether that claim is based on the Portland Mercury's reporting and it's frankly not our job to investigate that. That would be WP:OR. We just know that Vox and AJ are reliable sources and that they're reporting he has ties (or has been accused of ties) to right-wing groups. Loki (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  If those sources can't provide any evidence to back the claim then we shouldn't treat the claim as credible enough to make an accusation against a BLP subject. Springee (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion in the lead. WP:BLP policies are pretty clear about these things with WP:BLPSOURCES WP:BLPGOSSIP WP:GRAPEVINE. But the one I keep coming back to is found in the intro to the policies on Biographies of Living Persons: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively." If there are this many editors disputing the legitimacy of the sources period, should we really have this in the lead? Not if we're editing conservatively. I've got to agree with @Korny O'Near here, who articulated the opposition very well from my perspective.Pickalittletalkalittle (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support inclusion.This is a defining characteristic of Ngo. ie that he has been accused of being linked to R-wing groups. I am UK and only know about this person because of WP RfCs and it is incontrovertible that he is a highly controversial 'provocateur' who has built a certain notoriety from highly biased, selective and charged 'reporting'. To fail to adequately report the nature of the charges laid against him does a disservice to the reader IMO. Pincrete (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  I think you have conflated two things. Claims that Ngo has an obvious bias against Antifa and he has made a brand out of "Antifa (or similar)=bad" seem well founded and arguably are a defining characteristics of his work. This however, is a claim that he is interacting with/working in active collaboration with, groups on the right. That is neither proven nor a defining characteristic. I might be a NY Yankees superfan who writes nothing but glowing articles about the team and always has an excuse for their failings and understands that their successes are always due to brilliant work by both the players and managers. Many Red Socks fans, when they aren't trying to understand how to put on shoes, might feel that I'm perhaps a bit biased in my views. That doesn't mean I have "links to" the Yankees. That doesn't mean I have met up with the players or managers to discuss how the Socks are going to get their comeuppance this year or to know what surprise play I should expect at the bottom of the 9th. That is really the distinction here. Was there coordination vs just "grifting"? Springee (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I understood the distinction when I voted and conflated nothing. When you achieve very rapid 'fame' by being extremely partisan, borderline propagandist, and have a vested interest in producing 'loaded' content, it's hardly surprising that accusations are made of being complicit with, or coordinating with the anti-Antifa 'side'. That is what is recorded - accusations - and they are sufficiently widely reported that it would remiss imo to exclude them. Pincrete (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

We do report the claim in the body of the article where full context can be provided. Putting it in the lead where context isn't provided and readers could reasonable view it as prof of collaboration vs a claim poorly supported by a questionable source with no independent corroberation is a different matter. Hence conflating working in the same direction as vs actually in collaborative contact. Springee (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support. I wanted to close the discussion as I saw it on WP:CR, but the further I was parsing it, the more I felt that it was a waste of time. The support side stuck with the provided sources for whatever reason without making deeper research, the oppose side IMHO was shifting the goalposts by saying that the sources provided were not good enough (or presenting at best equally bad, if not worse, sources), and trying make the support side prove that he has links to the groups, instead of just showing that the accusations are prominent enough. The former is hard to prove without Ngo's admission, the latter is quite easy for us.

I totally agree that BLPs should be written conservatively, that's policy. However, even with that in mind, there are good sources in the academia/investigative journalism describing Ngo's behaviour:

• [17] Drawing this article to its close, let us return to the “domestic terrorism” that Ted Cruz referenced: the first is the physical attack on right-wing provocateur Andy Ngo in Portland – the “unofficial PR spokesperson” for the far-right Proud Boys, according to Rose City Antifa (RCA)...
• [18] Another person from Portland, Mr. Andy Ngo, an American journalist born and raised in Portland is also mentioned. Mr. Ngo is known for covering and recording videos of demonstrators from Patriot Prayer rallies; Patriot Prayer is a group closely aligned with Proud Boys.
• [19] Much like with the PB, videos of PP rallies are noted for recording brawls only after provoking left-wing counter-protesters (Coaston, 2020; Neiwert, 2017; Zielinski, 2019). Allied political commentators like Andy Ngo and enamored netizens perpetuate the narrative that the organization’s members are victims of free speech suppression through edited clips posted on either unbanned Twitter and YouTube accounts or elsewhere on sites like Gab and Telegram (Coaston, 2020; Neiwert, 2017; Zielinski, 2019) - master thesis, so conditionally reliable
• We Are Proud Boys: How a Right-Wing Street Gang Ushered in a New Era of American Extremism by Andy Campbell: Among the Proud Boys’ allies, nobody has more experience with the tactic of provocation by proxy than Andy Ngo, a far-right internet reactionary who was martyred by conservative media after he was hit with a milkshake, punched, and kicked at a joint Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer rally in 2019 and Jacobin magazine in an article (“Portland’s Andy Ngo Is the Most Dangerous Grifter in America”) identified Ngo as a dangerous provocateur for a reason. Not only is he a vector for far-right extremist rhetoric, but his disinformation blasting on social media about nebulous antifascist threats has been a key galvanizer for the Proud Boys. (p. 137-139/261 in the epub I accessed)
• Imogen Richards and Callum Jones, Quillette, Classical Liberalism and the International New Right [in:] A. James McAdams and Alejandro Castrillon (eds.), Contemporary Far-Right Thinkers and the Future of Liberal Democracy Notably, former Quillette editor Andy Ngô extensively propagandizes for far-right actors in the US against anti-racists and anti-fascists, contributing both to the formation of the aforementioned neo-Nazi hitlist, and significantly, to the far-right group Patriot Prayer’s assault on attendees at a left-wing Portland hospitality venue, Cider Riot, on May Day in 2019. (p. 131)

• Regardless of whether these sources are reliable, properly reflect scholarly consensus or enough in quantity to say that he has ties to Patriot Prayer or to the Proud Boys, they are rock-solid evidence that serious researchers (or an investigative journalist in case of Campbell) have tied him to, or accused him of, ties to these far-right groups, and the fact that he regularly circulates in the right-wing/far-right media ecosystem means that presenting this in the lead is notable enough. This should answer the question. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  Szmenderowiecki, I think your research hits at the issue I have with the phrase that is specifically at issue, "links with". What does that mean? I think most would take it to mean he has back door communications with. Consider two case of Trump support.

  Case 1: The infamous Boris and Natasha decide to help Trump. On their own and using dirty money, they run deceptive adds that help Trump. It would be fine to say "Trump was supported by Boris and Natasha".

  Case 2: The infamous Boris and Natasha decide to help Trump. They secretly contact Pavel who contacts Stan who contacts Trump who agrees to coordinate. Now there are "links with" Trump and and the Boris Natasha gang.

  The sources you cite say his work helps them, and I think that is a reasonable thing to say in the lead. However, none of those sources say he has back door communications with, ie "links with". Claiming, such illicit coordination, even with attribution is the issue here. Your quotes are yet more evidence that the claim of "links with" should be removed even as they strongly support a claim of a symbiotic relationship with the groups. Springee (talk) 12:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  What you are suggesting is that he just happens to support their cause but otherwise has no connections with the group (useful idiot, in other words). For me, the choice of words in these sources like "allied/allies", "propagandizes for far-right actors", "unofficial PR spokesperson" etc. strongly suggests that either these sources, or actors quoted in these sources, accuse him of having links.

  Whether he has backdoor communications is actually irrelevant in this case - we will probably never know. "Link with X" is simply "have a connection/affiliation with X". Note that we don't have to prove here he is affiliated/connected to X, only that he is perceived to be connected by some actors or scholars. This is enough. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  But none of your sources support a claim beyond "Useful idiot". As has been previously discussed, only one low quality source actually claims links vs just useful idiot status. Springee (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  Well, no source explicitly says he's a useful idiot, either. You are just interpreting them in a very restrictive way (whatever does not say "he has links with XYZ" says "he is a useful idiot for XYZ"), which IMHO is not the right thing to do, because this is not the plainest reading of what is written. We don't know if he is part of them but that's not the point. "Accusations" and "allegations" are opinions. That they are voiced by outlets that are of a different political orientation does not matter so long as they are otherwise reliable, otherwise we'd have to dismiss all unfavourable reporting on Trump, or Hunter Biden's laptop, as fake news.

  Among other sources, this means that the already mentioned Jewish Currents source also works: The revelation of Ngo’s links to the far right may have cost him his relationship with Quillette... (and I wouldn't dismiss Portland Mercury if other outlets treat the information as credible), as does the LA Times review of his book Unmasked: "What goes unmentioned is that Ngo had a history of “embedding” with right-wing groups — including, according to persuasive allegations he has denied, the white supremacist outfit Patriot Prayer — that provoke antifa into the very fights Ngo then films." Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  Those all trace back to the same Portland Mercury blogtown accusations. Do we have anything else? Springee (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• Don't include For the numerous reasons given but to add / emphasize a few:

• If "source"/political opponent #1 made "claim A" about him, and others sources reported that Source #1 made the claim, the latter can't be used to support "claim A".....they are reporting on what the source/political opponent #1 did.
• What someone else said about the subject is not directly info about Ngo, it is info about what his political opponents said about him. Which makes it one or two steps removed regarding WP:Relevance, a factor weighing against / raising the bar for inclusion.
• "Ties to" is a vary vague term and thus a weasel word in this context. Combined with the BLP policy, very clearly problematic.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment pinging users involved in previous discussion: Springee, North8000, FormalDude, LokiTheLiar, Cedar777, Peter Gulutzan, ScottishFinnishRadish, The Four Deuces. Bill Williams 23:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Also pinging SPECIFICO and myself . Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Question - the original source says in a matter of weeks, Ben’s long-hidden identity will be made public and is dated 2019. Was Ben's identity ever revealed? Argento Surfer (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment - the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 320#Sources re: Andy Ngo may be of interest. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Please stop the back-and-forth. Everyone has made their points to each other, and arguing the same points is going to do nothing but reduce the likelihood of uninvolved participation. You're not going to convince one another, and the arguments are already there for other editors to read. You can assume if they don't follow your viewpoint that they read your argument and disagree. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• This isn't a BLP issue. Looking at the history of WP:BLP, contentious material is primarily that, if untrue, would clearly cause harm to the subject. This claim does not rise to the level of "Person X is a child molester" or "Person Y is addicted to controlled substances". The more tenuous and disputed the actual harm should be (and the harm of this is clearly disputed), the less weight a BLP argument holds. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
  • IMO, this falls under the WP:BLPGOSSIP section of BLP, as Ben never identified himself. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
    • BLPGOSSIP doesn't say anything about anonymous sources which have no reason to be doubted when used by reliable publications. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
      • Be wary of relying on sources that [...] attribute material to anonymous sources. Seems straight forward to me. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• • This 100% is a BLP issue for precisely the reason you stated: it clearly causes harm to the subject. Ngo has been harassed by left-wing people his entire career for supposedly being too right-wing, and calling him far-right in the lead of an article that tens of thousands of people read only encourages more of them to harass him. Not just that, but in general his reputation is harmed significantly, considering if you click on far-right, the entire lead of that article is basically just about Nazis or other fascists, so calling Ngo a fascist in the lead of his article most certainly causes harm to him, especially from so called "anti fascists". Bill Williams 17:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

References

I've requested a RfC closing. Springee (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Redundant sentence

Grayfell, please explain why this changes the meaning of the edited sentence [20]. Please note the version you restored is not the stable version. The sentence is redundant to itself as "ties to the far-right groups" and "links with militant right-wing groups" both refer to the PM video where he is seen next to the Proud Boys. The sentence says the same thing twice. If you would rather restore the version prior to this edit [21] that would be fine. Springee (talk) 10:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Attempting to downplay that these are militant right-wing groups is not appropriate. As I hope you are already aware, our goal is to summarize sources. Grayfell (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks forthe reply. I don't think that addresses the issue which is the two groups referred in the sentence are the same group. Springee (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Cited sources mention both the Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer, which are separate organizations despite the obvious close overlap. Other sources could be added which mention his "ties" to the Oath Keepers, the Three Percenters, and others.

The way to fix this issue is to remove the WP:WEASELs. Simple terms would be both more neutral and less open-ended. BLP isn't served by pseudo-legalese or euphemistic evasion. The way to solve the issue is to look at what sources are actually saying and summarize neutrally. Grayfell (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Then what's wrong with the original sentence (the long term stable one)? Conversely, how would you suggest fixing things here? Would you be OK with "links with militant right-wing groups"? Note that since this is the body of the article the claims in this sentence must be supported by the sources that follow. Springee (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that the long term stable version is less problematic.North8000 (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

On another note, inclusion is based on numerous considerations, including wp:weight which serves the wp:npov objective. The summary method is a mechanism of incorporation of material, it is not the overall mission statement, and is not an argument for inclusion of editor selected text from editor-selected sources. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

We are getting into the weeds. Szmenderowiecki provided some excellent new academic sources above - several of which warrant summary and inclusion in the article. They also address the matter at hand.Cedar777 (talk) 06:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The only accusations made to a specific group were the Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer, and that is all that needs to be mentioned. Having redundancies in the sentence and vaguely referring to "groups in Portland, Oregon" is unnecessary. Bill Williams 12:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Antifa lawsuit

The article doesn't seem to mention the outcome. That seems pretty important to know. Doug Weller talk 11:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Mr Ngo said in a January 9 2022 tweet the case was "ongoing", and The Court of Appeals "affirmed" the case "without opinion" in July 2022, maybe that means there is no outcome or maybe I missed recent developments. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

He seems to have lost the lawsuit. https://news.yahoo.com/journalist-andy-ng-loses-criminal-005811640.html Conspiracy Raven (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

That was a criminal trial for robbery. Mr Ngo said that the civil trial re antifa continues. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Eva Knott

Kire1975, I don't see the significance of the Eva Knott content with respect to Ngo[22]. While it appears she caused some controversy by using a false name to get a press pass, it doesn't appear overly related to Ngo who appears to have simply published a report on the trial with her. The sources don't make Knott's action out to be overly controversial (other than saying one of the defense attorneys made a big fuss. They don't claim Ngo did anything wrong. Springee (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Surprisingly, I agree with Springee here. This isn't really about Andy Ngo. There's not really any evidence in the sources that he did anything of note here. If there was some reason to believe he encouraged her to do this, or even that he knew about it, it might be worth mentioning. But right now there really isn't. Loki (talk) 03:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Given the random of the sun, moon and the stars that resulted in the above agreement, I've removed the paragraph. Springee (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Legal Actions

In the first sentence of the final paragraph, should it be “grand jury”? FrogMan1666 (talk) 07:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Done. Thank you, Cedar777 (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

This article is biased

Including a section at the top saying," Ngo's coverage of antifa and Muslims has been controversial, and the accuracy and credibility of his reporting have been disputed by other journalists. He has been frequently accused of sharing misleading or selective material[10][11][12] and described as a provocateur." This is all hearsay. I nominate this for deletion or revision. Persecuting someone for their political beliefs is against Wikipedias rules. Its hate speech and a smear.2600:100F:B136:6A3F:0:2C:1E3D:7B01 (talk) 13:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

It's well documented in reliable sources WP:RS. We just document what reliable sources say. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The word "frequently" (a bold substitution for "widely") was contested in 2021 and as far as I can tell it lacked sufficient support. Dunno why it's still there. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I removed the one word. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that removal. Springee (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I do feel like this is a problematic sentence given the low quality/bias of the sources making the claims but I also think there has been a consensus to include something to help summarize why a number of sources consider Ngo to be a controversial reporter (for lack of a better term). Removing this sentence leaves us with a stub of an into. It used to be longer but a good bit of content was rightly/wrongly removed from the lead over time. If you can think of a good way to summarize a lot of the article body I think people would at least be open to the suggestion. Springee (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Simply read any of Ngo's 'reporting' and you'll understand why his reporting is inaccurate. Any impartial person would see that at best he's a far-right activist. Idk go to journalism dude Teenyplayspop (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The guy literally calls anyone with dyed hair and a mugshot "antifa" for simply being at a protest. If we are being fair hes a lazy journalist that is always a grifter Teenyplayspop (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Ngo is a journalist? I thought he was known only for his role in misinformation campaigns. Dimadick (talk) 09:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, I was just being generous. Teenyplayspop (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the description is accurate and reliably sourced. TFD (talk) 04:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

We go with what reliable sources say around here. AlanS^talk 10:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

ngo lost his civil suit

i don't care to write up the update.

i don't even know if these are reliable sources:

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/miacathell/2023/08/09/andy-ngo-antifa-trial-hacker-testimony-n2626762 https://www.dailydot.com/debug/andy-ngo-lawsuit-verdict/ commie (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Currently the page reads, "Hacker and Richter were found not liable after their attorney argued they were positively identified as the assailants in videos of the assault." Based on the cited articles, shouldn't it be, "Hacker and Richter were found not liable after their attorney argued they were not positively identified as the assailants in videos of the assault." Or am I misreading? --164.67.18.166 (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with that change. Here is perhaps a better article from Oregon Live via MSN [23]. It may be worth noting that there were 6 defendents total. One settled out of court[24] and three were found guilty by default for failing to appear. Springee (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Default judgement can be overturned by a judge alone without defence intervention and I'm not sure use of the term "guilty" is correct where there has been no criminal conviction. AlanS^talk 00:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Kire1975: Good attention to detail here, but I think there's a simple solution. The Daily Beast story in this instance appears to be wholly derivative of the Oregonian piece (at the bottom of the DB article it links that article, stating "Read it at The Oregonian.") By contrast, I'm pretty sure the Oregonian and Mercury are both written by reporters who were in the courtroom. The streaming link for this trial was not available outside the courtroom, and transcripts are not available yet even to reporters, so that's significant. Also, it might not be clear because of the way the Oregonian displays their page, but their story is actually pretty detailed; it's just mostly behind a paywall. So, I think the best thing is just to remove the DB as a source here, and leave the Mercury and the Oregonian (which are both well-established sources). -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Very reasonable and well thought out. Good collaborative effort. There are others on here who are against taking it to the talk page and taking it directly to the Edit warring noticeboard. That is why I was forced to undo my own edit, even though the WP:DAILYBEAST article is not reliable for "controversial statements of fact related to living persons." Kire1975 (talk) 04:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Your statement is not accurate. There is no consensus on reliability. That is not the same as "not reliable" and you would be well not to refer to me in the third person in a negative sense, particularly when you chose not to bring matters to the talk page yourself given that you engaged in confirmed edit warring. AlanS^talk 13:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Is reliability a non-binary question? The title of the piece calls him a troll. It's certainly not WP:NEUTRAL. Kire1975 (talk) 23:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Asking if reliability is a non-binary question is irrelevant as reliability of the publication has not been determined by consensus. Per your second sentence I refer you to WP:RS where a section reads "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." AlanS^talk 01:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLP requires a positive consensus for inclusion, and that covers sources. If something is WP:DUE it will be covered in better sources, which I believe the lawsuit information is. Additionally, if something is found only in biased sources, especially those without consensus for reliability, it's probably not due. There's no reason to use subpar sourcing when better sources exist. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Notably someone didn't try and obtain consensus, they choose to edit war. I'm not tied to the source and if they'd chosen to come here and discuss it rather than edit war I don't see any reason why it couldn't have been resolved. AlanS^talk 02:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed something but I felt that everyone here was operating in good faith. I'm certainly not a fan of the original sources but I felt they were sufficient to say Ngo didn't prove liability. The subsequent article updates looked like improvements and we settled on better sourcing in the end. I think we should include that the absent defendants were found liable by default but otherwise I think things worked out in the end. BTW, yes AlanS, you are correct, I should have said "liable" vs "guilty" above. I don't think I added "guilty" to the article space. Springee (talk) 02:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I didn't see "guilty" in the article space. AlanS^talk 04:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

User:AlanS: You're casting aspersions. I didn't edit war. The edit warring noticeboard discussion did not find that I edit warred. Please strike. Kire1975 (talk) 06:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Kire1975 you self-reverted for no reason? I really see no reason to continue this. AlanS^talk 06:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I self reverted after being made aware of the 1RR rule. There was no edit war. Kire1975 (talk) 06:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I hope you're not suggesting that edit warring is a criminal offence or that Wikipedia operates courts of law. Your analogy doesn't work. You gave me a laugh though. I'll strike the comment to resolve this. AlanS^talk 11:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

If my analogy doesn't work, you are accusing me of bad faith. No need to strike it, then. Kire1975 (talk) 06:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Um, no I didn't accuse you of bad faith. As far as I'm aware bad faith is not required to violate edit warring restrictions. All that is required is not sufficiently making ones self aware of the conditions of editing. In any case I already striked the comment that got your back up as a show of good faith, please refer to my comment above. As I suggested on WP:AN3 I could very well tag your talk with warnings re: WP:AGF also if I was so inclined. There's really no need for this continue. I suggest you undo your last edit on my talk and we drop this. TarnishedPath^talk 09:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Right-wing journalist or conservative journalist?

@Springee you reverted my edit to refer to the subject as an American right-wing journalist and in your edit summary you claimed that previous talk page discussion had arrived at the subject being conservative. I've just had a search through the archives and I found two discussions titled Right-wing conservative journalist and Conservative or right-wing? with the latter having almost non-existent participation. My review of the former discussion, which was a lengthy one and involved many editors, indicates that no consensus was arrived at. If there are any other discussions which have occurred that I've missed please let me know so I can make myself aware of a bit of talk history. AlanS^talk 12:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I definitely don't recall a previous consensus agreeing not to call him right-wing; I'd be a bit surprised, since finding sources establishing that he's right-wing is relatively straightforward. My read is that the previous discussion reached no consensus and petered out - but we have better sources now. See eg:

• right-wing provocateur Andy Ngo
• right-wing activist Andy Ngo
• far-right agitator Andy Ngo

I don't think it can be excluded at this point. Note also that most of these sources were published after the one lengthy discussion we had; academic coverage takes time to appear, after all. --Aquillion (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure those are better sources? Are they incidental mentions (ie they mention as an example as opposed to actually try to describe the person and their views). This is also a BLP so we should be more cautions in our choice of words when they are supported by RS. But if the intent is to trot out keyword searches of academic (or academicish) papers, "calling attention to a comment by conservative journalist Andy Ngo"[25], "conservative speakers to campus, such as Ben Shapiro, Andy Ngo"[26], "For example, Andy Ngo, a provocative conservative journalist, hid his identity and press

credentials as a survival measure, reflecting reports of attacks on other journalists."[27] (note that this paper cites the NYPost even though we have decided it's not an acceptable source), "Portland-based conservative journalist Andy Ngo"[28]. I am aware that my concern regarding even academic sources throwing out terms like "right wing" without careful consideration would also apply to "conservative". While conservative is often used to suggest a POV, right-wing is sometimes (not always) used as a more pejorative way. It's better to stick with the more impartial term, which is also the long term stable term. Springee (talk) 22:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Just because "right-wing" can be used by some in a pejorative way, that does not take away it's actual meaning and make it POV. If WP:RS refer to someone as someone as "right-wing" using it correctly, then we are open to doing the same. You need to bear in mind also that not everyone reading Wikipedia is from the USA. The 350 million people in the US is a small fraction of the global population and what people refer to as conservatism in the USA is very much in realms of what is considered to be "right-wing" by a lot of the rest of the world. AlanS^talk 00:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

• "Right-wing" is the primary description of the subject in the sources I cited, broadly in contexts where the fact that he's right-wing is central to their point or to what they're saying about him; this supports the idea that it's a central descriptor for him and a major part of his notability. I don't think it's reasonable to presume that academics who make examining American right-left politics a major part of their career would use the term carelessly; and, of course, there is no contradiction between "right-wing" and "conservative" - the latter is, in this context, simply a more precise and specific description of his politics. Also, the first source you cited is an undergraduate journal, while this source you presented actually says Rightwing activists like Portland-based conservative journalist Andy Ngo... - I assume you missed the first three words by accident because you grabbed the description from a search result without checking, but still. And one of the remaining ones is in the context of discussing popular right-wing speakers. If your argument based on that is that we should describe him as both conservative and right-wing, or as a right-wing conservative, I could go with that, but nothing in the sources you've presented contradicts the fact that he's right-wing or that this is a significant part of his notability. --Aquillion (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

  If you are correct that they aren't using the term loosely then you should be able to find them defining the term. As for the specific quote you highlight, the put Ngo in a group (right wing activist) but specifically described him as a conservative journalist. It seems they feel that conservative journalist is the better term. I see no reason to cram "right wing" into the opening of the lead. It would be better to remove any of these subjective terms and stick with more factual terms. Springee (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Conservative and (american)right wing are the same exact thing. Teenyplayspop (talk) 03:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Pretty much. What we call conservativism in Australia, and I imagine most the rest of the world where it generally means slow to change, is entirely different to American Conservatism which to me seems to be a lot more reactionary and looking to the past. AlanS^talk 12:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aquillion, that was my read, that no concensus was reached and the discussion petered out. Note: while there were claims in the discussion that sources given for the subject being "right-wing" were not reliable, my read was that there were actual WP:RS given and that some were trying to muddy the waters by claiming that sources which stated the subject was "right-wing" were from Rolling Stone or similar. AlanS^talk 00:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

This is another recent related discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish, thank you for that. The link one you posted also looks like it didn't really go anywhere either. I'm thinking this needs more discussion followed by an RfC potentially because it has not been resolved. Particular as I raised above re: USA ideas over what constitutes "right-wing" and "conservative" being drastically different to global ideas, I would like to see a determination one way or the other. I've got a report to work on today. It's 10:30am here in cloudy Australia and I've got to meet family afterwards for the weekend. I'm thinking of pinging everyone who was involved in the three discussion that have been identified so far when I get time. AlanS^talk 00:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The fact that (specifically) people (and "sources") who don't like someone tend to use the term "right wing" says much about which term is negative/POV and which one one is neutral. The context is that we are talking about a US political term and so it's common meaning in that context is relevant. And the common meaning of adding "wing" in that context is to add connotations that it is in the smaller more extreme group within right/conservative. Also, IMO it's a valid editor discussion/decision, as one can find a "source" that says whatever one is hoping to find. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

"Right-wing" is a notable term used by numerous WP:RS in relation to the subject. Just because some may have a perception that it's a pejorative term, does not take away from the fact that it's a descriptive terms which has well defined meaning. In fact the subject has been quoted as referring to himself as "centre-right" which is a subset of "right-wing". AlanS^talk 01:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree that it is well defined. If it is we should be able to point to a clear, widely accepted definition. Instead there seem to be a range of things that are viewed as right wing. In the case of Ngo (or any BLP/group description) it would be far better if we could point to sources that explain what aspects make Ngo "right wing" and then say those things. Basically these labels are often crude shorthand for actual positions/actions. We should identify the positions/actions rather than the vague short hand. I will note, "right wing" isn't nearly as problematic as "far-right" given the range of things the Wikipedia article associates with far right. Still, if the sources use it in a pejorative fashion (as N8000 notes) then we should err on the side of not using it. If a source provides good evidence we can include the evidence directly and bypass the label. Springee (talk) 03:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

You can disagree if you like, however the fact is that "right-wing" is a fairly well understood idea and the fact that some hotheads on campuses in the USA throw it around as a pejorative is irrelevant for our purposes. Your country is all of 350 million people on this planet out of 8 billion people who aren't having this issue about whether "right-wing" is a pejorative. My purpose here is to get this discussion going and then move then into an RfC when appropriate. AlanS^talk 13:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

right wing is a notable term used by political scientists to describe someone who is pro-capitalist. That's all it is. I consider myself left wing and don't see that as a pejorative. My family considers themselves "the right" and they don't see that as a pejorative. Teenyplayspop (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Here is Adolph Reed, a Marxist and a political scientist describing the American left numerous times. Yet it is not a perjorative

https://harpers.org/archive/2014/03/nothing-left-2/ Teenyplayspop (talk) 03:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

And here is Thomas Sowell, a conservative political scientist etc (that i deeply disagree with) using "Right" and "The Left" not as pejoratives..

https://www.pressenterprise.com/2016/03/22/thomas-sowell-black-and-white-left-and-right/ Teenyplayspop (talk) 03:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

In addition to the existing sources, Aquillion points out three high-quality journals that use "right wing". We can rely on them to use the term appropriately even if they do not specifically define or explain why they use it. There's no reason to shy away from certain words just because they may be viewed as negative, and to do so would in fact be a BLP violation. –dlthewave ☎ 03:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

It is in no way shape or form a BLP violation to not use a subjective label in the opening sentence of a biography. Additionally, since we have RSs that have used conservative this shouldn't be an issue. Springee (talk) 04:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I should point out that "conservative" can be as much as a pejorative as "right-wing". Should we cease using the term "conservative" from here on out? AlanS^talk 14:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Ding ding ding Teenyplayspop (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad you see my point. AlanS^talk 14:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of twisting and turning to try and keep out how reliable sources describe Ngo. Editors personal opinion about the subjectiveness of "right-wing" and how reliable sources are using the word is just that: their opinion. No policy or guideline supports (in this instance) ignoring a common description used among multiple reliable sources. When it comes down to it, this seems like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed Teenyplayspop (talk) 03:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Why wouldn't IDONTLIKEIT apply to those who want to put it in when we already have a RSed "conservative" description? Again, if we want to step up the quality of the writing perhaps we shouldn't use these labels at all or we should use them later in the intro. Springee (talk) 04:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Because for some reason you like the "conservative" description but don't like "right-wing" despite both being equally supported by RS. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Why do you think we need both if they are synonymous? If they are equally supported wouldn't having both be redundant? Springee (talk) 04:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I never said they're synonymous. You're bludgeoning this discussion, and I'm gonna stop indulging you. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Let's be clear, you replied to me then got upset that I responded. OK. Springee (talk) 04:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

If it's not a negative / pejorative, then why do people who don't like Ngo strive so hard to hard to use/select that term? North8000 (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I assume for the reasons they have stated. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @BeŻet. @Jweiss11, @Shinealittlelight, @TFD, @Vexations, @Simonm223, @Paul McDonald, @Binksternet, @Calton, @Bacondrum, @Lovemankind83, @Jlevi, @SPECIFICO as far as I can tell from links I've found to previous discussions you are editors that have been involved in prior discussions on this topic and may be interested. My read is that pervious discussion have gone nowhere. Lets have a bit of discussion and then lets make this one go somewhere with an RfC perhaps when appropriate? AlanS^talk 14:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

My stance hasn't changed. There are enough sources describing Ngo as "right-wing", and since conservatism is a right wing stance, it makes more sense to use that descriptor, especially given Ngo's associations and activities. BeŻet (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, might be the time of night here in Australia but I found what you said a bit confusing. Can you clarify your position? AlanS^talk 14:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Right-wing is honestly somewhat inexact but it's probably the best we can do within the bounds of WP:RS and WP:BLP - calling him conservative rather than right-wing would be more exact but less correct and less well supported by reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

There are various ways Ngo's politics could be described. OTOH, each of these terms could have different meanings depending on context. Our concern is choosing the term that is most likely to convey to readers his politics. Conservative unfortunately could mean moderate Republican. Far right could mean neo-Nazi. Right-wing best conveys his actual position: to the right of the mainstream Republican Party. TFD (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces notably he's described himself as centre-right, which is a subset of right-wing so I don't see what others have an issue with?AlanS^talk 17:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

If he describes himself as center right and that is a subset of right-wing perhaps that is the best description to use. It doesn't conflict with right-wing and it reflects both his own views and views of others. Springee (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

That would potentially be one way to deal with things if it was backed up by a sufficient amount of WP:RS. However, I'm always sceptical of self-ascription to an extent and I hope that others are also. A good example for maintaining scepticism in regards to self-ascription of political positions is number of people in the United States who call themselves "centrists" because they have a political position between that of The Democrats and The Republicans, when a lot of the rest of world hold both parties to be objectively right-wing, with the Republicans having hard-right elements.

So yes if there were sufficient WP:RS that referred to the subject as centre-right but that was not merely conveying his views then I wouldn't be opposed to that but otherwise I generally don't put much stock in what others think about themselves because I think they often aren't sufficiently qualified to make those assessments. AlanS^talk 04:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia should avoid self-id for political leanings of political operatives who have specific political objectives. We should instead use reliable third-party sources. Simonm223 (talk) 13:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

John McCain called himself center-right. The difference is that most people would agree with McCain, while Ngo is more often see as far or extreme right. TFD (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I would agree with you, particularly given his associations, however the WP:RS say right-wing, so I believe that is what we ought to go with. AlanS^talk 04:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Center-right is generally a moderate position. Reading through his history, there seems nothing moderate about his activities. Neither has he appeared to be far-right. Right-wing seems the clearest term. The fact that an editor doesn't like some RS that use the term doesn't negate its use. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Which political stances of his are outside of center-right? Really this gets to one of my big concerns with these labels. We are happy to use the label but we aren't saying why it applies. Springee (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

aligning himself with Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer most notably. His Twitter functions as a doxxing list where he calls everyone antifa and a pedophile. He's a grifter more than anything Teenyplayspop (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

we know that he was embedded with the proud boys and the video taken then said that he protects the proud boys and the proud boys protect him. I think he has clear far right affiliations. Right wing is tepid. commie (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

We don't know that at all. The sources that claimed that are questionable and Reason did a great job showing why the video in question doesn't show what was claimed. Can you point to source for your claim that he protects the PBs and they protect him? Springee (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Springee, please stop demanding that other editors explain why or provide evidence that Ngo is far-right (or any other alignment). It's supported by reliable sources, and that's our standard. It's not incumbent on us to explain further and insisting that we do so is beginning to be disruptive. –dlthewave ☎ 20:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Please review the claim in question. Ngo is being accused of being embedded with the PBs and having a mutual protection agreement. What is the evidence for that? Asking for evidence to support a red flag claim about a BLP isn't disruptive. Please AGF. Springee (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

It is a common mistake among new editors, or those who are unfamiliar with our policies, to insist that other editors prove that reliable sources are correct. Please review Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. The claim being made is that Ngo is right-wing. That claim has been verified by reliable sources that use it in their own voice. End of story. –dlthewave ☎ 20:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The specific claim I questioned was embedded with the PB. No doubt that RS source have said he is right wing. Springee (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

My mistake. it was Patriot prayer. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=awN9J88j4mA&feature=youtu.be

it does seem like there's little difference. although this might be a stronger claim that he's far right. commie (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Funny, I also forgot it was PP, not PB :D. Anyway, as Reason noted, the video doesn't show he was embedded nor that he had a mutual protection agreement. Springee (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

We're straying far from the topic at hand: Whether or not "right wing" is a description that's sufficiently supported by reliable sources. This tangent concerning what may or may not have taken place in a video or who Ngo may be associated with are irrelevant to that question. –dlthewave ☎ 22:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I have so much of it from Andrew Duncomb and Alan Swinney's personal social media videos when they were doing 'flag waves' in the northwest during 2020/2021. But apparently thats not a real source apparently according to wiki. You can pretend he's not what we say he is and we can just roll our eyes i guess Teenyplayspop (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the fact that some people think that "right-wing" is a pejorative is not a reason to not use it. That attitude really is extremely US-centric and the US population makes up 350 million out of 8 billion people. "Right-wing" is a well understood term which is used by numerous WP:RS. AlanS^talk 05:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

The term right-wing is defined negatively as opposition to the Left, which in turn is defined as socialism, communism and anarchism. The more vehement the opposition, the more right-wing one is. It's also about associations. If your political allies are right-wing, so are you. Ngo of course is known for his opposition to the Left and his alliance with the far right.

The SPLC has an article about Ngo (described as a "right-wing provocateur") saying he gave a speech about the dangers of antifa for the hard right Polish government.[29] Other speakers they have had include Steve Bannon, Milo Yiannopoulos and Dennis Prager.

A lot of right-wing figures concentrate on specific issues, such as abortion or immigration. They don't need to fill in a checklist to be considered right-wing.

People like Ngo often describe themselves in moderate tones. But then they describe moderates in extreme tones. So the Republicans are left-wing, Democrats are far left and anyone to their left is openly trying to destroy Western civilization.

TFD (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

What is "people like Ngo?" if you could tell us that, then we will have the answer to the riddle. SPECIFICO talk 22:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

People who are considered extreme right in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Thenightaway, @Ivar the Boneful, @MJL, @Pudeo, @Gerntrash, @Darryl Kerrigan, @RightCowLeftCoast, @Jack Sebastian, @Blz_2049, @MrClog, I've subsequently picked up that you were also editors involved in previous discussions about whether the subject should be referred to as conservative or right-wing in the lead and therefore may be interested in this discussion. AlanS^talk 12:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I was involved in a few discussions more than four years ago. It mostly had to do with whether or not to call Andy Ngo a journalist at all (and whether we should label him politically as well). It doesn't make a difference to me whether he's described as conservative or right-wing on here. I don't see a difference. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• OK, earlier I ran a google news search for "andy ngo" + 'right wing' vs "andy ngo" + 'conservative' (the name was quoted in the search, the label was not). Initially I thought I found about 2:1 in favor of conservative. However, I must have done the search incorrectly. When I repeated it today I found ~411 hits for right wing but only 350 for conservative. Thus it does appear that right wing is the term more commonly used. With that in mind and with the consensus I've made the change. Springee (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I have a lot of respect for the researched opinions by TFD and Springee; they make good points and I'm cool with "right wing" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

That went a lot smoother than I imagined. Thankyou everyone involved. TarnishedPath^talk 04:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Good, because I'd like to keep both feet firmly planted in "whatever you all decide is fine by me" -- thanks for the callback, but I've been away from this one so long that I'd have to research all over again and I doubt that I'd bring any additional thoughts.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Isaidnoway, based on the above discussion, do you think the previous RfC's conclusion on "conservative" would stand vs "right-wing"?[30] The previous RfCs only supported "journalist" not any particular kind so I don't see either would prefer "conservative" or "right-wing". Springee (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Springee: - The article's history shows that in August 2021, when the RfC was closed ("The status quo should be maintained."), the status quo was conservative journalist. That's why I changed it back. We'll have to wait and see what the outcome of this RfC is. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I also want to add the sources I used are better quality sources for a BLP than what was previously there. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway, it is clear that the RfC you referenced in this edit only considered the question of whether the subject should be referred to as a journalist. No other question was considered. I'm reverting as per established consensus here. TarnishedPath^talk 00:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Ps, in my last edit carrying out consensus here in my edit comments I left it open for others to change sources if they felt better ones could be used for the term right-wing. TarnishedPath^talk 00:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: - The RfC you linked to in you opening statement clearly says "The status quo should be maintained." The status quo was conservative journalist. And there is no clear consensus that it should have been changed in the first place to right-wing. And there were no sources provided that said he was right-wing. I challenged it on BLP needing high quality sources, and you need to self revert. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway, The status quo in regards to the question of whether he was a journalist or not. the RfC did not consider the whole article. TarnishedPath^talk 00:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

And the label applied at the time of the RfC was conservative, that is the status-quo. If you are going to change it to right-wing, then you must provide high quality sources for that label per BLP. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

There were many other things said of the subject in the article at the time of the RfC, however the RfC was not on the article as a whole. World-view RfCs would make no sense. RfCs of the nature are generally narrow and that one was no exception. Consensus has now been established in this discussion for right-wing. Ps, I don't think anyone is attached to the current Oregonian source used, which in any case there is no suggestion that it is not a WP:RS. TarnishedPath^talk 01:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Please note that I've updated the source used to support right-wing to be from an academic journal. The other three sources currently used support him being referred to as a "journalist" and may need to change depending on the outcome of the current RfC. TarnishedPath^talk 01:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish and @Paul McDonald can I get your interpretations please as admins who have observed this. TarnishedPath^talk 00:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

After my prior engagement on the talk page I am too involved to act in an administrative capacity here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I would also say that my past involvement in this article would not put me in a place to make a comment "as an admin" -- I do admit my involvement was minimum and a while back, so I'd have to research to have any noteworthy contriubtion. But that still runs the risk of creating either bias or at least the appearance of bias. Thanks for thinking of me, but I don't believe I'm the right admin to contribute an opinion here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

It appears to have been resolved in any case. TarnishedPath^talk 02:15, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with TarnishedPath. The "status quo" being maintained in that RFC is "journalist" as opposed to not journalist, not "conservative journalist" as opposed to "right-wing journalist". Loki (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar and TarnishedPath: - Well if that is the case, then there is no need for a label of conservative or right-wing being used. The status-quo as you allege is just "journalist". Isaidnoway (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Isaidnoway, I think you can see which way I argued on the RW vs conservative question. The RfCs, in my read, only said that we should describe Ngo as a journalist (consensus then no consensus thus status quo). They didn't decide on any qualifiers or what those would be. The consensus now says "right-wing". My google news hit count put that a bit ahead of "conservative" so even though I prefer the prior version, the editor consensus is clear and while the difference isn't huge, google also says right-wing is more common. Springee (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Springee: - An analysis of the four sources in the lead sentence used to support "right-wing journalist" show - right-wing activist Andy Ngo, right-wing conservative social media provocateur Andy Ngo, Portland State University journalist and Andy Ngo, a Portland-based journalist. Those four sources being used are WP:SYNTH - Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. None of those sources explicitly state that Ngo is a "right-wing journalist". The two journal articles use right-wing to describe him as a right-wing activist and a right-wing provocateur, not a right-wing "journalist". In my reverted edit, at least the reliable sources I used actually described him as a "conservative journalist". You say right-wing journalist is more common in your searches, then maybe you could find some reliable sources that actually verify that usage. Thanks.- Isaidnoway (talk) 07:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The sources are being used to say that he is "Right-Wing" and "Journalist" as separate things. I can move the sources just for you. TarnishedPath^talk 07:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

If one reliable source says A (right-wing) and another reliable source says B (journalist), do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources per WP:SYNTH. You are implying that he is a "right-wing journalist", moving the sources around does not negate that fact. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Right-wing and journalist and two separate ascriptions. TarnishedPath^talk 08:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Andy Ngo, the right-wing journalist and provocateur, right-wing journalist Andy Ngo, right-wing journalist Andy Ngo, right-wing journalist Andy Ngo, right-wing journalist and provocateur Andy Ngo, right-wing journalist Andy Ngo Isaidnoway (talk) 08:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

right-wing journalist Andy Ngo, right-wing journalist Andy Ngo, right-wing journalist Andy Ngo, right-wing journalist Andy Ngo. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Are we both happy if I add in the Mumford & Sons article? I dislike the band but I'm familiar with the source. PS,WP:DAILYBEAST has no consensus as a WP:RS which some here have taken to interpret as being not WP:RS. So best to avoid just in order to avoid unnecessary conflict. TarnishedPath^talk 08:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Out of interest if the current RfC's result is that the subject not be referred to as a journalist are you going to ask that sources be found that connect "right-wing" and the next word after which is "author", presuming there is no agreement on another descriptor to replace "journalist"? TarnishedPath^talk 08:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

If we write that someone is a "right-wing journalist", our readers should be able to verifty that as written. That is our policy. Like I said, we don't combine sources like that. It is WP:SYNTH. And I have no doubt that if this RfC is not successful in nuking journalist from the article, there will be more RfCs down the road until the desired outcome is achieved. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

References