Talk:Andy Ngo

Removal of Bellingcat content

The editor "Springee" removed content sourced to Bellingcat (which is a RS per the WP:RSP) on Ngo's deceptive "reporting" on a May 2019 clash between far-right people and anti-fascists. Per Bellingcat's reporting, Ngo misleds those who follow his "reporting" into thinking the far-right people were attacked in an unprovoked manner whereas it was later revealed that Ngo had heard the far-right people plan an attack on the anti-fascists but omitted it in his "reporting." The content should be restored ASAP.[1] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, that seems to be due for the body and we should also add the report by the Columbia Journalism Review, among others, as suggest by Binksternet here. The biggest issue seemed to be that it was not lead worthy, not that it should not be mentioned at all in the article. Davide King (talk) 08:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The only part I removed was this [[2]]. First, the source doesn't claim Ngo did anything "falsely". Second, this is a strongly opinionated article offering a lot of the Evens's interpretation of events rather than just black and white facts and thus should not have been put in wiki-voice. Third, the claim isn't supported by Evens's own offered facts. Ngo's Tweet only said that he was personally assaulted. Ngo's tweets say nothing about what the PP members did. Evens's claims are not supported by his own presented evidence. The follow on about the video is speculation on Evens's part. As has been previously discussed by RSs, we don't know what Ngo did or didn't hear while the video was being filmed so it's speculative to say Ngo didn't report it. Not that it would have been relevant to Ngo's claim that he was personally attacked. Evens seems to have a conclusion he wishes to reach then tries to force facts to fit his version of events.

The reliability of the whole article should be questioned. Given the gross misrepresentation of Ngo's Cider Riot tweets Evens has shown his analysis can not be trusted. The criticism of the DC tweet is at least supported by the factual evidence presented (thus the reader doesn't have to trust Evens's opinions). The statements in Ngo's tweets appear factually correct but Evens is correct in saying they don't present a complete picture. Evens offers his own speculations as if they were fact when saying Ngo had the facts to know "Rome Man" was provoking a fight. This might be the case or it could be the case that in an effort to get info out fast, Ngo didn't do additional background work. Either way, based on Evens's presentation of videos, Rome Man appears to have decided he bit off more than he could chew and was trying to tuck tail and flee. He was attacked from behind when trying to leave. So Ngo's claims are factual and it would be false to say violence was only on the right (or left). As such I think this is a poor source for use in the article period and should only be used with attribution and even then WEIGHT of this claim is not clear at this point. I won't remove it myself but I would support removal as a source. [see subsection below] Springee (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Nov 2020 DC material in later work

This is recently added material [[3]] and [[4]] claiming, in effect, that Ngo's tweets suggested leftist activists were making unprovoked attacks on right wing marchers. There are a number of problems with this edit. First, the "later work" section isn't a place for reactions/commentary about his work. The section is clearly following his career path. It might make sense as part of the next section where we cover a lot of the controversies related to Ngo's reporting. However, I don't think this content is DUE. The three sources offered as support don't make a good case for DUE. Two are of lower quality and the WP simply doesn't mention Ngo. The Billingcat material is discussed above. While the source presents clear evidence that "Rome Man" was not an innocent right wing marcher, it's overall case again Ngo is of poor quality. The Daily Dot isn't a good source for this sort of social/political reporting vs fluffy internet stuff. Finally, while the WP does support the general event, it doesn't mention Ngo (I didn't see Ngo with a keyword search). As such I think this fails DUE. Springee (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Springee The phrase "fluffy internet stuff" stands out. Ngo is notable in a large part due to the way he uses media and technology. It isn't fluffy or light weight. The omission of his use of media may well be the weakest part of the current article's structure. Other editors have pointed towards this as well. The patterns of live streaming, progression and growth of the subject's twitter followers have been addressed by several RS and rather than rejecting and deleting content because it does not fit the frame/title, it makes more sense to expand the frame. Cedar777 (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Cedar777, I think if we have RSs saying Ngo frequently presents partial tellings of events (I think RS and CJR say as much) then a section saying Ngo's work has bee criticized for presenting half truths or leaving out critical background information (etc) would make sense. We could then briefly have a few examples. The May vide as well as this recent one (maybe) could be included in such a section. We should not dump a questionable criticism of a tweet at the end of a section about the places he's worked. That's just bad editing even if the content is DUE. Springee (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

It's obviously DUE. Half this page is various controversies that Ngo has landed himself in. This is yet another one of those controversies that's been covered in multiple reliable sources. If those sources chose to cover it, it's clearly DUE. Loki (talk) 04:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, if Billingcat and DailyDot are the only sources it's not DUE. Additionally, this section is about the places he's worked not controversies so it doesn't belong there. Springee (talk) 12:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Bellingcat and the Daily Dot are both RS per WP:RSP. Springee's sloppy original research attacking these RS is not a reason to remove this RS coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

DD is only a RS in limited context, The Daily Dot is considered generally reliable for Internet culture. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article.. This article is outside of that context. Bellingcat was considered reliable but also something that needs to be used with attribution. So here we have an issue with WEIGHT since we have limited sources discussing this claim against Ngo. Remember, this isn't meant to be a collection of everything Ngo has done that some source has criticized. Additionally, the Bellingcat article is misrepresenting some of Ngo's earlier tweets which hurts the credibility to the article and that again goes back to WEIGHT. Per WP:ONUS, just because it can be verified doesn't mean it has weight. Finally, even if the content had weight, it doesn't fit into the article where you added it. If it doesn't fit nicely into the larger structure of the article, again one has to question if it has weight. Springee (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Ngo plainly falls under internet culture, and Bellingcat is clearly a good source here. I don't see any valid reason not to include it. And your personal disagreement with how Bellingcat covers some of Ngo's tweets is definitely not a reason to exclude - you might personally feel strongly that it is "misrepresentation", but by that logic, no source that says anything you disagree with could ever be used. --Aquillion (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Ngo is a person, not "internet culture". Using a questionable source (see the recent RSN discussion on Andy Ngo) to make this sort of weak claim is undue. The Bellingcat article contains claims that are basically the same thing Ngo is being accused of. When a specific article is shown to contain factual errors we should discount it. Since you disagree that Bellingcat falsely represented Ngo's earlier claims please show why my analysis is wrong. DUE is a valid reason not to include it. There isn't weight for this trivial material. The article shouldn't be a laundry list of every time someone claims Ngo tweeted something they didn't like. Springee (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

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

@LokiTheLiar:, please address the sourcing issues above. We have but two sources, one has a number of questionable claims the other is not reliable for claims that a person is lying. Why is this DUE? Also, why in a section about where Ngo had worked? Springee (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

A twitter incident reported by a couple of fourth-rate sources--one of which is only reliable for "internet culture"--is obviously not DUE in a BLP article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

If you want, we can take Bellingcat to WP:RSN for this to see if it's a "fourth-rate source". I definitely don't see it in any of the previous discussions; most previous discussions found it to be very high-quality. The Daily Dot, similarly, was repeatedly found to be a high-quality source for internet culture, which this (as an edited video posted to a tweet by someone whose fame is mostly online) clearly falls under. EDIT: I took the Daily Dot (not yet Bellingcat) to WP:RSN, since I think that that's actually a more interesting question and I'm not sure they're only reliable for internet culture anyway; you can raise Bellingcat there too if you want, but I feel that previous discussions are pretty unequivocal that they're a high-quality source in general. --Aquillion (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

We should take the specific Bellingcat article to RSN vs the source in general. The fact that the article in question misrepresents some of Ngo's other tweets is quite relevant in this case. Springee (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Nov 2020 DC material in Social media influence

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

The content is relevant and essential as we are describing Ngo as a social media personality in the lede, the same terminology used by reliable sources. It is entirely fitting to clarify the facts surrounding his social media involvement, i.e. number of followers, growth of followers, platforms used, audience, and reach of his content as reported by RS. Regarding objections raised earlier:

1) The Washington Post article does indeed address the video clip from Ngo following the Million Maga March that Trump then retweeted. (It requires reading the image embeds.)

2) The Bellingcat content is in a stand alone section for social media influence, not the career section

3) There has been no actual evidence presented as to anything problematic with Evans reporting on the million MAGA march (please point to or link to this here on the talk page, if it exists)

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

In what way was this modified? You were using the same poor sources as last time. The WP article doesn't mention Ngo so it doesn't add weight for inclusion. The rest is the same content. The LA Times book reviewer should not be quoted as if they are an LA Times reporter (they certainly aren't the voice of the LAT. Also that content isn't related to the Bellingcat content. You linked them together in a way that neither source supports. Springee (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Springee That ANY of these three sources are "poor" is entirely your opinion, NOT the opinion of a consensus of Wikipedia editors who have designated all of these sources GREEN per WP:RSP. As to your second argument that factual information about Trump retweeting Ngo 11 times being off topic and unrelated, this simply has no legs to stand on. It is in a section about social media influence. What could be more influential than a national leader repeatedly retweeting one's content? Furthermore, my edit included the content as a separate paragraph; another editor rewrote and conflated the two paragraphs in edits I do not agree with. Review the diffs of how the content was changed before you deleted it outright. Edit 1 Edit 2. Cedar777 (talk) 05:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem is this time you are trying to synthisize material to force inclusion of material that didn't have consensus last time. The Bellingcat article was bad because the author setup a conclusion that was not supported by the facts he presented (see my earlier discussion). The DD is a RS for internet trends, not contentious claims about BLP (it was green only for a narrow focus). Even if a source is green on the RSP list that doesn't mean every article they write is green. Also that only would mean we would, in general, consider their claims factual, not that they would have weight. The WP article doesn't mention Ngo in the article. You claim he is mentioned in a click through picture thing but that isn't the article body. The book review doesn't discuss this content specifically so it shouldn't be used to add weight to Bellingcat's false claims. This material simply isn't needed in this article. Springee (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Inaccuracies regarding book release

The recently added content about Ngo's book needs revision as it is problematic for several reasons:

1) It is January and the book has not been released, yet the article states in wiki voice that it was released in February.

2) It inappropriately uses an unreleased primary source to verify this claim despite the existence of multiple secondary sources addressing this coming event. Secondary sources are always better. WP:PRIMARY (To clarify, although I recently added several of Ngo's articles at Quillette as a means to define only a time frame of writing activity (2017 - 2019) it is vastly preferred for this and other information to be ascertained by secondary sources (i.e. other than Ngo or Quillette). WP:SECONDARY

3) The majority of the media outlets addressing the book release are discussing the activities at Powell's Books in Portland rather than providing content reviews of the unreleased book. The root source of most of the recent coverage in media outlets is this January 13, 2021 article by the Associated Press: Powell’s Books says Andy Ngo’s book will not be in store

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

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

Ngo's credibility needs to be addressed in the header - whitewashing and false balance a problem

There is a strong current in mainstream journalism that holds that Ngo is not a credible, good-faith journalist. While Ngo is frequently described as a "journalist" in media sources he is also frequently described as a "provocateur", a "right-wing activist" a "grifter" and a "troll". Yes I have looked at the talk page and seen the extensive discussions on this topic. And yet, the header is remarkably credulous and seems to barely address the serious questions about the sincerity and credulity of Ngo's writing.

This article whitewashes Ngo to a considerable extent - why on earth have references from the SPLC (who have called Ngo a "far-right provocateur"[[5]] and say that he "has been caught misrepresenting facts"[[6]] been removed? Eg see[7] I'm keen to hear the thoughts of other editors. Has anyone had a problem with politically partisan editing on this page? Noteduck (talk) 09:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

edit - I see that a reference to the SPLC was re-added so I've put a strike through one of my previous statements. I'm baffled as to why it was removed in the first place Noteduck (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck, why are you adding content to the lead vs the body? As a general rule, new or expanded content goes in the body of the article. If that content has sufficient weight in terms of the rest of the article then the lead should be expanded/modified. You have recently added a lot of content to the lead with no regard for the previous, extensive discussions regarding the lead. I would suggest reverting the additions to the lead and look at where the new content would fit in the body first. Also, the lead generally doesn't have sources because it doesn't need them. The material in the lead is supposed to be sourced from the article body thus it shouldn't need citations (there are exceptions but if written correctly this isn't needed). Springee (talk) 05:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Looking at a few other controversial conservative journalists...Milo Yiannopoulos' header has 19 citations, Tucker Carlson's has 16, Lauren Southern has 17...soooooo you're the one needing to prove an unusual case, not me. Oh, and about content in the header v body - have you read the article? The milkshaking and Vanguard and Quillette controversies are extensively covered. A few sentences in the header adding some references prefaces the article but doesn't change its content and tone at all. And yes, I've read through the talk page material. Long innit! Noteduck (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The fact that other articles are done poorly isn't a reason to make the same mistakes here. Please follow MOS:LEADCITE. Also, please respect the previous consensus lead. If you have new content for the body it could be added there. Also remember this article is a 1RR per 24hr. Springee (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Sigh - why restore incorrect grammatical tenses and a thoroughly baffling final sentence? Regarding the subheading on citations - "Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead...complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." Plenty of things in the header are controversial:

• Ngo's link with Patriot Prayer. "Standing close to" is bafflingly vague
• the details of Ngo's attack and milkshaking, especially the "fast-drying concrete" allegation. His account of receiving a brain haemorrhage has been questioned by some but it seems he can back very much it up[8]
• idea (supported by the SPLC) that Ngo promotes a false balance between left and right
• Ngo's credibility and very status as a journalist - plenty of sources call him a "self-described" journalist or prefer terms like "writer"

Noteduck (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, between the two versions I support Noteduck's, but I think we really should cut some of this stuff because both versions of the lede are too long. May I suggest the quotes? IMO, several quotes in a row all tending towards the same point smells of WP:SYNTH to me. Loki (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The previous version of the lead I restored had wide spread consensus. Additionally, Noteduck's restoration is a volation of the 1RR rule since much of what they added was previously in and removed from the lead. Self reverting and getting consensus first would be a good idea here. Springee (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I just reverted again to the consensus Lead. I oppose adding material to the lead that isn't in the body. The lead should summarize the body. Noteduck does make a good point that the last sentence is pretty trashy: "claims of bias increased" is not summarizing anything in the body that I can see, and it's pretty vague. I'd support removing that sentence from the lead. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I added {Template:Disputed inline} after the last sentence. I support removing that sentence entirely. NedFausa (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Haven't looked at the details, but the lead is supposed to summarize the body. It's purpose is not to give extra emphasis or higher visibility to selected items. And of course, that means that it should not contain things that aren't first in the body. North8000 (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• There was a RfC that said the video prior to the cider riot incident had to be in the lead (not closed that way but by weight of numbers it appears to be include). Some effort was put into how it made sense to integrate it. I felt it was dumb to just say "this happened". Looking at the sources it appeared that many took that video to show that Ngo was too cozy with the extreme right and this appears to have hurt his credibility. Thus the sentence in the lead. I don't like that the sentence states in Wiki-voice that an attack was planned since we have a Reason article that disputes that. However, editors said that article was opinion (while it's not "opinion" when other sources analyze the same audio and reach the conclusion it was a plan. So I would support removing the sentence but I also want to respect the process that put the sentence into the article even if I don't agree with it. Springee (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Springee: Looking back at the archive, that RfC never got closed. How are you judging the outcome of it? Maybe we should request a close? Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

You are correct it was never closed. I based my conclusion on weight of numbers and assumed few would object if I assumed it would close as consensus to include given I was personally opposed. Springee (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Springee: To facilitate this discussion, here is a link to the RfC. It dates from October 2020 and concerns the alleged planning of an attack. However, as I read it, the disputed sentence now in the lead has a different focus: Claims of bias increased after video footage surfaced which showed Ngo close by Patriot Prayer members who were planning an attack…. (Emphasis added.) The body of our BLP cites four references to support stating In Wikipedia's voice that Ngo was "seen laughing, while standing next to the members of the far-right group Patriot Prayer as they plan an attack…." From this, we are apparently meant to infer that those four news stories themselves constitute an increase in claims of bias against Ngo. Please clarify if that's how you interpret the digressive, bloated ≈6,800-word RfC that even the editor who originated it later called "sorta moot since that section was entirely rephrased (and the hedging was removed)." Surely we can respect the RfC process in general without dignifying that particular RfC, which I believe is itself frequently biased. NedFausa (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I have never liked the sentence so if you feel the spirit of the previous discussion is being respected I won't object to the removal. Springee (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Springee, can you please strike through the following comment that you made:

"The previous version of the lead I restored had wide spread consensus. Additionally, Noteduck's restoration is a volation of the 1RR rule since much of what they added was previously in and removed from the lead. Self reverting and getting consensus first would be a good idea here."

We had this discussion on my talk page[9] and I helped to remind you of some of the principles of the arbitration remedies. Content for which there is clearly established consensus should not be removed. As per the terms of the settled RfC this extends to the designation of Ngo as a "journalist", which I have not changed. Your comment is incorrect, so please strike through. Nothing in the header is irremovable at this point save the "journalist" designation for Ngo (subject to 1RR of course). Beyond that it is putting the cart before the horse to simply assert there is consensus, and I'm concerned about your "weight of numbers" claim about consensus-building, which is an inaccurate interpretation of WP:CON. Lokitheliar I agree that the quotes are far too long. It might be good to put one expert opinion on Ngo that summarizes the criticisms of him - I thought the SPLC's "false equivalence between left and right" was a good summary, but unfortunately it's been reverted.

Shinealittlelight, I'm glad that you didn't restore the flawed grammatical tense in the header. Your reversion is frankly mostly misguided. There are now ZERO citations in the header. You have not referred to the principles of MOS:LEADCITE (which I have pointed out in this thread and it means a number of contested claims in the header are now without citations. Please read this full subheading for examples of the controversial statements in the header and let's look at the principles of MOS:LEADCITE:

"Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead...complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none."

The final sentence of the header needs to be amended because it is simply hopeless English:

"Claims of bias increased after video footage surfaced which showed Ngo close by Patriot Prayer members who were planning an attack on patrons of the Cider Riot bar."

As NedFausa seems to have noticed, this could mean any number of things. Who is accusing whom of bias here? Let's try subject-verb-object here. Eg "Various sources accused Ngo of bias after video footage surfaced..." It's quite baffling that you deleted the references to the media sources that have questioned Ngo's credibility, and especially the mention of his departure from Quillette. This is part of an unfortunate tendency to resort to reversions of large blocks of materials without substantive discussion - let's focus on improving flawed material and building consensus to make a better page Noteduck (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, what do people think about adding a subheading "reception" somewhere in the article? Given how controversial Ngo is and given how extensively he's been analyzed and criticized by both journalistic and academic sources I think it should be added. It would be a good place to relocate the long quotes from the header. Noteduck (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Please FOC, once again. I agree that you've identified a policy that requires adding citations to the lead. We should still do so in a way that involves the basic objective of summarizing the body and not introducing material not included in the body. So if we want to add citations to the lead that are not in the body, we need to first add them to the body. I agree that the last sentence in the lead is trash. It is poorly written and unsupported by any source we have so far. I'd be for omitting it altogether. I disagree with a "reception" section per WP:CRIT. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Shine, can you point to the section in WP:CRIT that supports your view? Springee and Springee, it's worth observing that while other editors have made changes to this page incrementally, you both have tended to remove large blocks of material without substantive discussion, sometimes even restoring grammatical errors excised from the piece.[10][11] This is not the recommended editorial method but I've noticed you both employing it over a few different pages. It's going back through Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. Per WP:ROWN, "it is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a prior edit than to revert the prior edit. Furthermore, your bias should be toward keeping the entire edit. Let's keep working together to improve this page Noteduck (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck, I think you need to show some good faith and start by discussing the edits you think the article need here first. This has been an issue across many articles. Slow down, get buy in, then make the change. I will not strike the 1RR claim. You changed the existing text of the lead. You didn't add a new paragraph that didn't touch the existing lead. You changed the existing lead. That is a first revision. That revision was rejected. When you then restore that rejected revision that is a second revision hence a 1RR violation. Springee (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, Noteduck should absolutely have discussed such extensive changes before making them. Yes, they have violated WP:BRD by restoring their version after it was reverted. But they have not - technically - violated 1RR unless one of their first block of edits was a simple reversion of previous edit, which I don't believe it was. We have had this discussion a lot at AE, and it's generally been decided that you cannot treat any change to an article as a revert, because technically any edit changes something that someone previously wrote. Black Kite (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • OK, my bad on the 1RR. I've always taken changes to existing material, especially material that hasn't been a source of back and forth like the lead to this article, as a first revision. Anyway, there have been some back and forths here so I think now is a very good time to stop and say it would be unwise for anyone here to make moreextensive edits without discussing them first. Perhaps this article would benefit from a consensus required rule. If a change is made then reverted, consensus must be shown before restoring it or a similar change. Springee (talk) 02:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Editted Springee (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I think that's a pretty reasonable idea. Black Kite (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Springee and Black Kite: Having made 11 edits to the article today without preapproval, I'd appreciate your explanation of what discretionary sanction or page protection currently in effect prohibits a user from making changes here without first obtaining your permission. NedFausa (talk) 02:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• NedFausa There isn't one. I believe that Springee is suggesting a consensus-required rule, which is effectively 0RR and states that if you make an edit to the article and it is reverted, then you should attempt to gain consensus for it on the talkpage. Which is actually, per BRD, what you should be doing anyway. There are a number of articles in various hot-button areas that have this requirement already. I am certainly not going to apply it unilaterally, however; that too would require a discussion. Black Kite (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea, Black Kite. It has been hard to get people to follow BRD on this article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Black Kite: Let me state this clearly. Unless you direct me in plain language to make no change to this article without permission from you or Springee, I have no intention of abiding by this seemingly unfounded and arbitrary restriction. NedFausa (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

NedFausa, he isn't saying you'd need permission to introduce an edit; he's saying that (under this proposal) if you did introduce an edit, and it were reverted, you'd have to gain consensus before reintroducing it. That's not the same as saying you have to get permission for any edit. It's basically saying that BRD would be enforced. But that still allows the B part! Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight: I can read English. Springee wrote, I think now is a very good time to stop and say it would be unwise for anyone here to make more edits without discussing them first. (Emphasis added) That struck me as an effort to intimidate the rest of us from changing the Andy Ngo BLP. I don't react well to thinly veiled threats, especially when backed up immediately by an administrator. This is Wikipedia, not The Godfather Part IV. NedFausa (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough, sorry if I misunderstood. I can see why you bristled in reaction to the quoted statement from Springee. But I still think that the idea of enforcing BRD would help make things more orderly. And, for the record, I appreciate your edits today, which I thought were improvements. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

NedFausa, my apologies. I do see how that could be taken badly. I should have (and will per this discussion) made it clear I was thinking about extensive or possibly controversial edits. Still, I think it's always a good idea, if you think something may be controversial, discuss first. You aren't asking permission (as we all have the same "rights"). Rather it just helps smooth the process. A few months back I worked with another editor off line to redo the lead. Since our opinions were far apart I figured anything we both could accept was probably a good compromise. We did this off line so no one could get mad about back and forth changes.[[12]] Sorry for the bad communication. Springee (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

NedFausa, I haven't seen any issue with what you are doing. It appears my read of what a revert is was wrong. I've always considered the change of something that is already there to be a revert. So if you add a new sentence or paragraph I wouldn't consider that a revert. I also wouldn't consider integrating some new material into an existing sentence a revert (Mr X is an A and B -> Mr X is an A, B and C). I did consider changing things like the lead around or changing the meaning of sentences in the lead to be a fist change (which is allowed under 1RR). Anyway, per Black Kite if the material being changed was stable then that doesn't count as a revert, instead it's an original edit. If rejected, you are allowed one more attempt under 1RR. Also, your edits were all back to back which is consider to be a single edit since you could have made them all as one single edit. Really I wouldn't care about any of this if editors were good at following BRD. ND started by really tearing up the lead, a part of this article that has caused a lot of controversy in the past. After their lead changes were rejected they started to do somethign similar to the body. That's just a recipe for unhappiness. Contrast that with your edits. You tagged the part of the lead you didn't like and discussed your concerns without changing things. Your body edits weren't huge rip ups and you have shown a clear willingness to talk things out. I don't see an issue and I hope you feel I'm just as amicable as you are. Springee (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

If adding material to the page is impermissible without consensus on the talk page, but "consensus" is being defined as the agreement of certain editors on the talk page, those editors are essentially asking for a veto on the introduction of new material. Can somebody point to any policy that would justify such a move? Seems pretty contrary to absolutely everything in WP:STONEWALL and the general recommendation against moratoriums in Wikipedia:RECENTCONSENSUS, which notes that moratoriums run counter to the general practice on Wikipedia that any editor may initiate a discussion on any topic related to the operations of the encyclopedia at any time.

As far as I can tell, all the RfC decrees is "clearly established consensus" is that the designation of Ngo as a "journalist" should not be removed, and nobody has done so. Shinealittlelight and Springee, in your block reverts you have repeatedly gone against Wiki's editorial policies. To quote WP:ROWN again:

• it is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a prior edit
• your bias should be toward keeping the entire edit

In future, pay edition to editorial policy, don't delete blocks of text wholesale without substantive discussion, and to improve rather than revert. If you care about this article, why don't you restore some sources to the controversial points of the header, which require inline citations as per MOS:LEADCITE? Noteduck (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit that misquotes and fails verification

I made this edit: [13] before remembering that this article is 1RR, so I self-reverted. But my points are valid. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

"Fails verification?" Please explain. Also - "misquote"? Is this the quote you're referring to -"A large man in a Proud Boys shirt says the June 29 assault on Ngo happened because he ignored Proud Boys' offer of protection"? Noteduck (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

"Verification" refers to one of our basic policies, WP:V. The WW source did not "question Ngo's account of events", so the proposed content fails verification. The current version fixes the misquote, so it's moot. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, where is the misquote? Also regarding verification, "I can see Ngo has claimed to be an independent journalist. It is increasingly clear he is coordinating his movements and his message with right-wing groups." Is this not questioning his account of events? Does Ngo agree with this? I believe you should strike through this entire subheading, thanks Noteduck (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, the misquote has been fixed and is moot. No, the WW source does not question his account. If you disagree, please identify (i) what his account was, and (ii) what part of that account they question. What they question here is whether he is an "independent journalist". Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

So Ngo has admitted he coordinates with right-wing groups? That's remarkable I guess. At any rate it was totally unnecessary to create this subheading and attempt to find pedantic criticisms of good-faith edits. I appreciate that you've seen Wiki as biased in favor of the left in the past, but we're all just trying to improve the page here. Noteduck (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, FOC. This is where we talk about content. That's what I'm doing. The misquote was fixed, so that's an improvement, and I thought that the proposed content, which I agree was in good faith, was not correctly reflecting the content of the source, which did not question his account of events. So yeah, fixing that would be an improvement, unless you want to tell me what part of Ngo's account was questioned and provide a quote to that effect. BLP articles require great care in being sure to make sure all content is verified, since these are living people whose lives are affected by what we write here. Anyway, it's fixed now, so none of this matters. Let's move on. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Jan 2021 edits to lead

LokiTheLiar, while I appreciate cutting down the length of the lead, I think splitting the last paragraph into two single sentence paragraphs and removing the context of why we care about the cider riot video is a mistake. Last fall Bacondrum and I worked on this material [[14]]. My concern with just stating the video exists is it lacks any sort of context. Why should we tell people about it. He was near people who weren't being violet at the time, so what? The what is that the video was used to support the view that he is too close with the right. Perhaps we can cut the length of that paragraph down further but I think the previous version was better. What about:

Ngo's coverage of anti-fascist groups has been controversial including accusations that Ngo focuses on violence committed by the far-left while ignoring the violent actions of the far-right. Claims of bias increased after video footage surfaced which showed Ngo close by Patriot Prayer members who were planning an attack on patrons of the Cider Riot bar.

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

One bar, not two (Cider Riot again)

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

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

Cedar777: Thank you for pointing this out. I have corrected my mistake, which stemmed from the former wording: …video that showed Ngo standing near members of far-right group Patriot Prayer in a Portland bar and smiling and laughing as the group planned a violent attack at a bar frequented by left-wing activists. To me, that suggested two different bars. NedFausa (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

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

No deaths by Antifa

this article in conflict with the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_of_Aaron_Danielson_and_Michael_Reinoehl which clearly states his antifa leanings and he killed some one. As has not been tested in court would not go as far as say murdered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K1w1.Troll (talk • contribs) 08:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

At the time our source was published (August 27th, 2020), that statement was true. Aaron Danielson was shot August 29th, 2020. We probably should clarify, though. Loki (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Recent edit

This edit summary did not make much sense to me "Comparing Ngo to Goebbels is absolutely not acceptable in a BLP even if the source attributed to a book review". Wikipedia is not censored. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah no, we are not going to compare him to Joseph Goebbels. That is just inappropriate, fringe, and asinine. PackMecEng (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

"We" are not comparing Ngo to anyone; note that this is not rendered in wiki-voice. The book review does: "'According to Nazaryan, Ngo describes every act of violence by antifa 'so meticulously and ominously'...'. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

You say that like it makes a difference. It does not my friend. Not even a little bit. Yes, it is attributed to someone else and not in Wiki's voice. So what? It is still inappropriate, fringe, and asinine. PackMecEng (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The review is "inappropriate, fringe, and asinine"? This does not make much sense since the review is still cited in the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

This is an example of finding the "sound bite" in the article rather than the substance. We can summarize the review without using it's inflammatory language. That is especially true when the language compares the person to a literal Nazi. If nothing else it's very unencyclopedic to use such terms even in an attributed quote. Springee (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Then provide a better summary of the review. The comparison of Ngo to historical propagandists is an essential part of that review and the understanding of Ngo's work. No reason to censor the comparison outright.Shadybabs (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

A better summary of the report was already there. PackMecEng (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Shadybabs, once that edit was reversed twice it should have been clear that there wasn't consensus for such a statement in the article. Restoring it tends towards disruptive editing. Springee (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't that apply more directly to PackMecEng? "Yeah no" is not a justified edit summary.Shadybabs (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

There was a discussion here before you restored the recently added, non-consensus text which compares a BLP subject to a literal Nazi. Springee (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

On the one hand, I don't think Nazi comparisons are 100% out of bounds in any article even a BLP. Ultimately we go by the sources, and if all the sources say someone is like Goebbels then we shouldn't override them with our own personal bias. On the other hand, however, it seems in this case it's just one line in one source, which is certainly not enough to implicitly call someone a Nazi. Loki (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

As editors we are using our personal bias to decide which, if any, lines to quote from the review. Comparing living people to Nazi's is always going to be problematic even if it comes from a book reviewer who clearly has a bone to pick. Springee (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, I don't think that it's appropriate in this particular case, where we only have one line from one source. But surely in a hypothetical case where we have tons of sources comparing the subject to Nazis, we wouldn't hesitate to include that, right? E.g. I'm sure lots of sources have compared Richard Spencer to Nazis, and it would certainly be strange to leave that comparison out of that article. (In fact, there's a comparison in that article of Spencer to Goebbels specifically.) Loki (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, I think I mistook your earlier comment. Regardless, you are right. Just like we might include a statement that a person is widely viewed as a racist, Xist, Xphobe etc, yes, if a wide range of sources called the person a Nazi we could say the same in attributed voice. Springee (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The LA Times writer clearly disagrees with Ngo. It would be best to summarize the writer's opinion. That's somewhat hard to do since the writer seems to engage in the same vilification for which he condemns Ngo. It would be impartial to say the writer claims Ngo ignores facts that don't support the narrative of the book and the writer feels the book is propaganda that tries to vilify those Ngo doesn't like. To use the Nazi parallel, even if attributed, fails wp:impartial. Springee (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

In presenting a book review, Wikipedia editors have the option to either paraphrase or attribute quotations to capture the review's essence. In this case, paraphrasing is inadequate. Alexander Nazaryan does not merely pan Unmasked, he calls it "supremely dishonest" and accuses Ngo of "churning out the very kind [of] propaganda that keeps authoritarians in power." Ngo writes "in the tendentious, pedantic tone of a Wikipedia enthusiast," Nazaryan sneers, and "crosses the line into truly despicable." Ngo describes every act of violence by antifa "so meticulously and ominously," declares Nazaryan, "that Herr Goebbels would have been proud." To ensure that we take this over-the-top rhetoric literally, Nazaryan adds, "In no way do I make that allusion flippantly." This is not just a bad review, it's a public excoriation that willfully invokes the most evil parallels. To fairly represent such bias, we must quote Nazaryan directly and, most importantly, on point. His personalized comments about Ngo's parents' immigration from Vietnam, which the author relates only in the book's final pages, are a tangential afterthought. The point of Nazaryan's review is to vilify Ngo as a Nazi propagandist of the first magnitude. Please, let's not lose sight of that. Give Alexander Nazaryan his due. NedFausa (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Is Nazaryan worthy of that deference? His review seems more like an angry rant than a careful, critical review. If the reviewer is over the top we should probably discount their review. Regardless, choosing to highlight that inflammatory text bite is not encyclopedic and should be replaced with a more impartial description (WP:IMPARTIAL is policy). Springee (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:IMPARTIAL advises: Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone. That policy does not, however, prohibit us from quoting directly if, as in this case, the content cannot otherwise be accurately represented. NedFausa (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The actual arguments can be summarized without the hyperbolic language used in this review. Springee (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

They cannot be accurately summarized without being watered down. NedFausa (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure they can. We simply remove the hyperbole. I can say "I would rather eat dog [poop] than food from Burger-Mart!". That can be sumarized as "Springee expressed great dislike of Burger-Mart's food". Yes, the hyperbole was removed but the core idea is still there. It might be helpful to get some NPOVN feedback on this question. Springee (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Then you have to define hyperbole. When Alexander Nazaryan calls Unmasked a "supremely dishonest" book, is that hyperbole? NedFausa (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you can draw a clear line in the sand but I think when you start to add modifiers to your descriptions you are certainly moving towards hyperbole. Take your example, I think we can define dishonest. If Ngo states things he knows to be false that is dishonest. How do we decide when something is "supremely" vs "very" vs "really" etc. A way to handle this would be say "Nazaryan described the book as dishonest citing examples... X, Y and Z." If Nazaryan can't provide an example to show the dishonesty then we shouldn't credit his claim. In the case of the Goebbels comment we can just say, "Ngo's writing attempts to vilify those he wants the reader to dislike". Honestly, reading it as the text appears in the wiki article the reason for the Goebbels comparison is less clear. In the actual article the next paragraph says why the reviewer makes the connection. That part, not the shock value name is more significant. Imagine if a text described a politician as, "The person was like Hitler. Both are 1.75m tall." Now imagine we said, "Senator X was compared to Hitler by [reporter]". Being the same height as Hitler is hardly a sin but the comparison is certainly going to raise eyebrows. Anyway, I'm happy to raise this as a NPOVN question if it will help. Springee (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Why does Alexander Nazaryan liken Ngo to Goebbels? Because, he explains, "Maligning the opposition was central to the Nazi strategy, and it is critical to today's far-right extremists. Ngo's intention here seems not just to discredit antifa, but to run a diversionary tactic for Patriot Prayer and other groups that are far more dangerous than their leftist counterparts." We could add that if editors believe it somehow softens the blow as Nazaryan assassinates Ngo's character. NedFausa (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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

You are mistaken. Here in full is the disputed paragraph as it now stands.

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

References

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

Ah, I see why I was confused. The mixing of quoted and paraphrased made it look like the mention of Nazis was a direct quote. Since it wasn't a direct quote there is even less reason to summarize it. Springee (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I am also having a hard time finding Nazaryan qualified to even make that comparison. I see nothing in his background that would make him authority on nazi propaganda or Goebbels. Finally he seems basically alone in making such a comparison. Why would we want to amplify such a fringe viewpoint? PackMecEng (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: Please, can you identify something in Alexander Nazaryan's review that does not represent a fringe viewpoint? NedFausa (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Why? You are making a case for including that specific content and I am explaining why we should not include it. PackMecEng (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: You are the first editor in this 1,800-word thread to mention "fringe," although you did mention it in a previous thread. Now that you raise the issue here, it strikes me that Alexander Nazaryan's entire review is fringe, and therefore ought not to be included in this BLP. However, I asked for your input because I am prepared to defer to your judgment as to whether his review contains anything that is not fringe, and might therefore qualify for inclusion. NedFausa (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

My fringe reference was him making the comparison as the comparison is not made anywhere else really. So that is a fringe view. His other views may share more wide spread support, and then not be fringe, I do not know. I have not looked too deeply into those, only the one presented for inclusion into the article. PackMecEng (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know, Alexander Nazaryan's is the only review of Unmasked to appear in a mainstream news outlet. It stands to reason then, that nothing he wrote in attacking this book and its author shares widespread support. Accordingly, Nazaryan's entire review is fringe and should not be used. Don't you agree? NedFausa (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I've opened a NPOVN discussion regarding the topic here [[15]]. Springee (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Given the contentious nature of comparing a BLP subject to a Nazi, even with attribution, I've reverted the text to the previous version. This is consistent with wp:NOCON. Springee (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree but wish you hadn't called the reviewer an "LA Times writer" above since, as stated at the end of the article, he actually works for Yahoo. And, having seen "Newsweek apologizes after writer Alexander Nazaryan compares Ted Cruz fans to Nazis", I conclude he is indeed capable of using that critique method "flippantly". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Andy Ngo, NY Times Best Selling Author, Unmasked: Inside Antifa's Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy

Andy Ngo is also a NY Times Best Selling Author, 'Unmasked: Inside Antifa's Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy.' An investigative journalist, he's been attacked by Antifa and writes a deeply researched and reported account of the group's history and tactics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ann Page007 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ann Page007: We would need WP:RS in order to add this to our BLP. NedFausa (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

New to NYT Best Seller list this week[16]. Schazjmd (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

 Erledigt. It was already added. Please see ¶3. NedFausa (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

August 2019 attack being repeatedly mentioned, and general sloppiness

I've been going through cleaning up a few things here, and I couldn't help but notice how quite a few incidents are repeatedly mentioned with nearly identical text, multiple times. I feel like this article could really benefit from some general restructuring, as the current section headings kind of have a bit too much overlap with each other. I'd suggest possible headings as "Career (limit this to the actual papers / websites he's worked for)", "Involvement with protests and street violence (pretty much everything from late 2018 through 2019 in Portland in here)", "Legal Actions", "Political views", and "Criticism". I'm gonna touch on the last two though. I think with figures like Ngo articles can get overly clogged up with details about the subject's beliefs, and then people adding in where others have criticized these beliefs. This is made exponentially harder with figures like Ngo who will bold-facedly describe themselves as centrists, when every RS and human with two eyes would disagree. Thats why I think we should probably try to concentrate these criticisms and more analysis type bits of info in one spot, which will also allow them to be a lot more coherent as a counter-narrative to his own descriptions of himself. On a completely unrelated note, I think his absolutely hilarious allegation that the sneaky communists put cement in their milkshakes definitely needs to be noted here, as it does the reader a disservice to deprive them of that wonderful tidbit. If people think re-work is warranted I'll go ahead with it, I just didn't want to do anything quite that drastic on a semi-protected page like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomerIsland (talk • contribs) 18:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@SomerIsland: Please provide proposed text for inclusion and WP:RS for what you call Ngo's "absolutely hilarious allegation that the sneaky communists put cement in their milkshakes." Also, speaking of "sloppyness" (in your section heading here), the word is spelled sloppiness. NedFausa (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I moreso posted this wanting to make sure my proposal for reorganising those parts of the article was proper. I did some further digging and realised it wasn't actually Ngo who started the debunked cement milkshake conspiracy, it was the far right groups known as the "Portland Police Department" and "Fox News" who spread it. One Rolling Stone article cites him as having stated it on twitter, but I really can't find any evidence for this, and I'm guessing they misinterpreted it. I mean it does sound like something he'd come up with, not the actual police department. Sorry for the typo in the section header by the way, ESL here. Not sure if its possible for you or me to fix that now? SomerIsland (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Social media influence

@Springee: In re this revert, "This content has been extensively discussed and never found consensus for inclusion", could you point to where this content was discussed? --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Look at the top of the page. There was also a RSN which I think asked what was the limit of "internet culture". Springee (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Springee, thanks. I only see your disagreement with other editors: #Removal_of_Bellingcat_content. What is the relevant RSN discussion? --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Here is the discussion I was thinking of [[17]]. Also, as I recall from the previous discussion a big issue with the Bellingscat material was the evidence presented by the source contradicted the claims made in the source. Springee (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Fled for his life

Noteduck made this edit, and I don't understand why. The source here says Mr Ngo ... is now living in London having fled Portland fearing for his life. This is reported in the reporter's voice, not attributed to Ngo. But Noteduck is insisting on attributing it to Ngo anyway, and moreover his edit does so in a way that violates MOS:CLAIM. When I reverted, the content was reversed again, apparently in violation of 1RR and the normal BRD process. Noteduck, please self-revert and discuss here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Is the pull-quote not linked to the next sentence, though? "Mr Ngo – who recently published a book, ‘Unmasked’, covering the inner workings of Antifa – is now living in London having fled Portland fearing for his life. “For a number of months now there’s just been increasing threats of violence against me, promises by Antifa extremists to kill me.”" Otherwise that quote is an orphan? And the reporter is clearly basing that sentence on Ngo's statement. Black Kite (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the reporter is basing his statement, made in his voice, that Mr Ngo ... is now living in London having fled Portland fearing for his life, on the statement from Ngo. Reporters often report things as being true based on the testimony of other people and without attributing the statement to the source. They don't always attribute. Presumably they attribute when they're not confident of the truth of the statement, and they say it in their own voice when they're confident. So should we attribute? We should follow the RS judgment on this: in this case, the reporter didn't attribute so neither should we. Moreover, we should also follow MOS:CLAIM, 1RR, and BRD. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• All of this information, sourced only to Sky News Australia, is best left out of an encyclopedia article until there are other sources confirming it. Cedar777 (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. It has also been reported in the Oregonian here that Because of increasing concerns about his personal safety, Ngo said he recently left his hometown for London. This is a tricky sentence. As I read it, they are saying (i) there are increasing concerns about his personal safety, and (ii) Ngo says these concerns are why he left his hometown for London. Do you think that this additional source makes it DUE for inclusion? I'm on the fence. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: What you call "a tricky sentence" in The Oregonian is followed by this, which you omitted: He filed at least 10 reports with Portland police about threats made toward him or his family since last June, said Sgt. Kevin Allen, a bureau spokesman. (Emphasis added.) As I read it, that gives additional, official weight to Ngo's fear for his personal safety. NedFausa (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Good point, I missed that, I agree. I think the text reverted to its previous state and the Oregonian source should be added. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The Oregonian article is quality and contains a lot of usable content on the subject (however, its worth noting that it is only a few hours old at this point, having just been published this morning). The Oregonian is clearly the better source for content about the relocation to London as it covers the subject in depth, not to mention it has a reputation for producing Pulitzer-prize-winning journalism. More caution is required when using Sky News Australia to source content as it is considered to be a strongly biased source. It is not necessary to quote Ngo per Sky News Australia. From WP policy WP:QUOTE: "It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words." The Oregonian does a much better job maintaining NPOV in their coverage of the material. Cedar777 (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Birthday

Seems to be April 6. Is this a reliable enough source? https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1247060374219681792?s=20 Kingofthedead (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)