Talk:Andy Ngo

Lead

Can we try to work and try to have a dicussion on the article and improve it rather than edit war or argue about RfC, and have no consensus on anything? Let us start from the lead.

[Intro] Andy Cuong Ngo (/noʊ/ n-oh; born c. 1986) is an American right-wing activist and social media influencer, who is known for covering and video-recording demonstrators. He is a editor-at-large for The Post Millennial, a Canadian conservative news website, and a regular guest on the Fox News. Ngo has published columns in American conservative newspapers, such as the New York Post and The Wall Street Journal, and online magazines, such Quillette. He is also an author, having written Unmasked: Inside Antifa's Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy (2021).

[Summary of career] In 2016, Ngo started working as a multimedia editor at the Portland State Vanguard, a student newspaper, from which he got fired in 2017; he alleged that this decision was politically motivated over his conservatism. In the following years, he started covering campus events, and was involved in a series of confrontations and controversies related to American radical right organizations, such as the Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer, and antifa. His actions and role in covering those issues, as well as the civil unrest in Portland during 2020, attracted significative media attention.

[Controversies and related issues] Ngo self-describes as a journalist, and he has been variously described as a busybody journalist, conservative journalist, far-right blogger, independent journalist, media activist, and a right-wing journalist, media personality, video journalist, and writer. A number of journalists and news organizations, including the Columbia Journalism Review, do not consider his work to be journalism. Ngo's coverage of antifa and Muslims has been controversial, and the accuracy and credibility of his reporting have been disputed by several journalists. He has been accused of sharing misleading or selective material, including disinformation and doxxing, and has been described as controversial, discredited, pseudo-journalist, and provocateur.

Summary of the body. Labels used and other parts taken from the table of sources. Any suggestion and further improvement is welcome. Davide King (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Clearly journalist should be in the first sentence. Absent the first sentence then the second as a clear majority of sources describe Ngo as a journalist. The "self describes" paragraph is a non-starter given sourcing. Springee (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I would be okayish to have (qualified) journalist in the first sentence if it means we are actually going to improve the article starting with the lead and expand it like that. But that RfC has not been overturned yet, has it? You write of "a clear majority of sources describe Ngo as a journalist" but that is also not what the RfC concluded; in fact, it is close to no consensus because several sources using the journalist label are either questionable or unreliable, thus it is closer to no consensus when weighted accordingly. Finally, they do not describe him as a "journalist", they describe him as "conservative journalist" or "right-wing journalist", among other caveats. Seriously, how many other journalists have such caveats? TFD is right about this. And when there is a disagreement about sources, we do not write something in wikivoice, no matter that one thinks it is self-obvious he is a journalist because he fits the dictionary definition, or that one thinks he is awful at his job; what matters are reliable sources, and there is no clear majority (contrary to what you write), especially among the most reputable ones, hence the wording I proposed to use.

"The 'self describes' paragraph is a non-starter given sourcing." Could you please clarify what you meant by that? That it is not needed because you think a majority of sources describe him as a journalist? As I wrote in one of my RfC comments, Ngo himself self-described as a journalist in a C-SPAN (if I recall right) statement, so I do not see the issue if you think that a self-descrition is diminishing him, especially since it subsequently lists a series of labels used to describe him that include the word journalist. But you seem to miss the caveat facts. Secondly, you simply cannot ignore the fact that there is a significant number of sources that do not use the label, either implying that they do not think he is a journalist or that journalism is not what Ngo is most notable for.

Hence, no wikivoice (especially in the first sentence) but an appositive lead paragraph with self-description, views of support, and views of disagreement, as is usually done in such case when, you know, there is no clear consensus among reliable sources. Sources that describe him as right-wing journalist do not support (unqualified) journalist because the latter is without the added caveat that is deemed necessary by the overwehlming majority (this, a true majority) of reliable sources; what they support is right-wing journalist or (caveat) journalist, they should not be justaxposed even if they may not be seen as mutually exclusive or in contradiction. If you think we need sources explicitly saying "Look guys, Andy Ngo is not a journalist", the same goes the other way, and we need reliable sources using no caveats if you are supporting the claim that "a clear majority of sources describe Ngo as a journalist [no caveat to be added or mentioned by you]".

In their closure, I think @Szmenderowiecki had a point, which we must address and discuss, when they wrote:

"The sources in the table mostly chose one label to describe Ngo. If they called him journalist, did they do so because they described his journalistic activity even if they would not have generally treated him as such, or they indeed believed he was a journalist? If they did not, was it because they had space constraints so they had to choose one descriptor they believed suited him best, or maybe because they didn't think he was a journalist but instead a far-right provocateur? There are a lot of variables here that most editors did not take into account, but the proponents are right that the labels are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and we are not limited to one label only."

Perhaps we may never be able to find this out but I think it is worth a try. Davide King (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with "right-wing journalist" in the opening sentence. I wouldn't have taken the closing to mean we have consensus to call him just "journalist" in the lead. Given the discussion just before the RfC it there was a clear consensus for the "right-wing" modifier. Springee (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Any further issue can be solved with these two tweats: ... He is a journalist and editor-at-large for ... Ngo has been variously described as ... . Davide King (talk) 23:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

No to "described as". Such sentences are typically used to jam otherwise UNDUE or contentious LABELS into articles/leads. Note that a simple processional description like "journalist" isn't contentious per LABEL but something like "grifter" or "provocateur" would be. Springee (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Just objectively it would appear to be contentious... Its not technically possible to have a real argument over whether a term is contentious or not... If you're having the argument and there are sources on both sides the "its not contentious" argument loses by default. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Springee as far as dropping the self-described bit. Clearly he has worked writing for a number of media organisations and that by definition makes him a journalist. I think the question becomes what prominence do we place on it. I'm in favour of second sentence. TarnishedPath^talk 04:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I like Davide King’s suggested lead. It’s neutral and follows MoS and summarises body well. I oppose using journalist, even qualified, in the first sentence, as a clear violation of the very recent RfC closure. I don’t object to using it in second sentence but Davide’s proposal elegantly solves the problem by actually describing what he does so is preferable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it reads very well, but I would just drop the self-described bit and move journalist up a wee bit (obviously not to first sentence). TarnishedPath^talk 05:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I think we should not state journalist as an uncontested fact (I suppose you are fine with the is a journalist and editor-at-large for wording, you just do not think journalist should be in the very first sentence, do you? I can accept that as a compromise if it moves us forward) because the closure ruled that there is no consensus among sources and we do not state as fact things where sources do not agree or when there is consensus among them. Hence why the wording I used in my ideal, proposed lead. I think his self-description is important because that is the label he favours to describe himself and because we should be giving some weight to reliable sources not considering him a journalist or using activist and provocateur as labels.

Let us again use the dictator example. I think it is a great example because it can be considered a contentious word but it is not when reliable sources clearly use it to define the subject; on the other hand, it clearly is when reliable sources contest this view, and there is a scholarly disagreement. We should not be using dictator in the very first sentence if that is not what a majority of reliable sources identifies the subject with, and if there is disagreement among sources, we still would not use dictator as an uncontested fact later on like we do for journalist here. We would do as I did here, namely that a number of scholarly sources consider the subject to have been a dictator because such and such. Other scholarly sources contest this view because of such and such. Again, one can substitute dictator with any other label, which may be contentious by itself or not but may be if reliable sources disagree (Ngo appears to be the latter case).

When there is not a clear label used to describe the subject, when sources disagree about a specific label or in this case sources using labels clearly in contradiction with the contested label, and we have reputable sources who are authorative in the subject's topic (e.g. the Columbia Journalism Review as an authorative source for journalism) stating the subject is not the contested label, we do not juxtapose one or state the contested label as fact; what we do is listing a range of various labels used by reliable sources to describe the subject.
That is precisely what I did. Davide King (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The closing, screwed up and illogical as it was, only said no consensus for "journalist" in the first sentence. Since there was consensus to say journalist and the previous consensus said we could use it in the opening sentence I see no reason to move it further down in the lead. It's clear that "journalist"+ modifier, ie what we had before the bad close, is the most common description of Ngo by a fair margin. Thus it is wildly illogical to move the term further down in the lead. And, no, per RSs, "journalist"+modifier is not contentious and it also isn't contentious per LABEL. Springee (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to have been a bad close, as far as I can tell it was upheld by the community on review. What leads you to assert as a fact that it was a bad close? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't upheld. It was noconsensus to overturn. A consensus to support the close would be different. Springee (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Either way it wasn't a bad close. Please don't refer to it as such again, its neither civil or competent. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

It was a bad close. As several editor, myself included noted, it was in effect a supervote for a solution that was not well discussed or articulated in the discussion. It wasn't egregious enough to get consensus to overturn but that is often the problem when you have a relatively close RfC. Springee (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

While I accept that's your opinion, and you can say that as much as you want, the consensus is officially against you in multiple arenas and we have no obligation at this point to WP:SATISFY you. Loki (talk) 05:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

As the person who wrote the current wording, I don't think expanding the lead to three paragraphs is a good idea, nor do I think qualifying "journalist" that much is really justified. The reason for my wording is that the arena in which Ngo is most clearly qualified to call himself a journalist is by pure job title: a newspaper employs him at a position that is normally classified as a kind of journalist. (And this was also the argument of many of the supporters of calling him a journalist in the RFC.)

He's not really just a "self-described" journalist because The Post Millennial also calls him a journalist. Now, they're not exactly a reliable source on anything, which is why I voted against calling him a journalist in the RFC, but if we must call him a journalist in some context it is clearly that context. Loki (talk) 05:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@Loki, I still think the current lead violates MOS:LEAD as it does not properly summarize the body, which is exactly what the RfC concluded: "Also, please expand the lead, because it does not adequately summarise the body." For example, there is no summary of his activism, which is the most egregious omission. The Post Millennial is not only not a generally reliable source but it is not independent of Ngo due to him working there, so it should not be used as supporting the claim that Ngo is a journalist. It is exactly why it needs to be qualified. Even these reliable sources that describe him as a journalist, they qualify it. It can be reworded but it must be done. Davide King (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the current lead is fine, and I oppose expanding it too much. There was a period where the lead was much longer and it led to constant disputes over every little detail in the lead.

The one change I would suggest making is moving "author" from the first sentence to a new sentence about his book. He's only an author in the context of that book and it's definitely not his major source of notability. Anyone who's aware of the book probably knows who Ngo is already. Loki (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I can understand your point from a practical view but ideally we should improve the article, and the lead should at least include a summary of the subject's career; my proposed wording for the career summary, which can always further improved, does not seem to have rasied any issue, so perhaps that could be added? The lead is supposed to (1) present an overview of the subject or topic; and (2) provide a summary of the body. As things stand, the article fails in (1), as we are still arguing about it, and even more clearly fails (2) as there is no summary of his career. As for the last part of the lead, it can wait. We should expand the section about Ngo's credibility, perhaps have it as a sub topic of "Reception" (like James O'Keefe), and have a subsection about his journalistic credentials, about those who consider him a journalist, those who criticizes but may consider him to be a type of journalist, and those clearly not considering him a journalist but a provocateur. The third paragraph of my proposed lead would be a summary of that section, and I it can wait until that section is created. But we should not be afraid of expanding the lead and the article (the closure said the article is too short). Otherwhise we are never going to improve the article; we should not let our own disputes stop us from improving the article.
Davide King (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

None of the recent changes improve the article. I agree that "author" while true is less common than other descriptors. I would be fine if we had some other, impartial term and then kept journalist in the second sentence. However, "influencer" is an odd, nebulous term. Basically all the other terms we might use are more questionable and further from the general description of what the person does than "journalist". Given the bad close, well I would say "influencer" is perhaps the best of the bad choices. If we want the thing he is most known for then I would say, "victim of far-left violence". His public status shot up after he was attacked. Springee (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

"Influencer" is a quite common term these days. See the relevant articles at: Digital influencer. As for: If we want the thing he is most known for then I would say, "victim of far-left violence"., that would suggest he is in no way, shape, or form a journalist. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

No, "victim of far-left violence" wouldn't suggest he isn't a journalist or that his journalism, good or bad, wasn't the reason why he was a victim. However, so long as "journalist" is out of the first sentence of the lead, well "victim of far-left violence" is factual and highlights the event that did the most to bring him to the public's attention. Still, the long standing, "X journalist" would make more sense. Springee (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

You didn't say: victim of far-left violence You said If we want the thing he is most known for then I would say, "victim of far-left violence". There's a difference. That's not being known best as a "journalist". Aside from that, I don't see anything in the article about him being a "victim of far-left violence", something that doesn't ring true to me according to RS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was unclear in my meaning. Let me clarify. Many people first hear of Ngo after he was a victim of far-left violence. So if we want what most people know him for, well that may be it. However, when we looked at RSs it was clear that "journalist" was used by 61% of the sources while a minority of sources (31%) used some other term and presumably not all the same term (quoting from here "Taking all 56 sources as equally meritorious, 34/56 (61%) describe him as a journalist, 4/56 (7%) are "maybe" and 18/56 (32%) call him something else"). It would appear that RSs say he is best know as a journalist (with additional descriptor). Springee (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Pretty sure we have been through this before. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

We have and I doubt we will convince one another. Springee (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Well thats a radical departure, I thought you were arguing that he was most known for his journalism? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm illustrating the absurdity that comes from avoiding the most obvious and common description for Ngo, journalist. Springee (talk) 01:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

You appear to have only succeeded in illuminating the weakness of your own... I would also note that the most obvious and common description for Ngo would appear to be activist... Most of the sources appear to treat the journalism as part of the activism. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Bingo. If it wasn't for his activism this article wouldn't exist in the first place. He would have never come to notability. He would never have been a journalist. We wouldn't be having this discussion. Per MOS:FIRSTBIO, this is "[t]he main reason the person is notable" and should be given the most prominence in not only the lede but in the short description. TarnishedPath^talk 03:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. If he had been a fair and neutral journalist from the beginning, few would know about him. The reason he is famous is because of his attention-grabbing activism. Binksternet (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Plenty of journalists aren't "fair and neutral" but that doesn't mean they aren't journalist. Plenty of rock bands are outright crap. That doesn't mean they aren't a rock band. But that point was already made. Springee (talk) 03:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

He would have been a journalist as that was clearly where he was looking to work. The difference is he wouldn't have been notable in anyway. Per MOS:FIRSTBIO the main reason we know if him is because of his reporting and the reactions to it. Springee (talk) 03:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

No, activist wasn't the most common. Looking at the compiled list it appears only once. Again, even with this bad closing we had a consensus to describe him as a journalist. The table clearly shows it was far and away the most common description for him. Springee (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I was not involved in the creation of that table and as far as I know neither were any experts, academics, or other people I would trust with conducting that sort of original research. You seem to want to keep rehashing old arguments, is there any chance you can join us in the present? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

We are in the present. We are discussing possible changes to the lead. I oppose further efforts to push "journalist" down in the lead. The second sentence is the best place for it given the recent closing. Springee (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think "journalist" should be pushed any further down. I'm happy with second sentence. As you point out, he clearly works as a journalist, whether that's a good one or a bad one, a biased one or a impartial one, is irrelevant. To me though the important question at this point is what is the main reason for his notability and that should inform how we treat the first sentence and the short description. TarnishedPath^talk 10:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I also oppose moving journalist out of the second sentence and oppose "self-described", as the majority of reliable sources clearly describe him as a journalist. ⋆｡°✩🎃✩°｡⋆ Isaidnoway (talk) 06:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I continue to dispute this claim that "the majority of reliable sources clearly describe him as a journalist", since several sources listed in support are questionable or unreliable. I agree with the closure that a source analysis shows there is no consensus among reliable sources on this, and in fact the better sources, including those that are experts about journalism, oppose that. Also it is factually true that Ngo sees himself as journalist. Davide King (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The opening paragraphs contain rampant and inaccurate projectionist appellations. His work is disputed but his rebuttals effectively counter the disputes. Being “right wing” is non-ideological. The appellations are attempt at character assassination rather than acknowledgement that his reporting makes valid points. STP43FAN (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say here. I'm mainly familiar with "projectionist" as applied to cinema employees and maybe the odd cartographer. I'm used to "right wing" describing an ideology, or at least a loosely defined category of ideologies. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers, I'm completely in the dark with what they're trying to communicate also. I had to look up the definition of "appellation" and I'm scratching my head how that relates to the term "projectionist". The rest of it is pure word salad. TarnishedPath^talk 09:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

This "journalist" debate being the source of so much consternation is further evidence that Wikipedia editors have abandoned NPOV and BLP in favor of their ideology. Prior to this hysteria, the fact that Any Ngo self-identifies as a journalist and has a bestselling non-fiction book published would be enough to describe him as such. The extraordinary effort to prevent that one word from appearing in the lede is farcical. Fnordware (talk) 05:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

You don't call a person who writes a "bestselling non-fiction book" a journalist... You call them an author. What exactly was that supposed to prove? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

We follow the reliable sources around here, not contentious self-identification.Ps, journalist is still in the lede so your argument isn't a very good one. TarnishedPath^talk 06:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Apparently that's not enough in this case as even the New York Times refers to him as a journalist. Fnordware (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The previous consensus lead included calling him a journalist in the opening sentence. After a recent, questionable RfC closing that was changed. The closing reached a no-consensus conclusion but that was taken to mean the long term stable version of the lead needed to be changed. The closing also illustrated one of the issues with bad closings. It takes more consensus to overturn a bad closing than it takes to make a bad closing. I suspect we will continue to have people who make this change to the opening sentence as it does seem odd that we don't call him a journalist in the opening sentence even though the majority of sources do call him a journalist. Springee (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

"I suspect we will continue to have people who make this change to the opening sentence". I suspect spikes like what happened a few weeks ago would only usually occur when certain provocateurs throw tantrums on twitter about what Wikipedia says about them twitter users provoke people to come edit the article. TarnishedPath^talk 08:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments like the one you just made tend to reinforce the idea that this article has an IMPARTIAL issue. Springee (talk) 11:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. There is absolutely nothing at all impartial about this article. It is based on consensus and reliable sources. What potentially leads to impartiality is when certain provocateurs attempt to leverage people provoke their audiences to go off and wage culture wars on their behalf. I'd expect you to call that out. TarnishedPath^talk 13:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• WP:NPOV is very clear on this. Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. There are high-quality sources that seriously contest his description as a journalist (by putting it in scare quotes or with wording that similarly unambiguously casts doubt on it), ergo we cannot call him one in the article voice. You can't render it uncontested just by pointing to sources that do call him that - you need to convincingly argue that the sources that disagree are marginal or nonexistent. See my list of high-quality academic sources overtly calling his status as a journalist into question in the discussion above, which I don't think anyone convincingly rebutted. I'll repeat the best of them here for easy reference:

• Academics and journalists critical of the far-right have produced a number of books, informed by immersion, including those by [...]. There are also book-length treatments authored by far-right agitator Andy Ngo, and [...]. the source unambiguously goes out of its way to distinguish Ngo from the list of journalists.
• Independent journalist Andy Ngo was described by many news outlets not as a journalist when attacked and beaten on a Portland street by Antifa members in July 2019. While the source obviously disagrees, it clearly describes the attribution as a journalist as being controversial.

Those aren't the sort of coverage you see in peer-reviewed journals when something is uncontroversial fact. --Aquillion (talk) 04:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Your view on what makes for a controversial description was disputed in the last RfC. Regardless, absent new sources and/or a new RfC the previous closing stands and "journalist" is out of the first sentence. Springee (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

And it is hysteria that makes the simple labeling of And Ngo as a journalist a "seriously contested assertion." Only people who seek to delegitimize the subject by any means necessary would get so hung up on this simple description, otherwise used liberally throughout the article including in the second sentence. Fnordware (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

This is the second time that you have accused those who do not share your opinion as engaging in hysteria ("exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion or excitement.") I suggest you not do this again. WP:AGF WP:NPA O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The most recent RFC, conducted only a few months ago, said that "journalist" should be in the lead but not in the first sentence. Do you have a better suggestion for implementing that RFC than the current wording? Loki (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

References

RfC: First sentence of the lead

The following discussion 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.

---

}} Should the first sentence of the lede read that the subject "... is an American right-wing activist and social media influencer, who is known for covering and video-recording demonstrators".

Note: at the time of the writing of this RfC, the first sentence of the lede reads that the subject "... is an American right-wing author and social media influencer, who is known for covering and video-recording demonstrators". Refer to Special:Diff/1222027778 for a record. TarnishedPath^talk 13:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Survey (RfC: First sentence of the lead)

Add Journalist, don't add activist: Per the table above it's clear that journalist is the primary descriptor of Ngo. Activist is not as common and poorly supported with evidence while "journalist" is an obvious description of his work. Springee (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Activist is indeed support by reliable sources and editors should refer to MOS:FIRSTBIO,"The first sentence should usually state ... Point 5. The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.)". The main reason Ngo is notable is because of his political activism. If it weren't for his political activism this article wouldn't exist. TarnishedPath^talk 13:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

He is notable for his work as a journalist (even if we want to qualify that with "right wing, conservative" etc. If you want activist in the opening sentence I would suggest a descriptor analysis such as the one Barnards.tar.gz constructed. I also don't see how he is engaged in activism vs journalism. What actions is he taking? Springee (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

What are the sources for activist? Simonm223 (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I would note that we already have a closed RFC for "journalist" in the lede which says not in the first sentence explicitly. So I would suggest that the "journalist" question should be a non-issue in this RFC. Simonm223 (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The prior closing was controversial and contested. At the closing review there was not a consensus to call the closing good, only a no-consensus to undo it. So long as the lead sentence is being discussed "journalist" should be back on the table. It certainly had the most support via RS usage. Springee (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

My opinion is that the prior RFC seems good to me. Was it formally challenged? IF so is there a link to the outcome of that challenge? Simonm223 (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The closure review was here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223 it was challenged. Refer to Wikipedia:Administrators' _noticeboard/Archive355#Andy Ngo RfC review. You can read the result of the challenge for yourself. I'll see everyone tomorrow because it's past midnight here. Good night. TarnishedPath^talk 14:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

No consensus to reverse the close, eh. So, no, we're not reversing the close now either. Simonm223 (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yes (but I would suggest to the RFC opener that there has to be a clearer way to ask if the first sentence should refer to him as an activist rather than as an author). The basic fact remains that Ngo's primary source of notability is his activism and the sources are increasingly clear about this over time. It's certainly not his book in a vacuum, and his alleged journalism is, like James O'Keefe, just a front for activism. Loki (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
• No. Not because he isn't, but because sources don't generally define him as such, and because activist is a woolly, broad term that could apply to almost anyone who expresses a political opinion on Twitter, which is what his activism seems to amount to. We already call him a social media influencer in the first sentence, and that seems to cover the activist activity in a way that is both more neutral and more specific. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
• At this point I would probably vote No just to not have this discussion again as I don't think that the pro-journalist label crowd is likely to ever desist and continuing this pattern is just disruptive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
• Add journalist and make it primary. Don't add activist to the first sentence Per my rationale given below. North8000 (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, per Loki. We could also add "journalist", but that's badly stretching the definition.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. Add "activist" but not "journalist". There is no doubt about the first. The second is contested and should not be mentioned in this RfC. Hijacking/coatracking an RfC is a bad idea. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, it's his primary source of notability, has significant coverage, and has no coverage that would contest it or make it questionable. Note that the last one specifically goes out of its way to categorize Ngo as not-a-journalist in context (ie. it lists journalists, then lists Ngo separately as a "far-right agitator".) As things like that show, "journalist" shouldn't be used in the article voice at all because sufficient sources clearly treat it as a contested label, requiring attribution - it is used in many places, yes, but that means broad attribution ("often described as" etc); it's not enough to overcome the fact that it is obviously contested opinion rather than uncontested fact. Other sources, eg. likewise express doubt or scare quotes around the term, clearly presenting it as contested. If we must use it it shouldn't go in the first sentence. As I said above, I also feel that there has been a marked shift in coverage about him over time (which makes sense, since when the initial news stories broke, little was known about him); the bulk of the coverage people use to argue he can be called a "journalist" in the article voice is older news coverage, whereas more recent coverage tends to be more divided or cautious as his activism received more coverage, using descriptors that reasonably parse to "activist", such as "right-wing media figure Andy Ngo" , or just call him a "right-wing writer", "conservative writer", or the like - describing him primarily by his politics - or use other terms. The sources that still use "journalist" today tend to be either WP:BIASED, low-quality, or both, suggesting that it should only be used with attribution. People who continue to argue for "journalist" in the article voice today are acting like it's still 2019 and aren't looking at the last few years of sourcing, which rarely use the term. --Aquillion (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  What evidence do you have to show "activism" is his "primary source of notability"? Conversely, given that "journalist" is his most common descriptor, why would we avoid following RSs and using the term? Springee (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  Modern sources describe him primarily as an activist or by his politics, as I've demonstrated with sources; you haven't presented any sources in this discussion at all - I assume you're relying on the largely-2019 sources from the past RFC? I don't even think they're in the majority anymore, but either way, you haven't actually demonstrated that "journalist" is his most common descriptor today (or even a descriptor that is meaningfully used outside of the conservative media) - can you demonstrate it using post-2021 sources? Or is your argument that we should go by 2019 coverage alone? --Aquillion (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  Just a follow up comment, Aquillion, you are saying we should take comments like "right-wing media figure" and wp:OR that into "activist" but we shouldn't take "editor at large", "right-wing journalist" etc to be "journalist". Note that if journalist is restored to the lead it is likely to be "right-wing journalist". So even though Journalist was shown to the the most common RS descriptor you are arguing it should be totally removed from the lead while "activist" which is far less common should actually be the primary descriptor. You are basically saying we should ignore weight in sources. Springee (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment – drop the stick and leave the first sentence as is. It's bad enough the last RfC resulted in the ridiculous move of journalist from the first sentence to the second sentence. Editors should spend their time improving some of the other 6M+ articles we have, because this proposal is not an improvement to this article. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  Additionally, right-wing activist, is a contentious label used by sources, that has negative connotations, which are meant to dehumanize Andy Ngo. Wikipedia should strive to do better than that. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  What are the negative connotations? Graham (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, my thoughts too. There is nothing negative about being an activist. It's often a good thing, and activists are proud of the label. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  Neither "right-wing" nor "activist" nor any similar phrasing is found at WP:CONTENTIOUS, so I find that claim difficult to accept. "right-wing activist" is a description and one that some in the US congress take on without hesitation. TarnishedPath^talk 11:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. Attributing activist to Ngo is supported by reliable sources and additionally its place in the first sentence of the lede is supported by MOS:FIRSTBIO. MOS:FIRSTBIO reading "The first sentence should usually state ... Point 5. The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.)". The main reason Ngo is notable is because of his political activism. If it weren't for his political activism he would have never came to public's attention in the first place and this article wouldn't exist. Per the arguments of Aquillion "journalist" shouldn't be used in the article voice at all because it is a highly contested term with reliable sources not agreeing on the attribution. We should only ever state that some describe Ngo as a journalist and that it is contested, providing sources. For reference a similar discussion is going on concerning the attribution of the term journalist at the Talk:Julian Assange at present with consensus currently heavily leaning towards not calling them a journalist in article voice precisely because there is not agreement in reliable sources. TarnishedPath^talk 05:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
• Activist per multiple sources, including ones that call him a troll or provocateur.[1][2][3][4][5] Binksternet (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes to activist, no to journalist. Follow the best sources available. Newimpartial (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  Which "best sources" call him an activist? Per previous analysis the best sources call him a journalist. Springee (talk) 10:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yes to activist, no to journalist. It's what he's known for. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
• I would prefer columnist but whatever. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
• Journalist per RS. ~ HAL333 02:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
• No to proposal, yes to journalist in first sentence of lead. A person who has been an editor for news a website and for a magazine like Quillette and has published columns in the New York Post and The Wall Street Journal is clearly a journalist. Is Ngo a bad journalist or do you not like his journalism? Perhaps. I encourage anyone that feels what way to write as much as they want on their own blogs, websites, or social media accounts about that. But to deny a simple fact like this is to import the absurd negationism from those who have written various hit-pieces on Ngo and to import that into Wikipedia in Wikivoice, which compromises the integrity and reliability of Wikipedia itself. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
• Obviously I would prefer journalist, but restarting that RfC isn't necessary (it's only been 6 months) or what's being proposed here. I think the closer should take that into account and ignore evaluating consensus on the term "journalist", because evaluating a consensus for, against, or even "no consensus" (because that's now a result in favour of the status quo) on the term "journalist" incentivizes !voters to spend all their time arguing at this RfC about the word "journalist" instead of the actual proposal in the OP and will make it impossible to ever have another discussion about the lede again (lest we turn into Cato the Elder, who ended every speech of his with Carthage must be destroyed regardless of its contextual relevance). Author or writer are both preferable nouns to "activist", so my answer is no if I have to choose between one or the other.

That being said, I would like to propose the compromise wording of "right-wing author and social media activist". An activist is a person who influences people to adopt a certain viewpoint, and Ngo does so on social media. Most of the "yes" !voters either make points against "journalist" (which IMHO isn't the proposal here) or make points in favour of "activist". None of the yes !voters explain why "author" isn't accurate, and it plainly is given that Ngo is a person that writes lengthy sequences of words that others find important enough to read. Debating whether or not we should replace the term "influencer" with "activist" would make much more sense than debating "author" vs "activist", since "activist" and "influencer" are redundant as Barnards.tar.gz pointed out. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Chess, I don't think "yes" !voters need to explain why "author" isn't accurate, as that argument isn't being made. This is a question of what the first sentence of the lede is. For that I think we should refer to MOS:FIRSTBIO and I don't think we have a place for author. Not to say the rest of the article can't state it but it's not the main reason for his notability. TarnishedPath^talk 05:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Right. He is known as a far-right activist and apologist for neofascism. The fact that his fans cannot accept that this is distinct from journalism is not our problem to fix. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: I would say that they do, since they need to explain why "author" should be replaced with "activist". You can't just argue that the term "activist" is good in isolation, you have to do a comparative analysis of why it's better than author. I don't believe it is, since influencer is already someone who influences others, so the term "activist" is redundant. Right now:

• Right-wing activist and social-media influencer only communicates that Ngo uses social media to influence people.
• Right-wing author and social-media influencer communicates that Ngo uses the written word and social media to influence people.
• Right-wing author and social-media activist communicates that Ngo uses the written word and social media to influence people.

The sentence that conveys the most information is the second or third ones. If you accept that the second and third convey more information, then the only issue would be whether or not that information is true.

None of this really matters because the RfC is going to become a WP:TRAINWRECK due to arguments over the term "journalist" (and unrelated terms such as provocateur) torpedoing any actual discussion of the activist vs author debate. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

That's not what WP:TRAINWRECK implies (but thanks for the link). I think you instead mean train wreck figuratively speaking. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 00:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor: I mean in the sense that we're considering too many separate issues and that will make it impossible to close this RfC. It's a good fit for this situation because we now have two different discussions in one RfC, and I'd prefer the closer not consider the activist/author and journalist debate to be one and the same. Closing with any evaluation of consensus just incentivizes people to derail RfCs by bringing up tangentially related topics. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

As an alternative, what about just moving the author part further down in the lead? While Ngo has written a book, I would agree with people who say that being an author isn't his most significant thing. At the same time the "activist" claim is not well supported by the sources that use it. How he is being an activist is unclear. Perhaps a good compromise is cutting "author" from the first sentence, "Andy Cuong Ngo is an American right-wing social media influencer,..." This avoids making the first sentence look like it was stuffed full of every label any source chose to use. This is a compromise I would support even though I feel [qualifier] journalist is better. Springee (talk) 00:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I don't hate it. Loki (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't have an aneurysm at that wording. TarnishedPath^talk 09:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

"Right-wing activist" captures both what he does online and what he has done with his video recording of demonstrators and then deceptive editing after. It also covers his media appearances to push his false narrative of antifa being more of a threat than the far-right. I don't even know why author is in the lede as he is not notable as an author of a book. TarnishedPath^talk 11:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yes to proposal. Do not add journalist to the very first sentence - 'Activist' is more accurate and precise than 'author'. From what I have seen in the past, many of the sources which describe him as a journalist do so with skepticism, in specific contexts, or sometimes even in scare quotes as a "journalist" or "self-described journalist" or similar. Since sources do not take his self-aggrandizement at face value, neither should we. Grayfell (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes to proposal “American right-wing activist and social media influencer” is accurate and fits in with preponderance of sources. “Journalist” should not be in first sentence. Volunteer Marek 03:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources that use the description journalist always qualify it with conservative or right-wing. The implication is that he does not practice the neutrality or accuracy expected of professional journalists. In keeping with reliable sources, I would not describe him as a journalist because, even if he meets the definition, the implication is that he follows professional standards. TFD (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. A "conservative-journalist" is a journalist in the same way that a "national-socialist" is a socialist. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Using the same logic "automotive journalist" isn't a journalist. "Environmental journalist" isn't a journalist and "liberal politician" isn't a politician. Springee (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

A "conservative-journalist" is a journalist in the same way that a "national-socialist" is a socialist takes this week's prize for crass, ill-informed, prejudiced comment. My politics are not conservative, even so I can see how ridicululous that comment is. Peter Oborne and Max Hastings leap to mind as people whose reputation for journalistic integrity is unimpeachable, though whose political views I don't share. Pincrete (talk) 07:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

An automotive journalist writes about automotive issues, while an environmental journalist writes about the environment. However, if someone was called an environmentalist journalist, it would mean they reported with an environmentalist bias. Does Ngo report about conservatives or does he report with a conservative bias? An automotive journalist could be pro-car or anti-car, while an environmental journalist could want to protect or destroy the environment. Probably, we could not tell from their writings because they would be neutral. But Ngo is definitely pro-conservative, which is why he is called a "conservative" journalist. Conservative journalist is an oxymoron. TFD (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Automotive journalist often write with an automotive bias. They often advocate for things like better roads and against things like laws that have unintended effects like limiting cars available to the public, raising the cost of ownership etc. Springee (talk) 11:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Do automotive journalists claim that you will be killed if you like the wrong car? Do they launch phone campaigns in an attempt to shut down an auto show they don’t like? Do they cherry-pick evidence to provoke autophobia. Do they selectively edit videos? This is but a part of what’s in this article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Hyperbolic claims aren't a valid argument. Springee (talk) 12:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

What do you consider a hyperbolic claim? SPECIFICO talk 13:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Those aren't hyperbolic, they're backed by evidence in the article. In any case this shouldn't even be relitigated so soon after the last RfC, particularly given that's not what's being asked in this RfC. TarnishedPath^talk 02:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

But calling someone an automotive journalist is not claiming that they write with a pro-car bias, but that they write about cars. OTOH a conservative journalist is not someone who writes about conservatism but one who writes with a conservative bias.

Note that we don't refer to New York Times or CNN reporters as liberal journalists even though those organizations are liberal as are most of their journalists. TFD (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yes to proposal - The proposed language describes the most prominent aspects of person notability. This is what a first sentence should do. This person is not a journalist and the first sentence should not describe him as such. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
• DO NOT include journalist, because he isn't one. He's a right-wing activist. That purpose is otrthogonal to journalism (see Network Propaganda). Guy (help! - typo?) 12:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
• No to activist and no change from present state to journalist I don't particularly like having this RFC being used to attempt to re-open a closed RFC again but the sources provided don't suggest activist is due either. Simonm223 (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
• ~Yes. Better: "Right-wing social media influencer and online -- (choose one) -- polemicist, blogger, diarist, provocateur".
  "Author" like "Journalist" is way too broad and would misrepresent mainstream sourcing to many or most of our readers. Journalist should not appear in the article. SPECIFICO talk 13:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  You are almost saying stick with what we have other that disputing author. If author is removed I would suggest not replacing it. You could leave it as "Right-wing social media influencer" and call it good. We really shouldn't try to pack in descriptions that are subjective. Springee (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• No. Responding to ping Not because he isn't, but because sources don't generally define him as such, and because activist is a woolly, broad term that could apply to almost anyone … We already call him a social media influencer in the first sentence, and that seems to cover the activist activity in a way that is both more neutral and more specific. per Barnards.tar.gz. And because there is no evidence that WP:RS use the term, though they use many others that aren't synonyms, it's WP:OR and not very informative, merely informing that he is far from neutral, which sourced adjectives would convey better. Activists usually promote specific policies/policy areas, animal rights for example, whereas that is not what Ngo does and it would be hard to find any specific change that he is advocating for. As regards the 'journalist' descriptor I'm still baffled as to why editors object to its use, but don't object to either 'writer' or 'editor at large'. Seemingly journalists have to pass an ethics and impartiality test that their editors are exempt from. Also baffled as to why 'journalist' is OK in sentence 3, but banned from sentence 1. That's like relegating mention of a film director's film-making to para 3 because some sources think the films are ghastly. IMO it simply confuses to not follow WP standard practice. Ngo produces biased, dishonest, selectively edited reporting that would be 'off the scale' ethically in most news orgs, but the broad category of activity is producing what purports to be news. That's called journalism, just as 'writer' means you make money by putting pen to paper to produce copy. Nobody has ever said that the copy has to be ethical/readable/fair/honest or good. A nasty twisted unfunny comic is still a comic if he makes his money that way and it is the most common descriptor in WP:RS, even if they 'hold their noses' a bit while using the term. 'Conservative/right-wing journalist' seems the best-sourced and clearest opening descriptor, defining his area of activity before detailing how controversial his methods and journalism is/has been.Pincrete (talk) 06:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes per TarnishedPath, as the term best sums up the most significant reason for the subject's notability. Graham (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes to Journalist, No to Activist - (Brought here from WP:RFC/A), journalist seems to be less broad and a more accurate descriptor than "activist" is in this case per sources. MaximusEditor (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• It hasn't been 6 months and we are already coat-racking the old "journalist" issue into this RfC? Why? Since the attempt has somewhat officially been made here, I suggest we restart the clock to avoid it continuously taking up even more of our time and energy within the next 6 months, unless there's actually something substantial to warrant discussion. Of course other outlets such as FOX will all continue to call him a journalist, because that is where their "standard" on the subject of politics and political activists are. Being editor-at-large for a generally unreliable outlet such as the Post Millennial is glaringly reflective of his work, as are sources such as this one from The Intercept 2023. I agree with Tarnished. Cheers. DN (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
• No to proposal, add journalist per North8000 and others.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 12:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes to the proposal i.e. "activist" (and no to "journalist"), following how high-quality RS describe his main (original and enduring) source of notability, as laid out by others (especially Aquillion) above. -sche (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes to "right-wing" if verifiable. Articles about politicians say to which party they belong. I think it's of key importance whether a videographer is neutral, opposes, or supports the people being videoed. As for "journalist," let's see which sources refer to Ngo as such on a cursory search: Fox affiliate KPTV in 2023, Hachette no year, Deadline in 2023, Newsweek in 2023, ABC affiliate WJLA in 2019, Vox in 2019. And those that don't or say "self-described": Rolling Stone in 2019, Salon in 2019. I'm leaning toward yes. The sources call him one, even sources that also have a poor opinion of him. Will defer to more thorough source exploration. (Adding years per concern raised by Aquillon.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC) ....more thorough exploration like Springee's chart. (That is some fine Wikiediting right there.) Yes, the sources, especially recent sources, appear more split on whether Ngo is a journalist. I believe it's justified to avoid Wiki-voice, but it might be good to say that sources that consider Ngo a journalist exist. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  KPTV is not specifically mentioned at WP:RSP, however as a Fox affiliate covering politics I think WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS would apply which states "There is consensus Fox News is generally unreliable for the reporting of politics, especially from November 2020 onwards". Hachette Book Group? I'm not sure how a site dedicated to selling books is a WP:RS. Regarding Newsweek, it's listed as amber in WP:RSP. I.e., additional consideration apply. Per the Vox source this strikes me that WP:RSEDITORIAL applies. Any articles from Rolling Stones concerning politics after 2011 are definitely a none starter per WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS. Lastly Salon is listed as amber at WP:RSP. TarnishedPath^talk 13:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  I believe the fox RSN discussions separated affiliate stations and their news programs from the corporate Fox News. Springee (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  If so, probably only out of a need for efficiency which I can understand. Here in Australia, where I'm from; while none of Murdoch's holdings here have gone through an RfC at RSN, I can tell you that most of them are unreliable in my opinion. The fish rots from the head. TarnishedPath^talk 14:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  I believe in the US they were traditionally independently owned and operated due to laws about broadcast ownership. Thus the local NBC or Fox station would carry corporate programming and logos but would not share a news room. It was also the traditional divide between local and national news. Springee (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  By all means, we should prefer the carefully curated sources from the chart over my ten-minute cursory survey. In talk page discussions like this one, Fox itself can serve as an example of what conservative outlets say ("If even Fox News says Biden's IRA bill reduced inflation and improved the economy, then it's probably uncontroversial, given their political bent against Biden..." "If even Fox News says that Ngo is not a journalist or used to be a journalist, just like the liberal and middle-road sources..."). So here, the fact that a Fox affiliate and ABC affiliate agree with each other is a big part of my takeaway. But the ABC affiliate is older. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  The fact of the matter is that journalist is contested amongst reliable sources and bottom line that's not even the question that this RfC asks. This RfC asks whether the term "activist" should be placed into the first sentence of the lede in place of the where the term "author" currently sits. TarnishedPath^talk 23:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  @TarnishedPath It seems like the coat racking will continue until someone puts an end to it. Maybe reach out for guidance as to whether it's time to declare this RfC dead and start fresh. DN (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Darknipples, given the contentious close of the last RfC any future discussion is going to have a certain number of editors who are going to seek to relitigate the previous RfC. TarnishedPath^talk 01:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• No to proposal, add journalist per North8000 and others. Philomathes2357 (talk) 02:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes per JzG, TarnishedPath, Davide King, Aquillion and others. To avoid repeating the arguments already eloquently made, I will limit myself to pointing out that (1) the activities in the lead should be covered by the body and (2) that the article was badly out of date on Ngo's current occupation. Based on the content of the article, it could be said that the subject was a "media activist", "participant reporter" and "busybody journalist" between 2017-2020, and had had a column in WSJ and in NY Post. For the period following the incident of May 2021 and relocation to London in the same year, it was only mentioned that he had participated in two trials in 2022 and in another in 2023, and how many followers he had had on Twitter in 2023. The last snippet of information bore out his occupation as influencer. The information I added should help in evidencing his activism and heavy focus on Twitter. VampaVampa (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• No. Comment. I would suggest to replace word "activist" or "author" by "journalist" in the first phrase and remove "journalist" from the second phrase. The 2nd phrase says "He is a journalist and editor-at-large of...". This is really excessive. It is enough to say that he is an editor-at-large in the second phrase. Same with "activist". It is enough that we say "social media influencer, who is known for covering and video-recording demonstrators". That's an activist already. Why repeat? My very best wishes (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  As has already been argued on this page, the activities of an influencer and those of an activist do not overlap. An influencer is per the relevant Wikipedia article an internet celebrity whose occupation is to function as a lifestyle guru, to promote a lifestyle and amplify consumer trends. That is not at all what an activist does, except by the most watered down definition, whereby seeking change in society can only be achieved by promoting lifestyle trends. There is no inherent political dimension to being an influencer, whereas an activist primarily engages with politics. Therefore these are not synonyms, not even close.

  There is another distinction that deserves to be made in this discussion, that between journalism as a profession and citizen journalism. One could argue that amateur journalism is still journalism, but at the very least the status of an amateur journalist is - like with our subject here - contestable. It may be useful to draw on some academic sources specialised in the study of journalism, such as research papers published by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, to clarify that despite the proliferation of amateur news-posting no conflation is being made between certain kinds of reporting practices and journalism proper. Addressing this problem, one researcher is quite clear that "reflecting" and "verifying facts" is part of what constitutes journalism, and she quotes the opinion of Richard Sambrook (a former BBC global news director and a university professor of journalism) that journalism involves credibility as "the value of trusting someone to bear witness to an event". This is precisely what is under question in Ngo's case, isn't it? There's also a suggestion that journalism involves talking to the people you write about - is there evidence for Ngo ever to have interviewed his subjects? As we know, he hangs out with one crowd and covers another. And another paper maintains that amateurs cannot replace professional journalists. It argues that journalists act as "gate keepers" who "check and recheck" their information, and that there is no point racing against Twitter or Facebook community news reporters to be the first to break news, because "We need to remember our role. ... The task is to verify, to analyze and to explain a story." Again, there is no consensus that Ngo meets this condition. One can argue with the arguments of the above research papers as with anything else – but the place to do that is in an academic paper and not in a personal capacity as a Wikipedia editor. VampaVampa (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. I was not really sure. Changing it to yes. My very best wishes (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (RfC: First sentence of the lead)

Pinging @Aquillion, @Binksternet, @Bobfrombrockley, @Davide King, @Firefangledfeathers, @Fnordware, @Horse Eye's Back, @Isaidnoway, @LokiTheLiar, @Objective3000, @Springee and @STP43FAN who have been involved in the above discussion. Apologies if I've missed anyone. TarnishedPath^talk 13:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

His profession and the way that he makes a living is journalist. Also, mere mention of "nounifying" activities in a source during an article is not the same as identifying what his main profession is. For example, if a carpenter John Smith gets his biggest coverage at a protest and gets referred to as a "protester" in an article, the first sentence of John Smith article says "John Smith is a carpenter......" not "John Smith is a protester...." North8000 (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

His profession is "editor-at-large" for a newspaper that is not and has never been anything close to an actual source of facts . We don't have people clamoring to call him an editor, though. Loki (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

That's more of a name of a position than a profession. I think that the titles of journalists usually say something else. North8000 (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I got invited by the bot and I'm more interested in a structural discussion than I am in Andy Ngo. If we describe someone by nounifying by what they are best known for, then we need to say that Brittney Griner is a released Russian prisoner rather than a basketball player. North8000 (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I bring it up because editor-at-large is a sort of a special title that's a combination of journalist and editor. Loki (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

"Journalist" should not be mentioned in this RfC. Hijacking/coatracking an RfC is a bad idea. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

As the previous RfC showed, a RfC can vary from the strict question asked. In this case we are asking what labels should be used to describe Ngo in the first sentence. Activist is a questionable label since it's not clear how he is functioning as an activist. Yes, sources that typically dislike his message call him that but is that really activism vs the person who pushes for a change etc? Conversely, we have a majority of sampled sources (see the previous RfC) that do use journalist. Activist is a poor description of what he does even if one doesn't agree with his reports/stories. Springee (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Truthfully, coverage of him has shifted significantly over time (as I noted in the last RFC, though it has shifted further since then) - I couldn't find a single piece in a non-WP:BIASED source published since around the last RFC that described him as a journalist (and there have been a few events, with coverage that very carefully avoids the term), and even in the last RFC, people relied extremely heavily on very dated coverage from when he was comparatively unknown. If you look at more recent coverage it's obvious that it's a contested label at best and, more bluntly, it's really only something sources that share his general biases still use for him, which means it requires attribution (as I noted with one of the sources above, even his profession is "editor-at-large" for The Post Millennial is something one source attributes to him rather than stating it in the article voice - that isn't the sort of coverage you'd expect if we could still call him a journalist in the article voice.) I do urge people to actually look at recent coverage before weighing in, because it had shifted more sharply than even I expected. A simple news source for "andy ngo" shows a very stark picture of only conservative / right-leaning sources still treating him as a journalist, with all other sources treating him solely as a political writer and activist. --Aquillion (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  Can you prove that or is that just your opinion? Springee (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I think I've proven it, yeah; the sources speak for themselves. Look at the sources I presented and compare them to what people arguing the term could be used in the article voice presented in the last RFC. A lot of news coverage from 2019 used the term; some from 2021 uses it but it's clearly much more divided. By 2023, only conservative and right-wing media is still calling him that. Did you do the source-search I recommended? I've presented a bunch of recent sources that clearly avoid calling him a journalist or which use other term; if you think I'm wrong and significant 2023-era coverage still calls him a journalist outside of WP:BIASED sources (which require attribution, ofc), it'd be easy to demonstrate. I'm sure a few sources exist (I failed to find them but wasn't aggressively searching for them), but there's no way they're still in anything approaching a majority, and I suspect they're now outweighed by sources that overtly treat the term with caution. --Aquillion (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Where did you prove it? Where have you used RSs vs your person opinion to show this to be a fact? You have a few links vs Barnards.tar.gz's comprehensive list. Also, the claim of "contested label" is false. David E. Davis is an automotive journalist. Does that mean he's not a "journalist"? Is Ernie Pyle not a journalist because he is noted as a war correspondent. Subtyping the primary descriptor doesn't make the primary descriptor false. Springee (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

There are sources that use scare quotes for it; sources that specifically categorize him separately from journalists; sources that overtly describe it as something media coverage disagrees over, and so on. All these things demonstrate that it is a contested label. Barnards's list includes a significant number of conservative-leaning WP:BIASED sites that would require attribution. If you add even the recent sources I posted above, it's no longer a majority - and you can see a clear pattern where high-quality coverage generally moved away from calling him a journalist as time passed. In particular, simply removing the 2019 sources results in a noticeable shift against calling him a journalist. (The list also has a few other baffling errors, such as treating sources that use "so-called journalist" or scare quotes as a "maybe" - those sources are the strongest argument against using the term, because they are overtly treating it as contested, and weigh much more strongly against using the term than ones that just use it in passing or ones that don't use it at all.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the 2023 listings from Barnards list I see 6 use it, 7 don't. One of the ones that doesn't says "editor" instead. Your comment about bias cuts both ways. You say some of the sources that use it are biased. Why doesn't that apply when dealing with lead leaning sources? Portland Mercury and LGBQT Nation are hardly neutral sources. Springee (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Why do you believe these publications are non-neutral? One is a local newspaper and the other is an LGBTQ+ publication reporting about an out gay man. Simonm223 (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Are you suggesting those sources are actually ideologically neutral or impartial when discussing Ngo? Are Ngo's views on trans issues aligned with LGBQT Nation? One of the PM reporters (Alex Zielinski) who wrote about Ngo later tweeted his location while he was reporting on antifa/far-left unrest ([6] yes, biased source but I think the tweets speak for themselves in terms of bias). Why would she do that other than to disrupt his work and put him in harm's way? Springee (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that a take by the Post Millennial, citing Ngo himself, isn't particularly useful for anything; but beyond that, your goal here is to argue that Ngo being a journalist is uncontested - that no serious sources take issue with it or dispute it, allowing us to present it in the article voice as uncontroversial fact. And the fact remains that large amounts off coverage use terms that are obviously incompatible with it, with some even overtly casting doubt on it via scare-quotes, attribution, or other wording. Focusing on vitriolic back-and-forth between Ngo, the right-wing media, and the significant amounts of coverage that don't describe him the way he wants to be described doesn't really help your case. In any case - the above list of sources wasn't really comprehensive (it just reviewed sources that people happened to mention); I've added enough additional recent sources to tip the balance, if that's what it would take to convince you. But as I said, either way it doesn't matter because the term is clearly contested. --Aquillion (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Please do not try to falsely summarize my position on what type of "journalist" Ngo may be. Looking back at the previous discussion I, "... "journalism" doesn't have to mean "good"." The article can and does question his journalism work but that doesn't change the fact that the obvious definition of what he does is journalism and the majority of RSs support that label. What minority of RSs even use the label activist? I would suggest you review Barnards's list and redo it for "activist". Perhaps then we could have an idea if sources frequently use the term. Springee (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@Springee, the question isn't whether it's good or bad journalist per se though. The question comes down to there not being agreement amongst sources about the attribution at all. TarnishedPath^talk 13:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

So consider the two labels in question, activist and journalist. You made the case that journalist doesn't apply because there isn't an agreement among sources as to the use. Wouldn't that also apply to activist which is used far less frequently? Springee (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Right-wing activist isn't contested by any source but Ngo himself. There's clearly reliable sourcing for right-wing activist per the arguments put forth by Aquillion and per MOS:FIRSTBIO it belongs in the first sentence of the lede. If it wasn't for his activism we wouldn't know who he is and wouldn't be having this discussion right now. His activism is the very heart of his notability. TarnishedPath^talk 13:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

How do you know that? If all sources agreed he is a right-wing activist then wouldn't it be logical to assume they would all describe him as such? If we are going to claim that sources that don't say "journalist" should be read as "Ngo isn't a journalist" then how, with a straight face, can we say that sources that don't say "right wing activist" actually agree he is a right-wing activist? Springee (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

But the thing is there are NO WP:RS disagreeing about Ngo being an activist. There's not a single one saying he is not. Whereas there is disagreement amongst WP:RS about him being a journalist. Him being a journalist is contested. TarnishedPath^talk 14:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

There are no RS disagreeing that he is from Mars so by your logic he could be a Martian. To be less hyberbolic, I believe a few sources have called him a online troll. The fact that most sources don't mention "online troll", by your logic, means they agree with it. Do you really think a source is going to say, "Ngo has be called the following: [list]. We agree with these but not those." That just isn't a remotely reasonable standard. Conversely, compare our definitions of activism to that of journalist.

Activism (or advocacy) consists of efforts to promote, impede, direct or intervene in social, political, economic or environmental reform with the desire to make changes in society toward a perceived greater good. Forms of activism range from mandate building in a community (including writing letters to newspapers), petitioning elected officials, running or contributing to a political campaign, preferential patronage (or boycott) of businesses, and demonstrative forms of activism like rallies, street marches, strikes, sit-ins, or hunger strikes.

Which of those is Ngo engaging in? Now look at our definition for journalist:

Journalism is the production and distribution of reports on the interaction of events, facts, ideas, and people that are the "news of the day" and that informs society to at least some degree of accuracy. The word, a noun, applies to the occupation (professional or not), the methods of gathering information, and the organizing literary styles.

When Ngo reports on Antifa etc he is clearly engaged in journalism. Many have argued his journalism is based or misleading but that is true for many journalists. If Wikipedia is to be impartial we need to use plain language definitions and obvious descriptors unless we have a clear consensus among RSs. We certainly do not have that for activist and no one thus far has presented examples of his activism. That's a real problem if we are trying to be unbiased/impartial as Wikipedia says we should be. Springee (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Your argument is not really valid as there are no WP:RS saying he is from Mars either. Notably there are WP:RS which actively disagree with him being a journalist. It is contested. Whereas there are no WP:RS which contest him being an activist, yet there is ample WP:RS stating that he is a "right-wing activist". TarnishedPath^talk 15:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Few make a legitimate argument that he isn't an journalist while many call him a journalist. Can you provide the sources that specifically dispute Ngo being a journalist so we can review both the source and their claims? Going the other way, the number of sources that call Ngo an activist is far fewer thus other sources would have limit reason to dispute the claim. That said, should be easy to show clear examples of his activism. It is easy to show he is engaged in journalism (editor is part of journalism). Springee (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@Springee: So this is what is going to happen... You need to either present sources which back up that wild assertion, retract it, or present a source which indicates that Alex Zielinski is dead. Those appears to be completely inappropriate speculative accusations leveled at a living person. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Something is wrong with that link. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Ngo is primarily notable for being in the news, not for reporting on it. Its an important distinction. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Correct and what he is in the news for is his activism. It's what he was in news for before he became notable. The main reason he is notable is his activism. Then per MOS:FIRSTBIO we ought to describe him as a right-wing activity in the first sentence of the lede when there is more than enough WP:RS on it. TarnishedPath^talk 13:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I've not said much on this but I'm going to now. The question of journalist of not journalist was discussed previously and there was an outcome on that. This question is not about that. TarnishedPath^talk 13:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Springee, this RfC clearly mentions only two variables to discuss, "right-wing activist and social media influencer". Since we all know that "journalist" has been handled elsewhere, it is unfair coatracking to try to litigate that matter in this RfC. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valjean (talk • contribs)

Pinging @Coffeeandcrumbs, @Cedar777, @Dorsetonian, @Shinealittlelight, @NorthBySouthBaranof, @Snooganssnoogans, @Masem, @Some of everything, @Blueboar, @Morbidthoughts, @Chess, @TFD, @Rhododendrites, @Idealigic, @Binksternet, @PackMecEng, @RandomGnome, @Guy, @Anne Drew, @Spy-cicle, @Chetsford, @力, @IvoryTower123, @Volunteer Marek, @HAL333, @Thenightaway, @PraiseVivec, @BristolTreeHouse, @Pincrete, @Sea Ane, @Korny O'Near, @SPECIFICO, @Korny O'Near, @-sche, @Czello, @ScottishFinnishRadish, @FormalDude, @Hipocrite, @Stuartyeates, @ValarianB, @Crossroads, @Binksternet, @Peter Gulutzan, @K.e.coffman, @Grayfell, @Burrobert, @Sideswipe9th, @Barnards.tar.gz, @Generalrelative, @DontKnowWhyIBother, @Neutrality, @Nemov, @Dlthewave, @InvadingInvader, @DontKnowWhyIBother, @Ortizesp, @Darknipples, @Caeciliusinhorto-public, @Alpha3031, @Jweiss11, @JPxG, @Sceptre, @BonaparteIII, @Thriley, @Wehwalt, @Starship.paint, and @Visite fortuitement prolongée as editors who have been involved in previous RfCs on related questions. Apologies if I've missed anyone or if I've doubled up on pinging anyone. TarnishedPath^talk 05:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

FYI I don't think this ping went through, since I'm in it and never got the notification (I saw the RfC in the RfC list). IIRC if there's too many people pinged in one comment, the system doesn't send the pings. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Ironically I think you have to ping @TarnishedPath. Loki (talk) 01:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Attempt to ping everyone #2 as apparently the first attempt didn't work. Pinging @Coffeeandcrumbs, @Cedar777, @Dorsetonian, @Shinealittlelight, @NorthBySouthBaranof, @Snooganssnoogans, @Masem, @Some of everything, @Blueboar, @Morbidthoughts, @Chess, @TFD, @Rhododendrites, @Idealigic, @Binksternet, @PackMecEng, @RandomGnome, @Guy, @Anne Drew, @Spy-cicle, @Chetsford, @力, @IvoryTower123, @Volunteer Marek, @HAL333 as editors who have been involved in previous RfCs on related questions. TarnishedPath^talk 02:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Follow on pinging @Thenightaway, @PraiseVivec, @BristolTreeHouse, @Pincrete, @Sea Ane, @Korny O'Near, @SPECIFICO, @Korny O'Near, @-sche, @Czello, @ScottishFinnishRadish, @FormalDude, @Hipocrite, @Stuartyeates, @ValarianB, @Binksternet, @Peter Gulutzan, @K.e.coffman, @Grayfell, @Burrobert, @Sideswipe9th, @Barnards.tar.gz, @Generalrelative, @DontKnowWhyIBother, @Neutrality as editors who have been involved in previous RfCs on related questions. TarnishedPath^talk 02:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Follow on pinging @Nemov, @Dlthewave, @InvadingInvader, @DontKnowWhyIBother, @Ortizesp, @Darknipples, @Caeciliusinhorto-public, @Jweiss11, @JPxG, @Sceptre, @BonaparteIII, @Thriley, @Wehwalt, @Starship.paint, and @Visite fortuitement prolongée as editors involved in previous RfCs on related questions. TarnishedPath^talk 02:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• FFS, again? If Ngo was actuially a journalist, we would not even be having this argument. He's a provocateur at best, and a fascist-apologist grifter at worst. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  @JzG To be clear, the RFC is not about "journalist". It's about "author" vs "activist". It's not the RFC opener's fault that the "journalist" people are trying to reopen the issue. Loki (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  @LokiTheLiar, correct. I didn't open this with the intention of "journalist" being re-litigated. TarnishedPath^talk 01:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  OK, thanks - because I see people arguing for journalist. I also reject author. The fact that he's a right-wing activist covers the multiple facets of right-wing propaganda in which he engages. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  @JzG, correct. He engages in culture wars on behalf of the right-wing. Sometimes he does this by doxxing those he percieves as rivals on Twitter. Sometimes he does this by video-recording demonstrators and heavily editing the footage to portray his percieved rivals worse than the side he advocates for. In short what reliable sources describe as a right-wing activist. TarnishedPath^talk 00:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's not a culture war, as such, more of a culture insurgency. Only one side is prosecuting it, and at no cost to themselves. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• I'd be fine to comment on this article in 20 years when people have moved on from whatever bias they're bringing in here. THe current lead sentence reads like some Frankenstein experiment and the outcome of this RFC won't improve it. This is another RFC that's just a drain on resources and whose outcome does little to improve the project. Nemov (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  I strongly suspect that in 20 years nobody will remember who he is. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Source analysis (RfC: First sentence of the lead)

Source analysis - May 2024

This is an update of the table Barnards.tar.gz previously created. I've updated the table to include some new sources as well as if "activist" is used as a description for Ngo. Perhaps a "disputed" or similar column could to separate "right-wing journalist" vs "so-called journalist". The former be a subtype of journalist while the latter would suggest not being a journalist. Source analysis Source Date WP:RSP? Depth? Description Activist? Journalist? Qualifier? Notes The Independent 2021-06-25 Green No controversial right-wing American journalist Andy Ngo No Yes Yes The Times 2021-06-30 Green No journalist Andy Ngo No Yes No Labelled as opinion ("Comment") The Times 2022-12-22 Green No Andy Ngo, a right-wing activist Yes No No RealClearPolitics 2021-07-06 Amber No Video journalist Andy Ngo No Yes Yes Washington Post 2021-07-08 Green No right-wing journalist Andy Ngo No Yes Yes Westword 2021-06-21 ? No Oregon journalist and Summit speaker Andy Ngo No Yes No Variety 2021-06-24 Green No right-wing journalist Andy Ngo No Yes Yes Sky News Australia 2021-07-06 red No Journalist and Author Andy Ngo No Yes No Labelled as opinion Slate 2021-07-27 ? No conservative journalist Andy Ngo No Yes Yes Vox 2019-07-03 Green Yes conservative journalist Andy Ngo No Yes Yes New York Times 2019-07-01 Green Yes conservative journalist Andy Ngo and independent journalist No Yes Yes BBC 2021-03-10 Green No conservative journalist No Yes Yes The Guardian 2021-06-24 Green No conservative journalist Andy Ngo No Yes Yes Deadline 2023-08-23 Green Yes Journalist/author Andy Ngo No Yes No Yahoo News 2023-08-23 ? Yes conservative journalist Andy Ngo No Yes Yes CNN 1 2019-07-02 Green No Conservative journalist Andy Ngo No Yes Yes Wall Street Journal 2019-07-01 Green Yes conservative journalist Andy Ngo No Yes Yes Perspectives on Terrorism, Vol. 14, No. 6 2020-12-00 ? No One journalist, Andy Ngo (quoting a Republican senator); right-wing conservative social media “provocateur,” Andy Ngo (the author's words) No No N/A 15 citations Western Folklore Vol. 80, No. 3/4 2021-00-00 ? No center-right journalist Andy Ngo No Yes Yes 4 citations The Province 2021-06-25 ? No Right-wing U.S. journalist Andy Ngo No Yes Yes Detroit Free Press 2019-07-01 ? No Andy Ngo, a Portland-based journalist. No Yes No The Journal of Applied Business and Economics Preview Vol. 25, Iss. 1 2023-00-00 ? No Journalist Andy Ngo No Yes No 5 citations Business Insider 2022-12-01 Amber No Far-right users like journalist Andy Ngo No Yes No Commentary 2019-10-00 ? Yes journalist named Andy Ngo No Yes No Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 2023-06-00 ? No far-right agitator Andy Ngo No No N/A 0 citations Weizenbaum Series 2020-06-00 ? No most of these accounts regarding journalists referred specifically to one particular incident and individual (Andy Ngô). and Andy Ngô, a right-wing provocateur and “media personality,” often portrayed as a journalist No mixed N/A 0 citations Journal of Futures Studies, Vol. 24(4) 2020-00-00 ? No Independent journalist Andy Ngo No Yes Yes 10 citations Centre for Research and Evidence on Security Threats 2021-04-00 ? No online right-wing provocateur ‘journalist’ Andy Ngo No Maybe Yes 4 citations Canadian Journal of Communication, Volume 46 Issue 4 2021-11-00 ? No American “citizen journalist” Andy Ngo No Maybe Yes 7 citations Proceedings of Topical Issues in International Political Geography 2021-07-09 ? No journalist Andy Ngo No Yes No 0 citations Social Science Computer Review 2023-05-24 ? No journalists Andy Ngo and [...] No Yes No 0 citations Bulletin of Reitaku University. 104: 25. 2021-03-00 ? No journalist Andy Ngo No Yes No 0 citations Social Network Analysis and Mining (2022) 12:115 2022-08-18 ? No Mr. Andy Ngo, an American journalist No Yes No 2 citations Critical Studies on Terrorism, Volume 16 2022-09-28 ? No journalists like Andy Ngo No Yes No 1 citation CNN 2 2020-06-11 Green No less-than-reliable right-wing media personality Andy Ngo No No N/A MIT Technology Review 2020-09-03 ? No right-wing adversarial media-makers like [...] Andy Ngo No No N/A Labelled as opinion Salon 2019-08-28 Amber Yes Andy Ngo, the right-wing journalist and provocateur No Yes Yes The Oregonian 2019-12-31 ? No Andy Ngo, a conservative writer and videographer No No N/A Buzzfeed News 2019-07-19 Green Yes conservative media personality Andy Ngo; “busybody” journalist and more - see here for why I think this counts as a Yes. See also "It gives him an easy way to defeat charges that he’s a right-wing activist." Maybe Yes Yes BFN doesn't call him an activist but did mention it in context The Intercept 2020-11-19 Green No right-wing activist Yes No N/A Per RSP source is considered biased The Intercept 2023-02-23 Green Yes Andy Ngo, the right-wing activist from Portland Yes No N/A Per RSP source is considered biased The Intercept 2023-06-05 Green Yes Far-Right Activist Andy Ngo from the headline and right-wing provocateur Andy Ngo from the article text. Yes No N/A Per RSP source is considered biased The Guardian 2 2018-03-18 Green No describes himself as a journalist No Maybe No LA Times 2021-02-08 Green Yes provocateur Andy Ngo No No N/A LA Times 2021-01-17 Green Yes conservative writer Andy Ngo No No N/A New York Magazine 2018-08-31 Green No journalist Andy Ngo No Yes No Columbia Journalism Review 1 2021-06-25 ? No Andy Ngo, a right-wing agitator No No N/A Columbia Journalism Review 2 2019-06-12 ? No Quillette writer Andy Ngo No No N/A Columbia Journalism Review 3 2019-10-23 ? No discredited provocateur Andy Ngo No No N/A Nieman Reports 2019-10-03 ? No known U.S. right-wing operators who have also amplified disinformation in the past, including Andy Ngo No No N/A Above the Law 2019-09-03 ? Yes a new kind of perfidious pseudo-journalist No Maybe N/A Townhall 2023-08-28 Amber Yes investigative journalist Andy Ngo No Yes No Portland Mercury 1 2023-08-24 ? Yes far-right blogger Andy Ngo No No N/A Portland Mercury 2 2023-08-09 ? Yes right-wing media figure Andy Ngo No No N/A LGBTQ Nation 2023-08-09 ? Yes Gay right-wing social media influencer Andy Ngô No No N/A The Oregonian 2 2023-08-00 ? No Andy Ago, a prominent right-wing media personality No No N/A Sky News Australia 2 2023-07-02 Red No Post Millennial Senior Editor Andy Ngo No No N/A Washington Times 2023-08-22 Amber Yes conservative journalist No Yes Yes Newsweek 2023-08-22 Amber Yes Right-wing writer Andy Ngo (in body; preferred over Conservative Journalist in headline) No No N/A Newsweek 2022-12-14 Amber No right-wing activist Andy Ngo Yes No N/A The Oregonian 3 2020-12-23 ? Yes right-wing Portland journalist No Yes Yes Journal of International Criminal Justice 2021-03 ? No right-wing activist Andy Ngo Yes No No 5 Citations Willamette Week 2020-9-16 ? Yes Portland activist Andy Ngo Yes No No VPM (Vermot PBS, NPR?) 2023-9-29 ? No The Post Millennial, a digital news outlet where Ngo is editor-at-large and far-right media host Andy Ngo No No No Willamette Week 2021-6-02 ? Yes right-wing author Andy Ngo, Quote from talk page citation No No No Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 2023-06-19 ? No right-wing activist Andy Ngo Yes No No 0 Citations Canadian Journal of Communication 2021-11-4 ? No American “citizen journalist” Andy Ngo No Yes Yes Centre for Research and Evidence on Security Threats (CREAST) 2021-4 ? No right-wing provocateur ‘journalist’ Andy Ngo No No Yes - term is used by they clearly dispute it Portland Mercury 2023-8-9 ? No right-wing media figure Andy Ngo No No No The Oregonian 2023-8-9 ? No Right-wing writer Andy Ngo No No No Media blurb, 2 sentences total USA Today 2023-3-17 ? No San Diego case with Andy Ngo, who has made a name for himself as an antagonist of anti-fascists across the country No No No Hollywood Reporter] 2024-4-12 ? No right-wing influencer Andy Ngo per talk page summary No No No New York Post] 2023-11-15 ? No identified by journalist Andy Ngo as No Yes No India West Journal] 2023-11-14 ? No right wing journalist and influencer Andy Ngo No Yes No NBC News 2022-12-03 Green No right-wing activist Andy Ngo Yes No No Daily Dot 2020-11-15 Amber Yes The right-wing activist has a history of gaslighting and manipulating media. Ngo is the subject of the article. Yes No No The Wrap 2021-03-10 ? No Right-Wing Activist Andy Ngo and Ngo, an independent conservative journalist who is considered by some to be more of a provocateur and sensationalist Yes Yes Yes, in relation to the term journalist Bellingcat 2020-11-18 Green Yes right-wing activist Andy Ngo Yes No No The Philadelphia Inquirer 2019-12-30 ? No right-wing activist Andy Ngo Yes No No

In looking at the long list of sources "journalist" with qualifiers is still the most common description. Activist is used in just 3 sources.

As another point of reference, Google Scholar hit count for "activist andy ngo" : 2, for "journalist andy ngo" : 44. Activist appears only 5% as much as journalist. Note that using the quotes doesn't preclude inclusion of phrases like "right-wing activist Andy Ngo" but would exclude "activist and influencer Andy Ngo". Thus not a perfect search set but again, clear that journalist appears far more frequently than activist. Springee (talk) 04:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Springee, the Sky News Australia source is not amber. This was raised last time. Per WP:RSP, "The talk shows for Sky News Australia engage in disinformation and should be considered generally unreliable. The majority of articles labeled as "news" contain short blurbs and video segments, which should similarly be considered unreliable". A review of that particular source indicates that it is one such source that contains a video segment by Peta Credlin, one of many of Murdoch's biased pushers of fake news. The source is unreliable. TarnishedPath^talk 05:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Updated per your comment. Regardless, it is clear that activist is not a common descriptor thus we violate NPOV to use it. Those saying that is what he is most known for are conducting a type of OR by taking a minority view and treating it as primary. Springee (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I just did a count on my phone (do forgive me if I miss counted) but I see 74 sources and only 8 use "activist". So it's a clear minority descriptor. Additionally, unlike "journalist" where the definition and his job are factually aligned, what "activism" is he engaging in? The sources aren't clear. Finally, many of the sources have a bias (daily dot, the wrap, WW). While that shouldn't exclude them we need to be careful about putting too much weight into what should be an objective description. Even if this isn't enough to say "journalist" it's clearly enough to say "activist" isn't a term that aligns with NPOV. Springee (talk) 12:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

References

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.

Alternative suggestion

As a compromise solution I suggest drop "author" to later in the lead and don't add activist. The resulting opening sentence would be "Andy Cuong Ngo is an American right-wing social media influencer,...". Activist is at least somewhat redundant with "social media influencer" and I think a good case can be made that his primary notability isn't from authorship of a book. I think it would make the first sentence cleaner vs looking like editors tried to pack all the terms that might apply to a BLP subject. LokiTheLiar and TarnishedPath seemed to be OK with this compromise. I'm interested in the views of others, especially editors who have already !voted above. Springee (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm still OK with it. Loki (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I said above that I wouldn't have an aneurysm if that was the was the end result. However, I do believe there to be a substantive difference between "activist" and "social media influencer", because his activism can't be conflated into his social media activities alone. I've described above what I think constitutes his activist activities; some of which involves his social media activities, some of which involves his activities video recording demonstrators and heavily editing the footage to portray his perceived rivals worse than the side he advocates for.

If this RfC comes to a non consensus outcome then I think your suggestion is the next best thing as it would be an improvement insofar as it made the first sentence less of a mess. TarnishedPath^talk 00:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath agreed. DN (talk) 00:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest pushing it as an alternative to the current 2 options in hopes that the RfC would close with this as a compromise consensus. Springee (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Removal of information on recent activity & coverage of trans people

@Springee, you removed most of the information I added on recent activity of the subject, including his international political links and speaking engagements, the hacking of the websites he is involved with apparently in direct relationship with his activism, and his contribution to the popularisation of a questionable concept. Some of the sources were "green" (Southern Poverty Law Center, Pink News, Yahoo News), others were yellow or unlisted. You also appear to contest the fact that Ngo's activism targets trans people.

Would you care to state your reasoning? VampaVampa (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure but it might be helpful if you could break the changes down into individual claims/changes. Just hitting a few, that Ngo was dropped as a speaker from an event in Nashville doesn't seem DUE for inclusion. The source for the claim seems like a minor publication. The opinions of the SPLC generally shouldn't be used in a stand alone fashion given the biased nature of the organization. The "Trantifa" content is also poorly sourced. Rolling Stone isn't a RS for politics and it's not clear Above the Law is a sufficient source for the claim in question. Again the final claim by Yahoo News/Daily Beast regarding "no reputable outlets" is again not a claim of sufficient weight for inclusion. Your grammatical changes were helpful and remain. Springee (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Springee -- at least some sanity prevails. Thank you for that. I can't imagine why Pink News would ever under any circumstances be considered a reliable source (any more than An Poblacht). Or, for that matter, the SPLC. (But the SPLC had burnished its reputation before becoming the 21st century's rabidly "progressive" equivalent of Red Channels. Wickedly clever that was.) Tkaras1 (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

For reference, I don't see that I removed anything by Pink News. Springee (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

User:VampaVampa mentioned Pink News regarding your removing their edits, along with Yahoo News and SPLC. Tkaras1 (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I think I am entitled to infer from your response that you only contest the claims that you enumerated above. With regard to Pink News, you removed the second claim sourced from them about the hacking (a notable event concerning the subject, which affected even the owner of his employer).

(1) I would argue that the event in Nashville is notable due to the profile of the organiser (who has a Wikipedia article dedicated to their activity) and the person who opposed the subject's involvement (again notable). I do not see anything contentious about it and it is not defamatory per se, any institution may choose to disinvite speakers after someone protests their involvement. I see this as a valuable comment on the boundaries of Ngo's audience as a political activist - the organiser invited him, so they had been inclined to support his cause, but then they changed their mind, so they are currently situated just outside his realm of influence. It is a notable insight from the point of view of political science, not as a "scandal" which it was not.

(2) Are you saying that the SPLC comment on Ngo's primary activity is contentious? They are an "opinionated" source but their comment was attributed clearly, and it appears to correspond to Ngo's activity as described in the article.

(3) With regard to the single claim about lack of interest from "reputable outlets", that is directly relevant to his credibility as a journalist. Ideally, to avoid the accusation of cherrypicking, one would want to have such reports on Andy Ngo's rate of success in getting his stories into media that uphold basic journalistic standards every month, but clearly that is not available - that's why I qualified the comment by writing "at that time". Yes, the original source is Daily Beast, and the advice on "statements of fact" in BLP context is to exercise "particular caution". So in this instance, it would be easy to fact-check and show that his reporting has been used by journalists if it had been. As a compromise, I suggest the wording could be amended to say "standard media" (as a shorthand for media with journalistic standards), if you really insisted that the use of "reputable" introduced a bias, or the claim could be attributed.

(4) The denial of the journalist status to Ngo is hardly a fringe view, as the RfC consensus above attests, so it deserves to be represented. I grant that one of the sources is opinionated and takes a negative view of Ngo, but is Above the Law a left-leaning source? The rating of perennial sources comes with the caveat: "context matters tremendously when determining how to use this list" - and I would point out that the Rolling Stone piece (unlike some other sources) builds an argument worth examining in detail for why Ngo should not be regarded as a journalist and that it should be addressed for its argument more than the source's reputation. I would similarly oppose throwing out right-wing sources just because they are right-wing.

@Tkaras1: With regard to the claim sourced from Pink News, are you saying the hacking did not happen, or that it did not matter? VampaVampa (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@VampaVampa. I am not contesting anything. I am expressing my disgust that rabid, biased, and unreliable but overly influential hyperpartisan institutions like SPLC and media outlets like "Pink News" are considered reliable sources on Wikipedia, or, indeed, anywhere. That is my personal opinion, as is my opinion of Andy Ngo or the SPLC, none of which is your concern. REMINDER: I am not the one who removed your edits. I just thanked Springee for their common sense rationale in their reply to you. Yours sincerely, Tkaras1 (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, I understand that you just were voicing your opinion and not entering the dispute. Thanks for the clarification. VampaVampa (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, I see it was a reference for the Twitter hack. No, I don't see the hack as notable so I removed it. You changed an earlier reference that supported his editor at large position from AP News to Pink News using that same reference. I didn't change it. As for your numbers, I think you need to make the case for inclusion, not the other way around. Wikipedia isn't a news site or blog so we should really summarize the person, not include blow by blow events (Nashville) or opinions of activist organizations (SLPC). A claim from The Daily Beast is not likely due given we are talking about The Daily Beast. For that claim to matter they would have to show that other similar people did have their Tweets followed by news outlets. In general a news story based on a few tweets is probably not significant. The problem with your #4 is that neither are a strong source for such a claim. Springee (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, I want to ask how you were able to arrive at the conclusion that the hack was not notable, if you did not investigate the source I cited for it? As I said, Human Events was affected, a media organisation with 80 years of history and close involvement with the Republican Party. As long as we agree that no doubt remains that the incident happened, it is not minor with regard to either Andy Ngo, TPM or Human Events, it does not have to be notable on a global scale for that.

As to your objections:

(1) While the event itself is non-notable, the associations of the subject within the US conservative scene are.

(2) This is a representative avowedly left-wing criticism of the subject, attributed and integrated into a section as per guidelines.

(3) Have the "other similar people" you had in mind also laid the claim to the status of journalists? The problem here is that since Ngo left Quillette in 2019 there seems to be no mention in the article of him producing journalistic quality reporting, with the possible exception of coverage of the Capitol attacks trial in Feb 2021. This seems to be a rare piece of material shedding any light on the matter. While it only meets a lower threshold of reputability, it does not appear to be unreliable and therefore in my view should be accepted.

(4) The only claim made here is that his status as a journalist is contested by "some sources", and that there are legitimate sources which take this view is not disputed by anyone. Perhaps a better selection of citations can be made that pleases everyone. VampaVampa (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Per ONUS, you have to make the case that the hack is notable. I don't see it passing the 10YEAR test. As for the journalism debate, well that is the RfC above. Springee (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I have made my case above but it clearly does not satisfy you, for some unstated reasons.

Let me ask something else - while Wikipedia is not a place for righting wrongs, it does acknowledge systemic bias. Oddly though, it does so only with regard to underrepresented "majority" positions, so that there is no mention of the so-called sexual minorities (homosexual, queer, trans people) whatsoever in that "Systemic bias" article. Now, is it the result of an orthodox application of Wikipedia guidelines that trans people as an object of Ngo's reporting had not been mentioned? I.e. can the majority technically agree to ignore and effectively erase a minority's existence, as if it constituted a fringe view of reality? An article on transgender nonetheless is in place, so I am confused here.

I am asking that because the hacking incident happens to be an event through which the particular interest of Ngo in trans people comes to the fore. I have not studied the other references, so the issue may well have come up in a more obviously notable context, but that "elephant in the room" constitutes the main reason for the notability of the incident. And I would definitely claim that given Ngo's long-standing targeting of trans people, this event, exemplifying a retaliation for his activities, will stand the 10 year test. Note the sentence in the lead to which I added "trans people" between antifa and Muslims - that is a central part of Ngo's notability there.

Any other policies that you can invoke against including the hack? VampaVampa (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

And forget Twitter, it is the websites that were hacked. VampaVampa (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I forgot the Trantifa part - I accept that one could be left out pending investigation and that the sources are insufficient for the claim. The "Trantifa" thing would require its own Wikipedia article which will comprehensively discuss its background. And it may well prove ephemeral, it is too early to judge. VampaVampa (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I too have a low opinion of the SPLC/hatewatch blog post, but especially approved the removal of the sentence The "anti-trans rhetoric and conspiratorial coverage of the LGBTQ+ community" in his reporting for The Post Millennial led to the hacking of the news website and its parent, Human Events, in May 2023. -- cited to Pink News, since (a) Pink News didn't claim to be telepathic so didn't say what "led to" the hack, they said "appears to" (b) it was 2024 (c) the directly quoted words are a biased statement of opinion but were not attributed in the manner WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV requires (d) maybe MOS:NOLINKQUOTE is violated too though I don't know the author well enough to say. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I take your point that this sentence should have been phrased more carefully, (1) with regard to the causal relationship, and (2) by attributing the interpretation of what the action was an apparent retaliation for to its source.

With regard to wikilinking within a quotation, I think it is reasonable to assume that a LGBTQ+ news website will have intended "anti-trans rhetoric" to convey transphobia, the shortest Wikipedia definition of which is "anti-transgender prejudice", and the use of "conspiratorial" in this context evidently refers to conspiracy theory type thinking. VampaVampa (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

And the date should obviously be corrected. VampaVampa (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

VampaVampa, you restored a number of contested claims as well as adding new material that is or may be questionably sourced. Please justify the edits (as well as why you felt some of your restored edit had consensus). Springee (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I have restored the following information: (1) the reliably-sourced and significant information on a guest lecture and invitation to do another by the Polish and Hungarian state officials, which was initially removed but then not explicitly contested by yourself, (2) the disinvitation by the Christian conference, covered by discussion above and no longer contested in your last response of 23:48, 5 June 2024, with the addition of the reason stated for the request to disinvite, as suggested by @Tkaras1 in his edit (3) the uncontested claim that Ngo reports on trans people, (4) the hacking incident, incorporating Peter Gulutzan's comments, on the grounds that it relates to the subject's core activity and has affected his employer as previously with Quillette, and also reliably references his interest in trans people. These additions improve the article by filling in the gaps on core activity of the subject, reported in reliable news outlets, since 2020, and placing him in the context of wider developments.

All of the newly added information has been sourced from scholarly publications, which includes theses signed off on by senior academics. This helps bring the coverage of the subject up to date based on the most reliable sources - again, it bears on the social media activity and personal connections to the right wing movement, which is what the subject is notable for. VampaVampa (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Among other edits VampaVampa has added "additional info from academic sources". Such as Peter Macchiarullo who made the Denison University Dean's list of good students in 2023. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the sources there is a combination of poor "academic" sources and questionable inclusions (per wp:V, not all verifiable content is due). As examples, no claim by Rose City Antifa about Ngo is due for inclusion. That's like asking one gang for an opinion about the other gang. This is also the only, unique claim offered by the Copsey & Merrill source. The Maloney masters thesis isn't even cited in the article body so why was it added to a bibliography? Even then it's only mention of Ngo is minor. Ramadas and Brown doesn't come across any sort of due scholarship. It has been cited by no one. Beyond that, the references it supports in the article are basically associations with Ngo rather than anything central. Why would we care who Ngo's lawyer's other clients are? Is that meant to be guilt by association? Warreth is also a master's thesis and the single claim is hardly due. The Reese article is used as a redundant source for a few claims yet it's characterizations are not supported within the article. Honestly, it reads like the characterizations of Ngo were lifted from this Wikipedia page. Since the Reese article has zero citations it seems UNDUE to include it here. The Lim source is paywalled but the sentence it supports seems opinionated at best. So in addition to previously challenged edits (which still don't have consensus) we have new redundant and often poor quality additions. Basically a total mess. Springee (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

You did not contest a few of the changes, and your second revert was wholesale (minor corrections were not preserved). To avoid the mess you mentioned being concerned with, I have listed the reverted changes with your objections, my replies and any further arguments below.

Revert 1

• (1) addition of the words "trans people" to the lead and infobox alongside "antifa" and "Muslims"
  • you did not contest this explicitly
• (2) SPLC claim that Ngo's "primary activity consisted of targeting Antifa, Muslims, trans people and left-wing activists on Twitter"
  • you argued it was a opinion of a biased source "used in a stand alone fashion"
  • I replied the claim was not contentious because borne out by the article's content and attributed clearly
  • further discussion: you argued this was an example of "opinions of activist organizations" that was undue for inclusion; I argued it was a "representative avowedly left-wing criticism of the subject" integrated as per guidelines
  • comment: SPLC is classified as "generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism" but its labelling should be attributed and not placed in leads, and use is on case-by-case basis
• (3) inclusion of the TPM and Human Events hack of May 2024, sourced from Pink News
  • you did not contest this explicitly until prompted, then stated you did not see it as notable, and added that it would not pass the 10-year test
  • I maintained that it was "a notable event concerning the subject, which affected even the owner of his employer", a prominent long-standing organisation; I claimed that it would pass the 10-year test as it threw into relief Ngo's core long-term activity of targeting trans people
• (4) inclusion of the disinvitation from Q Ideas in Nashville in 2021, sourced from The Roys Report
  • you argued this was undue, sourced from a minor organisation, and represented "blow by blow" reporting
  • I replied that while the event is unimportant, the limits of Ngo's political influence within the US conservative scene are (a political science angle)
  • you did not contest this any more in your last reply
• (5) inclusion of the speaking engagement for the Polish government and the private meeting with the Hungarian government members both in 2021
  • this was never contested explicitly by yourself, and I think it would be impossible to argue for the low importance of these events without suggesting Poland and Hungary are unimportant countries, so this seems a passage to restore, perhaps with the addition of local sources to SPLC but SPLC is reliable for factual reporting
• (6) mention of the alleged leading role in popularising the term "trantifa" (sourced from a transgender news website whose editor's claim to journalism is similar to Ngo's and who also covers the antagonists of his identity group, and partly supported by The Daily Dot which is contentious)
  • you described the comment as "poorly sourced"
  • I agreed that the "sources are insufficient for the claim" and the lasting importance of the term is not clear
• (7) addition of the claim that "some sources denied [Ngo] the status of a journalist", sourced from Rolling Stone which is to be used with attribution for contentious claims about living people, and Above the Law
  • you pointed out that Rolling Stone is not "a RS for politics" and "it's not clear Above the Law is a sufficient source for the claim in question"
  • I argued that the view was not fringe per RfC above, that Above the Law is not demonstrably left-leaning and that the Rolling Stone piece builds an argument worthy of consideration, so the perennial sources rating needs not to be applied automatically
  • further discussion: you argued "neither are a strong source for such a claim"; I argued that the claim here is merely that sources exist "which take this view" and that this corresponds to the RfC consensus that Ngo's status as a journalist is contested; you also invoked the RfC to suggest that there was no consensus here or that it was different from what I claimed
• (8) addition of the claim that in late 2022 "no reputable outlets" used Ngo's tweets, sourced from Yahoo News (syndicated)
  • you argued it was "not a claim of sufficient weight" and pointed to its origin from The Daily Beast
  • I replied it was a claim relevant to journalistic credibility that could be used with caution
  • further discussion: you argued the claim was undue because of its (biased) source and trivial, as it was not clear that other figures like Ngo would have their reporting picked up by news outlets; I replied that it mattered due to Ngo's claim to be a journalist and that this was a rare source on any such activity of his post-Quillette

Edit 2

This involved reverting some restored claims from my initial edit (1, 3, 4, 5 above), which I did based on either a lack of explicit contestation (1, 5) or an inconclusive discussion missing your rejoinder after 4 days (6-10 June) with other editors not contesting inclusion (3, 4). The hack passage was rephrased following input from Peter Gulutzan above, and the Q Ideas passage was extended following input from Tkaras1 above.

New additions reverted:

• (1) the addition of more reliable sources (Copsey and Merrill, Reese) to the labelling of Ngo as a "provocateur"
  • you seemed to suggest that this is one of the "redundant" claims, and argued about Reese that the article has no citations, that its "characterizations are not supported within the article", and that they appear to have been "lifted from this Wikipedia page"
  • I argue providing more reliable sources for a claim is not "redundant" but a vital improvement to the article; Copsey and Merrill are among the most reputable sources for this article, Reese's piece may not have citations but he is a tenured specialist in the field and has amassed 22k citations throughout his career, so hardly unreliable; in contrast your claims about Reese are personal opinion and there is no need for a reliable source's claims to be previously supported by the Wikipedia article, that would be putting the cart before the horse
• (2) the shared use of the same lawyer by Ngo and his alleged mentor O'Keefe, sourced from Ramadas and Brown
  • you argued this was not relevant and suggested "guilt by association"; you further claimed the source was not "due" scholarship (i.e. partisan?) and had no citations
  • my reply is that the claim is relevant as the link between the two people is already described in the article (i.e. new information on existing claim); I fail to see why association with O'Keefe should inherently present Ngo in negative light unless you take a partisan perspective, their articles suggest them to be similar figures; the source's authors are admittedly affiliated with a whistleblowing organisation, but the journal is peer-reviewed and supported by an Indian government body, while the claim is in no way controversial or defamatory
• (3) addition of a scholarly source (Reese) for the claim that Ngo publishes personal information of people he covers
  • objections and reply on Reese as above
• (4) addition of the characterisation of Ngo as an "agitator" sourced from the article by Loadenthal in a journal with a Wikipedia article and an above-average impact factor
  • not contested explicitly hence due for restoring
• (5) the addition of claim about a crowdfunding platform used by Ngo
  • you argued against the use of a master's thesis and that the claim is "hardly due"
  • I should point out the thesis was supervised by a tenured academic with 4k+ citations to her name, which satisfies guidelines, and that the claim is important in relating to Ngo's main notable activity as a social media influencer and political activist
• (6) addition of claim characterising Ngo's use of the antifa hashtag
  • you seem to have argued this was "opinionated at best"
  • I should point out this is per guidelines among the most reliable scholarly sources for this article and therefore what the article needs to be based on
• (7) the addition of principal news outlets which have used Ngo's reporting (to replace the previous contested claim from The Daily Beast, vindicating your contestation of it)
  • not contested explicitly, unless the remark under (6) above applies to this claim instead, hence due for restoring
• (8) the addition of the claim that Ngo is a spokesperson for Proud Boys, sourced to a Copsey & Merrill, i.e. a reliable source in a peer-reviewed journal with above-average impact factor
  • you argue that this is undue due to its sourcing from Rose City Antifa and the resulting extreme bias
  • I would be personally prepared to accept this as a reasonable claim, however, it is published in one of the most reliable sources for this article and checking the sources of a source is not supported by any guidelines, so in return for my concession I would want to obtain your support for using this precedent in future discussions anywhere on Wikipedia
• (9) the addition of a claim on the link with QAnon and Weinstein, sourced to Ramadas and Brown
  • you argued as above that the source was "not due" and the information was on associations
  • I fail to see why associations are not relevant; the source may be biased, but it still is peer-reviewed and therefore reliable for factual reporting
• (10) the addition of the claim that Ngo's partner is an anti-vaxxer
  • objection and counter exactly as above in (9)

I hope to have done justice to your arguments but if not please let me know and I will amend accordingly. There seem to be a few uncontested claims (1.5, 2.4, 2.7), otherwise I am looking forward to working towards a consensus here. VampaVampa (talk) 08:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Just to mention the few points that can be dropped without further discussion: 1.6 (agreed), 1.8 (superseded by 2.7), and the use of Macchiarulo's student paper since its value is unclear and it does not add any new information. VampaVampa (talk) 08:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to be traveling this weekend so I won't have time to address this long list. Please be patient. Springee (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

As it has been three weekends now, I wanted to prompt you for a reply. VampaVampa (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I will try to get to it soon. To be clear, I find none of the arguments for inclusion persuasive but when I get some computer time vs phone replies I will try to get through your questions with more detail. Springee (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Do take your time but in a few cases I am yet to hear any reason against inclusion. VampaVampa (talk) 01:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I have reservations about this also, but I do not have the time to break down every argument tonight. Open to discussing soon when I have more time @Springee and @VampaVampa. Philomathes2357 (talk) 06:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

If neither @Springee nor @Philomathes2357 are able to raise any specific objections to including claims 1.5, 2.4 and 2.7 above in the article, then it will make the impending discussion less lengthy and complicated to restore those three uncontested claims. It seems reasonable to assume that if such arguments were present they would have been formulated by now. Note that I am dropping claims 1.6, 1.8 and Macchiarulo as a source, due to valid arguments presented. VampaVampa (talk) 02:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not that any of your additions are DUE, it's just that you flooded the discussion with comments and aren't interested in listening to the general issues with the proposed additions. Just looking at some of your long list,

Edit 2.10: Ngo's partner isn't Ngo and thus this material isn't due in an article about Ngo. If Ngo is known for anti-vax comments then we can talk.

Edit 2.9: As you noted, same problem as with 2.10. Just because there is some association in some capacity with someone else doesn't mean we need to include that here. Additionally, "peer reviewed" also depends on the quality of the journal etc.

Edit 2.8: We don't need to include what Rose City Antifa says about someone they consider to be a clear enemy. That isn't DUE.

Edit 2.7 Again, that Ngo's tweets aren't referenced by news outlets isn't something of interest.

Once editors object, the ONUS is on you to get consensus to add the content. It's not on the other editors to deal with a long stream of repetitive, questionable claims. 03:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC) Springee (talk) 03:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no right to object per se. You need to have valid reasons for objecting to each claim. But instead of giving any all-encompassing explanations you chose the opposite approach of just hitting a few. In "flooding the discussion" I was doing you a favour as you had asked for a breakdown (to quote you again: it might be helpful if you could break the changes down into individual claims/changes). You got what you wanted, so kindly address the rest - in particular the three uncontested claims. VampaVampa (talk) 05:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

You have it backwards. I'm not required to answer all of your continuing questions. I've answered. You don't like the answers. That doesn't mean you get to ignore the objection and declare consensus to add. Springee (talk) 11:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Your position seems to be that answering some of the claims amounts to answering all of them, because they were part of the same edit that was contested and therefore none of the claims can be restored. Again, it is not that I "don't like" your arguments, it is simply that you have made no overarching argument - if you did, please point to it. The 18 or so claims in no way depend on one another, so there is no reason not to restore the three that were never contested. You yourself felt the need to distinguish between legitimate "small fixes" and contested claims in a previous revert, and the same obligation to distinguish legitimate additions from contested ones applies now. If not, why did you ask me to break down the claims in the first place? VampaVampa (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I think I've answered all of them but you seem to want more and more. A common problem with your responses is an appeal to "scholarship" without noting the limited quality or impact of the sources. An opinionated article with no citations isn't scholarship. While I might accept such a source for a reasoned argument, it's not useful for one off comments/opinions and isn't good for establishing weight for inclusion (per BALASP and V, just because something can be cited doesn't mean it needs to be included). You are also working hard to get a masters thesis accepted as reliable. I would suggest you take that to RSN. I think you will find that, absent some clear indication that the MS Thesis (or even a PhD dissertation) have been viewed as impactful in their field, editors will say it's not a strong source. For example that Ngo is using a particular funding platform or uses the same lawyer as someone else just isn't significant biographical material. This isn't a crime drama where we are trying to link people together to show a conspiracy or something. Zooming out basically all of your additions make the article read more like a mash up of any random, negative/negativish sounding content that could be found. It doesn't make for a good overall picture of the person nor do these factoids provide real insight into the person. Let's take the lawyer in common example. Why is that important? Perhaps both Ngo and O'Keefe have specific legal needs as small time journalists (using the term broadly) and this person is an expert in that area. Who else is a client of this lawyer/law firm? Does it turn out many people in a similar space use this same lawyer? What you are doing is presenting a fact (presumably true) without explaining why that fact is significant. That can falsely lead people to various conclusions (collaboration, legal issues, who knows). In the case of yellow journalism such implications are common as they allow everything to be "true" while allowing the reader to reach a false conclusion. If you can't say why the material is important to the subject, it probably isn't. So much of what you are trying to use is poorly sourced given this is a BLP. You should probably review this ARBCOM case[7] on BLPs that noted, In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm.". Springee (talk) 02:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

James O'Keefe disciple claim

The article claims Ngo is described as a disciple of James O'Keefe. Two sources made this claim (LA Times and a random small source) though it appears one just copied the claim from the other (see publication dates and similar phrasing). Neither source provides any evidence to support the claim. Does the author mean Ngo learned his craft from O'Keefe or just that they have a similar style? Given the ambiguous claim and the limited sourcing we can follow up with the question, why is the due in the article? A random, unsupported claim shouldn't be part of a BLP. Per ONUS this should be removed until we have consensus to include it. Springee (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Calling it a "claim" is loaded language, and is heavy-handed. The wording I reverted to is how it was originally added. My edit reverted old editorializing (from a few years ago) which had slipped through the cracks. To say that now ONUS applies is wikilawering. Grayfell (talk) 05:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Reliable sources don't need to provide evidence for each and every thing that they write. If a reliable source states it then it is open to us to do likewise (consensus permitting). TarnishedPath^talk 05:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  There are two problems with your view. First, this appears to be a mix of editorializing and factual claims. Second, if the source doesn't provide evidence then we don't have to give the claim any weight in the article. Additionally, if the claim is ambiguous we certainly shouldn't give it weight. This is supposed to be a BLP, not a collection of every random, ugly this a RS (or often questionable source) has said about Ngo. Springee (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Requiring reliable sources to prove absolutely everything they wright about in order for it to be included in a WP is not a policy. Secondly, please read WP:WEIGHT, these are not fringe views that are being pushed. If you think that they are fringe views then find reliable sources which contradict what is written. Thirdly their is absolutely nothing ambiguous about what is written, the meaning is clear. Multiple reliable sources state it, therefore it is open for us to do likewise. TarnishedPath^talk 11:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  This is a question of weight and wp:v. Just because a source says it doesn't mean we have to include it. This is a stand alone claim. It doesn't support a larger point in the wiki article. It's a one sentence paragraph. Now look at what claim we are trying to include. It was an of hand comment in a larger article. It was unsupported background content in the RS article. If we are summarizing the LAT article in a few sentences, that claim wouldn't be part of the summary.

  You said the meaning is clear. Ok, is the meaning Ngo learned by working with O'Keefe? That is the common understanding of the word. If yes, where? It's there any evidence of this from other sources? Which ones? Where did they work together? The fact that RNS parrotted the claim is hardly evidence of is validity. If a claim in a RS is unclear etc then it shouldn't be given any weight. Springee (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, we need to take this even further since the article claim isn't that he is a disciple, rather that he had been called that. That gets us deep into editor opinion on content since the source doesn't say "others say this" which is how the wiki article presents it. We are using weaselly language to include a claim that is too weak to include in wiki voice. All the more reason to get rid of it. Springee (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Passes WP:V as anyone can look up the WP:RS and see that is what it says. It has never been a policy that a reliable source needs to give reasons for every minute thing that they write. If we as editors consider that they seem to have a good reputation for fact checking prior to publishing their stories then we can't be going "oh they didn't give the ins and outs of absolutely everything they wrote in that article, therefore it must have no weight". WP:WEIGHT talks about minority views an equal footing with majority view. So if you are claiming that there is a WEIGHT problem here, i.e. that this is a minority viewpoint, you're going to need to demonstrate what the majority viewpoint is with sources. I.e., show that this claim is contradicted by other RS and that those RS represent the majority viewpoint.

  Per you claiming that the word disciple is ambiguous, I find that argument completely lacking. Per the definition found at Google:

  • a follower or pupil of a teacher, leader, or philosopher.

  The meaning of the term could not possibly get any clearer. How you could think that calling someone a disciple implies that they worked together is beyond me. The common meaning is that of a follower or student ... TarnishedPath^talk 14:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  "Second, if the source doesn't provide evidence then we don't have to give the claim any weight in the article." this isn't even remotely true, please retract or strike. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  If the source of the claim treats it as a one off, throw away comment and provide no evidence then we can presume it wasn't an important claim to the source, ie they gave it little weight. I'm that case why would we, in a summary article give it weight? We aren't supposed to be writing an attack article but off the cuff claims like this certainly suggest otherwise. Springee (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  I am pointing out unambiguous incomptence, on the issue regarding the page I actually agree with you and don't think it should be in wikivoice if included at all. You're much too seasoned to be telling those sorts of lies, unintentionally doing so is actually worse IMO. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think it's a lie at all. We gauge weight based on sources. If the source doesn't provide much weight to the claim, especially if the claim comes off as flippant or opinionated vs based on evidence, then we shouldn't give it much if any weight. Springee (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  You didn't say that you said "if the source doesn't provide evidence then we don't have to give the claim any weight in the article." which is unambigously false... It also suggests that we evaluate the evidence provided by the source for its strength... We do not, that is completely inappropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sorry if my intent wasn't clear. Do we agree with the rephrasing? I'm happy to strike the original and replace it with the rephrased text. Springee (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think its clarified now. Sorry if I came at you too hard but I've seen way too may new editors making the claim that reliable sources have to "show their work" and was shocked to see an experienced editor more or less saying that same thing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  It isn't exactly a once off occurrence of Ngo being described as a disciple of O'Keethe.

  There's two sources in the article:

  • https://religionnews.com/2021/04/05/andy-ngo-antifa-critic-dropped-as-speaker-by-christian-conference-q-ideas-gabe-lyons/
  • https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/books/story/2021-02-08/andy-ngo-new-book-still-pretends-antifa-real-enemy

  A search by me also finds:

  • https://julieroys.com/ngo-dropped-speaker-q-ideas/comment-page-1/
  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FE_UjbQSf2w

  Note the last one is a Jordan Peterson interview with Andy Ngo, hosted on Peterson's official YouTube channel. At 1:04:33 starts a section in which Peterson discusses with Ngo that he has been described as a disciple of O'Keethe. So obviously it isn't just a once off claim. TarnishedPath^talk 02:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  The Julie Roy thing is the same author as the religious news source. I didn't verify if it was word for word the same article. The video does not support the claim of "disciple". It suggests they have some contact but also that Ngo clearly disputes the claim. Since this is a BLP we would either apply about self and include his response or again delete this as an insignificant claim that is only mentioned in that interview because it was in the Wikipedia article, not because it was significant in the original sources. If the subject of the BLP replies not because the original source said it but because Wikipedia quoted it that strongly suggests that a claim that had little weight in the RS media is being given too much weight by Wikipedia. Wikipedia should never drive how much weight some claim gets. Springee (talk) 08:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes Julie Roy is the same author as the religious news source, however different article. I came across another religious news site that was word for word as the Julie Roy article and I obviously didn't include it above. The video does support that it is a thing, that there are people calling him a disciple of O'Keethe. It's obviously a thing or they wouldn't have spent time disputing it. I'd be no problem covering Ngo disputing the claim in the article.

  Perhaps from:

  Ngo has been described as a disciple of James O'Keefe, the founder of Project Veritas, a right-wing activist group.

  To:

  Ngo has been described as a disciple of James O'Keefe by critics. O'Keefe is the founder of Project Veritas. Ngo disputes the description.

  I'd also be happy dropping the right-wing activist bit from the description of Project Veritas if we're able to come to agreement. If people want to read about Project Veritas they can follow the wikilink. TarnishedPath^talk 09:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  While better we still have the issue that this is an insignificant claim that doesn't support any broader aspect of the wiki article. Zooming out, why should this be in the Wikipedia article? Are we saying their reporting styles are similar? Does Ngo do hidden camera style interviews? This gets back to my question about ambiguity. Is the reader supposed to understand this as "one taught the other" or Ngo tried to learn from O'Keefe or just that they operate in a similar fashion. All are possible based on the limited information provided. Which is true, if any? The source provides no evidence so why should we provide such ambiguity in the article? How does this content make the article better? Springee (talk) 09:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  BTW, I do want to acknowledge that you are trying to find a compromise and I appreciate the effort. Springee (talk) 09:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  That it is not in the lead, nor suggested to be in the lead says that this is not a notable claim. However I think we can safely say that it has some significance given that that there are multiple sources and that Peterson and Ngo thought it worthy of discussion. Again I'm not seeing the ambiguity. On the question if they operate in a similar fashion, I'm not at all familiar with O'Keefe. Believe or not I ignore American politics a lot in my day to day life. If O'Keefe does hidden camera interviews then I don't think Ngo has ever been accused of that, however Ngo has been accused of dishonestly cutting footage in order to portray his perceived enemies in the worst possible light. I don't know if O'Keefe does likewise? TarnishedPath^talk 10:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Grayfell, @Horse Eye's Back and @North8000. I've suggested some alternative wording above as a compromise. Thoughts? TarnishedPath^talk 10:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  I was just giving some thoughts. And that is the context of my response which is....they both still have the main problem...they use the word "disciple" which is a value-laden pejorative uninformative term.North8000 (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  "Disciple" is not pejorative. I might accept this if there were any signs at all that Ngo has tried to distance himself from O'Keefe, but primary sources suggest the opposite. This article is not the place for perform PR for him to attempt to insulating him from the consequences of his own words, actions, and active associations. Grayfell (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  You are worrying about the wrong part. The problem is the "disciple" word which is a value-laden pejorative and mis-informative term in this context. Not that he might view O'Keefe positively or have been influenced by him. North8000 (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  As I said before, attributing this to "critics" is both editorializing, and is not supported by the cited sources. The RNS source is presenting this as a factual matter, and that source is cautious in how it presents Ngo's claims. That source is mentioning O'Keefe to help contextualize Ngo's activiy. Since our goal is also to contextualize Ngo's activity, this is useful for us. Grayfell (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Grayfell, ONUS applies because the claim has never been challenged thus is consensus isn't established. It's not at all wikilawyering. It is also very much a claim since, as I said, the source provided no evidence of the fact nor in what way (literally or figuratively) the claim is true. That brings us back to undue. We shouldn't give weight to vague claims even from a reasonably good source as even decent sources can engage in editorializing. Springee (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Active arbitrations remedies apply, specifically "Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page". Your change to remove it was challenged by reversion and therefore the material can not be removed without consensus on this talk page. TarnishedPath^talk 11:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Now that we are having the discussion, consensus is established by rules like ONUS. If we can't establish consensus for inclusion here then, per ONUS the comment has to go. I'm not in a hurry here so we can let this all play out in good faith (and you are showing good faith even in this disagreement). Springee (talk) 11:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Um no, the active arbitration remedies are clear. You can not reinstate your change without consensus. TarnishedPath^talk 14:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The ONUS policy establishes consensus for the material to be here or not. I'm not in a hurry but if you think we should take it to a notice board to get guidance I'm fine with that. Springee (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

"Disciple" is a highly charged word currently being pejorative and implying many negative or extreme things (e.g. mindless following). It's going to need very strong sourcing to be in a BLP, and the "somebody said" type wording does not remove that requirement. A much better solution would be to use a more moderate term. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

"Disciple" is a highly charged word currently being pejorative. I disagree that it is a pejorative. Jesus's 12 disciples are never referred to as being so in a pejorative sense. TarnishedPath^talk 02:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

One the "onus" argument, it's a bit of a gray area because of how it interacts with other policies. But it does have influence. I certainly would not agree with the most extreme opposite interpretation described above which is that consensus is required to NOT have the material in the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I would either atribute or leave it out, if it really is a signficant part of his bio it will be featured in detailed sourced in the future. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I see no issue with attributing, however as shown above there are multiple sources so the question would become who to attribute to. TarnishedPath^talk 02:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• I support removing this bit. The O'Keefe disciple claim appears to originate with Alexander Nazaryan's 2021 book review of Unmasked in the LA Times. This claim there is only substantiated with the fact that Ngo thanked O'Keefe in the book's acknowledgements. Did Ngo ever work for O'Keefe or train under him? Was he strongly influenced by him in some documented way? That would support a literal meaning of "disciple" here. But the lack of such substantiation suggests that perhaps Nazaryan was merely offering his opinion (in this opinion piece) that Ngo is cut from the same cloth as O'Keefe and was thus using "disciple" in a more metaphorical sense. If this claim is to say in the article, it should be attributed to Nazaryan, and it certainly doesn't belong in the "Early life and education" section. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

As has already been mentioned here, sources are not required to show their work in a way which satisfies your personal curiosity. The RNS source is not an opinion piece. Grayfell (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Grayfell, how is a book review in a newspaper not an opinion piece? I would says claims should be treated by editorial decisions here in a way that reflects their level of substantiation. Everything all of us editors here are doing is being done out of some level of personal interest, so your distinction about "personal curiosity" is a throw-away tautology, i.e. it's meaningless. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

A book review is an opinion piece, and describing Ngo as a "disciple" of O'Keefe is clearly an expression of opinion. I say remove it, or attribute to the author of the LA Times book review. Philomathes2357 (talk) 06:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The claim had already been made by the journalist Robert Evans in 2019. There is clearly similarity, sympathy and common cause between O'Keefe and Ngo, who were both controversially invited to speak at Dartmouth College within a few months of each other in 2021/22, and did a trio show along with an editor-in-chief at The Post Millennial in 2022, on top of this they happen to use the services of the same lawyer (see above). If Evans was the first to make the claim, then it does seem to be based on judgment, because he calls Ngo someone who hasn't worked with O'Keefe, but you might call him his spiritual disciple and suggests Andy looked towards the highly lucrative example set by James O'Keefe, whereby repeated and flagrant lies are no barrier to a lucrative career in right wing journalism. It is a reasonable claim to make given the overlap in various areas, and has occurred to multiple people apparently independently (see here and here), but has not been substantiated and is best attributed as such to those who have made it, either individually or by a collective description. VampaVampa (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

This is basically evidence that Ngo isn't literally a disciple and thus the claim should be removed. The connection is clearly limited and the sources making the claim are low quality/opinionated. When you have to grab Twitter posts and when forums for evidence you don't have RS for this you're of claim. Springee (talk) 10:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

There's clearly quite a number of RS as demonstrated above. TarnishedPath^talk 10:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

What? First, Twitter, audio blogs of random low level journalists and forums aren't RS. Second, they contradict the literal reading of the disciple claim. After all this discussion at best we have a no consensus for this claim if not consensus to remove. Per ONUS it should go and per NOCON contentious claims about a BLP it should go. Springee (talk) 13:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Your opinion that journalists are "low level" doesn't make them not RS. Also, I fail to see how the Robert Evans source contradicts the definition. The definition does not include any reference to working with someone. TarnishedPath^talk 13:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The RE source is a podcast that is basically a blog. He is the interviewer, not the interviewed. If he were a well known journalist with a strong, neutral reputation then I would give such claims more credit. Instead, he is a minor journalist doing something that is self published. RE's claims Ngo could be viewed as a spiritual disciple, "he hasn't worked with O'Keefe, but you might call him his spiritual disciple". That is very much an opinionated statement and not from a RS. Springee (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The claim in the article is not that Ngo is a disciple of O'Keefe but that he has been described as such. Robert Evans is a case in point - his informed opinion is a competent assessment by an expert in the field and due for inclusion per WP:NEWSORG which says When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. At the time of producing the material, RE worked for Bellingcat whose work has been held as a model by the Columbia Journalism School and used by the US intelligence community, so he personally had the credentials to be considered a reliable source. An investigative journalist employed by a top outfit with a reputation for fact-checking is as reliable a source as you will get for Andy Ngo, including for opinionated statements as the guideline says. VampaVampa (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

But if we just have that he has been described as such why would that be DUE? He has also been described as an asshole but I don't think we would include that either. I'm not sure how you have decided that Evans is an expert in the field. Being a reporter for something like Bellingcat is not proof of anything significant. The opinion of Bellingcat and it's writers are generally not going to be DUE in most articles, especially when the opinions are expressed in a personal podcast, not via Bellingcat. You are trying to make a strong claim from very weak threads. Springee (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

If you are saying the description is UNDUE then you are in effect saying it is a minority viewpoint and I've not seen any sourcing provided which demonstrates that by contradicting it aside from Ngo and of course he would dispute it. TarnishedPath^talk 03:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I was using UNDUE as it is often used when BALASP might be more appropriate. Both, to some extent, cover things like minor ideas that don't make the articles better. Given the large volume of things said about Ngo, it does appear that few point out parallels to O'Keefe. Thus of the views expressed about Ngo, this one is a minor one. You seem to be suggesting this specific fact exists on a stand alone continuum between "very O'Keefe like" and "Not at all O'Keefe like" with an expectation that a range of sources would weigh in on that specific question. Using that narrow view of WEIGHT I would agree with you that DUE/UNDUE isn't the correct issue, it would be BALASP. That said, DUE and BALASP are related and people often say DUE/WEIGHT instead of BALASP when they mean a point too insignificant to bother including in the article. Springee (talk) 03:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

You are trivialising the disputed matter to make it seem unimportant. The question is not whether Ngo is O'Keefe-like or how he has been described in general, but who he was influenced by - compare this with alleging that an academic or a painter took inspiration from the activities of another. The views of reliable sources on this deserve to be reported even if they engage in speculation. Re Bellingcat (1) it is seen as reliable by major US institutions for its professionalism and fact-checking, it is not a question of "significance" (again) but reputation (if they are poorly regarded, what's your source for it?); (2) the guideline cited makes reliability of opinion content dependent on identity of author (here: a investigative journalist at Bellingcat), not source. Expert is someone with credentials for "special knowledge of a subject beyond that of the average person", no need to overblow it. VampaVampa (talk) 05:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm trivializing it because it is trivial. Bellingcat has nothing to do with this as Edwards wasn't doing his podcast for Bellingcat. Springee (talk) 11:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It's clearly not trivial if the description has been repeated by a number of other publications. Make specific attribution sure but this isn't nothing and is certainly significant given it has been repeated a number of times. TarnishedPath^talk 11:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not being repeated lots of times. So far I think we are at 3 but two are from the same author, same day and only one is in anytime resembling a decent source. The podcaster didn't say disciple so that doesn't support the claim in the wiki article. Springee (talk) 11:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Evans, not "Edwards". He said "spiritual disciple", what else did you read? Bellingcat is the source of Evans's credentials as a journalist (similar to employment of a scientist at a major university) while outlet is immaterial because the WP:NEWSORG guideline pivots on the identity of the author, not the place of publication. Nazaryan in LAT is equally a RS if opinionated. Then there is the Roys Report. That's 3 unique sources meeting the threshold. The claim is not trivial because it concerns Ngo's influences. Everybody except sheer geniuses (or even them) follows in someone's footsteps, it's the ABC of any notable activity. I am not sure if you are disagreeing with anything or deliberately misreading the arguments.

Regardless, per WP:BLPSELFPUB, we are entitled to use the Peterson interview with Ngo. Starting from around 1:06:10, Ngo says that while he was not "mentored" by O'Keefe or Project Veritas (not the only meaning of "disciple") he is "very supportive" of their "great" work. That does suggest (and at least in no way contradicts) that he has actively taken inspiration from them. What Ngo contests is "being in bed with violent extremists" (1:08:01) and that Project Veritas are anything more radical than a "conservative" group (1:06:55). But he claims Project Veritas do uniquely valuable work (1:06:25-1:06:36), that "what they do is important" (1:07:05, bit slurred, so not 100% sure) and that his book relied on "primary documents" obtained from them (1:07:12). In sum, he considers Project Veritas a groundbreaking act that has helped him write his only book. VampaVampa (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest you take your idea about that to something like RSN. A self published claim like that is generally acceptable if used to directly rebut an accusation made against the BLP subject but typically not acceptable for stand alone facts beyond boiler plate claims (birthday, home town etc). Springee (talk) 02:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

References