Talk:Andy Ngo/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

provoking violence revert

From the source: But it would be a mistake to think this violence came out of some vacuum-sealed ideological intolerance toward conservatives. Ngo has been building to a dramatic confrontation with the Portland far left for months, his star rising along with the severity of the encounters. “Hated by antifa,” Ngo’s Twitter biography read before and after the attack. Scary-looking antifa marchers glare from his account’s banner image. Before I arrived in Portland, he suggested that it might be good for my story to go get a drink with him at Cider Riot, a far-left hangout. The man’s literal brand is that anti-fascists are violent and loathe him. I'd submit that anyone who can't see how this quote supports the claim that Ngo is attempting to provoke a violent response doesn't belong on this project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

First, please strike your comment about other editors. Second, it may be better to try to figure out how to fix this text rather than make it binary to include/exclude the sentence as was. This is the edit in question, [[1]] with the disputed sentence highlighted:

It has been contended that Ngo seeks to provoke left-wing violence. BuzzFeed News reported that "[Ngo]'s literal brand is that anti-fascists are violent and loathe him", adding that he "has been building to a dramatic confrontation with the Portland far left for months, his star rising along with the severity of the encounters...[Ngo] is willing to make himself the story and to stream himself doing it. He proceeds from a worldview and seeks to confirm it, without asking to what degree his coverage becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy". California State University, San Bernardino extremism expert Brian Levin stated that Ngo was "a political pundit who certainly makes the most out of his conflicts, which sometimes turn violent on him...But to his credit, I’ve never seen him be the physical aggressor in the posts that he's made generally.”

Claiming that a BLP subject "seeks to provoke left-wing violence" in wiki voice is a very strong claim. Such a claim would require very clear sourcing to pass WP:V. Part of the problem is the sentence is too open ended. Does it mean he seeks to provoke left-wing extremists to riot or attack people in the street? Does it mean he just wants to provoke them into hitting Ngo so Ngo can play the victim? I think the first interpretation is clearly not supported. The second is arguably supported but if that is the intent we should be more clear. Springee (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Specificity is important. I suspect we can find more substantial Verification for text that addresses the provocative brand and its consequence. I don't currently have them at hand. Perhaps others do and can present them. SPECIFICO talk 15:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

No. I will not strike my comment, and I stand behind it fully. It is clearly supported by that source, and your denial of that fact is (assuming good faith, here) sheer incompetence. Because if it isn't incompetence, it's POV pushing and a deliberately dishonest edit summary. And finding more sources asserting the same thing is utterly trivial:

• "Ngo is not an innocent victim but a far-right sympathizer who has doxxed antifa members in the past, potentially facilitating their harassment, and provokes them so that he can broadcast the result."
• "What goes unmentioned is that Ngo had a history of “embedding” with right-wing groups — including, according to persuasive allegations he has denied, the white supremacist outfit Patriot Prayer — that provoke antifa into the very fights Ngo then films."

Do you know what depths of the internet I had to dive into to find those? Andy Ngo#References. Yeah, they're already used in the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The sentence in the article must be supported by the sources that it obviously references (hence WP:V). References in other parts of the article may support the claim but if they aren't obviously linked then the claim is still not supported. Remember there are two parts here, 1 provoke to violence (not just to protests or public comments but actual violence) and 2, who/what is the target of the violence. Looking at your two sources, VOX says he provokes them but doesn't say to what. It does not say to generalized violence. While VOX could mean generalized violence it's OR on our part to say that is what VOX meant. Also, VOX is attributing that sentence to others. The sentence just before the one you quoted is this, "But according to a second narrative, offered primarily by less well-known left-liberal writers and social media accounts, the mainstream media is getting it all wrong. " The LA Times article isn't talking about Ngo provoking, it says the right-wing groups are provoking. Springee (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

References in other parts of the article may support the claim but if they aren't obviously linked then the claim is still not supported. It was cited to the third source in the article which makes the claim. You reverted anyways, and falsely claimed that the source doesn't support it. Now, I've given you three citations for it. Are you going to revert yourself, of are you going to keep trying to convince me that assuming you're not POV pushing is a mistake? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree that we have any sources that properly support such an open ended sentence claiming Ngo is trying to provoke violence. Neither BZFN nor the NYT support the claim that Ngo is trying to provoke violence (unspecified type/target). Neither VOX nor LAT support the claim either. Springee (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Enough. PackMecEng (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So you're just lying through your teeth at this point. Got it. POV pushing it is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC) For lack of a good argument you are accusing others of lying? No reason for further discussions here. Springee (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC) @MjolnirPants: your unnecessary rudeness aside, if you want a sentence like "Some have accused Ngo of deliberately provoking violence" in the article, then put it back in, alongside quotes that actually back up that statement. It's not that hard. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC) Jesus christ, there should be a rule requiring people to read the thread before commenting in it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC) You absolutely are lying, and doing so to WP:GAME the 1rr restriction here. That's not a lack of an argument: I've already proven my case. Your blatant dishonesty doesn't change that fact. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• New proposal: Some have contended that Ngo seeks to provoke left-wingers into aggression, often citing the instance where Ngo was hit with a milkshake after instigating protestors.

Sources being:

-Dickson, E. J. (2019-09-03). "How a Right-Wing Troll Managed to Manipulate the Mainstream Media". Rolling Stone.

-Beauchamp, Zack (2019-07-03). "The assault on conservative journalist Andy Ngo, explained". Vox.

Hoping this is a good compromise. Open to suggestions though of course. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 02:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC) Courtesy ping: @SPECIFICO, @Springee, @MjolnirPants. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 02:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it's going firmly in the right direction. "seeks to provoke" is good. It fits with things like the claim that he promoted James Damore with the intent to get a left wing response which he could then use to make the responders look bad. We should not use the term "left-winger" as it's dismissive. "Left-wing activists" is better but I still feel it comes off as dismissive. Political opponents might work but then it presupposes that he sees these people as such. The VOX source links into this general claim nicely, perhaps it can be simply cited to VOX rather than being treated as a topic sentence for the paragraph. I'm not sure that the RS source really supports the sentence.

Perhaps a better way to handle this is ask what we want this paragraph to say. Initially we had a topic sentence and two supporting sentences. The supporting sentences were individually supported by citations but the topic sentence wasn't a good summary of the other two. Now we would be taking the topic sentence and turning it into a supporting sentence. In that case what is the topic of the paragraph? If the topic is "Ngo, through his reporting, engages with his subjects to provoke a negative response which Ngo feels will drive engagement with his followers" (I feel that is the intent of the paragraph) then that isn't so much "Reception" as his "Method". But since we don't have a Methods section perhaps reception is the best place for this. Anyway, it would seem the central theme is that he isn't acting as a simple journalist, reporting on but not influencing the subjects of his reporting. Instead he is attempting to engage and provoke his subjects in order to drive engagement with his audience. Sorry if that is a bit repetitive. Hopefully it provides something more to work from. Springee (talk) 02:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Draft based on Springee's comments: Ngo has been known to be provocative with his political opponents in order to gain self-promotion from their elicited aggression and negative responses, often inserting himself into and influencing the very same stories he reports.

You really got my writing juices flowing with your comment, lol. Here's my rework. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 03:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• I think that is close. I don't like "been known to". Either we need to clearly attribute (directly to a source or generally) or we need it in Wiki voice. My feeling is this is something that needs attribution (note that VOX does attribute the statements to Ngo's critics on the activist left). We might just attribute to the comment to VOX though it really works as a summary for the other sentences as well. Either way, I think this is getting to a solution all can be OK with. Springee (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Neither of those two proposals are accurate. We have multiple sources directly stating that he provokes violence from anti-fascists in order to film it. Springee's objections that the sources don't support that are demonstrable lies, with the evidence right here in this thread. For us to say anything less than "Ngo provokes violence from anti-fascists" would be a disservice to the reader, and a violation of our purpose. Whether or not it's attributed doesn't matter to me, though if we're going to attribute it, we should quote each source individually, to ensure that it's not portrayed as some one-off comment by an RS. The first proposal comes closest to accuracy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: What about something along these lines? Ngo has provoked violence from his political opponents in order to gain self-promotion from their elicited responses, often inserting himself into and influencing the very same stories he reports. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 18:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I would oppose that because it puts the claim that he is trying to provoke in Wiki voice. Also, I don't see that we have clear sourcing regarding "violence" as the intended outcome (see the Damore example). Springee (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm just gonna keep trying. I think the sources very clearly regards provoked violence as one of Ngo's usual intents. That said, I think we can perhaps word it more neutrally like this:

Ngo's brand has been labeled as combative due to past instances where he has purposefully aggravated political opponents in order to gain self-promotion from their elicited responses.

Hopefully that now encapsulates both of your points a little better? Combative is less strong than violent and it's now not in Wikivoice. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 19:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that is fair and would be supportive of using that sentence to replace the one Korny O'Near removed. Springee (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Third times the charm (Hopefully @MjolnirPants agrees) ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 20:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, one thing I think we need, he is accused of doing this so we should make that a generalized attribution. Something like, "due to past instances where he purportedly purposefully aggravated...”. Even if all sources agree he did insert himself we can't know that was his intent. We also have VOX saying this is something the left accuses him of. Springee (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with that change. One other tweak I'm considering is changing "brand" to something more specific like "conduct related to his occupation" or "deportment". ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 22:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there's only one person quoted in any of the cited sources who has directly stated that Ngo deliberately provokes left-wing violence, and that's Charlotte Clymer, in this two-tweet thread from 2019, quoted in the Vox piece. Perhaps there are other examples I've missed. But if it's really just one person, maybe this sentence is not worth including at all? It's an awfully small peg to hang such a large accusation on. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Where did "brand" and "combative" come from? These words seem to water down the language and slightly distance it from Ngo himself, and I'm not sure that they accurately reflect the sources. –dlthewave ☎ 01:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I think I do like something like "Ngo [something something] his political opponents in order to gain self-promotion from their elicited responses, often inserting himself into and influencing the very same stories he reports", though I agree I don't really know where "combative" comes from. "Brand" comes from the Buzzfeed piece at least: The man’s literal brand is that anti-fascists are violent and loathe him, reads a little strangely in the suggested wording above though.

My reading of the three sources linked above is that Ngo "provoking" his political opponents into violence is something people have accused Ngo of, but it's too strong of a word for the authors liking. E.g. Nothing he did that day suggested that he planned or even secretly wanted to be assaulted, which has been a common enough refrain in the days since from some on the left. The attack was not provoked.[2] However, "antagonize" is something I saw in the sources (as opposed to "combative", dunno where that came from), e.g. Ngo was already an antagonist of the Portland left, and had been for some time.[3], or Antifa members aren’t morally inert forces of nature. They have agency, and they don’t need to respond to Ngo’s antagonism with violence[4], or despite many left-wing activists in Portland accusing him of antagonizing them at rallies and selectively editing his footage to malign the left.[5] So I'd be happy with something like the string of a couple suggestions given above, but with antagonize as the verb as it's more true to the sources. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The labeled as combative was an attempt at distancing Wikivoice, but it doesn't really do that well, so I'm removing that and putting a new suggestion below. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 03:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The word "provoke" was used explicitly in two sources, but as "antagonize" and "provoke" are synonymous in this context, I don't have a preference for either. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• 5th proposal: Ngo has purposefully provoked political opponents in order to gain self-promotion from their elicited violent responses, often inserting himself into and influencing the very same stories he reports. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 03:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

FormalDude, Shibbolethink and I discussed the material here [[6]]. How would you feel about this sentence (the rest of the paragraph unchanged), "It has been contended that Ngo seeks to provoke confrontations with left wing activists via his reporting and social media presence." This is a more narrow attribution and better aligns with what BNF has said. It also makes it clear that he is directly provoking the left-wing activists to violence, rather his actions are contended to be part of a cycle that results in violence. Springee (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

We should avoid WP:WEASEL wording SPECIFICO talk 15:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Are you referring to "It has been contended"? We can simply state "BFN states". We shouldn't put this in Wiki voice. Springee (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think even BuzzFeed News has stated that Ngo has provoked violence, assuming you're referring to this article; it just says that there has been a "debate" about "the extent to which Ngo deliberately provokes angry and violent responses from anti-fascists", without specifying who's on the other side of the debate. In other words, some random Twitter users have said that Ngo is really the one to blame when he gets punched, which is hardly noteworthy. I still think the only person who has been explicitly quoted as holding this view is Charlotte Clymer. So maybe the sentence should begin, "According to left-wing activist Charlotte Clymer, ...". Korny O'Near (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Springee: I'm okay with that sentence. I'd prefer "left wing activists" be replaced with "political opponents" for the sake of neutrality. Everything else I'm more or less okay with. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 02:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

This whole discussion consists of trying to implement the ghost of the "provocateur" label from the first RfC on the "journalist" label. This is disruptive POV-pushing and reeks of being unable to accept consensus. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

They are somewhat similar, but ultimately unrelated in any substantial way. Not sure what you're off about with POV-pushing; this was a well discussed matter. What consensus are we not accepting? ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 19:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Restore quotes from PSU interfaith panel?

This edit also removed the following addition to the section about the PSU Vanguard controversy:

In the clip, the student states, in part, "in a Muslim country, in a country based on the Koranic laws, disbelieving, or being an infidel, is not allowed so you will be given the choice [to leave]." Ngo wrote alongside the video, "At @Portland_State interfaith panel today, the Muslim student speaker said that apostates will be killed or banished in an Islamic state."

I think it makes sense to re-add these quotes, so that readers can see what it was that actually caused the controversy in the first place. What do others think? Korny O'Near (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Adds a little bit of content, not sure that it is really needed though. Courtesy ping @Cedar777. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 16:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I mildly prefer this as it takes some of the subjectivity out of it but I don't think it's a big deal either way. Springee (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

One of the problems with including verbatim tweets “so that readers can see what actually caused the controversy” is that much of the coverage of Ngo revolves around a long series of controversies. Coverage of these controversies by RS is extensive (numbering 100+ In the article). Ngo himself also has had a lot to say via Twitter, the NY Post, and the Post Millennial - none of which offer firm footing to stand on for this platform as Wikipedia does not recognize these sources as credible. For an encyclopedia, summarized analysis of the subject by RS (secondary rather thuan primary) has more value than blow by blow quotations from Twitter. It’s a slippery slope to start quoting Ngo’s Twitter content when RS are readily available with summaries. Cedar777 (talk) 11:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see much of a slippery slope here. Yes, he's posted a lot on Twitter, but I believe only one of his tweets led to a controversy that's discussed in two full paragraphs of this article. As it is, it's strange to read all this blow-by-blow about whether what he wrote was accurate, ethical, etc. without actually reading the (one-sentence) tweet that's the subject of all the discussion. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

• This is a reasonable addition. WP:NPOV means we should seek to cover both sides of the dispute. I don't see why we're only covering the PSU newspaper's side which is that Ngo was fired for misleading his readers, while Ngo's position is completely omitted. Including the direct quotes is reasonable, given that they've been a) reported in a reliable source and b) are key to a reader's understanding whether or not the PSU's actions were justified. The paragraph as it is currently written is not a neutral summary and is only includes information from one point of view. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 17:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
• Slippery slope is a logical fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of a middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from having no primary sources to having lots of them. We can (and probably should) include this primary source, for reasons laid out by @Chess above. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 21:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who weighed in; I re-added the quote, based on this apparent rough consensus. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Baring no further objections, I support the edit re-adding the quote. I have no problem with someone reverting it though, since consensus required is in effect, and this is not (in my opinion) a consensus quite yet. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 16:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I second FormalDude's stance here. Springee (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment: "Journalist" in lede

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

Introduction: Through WP:RFCL I have been summoned here to bring you closure, which I will now do.
General: I closed the last RFC on this topic, the outcome of which was not the subject of any review or challenge. I reviewed our policies and precedents on what constitutes an involved editor for purposes of closure. I don’t find that my involvement as closer last time makes me involved as we define that term, nor have I self-identified any prior involvement on this, or closely related, articles, beyond closing a similar RfC a year ago.
Background: The last RfC found a consensus existed to describe the subject of this BLP as a journalist.
Headcount: By headcounting, 20 editors do not feel the subject of this BLP should be described as a journalist in the lead, while 18 feel he should. A handful of editors expressed opinions that don’t fit neatly within either column. Also, two “no” !voters said something to the effect of “no, or include more context”.
Arguments: Editors on both sides tried to advance the position that the subject’s activities either do meet, or don’t meet, the definition of what it is a journalist does. This was not compelling. As FormalDude correctly noted, "describing Ngo as a journalist because you think he fits that definition is …” WP:OR. There mere act of registering an account on Wikipedia does not make one qualified to conduct professional accreditations.
Editors on both sides also argued WP:RS, with some citing a variety of sources that described Ngo as a journalist, and others citing a variety of sources that describe Ngo using terms other than a journalist. This was more compelling. However, a comment by Masem (”Now, the criticism of Ngo's journalism activities may be discussed later in the lede if that needs to be, but it would be absolutely against our clinical and objective writing approach to omit that fundamental fact that he was once a journalist.”) essentially observed, if I can apply some interpretation with the context of the larger discussion, that the sources using terms other than a journalist to describe Ngo merely provide possibilities of other vocational descriptors and don’t exclude the possibility he is/was a journalist. Another !voter cited the case of Michael Moore. If I understand this argument, which was also made by Chess, the fact that a source calls Wes Anderson a director does not exclude the possibility that he is also a screenwriter unless that source says “Wes Anderson is not a screenwriter” or something to that effect. Can Ngo be both a “journalist” and, for instance, a “right-wing activist”? This started to get a little ontological. However, a rebuttal to this was advanced by FormalDude, and a few others, who cited WP:WEIGHT. In surrebuttal, it was imperfectly hinted at that WEIGHT describes significant viewpoints, not majoritarian viewpoints; that a significant viewpoint of RS can exist in the minority.
Conclusion: In the last RfC, there was a consensus to describe Ngo as a journalist. Things have changed slightly in this RfC. Now, there is no consensus to describe Ngo as a journalist. Nor, however, is there a consensus to obliviate that term from the lead. The status quo should be maintained.
Until next year's RfC,
Chetsford (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

---

Survey (RfC "Journalist" in lede #2)

Question: Should we describe Andy Ngo as a journalist in the lead?
Note: An RfC last fall came to a consensus to call Ngo a journalist in the article lead section [[7]]. New sources taking issue with calling Ngo a journalist is the main reason to reevaluate this. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 05:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link to old rfc: Talk:Andy_Ngo/Archive_8#RFC:_"journalist". Summoned by bot, reviewing the sources now. Hipocrite (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Do not call him a journalist in the lede. A quick google news search shows "writer", "right-wing commentator", "social media–era political provocateur", "writer-activist", "Conservative Writer" and other such variations. It's easy to find year-old and older sources that call him a journalist, but newer works are embracing a wider variety of terms, with an emphasis on "writer". There are still a few references to him as a journalist around, but they sometimes take the form of "...he purports to be an independent journalist objectively documenting extremist violence perpetrated by left-wing “antifa” activists but has been credibly accused of having a working partnership with also-quite-violent far-right white nationalist gangs..." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  Just a heads up, on your last source Yahoo, they say conservative journalist. They say writer in the headline only which is not a RS per WP:HEADLINES. PackMecEng (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Do not call Ngo a journalist. There is clear reason to overturn the previous RFC based on how many reliable sources see Andy Ngo as dishonest/misleading/lacking credibility as a journalist: Rolling Stone, CNN, Harvard academic Joan Donovan for MIT Technology Review, Salon (magazine) The Oregonian, Media Matters for America, BuzzFeed News, The Intercept, The Guardian,[8] NME,[9] Los Angeles Times[10], New York (magazine)[11], renowned public intellectual and Yale Professor Jason Stanley in an interview for the SPLC,, Columbia Journalism Review, plus[12][13], a report by Harvard's Nieman Foundation for Journalism by four subject-matter experts with impeccable credentials, Above the Law. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 05:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Did any of those sources come out after the last RfC? If not, other than hoping the mix of editors had changed, why would you expect a different result this time? Springee (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Reviewing the list, almost all of those are the same sources that were around for the last RfC. The only new ones involve music/pop sources talking about the banjoist for Mumford and Son. So basically we have no new sources for this RfC. Springee (talk) 12:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

It is not at all accurate to claim there are no new RS describing Ngo since the last RFC. See the dozen plus listings provided by myself and several other editors on this thread. Cedar777 (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I want to make it clear that those new sources were provided after my comment above which was looking at the sources in the edit to which I was replying. While we are able to find new sources that don't refer to Ngo specifically as a journalist, we also have new sources that do. Hence, what has changed in the ~8 months since the previous RfC closed? Springee (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The quality of the sources referring to him as an activist/writer/author/provocateur/commentator has grown stronger and more diverse while the opposite can be said of those sources listed as naming him a journalist. Consider both the quality and diversity of sources from the last 9 months that support the new RFC: Columbia Journalism Review, the International Journal of Communication, coverage in top notch British newspapers including The Times and The Sunday Times, along with Bellingcat, Religion News Services, Relevant (magazine), a major profile in The Oregonian, and reviews in the Los Angeles Times and from Kirkus Reviews. This in addition to leading academic researchers at Harvard (Donovan) and at Yale (Stanley). The recent sources referring to Ngo as a journalist have lesser quality and include a Forbes(contributor - not Forbes itself), the New York Post (considered unreliable), Fox News (not reliable for politics), and Newsweek (also considered to be rather wobbly and unreliable). Cedar777 (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The number of hats he has been wearing (both objectively and subjectively) has also increased. For example, now that he has a published book that has sold well the "author" description is clearly appropriate. Commentator is also reasonable given he is frequently interviewed. So if a impartial reporter were to mention Ngo tomorrow which of the long list of possible descriptors should they use? For us to say that he clearly isn't a journalist is honestly OR on our part since we have plenty of sources that say he is (without claiming quality). Springee (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

If you read the above discussion you'll notice Ngo is much more frequently referred to as an author/writer in RS following the publication of his book. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 14:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Do not call, or refer to him as, a journalist in the article voice at any point in the article. Per the sources above, it is not how he is primarily described; and based on both mainstream coverage and the article itself, his self-description as a journalist is not really his main source of notability. Most modern sources treat him as an activist or commentator instead. The fact that high-quality sources overtly strike doubt on that self-description is extremely striking (it is the sort of thing sources are generally extremely reluctant to do) and makes it unequivocal that it falls under WP:NPOV's restriction of Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. Note that simply producing other, competing sources referring to him as a journalist is not sufficient as long as significant numbers of high quality sources exist overtly casting doubt on the claim; as NPOV says, 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. Using it in the article voice would require demonstrating that it is an uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertion, which is flatly and indisputably untrue. --Aquillion (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Journalist is his profession. Even if people who don't like my plumber say he isn't a real plumber, that's still what he is.North8000 (talk) 09:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

My comment is only if this RFC stays open, which it sounds like it shouldn'tNorth8000 (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Include more context directly (1st choice) or Do not. Specifically, there is clearly a dispute in reliable sources as to if he is a "journalist," and what it means to be a journalist. For example, [14] is the source which most directly addresses this. Other examples of people described as "a as b" include Elizabeth Bruenig ("an American journalist working as an opinion writer for The Atlantic"), Adrian Finighan ("a Welsh journalist, working as a presenter and reporter for the television channel Al Jazeera English"), in addition to many, many more. As such, I proposed the following - "... American conservative journalist (accused of being a right wing provocateur)...," where the part in the () can be workshopped - I do not propose including a paranthetical? Hipocrite (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)

Disruptive RFC, previous outcome should stand. The previous RFC was less than a year back. The purposer had made no suggestion that anything has changed in the last 8 months since the previous close that should be seen as changing a consensus to include. That makes this RfC disruptive. Springee (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Other comments here show how several new WP:RS have appeared since the last RFC, as stated by @MjolnirPants. I think this is a clear reason for a new RFC. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 14:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Also pinging @K.e.coffman: and @Cedar777:. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 14:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude: I don't like that you selectively pinged two people who !voted in favour of removing the journalist label. Canvassing isn't cool. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 07:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

It is more likely we were pinged due to our recent talk page comments on this matter, e.g., July 9 for myself [Diff] and July 6 for K.e.coffman [Diff] rather than our vote on an RFC many months ago. Having a civil discussion about the most appropriate terminology to use when describing Ngo is what the talk page is designed for. Cedar777 (talk) 09:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Shocking, given that people who didn't agree with FormalDude weren't pinged. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 17:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Cedar777 is correct. Looks like I should not have A.A.G.F. and instead should've mentioned why I was pinging them in my initial comment. Oh 🐳 ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 05:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Just pinging Without suggesting that they need to participate again, I note participants in the November 2020 RfC included: Coffeeandcrumbs Wikieditor19920 Cedar777 Dorsetonian Shinealittlelight NorthBySouthBaranof Snooganssnoogans Masem Springee Some of everything Blueboar O3000 Morbidthoughts Chess TFD Truth Is King Rhododendrites Aquillion Idealigic Binksternet Stuartyeates PackMecEng Davide King 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 Bacondrum RandomGnome Guy Anne Drew Spy-cicle. Closed by Chetsford on 29 November 2020. If this RfC is not discarded, then I believe the next closer should determine whether this fits WP:CCC "consensus can change" description, or WP:CCC "disruptive" description. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Maintain in the lede sentence. The opening sentence of any article needs to be 100% objective and free of characterization, even if that characterization is well sourced. For a bio, this is generally just listing out their broad profession list (see, pretty much nearly any other bio) Ngo was a journalist, he may not be anymore nor that may not be what he is primarily considered now, but at one point he was absolutely a journalist. Now, the criticism of Ngo's journalism activities may be discussed later in the lede if that needs to be, but it would be absolutely against our clinical and objective writing approach to omit that fundamental fact that he was once a journalist. --Masem (t) 14:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  I'd just like to point out that your logic here would support "X is a student of Y" for any BLP where X is a professional Y, because at one point, they absolutely were a student. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Not a journalist. Of course the old sources identified Ngo as a provocateur and activist, a falsifier of facts, a politically motivated agent of the far right. New sources: The Portland Monthly says "far-right provocateur". The Los Angeles Times writing about his new book says he is "supremely dishonest" (opposite of journalist) who is "churning out the very kind propaganda that keeps authoritarians in power." The Willamette Week says he is a "right-wing author" and a "media detractor". Oregon Live describes him as a propagandist who foments violence on the far right, a "self-described independent journalist"—a wording choice which means that the source does not endorse the label of journalist. ABC News says "conservative writer" and "author". There's more of this stuff out there. Binksternet (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Do not call him a journalist in the lead section or include more context directly. If reliable sources do indeed disagree, the solution is to not put a controversial or non-agreed label but either not do it, or find a way to include more context directly, or use the label but add a note, although I can understand if the latter suggestion may not be well-accepted by everyone. It is always better to use a clarifying sentence rather than put a label on which major reliable sources may disagree or provide many caveats. This is what should be done when there is disagreement among sources. Even if some generally reliable sources describe him as a journalist, equally reliable sources do not or have several caveats, it means there is a disagreement and it cannot be solved by cherry picking the sources which do refer to him as such, rather than write a sentence explaining the disagreement. Even by clarifying his controversy in the next paragraph, by using the journalist label, rather than writer or something else, as we currently do, we are, directly or indirectly, giving more weight to those who refer him as journalist, even as almost all of them add caveats to the journalist label. Even if "almost all of those are the same sources that were around for the last RfC", ultimately I find persuasive FormalDude's reasoning that "Ngo is much more frequently referred to as an author/writer in RS following the publication of his book", Aquillion's comment, and Hipocrite's suggestion to use more context directly. Davide King (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Do not call Ngo a journalist. Although Ngo meets the dictionary definition of a journalist (a person who writes articles for publication), calling him that without qualification implies that he follows professional standards. If we call him a journalist, then we need to qualify it so that there is no suggestion that he is a professional journalist. We could call him for example a conservative journalist, citizen journalist, etc. TFD (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The article currently says "conservative journalist". The others voting 'do not' are clearly not happy with that. Since this comment actually supports the status quo, closers should evaluate it accordingly. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Remove, clearly not an actual journalist, as the sources make clear. Writer, activist, author, sure. Journalism is a profession, not something one claims. ValarianB (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep and remove this RfC. Yes, he's a journalist. Even if you hate his work and think he's a shitty journalist who's a right-wing "provacateur" (whatever the hell that term means) that doesn't make him not a journalist. "Journalist" is not a controlled term. You don't need a licence in the United States to be a journalist, you don't need to abide by any ethical rules, and there's no self-regulatory body that polices journalism. A journalist is someone who reports or otherwise deals with the news and Andy Ngo does that as established by numerous reliable sources. We can't invent our own vaguely defined "standard of behavior and professionalization" that journalists have to abide by to be considered such. That's practically WP:Original Research. I'm also seeing a lot of vaguely defined references to how Andy Ngo's status as a journalist is "hotly contested" with links to articles that describe Ngo as a "conservative writer". That's not contesting his status as a journalist; it's possible for someone to be both a journalist and an activist or political writer. Traditionally journalists have tried to be officially apolitical in a North America context with political writers not falling into the "journalist" category but nowadays with Fox News and CNN there are an incredibly large amount of people who blur those lines and openly cross it with Marci Ien being a Canadian broadcast journalist who's currently running for political office. There is no reason why the lede can't describe him as a "conservative writer and journalist".

I copied and pasted my last RfC response since nothing has changed since the last RfC. This is just a shoddy attempt to denigrate Ngo by creating imaginary journalism standards that Ngo needs to abide by and then stripping his title of "journalist" because he failed to follow them. Being a bad journalist does not mean someone is not a journalist at all.

The RfC itself is also not a neutrally worded worded statement and doesn't clearly give us something to support or oppose. Not much has changed since the last RfC and all of these arguments were rehashed before. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 17:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Please see the Wikipedia article for Michael Moore. It has a section under career for Journalism while it avoids describing Moore as a journalist in the lede. Like Ngo, Moore began his career as a student reporter and was later let go from a publisher - “fired for reporting the truth”. Moore’s status as a writer, author, filmmaker, and activist is uncontested. This is why these words are better suited for the lede.

Many editors here are not pushing to wipe all mention of journalism from Ngo’s profile but rather to recognize the uncontested aspects of his work in the lede: author, writer, activist, and social media personality. These are all neutral terms which are distinct from journalism but not lesser than. Cedar777 (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

First, there's no reason to remove this RfC, it's completely valid based on the discussion newly found sources have generated, and I have reworded it to be more neutral.

Second, we have to go by what a majority of significant reliable sources describe Andy Ngo as. In this case, it is as anything but a journalist. We're not inventing journalistic standards, we're merely reflecting what reliable sources already consider to be journalistic standards. Describing Ngo as a journalist because you think he fits that definition is WP:Original Research. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 20:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

"New sources taking issue with calling Ngo a journalist is the main reason to reevaluate this" isn't neutral because it presumes that these new sources exist and take issue with Ngo being called a journalist. Ngo is a journalist because reliable sources call him a journalist. When you take other sources that characterize him as an "author" or "writer" and say that because he is an author/writer he cannot be a journalist you're performing SYNTH. When you take one source that provides defines journalistic standards (such as political neutrality) and another source that evaluates Ngo as not meeting some of those standards (Ngo isn't politically neutral) then you're performing SYNTH when you say "because Ngo isn't politically neutral he is not a journalist". Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Two sources directly challenge that Ngo is a journalist:

Above the law calls him a "perfidious pseudo-journalist"

Los Angeles Times writing about his new book says he is "supremely dishonest" (opposite of journalist) who is "churning out the very kind propaganda that keeps authoritarians in power."

And the sources listed in this RfC are characterizing his occupation as a writer/author/etc, which is affirmation that he should be characterized as that rather than as a journalist. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 20:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude: The first source is a trade publication. The second source doesn't actually support the claim. Again, the source has to actually say that Ngo is not a journalist. You can't just find sources that talk about what a bad person Ngo is and WP:SYNTHESIZE mental gymnastics to claim that Ngo is not a journalist. It may shock you but it's possible for journalists to be dishonest and churn out propaganda for authoritarians. Just go back a few decades and look at the state media of many communist countries.

There is a distinction between being a bad journalist and not being a journalist at all. Most of the sources presented at most support the claim that Ngo is a "bad journalist" (if you're willing to violate SYNTH to get there). Not that he isn't a journalist at all. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Why do they go out of their way not to call him a journalist then? Why is he referred to as a "far-right author" and "right-wing pundit" more often that "journalist"? How do you come to the conclusion that he's just a bad journalist? The sources clearly mean to imply that he is anything but a journalist. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 21:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

This argument that Ngo not being described as a journalist means that these sources somehow dispute the label of journalist is absurd mental gymnastics that was presented at the last RfC and soundly rejected as original research. Saying the "sources clearly mean to imply" that Ngo is not a journalist is laughable and WP:OR. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 07:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Mental gymnastics is a quite the hyperbolic characterization. All I'm doing is assuming that someone who is often not called a journalist in reliable sources, and who's primary occupation is more often referred to as something else, is therefore not a journalist. Seems pretty logical to me. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 17:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per sources like NYT, Vox, WaPo, The Hill, CNN, ABC, and others who refer to Ngo as a journalist. We should stick to RS. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Pond-scum posting semi-refularly to news website counts as journalist, alas. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Not a journalist. Same reasons as in the last RFC. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - He is a journalist, and is employed as such. This appears to be another attempt to remove a reliably sourced description from the lead. There are plenty of sources from just within the last 30 days that use journalist - June 25, June 30, July 6, July 8, June 21, June 24, July 6. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Do not refer to him as a journalist. The RSs describing him as a journalist are in the minority, with most sources describing him as an author or by using other terms. Also, on a less technical note, I personally think that describing a far-right activist who makes woke-baiting videos and tries to provoke violence at protests as a "conservative journalist" is a whitewashing effort of the lowest kind. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a PR machine meant to soften the image of every far-right commentator out there. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Last fall I did a Google News search and found that "Andy Ngo" + journalist returned more hits than other searches using terms other than journalist. Running that search today I get 12,900 hits (again, Google news, Google web). "Andy Ngo" + author returns 2200, +writer returns 3900. I certainly can't say how many of those hits are saying Ngo is a type of X vs "is not X" or X describe Ngo as" etc. However, we can at least see "journalist" is still more frequently associated with his name vs writer, author etc. Springee (talk) 12:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The quantity of Google returns is a very poor gauge as it is divorced from the context in which the language is used and the quality of the sources. Cedar777 (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@PraiseVivec: Please voluntarily redact or alter the second sentence of your comment. Or provide some kind of source for the claim. You can't make uncited claims like that about a living person. Specifically, the second claim about Ngo's behaviour at protests. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure thing, Chess. Here's a (somewhat biased) source describing him in almost exactly words: "Far-right forces will converge on Portland tomorrow, incited by the right-wing provocateur Andy Ngo. Though he poses as a journalist, the purpose of his platform is to sow harassment and violence against his targets on the Left."

Calling Jacobin "somewhat biased" is like calling the USSR "somewhat left wing". Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 05:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Jacobin is generally considered left biased, but factually reliable: 1, 2, 3. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 01:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

As it happens, there is an open discussion at RSN regarding Jacobin here: [[15]]. Cedar777 (talk) 03:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Do not call him a journalist in the lede. The list of sources continues to grow and includes news analysis, international coverage along with an article in a high quality academic journal from USC Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism such as:

May 2021. Greenberg, Nathaniel. American Spring: How Russian State Media Translate American Protests for an Arab Audience. International Journal of Communication, published by the University of Southern California, Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism, Annenberg Press. It referes to Ngo as “the right-wing commentator and provocateur Andy Ngo”.

March 9, 2021. Mumfords star angers fans by praising right-wing author. The Times London, England. Ngo is described as an “American writer” who “has courted controversy by filming clashes between anti-fascist activists and members of the white nationalist group the Proud Boys at protests in the US.”

June 25, 2021. Social media mob drives Mumford star out of band; Musician who praised a right-wing book has become the latest cancel culture casualty, David Brown reports. The Times London, England. “Conservative author”

July 8, 2021. Colour revolution' is coming, says cancelled Mumford star. The Times London, England. “Conservative author”

July 11, 2021. How to Manufacture a Moral Panic New York Magazine “Still, this hysterical interpretation appealed to right-wing commentators like Andy Ngo, and Rufo later went on Newsmax to promote the misleading story further.”

July 18, 2021. Nimmo, Jamie. Marshall won't amplify views on cancel culture; Prufrock. The Sunday Times. London, England. “the right-wing US activist”

November 18, 2020. Million MAGA March: Unravelling a Violent Viral Video. Bellingcat "right-wing activist Andy Ngo"

June 3, 2021. Sparling, Zane. Ngo confirms attack while undercover at Portland protest. KOIN (local CBS affiliate). "right-wing author Andy Ngo"

June 25, 2021. Mathis-Lilley, Ben. Antifa Defeats Mumford & Sons. Slate (magazine). Andy Ngo is a social media–era political provocateur; he purports to be an independent journalist objectively documenting extremist violence perpetrated by left-wing “antifa” activists but has been credibly accused of having a working partnership with also-quite-violent far-right white nationalist gangs, like the Proud Boys, with whom antifa groups often come into conflict.

April 5, 2021. Smietana, Bob. Andy Ngo, antifa critic, dropped as speaker by Christian conference Q Ideas. Religion News Service. "Andy Ngo, antifa critic and conservative media personality

April 6, 2021. Christian Conference Q Ideas Has Dropped Right Wing Antifa Critic Andy Ngo From Its Lineup. Relevant (magazine). "Ngo is a conservative provocateur who has made headlines for decrying antifa — a group he portrays as super villains in the U.S. culture wars. Ngo’s journalistic tactics, which may include allegedly embedding with far-right groups (a claim he denies), have been called into question many times."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedar777 (talk • contribs)

July 15, 2021. What Winston Marshall’s Departure From Mumford & Sons Reveals About The Band’s Brand. Buzzfeed News. ”Andy Ngo, the right-wing provocateur who has made a career of demonizing antifa”

(+1 source)Cedar777 (talk) 09:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Cedar777: The fact that Ngo has been described as things other than a journalist does not preclude him from being a journalist. You are performing SYNTH by claiming this. You need to actually provide sources that say that Ngo is not a journalist, not invent your own criteria that because someone is an author, writer, or activist that they cannot be a journalist. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

As Aquillion more eloquently stated above, Ngo is not primarily described as a journalist - most modern sources treat him as an activist or commentator instead. We need to “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.” See Michael Moore for another figure that was initially involved in journalism but then became known as an author and activist with strong political views. Cedar777 (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You keep repeating that "Ngo is not primarily described as a journalist" as some kind of evidence that the label "journalist" is contested. This is in spite of the numerous sources from the last RfC that describe him as a journalist. Nothing has changed since the last RfC and you're making the exact same arguments as during the last RfC. These arguments, that because some sources don't describe Ngo as a journalist, that it means the label of journalist is somehow "disputed" were rejected as being WP:OR at the last RfC.

What if this RfC sought to describe Ngo as a "provocateur" or some other label based on two reliable sources? Would you agree that since the vast majority of sources don't describe Ngo as a provocateur, the label is "disputed" and shouldn't be added? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 07:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Chess:, there has been quite a lot written about Ngo and much of the difficulty lies in the fact that there are multiple sources for many different terms. Do we include all of them . . . or do we differentiate between them based on the quality and quantity of their use in RS? The article already has some 100 sources to wade through, yet Ngo continues to surface quite regularly in the news cycle. I disagree with the logic that editors should ignore new information that materializes, as you appear to be suggesting above. It is worth giving the bulk of it a carefully read to see if it offers any insights about the subject. Cedar777 (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Chess: The use of 'provocateur' is certainly more contentious than disuse of 'journalist'. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 05:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude: And yet at the last RfC, people (incl. the person I was replying to) supported replacing "journalist" with "provocateur". It makes me wonder about the logic of their support vote here, given that it directly contradicts the views they expressed at the last RfC. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Chess: I'm seeing more flaws in the logic of the opposition. Like, why bother bringing that up? If your argument is so logically sound, you should be able to make its point without using straw man arguments. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 06:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm bringing up the last RfC since nothing has actually changed since then. It would be a strawman but for the fact that the last RfC was based around advocating for the addition of the word "provocateur" in the lede and the person I'm replying to supported that for reasons that are completely at odds to their reasoning now. How was it OK to call Ngo a provocateur based on two sources but it's not OK now to call him a journalist based on dozens of sources? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 07:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Which two sources describing him as a provocateur are you referring to? Some of the seven existing sources listed after the term in the current article? (i.e., Columbia Journalism Review, Southern Poverty Law Center, the Independent, the Intercept, the Oregonian, Rolling Stone, and Relevant magazine) or are you referring to one of the three additional sources I listed as part of this RFC for July 2021 from Slate, the International Journal of Communication, or Buzzfeed News? Cedar777 (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Chess: New sources have arrived since the last RfC. And it is a strawman because this discussion is on the inclusion of the word journalist, not on replacing the word journalist with provocateur. Focus on why journalist must be included. I don't think there's any need to replace the word journalist since we already label Ngo an author. However, there is a need to remove journalist, because it is moot. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 15:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Those new sources have not said anything new about Ngo not being a journalist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The arguments presented here are WP:OR and not based in policy. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Are other journalists repeatedly described in RS as provocateurs? Perhaps the presence of 10+ sources using these terms might indiciate that Ngo is unusual in some respect. Cedar777 (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Chess: Arguments do not have to be new to have validity. Who's arguments are based on WP:OR?

This RfC seems to be an issue of what reliable sources refer to Ngo as most often. Those who see contention in the sources think it's not good to use a contentious word in the lede. Those who see journalist as being used most often think it should be used in the lede. In my opinion the RS are obviously not in agreement that Ngo is any sort of journalist. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 20:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

It is WP:OR to state that because newspapers are not referring to Ngo as a journalist, that they are somehow saying that Ngo is not a journalist at all. This is an argument that you have repeatedly made during this discussion and it is simply incompatible with policy. This is an argument that was made at the last RfC and was rejected due to being incompatible with WP:OR. Sources need to directly support the claims that you are making. You are claiming that reliable sources are stating that Ngo is not a journalist, despite the sources you're providing saying nothing on the matter of whether Ngo is or is not a journalist. You are performing WP:Original Research by making these bizarre claims based on your own personal opinions about what the sources are not saying. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Chess: I am not making the claim that Ngo is not a journalist, I am simply proposing removing the naming word "journalist" from the lede. We already use the naming words "author" and a "social media personality" in the lede. The only place that he is described as a journalist in the article is under the Andy Ngo#Credibility section. As has been brought up before, using "journalist" in the lede does not represent reliable sources' descriptions of him in proportion to their prominence. It would be unbalanced for Wikipedia to take a side on Ngo being a journalist given the contention among current RS. That is not WP:OR, it's following WP:MOS/Lead/BLP. ––FormalDude^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 00:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The assumption that there is "contention among current RS" is what's original research. You are assuming something without the sources actually saying that they dispute the characterization of Ngo as a journalist. That is textbook WP:OR. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Chess: What else are they doing, if not making a statement on Ngo's occupation by labeling it as "journalist" or something else entirely? This is getting ridiculous. ––FormalDude^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 04:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

They're just not taking a position on whether Ngo is a journalist. There's no rule that they have to take a position that Ngo is or is not a journalist. When the sources refer to Ngo as something other than a journalist, that does not mean they are saying he is not a journalist. Just that they're not saying that he is one. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Chess: I'm not eager to believe a user as experienced as you is capable of missing the point so badly. The sources are all taking a position on what they consider Ngo's occupation to be. Some call it a journalist, but many others do not. That is why we are trying to come to a conclusion as to whether journalist is a good label for his occupation out of the three currently being used in the article.

Please provide some substance in your future rebuttals because it really seems like you just personally consider Ngo to be a journalist. ––FormalDude ^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 03:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

At this point we're going in circles and more discussion isn't going to get us anywhere. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Do not call him a journalist in the lede if its being disputed among sources whether he is an actual journalist and given other descriptors such as writer and activist. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 07:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep(Summoned by bot) I endorse everything said by Masem above, the proper place to cover his controversial and partisan methods etc. is in paras 2 & 3 of the lead and in the body. Firstly, there are simply too many sources using 'journalist', including recent ones, to ignore. Secondly, 'journalist' is not a quality or integrity label - it's a broad category of employment and it is peculiarly naive to think that many journalists do not behave in biased or provocative fashions to trigger a response or create a story, even if that is done simply by asking leading questions, using a photo out of context etc. Ngo maybe takes such provocative behaviour to new levels - and he has been caught out brazenly going beyond previously acceptabile norms. IMO, from the little I read, the guy is truly terrible and worthless, but an unscrupulous, biased, dishonest and truly terrible journalist is still a journalist. Pincrete (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  The characterization of Andy Ngo as a journalist is something that is clearly disputed among multiple reliable sources, and Wikipedia should not be the one to make such a determination. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 05:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

  Wikipedia's tone on BLP should not be leading an article's first sentence on a topic based on characterization from RSes (which may be both inclusion and absence of information). Characterization that is key to their notability (of which there is plenty surrounding Ngo) can be included later in the lede, but the lede sentence should stay to the most objective aspects of a person even if those aspects aren't why they are notable. This is necessary to keep an dispassionate and impartial tone to the Wikivoice. There is no requirement at all that the lede sentence alone must establish why a person is notable - that should be the result of the cumulation of the lede section if not the first paragraph of the lede. That he is/was a journalist for at least two publications makes him being a journalist an objective, non-characterizing statement. That his methods/actions/behavior as a journalist led to criticism of his approach by RSes can be spoked about after that sentence. --Masem (t) 18:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

  I completely disagree that Ngo being a journalist is an objective statement. Reliable sources sway from calling him a journalist to a writer to a pundit. We already label him an author and social media commentator, which I agree are objective statements. But the number of sources that challenge the notion he's a journalist means it is a subjective opinion to label him as one. Something like "self-described journalist" as per The Oregonian would be much better and more objective. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 18:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. Reliable sources refer to him as a journalist. Sea Ane (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - he makes his living reporting on current events; that's pretty much the entire definition of a journalist. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• No it is not. Are all the breathless Facebookers' with daily dog and cat updates "journalists"? SPECIFICO talk 19:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Do their pets' activities count as news? If so, then yes. An Antifa protest is surely news. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Do unsubstantiated and false narratives count as news? SPECIFICO talk 19:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

They count as journalism, yes. Especially when coupled with actual reportage, such as video footage. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Korny O'Near: No they do not... that's like calling a military imposter a type of soldier. A fake & uncredible reporter is no journalist. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 20:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Korny O'Near: Not on Wikipedia, they don't. I suggest you review our policies and guidelines on Verification, NPOV, RS, primary sources (your videos) etc. SPECIFICO talk 20:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Korny O'Near:An Antifa protest is surely news. Do you believe that the insurrection at the Capitol was in fact an Antifa protest? SPECIFICO talk 21:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of what you think of Andy Ngo, I have to laugh at the insinuation here that the word "journalist" implies competence or honesty. The obvious example would be Pulitzer Prize-winning Walter Duranty of The New York Times, who told the world that there was no famine in the Soviet Union in the 1930s. (He was off by about 8 million people.) What would you say his occupation was? Korny O'Near (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Korny O'Near: Walter Duranty has seen multiple campaigns to have his Pulitzer posthumously revoked because of his failure to uphold journalistic morals and integrity. If you compare him to someone else who reported on the holodomor, Gareth Jones, one is clearly a journalist and one is clearly not.

The more you talk the more I think SPECIFICO is probably right about you beleiving the Capital attack was done by "Antifa". ––FormalDude^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 21:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to believe what you want; I don't really care. As for Duranty - I've never seen a campaign to label him "not a journalist". Korny O'Near (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Try reading some time. New York Times Statement About 1932 Pulitzer Prize Awarded to Walter Duranty. ––FormalDude^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 21:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I read it, and it has no bearing on what I said. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude and SPECIFICO: What exactly is the point of discussing an editor's belief on a subject wholly unrelated to the topic at hand? What actual relevance does Korny O'Near's opinion have here? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Chess: Ummm... whether or not they hold blatant fringe conspiracy theories in general to be true or not? Which kinda makes any points they have void? ––FormalDude^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 04:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I could hold the fringiest of fringe views, and it wouldn't affect the validity of my statements here. I urge you to review Wikipedia guidelines on RFCs, not to mention on civility. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Yes/Keep. The arguments against are original research, and frankly this whole RfC is inappropriate and akin to WP:Forum shopping by asking again and again hoping to get the preferred, POV answer. On top of the many sources in support noted above and below, see Slate from today, which would be biased against him if anything: Jordan invited conservative journalist Andy Ngo to testify... [16] It doesn't matter how much some editors valorize journalism by concluding that someone who does it badly or is biased is necessarily not a journalist, or that some sources use other terms; these have no bearing on the fact that very many do use the term and it describes his occupation and what he is notable for. The lead currently calls him a "conservative journalist", which is fine and fits many sources anyway. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• No "journalist" in lead. He writes fringe or worse for publication. Tagging him a journalist in the lead would misinform our readers. SPECIFICO talk 01:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• No; in the last RfC, some sources were provided to support the descrption of him as a journalist, while others were provided to indicate that he was not a journalist and calling him one was misleading; though it was decided at that time to retain the description, subsequent events and many further statements by reliable sources, listed in the section above this make it appropriate to revisit the issue, and make it clearer that calling him a journalist, especially in wikivoice, does not represent reliable sources' descriptions of him in proportion to their prominence. -sche (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, as per others above this appears to be adequately sourced. — Czello 07:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, per arguements and sources above. Journalist is used in recent reliable sources, and the arguements against inclusion seem to border on WP:OR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  But, @ScottishFinnishRadish, that's a misrepresentation of the arguments against inclusion. By not including the word "journalist", Wikipedia isn't taking any stance on if Ngo is a journalist. By including it, though, we are saying he without a doubt is one. And that is the issue, because reliable sources contest that, and the lede should only make uncontested claims that are fully supported by reliable sources. It is complete WP:UNDUE weight for us to only present sources that claim Ngo's occupation is a journalist when there exists a multitude of other reliable sources that label his occupation something else entirely.

  And nobody is proposing that we say Ngo is without a doubt not a journalist, as we would have to change the text to say something like "Ngo is not considered a journalist" and that has obviously not been suggested by anyone. ––FormalDude ^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 23:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  FormalDude, WP:BLUDGEON ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  You're the first not to respond in good faith to my comments continuing discussion. Guess that's my sign to take a break from this RfC for a while. ––FormalDude ^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 23:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - The majority of sources refer to him as such. Sources calling him something different do not really matter here, nor do personal opinions on what political leaning can be considered journalist. While there are some sources that directly oppose him being titled a journalist they seem to be a tiny minority and as such a fringe view. We do not promote fringe views of a subject in their lead. Lets just stick with previous consensus and what RS largely refer to him as and keep personal opinions to a minimum. PackMecEng (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  @PackMecEng: You can't say the sources that make a statement on Ngo's occupation "do not really matter here" ONLY about the ones that don't refer to him as a journalist. On this discussion of whether or not to include the word "journalist" when describing Ngo's occupation in the lede, ALL reliable sources that make a statement on his occupation matter. ––FormalDude ^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 23:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  FormalDude, Sure I can. Because we do not count fringe claims. PackMecEng (talk) 00:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

  @PackMecEng: None of the eleven sources listed above by Cedar777 are 'fringe claims'. They're all significant and reliable and they all call Ngo's occupation something other than "journalist". ––FormalDude ^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 00:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

  You are mistaking reliable and fringe. It can be a reliable source but pushing a minority viewpoint (ie fringe). After looking at the previous RFC and an intensive review of all the current sources its hard to come to any other conclusion sadly. If anything it has shifted to be more strongly in favor of journalist vs any other title. PackMecEng (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

That is a remarkable conclusion. They are mainstream viewpoints, clearly, by the shear number of significant reliable sources. To wave them off as fringe is completely undue and grossly inaccurate. ––FormalDude ^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 01:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Remove: What's the primary thing Ngo is known for? It's not for his actual reporting, certainly: he writes for a very small conservative online-only publication that reliable sources don't regard as anything close to reliable. Rather, Ngo is mainly known for conserative political activism under the guise of reporting. This basic fact is why we don't call James O'Keefe a journalist in the lede of his article even though he arguably has more claim to the title, seeing as he does actually report things. (Note that this opinion is not based on there being new RSes: I would have said this at the previous RfC if I'd been there. I think the sourcing for this has been pretty clear for quite a while.) Loki (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

  The reason why James O'Keefe is labelled the way he is was because of an RfC with minimal participation one and a half years ago where the closer decided to ignore WP:NOTVOTE. See Talk:James O'Keefe/Archive 9#RfC. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

  As one of the participants in that RfC, "journalist" was never one of the options. The options were "activist" or "conspiracy theorist", later changed to "political provocateur". I'm not aware of any time we've described O'Keefe as a journalist. Loki (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Remove: after the publication of Ngo's book in 2021, sources largely changed their description of Ngo to "author" or "writer", as shown above. I conducted a similar review and arrived at the same conclusion. Since the sources has shifted, so should the wiki page. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Sources

• Keep per reasons all provided in the previous RfC and Springee. The context of many of the sources provided that do not call him a "journalist", is that is the a burst of coverage surrounding a book release so they were more likely to refer to him as author/writer. Whether or not you think is a discredited or unreliable "journalist" is irrelevant. A "journalist" is just a person who writes for newspapers, magazines, or news websites or prepares news to be broadcast. Per the RSs, like those provided by Springee and others, stick with calling a journalist in the lead. Also I am requesting the admin closer should place a moratorium in any such RfCs on "journalist in the lead"-like discussions considering the previosu RfC was only 7 months ago. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd request the closer to please not place any such moratorium unless they find clear and abundant consensus to keep. Any other result should not include a moratorium on future RfCs. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 18:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Spice, we are not writing a dictionary here. It's an encyclopedia. Among the many alternative meanings of such words as "journalist" we need to be aware that its use for Ngo would be understood by a significant proportion of our readers to suggest that Ngo adheres to, or is even aware of, commonly accepted norms of what's called journalism. Sources tell us that he does not. Hence, because we have many other words that sources use to convey what Ngo's doing we should use one that is mainstream, accurate, and unambiguous. Not one that's not been used much recently, misleading -- and one that will needlessly be misunderstood by a signicant proportion of readers who come here without prior knowledge to learn about him. SPECIFICO talk 19:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• If Wiki is not a dictionary (I was just using the definition as an example) I suggest you tell that to those others above who argue removing the term "journalist" because the term apperently means being ethical and upholding some standards, which defintions do not neccessarily say. RSs call him one consistently as mentioned by others so we should continue using it. Also my user name is not "spice" ;)  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. To quote Zack Beauchamp of Vox, There's also a strange meme [...] that Ngo is somehow "not a journalist." This is clearly incorrect. Ngo is a writer and photographer who contributes to journalistic outlets. That's journalism, even if you don’t like the content.[17] The term "journalist" isn't a subjective evaluation of the quality of someone's work, you're still a journalist even if you suck at your job. It's unsurprising that that the one-word occupation very recent sources apply more commonly to him is "author", given both that he just published his recent book Unmasked, and that recent sources are often discussing him in relation to or in the context of that book. They don't call him that exclusively though, and taking some sources from Isaidnoway's and Crossroads' comment, there are plenty of reliable sources that prefer "journalist" as the one-word occupation from just the last two months: [18][19][20][21][22][23]. It's perfectly fine that some sources prefer "author" and some prefer "journalist" – they don't contradict! It's fine for us as an encyclopedia to tack on multiple occupations when describing someone (and I think, per many of the sources above, "activist"/"conservative activist"/"right-wing activist" should probably be tacked on too, possibly in place of the social media thing), even though it's preferable in a news article to just list one for quick context. There are indeed many sources that criticise Ngo for the factual accuracy of his reporting, which we (rightfully) summarise in the lead: the accuracy and credibility of his reporting have been disputed by other journalists. He has been frequently accused of sharing misleading or selective material, ... I don't see how the lead of this article is contradicting itself, and I don't buy the OR argument that his evident lack of credibility invalidates the pile of sources, including those listed above from as recently as June/July, calling him a "journalist". I guess I'll see you all next year for our next biannual RfC on the word "journalist" though. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 13:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

  Those supporting removal are not making an OR argument. They are making an argument about weight of reliable sources. Some sources label Ngo primarily as a journalist, but many others (I'd say about half of them) primarily label Ngo as something else entirely. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 19:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, and He should be described as a journalist; he clearly engages in the practice of journalism as his profession and that is a substantial part of his notability. I completely reject the argument that he somehow doesn't deserve to be described as a journalist. He should also be described as a political agent provocateur in the lede; sourcing is clear that he deliberately cultivates "trouble" as part of his schtick. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. The reporting and editorial work that Andy Ngo has done for the newspapers Quillette, The Post Millennial, and Wall Street Journal should qualify him to be described as a journalist in the lead section. I don't think the situation has changed much since October. The arguments Springee made were valid then and remain so now. And as power~enwiki says, we can describe him as other things too, not exclusively as a journalist.IvoryTower123 (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• No - simply not a journalist. Maybe possible to dig out a couple sources which refer to him as such but majority don’t. Indeed as sources below point out, terms like “propagandist” are much more frequent. Volunteer Marek 21:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep According to Merriam-Webster, a journalist is a "person engaged in journalism" or "a writer who aims at a mass audience". The word "journalist" does not imply that an individual is automatically moral, honest, or virtuous. There are good journalists and there are bad journalists. Ngo may very well be the latter. But it is our responsibility as Wikipedians to summarize what reliable sources say. And reliable sources such as the NYT, Vox, the BBC, and The Guardian have called him a "journalist" in recent coverage. ~ HAL333 21:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  That's an argument based on original research. What matters is that labeling Ngo a journalist is contentious among significant reliable sources. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 06:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

It's contentious if you view terms like "author"/"writer"/"activist" to contradict with "journalist", which is not really substantiated by anything. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

What about terms like "perfidious pseudo-journalist" and "propagandist"? Those would seem to contradict with journalist. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 19:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Where does the term "propagandist" come from? I didn't find it in any of the sources you linked (I think you said it came from here, but it doesn't). "Perfidious pseudo-journalist" comes from this article from abovethelaw.com, which is a fairly small/obscure legal (blog? news website?) that seems to have some issues at the very least. If the term was significantly contentious in reliable sources I don't think you'd have to dig for this kind of stuff. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Sarah Jeong, New York Times reporter, is the one who called Ngo a "propagandist" here. You don't have to dig to see that the majority of sources don't refer to him as a journalist, nor to see that, at the very least, a significant minority of reliable sources appear to refute the notion. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 21:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• Remove Clearly a contentious label at best. Descriptions such as "propaganda wearing the mask of journalism", "self-described independent journalist", "conservative media personality", "writer" and "activist" carry more weight than "journalist" among reliable sources. –dlthewave ☎ 21:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (RfC "Journalist" in lede #2)

@FormalDude: Assuming this RfC does go ahead (which it should not since there was already one less than a year ago) could you please change the opening question as it clearly violate WP:RFCNEUTRAL (you are not supposed to insert your POV into the question). Simply "Should we describe Ngo as a journalist in the lead?" will suffice. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

There hasn't been an RfC opened on this since fall of 2020. The above from yesterday was just a new discussion, which is required to take place before an RfC can even be opened.

I will revise the RfC, but I'm not going to remove the applicable information that has lead to the two opposing arguments on this issue. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 20:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Which sources are new? If I'm not mistaken the primary sources cited are ones that were around at the end of November 2020 when this RfC was closed. Springee (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

New sources:

• The Portland Monthly says "far-right provocateur".
• The Los Angeles Times writing about his new book says he is "supremely dishonest" (opposite of journalist) who is "churning out the very kind propaganda that keeps authoritarians in power."
• The Willamette Week says he is a "right-wing author" and a "media detractor".
• Oregon Live describes him as a propagandist who foments violence on the far right, a "self-described independent journalist"—a wording choice which means that the source does not endorse the label of journalist.
• ABC News says "conservative writer" and "author".
• FOX News "writer"
• Slate "social media era political provocateur"

––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 20:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Several are talking about Ngo in context of his recent book so writer does work. So just limiting the Google News search range to 1 Nov and later,

• Oregon Live, "A right-wing Portland journalist’s legal battle" [[24]]
• Publisher's Weekly, "pre-orders of conservative journalist Andy Ngo's book" [[25]]
• Forbes (Contributor), "Local journalist Andy Ngo, himself an antifa assault victim," [[26]]
• Yahoo News, "Conservative journalist Andy Ngô said he was chased and beaten by antifa" [[27]]
• Fox News (online), "Vietnamese American, a conservative journalist" [[28]]; "will not sell journalist Andy Ngo's new book" [[29]]; "The journalist initially provided details" [[30]]
• Washington Post, "right-wing journalist Andy Ngo’s" [[31]]
• NT Post, "After lefty complaints that Andy Ngo shouldn’t be called a “journalist” on the site’s curated news feed, the social-media giant rewrote a headline to call him just an “author.” [[32]] - This article is actually about the exact thing we are discussing here.
• Newsweek "support of Andy Ngo, after the conservative journalist " [[33]]
• Hollywood Reporter "Ngo, a conservative journalist who rose to prominence" [[34]] - several other HWreporter articles reuse the same text.
• BBC, "book by conservative journalist Andy Ngo" [[35]]; "described conservative journalist Andy Ngo as" [[36]]

This puts us back where we were less than a year back. We have plenty of sources who call him a journalist even if not all do. He clearly had the job "journalist" in the past and even if sources argue he is a crappy etc journalist that doesn't mean he isn't a journalist. So this returns to the original issue, what changed between then and now that after such a short period of time we should need to do this RfC all over again? Springee (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

More sources now directly challenge the notion that Ngo is a journalist, whereas before there were fewer. This seems largely based on their deduction that he is essentially a grifter (2, 3) profiting off a book of disinformation. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 03:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Jacobin is a source that Adfontes rates as no more reliable and more biased than Breitbart. Grftr seems to be a Tim Pool hate site. This isn't disproving that Ngo is a good/bad journalist nor does it prove RS no longer call him a journalist. Milpitas Beat appears to be a 3 person operation with the opinion writer being possibly the spouse of the founder. Springee (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Adfontes rates Newsmax, OANN, RT America, Sputnik and The Gateway Pundit as reliable sources, and considers The Weather Channel, the Associated Press and Reuters to be left leaning. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

That is good to know. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 05:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Few of these sources refer to Ngo without qualification as a journalist, they usually call him a "conservative journalist," which is an oxymoron, since journalism is supposed to be objective. It's like calling someone a witch doctor. While they may cure people, they don't meet the criteria one normally associates with being a doctor, such as belonging to the AMA. TFD (talk) 05:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my comment above, either way this doesn't matter. We can only call him a journalist in the article voice if it is plainly an uncontested description, ie. no serious, high-profile mainstream sources dispute that designation. People who are presenting evidence that some sources call him a journalist are wasting their time - that isn't sufficient. They need to demonstrate that the sources that overtly state that he is not a journalist or unambiguously question that self-description are in some way not WP:RSes in this context or are such an extreme minority that they can be disregarded. I'm not seeing anyone actually making that argument. --Aquillion (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• The lede is supposed to be a summary of the article, and that entails specific policies for the lede sections of biogoraphies of living people. The ONLY other place that this article uses the word "journalist" is under the Credibility section, which goes into detail about WP:RS not considering Ngo a journalist. If we follow WP:BALANCE and WP:WEIGHT, we will stick to the multiple other naming words used by RS (such as author and social media personality) which are more than sufficient to describe him in the lede. ––FormalDude^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 01:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Fox News does not need to be linked three times

@Bueller 007 is apparently disputing this. Per WP:OVERLINKING: a link should appear only once in an article. It only needs to be linked the first time. ––FormalDude talk 11:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

FormalDude, I gave a try at adjusting the linking. It's now linked once in the lead, and the first use after the lead, per Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.. That said, I don't know that it really needs a second wikilink after the lead, but two is better than three, and at least it's not linked twice in the article body now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)FormalDude, you are right it should only be linked once. In this case Bueller 007 linked to the first instance which is also correct. The next two links are the ones that should be removed. Springee (talk) 11:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @ScottishFinnishRadish. I do also think it should only be linked in the first instance, as Springee said. ––FormalDude talk 11:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but I figured for now while it's being hashed out I'd split the difference and go for the middle ground. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I am not disputing this unless you don't read the edit summaries or incapable of reading them. You were referencing them in a non-standard way. And the reference style that you were using STILL had Fox News linked three times, but it was linked three times buried as references within references. Did you even look at what the edits were or is that too much to ask? The edit summary specifically said that I was just reverting it to a normal referncing style and some of the references should be deleted. Dear Lord. At least learn to read before you write an encyclopedia. Bueller 007 (talk) 11:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell this and this have nothing to do with referencing style. Those were the edits that were reverted. Also, please be a bit more temperate with your language. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, Bueller 007, I think this is a case of good faith edits missing each other in the night. Bueller 007 certainly is right about the excess number of citations in the lead as well as how we should be linking. I also see how SFR could take those edit summaries to be chastising in a way I strongly suspect Bueller 007 didn't intend. This is likely yet another case where intent is lost when all we have is text. Happy editing all! Springee (talk) 12:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the edit summaries, I was referring to Dear Lord. At least learn to read before you write an encyclopedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Also not sure what you're talking about with my referencing being non-standard. I've removed the excessive wikilinks so that Fox News is only linked at its first appearance. ––FormalDude talk 06:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bueller 007 We agree that the citation style in use at Andy Ngo is subpar. However I strongly disagree that the solution is to eliminate quality sources. See the most recent archive of the talk page (#11) for the discussion titled Condense Citations? here that came up after user Thomas Meng first instated this citation style on unfavorable content about Ngo. I maintain that since this is an article that has repeatedly resulted in sanctions after bursts of edit warring, the best solution is to adopt the citation style in use at Antifa (United States) (see 7, 8, & 10) and at Proud Boys where readers can quickly see via a drop down link exactly which sources have supported positions in that are in opposition to others. There are far more good quality sources that refer to Ngo as a provacateur (10+) yet there are editors that seek to supress this info. In the lede we have a number of minor points infrequently covered by RS when discussing Ngo, e.g., there is only one source supporting that Ngo has wrote for the Spectator, one source stating that he has written at WSJ, yet other content that comes up repeatedly with 10+ sources that some editors seem unwilling to acknowledge. Cedar777 (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Here, I tried to fix that by better distributing references (no more than three at once), without having to actually delete any source. I hope that this was helpful. Davide King (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Large slant

This article is written in an extremely slanted manner, expressing opinions over the subject's statements and providing a singular point of view about them, unbacked by factual data. 176.12.202.145 (talk) 12:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources and concrete examples of what you think needs to be changed, and how. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

What is with the introductory paragraph?

"Ngo's coverage of antifa and Muslims has been controversial, and the accuracy and credibility of his reporting have been disputed by other journalists. He has been frequently accused of sharing misleading or selective material, described as a provocateur, and accused of having links with militant right-wing and far-right groups in Portland, Oregon."

Should this not be in the career section and not in the introductory paragraph on him? Or the credibility? Tisthefirstletter (talk) 11:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It is in the lead because it is one of the more notable things about the article subject, and covered at length in the article. The lead is just a summary of the article itself. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it is a bit over the top and with the loss of Rolling Stone many of the sources making the claims are questionable/very biased. Sourcing such claims to things like Jacobian, The Daily Dot or other strongly biased, lesser sources should throw up a red flag. Still, absent an alternative proposal I'm not sure this is going to get much traction. Springee (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

In the section below, I reviewed quite a few of the most recent sources, and the provocateur, ties to militant right wing groups stuff is mentioned pretty often, the attacks on credibility less so, especially in more neutral publications. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It is still one of those things that makes the article come off as biased. Fully half the lead is spent denigrating Ngo and much of that relies on iffy sources offering their subjective opinions. As an alternative, look at something like the lead for Apartheid which is far more impartial in tone and language despite the clear and obvious wrong that is Apartheid. Springee (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but changes to the lead on this article will definitely be a thing, and there will probably have to be a huge RFC and all that to make any substantial changes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Do I agree with SFR concerns related to RfCs?

• Yes :D Springee (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Obligatory response trying to refute your point and change your mind when it will never work because we draw different conclusions from the same set of data. Quote from one of the sources that I'm sure will bring you around to my side this time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It just seemed very biased almost like a hit piece. All the information related to the person is found on the following sections. Why summarize it and top it off with a "and accused of having links with militant right-wing and far-right groups". I really do not get this logic. If I did not look further then I would just dismiss this person. Is this really the right way to go? Tisthefirstletter (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Because being accused of having links to right wing groups is in the article, and the lead is a summary of the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)