The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page
Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
@TarnishedPath and Myslnik:, I think the removal of this "a national Republican operative who served as a legal adviser to Trump's re-election campaign," [1] makes sense and perhaps should also include this phrase as well, "filed by Ngo's personal attorney Harmeet Dhillon". That said, I don't blame TarnishedPath for reverting an unexplained removal. Looking just at the text in the Wiki article, the "national Republican operative..." part seems like pointy phrasing and a bit of a COATRACK. It describes Dhillon in a clearly partisan way and also adds some guilt by association to the mix with the mention of Trump which is otherwise totally unrelated to this BLP. That said, I think the removal needs to go a bit further since the Oregonian source doesn't actually claim Dhillon filed the lawsuit. The source only says that Ngo filed the lawsuit. Based on that source it's OR to say that he used Dhillon vs some other attorney. Either way, it seems undue to mention the attorney even though the source seems to want to imply something. This is similar to when a right wing source will mention that some law firm was also used by Hunter Biden or Clinton etc. Unless the law firm is somehow relevant (they couldn't have used some other firm) to the rest of the topic it's UNDUE. Anyway, with that said, can we remove the text as OR? Springee (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there's OR occurring then I have no issue with removing the said text. Do you envision any other rewording or just removal of reference to the attorney? TarnishedPathtalk22:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think removing the whole thing makes more sense as it all seems UNDUE to me. The sources don't suggest the lawyer did anything unusual or pulled any strings, just that they worked on this case. Also, the source that notes the GOP connection doesn't say Dhillon was the one who filed the case (it names no lawyers when discussing the case). However, the second source, later in the sentence, say that Dhillon was one of the two attorneys on the case. So it's true but perhaps misleading to name one but not the other. The attorney's name is mentioned in another section of the Ngo's BLP. While the source article says "personal attorney" I'm not sure why we would nor even what is meant by "personal attorney". Do they mean this person works for Ngo directly vs for say the Post Millennial on behalf of Ngo or something else? I would remove the longer passage "filed by Ngo's personal attorney Harmeet Dhillon, a national Republican operative who served as a legal adviser to Trump's re-election campaign" would make more sense as the article is on the long side and this would leave the part of the sentence that matters to the BLP, "The lawsuit cites Rose City Antifa, five other named defendants, and additional unknown assailants." Are you OK with that? Springee (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The suit stems from multiple alleged attacks on Ngo in Portland during 2019"
How it's alleged if it can be proven(and is) true? Antifa have assaulted him and even went after him in hospital after he hospitalized because of their previous attack 86.124.122.29 (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has not been proven yet. Reliable sources almost always refer to matters of fact that have yet to be determined by courts as alleged. Wikipedia editors are not allowed to weigh evidence and determine facts and instead rely on what reliable sources report. TFD (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
