Talk:Andy Ngo/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Lead changes

How's that for an informative heading. Anyway, there is a lot of text above but I'm having trouble understanding what people want to add/remove from the body and the lead. I would suggest that 1. we at least agree for the time to stop making changes to the lead while we sort out changes (if any) to the body. Once the body is sorted then we can revisit the lead. 2. That we discuss changes to the body below with proposed changes (quotes etc) so we can reduce the number of back and forths before a change goes live. In watching the discussion above I find that both sides are making some good points. In watching the edits to the article I think there is ample room for a compromise text. It might not make anyone happy but if both can "live with it" then it's probably a good compromise. Springee (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• I don't like that the "social media personality" line was restored by Grayfell after being challenged, and without Grayfell even proposing this on the talk page. Of course, this is slightly different than the "activist" language and more neutral, and I was able to find it sourced to a piece in the Rolling Stone (though, again, the NYT should be our guiding star here). At this point, I think the only really necessary change is to explain how Ngo came to notoriety. He was fired from a paper for statements on Twitter perceived as misleading; he wrote an article about it claiming to be a victim of censhorship; conservative outlets and commentators jumped on his bandwagon, and thus a "star was born." Or, in other words, that's how we know who this guy is. I think it is incorrect to imply, as the lead currently does, that the firing alone is what sparked his public profile, when there were a few key events after that. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
• I can’t find any mainstream articles about him since the one incident over a year ago. A story that quickly died. Fox did report on his suit against “antifa”, in a highly biased article. The suit looks like an attempt at another fifteen minutes. Nobody is talking about the incident except for us. Frankly, he’s barely notable. O3000 (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Notability isn't temporary once established. The subject's notability is derived from 1) the coverage regarding his firing from a college paper and then 2) the coverage over his attack while covering protests in Portland, (as the lead already indicates). Since the article's been up for a year, never been the subject of a del. rev., and it's never been an issue before, bringing up the fundamental issue of notability while we're hammering out details of the lead is sort of like throwing a wrench into the discussion, and I'm not sure how much good that'll do. Then again, any editor is free to open a deletion review any time they like. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I said nothing about deletion. But, the coverage was very short-lived in RS and due to his efforts along with right-wing groups. Was there ever a police report on this attack? O3000 (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:SECONDARY. We don't go off primary sources (which include court documents, police reports, and criminal complaints). If you're interested in discussing article changes, this thread is the place to do it. If you want to raise basic questions about notability, that is probably meant for a second thread; bringing up notability about the subject generally also implies that you believe the article doesn't meet GNG, which is also appropriate fodder for a del rev but not something that can be fully addressed in the article's talk page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Please stop making assumptions about what I am saying. I say what I mean. I know we don't go off primary sources. Was there ever a police report on this attack? Wouldn't that be mentioned in a secondary source? O3000 (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that no police report was filed or that Ngo didn't report the attack to the police? The police are looking for suspects which they normally wouldn't do without a police report.[[1]] Didn't take much effort to find that. Springee (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I was looking for a serious source. "The Post Millennial is a conservative Canadian online news magazine started in 2017. It publishes national and local news and has a large amount of opinion content. It has been criticized for releasing misinformation and articles written by fake personas, for past employment of an editor with ties to white supremacist-platforming and pro-Kremlin media outlets, and for opaque funding and political connections." (According to our article) The article you linked to talks about concrete in milkshakes, that was debunked, and the quote they provide from the Portland Mayor doesn’t mention the incident or Ngo. Oh, I forgot, Andy Ngo was an editor of the source you used. O3000 (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:YOUCANSEARCH. Arguments about notability and available of primary sources belong in another thread. Separating out different discussions to consolidate those on same topic. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

O3000, first, are you seriously claiming that Ngo didn't file a police report? Second, that article was from shortly after the incident and quotes police with respect to the concrete part. When was that debunked, before or after 1 July? Finally, are you seriously saying Ngo didn't notify the police? Springee (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The talk page is a good place to clarify what is sourced and what isn't. The Post Millennial isn't even close to being a reliable source. What do reliable sources say about this, and what is the due weight of this incident, per those sources? Grayfell (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just trying to understand why O3000 is suggesting Ngo didn't file a police report. Why would we even care? Are people suggesting he wasn't really attacked? Are you suggesting the PM is lying that the police were looking for those people? I get that we might not want to quote the PM for this information though it would be questionable to say they aren't reliable for such a basic claim (weight of course is about matter). I never suggested that we should put this in the article. I'm just trying to understand why O3000 thinks we need to see a police report. Do we expect sources to specifically mentioned a police report in cases like this? Springee (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

WP is an encyclopedia based upon reliable secondary sources. Not that extremist source you provided, of which Ngo was a part. Where is the source that says an official report was made? We don't make assumptions here. And, please stop misconstruing my words. I asked if a police report was filed twice and received no evidence of such. Don't you think that's important? O3000 (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Why would you even suggest a police report want filed? Since you seem to be the only one suggesting the police weren't involved why don't you search. No one else is suggesting such a basic thing didn't happen. What article level content do you think is missing because we lack this report? What change are you proposing here? Springee (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I tire of your AGF vios. AGAIN, this is an encyclopedia. We don't take the word of one person for anything. I asked the question because there is no source. That is my job as an editor. And of course I searched. I found nothing. You said it was easy to find a source, and provided a recently created source criticized for fake news and white supremacist and Russian ties where the accuser worked. Why have you not stricken this embarrassing "source"? O3000 (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

What are you even taking about? You asked about a police report, why? Do you think one was never filed? For what article content is this needed? Springee (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I say again, we are an encyclopedia. We don’t assume. Do you really think it is wrong for an editor to ask for sourcing? I don’t know if a police report was filed. You don’t either – although you seem to believe a source criticized for white supremacy and Russian connections connected to the accuser. I can’t find sources that actually support the claims made by Ngo and repeated in the article. Seriously, the lead says “Ngo was attacked and injured”, with a cite that he SAYS he was attacked and injured. See the difference? It would be nice to have sources. It would be nice to see a secondary source that sys a police report was actually filed and accepted. Why do you keep questioning my reasonable questions? O3000 (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

You can say that again and again. I'm not arguing about sourcing. You asked if a police report was filed. Why. I provided a source that should at least be sufficient to convince you that the police were involved. Since I'm not proposing adding that content to the article the fact that PM isn't a generally RS doesn't matter. So since you asked about the report, why? Are you actually going suggest that Ngo wasn't attacked or injured? Are you suggesting we need to see a police report to verify Ngo was attacked? Yes, I keep questioning your questions but so far you haven't explained why they are "reasonable". Perhaps if you explained what article content you think is insufficiently sourced we might make some progress. Springee (talk) 01:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? You are still relying on a source identified with white supremacy and Russian propaganda and where the accuser himself worked? Clearly, I am incapable of the articulation needed to describe the role of a Wikipedia editor. So, I’ll leave it at that. O3000 (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Objective3000, I thought I would respond to a comment you made here [[2]] in this article where it belongs. You suggested that the PM would have a conflict of interest in reporting on Ngo, "Further, Andy Ngo, who the article is about, was an editor at the source, making it an obvious COI, " But Ngo started working for the PM in November 2019 (per our wiki article). The article in question was dated July 2019. Also, looking in the archives shows the answer should have been clear. [[3]]. 05:25 5 Sept entry includes quotes from NYT and qFox 13. NYT [[4]] says, "Many have blamed Antifa for the beating, which was captured on video. No one has been charged in connection with the assault, which the police are continuing to investigate. " The Fox affiliate says, " Portland’s mayor says an investigation into the attack is ongoing.". I think that should make it clear the police were notified and a police report likely exists. Springee (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, one Hell of a coincidence. That article supports what I have been saying. O3000 (talk) 02:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The part I was replying to was the suggestion that there was no police report. If you are suggesting that we can't state "the assailant was an Antifa member" I agreed already (in fact I think I agreed almost a year ago [[5]]) Springee (talk) 02:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

break for convenience

I am incapable of the articulation needed to describe the role of a Wikipedia editor Thankfully no one asked you to do so! He cited the source as an answer to your question of whether or not there was a police report for the attack on Ngo. If you aren't happy with his answer, then flex those fingers, crack open a Google search bar tab, and find one yourself that you believe is sufficient. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

His source is worse than The Onion. Are you actually supporting this? And obviously I did do a search. I can find no RS that says a police report was filed. WP:AGF O3000 (talk) 11:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I never supported anything, I said that I think whether there was a police report is inconsequential, and that if you are curious about whether there was one (reported in a reliable source), you are free to search it yourself and let us know what you find. Since you didn't find one, I take it there isn't, and I assume that settles the matter! Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. You, O3000 asked if a police report had been filed. Your question suggested that one hadn't. You have avoided answering the question, why are you asking. Are you suggesting one wasn't filed? How do you see this impacting the article? I provided the first source that included comments that police were looking for these people (pictures included) in connection with the attack. You seem to have fixated on the fact that the source as PM instead of answering why did you think this was an important question. I've asked if you are suggesting that Ngo wouldn't report the attack or that an attack never happened. You have remained silent on those questions. In order to shut down the red herring that was your PM rant, [[6]]. In that article, in relation to the Ngo attack, Portland police Lt. Tina Jones, bureau spokeswoman, said police were "actively looking into that incident." Does it show a police report? No. Does it say the police are looking into it, yes. Are you going to suggest they are doing this without some type of paperwork? Springee (talk) 13:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The question I asked is a legitimate question that you have repeatedly insinuated is otherwise. I will answer yet again. I am an editor asking a pertinent question. I am allowed to do that. The source you continue to push has connections to white supremacists and Russian propagandists and the subject of this article was an editor. That obviously makes it a terrible source. Further, it did not say that police were investigating an attack on Ngo. Your statement that I have remained silent on this is false and should be stricken. Your characterization that I was ranting is a personal attack and should be stricken. I strongly suggest you not stoop to this again. As for your second source, the article on this in Wikipedia has a total of five sentences; according to you it doesn’t say there was a police report filed; and it demands that I install an app to read. I will not do this. I ask again, was a police report filed? I think this is an important question given what all the other RS say about this and other incidents related to the subject of this article. O3000 (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

You are dodging the question again and it's starting to look like you are doing this to obfuscate. Prior to providing any sources, you asked, in a way that suggested you thought the answer was no, if Ngo had filed a police report. Why did you ask? Was there some content that should be changed in the article depending on the answer/evidence provided? That should be an easy question to answer and it doesn't matter if I cite the Onion, PM or NYT. Also, speaking of comments that should be struck, since I'm not suggesting we add the PM to the article your rant about it's "Russian ties" etc are red herrings. BTW, Oregon Live doesn't require an installed app to read. I don't know where you got that idea. I agree (and said before) it doesn't say "police report filed" but it does say the police are looking into the Ngo attack. Are you suggesting they are doing that without a police report? Before you answer that one, let's start with the primary question, why are you fixated on this police report question?Springee (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

You have twice accused me of ranting and twice accused me of fixating. Now accusing me of obfuscating. I am not ranting, fixating, or obfuscating. I asked one question. You are fixating on this for some reason, and making personal attack after personal attack. I don't know why you are so upset by this simple question, but streams of personal attacks in response is unacceptable. O3000 (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Let's distill this to a simple question. You asked about a police report. How do you think the answer to that question will be used to change the article? What article edits would be made based on the answer to that question? Unless you think ONUS would apply to some article content, no editor is required to answer your question. Springee (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Currently the section on the Vanguard incident cites three sources:

• <ref name="wweekJournalist">: Herron, Elise (July 14, 2017). "A Dispute Over a Muslim Student's Remarks Costs a College Journalist His Job, And Brings National Furor to Portland State University". Willamette Week. Retrieved June 30, 2019.
• <nowiki><ref name="outrage">: Wilson, Jason (March 18, 2018). "How to troll the left: understanding the rightwing outrage machine". The Guardian. Retrieved July 1, 2019.
• Leary, Colleen (May 14, 2017). "In response to 'Fired for reporting the truth'". Daily Vanguard. Retrieved August 30, 2019.

The Vanguard source is directly involved, is an opinion, and is in a student paper. There's nothing wrong with any of these, but this means it should be treated cautiously and with clear attribution. Willamette Week is a reliable source for factual information, but is a Portland-based alt-weekly that focuses on local issues (Willamette is a river that runs through Portland). Both the WW and Vanguard stories are from around the time of the incident, which means they cannot demonstrate the long-term significance of this incident.

The Guardian source is international coverage which was written several months after this incident. In this respect it is the strongest of the three sources. It is not primarily about the Vanguard incident. Instead, it spends several paragraphs discussing this as context for other, more important issues. Therefore, it makes sense to me to use this for the broad strokes, while the other two can be used to fill-in details.

As a prelude to explaining the Vanguard incident, the Guardian says this:

Ngo is no stranger to controversy, and it wasn’t his first viral video. Over the last year, the student has shrewdly inserted several into the workings of the rightwing outrage machine.

The Guardian source's main topic is this "outrage machine", and several other examples of Ngo's role in this are given. My reading of the source tells me this is important context. The Guardian is at least partly giving Ngo credit for repeatedly becoming the stories he supposedly reported on.

All three sources mention Breitbart as well as the National Review opinion. If Breitbart is the example cited by all sources, this may be important enough for the lead, as well. According to the Guardian source, Ngo himself used the opinion to frame this as a free speech issue, as well as (supposedly) being about political correctness. None of the sources I have seen treat this as having real merit. Instead, they treat this as a disputable claim used to attract attention. Including this detail without context would be misrepresenting what reliable sources are saying.

Grayfell (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Assessments of "merit" need to be de-entangled from assessments of weight. Nor does an assessment of the "merit" of a viewpoint have any place in this kind of analysis. WP:NOTFORUM. All the sources mention the conservative reaction as adding to Ngo's notoriety, namely the Williamette and Guardian piece. The third is a letter to the editor and an opinion piece, and not usable for our purposes. If there is a viewpoint expressed in those sources that the conservative backlash was wrong, it can also be included per weight. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Merit matters to the extent that reliable sources evaluate it. This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip column. We are not going to promote a WP:FRINGE perspective that Ngo is being censored for misrepresenting other people's words and actions. Sources do not accept that this is valid, so we cannot tacitly endorse this perspective by pushing it to the lead without context. Sources provide context, and we cannot ignore that context. In that respect, merit does matter. Placing this in the lead without this context would be misrepresenting sources to promote a specific point of view.

I assume by "the third" you mean the Vanguard opinion. That isn't a "letter to the editor", it is a letter from the editor, also known as an editorial. Further, it is cited by other reliable sources. How we summarize this open to discussion, but do not misrepresent the source. Grayfell (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• We cannot cite editorials as reliable sources for anything other than that person's opinion.
• A WP:FRINGE view is a view that is not represented in reliable sources, not one that you believe to be incorrect. The Guardian source covers the conservative media reaction critically—this does not mean it should be excluded from the article.

When Vanguard, too, became the focus of conservative ire, it published another blogpost offering further explanation. As a result of his dismissal, Ngo got space on a major conservative platform, National Review, which he used to frame his dismissal as a free speech issue. He also did an “ask me anything” session on the subreddit r/thedonald, a major hub for Trump supporters, conspiracy theorists, and far-right sympathizers. There, he described his firing as part of a “trend towards self-censorship in the name of political correctness”, expressing a desire to appear on the show of Fox’s prime-time race hustler, Tucker Carlson. In February, another Ngo video did the rounds of rightwing media. It depicted another brief disruption of an event, this one hosted by Freethinkers of PSU, an atheist student club led by Ngo. The headliner was the fired Google engineer and author of an infamous memo on diversity at the company, James Damore.

• This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip column. Sanctimoniously repeating this over and over has nothing to do with the fact that the analysis above is heavily flawed.
• but do not misrepresent the source Nothing was misrepresented. The lead as I had edited it briefly gave reference to the reaction in conservative media as reported by the Williamette and Guardian, nothing more. This does not establish the view as correct, it merely establishes that it was their view. We do not selectively censor opinions reported in reliable sources, particularly when, as I have repeatedly noted, they form a key part of why the subject became notable. If you feel further "context" is required, then suggest that context, but stop edit-warring the material out of the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

At the very least, Ngo's response to the allegation by the paper is required. He has written, as you noted, an editorial defending his actions. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC) Example: Ngo framed his firing as an attempt to stifle free speech, garnering support from conservative media. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Ngo's response to the allegations is something that is acceptable per ABOUTSELF. It may not be DUE in the lead but it would be DUE in the body. Springee (talk) 01:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The article already mentions his op-ed. Specifically mentioning Breitbart seems like a step in the right direction, since this is mentioned by all sources, but this should also be summarized in the body as well. This illustrates a deeper problem. I have attempted to expand the lead to more accurately summarize the body of the article. Including many details of this one incident was lopsided at best, since the lion's share of sources are about other issues. Ngo's framing is not automatically included in the lead, or the body (no, that isn't how BLP works). Getting fired is not a criminal act, and Wikipedia doesn't offer the right of reply. His framing only belong as a proportionate summary of sources, so the task for us is to summarize the article in the lead and then evaluate. This may need an RFC or some noticeboard discussions. Grayfell (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I've rolled these changes back. Too much detail and you changed the previous, consensus agreement on the description of his alleged joking with Proud Boys. Springee (talk) 10:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Grayfell adds to the lead that Ngo was pictured "laughing" with Proud Boys members without noting that a) he denies any connections with the group and b) that this, too, is out-of-context material. Talk about "decontextualizing." This is patently ridiculous to include; it is suggestive, barely mentioned in sources, and not relevant to a summary of the article. It's a shame, because a few of Grayfell's other, more minor changes were reasonable, but I have to endorse the revert because the edits in the entirety so blatantly violate NPOV. Need to do better. And stop calling the attackers "unidentified." This is WP:SYNTH. None of the sources say that. We don't know that they haven't been identified, we just know that there haven't been any public arrests. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

And let me also put out a reminder that, per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, where an allegation has been denied, that denial is to be included. Grayfell's objection to "Ngo's framing" not belonging in the lead and claim that it isn't required does not follow from WP policy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cedar777:, my reversion of the lead change was not due to a single issue. There were quite a few issues with that change. Additionally, a discussion was on going with two editors objective to the change. At this point ONUS applies and the old version should be restored. That said, please join into the discussion here. I suspect your input would be good based on some of your other edits to the article today. Springee (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Cedar777 restored a prior version of the lead which blatantly violated neutrality. Discontent with a short, neutral description is not a reason to start highlighting negative or salacious information in the lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see that it violated neutrality: [7]; my rationale was: "the lead should focus on what the subject is primarily known for". --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, as an experienced editor you should know that this is now a contested change and there isn't consensus for Grayfell's edits. The next step is to discuss the changes (not all negative in my opinion) and get a consensus change. We should not be restoring the disputed text without addressing concerns first. Springee (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: "Primarily known for" means what's received the most coverage. That would be the firing & the assault by antifa. The rest is minutia. Balancing his blaming antifa activists for the assault with "but the attackers are unidentified" is unsupported by sources, which do not use that language, see WP:SYNTH, and contradicted by the Washington Post, which says that antifa activists "bloodied" Ngo. The rest of the lead goes well beyond a summary of what he's well-known for and creates 2 additional paragraphs, for a total of 5, violating MOS:LEAD's recommendation of four max, to mention additional disputes that are far lesser known. I suggest you restore the shorter version and read the above discussion, per WP:ONUS. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with K.e.coffman's revert. This results in a more neutral, more accurate. more representative lead. O3000 (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

So you are OK with factual errors? (Per our article Ngo was testifying on 1A issues, not 2A). We also have covered that "joking" with PB is problematic because the "source" for the video is someone who claims to be an antifa sympathizer who went "under cover" with the PBs. Also, based on the video evidence the claim is very weak and has been disputed by other sources. That shouldn't be in the lead. The old lead covered that claim already. With respect to the assault on Ngo, the "no attacker has been identified" suggests the assault didn't happen vs it did but the perps haven't been captured. We can discuss some of the details but the bulk change is less neutral and factually less accurate. Springee (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

On the whole, I think the changes are neutrally written and a significant improvement from much earlier versions of the article. However, the bit about him "joking" with activists does not belong in the lead. And as I stated already, the attackers were identified as antifa by the press (WaPo). As Springee mentioned, we shouldn't gloss over inaccuracies or undue weight issues for the sake of consensus. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Being "identified as antifa" is misleading at best. Antifa is a loose ideology, not an identifying physical trait. All I could find was one caption to a photo which says Unidentified Rose City Antifa members beat up Ngo.[8] Does this mean that Washington Post identified them as unidentified? In addition to being logically incoherent, this demonstrates the flimsiness of using photo captions for factual claims. Nowhere else does the article mention Rose City Antifa. The WaPo story cited this earlier WaPo story which doesn't identify anyone or mention Rose City Antifa. That story cited this NYT story which also doesn't identify anyone or mention Rose City Antifa. So far, the only source which says anything either way says they are unidentified. All of this is very flimsy.

I have not seen any reliable sources which dispute that Ngo was laughing and smiling. The relevant footage shows Ngo with a group of people traveling with helmets, body armor, sticks, respirators (for pepper spray), etc. to a bar favored by antifa activists on May 1st. As far as I know, nobody is pretending they went for a neighborhood bar crawl with their bear mace and police batons. Ngo was present, but did not report any of this part of the event. Instead, he attributed the violence to antifa. These are the facts according to reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

We went through the "attacked by antifa" members question a while back. In the end I agree we can't say "attacked by antifa". The sources generally don't specifically call the attackers antifa members and, as others have said, if antifa doesn't have a strict membership then how can we say someone is or isn't. There litterally could be someone who is 100% on the same page as "antifa" but was a lone individual. They would be sympathetic with antifa's actions and methods but still not be a member. I would suggest the long standing phrasing from the lead simply because that was what came out of the last set of debates. Yes, if an arrest was made and the person could be identified as a Rose City Antifa member, that would be different. Incidentally, I do think "appear to be" is reasonable but again, previous text was there after a series of back and forths.

We also had a discussion about laughing/smiling. That one again, we should stick with long standing versions. The previous lead consensus was that he was accused of associated with. That is a summary and it would not only cover that video but any other associations that may have been accused. Several commentators/op-eds noted the weak nature of this "laughing with" claim. I understand we normally don't like op-ed type materials but many of these sources on both sides are a mix of fact and op-ed. Fact is "video shows Andy Ngo". Commentary is "Ngo is doing X in video". No reason why an op-ed writer viewing the video would be more or less accurate than a strongly biased source "factually" reporting about the video content (especially if the "factual" reporting is a source like the Daily Dot). Additionally, this was problematic because the sources is an anonymous "under cover" antifa (or similar) person. So the unnamed source would have a clear perverse incentive to discredit Ngo. We then have commentators who are not sympathetic to Ngo who decide the video means X when the actual evidence in the video is unclear. It could mean X but it could also mean Y or Z. Since this is a BLP and the accusation is very damning if true as claimed we need to err on the side of caution with how this material is handled. Note that until very recently the text in the body of the article was, " Ngo, who ultimately blamed the violence on antifascist activists, is alleged to be smiling and laughing at the discussion." That is true. Sources are claiming is his laughing with. We are not stating in Wikivoice that he is doing this thing. That text in the body was changed earlier today in a disputed edit [[9]]. It has been previously discussed more than once (and probably more than just these times since I didn't search the notice boards) [[10]][[11]]. So we get back to the primary issue, some sources are making this allegation but they are low quality sources/speculative. We don't accuse someone of this sort of thing without solid evidence. The previous lead covered this in a neutral way. The updated, non-consensus lead does not. Springee (talk) 03:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

No consensus for lead change: I want to make it clear that at this point we don't have a consensus for the changes to the lead. The changes haven't been justified and per ONUS they should not have been restored once challenged. A primary issue is the claim that Ngo was joking with PP members and was aware of an upcoming attack. This absolutely should not be presented in wiki voice. It must be clearly indicated that this is an allegation, not a proven fact. The weak evidence has been disputed by other source [[12]].

The problem, of course, is that the video—which mostly depicts a small group of people standing around, discussing which side of the street they should walk on when and if they approach antifa, and conversing with the undercover Ben—proves no such thing. I have watched it from start to finish at least five times, and it does not even establish that the group of right-wing agitators planned an attack—let alone that Ngo was aware of such a plot. Indeed, the Portland Mercury article that received such rave reviews from The Daily Beast, Vice, Media Matters, and others makes little effort to explain what was so damning about the video, and Zielinski spends much of her article lionizing Ben's actions without offering any independent scrutiny of his claims. Ngo says she did not reach out to him before publishing the article, and she confirmed this in an email to Reason. When asked about some of the claims in her piece, Zielinski said, "I can tell you're concerned with my coverage on a larger scale, and I'm sure my response won't change that."

Additionally, The Spectator ran an article by Ngo where he refutes the allegations [[13]]. Responses to allegations by the accused are DUE in cases like this. For some time the article had stood with a consensus that this was an allegation. Yesterday, without discussion, this was changed from an allegation to a statement in wiki voice. [[14]] Such a change needs to be justified by those who wish to make the change and should not be in the article once challenged until a new consensus is clear. Springee (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. There's no consensus for the change. Frankly, I think in such a short article, it's weird how detailed the lead is, and everything past the first paragraph seems to me undue for the lead. But I agree with what Springee and Wikieditor have said about the problems with the specific changes that have been made. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Including allegations from second-tier sources that Ngo "laughed with" far-right groups, even with the qualifers that were added. This is undue for the lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Consensus isn't a vote, and an excessively lengthy post isn't a supervote. Your personal opinion that this is undue is at odds with MOS:LEAD. Your opinion that they are "second-tier" is at odds with WP:RS. The lead summarizes the body of the article, and this incident has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The lead also includes Ngo's denial. Grayfell (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree, it's not a vote but if you are suggesting there is a difference between merits of the arguments then perhaps you should run a RfC or some other method. We don't have a consensus of opinion and this isn't a case where you can claim an overwhelming majority that must be right so that means we should restore the last stable text. BTW, if you want a policy based argument, BLP. You are accusing Ngo of being a party to a conspiracy to commit a crime and putting that text clearly in the lead. That's a big deal. Springee (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. I am not accusing Ngo of anything. Sources have accurately documented that he was with armed far-right activists who walked towards a bar favored by antifa activists, and then reported on the subsequent violence by blaming antifa bar patrons. Everyone, including Ngo, agrees that violence occurred. The weapons, helmets, and "tacticool" body armor demonstrate the far-right activists expected violence. Contrary to unreliable sources, Portland is not a war zone,Patriot Prayer isn't a military force, and Ngo isn't an embedded journalist. If somehow Ngo didn't notice that the people he was with were bringing bear spay and police batons to a bar, then he was not paying attention. If that's his defense, so be it, but this doesn't change the facts of the situation according to reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

A few issues here:

1) Whatever beliefs you want to attribute to Ngo are utterly and completely irrelevant. 2) You do not have consensus to restore this material. Material that my be verifable is not by default WP:DUE, and it is completely unwarranted for the lead. This is reporting limited to a few second-tier sources. 3) In your last edit summary, you suggest my removal of this challenged material for which there is no consensus and possibly consensus against, as WP:BLANKing. This is a false accusation.

You are entitled to make your case, but you are not entitled to make bad-faith accusations or restore the content while discussion is pending and consensus is not there. Please remove it.

Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand the comment about "beliefs". The lead should be a summary of the entire article. I am not interested in personalizing this discussion. However you wish to describe it, you removed contend from the lead. Your assessment of those sources as "second-tier" is unsupported. These sources are reliable, even if they are not perfect, and per sources this incident is associated with a significant career change. Further, many sources mention the May Day riot in relation to Ngo, and it would be a misrepresentation of the situation to ignore this context. Grayfell (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Grayfell, the previous lead which said he was "accused of" did summarize the body. You are planning undue weight on an accusation that hasn't been substantiated by additional sources (ie we have only "Ben" the undercover antifa agent and a video which commentators have used to suggest a disputed conclusion. We also have sources such as Reason which say the evidence doesn't support the conclusion. We don't include Ngo's denial of the accusation which is required per BLPPUBLIC. Finally, at least 3 editors have iobjected to this change so you don't have consensus to edit war it into the lead (and body). Springee (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I do not know which previous lead you are referring to, as none of the recent ones I glanced at to refresh my memory use "accused" in the lead. If you are referring to the lead before my recent attempt at expanded it, then I dispute that it accurately summarized the article. Your personal distrust of "Ben" is at odds with how reliability is evaluated. It is up to sources to interpret this material, not editors. I have not seen any reliable sources which dispute that Ngo was there, was friendly with the far-right activists, etc. Grayfell (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• For clarity, I should mention that my recent revert included some other changes. I removed the detail about laughing and joking, as this seemed unnecessary. The "or report the attack" line seemed confusing, as well. Grayfell (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• That is better than before but you still are failing to follow BLPPUBLIC as you aren't including Ngo's denial of the accusation. Regardless, since this is a disputed change NOCON says it should be reverted and we can work out the difference here before it goes live. That said, let's step back and perhaps reach an agreement on the body text related to that material. Until a few days ago the body text said:

On August 26, 2019, The Daily Beast reported that Ngo was leaving Quillette. Earlier in the day, Portland Mercury covered a video that showed Ngo standing near members of Patriot Prayer, the far-right group active in Portland, as they planned violence at a bar frequented by left-wing activists.[5][54][64] Ngo, who ultimately blamed the violence on antifascist activists, is alleged to be smiling and laughing at the discussion.[51][40]

The two sources for "smiling and laughing" are Salon and Daily Dot. Per RSP Salon is yellow (biased and opinionated). Daily Dot is considered reliable for internet culture which this is not. Salon actually attributed their version of what the video says to The Portland Mercury News writer. The DD discussion of the video attributes specific claims to others such as the same PM writer and various Twitter users. Seriously, we are using that as our source to say, in wikivoice, Ngo was hanging out with and laughing with PP members. On the other hand we have Ngo's version of events published in The Spectator. His version of events is every bit as believable as the one being told by "Ben". We also have Reason (green per RSP) which says the evidence doesn't support the claim. [[15]]

What was so "damning" and "incriminating" about the video was largely unexplained, though Sommer did include a quote from Quillette Editor in Chief Claire Lehmann, who explained that Ngo's departure had nothing to do with the new video footage, and had been agreed upon by both parties some weeks ago. (Lehmann confirmed this to Reason.) ... In any case, the message coming from left-of-center media was clear: Patriot Prayer planned the Cider Riot attack, Ngo was tacitly involved, and Ben's video proves it.

The problem, of course, is that the video—which mostly depicts a small group of people standing around, discussing which side of the street they should walk on when and if they approach antifa, and conversing with the undercover Ben—proves no such thing. I have watched it from start to finish at least five times, and it does not even establish that the group of right-wing agitators planned an attack—let alone that Ngo was aware of such a plot. Indeed, the Portland Mercury article that received such rave reviews from The Daily Beast, Vice, Media Matters, and others makes little effort to explain what was so damning about the video, and Zielinski spends much of her article lionizing Ben's actions without offering any independent scrutiny of his claims. Ngo says she did not reach out to him before publishing the article, and she confirmed this in an email to Reason. When asked about some of the claims in her piece, Zielinski said, "I can tell you're concerned with my coverage on a larger scale, and I'm sure my response won't change that."

Far from being engaged in conservation with Gibson's associates and intently involved in what they are saying, Ngo appears in the video only occasionally, and is mostly in the periphery, pacing and incessantly checking his phone. Ngo told Reason that he was scanning the internet for reports from other journalists pertaining to the earlier violence of the day, during which Ngo was punched in the stomach. He was much more interested in his social media feed than the conversations around him.

We have a reliable source that says the video doesn't show what some claim. That means we need to say this is an allegation and not universally accepted. We also need to indicate that Ngo has disputed the claim in detail. I would propose we change things back to "alleged", add more content as to what some claim the video shows but also add the response from Ngo and Reason showing that the significance of the video is in dispute. Springee (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

It's completely sensationalist, limited to a few lower-quality sources, and is nowhere near worthy for the lead. It is also challenged and without consensus at this time. Please remove the content. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

We have reliable news sources documenting this. What, exactly, is he "denying"? He is not denying that he was with them prior to the riot. It is not up to Ngo or Reason or individual editors to determine why this video was significant. Quotes from an opinion at Reason.com do not change anything. The reliability of these sources is not challenged by calling them "lower-quality" or "second-tier" or whatever. They have positive reputations for accuracy and fact checking, which is what is required from WP:RS. Grayfell (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Daily Dot is considered reliable for internet culture which this is not. Strenuously disagree with the latter part; this is clearly an internet-culture-war thing. Ngo's fame is largely online (that is where he posts almost all his things), the videos were posted on Twitter, and the other part of the dispute concerns his departure from a grindy internet-culture-war website himself. If this isn't internet culture then I'm unsure exactly what would be. Also, On the other hand we have Ngo's version of events published in The Spectator. His version of events is every bit as believable as the one being told by "Ben". Absolutely not; that is a mere opinion-piece in a yellow / low-quality source, and we cannot cite an opinion piece for statements of fact, as you are well aware. The things he states there are obviously self-serving; it is nowhere near as good of a source as the Daily Dot's reporting. We note the bare existence of his disagreement in the article body, but unless a secondary source takes it seriously it is the typical WP:MANDY stuff - there is no reason to give it any particular weight beyond that. --Aquillion (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Nov update

I've updated the lead[[16]] based on discussions[[17]] with Bacondrum. I also pinged Cedar777 as part of this lead discussion. The intent is to try to find a compromise that all will accept even if not their own preference. This version of the lead does include the video taken before the Cider Riot brawl and refers to the event as an "attack" per the RfC below. Springee (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar:, I think this is a problematic edit [[18]]. I guess it's somewhat gray since what counts as interacting. No one disputes that Ngo was near by and visually acknowledged the PP members. What is disputed is if he overheard their conversation and thus was aware of what they were discussing. The video clearly does not show him talking to the PP members. Since what the video shows is disputed by both reliable sources and Ngo himself we have to present this this as a disputed fact, hence reportedly. That also means this sentence [[19]] needs to be restored. MANDY doesn't apply since Reason Magazine also disputes the claims. Springee (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

He follows them around for the duration of the video. He smiles at their jokes. You yourself say he "visually acknowledged" the PP members. There are multiple sections of the video where he is obviously paying attention to their conversation. The guy who filmed the video quoted as saying "He overheard everything". I don't know why you're fighting so hard about this very easily verifiable fact. It's literally on video. You can watch the video. Loki (talk) 04:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

(Also, no, an opinion column in Reason does not defeat WP:MANDY. On one side we have every factual news piece about this event plus literal court documents plus the video recording of the event itself, and on the other hand we have Ngo and an opinion piece in Reason, whose only defense of Ngo is incredulity that things that are obviously happening on video could possibly have happened. This is why I specifically mentioned Ngo's allies like the Reason piece in the edit summary as things that WP:MANDY applies to.) Loki (talk) 04:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Also here's a bit I forgot: here's the Reason piece. Note that over half of it is quotes from Ngo himself. The idea WP:MANDY doesn't apply to this is incredibly tendentious. Loki (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Mandy is a user essay so yes RS "defeat" it. Also why is it in the lead at all honestly? PackMecEng (talk) 04:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Per the RfC the discussion of the video should be part of the lead. Since it is part of the lead the disputed nature of the video should also be part of the lead. Springee (talk) 05:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Loki, you are really stretching the definition of "interacting with" and creating a false impression with your edits. It is clear he is near the PP members and acknowledges them. The problem is some sources suggest he was able to hear what they were saying and was interacting (like talking with, laughing at things they were specifically saying). That is disputed and honestly, most of the sources that make that claim are either very weak or simply saying PM's Blogtown said X. Reason is a RS per PRS. Blogtown is a new blog (wp:NEWSBLOG) making rather significant claims based on limited evidence. It's interesting that you are critical of Reason for quoting Ngo. The Reason reporter did something that isn't part of an op-ed article, they reached out to the subject of a story and asked for comment. Note that those who are accusing Ngo didn't. Rollings Stones [[20]] seems to agree with Reason that it doesn't seem like Ngo was doing much interacting noting that he was looking at his phone for part of the time. To quote Reason, "Zielinski spends much of her article lionizing Ben's actions without offering any independent scrutiny of his claims. Ngo says she did not reach out to him before publishing the article, and she confirmed this in an email to Reason." Now we get to the real issue here. This is clearly a case where we have sources saying the video means different things. Thus we doing act as if one side or the other is correct. Instead we attribute and note that the interpretations are conflicting. That is what we had and what should be restored. Springee (talk) 05:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)