Talk:Andy Ngo/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

RE Michelle Burrows

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

---

:: @Springee, @FormalDude, @VampaVampa, et alia -- your opinions please.

Can this be added?

Hacker and Richter were acquitted on August 8, 2023 by a jury. Their attorneys argued they were not among the assailants. During the trial, a defense counsel, Michelle Burrows, told the jurors that not only does she self-identify as an 'anti-fascist', she strongly declared, 'I am Antifa'. Ngo, who was in the courtroom, told Fox News that "she [Burrows] mentioned that resistance is not peaceful and that she was going to be getting a shirt that declares 'I am Antifa' and that she is retiring and will remember all of the faces of the jurors".

Tkaras1 (talk) 05:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC) sock strike

As far as I am concerned, you do not have a reliable source to state any of this in Wikivoice. Townhall may be just a yellow source like The Daily Beast, but the devil is in the detail - this article credits The Post Millennial for all the information about what allegedly happened at the trial, and TPM is not reliable by any standard. The blog quotes from Townhall, contributing nothing of its own. Fox News only quotes Ngo and gives a partisan comment, having done no independent reporting or fact-checking of its own. The Center for American Liberty represented Ngo, so its claims are as good as Ngo's own - you would not want the supposed "Antifa lawyer" quoted in the article, so by the same token one cannot include their comments as fact. The Oregonian only offers two sentences, nothing on what happened at the trial.

I would be fine with one matter-of-fact sentence stating what Ngo had alleged, in indirect speech (no extensive quotation, maybe a word or two to give his exact phrasing). E.g. "Ngo alleged that the defence counsel had threatened the jurors and declared herself an anti-fascist". I would cite Fox News only as a borderline reputable source, which quotes Ngo directly at length (I find it difficult to make sense of some of his comments, but I think the proposed sentence is a reasonable interpretation). Not sure if others, who have edited this page for longer, will agree with that, but I think it would be worthwhile. VampaVampa (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Note that Tkaras1 was blocked as a sock puppet. For context, this editor was originally blocked due to (among other things) a pattern of disruptive edits and misrepresentation of sources related to right-wing and far-right figures similar to Ngo. Grayfell (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2024 (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.

References

Sourced edits and elementary grammatical and ethical edits

So my painstaking, sourced and common sense edits just get reverted wholesale because an interested party someone doesn't like them? Does every edit, no matter how reliably sourced or minor edit have to undergo a community consensus? Tkaras1 (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC) sock strike

Your edits were not reliably sourced nor minor. I don't think your changes improved the article at all. Not every edit needs consensus, but once it has been challenged it needs a consensus before being restored. See WP:BRD for more. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

So, per this diff, you see no reflinks added for substantial edits and you see no minor edits regarding grammar and chronology? Tkaras1 (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC) sock strike

@FormalDude -- so re BRD, can we discuss now that the first two steps (bold editing & reverting) are done? Can we start with what is acceptable and then move on to what we don't agree on? Tkaras1 (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC) sock strike

@Tkaras1: I do see reflinks. One is a non-reliable source per WP:RSP#Townhall. The other from USA Today fails verification as you're trying to use it to say multiple news agencies reported the milkshake may have had cement, but the USA Today article only says the police received reports that it may have had cement. That's directly attributed to the police, which is how we should be wording it if were to include it. But it shouldn't be included unless it is substantiated by reliable sources.

I did not find your grammatical/chrnological edits to be improvements, and using "antifa" instead of anti-fasicst likely goes against the manual of style.

And yes, you're always free to discuss at any time, you don't even have to complete the first two steps in order to start a talk page discussion.

P.S. your ping didn't notify me because you didn't add your signature in the same edit. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about the ping snafu. I am glad you had it watchlisted. Tkaras1 (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC) sock strike

Pinging TarnishedPath in case they'd like to add anything. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@FormalDude from my perspective I saw a whole bunch of POV pushing. Renaming antifacists to antifa over and over, being the most obvious example, and the sourcing didn't look crash hot. I went through a few diffs that I saw as problematic and decided it was best to revert the whole lot. TarnishedPath^talk 11:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest listing some of the changes here and getting input. The reverts are reasonable given the sourcing concerns. Also, while I suspect many of those who have attacked Ngo would consider themselves part of Antifa, this has been discussed in the past and absent solid sourcing/evidence etc, we decided not to say "antifia". Springee (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

But if that is what they are referred to as, commonly, why not use that term? Isn't it just a shortened acronym? Tkaras1 (talk) 12:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC) sock strike

I would suggest looking at some of the archived discussions on the issue. It's possible that some more recent sources have said Antifa and we can justify the change. When this was last discussed there wasn't a consensus for saying "antifa" and thus out of caution it was decided to use the current terms since they are certainly correct even if we knew for a fact that the attackers were antifia members and are true if it turns out they were just misguided jerks. Springee (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I'll peruse the archives.Thanks. Tkaras1 (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC) sock strike

Wait, you can be an antifascist and a misguided jerk at the same time? Tkaras1 (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC) sock strike

Yes. The venn diagram of antifa and misguided jerks certainly has a lot of overlap. However, absent reasonable sourcing saying those who did the assault were actually "antifa" vs "counter protesters" which could include antifa members, we shouldn't go beyond stating what is a widely agreed claim by the media. Springee (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, isn't "He has been accused of sharing misleading or selective material" an example of synthesis and/or unreliability? Yours. Tkaras1 (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC) sock strike

I would view that as a reasonable summary of some of the content from the article body. We did/do have sources that claim Ngo shared misleading or selectively presented material. We may or may not agree with those sources but I don't think any of us disagree that the accusation was made by other media sources. Hence this sentence summarizes that the accusation have been made without stating if they are correct. Springee (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Removal of information on recent activity & coverage of trans people

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As to your objections:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revert 1

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

Edit 2

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

New additions reverted:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think I've answered all of them but you seem to want more and more. A common problem with your responses is an appeal to "scholarship" without noting the limited quality or impact of the sources. An opinionated article with no citations isn't scholarship. While I might accept such a source for a reasoned argument, it's not useful for one off comments/opinions and isn't good for establishing weight for inclusion (per BALASP and V, just because something can be cited doesn't mean it needs to be included). You are also working hard to get a masters thesis accepted as reliable. I would suggest you take that to RSN. I think you will find that, absent some clear indication that the MS Thesis (or even a PhD dissertation) have been viewed as impactful in their field, editors will say it's not a strong source. For example that Ngo is using a particular funding platform or uses the same lawyer as someone else just isn't significant biographical material. This isn't a crime drama where we are trying to link people together to show a conspiracy or something. Zooming out basically all of your additions make the article read more like a mash up of any random, negative/negativish sounding content that could be found. It doesn't make for a good overall picture of the person nor do these factoids provide real insight into the person. Let's take the lawyer in common example. Why is that important? Perhaps both Ngo and O'Keefe have specific legal needs as small time journalists (using the term broadly) and this person is an expert in that area. Who else is a client of this lawyer/law firm? Does it turn out many people in a similar space use this same lawyer? What you are doing is presenting a fact (presumably true) without explaining why that fact is significant. That can falsely lead people to various conclusions (collaboration, legal issues, who knows). In the case of yellow journalism such implications are common as they allow everything to be "true" while allowing the reader to reach a false conclusion. If you can't say why the material is important to the subject, it probably isn't. So much of what you are trying to use is poorly sourced given this is a BLP. You should probably review this ARBCOM case[1] on BLPs that noted, In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm.". Springee (talk) 02:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)