Talk:Andy Ngo

RfC: "journalist" in lede

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

Well, we waited two years for the RfC to come, not one. I wait for close challenges, and probably not one. The general answer to this question is yes, but not in the first sentence. Also, please expand the lead, because it does not adequately summarise the body.

Breakdown of arguments

Proponents say that the majority of sources still call him journalist, and whatever his quality of journalism, he makes a living on reporting and thus should be called a journalist. The article describes his journalistic activities and so the lead should follow, and whether he is honest, impartial or good is irrelevant. The majority of sources, they contend, supports retaining the label "journalist", and where sources avoid calling Ngo a journalist, they variously argue that such avoidance is not the same as the journalists "disowning" Ngo from their own profession, or that these labels do not interfere with other descriptors, including his being called a journalist.

Opponents argue that the quality of his journalism is so bad he does not deserve that label, and note that if (numerous) news sources written by journalists avoid calling him a journalist, chances are he should be better described in other terms. Since that label is contentious, mentioning it in the first sentence of the lead would violate neutral point of view because it would not describe him using terms he is most associated with and are disputed, which they argue is more like "social media personality", "provocateur", "activist" etc.

Oddly, almost all editors focused on the first sentence only even though the RfC question asked about the lead as a whole.

Numerical analysis The side wishing to retain the label had a slight numerical advantage, but I wouldn't say it was overwhelming and the headcount didn't influence this closure much. Editors wishing to retain the label have to seek consensus for it, but so do people wishing to add other descriptors in the lead sentence, or change it in any way.

Analysis of strength of arguments Among the most interesting pieces of evidence submitted was a table with sources mentioned in this discussion (see Discussion section). Not only editors were unable to agree if the table presented consensus for mentioning the label "journalist", but also it is a bit of a stretch calling the slight majority of sources "consensus to call him journalist". If I were to summarise the discussion based on sources alone, it would have been a no-consensus closure. I also have to note one thing though.

The sources in the table mostly chose one label to describe Ngo. If they called him journalist, did they do so because they described his journalistic activity even if they would not have generally treated him as such, or they indeed believed he was a journalist? If they did not, was it because they had space constraints so they had to choose one descriptor they believed suited him best, or maybe because they didn't think he was a journalist but instead a far-right provocateur? There are a lot of variables here that most editors did not take into account, but the proponents are right that the labels are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and we are not limited to one label only. That said, opponents demonstrated that the label provokes controversy. Editors' opinions about what makes a journalist are irrelevant, but sources calling him an "activist", "provocateur" and the like will likely not call him a journalist, and it was demonstrated that sources cannot agree on whether to call him a journalist or not. We should avoid describing the person in the first sentence using terms that are contentious, which was shown here.

But proponents also point out that his journalistic career is described in the body of the article, and indeed this is the case. We describe him working for a student newspaper, then writing op-eds and pieces for various news outlets and creating podcasts. This should accordingly be reflected in the lead. As Alpha3031 notes though, is pretty short for what it covers. At 25K characters, we should expect something more than two short paragraphs that do not really describe what he was doing, particularly the thing he is most (in)famous for, which is his involvement in and reporting of the Portland protests in 2019. It should also be noted that for all the controversy that the "journalist" label attracts, that's what a slim, but still a majority of sources call him, so Ngo deserves that label after all somewhere in the lead (where relevant, i.e. when describing his career and controversies).

So there is rough consensus to do it somewhere in the lead, but not in the first sentence, as determined by the strength of arguments. Editors may add the "right-wing" descriptor to the label if contextually appropriate, as there is little dispute as to his political orientation. I hope that the large amount of sources that editors have dug out here will create a better article and a better summary thereof. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

Should we describe Andy Ngo as a journalist in the lede?

An RfC in 2021 came to no concensus on whether to call Ngo a journalist in the article lede section and thus WP:QUO was maintained. TarnishedPath^talk 04:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Survey (RfC: "journalist" in lede)

• Nah. Andy Ngo is pretty clearly, per the sources, in the same occupation as James O'Keefe. While O'Keefe claims to be a journalist, we don't describe him as such in the lead of his article. Instead we describe him as a "political activist". That phrase, IMO, fits Ngo much better: the sources we have use "provocateur" quite a bit for him, and unlike an actual conservative journalist (such as Andrew Neil or Brit Hume) he rarely does any sort of basic factual reporting, instead devoting all of his time to conservative activism. Loki (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed. When you argue in court that you should be treated as a journalist, and get essentially laughed out, then you're not a journalist. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• No - Sources have, mostly in the past, sporadically called him a journalist, but usually with qualifiers or sometimes even just in scare quotes. My observation is that more recent sources do not use this as a simple description. "Provocateur" seems like a more neutral term for his activities, and confusing the two would be misleading to readers. To put it another way, his form of "journalism" would have to be summarized and contextualized per reliable source, not presented as a basic fact in the lead. The point of the lead is to explain why someone is significant enough to have an article. Per many sources, he is significant in large part due to his self-aggrandizing pseudo-journalism. To call him a journalist would be to misrepresent the reason he even has an article, as well as be an insult to actual journalists. Grayfell (talk) 06:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Sporadically called him a journalist is a stretch. Here are the many sources from the last RfC. The Independent, The Times, RealClearPolitics, The Washington Post, Westword, Variety, Sky News, Slate, Vox, The New York Times, the BBC, and The Guardian all describe him as a journalist. This assertion that the sources presented in the last RfC are mostly in the past is bizarre since it provides no reason to disregard them. It is causality violation to cite sources from the future, so we can only use sources from the past. News sources do not provide a continuous drip-feed of articles about Andy Ngo every 24 months (this RfC was opened exactly 2 years to the day after the last one was closed) so I don't get the purpose of only considering sources since the last RfC. According to his Wikipedia article, Andy Ngo has not had any substantial events in his career since 2021. [1] So why should we dismiss all these sources published in 2021 that call him a journalist? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 07:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't find that sample to be compelling or representative. Combing through all possible sources to tally those which use "journalist" isn't really going to work, here. I still see it as sporadic, or perhaps uneven would be a better word. Our goal should be to provide context, not to prop-up Ngo's self-aggrandizing self description. It's not difficult to find sources which challenge this self-description and specifically do not call him a journalist, so ignoring those sources and only favoring those which have used the term, regardless of context, is not acceptable. I don't think "conservative/right-win" will work, either. Not all reliable sources accept that he is any kind of journalist, so placing him in a subcategory of journalist is misrepresenting those sources. Grayfell (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, I think you know what I mean when I say "in the past" and are talking about science fiction to try and prove some rhetorical point. If you cannot recognize that person on the other side of the screen knows which direction time flows, you're not assuming good faith. The point is this: The older a source is, the less weight it should have for how he is described currently. News sources which are covering specific past events, as opposed to sources about his career or far-right movements in general, are likewise less useful. We have to look at a lot of sources from a wide variety of contexts, but even in context, some sources weigh more than others. Sources are not pass/fail. I never said anything about only considering sources since the last RFC. Grayfell (talk) 01:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Note: RealClearPolitics is not a reliable source, and all of those sources prefix "journalist" with "right-wing" or similar. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. Per my comments in the previous discussion, one does not have to be a good journalist to be a journalist. Loki complains that Ngo rarely does any sort of basic factual reporting and Grayfell says that calling him a journalist would be an insult to actual journalists. Even if this is true, this doesn't address the above issue. Claas Relotius and Stephen Glass both fabricated stories, yet are described as "former journalists" because they wrote about the news as a job. This is like saying the Daily Mail isn't a newspaper anymore because we deprecated it as a source for making stuff up.

Trying to establish our own code of ethics for how good a journalist must be before we can call Ngo such is blatant WP:Original research + WP:Synthesis, and we must stick to what reliable sources call Andy Ngo. Not invent strange subjective standards that disqualify people deemed as self-aggrandizing because you don't like that some journalists are lazy. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 07:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I think qualifying his title as being a "right-wing journalist" is a good compromise that addresses most of the concerns brought up by no !voters. While I don't believe that being a "right-wing journalist" prevents one from being a regular journalist, other editors do. That's not an argument we have to resolve, as calling him a "right-wing journalist" means the reader can use their own judgement. It also addresses the main point raised by the "no" side, which is that we should follow the sources calling Ngo a "right-wing journalist". Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. The lead should summarise the article, and the article is replete with discussion of activities such as being the editor of various newspapers, publishing op-eds in other newspapers, engaging in punditry, "covering" things, "reporting" things... these are acts of journalism, so it seems fair to summarise them as him being a journalist (particularly since numerous sources also describe him this way). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
• Yes Nothing has changed, he is still a journalist per reliable sources through the years. (2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023)

Journalist/author Andy Ngo, who has reported extensively on Antifa activities, has won $300,000 in damages stemming from a 2019 attack. Three defendants have been ordered to pay conservative journalist Andy Ngo $300,000. Conservative journalist Andy Ngo. Conservative journalist Andy Ngo. Mr. Ngo is an independent journalist in the Portland area. The conservative journalist Andy Ngo. One journalist, Andy Ngo, was attacked so severely. A critical tweet by a center-right journalist Andy Ngo. Right-wing U.S. journalist Andy Ngo. Andy Ngo, a Portland-based journalist. Journalist Andy Ngo. Far-right users like journalist Andy Ngo. On Jun 29, 2019, a journalist named Andy Ngo. Conservative journalist Andy Ngo. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, for exactly the reasons cited by Chess above. Repeatedly bringing this up (this is the third time in three years) is getting tiresome. Dorsetonian (talk) 10:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
• Yes based on a sufficient number of reliable sources. Burrobert (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
• Yes More than enough recent and older sources use the term and any objective review of his work would support "journalism". As was said above "journalism" doesn't have to mean "good". The objections such as "sporadically" claiming journalist or that he really is an "activist" etc aren't supported by RSs nor an objective view of his work in reporting activities on the ground and being an editor at a news site. Even if we don't like the things he says or where he says them that doesn't mean his isn't engaged in journalism. Springee (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• No Reliable sources do not refer to Ngo as "a journalist," but always qualify it, so he is described as a "right-wing journalist," "far right journalist" or "conservative journalist." They are implying he is not a journalist in the full sense of the term. Compare with terms such as "frontier justice," "barroom philosopher," "revisionist historian." TFD (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree with the logic of this argument. Consider if we describe someone as a "civil rights lawyer" or a "rocket scientist" or a "nuclear physicist" or a "molecular biologist" or even a "dirt work contractor". In every case we are refining the primary label (lawyer, scientist, physicist, etc). We aren't saying someone who is a "civil rights lawyer" isn't actually a lawyer. They clearly are a lawyer. Instead we are providing more refinement to the description. A patent lawyer might not have as refined a view on a recent civil rights incident. A rocket scientist might not be able to speak as meaningfully on the issues with the newest Intel chip designs. That doesn't mean they aren't lawyers or scientists. Thus even if we think Ngo's work is "right-wing journalism" that still puts him in the larger bucket of "journalism". Also, the lead currently says, "right wing journalist" rather than just journalist. Springee (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  The equivalent would be financial journalist or sports journalist. There are courses in financial and sports journalism just as there are for molecular biology or civil rights law.

  Theoretically, journalists are supposed to be neutral and report the news objectively. They are supposed to report stories, not be part of them.

  Also, this has similarities to the discussion about Julian Assange. While he is at least by some definitions a journalist, his article does not call him one. That's because he doesn't meet the definition of what the average person would consider to be a journalist. TFD (talk) 12:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. Whatever your position on Julian Assange, calling him a journalist would be a stretch given he just dumps information that he receives. TarnishedPath^talk 13:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  Civil rights law is an area of legal practise. Right-wing journalism is a subgenre of propaganda (as Fox found to the cost of three quarters of a billion dollars). Guy (help! - typo?) 20:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  If reliable sources always call him a right-wing journalist, then we can call him a right-wing journalist in the lede as a compromise. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  Obviously reliable sources don't always call him a right-wing journalist or we wouldn't be having this discussion. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  The Independent, The Times, RealClearPolitics, The Washington Post, Westword, Variety, Sky News, Slate, Vox, The New York Times, the BBC, and The Guardian all call him a journalist. The reason why we're having this discussion is because people don't feel as if he's a "real" journalist and want to substitute their judgements for the sources. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

• Yes "Journalist" is a factual term, and it is clearly documented he worked as a journalist for a few outlets. Is he anywhere close to the caliber of journalist as NYTimes writers? Of course not, but he's still a journalist. Trying to diminish the term because RSes associate him on the far right is very much non-neutral; journalists exists across the entire range of the political spectrum. He also would be a political activist (as noted above), which doesn't change that he was a journalist too. --Masem (t) 13:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
• As Before. My remark on the second RfC, referring to the first RfC, ended Closed by Chetsford on 29 November 2020. If this RfC is not discarded, then I believe the next closer should determine whether this fits WP:CCC "consensus can change" description, or WP:CCC "disruptive" description. Chetsford closed the second RfC and finished by saying Until next year's RfC, I interpret that as pro "consensus can change". Okay but this time I'm hoping closer opinion can change. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
• No. Many high-quality sources overtly cast doubt on his description as a journalist, which makes it a contested opinion rather than a fact and therefore inappropriate to state in the article voice. See eg. Academics and journalists critical of the far-right have produced a number of books, informed by immersion, including those by [...]. There are also book-length treatments authored by far-right agitator Andy Ngo, and [...].[2]; the source unambiguously goes out of its way to distinguish Ngo from the list of journalists. Or Andy Ngô, a right-wing provocateur and “media personality,” often portrayed as a journalist.[3]. Or Independent journalist Andy Ngo was described by many news outlets not as a journalist when attacked and beaten on a Portland street by Antifa members in July 2019.[4] The first source notes that he is "often portrayed" as a journalist, but plainly disagrees; the second, as a secondary source, calls him a journalist itself but likewise acknowledges that many mainstream news sources do not. Both of these establish that it's contested opinion, not fact. Other sources, eg. [5] and [6], use "journalist" with scare quotes, likewise a treatment appropriate for opinion and not for uncontroversial fact. As a note, someone above said that Ngo has not had many events in his career since 2021; I feel compelled to point out that many of these sources are after that date, which implies that academic coverage of him has shifted. It's not uncommon for early coverage to be emotive and driven by rapidly-published repetition of initial reports, while later coverage involves more in-depth analysis and consideration - it's the whole reason WP:RECENTISM exists. The opinion that he is (or was) a journalist can weaken under sustained academic scrutiny even if he does nothing. --Aquillion (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  Can you establish the reliability of those works? You seem to be suggesting that anything with a vail of "scholarship" is automatically unbiased and reliable. How many of the works you list are cited by others? At least one, the one containing "often portrayed as a journalist." is a self published paper that seems to exist to defend Antifa. Are you suggesting that is a good source to establish Ngo's profession? Your first example article is cited by no one. Perhaps that's because it was released in June 2023 but that also means that we can't assume others treat it's claims as reliable. Springee (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The paper by Knüpfer was published by the Weizenbaum Institute for the Networked Society – The German Internet Institute; that's hardly "self-published". Most of the others have been cited at least a few times (eg. seven times for Neville; ten for Anthony); as you note, an inevitable result of looking at recent sources, for a recent event, is that they obviously won't have been cited too many times because they haven't existed for long, but they're comparable in citations and weight to papers or articles that do call him a journalist - the two I noted are on the high side. Of the sources that discuss his career in any depth at all, the ones I cited are not outliers and are reasonably well-cited. You're applying scrutiny in an unbalanced manner - you need to go back and examine the sources presented to argue that he's a journalist in the same way. Most of them are contemporary news reports which, obviously, carry little weight today under WP:RECENTISM. I can tell you that academic sources exist but I don't think they're sufficient to overcome the equally weighty sourcing that is plainly and directly skeptical. --Aquillion (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The self published paper says it's a working paper. Where would that be peer reviewed? I would also note that sources that call him a journalist are major journalism sources vs people arguing about social politics. Springee (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Springee: - This first paragraph that I cite below is the full quote with context, from one of the sources listed above by Aquillion, plus some other academic/scholary sources that don't use any labels in their description, plus there are two other academic/scholary sources in my first reply that don't use any labels. WP:SOURCETYPES says - When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Independent journalist Andy Ngo was described by many news outlets not as a journalist when attacked and beaten on a Portland street by Antifa members in July 2019. Instead, various Blue tribe media referred to him as a “conservative journalist,” “right-wing journalist,” “right-wing troll,” and “grifter” (Dickson, 2019). This reflects an internal narrative. Blue tribe media do not describe their own reporters as “left-wing” or “liberal” journalists, let alone “left-wing trolls.” In such instances, the mere invoking of the name of the despised other is enough to situate them as a force of immorality or perhaps evil. In this way, their arguments can be ignored, or their abuse dismissed as unimportant.

A similar opinion was expressed by journalist Andy Ngo of the British political weekly The Spectator. Meanwhile, journalist Andy Ngo and photographer Keith Birmingham were also featured among this network’s top influencers. In 2019, disabled citizens and elderly passersby were beaten, violent altercations ensued with right-wing counter-demonstrators, and journalist Andy Ngo suffered brain damage after being beaten by Antifa members. Another person from Portland, Mr. Andy Ngo, an American journalist born and raised in Portland is also mentioned. Antifa usually punches only critical journalists like Andy Ngo whose “anti-Communism” derives from his parents’ [South] Vietnamese experiences (Bishop 2017). Isaidnoway (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't your first source (Anthony) support not referring to him as a journalist? HIs peers, who write for reliable sources do not consider him to be one. TFD (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

No, he's making a point that left leaning sources won't just simply describe Ngo as a journalist, they have to place a label in front of the term journalist. Wikipedia does the same thing, we are quick to slap a conservative label, but rarely use the liberal label. Look at the difference between Fox News and MSNBC in their lead sentences. Fox is described as conservative, while MSNBC is not described as liberal, even though they are - MSNBC...the most liberal cable news network. Another example is Keith Olbermann, not described as liberal in the lead sentence, but Britannica Encyclopædia does describe him that way. Hey, nothing can be done about it though, that's just how we roll here at WP. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The difference is that the sources "liberal journalists" write for are reliable sources, while the sources conservative journalists like Ngo write for are not. Even Fox News, which I voted to keep reliable, calls him a conservative journalist. You cannot put major cable news networks in the same category as the The Post Millennial which Ngo writes for and whose Wikipedia article says it publishes false and misleading stories.

I would btw agree to describe Olbermann and similar people as liberal since their journalism consists of openly promoting DNC talking point rather than reporting news. And their shows are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. TFD (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I did not put major cable news networks into the same category as the The Post Millennial. I did not even mention The Post Millennial. I explained to you the point Anthony was making. WP:NPOV says we have to present all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. The WP:WEIGHT of the sources show that Ngo being described as a journalist (conservative and/or right-wing) is a significant viewpoint. If that needs WP:ATTRIBUTION, that's fine, I'm also okay with including content from sources that dispute calling him a journalist. And after Fox News paid out $787M, and all their recent anti-LGBT coverage, I'm very skeptical of them being considered a reliable source. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

• No It's important to reflect recent RS for any such label. He is more of a diarist. "Journalist" would misrepresent his current output to most of our readers. SPECIFICO talk 15:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Per Isaidnoway, recent sources refer to him as a journalist. Springee (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

If he isn't a journalist perhaps you can provide some sources that say he isn't? To reufte the many sources provided that say he is.

Also, how recent is recent? Because according to our article, not much has happened in his career since the 2019-2021 period. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

1234 5 etc. SPECIFICO talk 01:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, of course That's what he does for a living. North8000 (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• Yes per last time and Springee and Isawnoway. Nothing significant has changed compared to the last time this was brought up.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
• Yes Regardless of his political slant, he is a journalist. ~ HAL333 16:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
• No. The description of Ngo as a journalist is contested amongst reliable sources. Many sources specifically avoid labeling him as a journalist. See CNN, Harvard academic Joan Donovan for MIT Technology Review, Salon, The Oregonian, BuzzFeed News, The Intercept, The Guardian ([7]), Los Angeles Times ([8]), New York (magazine) ([9]), Yale Professor Jason Stanley in an interview for the SPLC, Columbia Journalism Review ([10][11]), a report for Harvard's Nieman Foundation for Journalism by four subject-matter experts, and Above the Law. ––FormalDude (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  What do you mean by specifically avoid? When a source doesn’t use a description, does that always mean they contest the description? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  What if we find an example of any one of those sources calling him a journalist of some type, would that negate your argument? For example you say CNN avoided labeling him as a journalist. What if a different CNN article[12] did call him a journalist? I think the claim "specifically avoided" would need to have some evidence. Springee (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  Have CNN actually called Ngo a journalist at any point after 2019? The only articles I can find on their website that name him as a journalist were all published on 2 July 2019, whereas the more recently published articles do not. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  You two are free to get hung up on my wording all you want, but it's clear that "journalist" is not the primary descriptor reliable sources choose to use, and many sources use descriptors that are directly at odds with "journalist". Simply put, someone who is widely described as not credible, misleading, who uses selective editing and inserts themselves into their stories is not a genuine journalist. They're a pseudo-journalist at best, and plenty of reliable sources share that perspective. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  Why cite The Guardian as a source specifically avoiding calling him a journalist, when they published a later article where they did: [13].

  not credible, misleading, who uses selective editing and inserts themselves into their stories - there are a lot of journalists, past and present, who could be described using one or more of those labels. Per Chess, bad journalism is still journalism. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  I cited The Guardian because it shows that news outlets vary in their description of Ngo.

  Per Aquillion, when we have reliable sources negating that Ngo is a journalist, that makes it a contested opinion rather than a fact and therefore inappropriate to state in the article voice. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  It's a false dichotomy to state that "not using a description" is equivalent to the description being negated or contested. Looking through the sources you have cited:

  CNN - Calls him a right-wing media personality. Doesn't say he's not also a journalist.

  MIT Technology Review - Calls him right-wing adversarial media-maker. Doesn't say he's not also a journalist.

  Salon - Calls him a Right-wing "journalist" in the headline, scare-quotes included. But then calls him a right-wing journalist, without scare-quotes, in the article body. Per WP:HEADLINES, we go with the body.

  The Oregonian - Calls him a conservative writer. Doesn't say he's not also a journalist, and it wouldn't be a stretch to think that "writer" is a kind of journalist. A later article from this same newspaper calls him a journalist: [14]

  Buzzfeed News - Calls him a conservative media personality. It's an interesting source because it directly addresses accusations that he is not a journalist. A passage begins with Though Ngo’s work is probably best described as media activism, it then labels him a “busybody” journalist (i.e. a type of journalist), and then (reluctantly?) concludes that Ngo may not be as far from the mainstream of journalism as many of us might wish to think, and the biographical part uses phrases like his own journalism. A quote from a critic says “There are a lot of people who feel they have been put at risk through Andy Ngo’s journalism.”. On the whole, this source appears to support the notion that he is a type of journalist.

  The Intercept - Calls him a right-wing activist. Doesn't say he's not also a journalist.

  The Guardian - Says describes himself as a journalist in this 2018 article, which is certainly a skeptical way of putting it, but they were onboard with "journalist" by 2021: [15], calling him conservative journalist.

  Los Angeles Times - Calls him a provocateur. Doesn't say he's not also a journalist.

  New York magazine - Straight-up calls him a journalist.

  SPLC - As far as I can tell, doesn't describe him as anything. It's just an interview that mentions him briefly.

  Columbia Journalism Review - Calls him a discredited provocateur in the first article. The second article says a right-wing agitator. The third article says writer. None of these say he's not also a journalist, and they're all passing mentions.

  Nieman Foundation - Calls him a right-wing operator. Doesn't say he's not also a journalist, and it's a passing mention.

  Above the Law - Directly states he's not a journalist, but a perfidious pseudo-journalist. I'll give you this one.

  So I make that 1 out of 15 sources that negate him being a journalist. And it's an opinion piece by a non-notable individual. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  You are obviously undercounting. I count 8 out of those 15 that describe him directly as something inconsistent with being a journalist, like "provocateur" or "activist". Loki (talk) 03:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  To support your claim I think you would need to do a survey with some agreed cut off date. Just saying it doesn't proved the needed evidence. Never mind that a rational look at what he does is objectively journalism even if we don't view it as good journalism. Springee (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  CNN called him a "conservative journalist" and a "journalist who works for a conservative website." No reliable sources, including Fox News, call him a journalist without qualification. TFD (talk) 03:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  Until recently this article called him a conservative journalist. It now calls him a right wing journalist. I look at that as further classifying the broader descriptor but if you prefer to view it as a qualifier then are you OK with the current "right-wing journalist" or the recent "conservative journalist" qualified descriptors? Springee (talk) 03:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'm ok with the qualified descriptor. I think we need a 3rd option. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

• Again? No. He is a provocateur, in the same mould as O'Keefe, Wohl and Loomer. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
• No. I'm persuaded by the sources presented above, particularly by Aquillion and FormalDude, that it would be inappropriate to refer to this individual as a journalist in Wikivoice. It's clearly a contested opinion rather than a statement of fact. Perhaps his supporters see him that way, but mainstream sources appear to consistently cast doubt on that designation, or avoid it altogether. Generalrelative (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
• No per arguments by TFD, Aquillion and FormalDude. If he is going to be referred to as anything in wikivoice I believe 'activist' is a more appropriate term. TarnishedPath^talk 00:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

• NO per TFD and TarnishedPath. He's an activist (aka provocateur) masquerading as a journalist, plain and simple, and no amount of screeching from right-wing wikipedians will change that. If we must label him as a "journalist," then "conservative" should be changed to "far-right" to reflect what the sources say. DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  @DontKnowWhyIBother conservative already was changed to right-wing. There was consensus for that change a bit over a month ago. TarnishedPath^talk 15:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  @DontKnowWhyIBother I stand corrected. Looks like someone has changed it. TarnishedPath^talk 16:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  @DontKnowWhyIBother: I didn't refer to your comment as screeching from leftist Wikipedians, so I would prefer it if you didn't make WP:personal attacks where you insult people based on their political beliefs. You should retract your blatant personal attack directed at others as it is accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

• NO - Not even a gonzo journalist. A gonzo journalist takes part in in the subject area, but does not provoke in an attempt to make a preconceived negative point. RS use many terms and when using “journalist” add modifiers because he simply cannot legitimately be deemed a journalist per se. As has been pointed out, his profession is contested by RS; so we should not use it in WikiVoice. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• No. I'm convinced by the arguments offered by Aquillion. And Barnards.tar.gz, as for your source roundup: I interpret that completely differently. It seems that very few high-quality, recent sources refer to him as a "journalist" and almost none do without qualifiers. That's strong evidence we should not call him a journalist either. The right question is not "do the sources negate or contest description X?"; rather, it is "looking at the universe of high-quality sources collectively, how do they describe X"? Neutrality^talk 19:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, I didn’t do a roundup of all sources, just those that FormalDude offered as evidence of the term “journalist” being contested. The sources offered further up by Chess are recent, all uniformly call him a journalist without qualification, and to my eye are higher quality, including several big hitters: NYT, WP, BBC, The Guardian, The Times. If by qualification you mean adjectives like “conservative” and “right-wing”, then yes, those are common - and consistent with what we have in the lead currently. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

• I would not say those are overall higher quality. The Times of London article is an opinion column by a UK ex-parliamentary staffer and Conservative Party political candidate. The NYT article is a news article, but it is four years old. The Guardian article is in the music section. I take your point that a qualifier like "right-wing journalist" is way better than an unadorned "journalist" but the sources are far from uniform in terming him a "journalist." Neutrality^talk 22:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

• Yes Given the poor state journalism is these days I'm not sure why anyone would want to be called a journalist, but Ngo is certainly on the spectrum even if other journalists don't want to claim him. As others have pointed out there plenty of sources who have called Ngo a journalist of some kind so opposing this is kind of strange. I would oppose the term "right wing" as it's not an improvement over the status quo. Nemov (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  Given the poor state journalism is these days. Has it occurred to you that you are reading the wrong journalism? O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  Or maybe, if you don't know who the sucker is at the table, it's you, right? Nemov (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• No - The highest-quality sources generally don't describe him as a journalist. –dlthewave ☎ 15:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• Yes per the sources cited by Chess and Isaidnoway. "right-wing journalist", the current descriptor, is fine as a compromise. I'm not sure where this idea keeps coming from that someone's occupation is invalid if they do their job poorly. No one questions that a professor is a professor even if they have fringe views not held by others in the field. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  The issue is not that Ngo is a bad journalist, though. It's that he's claiming to be a journalist to give legitimacy to his activism. I would indeed question if someone is really a professor if, rather than doing research and teaching classes, they spent all of their time on activism. I wouldn't call Jordan Peterson a professor, for instance, even though he certainly has been one in the past.

  (And for related reasons I think it's fair to say that Ngo has been a journalist before, but he is not currently a journalist, even though there's less formal distinction here than there is for Peterson.) Loki (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  So if he was a journalist what has made him not a journalist? Springee (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  He got fired by the student paper he was at for misrepresenting facts. And since then, he's been with a series of increasingly dubious employers. Loki (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think you have confused quality with the basic profession. He is an editor for a news source. Seems straight forward to call him a journalist since RSs commonly do as well. Springee (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  MOS:LEADBIO is important here. Just because someone may have been a journalist we do not necessarily put that in the lede. What goes in the lede is what they are notable for. To quote the first sentence "The lead section should summarise the life and works of the person with due weight". TarnishedPath^talk 05:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I would prefer that we qualify him as a right wing journalist. I think "far right" is a bit too loaded in phrasing except when it comes to people like the Proud Boys or Stuart Rhodes. The status quo as of writing works out well enough. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Sources

• No, per Aquillion and Generalrelative: we could say he says he's a journalist, but per the sources it's clearly a contested opinion rather than a fact, so shouldn't be in wikivoice. -sche (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Where is this a contested fact in a RS? Some of the sources say he's a writer or author (both true and neither conflict with journalist). Only a very opinionated source would claim he isn't a journalist. Journalist is one of the most common descriptions of know and it factually fit what he does. Per Google's provided definition, "a person who writes for newspapers, magazines, or news websites or prepares news to be broadcast." Ngo certainly does do those things. Springee (talk) 03:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Lots of sources say he's an "activist" or even "provocateur", professions which aren't consistent with "journalist".

The issue here is that "journalist" has connotations of neutrality which are absolutely not true in this case. Andy Ngo is employed by something that claims to be a news organization, but we consider it unreliable already and have been close to deprecating it before. In the very similar case of James O'Keefe we do not let the journalistic veneer of what he does outshine the basic fact that nearly everything he does is extremely misleading at best, and we shouldn't here either. Loki (talk) 06:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Loki, I don't think we need go so far as considering "neutrality". We need only refer ourselves to MOS:LEADBIO. With due weight, what is he more notable as? A journalist or an activist (lets leave charged words like provocateur out of it)? For me the answer is an activist given the way he has inserted himself into politics and there are plenty of WP:RS to support that position. TarnishedPath^talk 06:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Loki, where is "neutrality" in the definition of journalist? Springee (talk) 10:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The Post Millennial being unreliable under your standard doesn't change that our Wikipedia article calls it a "news magazine". Being a bad news magazine doesn't mean you're not a news magazine. Go start an RfC on the Daily Mail to change it in WikiVoice to a "right-wing rag", I can find plenty of leftie academics that will call it such just as they call Ngo a "provocateur" which is even more of a non-neutral term.

You keep making these assertions about neutrality based on your uncited definition of a journalist, then reading sources calling him an "activist", and combining that with your made-up definition of a journalist to evaluate that Ngo does not meet that standard. This would be a pretty blatant case of WP:SYNTH except that your definition of a journalist isn't cited. Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source... "A and B, therefore, C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument concerning the topic of the article.

You can't cite sources saying only that a) journalists are supposed to be neutral, b) Andy Ngo is not neutral, then combining them yourself to make the point that c), Andy Ngo is not a journalist. You are ignoring the original research policy (which explicitly forbids what you are doing) because you don't like Andy Ngo. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 13:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

"You are ignoring the original research policy (which explicitly forbids what you are doing) because you don't like Andy Ngo."

Didn't you just accuse me of a PA earlier in this thread? DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, well-cited that he's a reporter. Contentious if he's a good one or not, sure, but he is one.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
• No because I think, and I am further convinced of this by the fact that we are still discussing it, it is better to have a contextualized and proper sentence than a label that is admittedly contested, not only among us but also by reliable sources. This is what I propose and what I believe is a reflection of what reliable sources say.

  Andy Ngo ... is an American activist, author, and social media influencer ... Many news outlets contested his self-description as a journalist [then we make a summary Aquillion's provided sources, which should probably have a section of his own including the academic sources provided by Isaidnoway, saying that he has been variously described as an agitator, provocateur, et cetera, and that have casted doubts or, to quote TFD, that "His peers, who write for reliable sources do not consider him to be one". Then we mention the various labels used by those who have described him as a journalist, such as "conservative journalist", "right-wing journalist", "independent journalist", "'busybody' journalist", etc.]. ... Politically, he has been variously described as conservative, right-wing, and far-right [or just far-right if academic sources consider him as part of a radical right grouping or is consistently placed within that context].

  I think last time, I was for "Yes, but", hoping that a sentence would be created to describe this issue. Ultimately, this time I think there is sourcing in support that the journalist label is contested, that Ngo is best known as an activist, and that there are enough sources that question his "journalism" that the real notability or what we should be saying and discussing is not that he is a journalist but the discussion on whether he is by reliable sources, rather than stating as fact that he is a journalist. I am not convinced by arguments that sources do not say he is not a journalist; they do not need to say that, it is sufficient that they give a different label, meaning that they attribute his notability to being an activist, a provocateur, or whatever other label use to describe rather than journalist (MOS:LEADBIO).
  
  Davide King (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
  [Edited to add] We are also not supposed to prove a negative, it is sufficient that it is questioned by a significant number of reliable sources. Davide King (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  This seems pretty reasonable to me. Loki (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  Why would we give more priority to less commonly used descriptors? Journalist is one of the most common descriptors used with Ngo while "activist" and "social media influencer" are less common. Which sources actually contest the "journalist" description and why do you think it's "self-description"? Many sources call him that. How many sources say it's a self-description? Sadly, Aquillion's list of sources really is poor as they didn't get a broad range and some are of dubious quality. Springee (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  Whether we have journalist added in the first sentence, it is not a big deal to me; what should be taken care of, and has not been sufficiently done, is to discuss both in the body and lead the significant number of reliable sources that have questioned his categorization as a journalist. This should be the main focus to expand and improve.

  "Which sources actually contest the 'journalist' description".

  • All the sources that use another label other than journalist to categorize him; it is not required that they say "he is not a journalist", it is sufficient that they question it, though there have been cited those who explicitily say that he is not a journalist. After all, if journalist is the description more fitting for Ngo, then I would except every source to say journalist when describing him (even if they then mention the criticism or that it has been questioned); the fact they use other labels to describe him shows that those sources consider, for example, his activism or provocations to be more accurate to describe his notability, and who he is, than his journalism or lack thereof.

  You asked "why do you think it's 'self-description'?"

  • Does he not consider himself to be a journalist? Among others sources I have found where he said "I'm a journalist", there you have it from his own testimony:

  "I'm a journalist who reports on American political violence".

  You say that "many sources call him that", but many also add caveats or qualifiers.

  • I do agree with a comment by @The Four Deuces (who are free to correct me, as I may have not recalled their point correctly because I do not remember the exact words) where they said something akin political labels added to journalist that they are an oxymoron because a journalist is supposed to report facts and not be political; of course, as we all know, all journalists have bias but most of them can maintain neutrality or be objective. I do agree that "bad journalism" does not mean someone is not a journalist but the fact that so many sources use some qualifier or caveat, in addition to the fact that another significant number of sources either avoid the label outright or criticize and question it as a correct description for the subject's main activity and claim to notability, should be telling. When reliable sources disagree, we should not state something in wikivoice but summarize the dispute. In reference to those who say that what Ngo objectively qualifies as a journalist, I do not think that WP:SKYISBLUE applies, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary either (WP:DICDEF), nor dictionary definitions triumph WP:RELIABLESOURCES.

  "Sadly, Aquillion's list of sources really is poor as they didn't get a broad range and some are of dubious quality."

  • Well, they are better than WP:NEWSORG, including several of them being yellow or red, describing him as a journalist, so that argument is not really convicing to me. The academic sources provided by Aquillion may not be sufficient to state as fact that Ngo is not a journalist but, alongside other reliable sources who questioned the label or explicitily said that reliable sources avoided the use of the label as showed in at least one of Aquillion's sources, they are sufficient to have us avoid stating in wikivoice that he is a journalist.

  In conclusion, I reiterate that what should be done is have a section describing this dispute among reliable sources, using the ones provided by Aquillion that have questioned the label or said that many reliable sources avoided to use it, and the academic sources provided by Isaidnoway that call him a journalist and see in what context they place him. Once that is done, a sentence akin that one I wrote above should be used in the lead to summarize that new section. This can and should be done regardless of whether we have journalist or not in the first sentence.

  Davide King (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  There isn't a dispute in reliable sources about what to call him, that's a dispute among Wikipedia editors. Therefore we cannot report on it.

  Bear in mind that language usage in sources is often subtle, but should never be subtle in Wikipedia articles. When a legacy media reporter refers to Ngo as a "conservative journalist," they are saying he is not really a journalist. He fails to meet their professional standards of training, objectivity and honesty. Of course we can question whether mainstream journalists meet these standards themselves, but per WP:WEIGHT, we accept their standards.

  In the same way we would not describe a holocaust denier as an historian, but reliable sources might call them a "revisionist historian." In a broad sense, you and I are both historians because we have edited articles about historical topics. But while I can call myself an amateur historian, I would not call myself an historian without qualification.

  The same word can mean different things depending on context. Any time we use a word, its meaning should be clear without providing context. You have to consider what the reader will understand you are saying. If you say they are a journalist, the reader will think they are someone who reports news fairly and objectively, at least to the standards of mainstream reporters. But Ngo does not meet even those minimal standards. TFD (talk) 02:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  There isn't a dispute in reliable sources about what to call him, that's a dispute among Wikipedia editors. I couldn't agree more. User:Barnards.tar.gz identified exactly one source provided that directly disputes this characterization. Meanwhile in favour of inclusion have provided a dozen+. When a legacy media reporter refers to Ngo as a "conservative journalist," they are saying he is not really a journalist. If you don't cite this, the close should just assume you're making this up. During this entire RfC, I haven't seen a single source provided supporting this imaginary professional standard of practice to be called a "journalist" that seems only to exist in the heads of those against inclusion. You admit reliable sources call Ngo a "conservative journalist", so the only dispute is among Wikipedia editors trying to argue how someone called a journalist in reliable sources isn't a journalist. And even if there was a standard for journalists, it's original synthesis to say Ngo doesn't meet it. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 14:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  See WP:NOR: "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources." We are supposed to apply our proficiency in English language usage to evaluate what sources actually mean. How else would you know if something was meant ironically or sarcastically?

  Consider the lyrics of It's Good News Week: "It's good news week/Someone's dropped a bomb somewhere/Contaminating atmosphere/And blackening the sky." It's obviously meant ironically rather than literally. Reasonably fluent language speakers would understand this. The only people who would have trouble would be toddlers, who have not learned the concept of irony. TFD (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

• right-wing journalist...Seems accurate enough to me. DN (talk) 04:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. I wouldn't have described Ngo as a journalist myself before reading this RfC, but the number of sources cited by the "no" camp as evidence that Ngo is not a journalist which do not in fact seem to support the claims they are making has convinced me that he is sufficiently widely described as a journalist to keep it in the lead. Some sort of qualifier like "right-wing journalist" or "conservative journalist" seems appropriate. Sure, there are sources which do not describe Ngo as a journalist, but it seems as though more sources do than don't, and despite the claims of some no voters, very few sources actively cast doubt of Ngo's status as a journalist: describing him as something else, or qualifying the description as "right wing journalist" or "conservative journalist" is not the same as saying he is not a journalist. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
• I popped here from NPOVN and I have to say I'm not sure I fully understand this RFC? Given that the lead is supposed to summarise the body of the article (and my impression is that overall it's a little short to do that) the discussion seems overly narrow. I find the comments from Davide King persuasive, including those from the previous two RFCs, in that no matter the specific terms used, the lead is not a good summary if it does not include more of the context provided by the rest of the article. If forced to pick one way or the other, I would say "news editor", "opinion columnist" or "writer" would be a better description of what is said in the body of the article, which I suppose would be a no, but the exact term seems like it would be less important should the lead be expanded with more detail as in the late 2020 or early 2021 versions and appropriately organised (and I guess that does match up with when Davide suggested yes and no as well). (As a side note, I'm not quite sure why the body says he "describes himself" as the editor at large. I know that's the exact text of the AP article used as a source here, but either include it or don't, there's no point in attributing this here.) Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
• Yes - Per the sources provided below by Barnards.tar.gz. Now if there should be a qualifier? Yeah maybe, either right-wing or conservative, but either way the question is Should we describe Andy Ngo as a journalist in the lede? that is a fairly clear yes as the sources seem to do that. I am not a fan of reading between the lines of well these sources didn't, because unless they specifically refute it that means nothing. I also do not follow the line of reasoning that if they are a conservative journalist or described as such that it is somehow different than a journalist. I mean if we look at our own article Journalist, they are described as A journalist is an individual who collects/gathers information in the form of text, audio, or pictures, processes it into a news-worthy form, and disseminates it to the public. The act or process mainly done by the journalist is called journalism. Which he seems to meet the requirements for. PackMecEng (talk) 18:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

  Why do you think they describe him as a "conservative" journalist? They don't call reporters who happen to be conservatives working for mainstream media as "conservative journalists." Do you think it has anything to do with how he covers stories? TFD (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

  I do not really care why they do it, which was kind of my point here. There are journalist of all walks of life, even above you cite sports or financial journalist. Now you do go on to talk about courses in those fields of journalism, but courses and school are not required to be a journalist. At the end of the day he works for a publication and writes articles for them. I don't care if he is a neutral or good journalist, just that it is or was his profession. PackMecEng (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• Yes; Ngo is widely labeled a journalist by the most objective and neutral sources. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

• No - The description of "journalist" being given to this person in the lede, in wikivoice, especially in the first sentence lacks NPOV and is UNDUE. It is true, per UNDUE that [n]eutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources, and per BALANCE, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, [we should] describe both points of view and work for balance.

However, the first sentence (MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE) and opening paragraphs (MOS:OPENPARABIO) should also avoid subjective or contentious terms. The evidence that describing Ngo as a "journalist" is "subjective or contentious" is shown by other users above. The first sentence and opening paragraph should instead include the main reason the person is notable. Ngo is not notable because he is a journalist. He is notable as a social media personality and provocateur. Therefore, to the question of this RfC, "Should we describe Andy Ngo as a journalist in the lede?", the answer is no! Certainly not in the first sentence or first paragraph. Perhaps a later paragraph in the lede section can give a balanced description of the both view points, per BALANCE. But that balance viewpoint is that reliable sources disagree on the viewpoint. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. Based on the weight of the sources it's clear that it is the most common descriptor used. Assigning negative value or assuming a source is challenging that descriptor based on that source not using that descriptor, or providing a more descriptive label (e.g. right-wing journalist), is pure OR. It's also clear that the few sources that do challenge that descriptor are not in the mainstream of how reliable sources view Ngo, as mainstream reliable sources continue to call him a journalist. We follow the weight of sources, which solidly support "journalist." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
• Yes; while any perusal of the literature reveals he is quite biased, and perhaps a lame-o, the word "journalist" is not some kind of prestige title awarded only to people we like. It is a profession, which this guy seems to be employed as. Clearly, the fact that most people consider him to be bad at it, or heavily biased, should be noted. But whether he is a right-wing journalist or a crappy journalist or whatever, it does seem to be his profession. Compare to, say, Harold Shipman, who was an English general practitioner and serial killer. Well, the role of a doctor is to cure your patients, so murdering hundreds of them seems like about the worst you could possibly do that job, but that's what his profession was, so we call him one. Similarly, whether Andy Ngo is a great journalist or a crappy one, he seems to be a journalist nonetheless. jp×g 07:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• No; Ngo is a journalist in the same way that I'm a world champion sprinter. Sceptre (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. The source analysis by Barnards.tar.gz is really impressive and thorough, and fully convinces me. It's a fact that most RS's call Ngo a journalist. Before reading that analysis, I also did some of my own (less-thorough) searches on RS's, and found numerous RS's that called him a journalist with no qualifications (the RS Reason.com, in particular, does this.) The real discussion we should be having is whether the qualifier for journalist should be "right-wing", "conservative", or nothing. In general, living person biographies should err on the side of caution when RS's are in dispute. BonaparteIII (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'd like to point out that this is a discussion section and there's a survey section above. TarnishedPath^talk 01:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

• No. The term "activist" appears more appropriate as other editors have mentioned above. CranberryMuffin (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'd like to point out that this is a discussion section and there's a survey section above. TarnishedPath^talk 01:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks sorry for getting it confused! CranberryMuffin (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

  All good, looks like another editor has moved the votes. As long as everyone is happy with that. TarnishedPath^talk 02:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

  I've struck these comments per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• No. His motives and methods are questioned by too many sources that describe him as an activist rather than a journalist. Binksternet (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'd like to point out that this is a discussion section and there's a survey section above. TarnishedPath^talk 01:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

• Yes American journalism is becoming increasingly partisan. There's more than enough soild sourcing that demonstrates that he is known as a journalist. We can further describe his work and its political associations in the lead. Thriley (talk) 11:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
• Yes The attempts to impose a "quality, honesty and impartiality" threshold here is fruitless and PoV. Not only is what he does "creating news coverage", it's also the most common descriptor among many sources, many of whom probably have a lower opinion of him than we do. Even to the extent that he is an activist, it is order to create news coverage. The rest of the lead puts in context the criticism/controversies surrounding him and his methods and news 'product', but the area of human activity he is employed in is journalism. He may be a disgrace to that trade, but a crooked plumber is still a plumber. An embarrassingly unfunny and foul-mouthed comic is still a comic if that is how he makes his money and - more importantly for us - how he is described by sources. He does seem to be and the qualifying adjectives don't negate the noun. Pincrete (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

  But then, a comic playing a plumber is not a plumber. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah but a comic employed by a plumber to do plumbing is closer to the current situation. They are employed by an online news magazine to write articles. PackMecEng (talk) 01:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  FWIW, calling Andy Ngo a journalist because he's employed by The Post Millennial is like calling Alex Jones a journalist because he's employed by InfoWars. Loki (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  I don't really think we need to get that involved in the question. I think we need only concern ourselves with an analysis of MOS:LEADBIO, which states "The lead section should summarise the life and works of the person with due weight" and more specifically what MOS:FIRSTBIO has to say on the first sentence that "[t]he first sentence should usually state ... The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.)". Now is the main reason that Ngo is notable because he is a journalist? I think the clear answer is a resounding NO. Therefore it would be WP:UNDUE to place it in the lede and most certainly in the first sentence. TarnishedPath^talk 02:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  Now is the main reason that Ngo is notable because he is a journalist? I'm afraid he "ticks all the boxes", he earns money by producing news coverage (the commonsense definition) and he is described as such by the vast majority of sources (the WP reason). I'm UK and only know this person through WP and specifically two RfCs. The majority of sources qualify and question whether he is a good/ethical/professional journalist, but so do we, but they record that he earns his money by producing news ie "is a journalist", albeit a highly partisan one. There simply isn't any ethical barrier to practising most professions including journalism. If Alex Jones was described as a journalist by most sources, it would not be up tp us to negate that because of our personal opinions, AFAIK they don't. Pincrete (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  The reason the subject came to prominence/notability was because of their activism. If it was left to their journalism alone they would have never been notable and most likely would have never written columns for any of the major newspapers that they have. Them inserting themselves into controversy is the main cause for their notability. Everything else is secondary. So going back to MOS:FIRSTBIO, "[t]he first sentence should usually state ... The main reason the person is notable" wiki policy dictates that we concern ourselves with the main reasons that the subect is notable, not everything under the son that the every possible WP:RS could possible say about them. The question for this RfC is only about what we say about the subject in the lede, not what we say about them in the rest of the article. TarnishedPath^talk 22:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

• Yes Find opposes to be unconvincing. He is a journalist. It's not required to like his politics to say that.--Wehwalt (talk)
• Yes - The source analysis by Barnards.tar.gz below is convincing, enough sources call him a journalist for us to call him a journalist. This is just one of the terms to describe him, and does not preclude any other terms that editors are using above (e.g. provocateur). starship.paint (RUN) 13:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
• Yes source analysis supports this view. Willbb234 22:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (RfC: "journalist" in lede)

Pinging Coffeeandcrumbs, Wikieditor19920, Cedar777, Dorsetonian, Shinealittlelight, NorthBySouthBaranof, Snooganssnoogans, Masem, Springee, Some of everything, Blueboar, O3000, Morbidthoughts, Chess, TFD, Rhododendrites, Aquillion, Idealigic, Binksternet, PackMecEng, Davide King, RandomGnome, Guy, Anne Drew, Spy-cicle and Chetsford as you have been previously involved in a similar RfC. TarnishedPath^talk 04:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Pinging 力, IvoryTower123, Volunteer Marek, HAL333, Thenightaway, Isaidnoway, PraiseVivec, BristolTreeHouse, Pincrete, Sea Ane, Korny O'Near, SPECIFICO, Korny O'Near, -sche, Czello, ScottishFinnishRadish, PackMecEng, LokiTheLiar, FormalDude, Hipocrite, North8000, Stuartyeates, ValarianB, Crossroads, Binksternet, Peter Gulutzan and K.e.coffman as you have been previously involved in a similar RfC. TarnishedPath^talk 04:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Editor appears to be blocked from here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oh look, the same argument coming up every year, going on three years now, with the predictability of a national holiday. By the same group of familiar faces. I have no comment on this, I just would like to encourage those of you still obsessively rage-editing Andy Ngo's for hours on end page to step outside, spend some time with your family, get some sun, plan a vacation, take up a ceramics hobby, learn to play tennis... there are many other things you can do in life! :) ~~~~ Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC) Take your own advice. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC) @Wikieditor19920: Since my first RfC on Andy Ngo being a journalist, I got midway through a new university degree. I can't believe it's been almost 3 years. I hope to see everyone again in 2025, assuming AI hasn't taken over the world. This RfC is practically a family reunion for the ArbCom defined American Politics topic area at this point. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC) Congratulations! Unfortunately you guys will have to carry on the fun without me, as I'm banned from giving any input on these RFAs or editing Am-Pol in general. I raised too much of a ruckus last time with all of my disruptive arguments about "objectivity" and "adherence to sources." I've learned my lesson and must withdraw. Enjoy! Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC) @Wikieditor19920: Apologies, I wasn't aware. Didn't mean to try to bait you into a topic ban violation or anything. My bad. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• Here's a list of sources gathered through an incognito Google search of "Andy Ngo", selecting news, and sorting by most recent first. I've ignored patently unreliable sources.

• What I've learned is that most major media don't seem to care about Ngo, as sourcing seems pretty slim. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  Well, you have a few soid RS there, e.g. Oregon Live is published by the Portland Oregonian, a triple-A source. The better sources, with conventional journalistic standards, are seen to qualify or omit the term "journalist". SPECIFICO talk 23:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Recent Fox News, Wash Times and New York Post articles also call him a journalist. While the NYP is considered red, Fox and Wash Times are both yellow. [16][17][18]. Newsweek is mixed as it uses journalist in the title but writer in the body [19]. These are all recent stories discussing Ngo's legal case and it's outcome. Springee (talk) 03:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

... and these are all questionable sources, as you noted. Should we not rely only on generally reliable sources to resolve the dispute? Maybe @SPECIFICO is correct that "the better sources, with conventional journalistic standards, are seen to qualify or omit the term 'journalist'." Perhaps, we should be doing the same, since Wikipedia is supposed to reflect generally reliable sources, no? If it is mainly due to "yellow" or "red" sources, as well as opinion pieces (one from a "UK ex-parliamentary staffer and Conservative Party political candidate"), from where the claim that the "significant majority of sources that call him some type of journalist" comes from, it is unsubstantiated. Yes, there are academic sources that use the label, but there are others that do not and in fact say that reliable sources avoid it. When all sources are properly weighted, it is closer to 50–50, other than "significant majority" supporting the use of journalist... Davide King (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

No, we should include yellow sources as RS makes it clear context matters. A generally good or bad source can be bad or good depending on context. RSP colors are a guideline, not a rule. Springee (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure but then it is not a good argument because quality should count more than quantity, when everything else being equal. As you said, context matters; quality also matters, and if many of those sources are just saying "journalist" without any in-depth analysis, I do not think it is going to be very persuasive. Of those four sources, we have a source headling "Journalist Andy Ngo 'vindicated' as Antifa thugs ordered to pay for infamous 'milkshake' attack", which is considered generally unreliable, so it should not be counted either way.

We have Fox News, which "agreed to pay Dominion $787.5 million and acknowledged the court's earlier ruling that Fox spread falsehoods about Dominion", so it is not exactly the most appropriate source to describe whether someone is a journalist or not, and thus someone may consider it not only questionable but generally unreliable for the discussion (we agree that generally unreliable sources should not be counted, and those questionable may be reliable in the right context, which may not appear to be the case for Fox), as it is for politics and science. The Washington Times describes him as a "freelance journalist" (caption), "conservative journalist" (text), and a "gadfly conservative" (text), so they qualify it.

As you noted, Newsweek used journalist in the headline and writer in the text, both of them being qualified with "conservative" and "right-wing", respectively. I would rather discuss the academic sources that describe him as a journalist and in which context they put him. I am not going to be convinced by questionable news sources. Davide King (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

A lot of the editor's who object do so based on the claim that his status as a journalist is disputed or that what he does isn't 'really journalism'. Per Google's provided definition a journalist is "a person who writes for newspapers, magazines, or news websites or prepares news to be broadcast." Ngo has written for a number of magazines and news papers and currently is an editor at the Post Millennial. That clearly fits the plan definition of journalist. While the quality of his work or those he works with/for is disputed, that doesn't change the clear fact that he does the exact things that define journalism. We shouldn't avoid plane language definitions when both RSs and the dictionary support the term. Springee (talk) 03:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

That may be the position of some editors who are objecting but I'd say you're incorrect assigning that position to all editors who are objecting. Per MOS:LEADBIO, "The lead section should summarise the life and works of the person with due weight". Now for me if we're looking at the lede and we're considering the term "journalist" or other alternative terms, like perhaps "activist" and we're considering what summarises the life and works of the subject particularly given the way they've inserted themselves into controversies and used their twitter account to target and expose their perceived political opponents then the word "activist" more neatly summarises them. That does not take away from discussion of them being a journalist in the rest of the article re: pros and cons of that. TarnishedPath^talk 05:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say all editors who are objecting (a lot of vs all). Additionally "activist" appears to be a less common descriptor and typically used in articles with a less impartial tone. Springee (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

There are already academic sources that are referenced in this talk that refer to him as an activist and I don't see the word as being particularly impartial. I don't think Andy would or he wouldn't be doing it, he'd go about things differently. There are plenty of politicians who happily call themselves activists. TarnishedPath^talk 05:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Are they good academic sources? Are they cited by others? Why ignore the academic sources that call him a journalist? Why would we think Ngo sees his work as activism vs journalism? Springee (talk) 09:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

He can also be a chess player that doesn't displace describing what his occupation is which is journalist. And if some of his political opponents (sources) try to avoid using the term, that does not change that. North8000 (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Current first sentence of Édouard Drumont: «Édouard Adolphe Drumont (3 May 1844 – 5 February 1917) was a French antisemitic journalist, author and politician.» Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 09:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

There is the example of James O'Keefe, who is called a "journalist" by The Washington Examiner, which also calls Ngo a journalist, but we do not call him a journalist, so that is not a good argument. I think this should be based on case-by-case basis, though I do love me some consistency. Personally, "antisemitic author and/or writer/politician" seems to be a better fit even for Drumont but I would have to check what the more reliable and best sources consistenly call him. For example, Treccani calls him a "French writer". The Encyclopedia Brittanica also qualifies it: "muckraking journalist". Davide King (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

In the case of O'Keefe I don't think we have a significant majority of sources that call him some type of journalist. We do have that for Ngo. Springee (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

To semi-quote you, are they good sources (many of them are "yellow" or" red", and they should not be considered)? Why ignore the academic sources that explicitily say he is not called a journalist by reliable news sources or question the label? When we exclude news sources that are either "yellow" or "red", even without putting those who qualify the labels and consider those as "Maybe" rather than "Yes", the "significant majority of sources that call him some type of journalist" is not a good summary of the analysis. Davide King (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you can add a column where you assess the quality of the sources. I do agree that in general not all sources are of equal quality and that includes some "scholarly" sources that are as much long form opinion as actual scholarship. But when so many sources do call him a journalist it seems questionable for us to avoid the description. Springee (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

"Perhaps you can add a column where you assess the quality of the sources." Well, I think Barnards.tar.gz already did a good job. For example, they added whether a source is reliable or not from WP:RSP, but I have already stated that my counting is different. I would count as "Yes" only those that say journalist without qualifiers, and add to "Maybe" those that use qualifiers. How can "controversial right-wing American journalist Andy Ngo" be considered a "Yes" and not at least a "Maybe"?

"But when so many sources do call him a journalist it seems questionable for us to avoid the description." I would 100% agree with you on this if the situation was not a bit more complicated. The fact that a significant number of reliable sources, including academic ones (even if they do not have much citation counts because they are still new, they are still better than many news sources), explicitily avoid using the label shows that it is questioned and that he is considered more of an activist, pseudo-journalist, provacateur, etc. MOS:LEADBIO must reflect this. If it was more like 70 to 90 percent, with high-quality sources only with little questioning, now that would be a significant majority. If that was the case, I would have supported journalist while still supporting a sentence describing those who questioned it due to being a significant view that cannot be dismissed as WP:FRINGE.

For the better or worse, the journalist label for Ngo has become a contentious issue among reliable sources, so we cannot state it as fact. I like Alpha3031's proposed wording like "news editor", "opinion columnist", or "writer", which also seems more accurate or appropriate. Then we may also have "right-wing journalist" and other labels used to describe him but we cannot state "journalist" as fact. This cannot also be dismissed as WP:OR or WP:SYNTH because we have reliable sources explicitily saying that the label is questioned, a contentious issue, etc.

In conclusion, we cannot say that (according to reliable sources) he is not a journalist as fact but we cannot say that he is one as fact either. Ultimately, it is a matter of source analysis and whose reading is more "correct". You are certainly free to disagree but I will leave that to the closer to determinate. Davide King (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Source analysis

Source analysis

Source	Date	WP:RSP?	Depth?	Description	Journalist?	Qualifier?	Notes
The Independent	2021-06-25	Green	No	controversial right-wing American journalist Andy Ngo	Yes	Yes
The Times	2021-06-30	Green	No	journalist Andy Ngo	Yes	No	Labelled as opinion ("Comment")
RealClearPolitics	2021-07-06	Amber	No	Video journalist Andy Ngo	Yes	Yes
Washington Post	2021-07-08	Green	No	right-wing journalist Andy Ngo	Yes	Yes
Westword	2021-06-21	?	No	Oregon journalist and Summit speaker Andy Ngo	Yes	No
Variety	2021-06-24	Green	No	right-wing journalist Andy Ngo	Yes	Yes
Sky News Australia	2021-07-06	Amber	No	Journalist and Author Andy Ngo	Yes	No	Labelled as opinion
Slate	2021-07-27	?	No	conservative journalist Andy Ngo	Yes	Yes
Vox	2019-07-03	Green	Yes	conservative journalist Andy Ngo	Yes	Yes
New York Times	2019-07-01	Green	Yes	conservative journalist Andy Ngo and independent journalist	Yes	Yes
BBC	2021-03-10	Green	No	conservative journalist	Yes	Yes
The Guardian	2021-06-24	Green	No	conservative journalist Andy Ngo	Yes	Yes
Deadline	2023-08-23	Green	Yes	Journalist/author Andy Ngo	Yes	No
Yahoo News	2023-08-23	?	Yes	conservative journalist Andy Ngo	Yes	Yes
CNN 1	2019-07-02	Green	No	Conservative journalist Andy Ngo	Yes	Yes
Wall Street Journal	2019-07-01	Green	Yes	conservative journalist Andy Ngo	Yes	Yes
Perspectives on Terrorism, Vol. 14, No. 6	2020-12-00	?	No	One journalist, Andy Ngo (quoting a Republican senator); right-wing conservative social media “provocateur,” Andy Ngo (the author's words)	No	N/A	15 citations
Western Folklore Vol. 80, No. 3/4	2021-00-00	?	No	center-right journalist Andy Ngo	Yes	Yes	4 citations
The Province	2021-06-25	?	No	Right-wing U.S. journalist Andy Ngo	Yes	Yes
Detroit Free Press	2019-07-01	?	No	Andy Ngo, a Portland-based journalist.	Yes	No
The Journal of Applied Business and Economics Preview Vol. 25, Iss. 1	2023-00-00	?	No	Journalist Andy Ngo	Yes	No	5 citations
Business Insider	2022-12-01	Amber	No	Far-right users like journalist Andy Ngo	Yes	No
Commentary	2019-10-00	?	Yes	journalist named Andy Ngo	Yes	No
Studies in Conflict and Terrorism	2023-06-00	?	No	far-right agitator Andy Ngo	No	N/A	0 citations
Weizenbaum Series	2020-06-00	?	No	Andy Ngô, a right-wing provocateur and “media personality,” often portrayed as a journalist	No	N/A	0 citations
Journal of Futures Studies, Vol. 24(4)	2020-00-00	?	No	Independent journalist Andy Ngo	Yes	Yes	10 citations
Centre for Research and Evidence on Security Threats	2021-04-00	?	No	online right-wing provocateur ‘journalist’ Andy Ngo	Maybe	Yes	4 citations
Canadian Journal of Communication, Volume 46 Issue 4	2021-11-00	?	No	American “citizen journalist” Andy Ngo	Maybe	Yes	7 citations
Proceedings of Topical Issues in International Political Geography	2021-07-09	?	No	journalist Andy Ngo	Yes	No	0 citations
Social Science Computer Review	2023-05-24	?	No	journalists Andy Ngo and [...]	Yes	No	0 citations
Bulletin of Reitaku University. 104: 25.	2021-03-00	?	No	journalist Andy Ngo	Yes	No	0 citations
Social Network Analysis and Mining (2022) 12:115	2022-08-18	?	No	Mr. Andy Ngo, an American journalist	Yes	No	2 citations
Critical Studies on Terrorism, Volume 16	2022-09-28	?	No	journalists like Andy Ngo	Yes	No	1 citation
CNN 2	2020-06-11	Green	No	less-than-reliable right-wing media personality Andy Ngo	No	N/A
MIT Technology Review	2020-09-03	?	No	right-wing adversarial media-makers like [...] Andy Ngo	No	N/A	Labelled as opinion
Salon	2019-08-28	Amber	Yes	Andy Ngo, the right-wing journalist and provocateur	Yes	Yes
The Oregonian	2019-12-31	?	No	Andy Ngo, a conservative writer and videographer	No	N/A
Buzzfeed News	2019-07-19	Green	Yes	conservative media personality Andy Ngo; “busybody” journalist and more - see here for why I think this counts as a Yes	Yes	Yes
The Intercept	2020-11-19	Green	No	right-wing activist	No	N/A
The Guardian 2	2018-03-18	Green	No	describes himself as a journalist	Maybe	No
LA Times	2021-02-08	Green	Yes	provocateur Andy Ngo	No	N/A
New York Magazine	2018-08-31	Green	No	journalist Andy Ngo	Yes	No
Columbia Journalism Review 1	2021-06-25	?	No	Andy Ngo, a right-wing agitator	No	N/A
Columbia Journalism Review 2	2019-06-12	?	No	Quillette writer Andy Ngo	No	N/A
Columbia Journalism Review 3	2019-10-23	?	No	discredited provocateur Andy Ngo	No	N/A
Nieman Reports	2019-10-03	?	No	known U.S. right-wing operators who have also amplified disinformation in the past, including Andy Ngo	No	N/A
Above the Law	2019-09-03	?	Yes	a new kind of perfidious pseudo-journalist	Maybe	N/A
Townhall	2023-08-28	Amber	Yes	investigative journalist Andy Ngo	Yes	No
Portland Mercury 1	2023-08-24	?	Yes	far-right blogger Andy Ngo	No	N/A
Portland Mercury 2	2023-08-09	?	Yes	right-wing media figure Andy Ngo	No	N/A
LGBTQ Nation	2023-08-09	?	Yes	Gay right-wing social media influencer Andy Ngô	No	N/A
The Oregonian 2	2023-08-00	?	No	Andy Ago, a prominent right-wing media personality	No	N/A
Sky News Australia 2	2023-07-02	Amber	No	Post Millennial Senior Editor Andy Ngo	No	N/A
Washington Times	2023-08-22	Amber	No	conservative journalist	Yes	Yes
Newsweek	2023-08-22	Amber	No	Right-wing writer Andy Ngo (in body; preferred over Conservative Journalist in headline)	No	N/A
The Oregonian 3	2020-12-23	?	No	right-wing Portland journalist	Yes	Yes

The above table is a compilation of sources mentioned in the RfC so far, largely from Chess, Aquillion, FormalDude, Isaidnoway, and ScottishFinnishRadish. I didn't add any sources which are red on WP:RSP. Errors and omissions are my own, though I believe it to be accurate to the best of my ability. The "Depth" column is my personal assessment of whether the source treats the subject in depth, i.e. is more than a passing mention or couple of sentences. The column "journalist" is Yes when the source directly describes him as a journalist. Where the word "journalist" is used, but some doubt is cast, such as the use of scare quotes, I have recorded that as Maybe. The column "Qualifier" is Yes when the source adds a qualifying adjective to the word "journalist". My observations are:

• Taking all 56 sources as equally meritorious, 34/56 (61%) describe him as a journalist, 4/56 (7%) are "maybe" and 18/56 (32%) call him something else.
• If we ignore the sources that are Amber at WP:RSP, or are opinion columns, or have 0 citations, we find 24/41 (59%) calling him a journalist, 4/41 (10%) are "maybe", and 13/41 (32%) call him something else.
• If we further limit the analysis to just those sources which cover Andy Ngo in depth, we are left with 12 sources, of which 7/12 (58%) call him a journalist with 1/12 (8%) "maybe" and 4/12 (33%) call him something else.
• What about looking only at more recent sources? There are 16 sources published in 2022 or 2023. 9/16 (56%) call him a journalist. Dropping the amber and zero-cited sources leaves 5/9 (56%) of sources calling him a journalist.

In my view, this is a clear majority of sources calling him a journalist no matter how you cut it, and should be enough for us to adopt that language in the lead, particularly as the alternative descriptors used by the "No" sources generally don't inherently conflict with him also being a journalist.

On qualifiers:

• Of the 34 sources calling him a journalist, 19/34 (56%) qualified it in some way.
• Across all sources, 22/56 (40%) called him "right", and 13/56 (23%) called him "conservative".
• Once again removing ambers, opinion columns and zero-cited articles, we find 16/41 (39%) called him "right" and 11/41 (27%) called him "conservative"

In my view, this is a clear majority of sources preferring to qualify his journalism, and more in favour of "right-wing" than "conservative".

Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

While I do appreciate the time and work you took to do this, I do not think that just because a majority of sources (not even 70 to 90 percent, which may have persuased me) call him "a journalist no matter how you cut it". In fact, it shows that there is a significant minority that disagree. When weighting sources, I would argue that the minority sources actually hold the more weight due to better quality and academic level. For example, the Columbia Journalism Review ("a biannual magazine for professional journalists that has been published by the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism since 1961") should hold more weight than WP:NEWSORGS who are not even "green". While there are also academic sources that call him a journalist, there is a significant numbers of academic sources and better-than-news-orgs sources, such as the CJR, that dispute this. Per WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, when there is a dispute, we avoid stating something in wikivoice as a fact.

When a majority of sources use qualifiers, I do not think that should count as outright support. To quote TFD, "When a legacy media reporter refers to Ngo as a 'conservative journalist,' they are saying he is not really a journalist. He fails to meet their professional standards of training, objectivity and honesty. Of course we can question whether mainstream journalists meet these standards themselves, but per WP:WEIGHT, we accept their standards." I would also automatically exclude any WP:NEWSORG that is not "green". For example, The Washington Examiner calls James O'Keefe a journalist but I do not think that should hold any weight, and in fact we do not describe him as a journalist. Perhaps the case of O'Keefe is different because there are not even news sources, apart from exceptions such as The Washington Examiner, that call him a journalist. In the case of Ngo, when we do not consider them "as equally meritorious" as you did, exclude opinion pieces, and non-reliable sources, there is no consensus (from 60 to 40, when weighted, it goes to 50 to 50 or even 40 to 60 not to call him a journalist), which means we should not state it as fact.

If you consider sources that clearly put journalist in scare quotes as "Maybe" rather than "No", I would consider (per TFD) all sources that use qualifiers ("conservative", "right-wing", "controversial", etc.) to mean "Maybe", not "Yes" as you did. Again, even if we do not consider that there is not dispute among reliable sources but only among us (as TFD said), I would argue that, if weighted accordingly, the "Yes"–"No" count would be closer to 50–50 or even in favour of the "No", which means it is a contested view and cannot be stated as fact. Davide King (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

"When a legacy media reporter refers to Ngo as a 'conservative journalist,' they are saying he is not really a journalist." - I disagree profoundly with this. It’s clearly just another way of saying “a journalist with a conservative bias”. That’s still a journalist. It’s also generally not how English works. An adjective noun is a type of noun. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, the CJR doesn’t appear to be a peer-reviewed academic journal so I don’t see a reason to elevate it above the other NEWSORG sources? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

But the thing that gives credence to TFD is the fact that many mainstream journalists who lean more to the centre-right or right are not described with such qualifiers precisely because they are considered to have put their bias apart and report objectives facts. It is mainly those controversial journalists, or those whose credentials are disputed, that have a qualifier label.

CJR can be at least considered a "green" reliable source, which is not the case for several of the news sources cited. It is also important, as it shows that Ngo is not considered a journalist by at least some of his own peers. Or do you think the CJR are controlled by the Left, akin "Cultural Marxism"? I think you are intelligent, and do not think that. CJR is closer to WP:SCHOLARSHIP than WP:NEWSORGS; unlike news sources, it is published by a journalism-specialized university, that makes it hold more weight than random news articles, several of which are either "yellow" or "red", and I hope we can agree that CJR should hold more weight than those "yellow" or "red" news sources. Davide King (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

In fact, it shows that there is a significant minority that disagree. I'm not sure that's true. There's a significant minority who don't call Ngo a journalist, which isn't the same thing as disagreeing that he is a journalist. A couple of sources do explicitly cast doubt on his being a journalist (e.g. "often portrayed as a journalist" (Weizenbaum) and "perfidious pseudo-journalist" (Above the Law)), but at least according to Barnards.tar.gz's list there really aren't that many. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that is just being pedantic or specious. We are not going to prove a negative, it is sufficient that they either cite the fact the label is questioned or avoid it altogether favouring other ones that I hope we can agree are not consistent with journalism. I am not supporting that we say "Although Ngo proclaims himself a journalist, he is not considered such ..." because there is not enough sources to support that. There is, however, enough sourcing to support the claim that the label is a disputed opinion, including among journalists themselves and that it is often qualified, and thus journalist should not be stated as fact. Thus, I agree with @TarnishedPath that "we need only refer ourselves to MOS:LEADBIO", and he is more notable as an activist, author/writer/other labels than journalist. Again, do not take it personally, it is not a big deal to me, I am just trying to play the Devil's advocate because last time I !voted "Yes", but this time I have been so far convinced that there is enough sourcing to support this as a contested view than a fact, and thus it is better to avoid it in wikivoice. Davide King (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Barnards.tar.gz I would switch Westworld from "journalist unqualified" to "journalist qualified" as the article is about a right-wing gathering, the Western Conservative Summit and the full sentence is: The right-wing media, as represented by the Washington Times and Oregon journalist and Summit speaker Andy Ngo, portrayed the demonstrations as violent and chaotic examples of anti-Americanism. In contrast, the take from the Denver Communists, which was joined at the alternative summit by members of [various left groups], suggests that many of the confrontations were instigated by Western Conservative Summit sympathizers from groups such as the Proud Boys. i.e. Ngo is here as an exemplifier of the right-wing media. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Barnards.tar.gz I would also switch Detroit Free Press from "journalist unqualified", either to "journalist qualified" or "no". The article describes him thus: "Andy Ngo, who describes himself as an editor of the conservative website Quillette and said he is 'hated by antifa'". There is a photo from Getty with a caption "Andy Ngo, a Portland-based journalist", but I presume that caption either comes from Getty and/or is covered by WP:HEADLINE. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: To avoid cherry-picking sources that use the term "journalist" or alternatives, I've gone through the first five Google News pages of hits and removed sources that are red or yellow listed on RSP. All are from 2021-23.
  • Journalist unqualified:
    • The National (Scotland) has "American journalist Andy Ngo", although the headline is "Right-wing agitator Andy Ngo intervenes in Scotland's gender debate" and the article says "Ngo has been described as a “far-right Twitter star” and has more than a million followers on the platform.[20]
    • Nextshark via Yahoo News "Journalist Andy Ngô"[21] (but see qualified variant in same outlet below)
    • Deadline.com: "Journalist/author Andy Ngo, who has reported extensively on Antifa activities"[22]
    • Sky News Australia "Outsiders" show (flagged as "Opinion"): Text: "Sky News host Rita Panahi says The Post Millennial Senior Editor Andy Ngo took on three “thugs” in court and won – after he was assaulted by members of ANTIFA in 2019." Video: "Journalist and friend of this show, Andy Ngo".[23] [struck as I didn't realise this was also yellow flagged - see below. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)]
  • "Conservative journalist"/"Right-wing journalist" or similar:
    • Nextshark via Yahoo News: "conservative journalist" [24]
  • Other terms:
    • The Intercept: "right-wing provocateur Andy Ngo."[25];
    • Truthout: "right-wing media performer Andy Ngo"[26] and "conservative provocateur Andy Ngo... “...hate-filled far right extremist provocateurs like Andy Ngo who incite others to commit racist and antisemitic acts of violence and intimidation,” said Lauren Regan, director and attorney at the Civil Liberties Defense Center, in a statement this week. While the “milkshake incident” gained Ngo some sympathy from liberals concerned about press freedoms, nowadays he is probably best recognized less as a journalist and more as an internet troll who targets anti-fascists."[27]
    • Oregon Live/The Oregonian: "A conservative writer... Author and editor Andy Ngo";[28][29]; "right-wing author Andy Ngo."[30] and "Andy [N]go, a prominent right-wing media personality"[31] "right-wing writer"[32]
    • Newsweek: "Right-wing writer Andy Ngo... editor-at-large of the conservative Canadian outlet The Post-Millenial",[33] and "conservative and Antifa critic Andy Ngo";[34]
    • Portland Mercury: "far-right blogger Andy Ngo";[35] "right-wing media figure Andy Ngo"[36]
    • AsAm News (an Asian-American news outlet): "Right-wing commentator Andy Ngo... Ngo is the editor-at-large for the Canadian-based Post Millennial website. He has gained a following based on inflammatory tweets that activists say are Islamophobic, racist, transphobic and more. The editor was seeking damages"[37]
    • LitHub: "alt right snowflake Andy Ngo" (and, in the headline, "professional troll";[38]
    • L.A. Times: "provocateur Andy Ngo’s supremely dishonest new book";[39]
    • LGBTQ Nation: "Gay right-wing social media influencer Andy Ngô"; [40]
    • Western Standard: "Post Millennial senior editor Andy Ngo"[41]
• Conclusion: No, "journalist" is not the term used by the weight of current reliable sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  Why remove yellow sources? Why would we keep a questionable low quality source like Portland Mercury or Truthout or an extreme POV site like LGBTQ Nation but not a major media outlet like Fox News? Why treat a book review by the LA Times as something other than an OpEd which it effectively is? As others have said, not much recent coverage so why discount earlier sources? Springee (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  Per WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources Fox News is not reliable in relation to politics, science or talk shows. Why would anyone include Fox News? It's a bad source that pushes conspiracy theories and misinformation. TarnishedPath^talk 23:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yellow means "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply". Here are the additional considerations for the Yellow sources in the table - Many of them are to be avoided for politics or claims about living persons:

  RealClearPolitics - "There is no consensus as to RealClearPolitics's reliability. They appear to have the trappings of a reliable source, but their tactics in news reporting suggest they may be publishing non-factual or misleading information. Use as a source in a Wikipedia article should probably only be done with caution, and better yet should be avoided.

  Sky News AU - "In the 2022 RfC, there is a consensus that additional considerations apply to Sky News Australia, and that it should not be used to substantiate any exceptional claims. The talk shows for Sky News Australia engage in disinformation and should be considered generally unreliable. The majority of articles labeled as "news" contain short blurbs and video segments, which should similarly be considered unreliable. For articles with significant written content, caution is advised. Sky News Australia is not to be confused with the UK Sky News; the two are presently unafilliated." (Note: Both of the Sky News articles are opinion pieces)

  Business Insider - "There is no consensus on the reliability of Insider. The site's syndicated content, which may not be clearly marked, should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher." (The article we cite doesn't seem to raise any red flags)

  Salon - "There is no consensus on the reliability of Salon. Editors consider Salon biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed."

  Townhall - "As of 2010, a few editors commented that opinion pieces in Townhall are reliable as a source for the opinion of the author of the individual piece, although they may not be reliable for unattributed statements of fact, and context will dictate whether the opinion of the author as such, meets the standard of WP:DUEWEIGHT."

  Washington Times - "There is consensus that The Washington Times is a marginally reliable source for politics and science. Most editors agree that it is a partisan source. Some editors noted a history of publishing inaccurate or false information, of being slow to issue retractions or corrections, and of sometimes only doing so under the threat of legal action; a considerable minority favored deprecation on these grounds. The Washington Times is probably suitable for its mundane political coverage, although better sources should be preferred when available. The Washington Times should generally not be used for contentious claims, especially about living persons. A majority of editors regard The Washington Times as generally reliable for topics other than politics and science. Opinion columns are governed by WP:RSOPINION and WP:NEWSBLOG. Some editors observed that The Washington Times has a conflict of interest regarding the Unification movement and related topics."

  Newsweek - "Unlike articles before 2013, Newsweek articles since 2013 are not generally reliable. From 2013 to 2018, Newsweek was owned and operated by IBT Media, the parent company of International Business Times. IBT Media introduced a number of bad practices to the once reputable magazine and mainly focused on clickbait headlines over quality journalism. Its current relationship with IBT Media is unclear, and Newsweek's quality has not returned to its status prior to the 2013 purchase. Many editors have noted that there are several exceptions to this standard, so consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis. See also: Newsweek (pre-2013)." –dlthewave ☎ 15:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  "Why remove yellow sources? Why would we keep a questionable low quality source like Portland Mercury or Truthout or an extreme POV site like LGBTQ Nation but not a major media outlet like Fox News?" I am like 🤨🤔 First you say questionable sources (e.g. "yellow sources") should be included (as noted above, some of the sources listed by BobFromBrockley are "yellow sources". I also find ironic your characterization of LGBTQ Nation as an "extreme POV site", which may well apply to Fox News as well. As noted above, Fox News is considered generally unreliable for politics, which would apply to Ngo. But even if we include all the sources you want, even Fox News, it does not change the fact that there is still a significant, high-quality number of sources that see the label as contentious or avoid it altogether. Thus, Coffeeandcrumbs is correct in their comment. Davide King (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  Would you mind listing the sources that "see the label as contentious"? Springee (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  You are asking us to prove a negative, and I am not supporting that we say: "Despite his self-description as a journalist, he is not considered one." I am only supporting that we avoid stating it in wikivoice and that we have a sentence to contextualize this whole thing. It is sufficient that they use another label. After all, if journalism is what Ngo is most notable and thus deserve to be mentioned in wikivoice per MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE and MOS:OPENPARABIO, then why they do not use the label? It means that those who do not use it and use other labels, such as author, media performer, provocateur, social media personality, and writer, they do not consider journalism to be his main activity or do not consider him a journalist at all. Thus, journalist becomes a subjective or contentious term. In fact, this is not even WP:OR/WP:SYNTH because we have among the reliable sources cited by Aquillion one that says so.

  Academics and journalists critical of the far-right have produced a number of books ... There are also book-length treatments authored by far-right agitator Andy Ngo ...

  Andy Ngô, a right-wing provocateur and "media personality," often portrayed as a journalist.

  Independent journalist Andy Ngo was described by many news outlets not as a journalist when attacked and beaten on a Portland street by Antifa members in July 2019.

  The first one not only shows that Ngo is not considered a journalist by his own peers but also do not consider him a journalist either, calling him a far-right agitator. The second one does not consider him a journalist (provocateur is clearly not compatible with the profession of journalism and the portrayed wording heavily implies that the source does not consider him a journalist) and supports the claim that many call him a journalist; I do not dispute that, in fact this can be seen as a secondary or tertiary source to support a wording that many call him a journalist. I only oppose journalist as a fact and non-contentious label among sources like social media personality, I am not opposed to say that many see him as a journalist or have called him such. The third one establishes that many news outlets have not described him as a journalist, so there is no OR/SYNTH.

  We do not need a source explicitily, literally saying: "We see the journalist label as contentious." The first one's wording is clear enough. Now that we have established that there are reliable sources contesting the label, what are you gonna say? That those are not reliable, not cited enough, not peer-reviewed? None of the news sources you support are peer-reviewed either. As noted by Aquillion, the second one supports the independent journalist label but notes that many news outlets do not use the journalist label. This is also not limited to antifa, as there are several reliable and questionable sources (since you want to consider them, as some may be certainly be okay in context) that do not use that label even after that.

  This is also a reponse to Barnards.tar.gz's argument that it is "a false dichotomy to state that 'not using a description' is equivalent to the description being negated or contested". What I am arguing about, like Coffeeandcrumbs, is that journalist fails NPOV in MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE and MOS:OPENPARABIO. We should only list the ones everyone can agree on, such as author, writer, and/or social media personality, where there is no dispute among reliable sources and that are clearly the subject's main claim to notability in line with MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE and MOS:OPENPARABIO. Journalist is not the label he is most known for, otherwhise why so many reliable sources avoid using it, favouring other labels?

  This is sufficient for me to consider the label a subjective or contentious term (thus, violating MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE). I was persuased by Aquillion's sources, among other users. Davide King (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  If you can't prove a negative why are you claiming it? You advocating descriptors that are used infrequently but avoiding the one that is used in the majority of sources. Would you mind including the source for the quotes you highlight. It makes it easier to review the original sources. I do recall finding that some of the sources Aquillion cited were less than ideal examples of scholarship. Springee (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  Aquillon already provided sources for these quotes. Just scroll up. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  OK, let's review those sources (again). I see that the longer discussion of some of those sources was prior to the RfC so I guess some people wouldn't notice. So the first quote comes from, "We Protect Us: Cyber Persistent Digital Antifascism and Dual Use Knowledge" That is a recent paper cited by no one. It might be a good paper but we haven't had the time to tell. The second is a working paper (not peer reviewed) and published by a author who clearly has a political leaning. As an example, the author's description of Ngo (the one quoted) provides no sourcing or evidence. It is basically the author's opinion. Additionally, the very first source for the article is... this Wikipedia article! What is cited to Wikipedia, the part of the quote "media personality". The fact that they are citing Wikipedia for fact should tell you all you need to know about the quality of this author. The last quote comes from a source that says he is a journalist. Also, the quote from the third source leaves out the next sentence which adds important context, "Even the terms “right-winger,” and “left-winger” are often employed in a way that implies intrinsic immorality or stupidity, even though neither necessitate that connotation. Independent journalist Andy Ngo was described by many news outlets not as a journalist when attacked and beaten on a Portland street by Antifa members in July 2019. Instead, various Blue tribe media referred to him as a “conservative journalist,” “right-wing journalist,” “right-wing troll,” and “grifter” (Dickson, 2019). This reflects an internal narrative. Blue tribe media do not describe their own reporters as “left-wing” or “liberal” journalists, let alone “left-wing trolls. In such instances, the mere invoking of the name of the despised other is enough to situate them as a force of immorality or perhaps evil. In this way, their arguments can be ignored, or their abuse dismissed as unimportant.” [42] It would have been better to include both sentences since the point was that they aren't calling him a straight up journalist and that they are doing it for partisan reasons. Note that the last paper has been cited by others. Springee (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  First source[43][44] is indeed newly published and a fairly passing mention of Ngo, but it's a peer reviewed journal and the relevant section is a review of the literature. Full sentence: There are also book-length treatments authored by far-right agitator Andy Ngo,40 and alt-right conspiracy-theorist Jack Posobiec,41 which both rely on the sensationalism of violence as their focus. As a very recent academic literature review, we can say this is quite a good source for the state of the art on the topic.

  Second source[45][46] is indeed a working paper, but by a professor and published in an academic series. It does cite our article for "media personality" but the "a right-wing provocateur... often portrayed as a journalist" part is the author's own assessment. I think this is a good illustration of an academic text throwing doubt on the designation as journalist, although it acknolwedges that's how he's often framed.

  Third source[47] is by an associate professor at Beijing Institute of Technology. I assume the journal is peer-reviewed but it's a pretty marginal journal and the point is rather tangential and convoluted, so I wouldn't give much weight to this source.

  This is one of the sources listed as "Yes" in the table above. In fact, if you do similar level of source analysis with you'll see lots of passing mentions in low-quality journals too. I wouldn't give much weight to a passing mention by a Russian academic in the Journal of Western Folklore, for instance. Or a piece in the The Journal of Applied Business and Economics by an assistant prof who teaches an Introduction to Business module and a Project Management module and that opens "This exploratory article is intended to inform the business community about Antifa". (In this article, Ngo is the main source cited on every topic from Mussolini to Marxism. Sample sentence: "calling one's movement anti-fascist is brilliant! Should an opponent state that he/she is opposed to Antifa, then by default, the uneducated, uninformed, or blindly loyal followers immediately believe that opponent is pro-fascist (Nadales, 2020, 4; Ngo, 2021, p. 111)".) Other authors in that category include this computing associate prof who appears to have no expertise on politics; this security consultant who is an expert on Nigeria; and a conference paper by a Russian historian.

  In short, most of the "academic" sources cited in favour of "Yes" are really poor quality. Let's actually stick to green flag news media, reliable local news media and the academic articles written by specialists. Once you do that, it's clear that the overwhelming majority use phrases other than journalist. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  Again, the first source is expressing an opinion. They aren't citing evidence for their claim and suggesting this is "quite a good source on the state of the art on the topic" would need follow up evidence such as other sources citing it etc. We don't have that at this time.

  As for the second paper, no matter how you want to present it, it's a self published work. You can claim the author is an expert and perhaps he is but why would this be different than an academic making the same claim on their lab webpage? Why trust any "academic" source that cites Wikipedia for claims of fact?

  I do understand the last source would look weaker than the first (it is peer reviewed so it's better than the second one which is self published), however it also has been cited by others. While you claim the point they make is tangential, I actually think it's the most important. The author specifically notes how tribalism etc is affecting how these people are presented.

  Finally, I generally don't bring up things that suggest editor motives but I did notice that you have a "This user is Antifa" user box on your home page [48]. This has no bearing on claims of fact but we are deep into the subjective realm. Springee (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  A working paper in an academic series is not a self-published work, even though it doesn't have the same standard as a peer-reviewed article.

  Re: however it also has been cited by others. I just looked at the 10 citations on Google Scholar. Removing duplications and citations by the author himself, there are a total of five. Not one of them is about anything related to Ngo; they're related to futurology as far as I can see.

  I don't think any of these flimsy academic sources tell us anything. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  Who reviewed this working paper that used Wikipedia as a factual reference? Springee (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• Sky News is for all intents and purposes the same as WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. It ultimately has the same editorial control being Rupert Murdoch and often pushes the same conspiracy theories and misinformation. It should be treated the same. TarnishedPath^talk 23:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  Just adding to my previous comment this is what WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources has to say about Sky News, "In the 2022 RfC, there is a consensus that additional considerations apply to Sky News Australia, and that it should not be used to substantiate any exceptional claims. The talk shows for Sky News Australia engage in disinformation and should be considered generally unreliable. The majority of articles labeled as "news" contain short blurbs and video segments, which should similarly be considered unreliable. For articles with significant written content, caution is advised. Sky News Australia is not to be confused with the UK Sky News; the two are presently unafilliated." Given that "Outsiders" is a talk show, any content from them is unreliable by WP standards. TarnishedPath^talk 00:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Closing

By my quick count and without weighing arguments it's about 17 no and 25 yes. Should we seek an uninvolved close, or is it clear enough that there is a reasonable consensus to keep journalist in the lead? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

This RFC is already listed at WP:CR. The numbers are close enough to warrant an uninvolved close. starship.paint (RUN) 23:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

There's another issue that came up in the discussions which was not in the RfC question: If he is called a journalist, should it be qualified as "conservative," "right-wing" or similar description. It's like calling someone a "jailhouse lawyer." Although by some definitions they are real lawyers, we wouldn't call them that without qualification. TFD (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

There was a recent discussion which resulted in a consensus to say "right-wing". I personally opposed it but that seems to be a recent consensus term. I can't imagine getting consensus to call him a "journalist" with out modifiers regardless of this RfC. Springee (talk) 00:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

What is your objection? TFD (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

What Springee said. We had a recent discussion on this and the result was "Right-wing journalist" TarnishedPath^talk 00:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

In the above discussion I preferred "conservative" but consensus went to "right-wing". Springee (talk) 02:59, 3 October 2023 (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.

Wikipedia:AN review

I've opened a close review for the part of the closing stating the term shouldn't be in the opening sentence[49]. Discussion on closer's talk page here [50]. Springee (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Any close review belongs at WP:AN., SPECIFICO talk 14:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The first link is to the AN discussion. Springee (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

RfC: First sentence of the lede

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

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

Survey (RfC: First sentence of the lede)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion (RfC: First sentence of the lede)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you suggesting those sources are actually ideologically neutral or impartial when discussing Ngo? Are Ngo's views on trans issues aligned with LGBQT Nation? One of the PM reporters (Alex Zielinski) who wrote about Ngo later tweeted his location while he was reporting on antifa/far-left unrest ([51] yes, biased source but I think the tweets speak for themselves in terms of bias). Why would she do that other than to disrupt his work and put him in harm's way? Springee (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

• Springee, this RfC clearly mentions only two variables to discuss, "right-wing activist and social media influencer". Since we all know that "journalist" has been handled elsewhere, it is unfair coatracking to try to litigate that matter in this RfC. --

References