Talk:Andy Ngo/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

RE Michelle Burrows

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

---

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

Can this be added?

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Sourced edits and elementary grammatical and ethical edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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