Talk:Andy Ngo/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

James O'Keefe disciple claim

The article claims Ngo is described as a disciple of James O'Keefe. Two sources made this claim (LA Times and a random small source) though it appears one just copied the claim from the other (see publication dates and similar phrasing). Neither source provides any evidence to support the claim. Does the author mean Ngo learned his craft from O'Keefe or just that they have a similar style? Given the ambiguous claim and the limited sourcing we can follow up with the question, why is the due in the article? A random, unsupported claim shouldn't be part of a BLP. Per ONUS this should be removed until we have consensus to include it. Springee (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Calling it a "claim" is loaded language, and is heavy-handed. The wording I reverted to is how it was originally added. My edit reverted old editorializing (from a few years ago) which had slipped through the cracks. To say that now ONUS applies is wikilawering. Grayfell (talk) 05:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Reliable sources don't need to provide evidence for each and every thing that they write. If a reliable source states it then it is open to us to do likewise (consensus permitting). TarnishedPath^talk 05:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  There are two problems with your view. First, this appears to be a mix of editorializing and factual claims. Second, if the source doesn't provide evidence then we don't have to give the claim any weight in the article. Additionally, if the claim is ambiguous we certainly shouldn't give it weight. This is supposed to be a BLP, not a collection of every random, ugly this a RS (or often questionable source) has said about Ngo. Springee (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Requiring reliable sources to prove absolutely everything they wright about in order for it to be included in a WP is not a policy. Secondly, please read WP:WEIGHT, these are not fringe views that are being pushed. If you think that they are fringe views then find reliable sources which contradict what is written. Thirdly their is absolutely nothing ambiguous about what is written, the meaning is clear. Multiple reliable sources state it, therefore it is open for us to do likewise. TarnishedPath^talk 11:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  This is a question of weight and wp:v. Just because a source says it doesn't mean we have to include it. This is a stand alone claim. It doesn't support a larger point in the wiki article. It's a one sentence paragraph. Now look at what claim we are trying to include. It was an of hand comment in a larger article. It was unsupported background content in the RS article. If we are summarizing the LAT article in a few sentences, that claim wouldn't be part of the summary.

  You said the meaning is clear. Ok, is the meaning Ngo learned by working with O'Keefe? That is the common understanding of the word. If yes, where? It's there any evidence of this from other sources? Which ones? Where did they work together? The fact that RNS parrotted the claim is hardly evidence of is validity. If a claim in a RS is unclear etc then it shouldn't be given any weight. Springee (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, we need to take this even further since the article claim isn't that he is a disciple, rather that he had been called that. That gets us deep into editor opinion on content since the source doesn't say "others say this" which is how the wiki article presents it. We are using weaselly language to include a claim that is too weak to include in wiki voice. All the more reason to get rid of it. Springee (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Passes WP:V as anyone can look up the WP:RS and see that is what it says. It has never been a policy that a reliable source needs to give reasons for every minute thing that they write. If we as editors consider that they seem to have a good reputation for fact checking prior to publishing their stories then we can't be going "oh they didn't give the ins and outs of absolutely everything they wrote in that article, therefore it must have no weight". WP:WEIGHT talks about minority views an equal footing with majority view. So if you are claiming that there is a WEIGHT problem here, i.e. that this is a minority viewpoint, you're going to need to demonstrate what the majority viewpoint is with sources. I.e., show that this claim is contradicted by other RS and that those RS represent the majority viewpoint.

  Per you claiming that the word disciple is ambiguous, I find that argument completely lacking. Per the definition found at Google:

  • a follower or pupil of a teacher, leader, or philosopher.

  The meaning of the term could not possibly get any clearer. How you could think that calling someone a disciple implies that they worked together is beyond me. The common meaning is that of a follower or student ... TarnishedPath^talk 14:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  "Second, if the source doesn't provide evidence then we don't have to give the claim any weight in the article." this isn't even remotely true, please retract or strike. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  If the source of the claim treats it as a one off, throw away comment and provide no evidence then we can presume it wasn't an important claim to the source, ie they gave it little weight. I'm that case why would we, in a summary article give it weight? We aren't supposed to be writing an attack article but off the cuff claims like this certainly suggest otherwise. Springee (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  I am pointing out unambiguous incomptence, on the issue regarding the page I actually agree with you and don't think it should be in wikivoice if included at all. You're much too seasoned to be telling those sorts of lies, unintentionally doing so is actually worse IMO. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think it's a lie at all. We gauge weight based on sources. If the source doesn't provide much weight to the claim, especially if the claim comes off as flippant or opinionated vs based on evidence, then we shouldn't give it much if any weight. Springee (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  You didn't say that you said "if the source doesn't provide evidence then we don't have to give the claim any weight in the article." which is unambigously false... It also suggests that we evaluate the evidence provided by the source for its strength... We do not, that is completely inappropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sorry if my intent wasn't clear. Do we agree with the rephrasing? I'm happy to strike the original and replace it with the rephrased text. Springee (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think its clarified now. Sorry if I came at you too hard but I've seen way too may new editors making the claim that reliable sources have to "show their work" and was shocked to see an experienced editor more or less saying that same thing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  It isn't exactly a once off occurrence of Ngo being described as a disciple of O'Keethe.

  There's two sources in the article:

  • https://religionnews.com/2021/04/05/andy-ngo-antifa-critic-dropped-as-speaker-by-christian-conference-q-ideas-gabe-lyons/
  • https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/books/story/2021-02-08/andy-ngo-new-book-still-pretends-antifa-real-enemy

  A search by me also finds:

  • https://julieroys.com/ngo-dropped-speaker-q-ideas/comment-page-1/
  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FE_UjbQSf2w

  Note the last one is a Jordan Peterson interview with Andy Ngo, hosted on Peterson's official YouTube channel. At 1:04:33 starts a section in which Peterson discusses with Ngo that he has been described as a disciple of O'Keethe. So obviously it isn't just a once off claim. TarnishedPath^talk 02:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  The Julie Roy thing is the same author as the religious news source. I didn't verify if it was word for word the same article. The video does not support the claim of "disciple". It suggests they have some contact but also that Ngo clearly disputes the claim. Since this is a BLP we would either apply about self and include his response or again delete this as an insignificant claim that is only mentioned in that interview because it was in the Wikipedia article, not because it was significant in the original sources. If the subject of the BLP replies not because the original source said it but because Wikipedia quoted it that strongly suggests that a claim that had little weight in the RS media is being given too much weight by Wikipedia. Wikipedia should never drive how much weight some claim gets. Springee (talk) 08:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes Julie Roy is the same author as the religious news source, however different article. I came across another religious news site that was word for word as the Julie Roy article and I obviously didn't include it above. The video does support that it is a thing, that there are people calling him a disciple of O'Keethe. It's obviously a thing or they wouldn't have spent time disputing it. I'd be no problem covering Ngo disputing the claim in the article.

  Perhaps from:

  Ngo has been described as a disciple of James O'Keefe, the founder of Project Veritas, a right-wing activist group.

  To:

  Ngo has been described as a disciple of James O'Keefe by critics. O'Keefe is the founder of Project Veritas. Ngo disputes the description.

  I'd also be happy dropping the right-wing activist bit from the description of Project Veritas if we're able to come to agreement. If people want to read about Project Veritas they can follow the wikilink. TarnishedPath^talk 09:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  While better we still have the issue that this is an insignificant claim that doesn't support any broader aspect of the wiki article. Zooming out, why should this be in the Wikipedia article? Are we saying their reporting styles are similar? Does Ngo do hidden camera style interviews? This gets back to my question about ambiguity. Is the reader supposed to understand this as "one taught the other" or Ngo tried to learn from O'Keefe or just that they operate in a similar fashion. All are possible based on the limited information provided. Which is true, if any? The source provides no evidence so why should we provide such ambiguity in the article? How does this content make the article better? Springee (talk) 09:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  BTW, I do want to acknowledge that you are trying to find a compromise and I appreciate the effort. Springee (talk) 09:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  That it is not in the lead, nor suggested to be in the lead says that this is not a notable claim. However I think we can safely say that it has some significance given that that there are multiple sources and that Peterson and Ngo thought it worthy of discussion. Again I'm not seeing the ambiguity. On the question if they operate in a similar fashion, I'm not at all familiar with O'Keefe. Believe or not I ignore American politics a lot in my day to day life. If O'Keefe does hidden camera interviews then I don't think Ngo has ever been accused of that, however Ngo has been accused of dishonestly cutting footage in order to portray his perceived enemies in the worst possible light. I don't know if O'Keefe does likewise? TarnishedPath^talk 10:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Grayfell, @Horse Eye's Back and @North8000. I've suggested some alternative wording above as a compromise. Thoughts? TarnishedPath^talk 10:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  I was just giving some thoughts. And that is the context of my response which is....they both still have the main problem...they use the word "disciple" which is a value-laden pejorative uninformative term.North8000 (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  "Disciple" is not pejorative. I might accept this if there were any signs at all that Ngo has tried to distance himself from O'Keefe, but primary sources suggest the opposite. This article is not the place for perform PR for him to attempt to insulating him from the consequences of his own words, actions, and active associations. Grayfell (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  You are worrying about the wrong part. The problem is the "disciple" word which is a value-laden pejorative and mis-informative term in this context. Not that he might view O'Keefe positively or have been influenced by him. North8000 (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  As I said before, attributing this to "critics" is both editorializing, and is not supported by the cited sources. The RNS source is presenting this as a factual matter, and that source is cautious in how it presents Ngo's claims. That source is mentioning O'Keefe to help contextualize Ngo's activiy. Since our goal is also to contextualize Ngo's activity, this is useful for us. Grayfell (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Grayfell, ONUS applies because the claim has never been challenged thus is consensus isn't established. It's not at all wikilawyering. It is also very much a claim since, as I said, the source provided no evidence of the fact nor in what way (literally or figuratively) the claim is true. That brings us back to undue. We shouldn't give weight to vague claims even from a reasonably good source as even decent sources can engage in editorializing. Springee (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Active arbitrations remedies apply, specifically "Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page". Your change to remove it was challenged by reversion and therefore the material can not be removed without consensus on this talk page. TarnishedPath^talk 11:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Now that we are having the discussion, consensus is established by rules like ONUS. If we can't establish consensus for inclusion here then, per ONUS the comment has to go. I'm not in a hurry here so we can let this all play out in good faith (and you are showing good faith even in this disagreement). Springee (talk) 11:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Um no, the active arbitration remedies are clear. You can not reinstate your change without consensus. TarnishedPath^talk 14:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The ONUS policy establishes consensus for the material to be here or not. I'm not in a hurry but if you think we should take it to a notice board to get guidance I'm fine with that. Springee (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

"Disciple" is a highly charged word currently being pejorative and implying many negative or extreme things (e.g. mindless following). It's going to need very strong sourcing to be in a BLP, and the "somebody said" type wording does not remove that requirement. A much better solution would be to use a more moderate term. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

"Disciple" is a highly charged word currently being pejorative. I disagree that it is a pejorative. Jesus's 12 disciples are never referred to as being so in a pejorative sense. TarnishedPath^talk 02:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

One the "onus" argument, it's a bit of a gray area because of how it interacts with other policies. But it does have influence. I certainly would not agree with the most extreme opposite interpretation described above which is that consensus is required to NOT have the material in the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I would either atribute or leave it out, if it really is a signficant part of his bio it will be featured in detailed sourced in the future. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I see no issue with attributing, however as shown above there are multiple sources so the question would become who to attribute to. TarnishedPath^talk 02:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• I support removing this bit. The O'Keefe disciple claim appears to originate with Alexander Nazaryan's 2021 book review of Unmasked in the LA Times. This claim there is only substantiated with the fact that Ngo thanked O'Keefe in the book's acknowledgements. Did Ngo ever work for O'Keefe or train under him? Was he strongly influenced by him in some documented way? That would support a literal meaning of "disciple" here. But the lack of such substantiation suggests that perhaps Nazaryan was merely offering his opinion (in this opinion piece) that Ngo is cut from the same cloth as O'Keefe and was thus using "disciple" in a more metaphorical sense. If this claim is to say in the article, it should be attributed to Nazaryan, and it certainly doesn't belong in the "Early life and education" section. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

As has already been mentioned here, sources are not required to show their work in a way which satisfies your personal curiosity. The RNS source is not an opinion piece. Grayfell (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Grayfell, how is a book review in a newspaper not an opinion piece? I would says claims should be treated by editorial decisions here in a way that reflects their level of substantiation. Everything all of us editors here are doing is being done out of some level of personal interest, so your distinction about "personal curiosity" is a throw-away tautology, i.e. it's meaningless. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

A book review is an opinion piece, and describing Ngo as a "disciple" of O'Keefe is clearly an expression of opinion. I say remove it, or attribute to the author of the LA Times book review. Philomathes2357 (talk) 06:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The claim had already been made by the journalist Robert Evans in 2019. There is clearly similarity, sympathy and common cause between O'Keefe and Ngo, who were both controversially invited to speak at Dartmouth College within a few months of each other in 2021/22, and did a trio show along with an editor-in-chief at The Post Millennial in 2022, on top of this they happen to use the services of the same lawyer (see above). If Evans was the first to make the claim, then it does seem to be based on judgment, because he calls Ngo someone who hasn't worked with O'Keefe, but you might call him his spiritual disciple and suggests Andy looked towards the highly lucrative example set by James O'Keefe, whereby repeated and flagrant lies are no barrier to a lucrative career in right wing journalism. It is a reasonable claim to make given the overlap in various areas, and has occurred to multiple people apparently independently (see here and here), but has not been substantiated and is best attributed as such to those who have made it, either individually or by a collective description. VampaVampa (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

This is basically evidence that Ngo isn't literally a disciple and thus the claim should be removed. The connection is clearly limited and the sources making the claim are low quality/opinionated. When you have to grab Twitter posts and when forums for evidence you don't have RS for this you're of claim. Springee (talk) 10:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

There's clearly quite a number of RS as demonstrated above. TarnishedPath^talk 10:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

What? First, Twitter, audio blogs of random low level journalists and forums aren't RS. Second, they contradict the literal reading of the disciple claim. After all this discussion at best we have a no consensus for this claim if not consensus to remove. Per ONUS it should go and per NOCON contentious claims about a BLP it should go. Springee (talk) 13:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Your opinion that journalists are "low level" doesn't make them not RS. Also, I fail to see how the Robert Evans source contradicts the definition. The definition does not include any reference to working with someone. TarnishedPath^talk 13:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The RE source is a podcast that is basically a blog. He is the interviewer, not the interviewed. If he were a well known journalist with a strong, neutral reputation then I would give such claims more credit. Instead, he is a minor journalist doing something that is self published. RE's claims Ngo could be viewed as a spiritual disciple, "he hasn't worked with O'Keefe, but you might call him his spiritual disciple". That is very much an opinionated statement and not from a RS. Springee (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The claim in the article is not that Ngo is a disciple of O'Keefe but that he has been described as such. Robert Evans is a case in point - his informed opinion is a competent assessment by an expert in the field and due for inclusion per WP:NEWSORG which says When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. At the time of producing the material, RE worked for Bellingcat whose work has been held as a model by the Columbia Journalism School and used by the US intelligence community, so he personally had the credentials to be considered a reliable source. An investigative journalist employed by a top outfit with a reputation for fact-checking is as reliable a source as you will get for Andy Ngo, including for opinionated statements as the guideline says. VampaVampa (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

But if we just have that he has been described as such why would that be DUE? He has also been described as an asshole but I don't think we would include that either. I'm not sure how you have decided that Evans is an expert in the field. Being a reporter for something like Bellingcat is not proof of anything significant. The opinion of Bellingcat and it's writers are generally not going to be DUE in most articles, especially when the opinions are expressed in a personal podcast, not via Bellingcat. You are trying to make a strong claim from very weak threads. Springee (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

If you are saying the description is UNDUE then you are in effect saying it is a minority viewpoint and I've not seen any sourcing provided which demonstrates that by contradicting it aside from Ngo and of course he would dispute it. TarnishedPath^talk 03:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I was using UNDUE as it is often used when BALASP might be more appropriate. Both, to some extent, cover things like minor ideas that don't make the articles better. Given the large volume of things said about Ngo, it does appear that few point out parallels to O'Keefe. Thus of the views expressed about Ngo, this one is a minor one. You seem to be suggesting this specific fact exists on a stand alone continuum between "very O'Keefe like" and "Not at all O'Keefe like" with an expectation that a range of sources would weigh in on that specific question. Using that narrow view of WEIGHT I would agree with you that DUE/UNDUE isn't the correct issue, it would be BALASP. That said, DUE and BALASP are related and people often say DUE/WEIGHT instead of BALASP when they mean a point too insignificant to bother including in the article. Springee (talk) 03:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

You are trivialising the disputed matter to make it seem unimportant. The question is not whether Ngo is O'Keefe-like or how he has been described in general, but who he was influenced by - compare this with alleging that an academic or a painter took inspiration from the activities of another. The views of reliable sources on this deserve to be reported even if they engage in speculation. Re Bellingcat (1) it is seen as reliable by major US institutions for its professionalism and fact-checking, it is not a question of "significance" (again) but reputation (if they are poorly regarded, what's your source for it?); (2) the guideline cited makes reliability of opinion content dependent on identity of author (here: a investigative journalist at Bellingcat), not source. Expert is someone with credentials for "special knowledge of a subject beyond that of the average person", no need to overblow it. VampaVampa (talk) 05:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm trivializing it because it is trivial. Bellingcat has nothing to do with this as Edwards wasn't doing his podcast for Bellingcat. Springee (talk) 11:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It's clearly not trivial if the description has been repeated by a number of other publications. Make specific attribution sure but this isn't nothing and is certainly significant given it has been repeated a number of times. TarnishedPath^talk 11:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not being repeated lots of times. So far I think we are at 3 but two are from the same author, same day and only one is in anytime resembling a decent source. The podcaster didn't say disciple so that doesn't support the claim in the wiki article. Springee (talk) 11:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Evans, not "Edwards". He said "spiritual disciple", what else did you read? Bellingcat is the source of Evans's credentials as a journalist (similar to employment of a scientist at a major university) while outlet is immaterial because the WP:NEWSORG guideline pivots on the identity of the author, not the place of publication. Nazaryan in LAT is equally a RS if opinionated. Then there is the Roys Report. That's 3 unique sources meeting the threshold. The claim is not trivial because it concerns Ngo's influences. Everybody except sheer geniuses (or even them) follows in someone's footsteps, it's the ABC of any notable activity. I am not sure if you are disagreeing with anything or deliberately misreading the arguments.

Regardless, per WP:BLPSELFPUB, we are entitled to use the Peterson interview with Ngo. Starting from around 1:06:10, Ngo says that while he was not "mentored" by O'Keefe or Project Veritas (not the only meaning of "disciple") he is "very supportive" of their "great" work. That does suggest (and at least in no way contradicts) that he has actively taken inspiration from them. What Ngo contests is "being in bed with violent extremists" (1:08:01) and that Project Veritas are anything more radical than a "conservative" group (1:06:55). But he claims Project Veritas do uniquely valuable work (1:06:25-1:06:36), that "what they do is important" (1:07:05, bit slurred, so not 100% sure) and that his book relied on "primary documents" obtained from them (1:07:12). In sum, he considers Project Veritas a groundbreaking act that has helped him write his only book. VampaVampa (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest you take your idea about that to something like RSN. A self published claim like that is generally acceptable if used to directly rebut an accusation made against the BLP subject but typically not acceptable for stand alone facts beyond boiler plate claims (birthday, home town etc). Springee (talk) 02:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The sources for "disciple of" are opinion and analysis and hence to mention them we need to explain how common this opinion is,per WP:WEIGHT. Based on the sources provided, it would appear to be small, hence fails this test for inclusion.

Also, when reporting opinions, it's important to convey what the writer meant. One editor mentioned the term disciple used to describe Jesus' Apostles. IIRC, they believed that he was God, had created the universe and would judge the quick and the dead. They all died as martyrs in his name. Of course it is not pejorative to call them disciples, but that is not what the sources mean. They are using an exaggerated term in order to disparage the subject.

I don't know exactly what was meant or if it was just innuendo:"an oblique allusion especially: a veiled or equivocal reflection on character or reputation." (Merriam-Webster) I would to see a reliable secondary source that explains this.

If there were a clear description of the relationship between NGO and Project Veritas and its founder, it might be useful for inclusion.

TFD (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

References