Talk:Andrew Yang/Archive 1

Quality of "Endorsements" Section
Is there a guide for what should be included in that section? It's full of random tweets from irrelevant random people on Twitter (a nazi, a professional video game player, a DJ), which aren't really "endorsements" in the way that term is normally used politically.

Miserlou (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 27 February 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 15:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

– WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I realize there may be a WP:RECENTISM issue here, but this guy is getting 11,000 page views per day and the other two Andrew Yangs are getting less than 30. Also, "entrepreneur" may not be especially accurate. His VFA project was a charity, not a for-profit company. His Stargiving.com project was also basically charity oriented (although short lived). Only his work at MMF Systems and Manhattan Prep seem very substantial and entrepreneurial, and the article doesn't really focus on those. And at this point he is probably more notable as a political candidate than for his activities prior to 2017. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Andrew Yang (entrepreneur) → Andrew Yang
 * Andrew Yang → Andrew Yang (disambiguation)
 * What are the colons in the wikilinks for? How did you check the page views? —Wei4Green &#124; 唯绿远大 (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the colons are to avoid redirects (they are inserted automatically by the requested move template). To check page views, go to the article history and look near the top of the page for a "Pageviews" link. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The colons don't seem to avoid redirects. They do make a difference for images. If you use " File:Cavendish Banana DS.jpg ", you get a blue link with the name of the file, like this: File:Cavendish Banana DS.jpg. But if you don't include the colon, you get a picture of bananas. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Per . —Wei4Green &#124; 唯绿远大 (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Clear primary topic based on |Andrew_Yang|Andrew_Yang_(Taiwanese_politician)|Andrew_Yang_(artist) this page view comparison. Neither of the others has a credible standing to override that based on their long-term significance. He's now also a politician as well as an entrepreneur. wbm1058 (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as others have said above. Merlin  s  orca  20:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Per BarrelProof and others, move is compliant with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.---A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, WP:PTOPIC and greater enduring notability than the other Yang. Mélencron (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, same reasons as stated above. Blervis (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, same reasons as stated above. Alfredo287 (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * support his notability is far beyond other Andrew Yangs. Irishpolitical (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, same reasons as stated above.Cornersss (talk) 05:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, piling on. —В²C ☎ 14:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

By the way, I love how you give bananas as an example. Wei4Green &#124; 唯绿远大 (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * :-) Yes, that was a little Easter egg. I was wondering whether anyone would notice it. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * seems like a poor choice, since "banana" is an ethnic slur for Asians who supposedly "act too white" and the guy is a New England preppie who went to an Ivy and is now running for president; you probably shouldn't put an Oreo on Obama's talk page either unless the topic is double-stuffing ballot boxes. 98.13.244.125 (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ouch! I never heard that term before. I was going for the banana for scale meme, of course, as the yardstick of the internet. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Citations 42 and 43 are invalid
The citations (42, 43) of the claim that "...his supporters have provided video evidence..." don't actually support that. Neither citation contains video evidence, nor do they provide quotations of supporters who make such a claim.
 * I'll look into this. Thanks for the heads-up. —Bobbychan193 (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've moved those two citations to the middle of the sentence (as they are sources for the NBC spokesperson quote). I've inserted a new citation that provides the video evidence. There was a Reddit post with 2.6k upvotes on his subreddit, but I don't think that's a reliable source for Wikipedia citation standards. —Bobbychan193 (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Filmography table
Feedback requested on intention to add Filmography table(s)

Example: Elizabeth Warren

Advisory Template: WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers

Vgoodwinv (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Can Role be removed as it would always be Self
 * Reference/external links - Advisory Template has a column of references where the reference contain external links. Can the external link be placed directly behind the Title instead?  This would keep the references from expanding and make for easier use.
 * Keeping Year column even though most would be 2019 for now
 * External link quality - link to full show preferred over partial? link to youtube on official youtube channel of show ok?
 * Title quality - title with existing wiki pages preferred?
 * Limit to size of table/when to make separate page? For now 3 entries will be added but what is too many entries?
 * Please keep the section in until discussion is complete and this section can be converted to ongoing recommendation
 * Leaving my responses below:
 * Support leaving role removed (unless he acts as a character in some show or movie, which seems unlikely for the time being)
 * I'm personally fine with the current style, but it might not be fully compliant with WP:FILMOGRAPHY. It's definitely a gray area.
 * Support. Also edited to combine the cells.
 * I'd say full is preferred. Links to official Youtube channels should be fine.
 * Support.
 * There are edge cases, such as H3 Podcast, which is a Youtube channel with over 2M subscribers. It has a subsection under h3h3Productions and does not have its own Wikipedia page. For these cases, I would still argue for inclusion if they were notable enough. Good indicators include media/press coverage and video views (1M+ is definitely notable, and multiple hundreds of thousands could be arguably notable).
 * I'd say there should not be a limit on the quantity of entries, but instead on the quality of entries (i.e. they should be notable enough). I don't think Yang has had enough appearances to warrant an entirely new page. Plus, a lot of this is covered in the article Andrew Yang 2020 presidential campaign.
 * Agreed. Issues/disagreements should be posted on the talk page. I definitely prefer constructive, civil conversations over edit warring.
 * —Bobbychan193 (talk) 05:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

A user just added a lot of new entries to the Filmography table. The new formatting looks more professional in my opinion. I've made a preliminary edit to the table for consistency (dates, formatting, etc.).

If anyone has time to check the links and dates for each appearance, please do so. Feel free to discuss any entries you feel do not meet notability guidelines here on the talk page. Bobbychan193 (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This includes like all of Yang's media appearances. I dont think its rational to include all appearances. Including just the long form appearances would suffice. Yang has already qualified for the third and fourth debate and if we include every media interview with him this filmography table will be 70% of the article by mid-October. Wikiman5676 (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. Can you help identify which interviews are not long-form ones? I'll work on the lead of the other article. Bobbychan193 (talk) 03:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Degree from Brown

 * His degree from Brown should be AB, not BA, as that is how Brown styles their “artium baccalaureus.” https://www.brown.edu/university-identity/content/academic-degrees — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.215.180.6 (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Deleted the abbreviations from prose. As for the infobox, I looked at a few other articles of Brown alumni, and they all had BA instead of AB on their infoboxes. Bobbychan193 (talk) 05:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Also another issue: The Brown Daily Herald says he concentrated in economics and political science, ABC News says he double majored in economics and political science, while CNN says he only majored in economics. —Wei4Green &#124; 唯绿远大 (talk) 05:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting that there's a discrepancy even among reliable sources. I'm curious to see what other people think about this. Bobbychan193 (talk) 05:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone updated the campaign article to reflect his dual concentration. I'll go ahead and update the main article with the Brown Daily Herald source. Bobbychan193 (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Number of Policies
So I went onto Andrew Yang's website to look through his policies. Within the Wikipedia article, it states that "More than 160 policy proposals are listed on his campaign website." On his website, I have noticed that, within different categories, some of the same policies are repeated and take you to the same link as the others. I do not believe that "more than 160" is the correct range to show the number of policies he has; it is likely lower. Unless of course, I'm missing something entirely. Could someone double-check this for me? Thanks! DatGoodDude342 (talk) 12:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I've verified that currently 115 unique policy pages linked from the base page, however this does not mean that there are not multiple policies per linked page, nor that all of the policies are indeed mentioned or linked in those pages. The original cited archived page only contains 77 linked policy pages at the time it was included.
 * {| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed";"

! style="vertical-align:top; text-align:center;" class="table-no" |List of policy page links from https://www.yang2020.com/policies/
 * Links
 * }
 * This was obtained using the following to find links in the policies page:
 * }
 * This was obtained using the following to find links in the policies page:


 * DeanMarkTaylor (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * According to the Vox article that was cited for the 160 figure, Yang has 169 policy proposals. (Well, technically 170, but we don’t expect readers to do math as they’re reading.) I think we should go by WP:RS rather than counting the number of proposals on his website (even if with a script) and expecting readers to do the same. Bobbychan193 (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes normally third party sources take precedent. Although i do wonder how Vox got 169. Wikiman5676 (talk) 03:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Around 8 minutes in this video, Yang himself says "over 150 policies". I think the Vox source is still preferred, however. Bobbychan193 (talk) 05:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Source
I believe that the source necessary to justify this edit should be added. Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The point of providing alternate language material on English language Wikipedia articles is to give our readers some basic information about a foreign language directly relevant to this person's upbringing or personal usage. If you want to start adding historical forms and etc, that can go on and on forever. Let's just stick to what is sourced as used by the man himself. Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello all. This is a biography of a living person. Foreign-language forms of this persons name should be confined to the forms this living person has endorsed or used. Otherwise, you can start adding foreign language forms of his name without end. There is no specific evidence provided here that shows that this person has ever used or endorsed the use of the characters 杨 or 泽 in the context of his name. When and if such evidence has been provided, then that form can be restored if deemed necessary. I plan to put the form including the characters 杨 or 泽 into hidden mode to restore this biography of a living person to the names this person uses. I will carry out this change at some point in the next 24 hours to protect this biography of a living person from seemingly adding names that this person doesn't use to the English language Wikipedia page. Just use the name/names he uses. Wiktionary and the Mandarin Wikipedia can get into detail about simplified and other forms of his name used outside of his cultural heritage.  If you feel that this would constitute an edit war, let me know- I don't think it does. I think I am defending a the biography of a living person against a brazen attempt to pretend that this person has ever used or endorsed the use of the characters 杨 or 泽 as a part of his name. Again, if there is evidence he has done so, then that's a different story and I welcome that evidence. I would ask users opposed to this edit to try to be more respectful of the biographies of living persons and not add material that the person has not been shown to use or endorse. Thanks for your time. Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I already responded on my talk page, but I'll copy my response here:
 * "We're not having this discussion all over again. We list both character variants as a matter of course here on Wikipedia and will continue to do so unless a broad consensus forms against doing so. I know that at least one administrator has warned you very recently how close you are getting to a topic ban in this area.


 * If, for whatever reason, you find it hard to accept the binding nature of results of consensus-oriented discussions and other social convention-type rules, Wikipedia might not be a good outlet for your energies."  White Whirlwind  咨   00:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * My opinion that we should not add foreign language names that a person has never used or endorsed may be too extreme; I am just going to back off this for the moment being. But I still think it is real real bizarre to add the characters 杨 & 泽 to this biography of a living person when we have no clue if he has ever used those two characters in the context of his name. Good luck all. Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Information on Yang advisor / influencer Andy Stern
I am not sure why the three sentences that I added about Yang's relationship to Andy Stern have been deleted. This information is factual, well-sourced, and relevant; it is also information that is in the public interest. The paragraph I posted is pasted below. It was deleted for being in the wrong section (which I agree with), I reposted it in the appropriate section, and it was deleted again for some reason (?) If I am doing something incorrectly please let me know. Thank you

Yang credits Andy Stern, an advisor to Yang’s campaign, for convincing him of the merits of a universal basic income. Mr. Stern is a controversial figure who recently was announced as an official adviser of the National Parents Union, an education reform group with deep ties to the Walton Foundation, the charitable arm of the family of Walmart heirs, the single richest family in America. The National Parents Union is a group that explicitly aims to undermine teacher’s unions.

Sources: https://consciouscompanymedia.com/the-new-economy/universal-basic-income-andrew-yang/ https://splinternews.com/high-profile-labor-leader-has-a-new-gig-fighting-agains-1836597318

173.79.58.161 (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The first sentence can likely be saved if you tone it down and accurately reflect the source. The ref actually says that he was influenced by Andy stern's book, among others. And it says that Stern is now an adviser. Your sentence makes it sound as if Yang hired Stern as an adviser, and then adopted Stern's opinions, but it appears that Yang liked Stern's book and then hired him. Not the same thing at all.


 * The rest of the material simply does not belong, in my opinion. It reads like an attempt to smear Yang, and is not properly sourced either. The second source does not call Stern "controversial".  It does call him "high profile".  Why would we care who Stern currently advises, or what their goals are, or who that group has ties to? None of that has anything to do with Yang. Meters (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

First of all thank you for taking the time to provide a detailed and thoughtful reply. Re: your first suggestion, I can see how you read it that way, and that is easily fixed. Re: controversial, You are correct that is not stated in that article; however it is common knowledge (among labor folks at least) and I will gladly provide a credible sources to prove that claim; there are many such sources. Regarding the relevance: Yang has repeatedly invoked Any Stern's labor credentials and history to lend credibility to his (quite central to his campaign) UBI platform; he has also invoked Mr. Stern in citing his own pro-labor positions. I will find the sources for these as soon as I have time and revert back. Knowing more about Mr. Stern provides important context for those claims. Think about it this way: if I were a candidate running for president, and I credited a "pro-consumer" patient advocate with developing my centerpiece healthcare policy, and used their "pro-consumer" bona-fides to give the policy credibility, would it not be relevant if that advocate was actually working for the pharmaceutical industry? Assuming I can come back do you with credible sources, do you agree with this logic? I am new to commenting on wikipedia and not looking to break any rules, and am happy to do things by the book. I also recognize that reasonable people may disagree on such issues, and while I have a strong opinion on this matter, am open to the possibility that I may be wrong. 173.79.58.161 (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Here is some more on this for your considerations:

Sources for Mr. Stern being a controversial figure:

https://splinternews.com/the-union-world-is-not-happy-with-andy-stern-1836850109/amp https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/false-promise-universal-basic-income-andy-stern-ruger-bregman https://www.thenation.com/article/seiu-andy-stern-leaves-behind/

Re; relevance: Please note in this clip how Mr. Yang uses Mr. Stern's bone fides as a labor advocate to argue in favor of his idea (UBI): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Jx2BXO7ej8&feature=youtu.be

He does the same thing in the original source I provided (https://consciouscompanymedia.com/the-new-economy/universal-basic-income-andrew-yang/):

But then we have someone who is the biggest labor union leader of our time saying, “Yes, we’re going to automate jobs away.” Someone who literally argued for decades about the central role of labor. When someone like that comes around and says, “We need to move toward universal basic income,” I find that very compelling. (emphasis added)

Please note that he is not arguing here (although he does elsewhere) that UBI is a good idea on its own merits; he argues (here) that you should put stock in this idea because the person who is championing the idea is credible.

If it turns out that that person is actually not so credible, if his fides aren't actually so "bone", so to speak, is that information not important to consider?

(I believe Mr. Yang uses this same argument quite often, will hunt down some more citations.)

Again I appreciate any thoughts you might have on this.

173.79.58.161 (talk) 03:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You have already been undone twice. I would strongly suggest that you propose your addition here rather than, as you put it, "revert back". I've already said that I don't think the material after the first sentence belongs in the article at all. You seem to have an axe to grind wrt Stern, but this is not an article about Stern. It's fine to state, neutrally and with reliable sources, that Stern is one of Yang's advisers. and that Yang bases part of his platform on Sterns ideas. Calling Stern "controversial" with no sources was completely unacceptable, and calling him that based on it being "common knowledge (among labor folks at least)" would not be any better. If you have unbiased reliable sources that call him controversial, that's one thing, but if it's just labor sources I don't think the label belongs in this article. I note that Stern's own article does not label him as "controversial". And the rest of it (other group Stern is involved with and what their goals are, or who that group has ties to) just does not belong. You added that same material to Stern's article Andy Stern, we don't need it here too. Just link to Stern's article.


 * The very first claim I happened to check was overstated, :so I'm not going to wade through all of your supposed sources. With respect to "how Mr. Yang uses Mr. Stern's bone fides as a labor advocate to argue in favor of his idea (UBI)" you claim that "He does the same thing  in the original source I provided (https://consciouscompanymedia.com/the-new-economy/universal-basic-income-andrew-yang/)" . I didn't remember that from the first time I looked at your edit, so  that was the first ref I checked, and, as I expected, you're over playing what the ref actually says.  You might want to read WP:SYNTH. Meters (talk) 05:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

> :You have already been undone twice.

Actually, I was undone once, ostensibly for having posted in the wrong section. Then I was approved by another mod, I believe. If I'm not mistaken, you are the person who undid me the second time, and without an explanation at the time I might add.

> calling Stern "controversial" with no sources was completely unacceptable

I literally just gave you three reliable sources calling him controversial. Look, trust me here, you are not going to win a factual argument over whether or not And Stern is controversial.

> I note that Stern's own article does not label him as "controversial".

You note incorrectly. The article has an entire section labeled "Controversy"!!!!! The very first sentence of that section says ""He's arguably the most important labor leader we've had in a long time: aggressive and controversial"!

> The very first claim I happened to check was overstated

How, exactly, was it overstated? I literally copied and pasted the relevant section for you!!! Here it is *again*:

But then we have someone who is the biggest labor union leader of our time saying, “Yes, we’re going to automate jobs away.” Someone who literally argued for decades about the central role of labor. When someone like that comes around and says, “We need to move toward universal basic income,” I find that very compelling. (emphasis added)

Are you really saying that Yang is *not* invoking Stern's credibility as a labor advocate here to support his idea (UBI)????!!!

Re: my motives, nice of you to speculate, but are my motives really relevant? Isn't this a factual question (is this information relevant and appropriate to this article) we are trying to resolve?

Look, your tone has become somewhat belligerent, and your statements are demonstrably (see above) false. I'm starting to really question your impartiality here. Are you a Yang supporter? Do you have any connection to the campaign? You seem to be looking for excuses to not include important and relevant material on this page?

I have no idea how wikipedia works, as I said I am new here. I gather you are some sort of moderator? I would appreciate it very much if you would let me know if there is some process to appeal what, IMO, is your arbitrary and incorrect decision here, based on, I might add, what sure do seem to a willful misreading / misstatement of the facts. 173.79.58.161 (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Meters: for what it’s worth I believe you misunderstood the phrase “revert back” which is often (redundantly) used to mean “get back to you”. Also, with due respect, your tone was combative, and your facts incorrect.

The question of relevance is of course debatable. IMO Yang made Stern’s reputation relevant by invoking it repeatedly to lend credibility to his policy proposal. That said, I believe that the level of detail in the proposed submission may not be warranted, unless perhaps it were submitted as part of a broader, more comprehensive discussion of the origins of, or arguments that Yang has offered in support of, his “Freedom Dividend”. As is I would support not including it, though not for the reasons you cited.

96.70.130.35 (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Since you think I'm belligerent, combative, and lying, I'm done spending my time trying to help you. Please read WP:NPA. Your edit has been challenged and you must get consensus on the talk page before it can go in, and the article is currently protected, so you cannot edit it yourself. Meters (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh woe is me, however will I carry on with my life. I tremble in terror before the awesome power that you wield, oh mighty Wikipedian

173.79.58.161 (talk) 00:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey there. I am a different user, i.e. a neutral third party. The other user has chosen to disengage to avoid further conflict (see WP:DISENGAGE). Please stop mocking or otherwise attacking the user. You have been warned. —Bobbychan193 (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

-- I'm a neutral party too if I do say so myself and if you threaten another use you'll see what happens tough guy -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.101.25 (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

How the addition was written seems to indicate some kind of axe to grind. Anyways, please see WP:LABEL regarding the label as Andy Stern as "controversial". Especially weird and undue on a page not even about him. Wikiman5676 (talk) 08:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

1992 National Debate Team
In your edit summary, you stated No tangible evidence for his proclaimed National Debate Team,+ the former former coach contradicted this statement. I'm curious to see this source.

I did a quick Google search and found this tweet from February, and several media outlets have made similar statements (presumably based on this tweet and other statements from Yang himself). A week ago, I submitted a question about the reliability of USN&WR on the Perennial Sources talk page. I haven't gotten a response, so I assumed it was an acceptable source to use for the background section. Let me know what you think. Bobbychan193 (talk) 02:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * All articles are based on Yang’s own tweet. And under precisely this tweet the former coach contradicted his participation (Yang did not react on it). I think there are 2 options here: Either we mention both his claim and the objection of the coach or, however, neither. --A11w1ss3nd (talk) 02:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I see. The issue is, we don't know whether that guy really was the former coach. I do concede that we don't have concrete proof that Yang actually went. Let's leave it out for now; it would be a headache to explain. Bobbychan193 (talk) 03:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur, its easier to just leave it out. Not enough mention in reliable sources in either way. Wikiman5676 (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * From about Tim Averill, Yang was not a student of this school though, so I believe he is referring to perhaps another debate/public speaking championship. In any case, it is hard to find third party citations for the 1992 debate claim by Yang, so I support removing it.--DreamLinker (talk) 08:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the new WaPo source, I've added it back. There are no reliable sources that disprove Yang's participation. Bobbychan193 (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The different school thing is a possibility. But either way the tweet from the coach is from an unverified account, so unless there's some kind of reliable third party source besides the website indicating a guy with that name was a coach I don't think we can justify putting in the alleged coach's claim due to lack of evidence from RS's. Wikiman5676 (talk) 06:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I've reached out to the NSDA to see if they have any public record of participants, hopefully that'll settle this dispute. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 16:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I have changed the wording to specify that this was a claim by Yang --DreamLinker (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

"misleading or disproportionate lack of coverage" in the lead
Does this really belong in the lead, especially here, in an article about Yang, and not about his campaign? Sander supporters say the same about their candidate. I think it should be removed from the lead, or at least moved to the campaign article. BeŻet (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * As the guy who largely wrote the lead as it is, I am about 60/40 in agreement with you. It has certainly been a bigger focus than on Sanders' (or any other candidates') campaign with quite a bit of coverage (on the lack of coverage), which makes me feel like it is worth covering in the lead. Yang himself has spoken about it on numerous occasions. However, I agree it is somewhat trivial and does not relate to Yang's biography in and of itself. I would be fine either way; just wanted to be clear that as a major contributor to the article, I am not opposed to removing that line. All of that said, I do think it warrants inclusion in the body of the article in the relevant section; so, keep the article as it is right now. PrairieKid (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I also slightly agree, but i think there are two points that warrant keeping it.


 * 1. Yang's criticism is more notable than Sander's since Yang's campaign officially made statements about it and Yang even boycotted MSNBC for a while.


 * 2. Andrew Yang was a public figure before but is still known mostly for his 2020 campaign so important aspects of his 2020 campaign also belong on his personal page. This is different for Sanders who has been a public figure for decades and has run multiple campaigns on the local and federal level. Wikiman5676 (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You both have presented quite convincing arguments; I'm still divided about it though. If we do include this in the lead, would it be better to mention say how disproportionally ignored he is compared to other candidates (without getting into too much detail)? I think if we emphasize the differentiation factor (Bernie was also widely ignored until it was impossible to ignore him any more, which is why Yang is definitely more ignored even compared to Sanders) it will make it more worthy inclusion. BeŻet (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the easiest would be just to highlight that the Yang campaign has criticized the media for allegedly unfair coverage? Something like "On several occasions, Yang and his supporters have criticized news outlets for what they call misleading or unfairly low coverage of his campaign.". Differentiating is also a viable method i think, but im not quite sure how to go about that with the given sources. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Evelyn's last name
In all TV appearances I've seen she was introduced as Evelyn Yang. Is there a reliable source indicating that she kept her original surname? --Yel D&#39;ohan (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought it was custom on wikipedia to call spouses by thier birth name when referring to them on thier spouses page. For instance Melania Trump is called Melania Knauss on the Donald Trump page. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Andrew's Middle Initial "M."
Why was Andrew's middle initial randomly removed? It is clearly listed as M. at this source: https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/28/us/andrew-yang-fast-facts/index.html which I believe was previously listed here in the article as the source for the M, but yesterday some anonymous user removed the middle initial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taurineknight (talk • contribs) 18:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Pending Changes Protection
This recent change is obnoxious and inhibits good-faith editing. The "currently accepted" version is both incorrectly sourced and formatted, whoever is in charge of reviewing needs to be keeping up much better. Why was this instituted? TheGreatClockwyrm (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Can you be more specific? Those who aren't active editors on this article - such as myself - can't really know what specifically is at issue from these comments. Thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Sure. To my knowledge how this system works is that some unknown user(s) must confirm/accept any revision made to this article, which is the version displayed to a majority of its visitors. Previously this morning there were several errors in the header that were left uncorrected while my edits to correct them pended review for a period of time. I understand that this protection is in place to prevent Yang supporters from making biased edits en masse, but this policy also appears to be inhibiting good-faith, active editors such as myself, who only days ago rewrote the header to its current form and plans to continue to remain active in the future. I am an active and dedicated user to not only this page but a variety of 2020 primary-related topics. Is it possible to be added to whatever userbase that is permitted to review or edit at will? Or perhaps overturn this policy now that Yang has left the race? TheGreatClockwyrm (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , the administrator put pending changes in effect back in April 2019. It may have been the appropriate choice at the time, I have not looked at the edit history prior to the protection, but I do agree with you that it appears that the rate of editing at the present time is too high for pending changes to be the best choice. DMacks, since you put this on pending changes, do you think that we should take it off now, and do you think we should semi protect? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * As a completely uninvolved editor, I would agree with u| Muboshgu. Now that Yang is out of the race, the degree to which tendentious or POV edits are likely to occur is probably substantially reduced - to the point of making 'pending changes' unnecessary. Anastrophe (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the explanation. I would support any initiative to remove the protection, now that Yang has left the race. He has confirmed publicly that a large-scale announcement will occur within the coming weeks (separate from his new role as a CNN contributor), but for now I think that because he is out of the race it would be prudent to remove this lock in order to improve the editing process. TheGreatClockwyrm (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks all for the ping and the sane discussion about your workflow here. I'm not involved in editing this page, so feel free to request any further changes as you think necessary (ping me or post on WP:RFPP). DMacks (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks a ton for the help. I'll be sure to keep everything shiny and neat where I can. TheGreatClockwyrm (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Philanthropist?
I can find no evidence that Andrew Yang is a philanthropist, other than a few web pages that call him a philanthropist. I can find no evidence of substantial donations, and sources indicate that he is not particularly wealthy. Should this designation be deleted? Erniecohen (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Anyone who works in an NGO that focuses on improving people's lives is by definition a philanthropist. --Yel D&#39;ohan (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I would also like to point out that he did donate several Freedom Dividends to around a dozen US families throughout the course of last year. Bobbychan193 (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * He used his own money from the Manhattan Prep sale to start the non profit Venture for America. I think that would count, not as glorious as a billionaire starting a foundation but similar enough. Wikiman5676 (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

endorsements section
Shouldn't all endorsements listed have a proper secondary source, ensuring V as well as N are met? I'll go ahead and remove any which are only sourced to primary sources. Hydromania (talk) 08:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Many of them listed with primary sources here are listed with secondary sources in the main endorsements article, so I'd say we can keep some to show the variety of endorsements, but refer back to the main article for a complete list. Yeeno   (talk) 🍁 05:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

policies section - needs to be past tense but his advocacy continues as well(?)
Andrew_Yang#Policies should be describe campaign proposals in the past tense. I haven't even looked at the article for the campaign itself yet.

fixing the tense is a bit tricky for me, because I know that Yang still advocates for UBI and data as a property right in particular as a part of the Humanity Forward organization. so does he "currently say UBI would do xyz" or did he only say so during the campaign? I think it depends, statement by statement.

but we should still change everything to past tense that we can. skakEL 02:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Highlighted polls - bias?
Currently in the campaign section we are highlighting two polls:


 * Polling conducted by Business Insider in the fall of 2019 found that Yang had the highest net satisfaction rate among undecided 2020 general election voters, and a November 2019 College Pulse poll found that Yang had the highest crossover support among college students of any candidate in the 2020 race, with 18% of Republican college students saying they would support Yang over Trump in the general election.

One could argue that it's bit biased to cherry pick two polls where Yang does well and mention them with such prominence, ignoring other, more relevant and significant polls. Should these be removed? BeŻet (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I would argue those polls are relevant to include because they are notably unique and shows something about the campaign, even to the point where news article were written about and analyzed the poll results and what they mean (as opposed to something generic like Biden leads Trump in June poll). I think its not unreasonable to include them at least in the 2020 campaign page if not this one. But why include these two polls and not the July 2019 poll above it? If we were to move or remove any of them, i think all three would apply. Wikiman5676 (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Middle name
What is the middle name for Andrew M. Yang? MaynardClark (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Adding position to infobox
I am proposing adding that he served as the Global Ambassador of Entrepreneurship to the Obama Administration in the infobox. Please let me know if there are any objections. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I was opposed to this when it was added months ago. Serving in an unpaid capacity on a presidential advisory committee is not a position that warrants space in the infobox. KidAd   talk  22:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm also opposed to adding it as well. The significance seems minor. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It is a governmental position that was under the scope of the Executive Branch. Sure, it wasn't a cabinet position, but he was in an official position. CNN, Business Insider and the New York Times all used the term "named" when referring to this position rather than the term "received," which was used to describe his "Champion of Change Award."


 * I also don't see how positions in the White House such as "Senior Advisor" or "Deputy Director of the Office of American Innovation" can be listed in the infobox while Yang having a position along the lines should not be listed. A position in the White House is a position in the White House and should be listed.


 * Further, being paid should not be the standard for being listed. Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump are both in unpaid roles, but their positions are in the infobox. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What is the significance of this role? The article gives none, only stating (twice, in fact) that he got the honor in 2015. Javanka have been in charge of ending the opioid epidemic, COVID-19, making peace in the Middle East, and all sorts of other things, so that's not a good comp. Plus, there's all the press about the nepotism. This "ambassadorship" seems to be closer to serving on the Opioid and Drug Abuse Commission, which is not in the infobox of the people who served on it. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , There is a significant difference between a "Senior Advisor" or "Deputy Director of the Office of American Innovation" and a Global Ambassador of Entrepreneurship. Senior Advisors and Deputy Directors are paid members of their administration. In addition to actually holding office, they are given office space and show up to the EEOB (or wherever) from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM just like you would for any private sector job. No source indicates that Yang was paid to be an ambassador of entrepreneurship, nor that he was granted office space and responsible for showing up five days a week for work. Steve Case, Daymond John, Julie Hanna, and Helen Greiner, and even Elizabeth Holmes served on the same committee. None of their inboxes are modified in the way you have proposed. KidAd   talk  02:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Again, Ivanka and Jared don't receive payments for their work, A physical office also is not the standard of serving as a governmental official. The position that Yang was in required meetings with Obama and meeting with Ambassadors.


 * A governmental position is a governmental position. To me knowledge there is no rule stating that a position must meet a certain standard to be listed in the infobox.Pennsylvania2 (talk) 04:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * To my knowledge, Jared and Ivanka do not receive a salary because of their familial closeness to the President. The positions are still not the same. A senior advisor is starkly different from someone who sits in on a meeting with the President about entrepreneurship every now and again. KidAd   talk  06:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * A governmental position is STILL a governmental position, regardless of how minor. Sitting "in on a meeting with the President about entrepreneurship every now and again" means that Yang was working for Obama, who was the President. Therefore, he had a governmental position that should be listed in the infobox. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * His governmental position was incredibly minor. Not every person who gets to have a meeting with a president is notable for the position that allowed them to do so. Yang is notable for his 2020 candidacy, not being appointed to a "collaborative advisory group." KidAd   talk  20:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The term minor is subjective, though. It's STILL a governmental position and then should be listed in the infobox since it was the position he had under Obama.Pennsylvania2 (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Any additional thoughts from others to help reach a consensus?Pennsylvania2 (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yang was literally an ambassador for Obama that traveled the country representing the administration. Very notable.2600:1002:B126:5C91:6591:3551:882E:531E (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * He was literally not an ambassador. "Real" ambassadorships require Senate confirmation and do diplomacy with foreign nations. This position was a membership on an "advisory board". There is clearly no consensus to include this in the infobox. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

New Campaign
Requesting edit, he has recently been signing paperwork to run for NYC mayor in 2021. I know that in post campaign section there is something about this, but I am requesting a new section in the article for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewYangForNYCMayor (talk • contribs) 14:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. Right now this mention is under "2020 Presidential campaign" in the post campaign section. It would make sense to just move that info into its own section and expand as more information comes in. Wikiman5676 (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Champion of Change
Do we need to mention Champion of Change in the opening? It’s an important part of his stump speech, but not an important award. 97.125.232.133 (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say yes, Champion of Change is still an award given at the highest level of the US Executive branch (The White House). And its not Yang has been the only recipient. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that "Champion of Change" is being overused in this article. I removed it once from the infobox (it was in there twice), and added some context about the title, but frankly not enough. People don't have the capacity to research the import or significance of a title--that's why they come to Wikipedia. Seeing it recalled over and over is worrisome. 20:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Article fails on NPOV standard
Starting a discussion on the current article's being overly positive, to the point of obfuscating "accomplishments" and repeating them over and over. For example, both his being selected a "Global Ambassador of Entrepreneurship" and "Champion of Change" are cited 4 to 6 times, always without showing how this matters at all.

His article reads like a PR piece, and I've been struck by the lack of anything remotely negative. Why not incorporate information that isn't positive? It would go a long way to help balance this article's POV....

Example articles:
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/15/opinion/andrew-yang-automation.html
 * https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2021/04/15/yang-under-fire-for-appearance-in-video-suggesting-violence-toward-women-1375023
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/21/my-big-problem-with-andrew-yang/
 * https://gothamist.com/news/activists-are-not-photo-op-black-lives-matter-protesters-heckle-andrew-yang-during-bike-ride-daunte-wright
 * https://abc7ny.com/andrew-yang-mayor-video-controversy/10517585/
 * https://www.cityandstateny.com/articles/politics/new-york-city/andrew-yangs-mayoral-campaign-being-run-lobbying-firm.html
 * https://www.amny.com/news/andrew-yang-draws-backlash-after-calling-for-more-enforcement-against-street-vendors/

Shoestringnomad (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a news article. These aren't notable enough to be included. Additionally, I quickly went through your contributions and you have been adding quite a bit of positive material to Eric Adam's, a fellow mayoral candidate, Wikipedia page and removing negative information. Seems like you may have a conflict of interest. You also only have 200 edits, so this is suspicious. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, Wikipedia is not news. Saying these sources are not reputable and should not be included in this article are further proof that this article suffers from a lack of NPOV. Shoestringnomad (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA, WP:BITE, WP:AGF. Astoundingly unprofessional. "Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions." If you reasonably suspect a conflict of interest take it to WP:COIN, I don't need to tell you that. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I tend to agree. I understand that there is a high overlap between the type of people who might edit Wikipedia and the type of people who like Andrew Yang, so it's understandable how it got this way, but the article as a whole fails WP:NPOV. It is not balanced appropriately and overemphasizes accomplishments while minimizing criticism. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 diagnosis
Given the innuendo surrounding COVID-19 and in particular the amount of stigmatization Asian American public figures receive about the pandemic, why should Yang's COVID-19 diagnosis be included on his Wikipedia page? It doesn't seem newsworthy nor long lasting for an encyclopedia. AsianAmericanAdvocate (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I think that a brief, neutral mention, as currently exists, is not stigmatizing or irrelevant. I've seen similar mentions on many other pages. However, if anyone knows of a Wikipedia guideline about COVID-19 or mentioning illnesses on BLPs more generally, that would be great. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ganesha1. I also don't know what it's in the best interests of sounding encyclopedic for Wikipedia to shield some public figures from their public Covid-19 diagnosis but not others. Shoestringnomad (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As an Asian American public figure currently running for Mayor of New York City, Andrew Yang is particularly vulnerable to discussion of his COVID-19 diagnosis. He has been previously smeared surrounding this issue. Maybe we should compare how other Asian American public figures running for political office have had their personal life section mention a COVID-19 diagnosis for an adequate comparison. TrueQuantum (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to do so and share your findings here. It's helpful to have more information. Shoestringnomad (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder that we are not here to WP:RGW, even the wrong of anti-Asian violence. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Muboshgu, that's a great point and serves as a good reminder of WP:TEND in general. Shoestringnomad (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC on position in the infobox
Should the infobox on Andrew Yang include the Presidential Ambassador for Global Entrepreneurship, as seen to the right? (Note: this issue was discussed at Talk:Andrew_Yang/Archive_1 without a firm consensus being formed.) – Muboshgu (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This was a minor, unpaid position on an advisory committee, established and abolished under the Obama administration. Many individuals serve on such committees without infobox entries. In fact, as of this timestamp anyway, none of Daymond John, Julie Hanna, Nina Vaca, Elizabeth Holmes, or Helen Greiner include this in their infoboxes. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The position is notable enough itself to have its own Wikipedia page. Yang mentioned this position in his presidential stump speech and in his run for Mayor of New York City. It was listed as a position on the Obama White House's website and a Google search shows information regarding the gig from the Wall Street Journal and CNN. It's hard to say a position in the White House is "minor." It is notable and should be listed in the infobox. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. He was one among many on an advisory board that has a somewhat minimal role in the White House. His position there is quite a small aspect of Yang's notability, and it is only very briefly mentioned in this article (and is even left out of the lead, in fact). Per WP:PROPORTION, minor aspects of people's notability shouldn't be given such great prominence in an article through an infobox like this, and like the articles for the other members of the advisory committee, it makes more sense just to be dealt with in the text itself. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for reasons given by Volteer1 and Muboshgu. There has to be some cut-off point for relatively trivial honorary positions and this one seems well below any such cut-off. No reason to not mention in the article briefly but 'info-boxing' it gives it a seeming importance it doesn't have AFAI can see. Pincrete (talk) 09:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This has been covered to death in the past, so I will simply reiterate not an "office". KidAd  •  SPEAK  18:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose inclusion, as it's too trivial to be included in an at-a-glance summary. Counter to Pennsylvania2's reasoning, I don't believe every position/role that has a WP page mandates its inclusion in an infobox. (And sure, Yang mentioned the role while campaigning; everyone pumps up their résumé when they're applying for a job. It dosn't mean we have to include it here.) Lastly, he was one of several such people in an advisory role which existed only a couple of years. Don't include. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 02:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is trivial; the position was mostly a meaningless press release. The "serving with" is both misleading and incomplete.  Including it in the infobox only serves as puffery. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 02:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seems to have been a minor position for it be included in the infobox. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 05:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see how this is noteworthy for the infobox. It does not seem relevant and adds nothing to the article itself. If there is a counter-argument, I am open to hearing it. Jurisdicta (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose It was a minor position and not notable for it to be included in the infobox. Sea Ane (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - For reasons stated above. Minor position with little to no power or real life applicability. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Trivial, résumé-puffing position. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as this isn't what he's most notable for. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 17:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Insignificant position that he held with several other people simultaneously. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Party Affiliation
The situation with Yang's party affiliation is based on a POLITICO article. Yang implicitly confirmed the report with a Tweet, but that is exactly the type of inference that Wikipedia editors should not make per WP:OR. Are there any sources that discuss Yang's reaction, and ideally independently confirm the POLITICO reporting? User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 18:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, there are none outside of Politico and other outlets reporting on Politico's reporting. That's why I protected the page under BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2021
Change Democrat to independent 68.53.219.198 (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: There is no source that describes him as an "independent". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Addition of an Advert template
I have added a advert template to this article. I had never read this article before and frankly I could not believe my eyes. The first paragraph is honestly a scandal. Yang was born and raised in New York State: clearly a statement written in preparation for his mayoral run. He attended Brown University and Columbia Law School: namedropping top schools. After law school, Yang worked at startups and nonprofits: of course, it's well known in legal circles that Davis Polk is both a nonprofit and a startup! And then the same theme just goes on and on throughout the article. It desperately needs a thorough rewrite. JBchrch  talk  01:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph is biographical information. Should we not mention that he was born in New York and went to Ivy League schools? Also, something may be well known in legal circles, but this is Wikipedia, not a law journal. I've never heard of Davis Polk and I imagine that most of this page's readers haven't either. An advert-like page would say something more like Yang worked for the prestigious firm Davis Polk. So since you haven't identified any actual advocacy, propaganda, promotion, or advertising, I'm removing the template. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Should we not mention that he was born in New York and went to Ivy League schools? No, this not standard practice (see also MOS:OPEN). Please show me other articles where the schools are mentioned in the first paragraph, and we can discuss on that basis. And I think you inadvertently proved my point: my statement about Davis Polk was ironic, because Davis Polk is the second most profitable law firm in the world, and was founded in 1849. So saying that he worked at non-profits and startups after law school is a bold faced lie. Finally—and though Wikiblame does not work here—the article history can establish that he lead was substantially rewritten during the campaign. JBchrch   talk  01:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to be familiar with WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. The lead section should be a stand-alone summary of the article - read Manual of Style/Lead section for more.  You appear to object to a summary of his early life being present at all.  I think you may be confused by familiarity with articles where the "lede sentence" comprises the entirety of the first paragraph. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 02:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that you are confused. WP:SUMMARYSTYLE is a guideline that sets forth when and how a subtopic of a certain article (the parent article) should be developed in standalone article (the child article) and summarized in the parent article. The applicable policy here is MOS:LEAD. MOS:LEAD contains two relevant sub-section: MOS:OPEN, which applies to the opening paragraph and MOS:FIRST (a sub-section thereof), which applies to the first sentence of the lead. According to MOS:OPEN: The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it.. Another guideline that is relevant here is MOS:FIRSTBIO, which states The opening paragraph of a biographical article should neutrally describe the person, provide context, establish notability and explain why the person is notable, and reflect the balance of reliable sources. Here, the most important elements that should be reflected in the opening paragraph is that Yang is an American politician, and that he ran unsuccessfully in the 2016 Democratic primary and the 2021 NY mayoral election. The schools he attended and the good things he did in his twenties do not belong there. Finally, I should just note that this does not solve the general problem of this article, which is effectively a promo piece. JBchrch   talk  03:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Barack Obama and Joe Biden both mention universities attended in their leads. I'm sure the lead was substantially rewritten during both his presidential and mayoral campaigns, as (a) many people who had never heard of him before were becoming exposed to him and (b) new information required changes and additions (Yang Gang, for instance). – Muboshgu (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, somewhere in the lead, not the first paragraph... As for the rewrite, doesn't it strike you that the mention of his youth in New York State was added to the first paragraph during his campaign? I mean surely you can see the obvious promotional intent here. JBchrch   talk  03:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Party affiliation in infobox
It isn't accurate to describe Yang as a member of the "Forward Party", because the Forward Party isn't yet an actual political party, per its official website. I think his party affiliation should just be kept at "Independent" and keep Forward Party out of the infobox unless/until it actually registers with the FEC as a party. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with you and removed the Forward Party affiliation from the infobox. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I re-added the Forward Party. Yang is definitely part of the Forward Party per https://www.forwardparty.com/team. The other political affiliation section of the infobox isn't just for political parties - it can include political organizations. Numerous foreign politicans have their political coalitions listed - these are not political parties but are still included in articles. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

How should Andrew Yang be described in the first sentence of the article?
, anyone else - something to resolve for this article. How should Yang be described in the first sentence of the article? He is clearly a politician - I think we can all come to immediate consensus on that. I've seen both businessman and entrepreneur used - which one is more appropriate? Should both be used? The most recent dispute is whether Yang is a journalist. I've argued that publishing occasional columns, as many politicians do, does not make someone noteworthy as a journalist, while Castncoot has taken the position that Yang is a regular contributor to Crain's and thus should be described as a journalist. What do others think? Ganesha811 (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A journalist is someone who performs journalism, whose definition includes "The word journalism applies to the occupation, as well as citizen journalists who gather and publish information based on facts and supported with proof or evidence." Clearly Andrew Yang wears many hats, and one of those is indeed being a journalist, being a regular contributor to Crains New York. A journalist can also report and opine verbally without doing so in wiritng, as Yang does as a political commentator on CNN. Being a politician, entrepreneur, and businessman does not disqualify Yang from wearing a journalism hat prominently as well, as it's a bona fide primary inclusive descriptor of his various roles. Castncoot (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * At that link to muckrack you provided, I only see two columns in Crain's actually written by Andrew Yang: "De Blasio must cut spending..." and "Federal stimulus won't last...". The others seem to be mostly *about* Yang, not by him, and are in a variety of outlets including his website. I disagree that a journalist can "opine verbally" without writing or hosting the news - his job on CNN, as you say, is called political commentator or panelist, not journalist.
 * I think in order to be described in Wikipedia's voice as a journalist, we need to see reliable sources discussing Yang as a journalist that refer to him as such, and in great enough numbers that we can consider it a significant part of his career. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not a journalist. Maybe a columnist, but are his columns noteworthy enough to be included in the lede? Likely not. Wikipedia's page for journalist reads, "A journalist is an individual trained to collect/gather information in form of text, audio or pictures, processes them to a news-worth form and disseminates it to the public." Calling Yang a journalist misrepresents what he does. Shoestringnomad (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not a journalist. Maybe a columnist, but are his columns noteworthy enough to be included in the lede? Likely not. Wikipedia's page for journalist reads, "A journalist is an individual trained to collect/gather information in form of text, audio or pictures, processes them to a news-worth form and disseminates it to the public." Calling Yang a journalist misrepresents what he does. Shoestringnomad (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The relevant guideline is MOS:ROLEBIO which states "The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described in reliable sources" and MOS:FIRSTBIO which states "... try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread relevant information over the lead section." LK (talk) 11:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)