Talk:Nina Jankowicz

Original research
, I would suggest that absent secondary sources indicating significance of specific comments, we leave out the quotes from the Congressional testimony per WP:NOR. The entry could instead be expanded to describe her views from the secondary source coverage of her books. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not intimately familiar with consensus on how Congressional testimony is used in articles, but it appears that this falls within WP:PRIMARY's third bullet point: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge [...] an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source". Is there some other policy that impinges further on this? jp×g 22:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose WP:BLPPRIMARY for instance is where for me this departs from the plot of a novel or even more clearly from PRIMARY #3, something as straightforward as a discography list. "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source" reflects my experience of consensus on how to use a subject’s writing in a BLP—following the interpretation by reliable secondary sources and cited directly just for readers' convenience, rather than because a WP editor making an judgment of significance or how to characterize. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

That Ms. Jankowicz has testified before Congress is relevant to her biography. - From Congress.gov :
 * Maybe, but we can't interpret what she said from a primary source. soibangla (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand what you are saying here. I'll say again, that I really half-assed those quotes, with the expectation that other people could come through and flesh it out more fully. It does not make sense to me to just remove the thing entirely. It's not like it is some kind of inscrutable mystery what the source says -- it's right there (page 12-14), and we can all go look at it to decide whether we think it's being excerpted fairly. If you don't think it is, then that's fine, it can certainly be edited, but I don't see how directly quoting a transcript of someone's Congressional testimony is not adequate sourcing for the claim that they testified in Congress. jp×g 01:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * To me the difference is between referencing the simple fact that they testified versus getting into the weeds about how to characterize what they said. I also would not want us to summarize her NYT or WashPost op-eds if they haven’t been covered by secondary sources, but I’m ok (ish) with just stating that they happened. It’s padding the entry a bit but minimally so I don’t object too much. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

If you'd like to have an RfC about whether direct quotation constitutes original research, I would be glad to open one; removals like this one, however, are hard for me to understand (text enclosed in  tags is not displayed on the page, as explained in WP:HIDDEN). I commented them out to give you the benefit of the doubt while they were still being discussed, rather than simply engaging in an edit war by adding them back to the article, so I am having difficulty figuring out what you mean by "challenging my ability to AGF". With regard to the issue of inclusion or deletion itself, I am confused as to your rationale -- you've said above that we cannot "interpret" what she said, but the content in question consists entirely of direct quotations (i.e. not interpretation). I guess what I'm trying to ask you here is whether you genuinely contend that all attributed direct quotations from Congressional testimony constitute original research (in which case I suppose the next step would be formal dispute resolution), or whether you have a specific issue with the quotations used in this article (in which case the next step would be to address your concerns with these quotations, and perhaps provide your own proposal as to how the testimony should be excerpted). jp×g 18:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would not be concerned about extended passages from her testimony, or perhaps even full sentences, but a couple of words here and a couple of words there creates at least an appearance of editor cherrypicking to present a POV. It leaves it to readers to ascertain whether it's fully contextual, by reading a long primary source. Otherwise, there's no way to know if elsewhere in her testimony she said other things that qualified the excerpts shown here. This is problematic at this time because the subject became an overnight lightning rod of controversy. soibangla (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Truth hurts and us not defamatory
Speaking the truth of her and the rest of the people in charge, until November 2022, is not defamatory 2600:8801:2E9E:8A00:F171:7A96:D25D:F72A (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this post. What's November 2022 got to do with anything? jp×g 17:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Midterms. Somers-all-the-time (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Her calling Wikileaks personel "Scum" is excatly what she stands for. DISINFORMATION. 176.76.249.134 (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

More fun than editors should be allowed to have
Isn't it great that so many different people are all committed to building the sum of all human knowledge in a free resource? It's heart-warming, at least to me. But I am sick of having to manually merge ECs and fix edit-war-introduced ref errors, so I think we should probably have a little get-together on the talk page rather than mald at each other in increasingly long edit summaries. What's up? jp×g 20:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Who came up with absurd ref titles like "national-revyoo"? Str1977 (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you aware the vast bulk of the Steele dossier has never been publicly proven false? Some in conservative media insist it's been totally debunked, and thus it has become the mantra among many who consume conservative media, but it ain't so. soibangla (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's hardly relevant here in this section so stop posting it here.
 * I went by what the consensus in the WP article said. Str1977 (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's very relevant to your approach to this article. soibangla (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

My whole shit, as far as the Steele dossier thing goes, is that if you read the NR and Examiner stories, she didn't actually say it was good. Like, she never said "the Steele dossier is epicly smart and good". The thing she did was, she tweeted some unrelated thing that the Steele guy said, and then said that was good. Now, far be it from me to try and stop people from having a Wiki-argument about whether some politics guy is a bozo, but it doesn't seem terribly relevant to Nina Jankowicz, and it frankly seems like kind of a piss-ant criticism to have in the article. jp×g 21:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should be using RSP yellow sources for politics and risk BLP concerns by rushing to smear someone. This is effectively tantamount to weaponizing this encyclopedia against political adversaries. We must not allow this. soibangla (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is important to keep the article from becoming a pile of mean tweets, but other than that I am not sure what you're talking about, or why it would be bad to use "RSP yellow" sources. Both Fox News and National Review are on the perennial sources list as no-consensus. For Fox, we have this:
 * There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims. Editors perceive Fox News to be biased or opinionated for politics; use in-text attribution for opinions
 * For National Review, we have this:
 * There is no consensus on the reliability of National Review. Most editors consider National Review a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from the National Review constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy.
 * I agree that there are some considerations to keep in mind (for one, we should remember to keep the takes from Fox/NR attributed in-text as we copyedit), and we should be careful to maintain due weight for criticism (hence what I said about the Steele thing). However, I don't think it is reasonable to expect an article about a politician to contain no criticism whatsoever. jp×g 23:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Everything should be attributed, without exception. Str1977 (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2022
Remove the text and linked source "On May 26, 2013, she married Michael Vincent Stein.[22]" under Personal Life.

The source does not include the detail that the article contains. Additionally, the spouse is not otherwise in the public eye. Given the source is weak, it is better that the spouse's details be kept private. Applesandbananas111 (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. It only said that in 2012 they were engaged. Endwise (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I mentioned this earlier, when the line was first added (i.e. shouldn't we have a more recent source for someone being married?) but nobody seemed to pay it much mind. I would be sympathetic to the entire passage being removed pending a stronger or more current source. jp×g 18:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. I’ll remove. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing to restore to, as I created the article with list-defined references from the getgo. The reasoning behind this (as for all my articles) is that inline referencing is a gigantic pain in the ass for anyone who uses the source editor. It causes gigantic chunks of reference text to be displayed in the middle of article content, which means it is very difficult to read in the edit window, as well as difficult to copyedit without shuffling around these huge chunks of text. If you don't believe me, here is a single sentence:
 * Removal resulted in an error message due to an unused reference. This is through no fault of Innisfreee987 as it is due to the way references are used in this article. I don't understand why references are arrayed in this manner below "reflist," as it is confusing and seems unnecessary. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping me out with that @Figureofnine. I admit this is not my preferred ref style either as it makes it much harder to use Visual Editor’s “reuse” option if you need to invoke the same ref a second time. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the old and more typical style can be restored, if this was simply one editor's wish and there was no consensus. It is atypical and makes editing more difficult than necessary. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

"Chain Island is located in the Sacramento River, past the southeastern end of the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel,, at its confluence with the San Joaquin River from the south (via Broad Slough) and immediately upstream of Suisun Bay (an embayment of San Francisco Bay)."

Here is the source for that sentence, using list-defined references: Chain Island is located in the Sacramento River, past the southeastern end of the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel,, at its confluence with the San Joaquin River from the south (via Broad Slough) and immediately upstream of Suisun Bay (an embayment of San Francisco Bay).

Here is the source for that exact same sentence, using inline references:

Chain Island is located in the Sacramento River, past the southeastern end of the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel, at its confluence with the San Joaquin River from the south (via Broad Slough) and immediately upstream of Suisun Bay (an embayment of San Francisco Bay).

Even if we decide to abandon the vertical citation format, in the name of saving space, it is still completely unreadable: Chain Island is located in the Sacramento River, past the southeastern end of the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel, at its confluence with the San Joaquin River from the south (via Broad Slough) and immediately upstream of Suisun Bay (an embayment of San Francisco Bay).

It is certainly regrettable that, for whatever reason, the visual editor has not been adequately programmed to work with list-defined references -- but I can assure you there is a cogent reason for them being formatted this way. jp×g 03:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes it is indeed regrettable, and it makes visual editor far more difficult to use. The type of formatting for this article needs to be determined by consensus, not by the article creator, and I favor not using list-defined references. While cumbersome to go back to the conventional format, changing the format used for references will be better for new editors coming into this article going forward. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, it's probably just a question of how many people are using the source editor versus the visual editor -- per the history, only 13 of 147 revisions seem to have been made with the visual editor. But, sure. Per WP:CITEVAR, talk page consensus overrides status quo with respect to reference formatting style, so if everyone wants it the other way, it should be the other way. I just wanted to point out that there really is a case for using LDR (and it's used in lots of articles). Regardless of whatever, it is actually really easy to change the formatting: there is a script (User:Kaniivel/Reference Organizer) that lets you switch between inline and list-defined references instantly, which I'd be fine with running if consensus is that we should use inline refs. jp×g 16:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I edit in both (part of why the count isn’t weighted more toward VE) and still prefer inline but it’s really far from my biggest problem today, so you know, whatever—if it’s not too hard to switch, great, otherwise, I’ll keep making do. It’s def silly this hasn’t been rectified on a technical level, worth a request probably. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes let's see if there is a groundswell either way. As you point out, there are greater issues facing Planet Earth. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 11:57, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Age
So, she was appointed by the Biden Administration to work at the federal level and be a government official, and we do not even know her exact Location and date of birth? Not even the exact year she was born? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.157.31.96 (talk) 00:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Here’s Wikipedia’s policy on including date of birth on entries of living people: WP:BLPDOB. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

 * Well, I had to look up DYK, and the first thing that jumped out at me was "It is not a general trivia section." Jankowicz's interest in musical theater seems trivial to me. soibangla (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll be real: I totally half-assed the hook and it isn't very good. If you can think of anything better, go ahead :) jp×g 20:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can help me out here, because I'm really scratching my head about this. I certainly can't speak for any other editor, but it appears you presumptively named as a co-creator of your DYK proposal and placed the onus on the editor to decline a fait accompli. You appear to have recruited another editor to support your proposal, without their knowledge, apparently to create an impression that the proposal has more support than it actually does. I've never seen this before, but maybe I'm missing something you can clue me in on. I also don't understand why such trivia belongs on Wikipedia's Main Page. Is the intent to draw attention and traffic to the BLP of a person who days ago suddenly became a political lightning rod, but now that the initial frenzied criticisms of the DGB have been dispelled and have waned, to re-energize interest in Jankowicz? That's the best|only rationale for this I can come up with, but maybe you have another rationale you can share. soibangla (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Soibangla, this really does not WP:AGF. If you’re not familiar with DYK, I suggest you take some time to familiar yourself with the routine process of nominating newly created entries. One thing you’ll learn is that listing a co-creator has nothing to do with the review process—it’s only for offering “credit” after the fact. In any case please don’t speak on my behalf; I’m entirely capable of objecting if I had wanted. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said at the outset, I certainly can't speak for any other editor and I didn't. I find listing a co-creator has nothing to do with the review process—it’s only for offering “credit” after the fact to be a peculiar process, if for no other reason that it's not after the fact. I made it clear maybe I'm missing something you can clue me in on. I still don't understand why such trivia belongs on Wikipedia's Main Page. soibangla (talk) 10:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Soibangla as my time is limited and you seem to doubt the portion I took the time to explain, I’ll have to leave you to find some answers at DYK. Happy editing. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not understand what your comments here mean with respect to improving the article (per WP:TALK); if you'd like to propose an alternate hook for the DYK nomination, I already said that I would not object to you doing so. Otherwise, I don't really know what to say, other than to recommend you read the DYK guidelines. I'm not sure what "draw attention and traffic to the BLP of a person who days ago suddenly became a political lightning rod, but now that the initial frenzied criticisms of the DGB have been dispelled and have waned, to re-energize interest in Jankowicz" means, but talk pages are not a forum for general conversation. jp×g 22:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you realize that everything added on this article talk doesn't go into the DYK nomination template? - Please add relevant comments in the template (by clicking "review"), or DYK people won't see them unless they watch this page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm just responding here -- I'm not sure what is going on in this discussion but it doesn't seem very relevant to DYK. jp×g 02:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2022
Include her poor record of identifying misinformation and disinformation, and her record of promoting misinformation and disinformation on the top of the page to avoid obvious bias. 87.95.114.10 (talk) 07:09, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. &#128156; melecie   talk  - 07:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

"Maligned" used incorrectly
"Jankowicz's appointment to the board drew scrutiny to her previous posts online; National Review and the Washington Examiner maligned her criticism of the Hunter Biden laptop story,[17][18][19] and her August 2020 praise of Christopher Steele (author of the Steele dossier) and his views on disinformation."

MALIGNED is clearly the wrong word here.

Webster: verb (used with object) to speak harmful untruths about; speak evil of; slander; defame: to malign an honorable man.

Jankowicz's criticism of the laptop story (and others) was completely incorrect.

A more appropriate statement would be: ..."inaccurately maligned her wholly mis-guided criticism of the Hunter Biden laptop story and her..."

2600:1700:BF10:69D0:C9BB:4110:1EB7:2AC5 (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

“and to defend against a right-wing campaign of abuse and mischaracterizations targeting Jankowicz”
That line doesn’t sound neutral at all.2600:1700:EDC0:3E80:AD8A:C7FE:64E9:8A70 (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.191.15.34 (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * classic, textbook, including death threats:
 * soibangla (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

What?
What a joke. Really, there is nothing I can say. LOL. She resigned her, ummmm, job. (Thank God.) We should add that to the article. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What? It was in the lead for hours before you wrote that, and if it wasn't you could've added it. soibangla (talk) 08:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * So democracy won, for now. Some editors at Wikipedia still seem prickly about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.216.130.181 (talk) 05:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Indeed.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Why are we adopting the POV of the Washington Examiner?
Is there a particular reason that this article's coverage of the Disinformation Governance Board essentially allows the views of NR and the Washington Examiner to drive selection and presentation of content? Why, for instance, would we bother to note what the examiner had to say about the Steele dossier while simply referring to "the hunter Biden laptop story" as though that were something which should be passed along, unaltered, to the reader? Protonk (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I also noticed that and just forgot to trim it. Have done now. Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As was discussed previously on this talk page (under the poorly-named subsection "More fun than editors should be allowed to have"), the consensus was to leave in the qualification of the Steele dossier by the Examiner because without the extra info, it was insufficiently obvious why praising the author of the dossier would reflect poorly on someone selected to head a board governing disinformation. Somers-all-the-time (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we should remove mention that the criticism comes mainly from right-wing sources. This viewpoint seems to have been sourced from the WashingPost. Reason has criticised Washing's slant on the affair and other non-right wing sources have criticised her record. A common topic of the criticism is Jankowicz' statements about Hunter Biden's laptop. We only touch on the topic and don't explain the nature of the criticism. Reason said "Jankowicz was flagrantly wrong about the pivotal "disinformation" episode of the 2020 election cycle: the Hunter Biden laptop story". She "shared national security officials' "high confidence" that the Hunter Biden story was part of a Russian influence campaign. She described the idea that the laptop had been left behind at a repair shop as "a fairy tale." " Newsweek wrote "Jankowicz had previously supported the idea that the controversial laptop story that emerged in October, 2020 could be part of a disinformation campaign carried out by Russia. No evidence subsequently emerged to support that conclusion". The conservative Townhall criticised her she "repeated embrace of the leftist narrative that Hunter Biden's laptop from hell was a phony story cooked up by the Russian government is absolutely disqualifying from any role addressing disinformation. ... [I]f you engaged in disinformation by falsely saying something else was disinformation, you have no business running a federal board that's supposed to figure out what's true and what's not". Other criticism that we have not mentioned includes:
 * - "The board's existence ... prompted serious concerns from many civil libertarians and inspired Ministry of Truth comparisons". (Reason)
 * - We have completely scrubbed mention that Jankowicz worked for StopFake. This should appear somewhere in her C.V. It drew criticism from a an article in the progressive magazine The Nation that has been removed from Jankowicz' bio.
 * Burrobert (talk) 06:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ¯\_(ツ)_/¯                 Burrobert (talk) 06:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Despite the insistance of many that some emails from the laptop being authenticated "proves" it was not a Russian disinfo operation, it does not. The authentication comes with significant caveats: Hunter Biden laptop controversy. To my knowledge, it is excluslively right-leaning sources that have declared this as conclusive fact, scored some political points, and closed the book. They have a motive to do that because of the involvement of two men close to Trump, who has insisted for years that he has nothing to do with Russians. It remains unclear if we've reached the final chapter of this saga, so we should avoid including content in this BLP siggesting Jankowicz has been proven wrong and discredited, coming entirely from partisan sources with a motive. soibangla (talk) 10:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Reason is a pretty good source. There is no clear reason for preferring WashingPosts' explanation for the failure of the Ministry of Truth, over Reason 's explanation. Why not include both? What about the other point?
 * - We have completely scrubbed mention that Jankowicz worked for StopFake.
 * Burrobert (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe StopFake should be included, without suggestions that it was a disinformation effort, suggestions apparently made by those whose disinformation the group had targeted. Characterizing the DGB as the Ministry of Truth tends to demonstrate where you're coming from on this. soibangla (talk) 12:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think the stopfake story is relevant, since she seemed to stop working there (or whatever affiliation she had) before their record of controversies. When she was working there, it did indeed have a sterling record.
 * I'll add also that Golinkin, like Stephen Cohen (whose wife is the main editor of the nation) who was his mentor, are highly contrarian (at least compared to other people in the west and not in russia) when it comes to post Euromaidan-Ukraine (2014+), and their opinions are often colored by subscribing to Russia's propaganda that Ukraine underwent a fascist coup, and that can distort some of their opinions on russia/ukraine. their opinions are similar to what you see from the 'hard left' rather than merely progressive.
 * if this is included, it should be given relevant WP:DUE Cononsense (talk) 13:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I previously added more sources to indicate that it is not just the Post but widely reported as a right-wing backlash; nevertheless the view of Reason is still in the entry; it’s not clear to me she was employed at Stop Fake versus hosting a couple of podcast episodes (not everyone who ever does a story on This American Life works there). If there’s a straight news source saying she was employed there it would make more sense to me to include. Innisfree987 (talk) 12:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * - The Nation is a high quality source which is not right-wing and was not targetted by StopFake. The following quote from the end of the article is a good summary of the points it raises. Perhaps we could either summarise it or include it in whole or part, with attribution.
 * "Painting neo-Nazi paramilitaries with an extensive record of war crimes as patriots helping refugees, all while working with a “disinformation” group that turned out to run interference for violent neo-Nazi formations—that’s the experience Biden’s new disinformation czar brings to the table".
 * - Describing her connection with StopFake, The Nation says "her work with StopFake", "Among StopFake’s hosts was Jankowicz", "Jankowicz’s tenure with StopFake", "the disinformation expert ... used to work with the group", "working with a “disinformation” group". It shouldn't be too hard to come up with a wording that covers these descriptions.
 * - Criticism of the establishment of a board also came from "many civil libertarians". This seems worthy of mention.
 * - The CNN source says the criticism was from " GOP lawmakers and right-wing media". The NBC source says "Jankowicz and the board faced backlash from congressional Republicans, who alleged it would be used as a tool by Democrats to stifle free speech ". We should mention the nature of this criticism from Republicans.
 * - The comparison of the board to the Ministry of Truth has been widespread as mentioned by Reason.
 * Burrobert (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Much/most/all of what you describe belongs in the DGB article, if anywhere, not this BLP. soibangla (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

What about:

- "Painting neo-Nazi paramilitaries with an extensive record of war crimes as patriots helping refugees, all while working with a “disinformation” group that turned out to run interference for violent neo-Nazi formations—that’s the experience Biden’s new disinformation czar brings to the table".

- "her work with StopFake", "Among StopFake’s hosts was Jankowicz", "Jankowicz’s tenure with StopFake", "the disinformation expert ... used to work with the group", "working with a “disinformation” group" ".

- " Jankowicz ... faced backlash from congressional Republicans, who alleged [the board] would be used as a tool by Democrats to stifle free speech ".

The content of The Nation article is not just opinion from a "contrarian". There are links in the article to verify the points being made. Regarding Jankowicz' tenure at StopFake, we have the following from The Nation:

- On September 10, 2014, three years before Jankowicz’s warm portrayal of volunteer battalions, Newsweek ran an article titled “Ukrainian Nationalist Volunteers Committing ‘ISIS-style’ War Crimes.” The story, which covered a report by Amnesty International, featured Aidar, one of the battalions lauded in Jankowicz’s segment.

- Three months later, Amnesty issued an urgent report about Aidar and Dnipro-1—another paramilitary featured in Jankowicz’s segment—blocking food from eastern Ukrainian towns and villages.

- The fourth group, Azov, not only has its own history of war crimes, but is avowedly neo-Nazi; indeed, the Azov patch shown in Jankowicz’s video has a stylized Wolfsangel (the “N” with the sword)—a popular white supremacist rune used by groups like Aryan Nations.

- [Azov's] nature was well known by the time of Jankowicz’s 2017 StopFake video.

Burrobert (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well OK then, add/suggest specific language for the article and we'll take a look. soibangla (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think anything she said in her videos is in conflict with contemporary fact checking of the group, e.g:
 * https://www.factcheck.org/2022/03/the-facts-on-de-nazifying-ukraine/ Cononsense (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * - We can't use the factcheck source as it would require original research. The factcheck source does not mention Jankowicz or what she said in her videos. The Nation article is quite clear anyway.
 * - For a start, what about mentioning that Jankowicz worked with StopFake: In 2017 Jankowicz hosted several StopFake videos in which she praised Ukraine’s volunteer battalions, including the Aidar Battalion, Dnipro-1, Donbas, and the Azov Regiment.
 * - Then we could give one of the reasons why Republicans attacked Jankowicz: Jankowicz was criticised by Congressional Republicans, who alleged that the new board would be "used as a tool by Democrats to stifle free speech". Burrobert (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the right-wing criticism is already sufficiently detailed. Reviewing the Nation that’s not an accurate summary: it’s one episode about the battalions not several and even then the battalions you name are rather in an infographic that she doesn’t appear to have specifically mentioned. The need to exaggerate the case reinforces my sense that the actual facts are not significant enough to merit mention in a WP bio, which is an overview not a catalogue. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Your answer is quite unclear. What are you saying should be excluded from Jankowicz’ bio?

Some other comments:

- Re “that’s not an accurate summary”. “While Janowicz extolled the battalions, an on-screen graphic displayed patches of four paramilitaries: Aidar, Dnipro-1, Donbas, and Azov.” “Painting neo-Nazi paramilitaries with an extensive record of war crimes as patriots helping refugees, all while working with a “disinformation” group that turned out to run interference for violent neo-Nazi formations—that’s the experience Biden’s new disinformation czar brings to the table”.

- “she doesn’t appear to have specifically mentioned”: where does it say that?

- She also referred to Azov in her book about Losing the Info war. There she said Azov were “victims of a Russian hoax”.

- “an overview not a catalogue”. This is in an article in which we say:
 * - she “spent a semester at Herzen State Pedagogical University in Russia in 2010”
 * - “In 2017, she was a Fulbright fellow in Kyiv, working with the foreign ministry of Ukraine”.
 * - “She has also served as a disinformation fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center and as supervisor of the Russia and Belarus programs at the National Democratic Institute”
 * - Jankowicz has an interest in musical theatre.
 * - where we use an anonymous advert in a trade magazine in three sentences related to the book How to be a Woman Online.

Burrobert (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Her date of birth
She notes it publicly: https://twitter.com/wiczipedia/status/1501883567667916801 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8580:5600:9550:814B:DC74:7047 (talk) 05:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Facts are not allowed here. 184.145.113.182 (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Nina Jankowicz DHS portrait.jpg

Remove error
What's with the bit about her appearing on a Bud Light can? I can't find any support for such an assertion. It should be removed. 184.145.113.182 (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Were do we say this? Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It sounds like there might have been some kind of (presumably short-lived) vandalism. But I don't see anything like this in the article history, so I don't know what the deal is. Go figure. jp×g 23:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Nina Jankowicz Sues Fox News for Defamation
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dhs-disinformation-sues-fox-news-defamation-nina-jankowicz-rcna83871

Note this is a Preliminary report as of May, 2023.2601:640:C901:C530:6411:AEAE:FF20:237D (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/10/business/media/defamation-suit-fox-nina-jankowicz.html

https://www.axios.com/2023/05/11/former-biden-admin-disinformation-chief-sues-fox-news-for-defamation

Here are more sources over the lawsuit against Fox News over defamation.73.223.65.207 (talk) 12:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I have added a couple sentences about this, thanks for the suggestion. Not sure if there's somewhere better it could go though. Endwise (talk) 12:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Please correct error
the wp entry titled Disinformation Governance Board says it was dissolved on August 24, 2022. (created on April 27 2022) this entry says differently. Thescotthutch (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)


 * That's true, some of the terms used on this page referring to the May 17 pause of the board are unclear or inaccurate.
 * The current source (https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/05/18/disinformation-board-dhs-nina-jankowicz/) is correct that the board was paused on May 17 2022, and the source on the Disinformation Governance Board page (https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/24/politics/dhs-disinformation-board-shut-down/index.html) is also correct that the board exited its pause by being formally disbanded on Aug 24 2022.
 * I'd propose the following changes (COI: I know Jankowicz personally):
 * 1) Change "amid the dissolution of the board by DHS in May 2022" to "amid the pause of the board by DHS in May 2022"
 * 2) Change "On May 17, 2022, DHS shut down the board" to "On May 17, 2022, DHS paused the board"
 * 3) Consider adding shortly thereafter "(...), and the board was formally disbanded on Aug 24, 2022" citing https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/24/politics/dhs-disinformation-board-shut-down/index.html Tentchair (talk) 14:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)