The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
A fact from Nina Jankowicz appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 7 June 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
JPxG, 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)
"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 : [1]
References
@
Soibangla: 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)
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
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. @ Soibangla: @ Str1977: What's up? jp× g 20:26, 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)
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
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.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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:
Chain Island is located in the Sacramento River,[1] past the southeastern end of the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel,[2], 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).[3]
Here is the source for that sentence, using list-defined references:
Chain Island is located in the [[Sacramento River]],<ref name="gnis" /> past the southeastern end of the [[Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel]],<ref name="usgs1907" />, 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]]).<ref name="aaa99"/>
Here is the source for that exact same sentence, using inline references:
Gigantic wall of crap
|
---|
Chain Island is located in the [[Sacramento River]],<ref name="gnis">{{cite web | url = https://edits.nationalmap.gov/apps/gaz-domestic/public/summary/220878 | title = Feature Details: 220878 | publisher = United States Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System | access-date = 21 January 2022 }}<!-- Previously this: {{Gnis|220878|Chain Island}}--></ref> past the southeastern end of the [[Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel]],<ref name="usgs1907">{{cite map | title = Topography, State of California: Antioch Quadrangle | first1 = E.M. | last1 = Douglas | first2 = R.B. | last2 = Marshall | first3 = Arthur | last3 = Stiles | first4 = C.L. | last4 = Nelson | first5 = W.N. | last5 = Vance | first6 = J.P. | last6 = Harrison | first7 = P.E. | last7 = Turner | first8 = R.M. | last8 = La Follette | first9 = Bayard | last9 = Knock | first10 = C.F. | last10 = Urquhart | publisher = United States Geological Survey | date = 1907 }}</ref> 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]]).<ref name="aaa99">{{cite map | author = California State Automobile Association | title = San Francisco Bay Region | year = 1999 | scale = 1:190,000 | publisher = American Automobile Association }}</ref> |
Even if we decide to abandon the vertical citation format, in the name of saving space, it is still completely unreadable:
Gigantic wall of crap
|
---|
Chain Island is located in the [[Sacramento River]],<ref name="gnis">{{cite web |url = https://edits.nationalmap.gov/apps/gaz-domestic/public/summary/220878 |title = Feature Details: 220878 |publisher = United States Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System |access-date = 21 January 2022 }}<!-- Previously this: {{Gnis|220878|Chain Island}}--></ref> past the southeastern end of the [[Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel]],<ref name="usgs1907">{{cite map |title = Topography, State of California: Antioch Quadrangle |first1 = E.M. |last1 = Douglas |first2 = R.B. |last2 = Marshall |first3 = Arthur |last3 = Stiles |first4 = C.L. |last4 = Nelson |first5 = W.N. |last5 = Vance |first6 = J.P. |last6 = Harrison |first7 = P.E. |last7 = Turner |first8 = R.M. |last8 = La Follette |first9 = Bayard |last9 = Knock | first10 = C.F. | last10 = Urquhart |publisher = United States Geological Survey |date = 1907 }}</ref> 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]]).<ref name="aaa99">{{cite map |author = California State Automobile Association |title = San Francisco Bay Region |year = 1999 |scale = 1:190,000 |publisher = American Automobile Association }}</ref> |
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)
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)
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk) 20:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Created by JPxG ( talk) and Innisfree987 ( talk). Nominated by JPxG ( talk) at 18:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC).
A nominated article must be new (when nominated). For DYK purposes, a "new" article is no more than seven days old. Nina Jankowicz was created on April 29 [1] and this nomination was made nine days later, on May 8. The article was ineligible for DYK when nominated. soibangla ( talk) 12:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
@ Soibangla: 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)
I certainly can't speak for any other editorand 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 factto 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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
"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)
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)
soibangla ( talk) 15:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Jankowicz’s experience is a prime example of how the right-wing Internet apparatus operates, where far-right influencers attempt to identify a target, present a narrative and then repeat mischaracterizations across social media and websites with the aim of discrediting and attacking anyone who seeks to challenge them [4]
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)
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)
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)
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:
Burrobert ( talk) 03:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
References
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)
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 nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
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)
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
Here are more sources over the lawsuit against Fox News over defamation. 73.223.65.207 ( talk) 12:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
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)
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
A fact from Nina Jankowicz appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 7 June 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
JPxG, 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)
"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 : [1]
References
@
Soibangla: 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)
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
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. @ Soibangla: @ Str1977: What's up? jp× g 20:26, 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)
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
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.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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:
Chain Island is located in the Sacramento River,[1] past the southeastern end of the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel,[2], 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).[3]
Here is the source for that sentence, using list-defined references:
Chain Island is located in the [[Sacramento River]],<ref name="gnis" /> past the southeastern end of the [[Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel]],<ref name="usgs1907" />, 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]]).<ref name="aaa99"/>
Here is the source for that exact same sentence, using inline references:
Gigantic wall of crap
|
---|
Chain Island is located in the [[Sacramento River]],<ref name="gnis">{{cite web | url = https://edits.nationalmap.gov/apps/gaz-domestic/public/summary/220878 | title = Feature Details: 220878 | publisher = United States Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System | access-date = 21 January 2022 }}<!-- Previously this: {{Gnis|220878|Chain Island}}--></ref> past the southeastern end of the [[Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel]],<ref name="usgs1907">{{cite map | title = Topography, State of California: Antioch Quadrangle | first1 = E.M. | last1 = Douglas | first2 = R.B. | last2 = Marshall | first3 = Arthur | last3 = Stiles | first4 = C.L. | last4 = Nelson | first5 = W.N. | last5 = Vance | first6 = J.P. | last6 = Harrison | first7 = P.E. | last7 = Turner | first8 = R.M. | last8 = La Follette | first9 = Bayard | last9 = Knock | first10 = C.F. | last10 = Urquhart | publisher = United States Geological Survey | date = 1907 }}</ref> 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]]).<ref name="aaa99">{{cite map | author = California State Automobile Association | title = San Francisco Bay Region | year = 1999 | scale = 1:190,000 | publisher = American Automobile Association }}</ref> |
Even if we decide to abandon the vertical citation format, in the name of saving space, it is still completely unreadable:
Gigantic wall of crap
|
---|
Chain Island is located in the [[Sacramento River]],<ref name="gnis">{{cite web |url = https://edits.nationalmap.gov/apps/gaz-domestic/public/summary/220878 |title = Feature Details: 220878 |publisher = United States Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System |access-date = 21 January 2022 }}<!-- Previously this: {{Gnis|220878|Chain Island}}--></ref> past the southeastern end of the [[Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel]],<ref name="usgs1907">{{cite map |title = Topography, State of California: Antioch Quadrangle |first1 = E.M. |last1 = Douglas |first2 = R.B. |last2 = Marshall |first3 = Arthur |last3 = Stiles |first4 = C.L. |last4 = Nelson |first5 = W.N. |last5 = Vance |first6 = J.P. |last6 = Harrison |first7 = P.E. |last7 = Turner |first8 = R.M. |last8 = La Follette |first9 = Bayard |last9 = Knock | first10 = C.F. | last10 = Urquhart |publisher = United States Geological Survey |date = 1907 }}</ref> 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]]).<ref name="aaa99">{{cite map |author = California State Automobile Association |title = San Francisco Bay Region |year = 1999 |scale = 1:190,000 |publisher = American Automobile Association }}</ref> |
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)
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)
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk) 20:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Created by JPxG ( talk) and Innisfree987 ( talk). Nominated by JPxG ( talk) at 18:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC).
A nominated article must be new (when nominated). For DYK purposes, a "new" article is no more than seven days old. Nina Jankowicz was created on April 29 [1] and this nomination was made nine days later, on May 8. The article was ineligible for DYK when nominated. soibangla ( talk) 12:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
@ Soibangla: 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)
I certainly can't speak for any other editorand 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 factto 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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
"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)
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)
soibangla ( talk) 15:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Jankowicz’s experience is a prime example of how the right-wing Internet apparatus operates, where far-right influencers attempt to identify a target, present a narrative and then repeat mischaracterizations across social media and websites with the aim of discrediting and attacking anyone who seeks to challenge them [4]
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)
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)
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)
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:
Burrobert ( talk) 03:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
References
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)
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 nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
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)
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
Here are more sources over the lawsuit against Fox News over defamation. 73.223.65.207 ( talk) 12:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
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)