Talk:Nina Jankowicz

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#Forensic analysis. 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)

References

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)

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)

2025 Third Circuit Court ruling

Sangdeboeuf, regarding this edit, those sources were adequate to establish the mere existence of the 2025 Third Circuit Court ruling, which was all I was adding to the article. You subsequently blanked all mention of the outcome of the relevant lawsuit, and scrubbed several WP:DUE items because they cited conservative or libertarian publications that were likewise adequate sources for the statements. To answer your question in this edit, "Why do we care what libertarian/right wing propaganda peddlers think?," the items were relevant to the article, met the needs of WP:RS guidance, and were key to maintaining WP:NPOV. Inviting you to discussion before I put some of this material back. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Disagree strongly. The sources were opinion commentary, meaning they are only reliable as primary sources for the author's opinions. Wikipedia articles are based on reliable, secondary sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, not random opinion commentators. That is what due weight actually means. Nor does the mere existence of a court ruling justify inclusion. Wikipedia is a summary of accepted knowledge, not an exhaustive list of every possible detail. Using the highest quality sources is especially important for exceptional claims and material about living people. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Check WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Reason is "generally reliable for news and facts". And this a pretty big omission; why would we mention the lawsuit but not the result? And no claim here is "exceptional". But if you prefer other sources, there are lots of them on google news. For example, NBC "Judge tosses defamation suit against Fox News by head of dismantled disinformation board" https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/defamation-suit-fox-news-head-dismantled-disinformation-board-tossed-f-rcna163144 Hi! (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

The Volokh Conspiracy hosted on Reason.com is a self-published blog, not a reliable source generally, especially regarding living people. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this argument has a great deal of merit.

• The Volokh Conspiracy is one of the most widely read and cited legal blogs in the United States. It receives over 30,000 daily views.[needs The blog's readership consists of scholars and policymakers across the ideological spectrum. The Volokh Conspiracy blog appeared in ABA Journal's "Blawg 100 Hall of Fame".

Absadah (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Joe Rogan also gets a lot of daily views. Should we start using him as a source for contentious topics? BLP policy is clear in that we don't use self-published sources for claims about third parties, full stop. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

It's not self published, it's published by Reason. And it's written by a law professor (Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law Emeritus at UCLA), not a comedian. Hi! (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

That means former law professor. It's an honorary title. The bloggers state that they have sole editorial control over the blog. That sounds like a self-published source to me. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard to clear up any confusion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:33, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean by "random," and how describing the conclusion of the subject's lawsuit is an exceptional claim. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

"Random" as in not being a recognized expert or having any connection to the subject, just another blogger pushing an agenda and/or chasing clicks.

"Exceptional" as in an apparently important claim not covered by multiple mainstream sources, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Per your link, "It is one of the most widely read and cited legal blogs in the United States. The blog is written by legal scholars and provides discussion on complex court decisions." Volokh is a nationally recognized expert on First Amendment law. I ask what agenda you think he's pushing in the source, because it's little more than a summary of the court's findings.

You apparently are arguing that this claim is exceptional because it is not covered by multiple mainstream sources. That is not what WP:EXCEPTIONAL says. "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." This is the most pedestrian claim imaginable, that a Third Circuit Court ruling exists. In fact, a WP:PRIMARY source would be good enough here. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I literally quoted the text of WP:EXCEPTIONAL, which refers to apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources. If it's important, it needs multiple mainstream sources. And no, we never use public records such as court documents for claims about living people – see WP:BLPPRIMARY. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:56, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Correcting Date of Selection

The page currently says: "In April 2022, Jankowicz was selected to head the newly formed Disinformation Governance Board of the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS)."

April isn't quite right, as while the Board was announced in April, she began her position on March 2nd as per primary source. And her selection must have been prior to March, but there don't seem to be any sources reporting when the hiring decision occurred.

A fix could be "In March 2022, Jankowicz was appointed to head..." Tentchair (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Endwise (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

improving American Sunlight Project section

Jankowicz' cofounding of the American Sunlight Project, as was recently added to the page, would benefit from a brief description of its mission. I'd propose adding the following, which uses the existing New York Times source: "The American Sunlight Project's stated mission is to fight what Jankowicz and others have described as a coordinated campaign by conservatives and others to undermine researchers who study the sources of disinformation."

Additionally, it is notable with respect to her career that Jankowicz' is CEO (also supported by the New York Times source, which refers to her as its "leader") in addition to being a cofounder of the American Sunlight Project, and that this is her current position. I'd propose rewriting the first sentence to "Jankowicz currently leads the American Sunlight Project, a Washington, D.C. based 501(c)(4) nonprofit which she cofounded in 2024."

Finally, I would argue that current line "This new group was criticized by congressman Michael Baumgartner as a dark money which refuses to identify its donors" is not significant enough to warrant inclusion. This criticism was a token partisan attack made during a congressional hearing, it is applicable to any 501(c)(4), and it does not appear to have been treated as newsworthy other than by partisan sources with a history of making false and misleading claims about Jankowicz, as the linked source article does. If objective editors deem it is worthy of continued inclusion, it seems prudent to include Jankowicz' response to the criticism (same source): "I've received a lot of threats for speaking out, and so I've decided that we are going to abide by the rules that other 501(c)(4)s in our country abide by. And we are not required to disclose our donors—small or large—because I frankly don't want them to be threatened the way that I have been." Tentchair (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I removed the accusation from Baumgartner per WP:PUBLICFIGURE: If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. Haven't had time to look closely at the New York Times source yet. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:45, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Murthy v. Missouri

I removed the link to Murthy v. Missouri that had been disguised as a reference to the alleged "censorship industrial complex" that Jankowicz was called to testify about in 2025.

While Jankowicz was named as an initial defendant in the lawsuit in 2022, any connection with the 2025 House foreign affairs subcommittee hearing is evidently original research. There's no mention of Jankowicz or any "censorship industrial complex" at the article Murthy v. Missouri, and no mention of Murthy v. Missouri in the cited source from The Guardian. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

References

September 2025 defamation lawsuit dismissed again after appeal

Is there any reason to include the third circuit's affirmation of her case's dismissal? Lots of blogs and low-quality sources mention it, and it's obviously true [1], but I haven't seen any good quality sources covering it. Since we already mention that the case was dismissed in the article, and given the lack of decent sources, it doesn't seem like we currently need to cover it. If it's thought to be significant to her life and career, it will receive broader coverage. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Several sources of mixed reliability have been brought up in an ongoing discussion at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:13, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree there's no reason to include it based on the very limited coverage. I've removed it based on a good faith objection until there is consensus to include it. I think I've already explained well enough my concerns at BLPN and won't be repeating them here. Nil Einne (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Recent edits, "widespread" criticism

I have once again removed the allegation of "widespread public criticism" from the lead section and have started a second discussion on the biographies of living persons noticeboard to get some input on this dispute. Please join the discussion there. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

ACLU*, FAIR, Golinkin

Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article, even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

The recent addition of material sourced to the ACLU of Kansas (*actually a reposting of a Washington Post editorial) along with Lev Golinkin in The Nation and FAIR fails PUBLICFIGURE in that these are all opinion pieces, which are primary sources for their own allegations; they are not third-party sources. Each point is also cited to a single source, not multiple as per policy.

Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) is an advocacy organization, not a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; WP:THENATION is described as a partisan source whose opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline and extra care taken to maintain due weight and compliance with WP:BLP (such as WP:PUBLICFIGURE).

The assertion that these opinions are "crucial to WP:NPOV" is false; NPOV, specifically WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALANCE, means seeking out the best, most reliable sources and summarizing what they say. it doesn't mean we go looking for criticism "from non-conservative sources" just to counter a perceived imbalance in the article. (see also WP:FALSEBALANCE).

If these allegations are truly noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, they will be reported on in more than a handful of opinion pieces. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Robby Soave editorial

I removed the following text regarding Jankowicz's testimony to a U.S. House foreign affairs subcommittee:

Reason magazine, reporting on the hearing, called her claim that the Global Engagement Center never engaged in censorship "abjectly false."

First off, this is an editorial by Robby Soave, not a piece of edited journalism. A single such opinion piece is a primary source for the author's opinions per WP:RSEDITORIAL.

Second, Jankowicz had nothing to do with the Global Engagement Center (GEC) as far as I can see; what is the relevance to Jankowicz's bio? More mainstream coverage of her testimony from The New York Times doesn't support the premise that Jankowicz claimed GEC never engaged in censorship.

Third, a single partisan source for this criticism fails WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:BLP#BALANCE – in short, we need multiple, reliable, secondary sources to support a given piece of criticism of the subject (see #ACLU*, FAIR, Golinkin, above).

Finally, I'm not the only user who doubts WP:REASONMAGAZINE's status as "generally reliable", making this commentary even more unduly weighted – see ongoing discussion at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Perennial Sources lists Reason as "reliable". There is no indication the Soave articles is an editorial. Absadah (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Soave is a senior editor of the magazine. Editorials are written by editors. The tone of the piece is breezy and conversational, and it includes statements of opinion such as Jankowicz is fated to fail upward and any organizations running cover for the Chinese government ... are effectively complicit. Per WP:REASONMAGAZINE, the site primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles, of which this is self-evidently one. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2025 (UTC)