Talk:Andrew Yang

New Campaign

Requesting edit, he has recently been signing paperwork to run for NYC mayor in 2021. I know that in post campaign section there is something about this, but I am requesting a new section in the article for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewYangForNYCMayor (talk • contribs) 14:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this. Right now this mention is under "2020 Presidential campaign" in the post campaign section. It would make sense to just move that info into its own section and expand as more information comes in. Wikiman5676 (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Champion of Change

Do we need to mention Champion of Change in the opening? It’s an important part of his stump speech, but not an important award. 97.125.232.133 (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I would say yes, Champion of Change is still an award given at the highest level of the US Executive branch (The White House). And its not Yang has been the only recipient. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that "Champion of Change" is being overused in this article. I removed it once from the infobox (it was in there twice), and added some context about the title, but frankly not enough. People don't have the capacity to research the import or significance of a title--that's why they come to Wikipedia. Seeing it recalled over and over is worrisome. 20:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Article fails on NPOV standard

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

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

Example articles:

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

Shoestringnomad (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a news article. These aren't notable enough to be included. Additionally, I quickly went through your contributions and you have been adding quite a bit of positive material to Eric Adam's, a fellow mayoral candidate, Wikipedia page and removing negative information. Seems like you may have a conflict of interest. You also only have 200 edits, so this is suspicious. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not news. Saying these sources are not reputable and should not be included in this article are further proof that this article suffers from a lack of NPOV. Shoestringnomad (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:NPA, WP:BITE, WP:AGF. Astoundingly unprofessional. "Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions." If you reasonably suspect a conflict of interest take it to WP:COIN, I don't need to tell you that. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Shoestringnomad, I tend to agree. I understand that there is a high overlap between the type of people who might edit Wikipedia and the type of people who like Andrew Yang, so it's understandable how it got this way, but the article as a whole fails WP:NPOV. It is not balanced appropriately and overemphasizes accomplishments while minimizing criticism. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

How should Andrew Yang be described in the first sentence of the article?

Castncoot, anyone else - something to resolve for this article. How should Yang be described in the first sentence of the article? He is clearly a politician - I think we can all come to immediate consensus on that. I've seen both businessman and entrepreneur used - which one is more appropriate? Should both be used? The most recent dispute is whether Yang is a journalist. I've argued that publishing occasional columns, as many politicians do, does not make someone noteworthy as a journalist, while Castncoot has taken the position that Yang is a regular contributor to Crain's and thus should be described as a journalist. What do others think? Ganesha811 (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• A journalist is someone who performs journalism, whose definition includes "The word journalism applies to the occupation, as well as citizen journalists who gather and publish information based on facts and supported with proof or evidence." Clearly Andrew Yang wears many hats, and one of those is indeed being a journalist, being a regular contributor to Crains New York. A journalist can also report and opine verbally without doing so in wiritng, as Yang does as a political commentator on CNN. Being a politician, entrepreneur, and businessman does not disqualify Yang from wearing a journalism hat prominently as well, as it's a bona fide primary inclusive descriptor of his various roles. Castncoot (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

  At that link to muckrack you provided, I only see two columns in Crain's actually written by Andrew Yang: "De Blasio must cut spending..." and "Federal stimulus won't last...". The others seem to be mostly *about* Yang, not by him, and are in a variety of outlets including his website. I disagree that a journalist can "opine verbally" without writing or hosting the news - his job on CNN, as you say, is called political commentator or panelist, not journalist.

  I think in order to be described in Wikipedia's voice as a journalist, we need to see reliable sources discussing Yang as a journalist that refer to him as such, and in great enough numbers that we can consider it a significant part of his career. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Not a journalist. Maybe a columnist, but are his columns noteworthy enough to be included in the lede? Likely not. Wikipedia's page for journalist reads, "A journalist is an individual trained to collect/gather information in form of text, audio or pictures, processes them to a news-worth form and disseminates it to the public." Calling Yang a journalist misrepresents what he does. Shoestringnomad (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 diagnosis

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

I think that a brief, neutral mention, as currently exists, is not stigmatizing or irrelevant. I've seen similar mentions on many other pages. However, if anyone knows of a Wikipedia guideline about COVID-19 or mentioning illnesses on BLPs more generally, that would be great. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Ganesha1. I also don't know what it's in the best interests of sounding encyclopedic for Wikipedia to shield some public figures from their public Covid-19 diagnosis but not others. Shoestringnomad (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

As an Asian American public figure currently running for Mayor of New York City, Andrew Yang is particularly vulnerable to discussion of his COVID-19 diagnosis. He has been previously smeared surrounding this issue. Maybe we should compare how other Asian American public figures running for political office have had their personal life section mention a COVID-19 diagnosis for an adequate comparison. TrueQuantum (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Please feel free to do so and share your findings here. It's helpful to have more information. Shoestringnomad (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Just a reminder that we are not here to WP:RGW, even the wrong of anti-Asian violence. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Muboshgu, that's a great point and serves as a good reminder of WP:TEND in general. Shoestringnomad (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC on position in the infobox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Andrew Yang
Yang in August 2019
Presidential Ambassador for Global Entrepreneurship
In office 2015–2017 Serving with Daymond John, Julie Hanna, Nina Vaca, Elizabeth Holmes and Helen Greiner
President	Barack Obama
Preceded by	Position established
Succeeded by	Position abolished

Should the infobox on Andrew Yang include the Presidential Ambassador for Global Entrepreneurship, as seen to the right? (Note: this issue was discussed at Talk:Andrew_Yang/Archive_1#Adding_position_to_infobox without a firm consensus being formed.) – Muboshgu (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Party Affiliation

The situation with Yang's party affiliation is based on a POLITICO article. Yang implicitly confirmed the report with a Tweet, but that is exactly the type of inference that Wikipedia editors should not make per WP:OR. Are there any sources that discuss Yang's reaction, and ideally independently confirm the POLITICO reporting? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

No, there are none outside of Politico and other outlets reporting on Politico's reporting. That's why I protected the page under BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2021

Change Democrat to independent 68.53.219.198 (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)