Talk:Van Jones/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

NYT FINALLY prints story

At 12:42 PM ET, many hours after the Washington Post and LATimes had stories on Jones' resignation, the New York Times produced this: [1] Suggestions for inclusion> Should we cite conservative criticism of the Times for having had ZERO mention of the controversy before today? Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Sure, in the Wikipedia article for the New York Times. Not here. Reliefappearance (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

This is an article on Van Jones, not the New York Times and even then, I doubt this is significant enough to warrant including it in that article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks ObserverNY (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The editors on this page were also following the NY times model. Yesterday, at this time, there was not one mention of the controversy that would later cause Van Jones to resign that very night. JohnHistory (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

"Dog bites man" is not news, because it is a frequent occurrence, and consistent with the way we understand dogs to behave. "Man bites dog" is news, because it's uncommon, and isn't what we expect a man to do. "Obama appointee resigns" is news. "Glenn Beck criticizes Democrat for having leftist opinions, actions, and associations, and accuses Democrat of working to undermine America" isn't news. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Clearly the evidence today shows your statements to be false. I profoundly disagree with you, and it's moot at this point, but having been a "communist" and a part of STORM (when did he renounce it?) talking about "white environmentalists steering pollution into colored peoples neighborhoods" calling ALL republicans "assholes" and Bush a "crackhead" and only white kids shoot up whole schools, blacks just kill each other one at a time, signing a document that purported that 9/11 was an inside job, probably being on the organizing committee for a 2002 9/11 Truth Rally, etc, etc is man bites dog for a top appointee in the whitehouse. In fact, it's completely without precedent. I think maybe some of you sort of pitted yourself against Beck, and thereby ignored the facts and the story. Anyway, it's moot now other then to show of the problems present on retrospection. JohnHistory (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

You're confusing me with someone else; I don't think I've ever edited this article. My point is not anything about Van Jones, but that Glenn Beck says that some Democrat is trying to destroy America every night- that's his job. The New York Times wouldn't normally have a story about Beck criticizing a Democrat, because he does it every day. By the way- aren't you against racism in environmental policy? Most people are; that Jones spoke against it in a speech doesn't belong in your list, since a black politician speaking against racist policies is about as newsworthy as me saying "I like cheese." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to butt in here FQ, frankly, I don't think it is stated anywhere that Van Jones is a registered Democrat. He was appointed to his position by a Democrat President, but he is a "self-avowed Communist". Glenn Beck's exposure of Jones' past is what resulted in Republican senators calling for an investigation and Jones' resignation. Beck needs to be given due credit in this article since his expose began in late July and it wasn't until TODAY that the NYT, that bastion of the Left, found it HAD to give the story some print. ObserverNY (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I am talking about the article in general, I'm singling you out. But, you completely missed my point. What the heck does Beck have to do with anything? who cares if he said Jones was Jesus or the Devil? Beck didn't make Jones make these highly controversial statements. That was Jones 100%. Beck is irrelevant unless you way to interested in him. These statements were all available without Beck. Also, I think saying that "white environmentalists are steering pollution into people of color neighborhoods" is extremely racist statement by Jones. I'd love to know who these "white environmentalists" who are killing minorities are, exactly. JohnHistory (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Do you not understand my point? You are basically saying because Beck focuses on something, that thing can now not be discussed even though those things essentially have nothing to do with Beck. I think that is a catch 22 of sorts. JohnHistory (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Mr Beck who has risen from nowhere to #1 rated cable television show, spends a week or more featuring this guy as MOST WANTED CZAR, makes headlines because his enemies want to organize a boycott of his show, and then essentially succeeds in getting his target to resign because he's got out the word that the guy is a self-proclaimed communist, calls for "changing the entire system", "give them the wealth", called for supporting a convicted police killer, etc, is of absolutely no relevance to the Van Jones article??? That the NY Times has evidently completely ignored this, could this possibly be related to people saying that there is nothing notable about GB taking this man down? Even mainstream coverage of the resignation mention essentially none of the charges or complaints against this man other than the boycott and a-hole comments. Bachcell (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Beck is relevant to the the political controversy because he in large part fomented by advocating for Van Jones' resignation - see the comment immediately above. We do not need to quote or endorse Beck's words or those of other pundits (though I think it is useful to quote Rep. Pence here), but we can include third party sourcing that Beck was the most prominent among the conservative media who were at the center of the story. The mainstream media has covered the underlying incidents in news and analysis articles (perhaps the New York Times last, but all major media have covered it by this point), so we don't really need to rely on blogs or editorials, or to say that "X said Van Jones did Y". We can simply say "Van Jones did Y" and source it to reliable sources. I hope that makes sense. Wikidemon (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, most major news networks, publications did not cover the story at all. Look at this link. Beck certainly focused on the story a lot, but it is misleading to say that anyone other then Jones led to his resignation. It was Jones exact quotes and actions, not Becks that led to his resignation. JohnHistory (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/The-Van-Jones-non-feeding-non-frenzy-57271402.html

In fact, if this article is going to point out Beck leading the way on Van Jones controversy, it should be balanced and also report the equally notable total absence of coverage by all of the above linnked major publications. I mean this story was ongoing for quite some time, and he did resign at the end of it and yet no coverage. So, if we are going to get into the coverage we should do it accurately. JohnHistory (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHIstory

(ec) I want to try to impress the point that this article is about Van Jones. What is written here on this topic needs to focus on Van Jones's resignation and the context for understanding it, not just whatever commentary or meta-commentary was thrown out there. So stuff like the NYT not covering Beck's criticism, or some such, isn't relevant. And if it hadn't apparently caused such an effect on Van Jones's life, Beck's criticism would have been equally unimportant.

Relatedly, I am concerned about the advocacy and POV-pushing being displayed here. Please try to improve the article as an article on a person, not as a way to champion one or the other side of partisan politics. For this article, conservative punditry is only important in so far as understanding what has happened in regards to Van Jones, and no further. This is not a venue to inflate the stature of Beck, or slam mainstream media, or repeat partisan caricatures, or any such thing. —AySz88\^-^ 22:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

If most reliable sources don't cover something but partisan media does, per Wikipedia that means it's not notable (or in the context of an article, not noteworthy enough to include). If the reliable sources note that the partisan sources advocate on a topic, that gives verifiability and lends weight to the proposition that we should note in the appropriate article that the partisan media re doing it. If the reliable sources note that partisan media bemoans the absence of coverage on a given topic, then we can mention this is what the partisan media is bemoaning. What we can't do is source a claim that a major story is not duly covered only to unreliable sources who are making that claim. Here, what the reliable sources are saying (among other things), is that conservative opponents of the administration began complaining in July over a couple incidents from Jones' past and making calls for his resignation or firing, after which he resigned abruptly, with little support from the administration, which said that it had not vetted him properly. Something like that. Beck was one of the primary complainers, as well as a couple legislators on Capitol Hill. Beck has some other issues surrounding him that are better covered in his own article, but there is clearly a nexus between his advocacy and Jones' resignation. Even to run with JohnHistory's comments and even if one sympathizes entirely with Beck and against Jones, if one can analogize to Richard Nixon, he has only himself to blame for Watergate and his resignation, but nevertheless one can't tell the story without mentioning the role of Bob Woodward. Wikidemon (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to really even mention Beck unless you think his showcasing Jones caused him to resign, I'm not sure how you prove that. But, you don't need "partisan outlets" to see that there was zero coverage by NBC and NY Times, etc. I think giving Beck all of the credit, or so much of it, does to some degree glorify him in the eyes of some. Out of curiousity, what were your "non partisan" sources? I think comparing Beck's role which was to report on things you can find on google and youtube does not compare to bob woodwards admin leak and info that was not easily available or confirmable to say the least. It would be like if deep throat was on google or youtube and Bob Woodward was just only one talking about it. Apples and oranges. JohnHistory (talk) 23:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

You're correct that Woodward's role is different, and part of the official story at this point. I would have to reread them, but I think most of the major media stories are giving Republicans and conservative press / bloggers / advocates primary credit for triggering the controversy that lead to the resignation. The New York Times piece we've discussed says that Beck was at the forefront of that. A lot of the left-wing press is vilifying Beck over that as well, but of course they're not reliable sources. The story is so new, maybe we can take another look in a few days and wait for some more thoughtful analysis pieces that describe the course of events. I do think you're right, that because this is primarily a biography, it's most important to keep the focus on Jones, to say that he was appointed, then soon resigned amidst a controversy over his past statements. So the description of how those past statements came to light, caused a controversy, and played out, is a secondary matter in a biographical sense (although it may be the more relevant issue in articles about the political environment). Wikidemon (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose my point is that Beck is notable only because he covered widely available info on Jones while most others did not even mention them. Thus, Beck's role is only relevant in so much as most other outlets gave it little to 0 coverage. Do you understand what I am saying? If the other outlets had covered it, Beck would not be as notable because they all had access to the same info. JohnHistory (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Agreed, lets let the story develop, but I think my points are valid that it is a bit of catch-22. JohnHistory (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

I'd like to reiterate myself that this article is on Van Jones. It's not about Beck, the NYT, Obama, how the mainstream media sucks (and God does it suck), or any other topic. This does not have much to do with Jones as a person. The Squicks (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Republicans Section & the deletion of the 9/11 Section's spokesperson Washington TImes Quotes

I think saying Jones calling all Republicans "assholes" was "criticism" is not accurate. A., that is beyond criticism, it's derogatory. B. Jones calls himself an "asshole" as well and he seems to view it as a positive connotation. Thusly, it's not clearly criticism, and it's also more derogatory then that because it using the word "asshole."

Secondly, originally there was the washington times quotes from the 9/11 peoples spokesperson who said everyone on the list was contacted and verified which made sense given Jones later retraction to include. I think that should be put back into the article 9/11 Section. JohnHistory (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

The already cited NY Times piece also refers to them as "derogatory" and not "criticism". It is below.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/07/us/politics/07vanjones.html?_r=1&em JohnHistory (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Using "Derogatory statement" as a header is pushing a point of view. Leave it as "criticism." — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think "statement" is more neutral "criticism". I don't think "derogatory" is exactly POV, because that's what it is, but I can see how it may be too strong of a word to use in a headline. If "derogatory" is a problem, why not just say something completely neutral like "Statements made at xxx speech" or "public statements about Republicans"? Calling someone an asshole is not a criticism nor is it an opinion, it's name-calling. The criticism, accusing Republicans of being obstructionists, was hardly the issue that got him in trouble. It was the use of the word. Probably a lot of people have that opinion about a lot of politicians of all stripes. The incivility is saying so in public when one is in a position of authority, not thinking it. I'm pretty sure the sources would back that up. If you read them, they don't say that Van Jones criticized the Republicans as being assholes, it says he called them assholes. Wikidemon (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't think calling all Republicans "assholes" is derogatory? I agree with wikidemon that criticism is not accurate enough. If "derogatory" is too strong for the header then something else should be used but lets not dumb it down too much. For example a SF paper article I just saw called his comment the "infamous A-hole comment" and NY times cited above called it "derogatory". JohnHistory (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

I titled it "The Berkeley Green Energy Conference Statement". That is about as neutral as possible, I think. JohnHistory (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

In the future, though I think Derogatory or something like that would be more to the point. "derogatory" is what the NY Times called it. But, we can leave that for another day. JohnHistory (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Per WP:MOS, section headers don't get capitalized unless they're mentioning a proper noun. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

We could be factual and just say something like "Calling Republicans 'assholes'"... but I forget, Wikipedia is censored :) Anyway, like I said, he was criticizing Republicans at the time, but what made it an issue was that specific indecorous word. Wikidemon (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I do believe the a**holes quote along with the "George Bush is a crackhead" quote are notable in displaying the extreme public crudeness of this individual.

And what I want to know is - Was this a**hole paid a salary with our taxdollars? ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Neither of those sentences are on topic. This is not a forum. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Extreme public crudeness? You mean you've never used that word in public or while on the clock for your job? If not, good for you! I try to avoid it also... but bad language is certainly nothing uncommon. I think it has to do with the expectation of decorum around high-ranking officials, and when speaking in a public capacity. There's also a secondary issue, not that the word was so bad, but that he lacked the political savvy to mind his tongue when the microphone was on. From all accounts, there is some very bad language said in Washington when the microphone is off. There are so many things one is not supposed to say in politics, it's almost a test of political astuteness to navigate all the minefields. So, for example, it is okay to say that Obama (or Bush) undermines everything America stands for and is going to feed the country to the terrorists. But it is not okay to use bad language even if only to say that certain people are too hostile. It is the manner, not the content. Wikidemon (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the forum comment, point taken. But I think it is useful to reason through just why it is that the comments have made a fuss, to understand why some sources are making much to do about them, as long as we keep our eyes on what the article is eventually going to say on the subject. Wikidemon (talk) 23:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon - I agree with the fact that the "indecorous" (love it) word was uttered a mere month before his appointment. The new tape showing Jones calling Bush a crackhead and "licking the crackpipe looking for a fix" was equally derogatory and lewd and should be included. Try and keep up with the conversation HelloAnnyong. Did you take your gingko balboa yet? ObserverNY (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

No, I didn't, and for two reasons: I know the difference between 3RR and 3O, and I know how to spell ginkgo biloba properly. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

OMG! I mixed up WP:30 and WP:3RR!! Take me out to the woodshed and shoot me, right now! Yet you couldn't be the least bit intellectually honest and DEDUCE that I meant it was under WP:3O when you entered the IB battlefield. Now you followed me over just to be a pain here. OH! and a typo in gingko bilboa! Well that must be grounds for getting me banned for sure, right HA? Good grief! ObserverNY (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Helloannyong - No one else here objected to my re-wording of the opening sentence. Only YOU felt the bully enough to come in here and remove it without any discussion or consensus. Your motives for editing this page and targeting my edits in particular are now exposed. Please behave civilly. ObserverNY (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Well, I object too, more on style grounds than POV. The lede already has a paragraph about the resignation, so we don't need to split that paragraph up between the first and the last part of the lede. The introductory sentence is should identify briefly who he is, what he's known for, and the basic facts of his name, birth year, nationality, etc. It's most straightforward to say that he's an [insert occupation(s)] who [insert actions], than to lead with the scandal. Just for comparison (per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS it's best to look to other articles for inspiration rather than as a pattern) I was looking through some other articles about appointees who either did not win confirmation or who were drummed out. Normally it says their occupation in the first sentence, then their downfall somewhere farther into the lede. That's true even in cases like Joycelyn Elders and Robert Bork who are best known to the public for their scandals, but probably within serious non-political circles perhaps known for their careers more than the political scandal. I think in this case it's okay given the sourcing available now to include a brief statement at the end of the first sentence saying that he resigned over a political controversy about his past but if we go into too much detail the lede gets redundant. Wikidemon (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding spelling and civility, I much prefer oolong tea to ginko blobba. Wikidemon (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I like Irish Breakfast. Did you know that breakfast teas are so named because of their higher caffeine content? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, my apologies Wikidemon. HelloAnnyong incorrectly identified the edit in the lead as being AgnosticPreacherKid's and because of my tunnel-vision at being stalked by HelloAnnyong, I only saw his/her reversion of my edit. I'm fine with the way you fleshed out the lead.

FQ - I didn't know that! See what one can learn in Wikipedia? ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(ec ⁷) "Well, I object too, more on style grounds than POV." Ditto. (side note: The insults being thrown around here - and on certain user talk pages - needs to stop. Thanks.) APK that's not my name 00:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why people drink them for breakfast. You know, to wake up. JohnHistory (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

I think by "extreme public crudeness" ObserverNY meant it was extremely crude public conduct by a whitehouse official as opposed to if Jones had called someone an asshole behind closed doors. Of course, he is right about that. JohnHistory (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

• Wouldn't it be more logical to call the section Statements about Republicans? After all, WP:BLP is our lodestar and we need to be as encyclopedia-like in our titling as possible. The Squicks (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Not really, because it was specific to that event, and not pural statements but the singular statement of "assholes."

Also, I changed the boycott part because saying that the Color or Change created and advertiser boycott of the Beck show implies Beck lost all of his advertisers so I changed that to attempted, and also added the highly relevant info that said group was one Jones' former groups. JohnHistory (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

I better reworded it from my previous attempt. JohnHistory (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

It must be noted that Beck attacked Jones before the boycott started. The Squicks (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "attack" is the right word. We had a bunch of the quotes on here before. For instance, when Beck called Jones' a communist, he was in fact quoting Jones' own declaration. You could say "criticized" but now we are getting into the weeds of the Beck thing which I think we should wait and see how much outside media references we want in this article. JohnHistory (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

(ec) This CNN video story[2] has a pretty good, interesting perspective, and raises several points: (1) it was the two incidents already cited plus the comment about becoming a communist that were the main elements of the scandal; (2) it contains footage of the "asshole" comment - it would be original research / primary sourcing to comment directly about the video in the article, but even though it's kind of amusing how honest he's being about his opinion it's pretty out there as far as appropriateness in a public speech; (3) conservative commentators, and particularly Glen Beck, are largely responsible (my words, not sure exactly what language CNN uses, so that bears double-checking) for bringing Jones' past up now as a matter for discussion; and (4) Jones supporters claim (note that CNN does not verify that it's true, only that it's a claim) that Beck targeted Jones as payback for Jones trying to undermine Beck's advertisers by supporting the boycott after Beck called Obama racist. That last point is the tie-in. If this is an escalating game of tit-for-tat political retribution it only makes sense to mention that context. I'm fine per JohnHistory's comment that we might want to wait and see how this is analyzed. This is an unfolding story, and the resignation may not be the last of it. As they say Wikipedia has no deadline. I'm off for a while y'all, so happy holiday! - Wikidemon (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the 1st uncited sentence of the Resignation section is lame. Glenn Beck deserves full credit for his month and a half investigative reporting on Van Jones. That is exactly what it was - investigative reporting. Beck kept building the case, building and building until the mountain of irrefutable evidence as to the question of Jones' "fitness" to serve in the WH could no longer be ignored. Except by the NYT until 12:30 today ... ObserverNY (talk) 01:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Goodness. It wasn't just Beck. It was Tapper, Beck, and the legions of right-wing bloggers. There's no one person behind this here. The Squicks (talk) 02:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY, my only concern with that is that it be done in a way that people don't misunderstand the fact that Beck was reporting verifiable facts about Van Jones, and that it wasn't Beck's hyped conjecture or maleficence that led to to Van Jones resigning. Do you see what I mean? JohnHistory (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Hi JH - Because of the left-wing attacks against Glenn Beck as being a "nutjob, cry-baby, conspiracy-theorist, idiot", I think it is all the more important that Beck be vindicated for doing responsible, legitimate, investigative reporting which unearthed this incredible radical history of a man the WH either didn't vet or was "ok" with. Beck focused extensively on what was written in the STORM manual. None of what he exposed has been proven to be false. The "best" Jones supporters could come up with was Beck saying Jones was in prison. Well, Jones WAS in jail. Not a lie. If Jones wasn't afraid and ashamed of what Beck was exposing, Color of Change never would have launched it's attempt to get advertisers to boycott his show. That reminds me, I need to send CVS another e-mail. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 11:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Please Restore My Edit

Please restore my edit about why Van Jones resigned. I specified that the euphemism "political controversy" was that he was exposed as a 9/11 truther and SELF-DESCRIBED Communist. Not suprisingly this edit was reverted. Further confirming the strong bias in Wikipedia. Please restore my edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legokid (talk • contribs) 06:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Your edit was reverted because the lead section should be a general overview of the article's content. Plus, the wording wasn't neutral. In regards to bias, I'm glad to be a part of the confirmation. (irony alert - the person that confirmed your bias is a libertarian who is strongly opposed to socialism, marxism, communism, and uh, brutalism) APK that's not my name 06:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It's kind of funny that anyone is afraid of communists still in 2009, but here goes. This all comes from this 2005 piece in the East Bay Express, a legitimate if rather sloppy and liberal free weekly, although that particular story is very good and would make a good source for this article. Apparently Jones was wrongly arrested along with many others for being in the wrong place at the wrong time in the San Francisco franchise of the Rodney King riots - San Francisco police of the era were notorious for cordoning off entire blocks and arresting everyone on the block, office workers, lawyers, journalists, etc. His growing anger over the Rodney King verdict, and experiences with others he met in jail, radicalized him. This was from his earl life - 24 to 26 years old. But then again, he had already graduated from Yale Law School so one would assume he knew the significance of declaring himself a communist. The quotation in the paper is: "I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th... and then the verdicts came down on April 29th," he said. "By August, I was a communist." That's too flimsy to call him a (former) communist, self-described or otherwise. If someone decides for some reason they are a Mormon, or a horse lover, or a football fan, and relates that story twelve years later as a thing of the past, we don't label them a former Mormon, horse lover, or football fan. It's not encyclopedic to define people in that way. However, in the biographical section it makes sense to note his foundational role in the neo-Marxist/Leninist radical group STORM, in due weight and proportion with other events in his life. Many sources cite this quote as being the third issue at the core of the controversy, in addition to the truther petition and the "assholes" comment, so we should mention it to. It's not whether he was a communist or not, or what that meant, or his actual past with STORM. Those are all biographically important, perhaps, and some of the conservative agitators did describe them in detail. But it was this quotation in particular that got people riled up in 2009. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait - let me say it - This is not a forum. LOL! If you want to discuss why right-minded Americans "fear" communism and what this administration is doing, please visit my talk page. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 13:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

None of this has ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Communism. Glenn Beck is a psychotic right wing lunatic who called the President of the United States a racist, then Van Jones' organized a boycott of Beck's show and Beck took down Van Jones. For all we know the President is involved. Stop blathering about crap that is totally unrelated. The real tragedy here is that what this country really needs, Education Reform, Health Care Reform, Immigration Reform, all goes by the wayside while this silly season bullshit is going on. Reliefappearance (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoa. Reform this: This is not a WP:forum ObserverNY (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Please get off that horse, and look at your own comment made 11:39, 7 September 2009 about Beck being a right-minded journalist who doggedly exposed the truth of the Obama administration. A number of people would do well to tone down their language about people on all sides of this issue. But in substance, much of the commentary in the sources is that Beck is a fringe radical who swiftboated Jones at a time when the administration was vulnerable, and has been making weird comparisons of Obama and his administration to nazis, communists, racists, etc.[3] That is part of the context of the matter, and is in the sources. It would be helpful if you would not editorialize on this page, then cry FORUM every time someone makes a comment that is less than unquestioningly supportive of the view of Beck as a fair player in all of this. The story of the firing is not that Jones made some ill-advised choices and statements, then the truth came out. The story is that the truth was there all along and everyone was fine with it until Fox News gave a very radical partisan a platform to stir up some Americans' racial fears. The matter cannot be fairly treated in an encyclopedia article without going into the entire context, which is in many of the sources, that this comes in the heels of Beck's anti-administration campaign. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"The story is that the truth was there all along and everyone was fine with it until Fox News..." LOL! Oh stop, you're killing me, seriously, my sides hurt from laughing so hard! If oblivious=truth to Liberals, this country is in sadder shape than I thought. ObserverNY (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

P.S. - I have no objection to your recent edit adding the context in which Beck called Obama a "racist", Btw You might want to take a look at this: http://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/7839539 which was published months before the Gates/Crowley incident where Obama said the cops "acted stupidly". ObserverNY (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

It's no secret that Gates and Obama were friends / acquaintances / mutual supporters long before the controversy, and many suggested that Obama's quick defense of Gates arose out of their personal connection. If laughing at it is your way of dealing with reality I won't stop you, but the source I provided (here in the talk page) is readily available to anyone with google and it took me all of 45 seconds to find. The truthers' anti-Bush conspiracy theory was well covered at the time and Jones' signature as one of the hundred was, well, right there on the list of hundred. His founding of STORM and his radical activism in the 1990s were never concealed and were covered by all these sources, and apparently common knowledge in his circles in San Francisco. What makes this suddenly an issue in July, 2009? By "everyone" I meant insiders. I have a hard time imagining that anyone on either side couldn't have found this if they had wanted or tried. Wikidemon (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"I have a hard time imagining that anyone on either side couldn't have found this if they had wanted or tried." The Democrats didn't try, because they didn't have to.

Remember that Jones was a czar. He did not have to be confirmed by the Senate. Thus, Obama did not vet him like he did- say- the Secretary of Human Services. The Squicks (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

A White House official conceded that Jones “was not as thoroughly vetted as other administration officials,” though the official suggested it had more to do with the relatively low level of Jones’s job than with the power of his patrons. (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=916325D5-18FE-70B2-A84730F1B94EE50E) The Squicks (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon, you don't honestly think that the only reason people attacked Jones was because he is black, do you? Did the fact that Timothy Geitner is white make any difference in his confirmation controversy? Or Tom Dashle's controversy? The Squicks (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The lede should be restored to reflect "self-described communist". This is really the only reason that this man has reached the treshhold of notability, and direct language is to be perfered to euphemismsin any case.--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Re. Squicks, I hope my comments didn't imply that people are attacking Jones for being black. They're attacking him as political payback and to get at Obama - per the sources that is what the pro-Obama people and his defenders are saying. As per the vetting, I do have a hard time believing that the White House didn't know. No point speculating now, but the coverage today is that the entire system of appointing czars is going to be under scrutiny so we'll likely have some more sources on just what the vetting process was. Re. Die4Dixie, he isn't a "self-described communist". Is there any reliable source that identifies him as that? He said what he said, which is that he was at one time (he used past tense) a communist. It's fair to mention that, but only in the context of the controversy and in due course in the chronology of that period in his life. To highlight that in the lede as what defines him is of undue weight. The reliable sources don't identify him as that, they identify him as the controversial / embattled green czar and former radical activist who resigned in a controversy. The controversy is the notability, not the underlying events. Calling Republicans "assholes", being one of a hundred signatories to a fringe petition, and describing oneself as a former communist, none of those are the sorts of things that confer notability, and none of them are reported as notable outside of the context of this incident. Wikidemon (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I politely disagree, Wikidemon. If a poll is taken and concensus is attempted, I´ll come down a little to the left of ObserverNY, but not much. When all the opinions about the edit are in, I will support whatever concensus dictates.

Again, This has nothing to do with Communism, at all. Beck called Obama a "racist" Jones' got Color of Change involved to do a boycott (unsourced, but I think we know what happened here) and then Beck went on an ADD rage against Jones' who was forced to resign because Congress is coming back to town and the issue had to be resolved quickly. Jones' use of the word COMMUNIST in the early 90's was a completely different context from Beck using the word COMMUNIST in 2009. Beck used the word as a scare tactic. Also, the fact that Jones is black obviously helped Beck's cause with people who don't like black people. THIS IS AMERICAN HARDBALL POLITICS PEOPLE. The real shame is that partisan editors come here SPECIFICALLY TO PUSH AN AGENDA. Just look at Observer's talk page. They celebrated when Jones resigned. That really has no place on Wikipedia.

Here is the quote from Observers talk page.

Van Jones is Gone Dude!!! Hell's yeah!

Hell yeah man, I just thought I would let you know. He resigned!!!!

We did it, man!!!!

Reliefappearance (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliefappearance, please don't remove comments made by other users unless it's vandalism or turning into a forum. Also, if you have an issue with NYObserver's talk page, then please take your concerns to the appropriate forum. APK that's not my name 14:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Besides the fact that Reliefappearance lifted a quote off of my user talk page that I did not write and misrepresented it here, if other editors find the need to butt into my discussions with other editors on their user talk pages, at least get my handle correct. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Bob Beckel

This edit[4] has some problems, which is why I modified it. The one reliable source (if you can call it that), a Fox News piece, mentions that Robert Beckel was the first prominent Democrat to ask for Jones to resign. So far so good. But what's the point in mentioning he was assistant to Jimmy Carter or that he is a "liberal" (something not in the reliable source, and that would therefore be WP:SYNTH to mention even if otherwise sourceable). It seems that this is a quest for balance that is not there in the sources, to show that liberals oppose Jones too, something that is largely not the case. Wikidemon (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You said "The one reliable source (if you can call it that), a Fox News..." Let me take that apart. You are implying that Fox News is a "less reliable" source than ... say ... the Huffington Post or the East Bay Express? Thank you sincerely for injecting humor into the discussion (your construct is transparent). I pay attention to all sources, and I would say that Fox is more "Fair and Balanced" than "publications" like either the Huffington Post or the East Bay Express. HP and EBE are both classic opinion rags that exercise content control and opinion bias as mentioned by WP:RS. Fox News on the other hand is mainstream (WP:RS). Yes, Glenn Beck is on Fox (moved there from CNN, where CNN described his program as an "unconventional look at the news of the day"), and Beck does inject opinion around factual and documentable news. However I am not citing Beck, I am citing a mainstream news program and a transcript thereof.

Also the point in mentioning "liberal" and "Jimmy Carter" is to give the reader context on who Bob Beckel is. Not too many years ago, I didn't know who he was, and I was impressed by his credentials. The citations for those two facts of who Bob Beckel is would be his own article here on Wikipedia. The "balance" you mention is a potentially interesting and relevant fact to Wikipedia encyclopedia researchers/customers.

WP:RS is a huge joke overall when it comes to politics. Why? Because like the amalgamated crowd of most high school students and many Wikipedia political page editors, one can pick and choose sources to advance his or her own bias. To me it's telling (starting with maturity) that the National Review has nothing to say about this whole matter.

Controlling Wikipedia content, like controlling language, is an attempt to control thought. Deleting factual and documentable independent reliable sources doesn't change the fact, just as applying labels to mainstream sources do not make them irrelevant.

Ultimately I am a libertarian, the highlight thereof being free thinking (read that as "deep respect for WP:NPOV nonbias and WP:RS documentable fact"). -- JayWhitney (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Beckel's quote is notable for 2 reasons. First, he made it prior to the resignation. I don't think quotes post-resignation need to be included here. Second, he worked for Jimmy Carter, he is not just another Joe Schmoe liberal Democrat. I think it should mention he worked for Carter and provide Wiki link to Beckel's Wikipedia article as well as Carter's.

Reliefappearance (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This is truly amazing(and hilarious)

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

I edited the article and added specific the FACTS about WHY Mr. Jones resigned. It was quicky reverted. So I posted here and asked them to put it back. That post was even removed! How can you say "Wikipedia is unbiased" with a straight face?

I bet this post will even be deleted within an hour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legokid (talk • contribs) 21:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It will not be deleted; however, if you care to dicuss your edit as an atetmpt to improve the article, the it will likely not be closed. You will have to defend your edit here. I don´t know what the edit even was.--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

His edits are here [5], [6], [7] and quite honestly, I can see why they were reverted. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

First onelooks good.--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The edits were made to push a partisan agenda. Thus, they are not WP:NPOV. Furthermore, Jones did not resign because of anything he said, Jones resigned because the issue was becoming a distraction and Congress was to reconvene in a few days. And, third, all of this information is already in the article. Reliefappearance (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF, and comment on edits and not users alleged motives, your crytal ball notwithstanding.--Die4Dixie (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I did comment on his edits. I also urge you to WP:AGF and please do not post threats on my talk page. Reliefappearance (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You did comment on his edits, and also on your ideas about his and other edotors motives. Stop this behaviour, as it is disruptive to the collaborative nature of this project. As I pointed out to you on your talk page, I do not wish to ngage you in lenthly debate about your misbehaviour. Correct it if you would like to continu editing.--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL, whatever man. I don't know what you're problem is but I'm not gonna keep going on and on with you over this. You are obviously too damned stubborn to listen to reason. Thus, I'm asking you to please stop harassing me or I will consult an uninvolved third party (ie: not APK) on what to do next.

Reliefappearance (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That's enough of this, please. Take it to talk pages or complain to a relevant noticeboard. Gamaliel (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Date of resignation

this is the link that is cited in the article [8]

"White House environmental adviser Van Jones resigned late Saturday"

Thus, the date of resignation is Saturday September 5, 2009.

The annoucement of the resignation (not the resignation) came shortly after midnight, on Sunday September 6, 2009.

"The announcement that Jones was stepping down came minutes after midnight Sunday morning"

Reliefappearance (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You removed the citations I added that state: "In a letter released just after midnight Saturday..." (the word Saturday is used, but after midnight = Sunday) and "The resignation early Sunday of “green jobs” adviser Van Jones...". You added quotation marks around "Thus, the date of resignation is Saturday September 5, 2009", but the source you're providing doesn't say that. (quotation marks were removed) APK that's not my name 17:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for removing the cites. I didn't notice that you added any. The Washington Post article clearly states that Jones resigned late Saturday, and that the announcement was made Sunday. Your first cite says that the announcement was made Sunday. No change there. The other article links into several other articles that all have some variation of him resigning on Sunday. One of them states that the White House statement said that he will resign. Another states that Nancy Sutley accepted the resignation on Sunday.

My effort here was to clearly state, in the Wiki article, what was in the original reference. I really don't care to go into much debate over whether it was late Saturday or early Sunday. Since there's clearly some ambiguity about it I think we should state clearly that "early Sunday morning in the pre-dawn hours, Van Jones released a statement saying he had resigned." or something to that effect maybe referencing the White House statement if we can find it. I believe my date in the lead should stay, as it is sourced.

Reliefappearance (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Post Commentary

Do we really need all this post resignation commentary/spin/opinion from Huffington and New Republic or anyone for that matter? I'm 50/50 on Ariana Huffington because she is close to Van Jones and maybe her editorial should be mentioned. But really IMO it doensn't belong. Obviously people calling for resignation prior to the resignation merits inclusion. Reliefappearance (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It's important to note the number of pundits putting the blame squarely on the shoulders of Glenn Beck, where mainstream sources are only blaming republicans in general.Bachcell (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wartimes CD Album

Jones participated in a CD album in which he calls Israel since 1948 an "occupation" Problem is, if this never makes an RS like CNN or the New York Times, can it be sourced to be included in the article? If it a fact that this CD was produced, does it really matter where the source is from if it was never covered by a professional journalist who was paid to write about it? Bachcell (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/09/024444.php http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gRi1xoeLno

This has to be the last straw: Verum Serum has found that in addition to has other unsavory activities, Van Jones has a past as a record producer. That's right; his "civil rights" group, the Ella Baker Center, produced a handful of CDs between 2002 and 2006. One of them, which appears to have been made around 2002, "starred" convicted murderer Mumia Abu-Jamal, who presumably recorded his portions of the album in prison. Here is the album cover:

Jones not only produced the album, he actually appears on it. You can listen to excerpts below; it is creepy hearing Mumia introduce himself at the beginning. Jones joins in at around 3:50:

Jones's monologue is consistent with the album's overall theme, the U.S. as imperialist, but he focuses specifically on Israel:

The end of the occupation. The right of return of the Palestinian people. These are critical dividing lines in human rights. We have to be here. No American would put up with an Israeli-style occupation of their hometown for 53 days let alone 54 years. US tax dollars are funding violence against people of color inside the US borders and outside the US borders.

Note that Jones dates Israel's "occupation" of Arab lands to 1948.

SCOTT adds: Reader Alfred Lemire transcribes the comments from which John takes the second block quote above as follows:

Human rights has [sic] no borders. Wherever there are human beings, I support it. We're human rights activists, and show support, show solidarity.

What we want to see at this point is the rights of the Palestinian people being respected. And at this point, the end of the occupation, the right of return of the Palestinian people. These are the critical dividing lines, global dividing lines, questions of human rights. We have to be here. No American would put up with an Israeli-style occupation of their hometown for 53 days, let alone 54 years.

We see violence against poor people, and poor people of color, within the US border, at the US border, and beyond the US border. And you see US tax dollars funding all of it. And so we have now a global struggle against the US-led security apparatus and military agenda that impacts people here and impacts people around the world, and I think that we need to see our problems as linked.

Hello and welcome to wikipedia, plz see our policy with regarding blogs. Soxwon (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "this has to be the last straw" I'm confused?

Reliefappearance (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think he is quoting from the blog. Bytebear (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This track was broadcast on Glenn Beck. Is that RS enough to verify that this CD is not just an "internet rumour" or fact? What do we need to "prove" the existence of the CD and Van Jones quotes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bachcell (talk • contribs)

No, but you need sourcing confirming it's notable or rather newsworthy enough for inclusion. Soxwon (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE

I've substantially edited down the resignation section, which was far too long (WP:UNDUE; WP:COATRACK). Relatively little significant detail is lost; some is moved to footnotes, while much of the rest was of limited relevance or information value. Wikipedians have a tendency to forget that WP:BLP also applies to people who have recently resigned! Rd232 ^talk 21:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this in you capacity as an admin or that of an editor?--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Editing the article body for content is the act of an editor as it does not involve any admin tools. Anyhow, it is a very supportable action. The volume of material on the matter was disproportionate. --RL0919 (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification.--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Rd232 - to answer your question re: "Labor Day weekend", I thought it was significant in that most controversial political resignations tend to take place on holiday weekends when less people are paying attention to the news. It has also been cited that 12:01 AM was the preferred time for executions, however you will note I didn't include that. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

WP:SOURCES

I would like to question Administrator Gamaliel's decision to revert my undo of Bachcell's inclusion of an "editorial quote from the Huffington Post". Please justify how this meets Wikipedia's policy for WP:SOURCES. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Why bother? You've already decided I'm an "extreme leftist", so nothing I say is going to convince you. If you want to argue, you are welcome to post to my talk page again, but leave the dramatics out of article talk space. Gamaliel (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think of you as an extreme leftist Gamaliel, but I question the inclusion of the Nation and Huffington in a WP:BLP. An article about an even maybe, but a not a biography IMO. Soxwon (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that, when it's a BLP, there's a good reason to be completely restrictive as far as blogs. The Squicks (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Both are established publications - the Nation's has a pedigree of a century or more and the Huffington Post has professional journalists, including a White House correspondent. I think that's more than enough, especially when we are merely reporting their opinions. Gamaliel (talk) 01:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but they're still blogs, representing extremely slanted and WP:UNDUE viewpoints. By themselves they don't warrant notability (I know that's not the right word, WP:NOTNEWS I think is a better description). Soxwon (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

See above for the blog discussion. I don't think they represent "extremely slanted" viewpoints. An article must represent all significant viewpoints, and I don't see why we should reject these. Perhaps we could find another way of representing these viewpoints, but that's not what's under discussion here. Gamaliel (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Gamaliel - It shouldn't matter what I think of your POV, nor did I state it here. I'm asking you as a Wiki administrator to justify the inclusion of the Huffington Post as per WP:SOURCES. An administrator should be able to justify his/her actions in a reasonable manner without bringing politics into it on the article's talk page. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

You don't get to demand everybody plays nice when you feel like pretending to be nice, sorry. And I already addressed this responding to your rant on my talk page. Gamaliel (talk) 01:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Did you delete your own explanation? Because I don't see anything resembling one on your talk page. There was no "rant" or "dramatics" on my part, your accusation that I am "pretending to be nice" certainly is not operating in good faith or welcoming, and I haven't "demanded" anything. I don't see anything on your talk page resembling justification of an editorial in a blog qualifying for WP:SOURCES. Perhaps you can redirect me to it. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 02:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Ok, let's cool down and focus on the article, not each other. Soxwon (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Certain blogs are RS. One could check at the RS notice board. I found out the hard way when I had similiar objections.--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

My response is on my talk page and speaks for itself. If you can't find it, try looking immediately below your last message there. Gamaliel (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Gamaliel, you have consistently bucked the consensus on this page time and time again. We may have our differences, but that is something that is just not acceptable here. Not only is Huffington a hard left blog, Jones worked on Arianna's 2003 CA Governor campaign. Also, when you say the "nation" has had a "pedigree" for a century or more do you know what you are saying? Do you know who Herbert Croly was? He was the founder of the New Republic and he believed, amongst other things, that Spanish American War's greatest effect was the creation of the Progressive Party. Have you ever read The Promise of an American Life? Croly believed in wars as a social tonic, the uberman figure, and many other bizarre things. Hardly a "predigree" for a century. JohnHistory (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHIstory

I've done no such thing. As for your information about the New Republic, since seem to be well informed about its past, you surely also know that it is currently a mainstream publication acceptable for use in WP articles as per WP:RS. Gamaliel (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't use blogs in this case b/c they color events in a very biased way and don't have to conform to the neutrality standadrds of newspapers. The nation is the "flagship of the left" and the Huffington Post is openly liberal. While that doesn't make them necessarily unreliable, it does mean that they represent a fairly narrow viewpoint when compared to the whole. Does the blame rest with Beck, or is that simply the far-left/center-left opinion? Soxwon (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Should left views be discounted? They are part of the spectrum and their opinion should be represented. Gamaliel (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

But for a WP:BLP, wouldn't a less biased source be better if it can be found, and if it can be found does that mean it's not news? I think you need to balance it out or preferably get a less biased source really. Soxwon (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I obviously have no problem with balancing the article with other viewpoints, it's exactly what I've been advocating all along. Gamaliel (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, what about this article from today's NYT?

My original reason for inclusion of the "Beck claims first scalp" and "Thank You Glenn Beck" is that it is needed to show a) the left continues to support Van Jones even after all that has been revealed about his past and b) the left puts the blame squarely on Glenn Beck from no less than Ariana Huffington, certainly a notable person. Van Jones isn't the problem, it's the president who hired him, and all the people who are still completely ok with him, no matter how aghast the average American is at the thought that we have communists who support communist police killers in the white house, or that "green jobs" is just another word for "socialist revolution, stage I". It's ridiculous to say that you can't state that the left supports Jones after his resignation or that the left believes it's largely Beck to blame unless you can quote a New York Times article (which by the way completely ignored the story until AFTER he resigned). RS and BLP need to be enforced for things that are NOT TRUE. If there is no debate as to whether a or be are true, or at least believed by notable groups/persons, then they're just using the rule to supress a fact that somebody doesn't like. BTW I watched most of the Glenn Beck episodes, and wondered if it would lead to the firing or resignation of Jones. Now when we're getting people to say that you can't quote Ariana Huffington, or you can't note that the mainstream press deliberately ignored the issue until they had to, that is ridiculous. WP rules aren't supposed to be used as the internet filter that Hugo Chavez would like to impose on his press when people come to a "consensus" to what the "truth" really is, and label the contrary as unfit to host and liable for deletion. Now that CD track that is only mentioned on blogs did have the track played on Glenn Beck, so is that a reliable source enough to note that the quotes about Israel style occupation can be noted? Bachcell (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's all fine to quote the Huffington Post and the Nation, don't get me wrong, but you should look for better sourcing or provide balance is what I am advocating. Soxwon (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That section is also inappropriately named "campaign". Something else should be used for it instead. JohnHistory (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

The only thing with the New York Times one, in terms of Beck, is that it says that Beck doesn't seem ready to move on, and then explains exactly how he is moving on. Also, if we are going to do this whole media coverage and response thing we need to point out how CBS, NBC, Washington Post, and the NY times, etc had absolutely 0 coverage of the story until after Jones resigned. That is becoming 100% relevant as we head into this media coverage angle to such a degree. JohnHistory (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

About this page

Archiving

Currently this talk page is set for automatic archiving of threads older than 30 days. However, the page has become huge with comments added at a fast pace since the subject entered the news. I'm wondering if the archive time should temporarily be set lower, maybe as low as seven days. Because many of the comments were based on the latest news revelations and editors have moved on to new threads, I don't think a short archive time would disrupt any ongoing discussions. I realize I could create a manual archive, but I think an impersonal automated archive would be better. Are there any objections? --RL0919 (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No objection. rkmlai (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Seeing no objection, I've lowered the timeframe to 7 days. That should thin the page out a little the next time the bot runs. --RL0919 (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Van Jones quotes

How about a section of some of his most popular quotes, whether from fans from the left, or Glenn Beck?? Like the one about Israel style occupation, give them the wealth, poisining people of color, or changing the entire system? Bachcell (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Quote collections are not appropriate for encyclopedia articles, but you could create an entry for him at WikiQuote. --RL0919 (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be rich. JohnHistory (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

A page at WikiQuote would be a good idea. The Squicks (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Van Jones (Conservative) vs Van Jones (Liberal)

Why not fork off two versions, one for liberal viewpoints, and one for a conservative, so people don't keep bashing each over over a supposedly neutral one when the world views of what is acceptable fact are so different? Bachcell (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

POV forking of articles is explicitly discouraged. If the regular editors of the article can't reach consensus on specific items, then we can use a noticeboard or RFC to bring in outside assistance. --RL0919 (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Stats

Note huge bump after resignation.

http://stats.grok.se/en/200908/van%20jones

IMO, That is due to a day long Drudge Report headline.[9]

Reliefappearance (talk) 01:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's all just a CONSPIRACY! *Que Tin-foil hat*

I removed the theory from the far left blog Alternet that Van Jones was removed by a secret conspiracy of energy companies. Even if a reliable source can be found in support for the allegation, it should presented as the fringe view that it is and not presented as fact. The Squicks (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Phil Kerpen, 6 September 2009, Fox News.com, How Van Jones Happened and What We Need to Do Next. Rd232 ^talk 21:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure campaign is the right word, nor do I think singling out Americans for prosperity is the right path. Perhaps something along the lines of "he received criticism for" such and such events, as Alternet and the blogosphere are the ones kicking around the conspiratorial allegations of a "campaign." Soxwon (talk) 00:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A pretty standard political campaign is not a "tin-foil" "conspiracy". cf Swiftboating. "Controversies" like this do not arise out of no-where. Rd232 ^talk 07:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Resignation from administration

This seems to be an awfully abbreviated statement of the case Beck made against Van Jones. Nothing about being a self-vowed communist, "give them the wealth", stating green jobs was just a jumping off point to a socialist revolution, cutting a CD with Mumia where the says Israel has been unfairly occupying Palestine since 1948, poisining people of color, etc. This essentially has been pared down to the mainstream media version that makes it look like Jones is some innocent guy that's been slimed to death with ridiculous accusations and lies, and there's nothing in there an average American would be upset about. Isn't this violating NPOV to leave out relevant details to enforce a point of view? It's probably better to put these details into a "Glenn Beck criticism of Van Jones" article and put in a main article link to it, since it won't survive in here. It would also make it easy for any reader to have a ready reference to what the fuss was about, since they won't find it in here. Bachcell (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Jones resigned from his position as Special Advisor in September 2009. The campaign to push him to resign, covered notably by commentators such as Glenn Beck,[citation needed] produced three main points from Van Jones's past which he was forced to defend: a remark in February 2009 in which he called Congress Republicans "assholes";[37][38] a 2004 signature on a "911 truth" petition, the views of which Van Jones then disowned;[39] and a leftwing past including membership of a socialist group and support for Mumia Abu-Jamal.[40] After what Jones described as a "vicious smear campaign", he resigned, saying that he could not "in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past. We need all hands on deck, fighting for the future

WP:NPOV is not served by repeating every interpretation Beck made of any action by Van Jones he disapproved of. The main issues as reported by mainstream media are all that is needed. The article should not become a WP:Coatrack. Rd232 ^talk 21:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Is that a joke? If "mainstream" coverage is all that is needed, then there should have never been any negative information in the article until he resigned??? Bachcell (talk)

Indeed, Beck's claims were not noteworthy until they did their damage and the mainstream press reported on it. The fact that a guy calls Republicans Assholes, said he used to be a communist, and what else was it, signed some crazy petition, is not a notable thing. Do we add a "communist" reference to every person who ever said that, write articles about everyone who signed a fringe petition, or write articles about the millions of people who call Republicans assholes? Of course not. It only became an encyclopedic issue once it meant something. Wikidemon (talk) 05:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

In a quick re-read of the resignation section, it appears to me that it focuses more on Beck's "racist" comment than Jones! This should not be the case. I may have missed it, but the fact that Jones is on tape claiming the "white polluters poisoned communities of color" needs to be in this article somewhere, especially since this dude was going to be in charge of green jobs. As I said, I may have missed it, but it needs to be in there. Thanks ObserverNY (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(a) Beck's comment is there to explain the sequence of events. (b) Van Jones has no doubt made millions of comments in his life, many of which may be recorded. Evidence of their notability needs to be shown (i.e. coverage in secondary sources. Rd232 ^talk 09:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, shouldn't we include the fact that the call for boycotting only happened after Beck had a piece critical of Van Jones? Soxwon (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Dangerous territory for WP:NPOV if we imply a connection and don't have sources to explicitly support that connection. Rd232 ^talk 14:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

EXACTLY! Which is why I'm not sure why the Color of Change criticism is in there. Soxwon (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Is an unwarranted connection implied? The point is the Assholes Video was released in response to the boycott, and the boycott needs to be minimally explained. Rd232 ^talk 15:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

proposed new section for discusion

User:The lorax and User:ObserverNY suggested that we make the following section:

Van Jones advocates conservation and regulation as a way of encouraging environmental justice and opposing Environmental racism. For instance in January 2008, from an “EON Deep Democracy Interview Series: Green Jobs Not Jails - The Third Wave of Environmentalism” Van Jones said: "First of all, we began to realize that we’re entering into a third wave of environmentalism in the United States. The first wave is sort of the Teddy Roosevelt, conservation era which had its day and then, in 1963, Rachel Carson writes a book, “Silent Spring”, and she’s talking about “toxics”, and the environment and that really kind of opens up a whole new wave. So its no longer just conservation but it’s conservation, plus regulation, trying to regulate the “bad”, and that wave kind of continued to be developed and got kind of a 2.5 upgrade because of the environmental justice community who said “what a minute, you’re regulating but you’re not regulating “equally”, the white polluters and white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people-of-color communities, because they don’t have a racial justice frame”. myclob (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is long enough that it cannot be taken out of context, it links to more information, if they want to learn about his beliefs, and what they are. What do you think? 12:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that it is a little too long. I think the last part is enough and the first part really doesnt have that much to do with those comments . They could stand alone and as long as you leave "racial justice" as the last word, and give plenty of context. To include the TR stuff is undue weight, as in all the things he has said, it is the last that is important.--Die4Dixie (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It has to be clear that he's attributing the "white polluters steering poison into people-of-color communities" view to the "environmental justice community". Rd232 ^talk 12:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Maybe we could just say that he claimed that the EJ justice folks say that (and they do).--Die4Dixie (talk) 13:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC) It is not nearly as controversial as I had thought at first.

I think the problem I have with representing Van Jones as an advocate of "opposing" Environmental Racism is that his method of doing so creates allegations of Reverse-Environmental Racism. Imho, and I know this is not a forum, but if evidence existed of mega-corporations polluting poor communities, race should NEVER have been brought into the matter, least of all by someone who was later given the responsibility of creating "green jobs". Where is Mr. Jones' "racial-justice frame" for the good white folk who play by the rules, pay their taxes and do things right? Every white environmentalist is "bad"? I'm just so tired of the hypocrisy. Thanks for giving my input consideration. ObserverNY (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

There is a disproportionate amount of pollution affecting poorer, minority neighborhoods that is caused by white polluters though and that's a significant part of the framework behind the study of environmental racism.--The lorax (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Considering the Wiki article on environmental racism claims it was so named by Benjamin Chavis Muhammad, I'd say you've got a LONG way to go to prove that environmental racism is anything more than pure hyperbole. ObserverNY (talk) 08:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Go ahead and propose modifications.... myclob (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY, it is a fallacy to suggest that environmental racism is hyperbole because of a person. Is there something about this person that you object to? Reliefappearance (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Fix the Bias

Another thing wrong on the main page is that van jones did not just get involved with STORM but FOUNDED IT!!!

Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM) is van jones CREATION!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altrek242 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll say it again: Restore my "Controversy" section. The user who removed that section essentially invites people to mix ideology with facts. Plus, there's no doubt in my mind that it's the "Controversy" that prompts the "customer" public to this page. Furthermore, controversy sections are completely valid in a biographical article, especially when controversy is part of that person's life. Witness Jimmy Wales' page. For those NOT "in the know" Jimmy Wales is a co-founder of Wikipedia and is the founder of Wikimedia. NB and Observe carefully: controversy surrounds Wales AND IT IS DESCRIBED IN ITS OWN SECTION. Keep this page to substantiated germane fact and move the controversy and creatively colorful wording (read: "bias") back to the Controversy section! Think objectively as the founder of Wikipedia intended and help keep Wikipedia as a neutral resource. Need help with objectism? Go read Ayn Rand.

Without isolating controversy from the facts, presentation of the facts will continue to be tainted by bias. Controversy is relevant, and isolating it will help to keep ideology from tainting facts.

Frankly, I think this page is an embarrassment to Wikipedia (Glenn Beck called attention to it, which harms Wikipedia's credibility and reputation in some measure, and this got my attention). Certain people should be blushing over their appearance in its history and one user in particular has a persistence that calls his/her neutrality into question. (S)he may not necessarily be a vandal to the page but (s)he is definitely a vandal to Wikipedia's mission and image... - JayWhitney (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Glenn Beck's page is kept scrubbed of all controversy by his minions. Nice double standard there, boyo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.72.17.15 (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, adding a Controversy or Reception section invites more battles than it's worth. Some editors seem to have enough difficulty distinguishing between where simple facts should be stated and where a topic can be elaborated upon. This man's entire life is controversial - for the time being, for the sake of neutrality, I recommend working with the article's present format. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Van Jones said he was a "communist"; it is part of his life, it should be on his page! Somebody with a modicum of social responsibility for the sake of accuracy should re-add this reference to the first mention of his labeling himself a "communist":

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/gyrobase/the_new_face_of_environmentalism/Content?oid=290098&showFullText=true

This is a serious omission, among many others on Van Jones that do harm to wikipedia's image. JohnHistory (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory (Has the East Bay Express been deemed "not a credible publication"?

Respectful observation: This is what happens when when people with inherent bias are allowed to moderate and control political exposition. NB: I was a teacher. Silence the dissenters (read as: "Quiet class!")

Just a little superscript and you'll likely end the dabate. - JayWhitney (talk) 11:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Van Jones is and has been for the last 17 years a self-avowed communist even naming his four year old son after a guerilla fighter. He is also a CZAR not a special advisor but a CZAR unfortunately this FisherQueen that has protected his page from the truth being told works for him or for the White House. Hey FisherQueen! If you have the guts to read these messages why don't you unprotect your master's wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.1.132.103 (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I seem to have permission to edit this page, so in the spirit of my evangelical-esque desire that Wikipedia remain a bastion of fact (I use it a lot for medicine, where there is actual peer review to fall back upon), I've made some changes that hopefully offer a step towards resolving this brouhaha.

I've added a "Controversy" section and moved anything that is not said by Van Jones himself or are statements or opinions of others such as Glenn Beck, Eva Paterson, and other bloggers there. The central debate/controversy seems to be whether or not Mr. Jones is still a communist. It's a bunch of he-said/she-said of opinion and things that cannot be corroborated. History seems clear and documented, it's the present that is a matter of controversy. Writing in Wikipedia does not create fact nor does it change history. Wikipedia reflects fact and cites history.

I pre-justify the Controversy section as the existence of the controversy is fact, and must be germane given the attention it gets and given the debate about edits to this page.

Plus, consider that the fame and notoriety from this controversy is why many would visit this Wiki page and people are probably at least as interested in the controversy as they are in Van Jones himself. - JayWhitney (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is blatantly POV and an embarrassment to wikipedia. The absence of detail of this man's radical communist views, given his closeness to the president, is incredible. I dont have time to edit war with committed leftists, but I hope others will note the blatant sanitization of the entire article and the absence of documentation of who this man really is. Hadrianheugh (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a biographical article in an encyclopedia, not an ideological essay that explains what is important because of someone's "closeness to the president" or any other political considerations. It is supposed to neutrally summarize the facts about the subject as they are presented in reliable sources. The article already mentions that he became a communist, that he worked with an avowedly Marxist organization, etc. But these are not the only things that he has done, and the article reflects that. Just because these things are repeated a million times in blogs does not mean they should take up the majority of the article. If you have facts from reliable sources (not original research based on interpreting quotes) that you believe are missing from the article, please name the specific facts and supply the sources. Drive-by carping does not help to improve anything. --RL0919 (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with RL0919. The article is not blatantly POV, however I have been trying to stave off a blatantly pro-Jones editor from inserting feel good fluff in the overview. Let the facts speak for themselves. ObserverNY (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

the section where beck is quoted just seems to make beck look like an intolerant racist conservative asshole, it doesn't balance out the article at all, does anyone else think so? that section Should be rewritten so it's more NPOV

The only direct Van Jones quotation where he mentions being a communist is plain. He says, in reflection on younger days, "I was a communist." Using this quotation to justify claims that he is still a communist shows a blatant disregard for both the literal sense of the words on the page -- it is called PAST tense for a reason -- and the intent of the quote, which was to reflect on his former days of being too radical. I'm no pro-Jones sympathizer, but I at least think references to Jones' "self-identification as a communist" should consistently say something like "former self-identification" or "self-identification as a communist at one point in his life." It seems a fair compromise; the right gets to have its field day calling people communist, and the left gets to at least make sure the right doesn't temporally skew the bare facts of the matter. Sighter Goliant (talk) 08:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Mark Lloyd

Van Jones fans may be interested in helping out with Mark Lloyd, and its history. The entire "controversy" section has been removed every time it has been built up with references. It now looks like the same stub found on the official FCC website. There has been continuous scrubbing of any controversial information which not been as successful on this page. The consensus seems to be that if Lloyd resigns, and it is covered by RS, then it can be documented, but not if only documented by conservative talk shows or other media. Bachcell (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You are incorrect. That is not the consensus. Whether a source meets WP:RS has nothing to do with whether it is "liberal" or "conservative" Reliefappearance (talk) 04:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Mumia Abu-Jamal

I first added the Jamal reference because his name had been mentioned in the WaPo and Politico articles in relation to Jones' resignation; neither source mentions the Abu-Jamal conspiracy theory. Changing the sourced content from "convicted of killing a police officer" to "whose conviction for killing a police officer has been disputed" is POV and unrelated to Jones' bio (Disputed by whom? Not the Supreme Court.). This article should state the fact he was convicted of murder; the political conspiracy can be found on Abu-Jamal's article. I've already added NPOV RS that briefly describe Abu-Jumal's background. Politico describes him as a "convicted murderer" and "a former Black Panther on death row whose murder conviction in the death of a police officer is a cause célèbre for some on the left." Translation: He a convicted cop-killer with a leftist fan club. WaPo describes him as a "death-row inmate...who was convicted of shooting a Philadelphia police officer in 1981." Translation: He a convicted cop-killer. APK is a GLEEk 19:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not NPOV to mention Van Jones supporting Mumia, and merely describing Mumia as a cop killer. It just isn't. A minimal allusion to why Jones might have supported him (cf Mumia Abu-Jamal#Popular support and opposition) is required. Rd232 ^talk 19:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a more neutral sentence would be "whose conviction for killing a police officer has been disputed by some on the left"?--The lorax (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) But adding the phrase "has been disputed" without saying who disputes it and why the U.S. Supreme Court let the conviction stand is NPOV? The U.S. judicial system considers him a murderer; thus, mainstream news publications say he's a convicted murderer. Adding that it was "disputed" when there's nothing to dispute is promoting a fringe theory. (I'm really not trying to imply you're a fringe theorist, it's just the wording comes across as Truther_y/Birther_y.) APK is a GLEEk 20:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Nothing that you've said addresses my previous point. And if you bothered to read the Mumia article, you wouldn't throw "fringe" at that view so easily. Rd232 ^talk 20:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I live and work in a liberal neighborhood in one of the country's most liberal cities, so I'm very familiar with Abu-Jamal's fringe following. I've read the article, but thanks for your obvious concern. I've specifically addressed your point. How about addressing my point(s)? Muchas gracias. APK is a GLEEk 00:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If he is a convicted murderer and is described in reliable sources as such, we really can't invent a "his conviction is disputed" phrasing. It is misleading to the reader and goes over the line. And even if we were to insert some sort of dispute, the conviction itself is apparently not disputed at all, what can be disputed is circumstances, etc but not the fact of the conviction itself. Hobartimus (talk) 03:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"his conviction is disputed" is short-hand for "the validity of his conviction is disputed". I have no problems expanding that, or taking sources from Mumia Abu-Jamal, or finding new ones. The point stands that it is not neutral to describe a person supporting X when X sounds insupportable, and omit the reasons why the person does so. Please see WP:BLP policy: it is particularly important that we don't casually give the impression that a person is supporting something insupportable. The previous version (I've just edited again) gave the impression that he supported a cop killer and by extension supported cop killing. Rd232 ^talk 19:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverted since there was no consensus and the wording, as explained already, is misleading. The current wording does not violate WP:BLP. If someone wants to read about Abu-Jamal's case, the wikilink is there for a reason. Hobartimus said it best - "We really can't invent a "his conviction is disputed" phrasing." APK say that you love me 21:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added a source from the Mumia article. At the risk of repeating myself, it certainly is a violation of BLP amongst other policies to imply that a BLP subject supports a cop killer qua cop killer and by extension supports cop killing. Rd232 ^talk 13:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Just like it violates NPOV to pick one organization as having disputed the upheld conviction. If we're going to pick one, why not the French Communist Party which the Los Angeles Times described as "one of Abu-Jamal's most vocal supporters"? I've added the suggested comprise made by The lorax. APK say that you love me 15:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverted, because you deleted two sources and a specific statement and replaced it with unsourced "leftists". Name an organisation whose opinion on this would be more relevant that that of Amnesty International. Really, do we have to have an WP:RFC about this? If you want to drop the detail, a compromise would be going back to the vaguer "the validity of whose conviction has been disputed" and leave the two new footnotes. Rd232 ^talk 16:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think an RFC is the only way because you're using two sources that do not even mention Van Jones, the subject of this article, violating WP:SYNTH. The Politico source says "a former Black Panther on death row whose murder conviction in the death of a police officer is a cause célèbre for some on the left." That clearly backs up the wording. Hobartimus said it best, "If he is a convicted murderer and is described in reliable sources as such, we really can't invent a 'his conviction is disputed' phrasing. It is misleading to the reader and goes over the line. And even if we were to insert some sort of dispute, the conviction itself is apparently not disputed at all, what can be disputed is circumstances, etc but not the fact of the conviction itself." BTW, it's a good thing you redacted this statement. APK say that you love me 16:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

WTF? You delete the sources that back up the point, then complain the sources don't back up the point? The sources are "A Life in the Balance: The Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal". Amnesty International. February 17, 2000. Retrieved 2007-10-18. Taylor Jr., Stuart (1995). "Guilty and Framed". The American Lawyer. Retrieved 2008-01-22. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help). These back up the point that the conviction is disputed, and not by un-named "leftists". There is zero synthesis here, don't be ridiculous. PS "leftists" is a POV word in itself, it has no place in an encyclopedia article. PPS And how is it you've gone back to the strawman that we shouldn't imply a dispute of the fact of the conviction? The "validity" wording put that straw man behind us. Rd232 ^talk 16:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)Anyway, if you can't accept the current version or the suggested compromise, I suggest you post at WP:NPOVN. Rd232 ^talk 16:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I edited this section, changing "validity" to "fairness" before noticing this discussion. AI notes that the validity of the evidence used to obtain the conviction has been questioned, considers that evidence to be contradictory and incomplete, and has concluded that the proceedings used to convict and sentence Mumia Abu-Jamal to death were in violation of minimum international standards that govern fair trial procedures and the use of the death penalty. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a better word choice in this context. Rd232 ^talk 07:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Change Eco-capitalism to Environmental Justice

To the Lorax - I see you undid my edit. Van Jones never promoted eco-capitalism. Read the definition of environmental justice. You will see it addresses everything Jones advocated. Capitalism is not advocated by communists, it's that simple. ObserverNY (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

He advocated both though; if you read The Green Collar Economy it is clear, he is an eco-capitalist as well.--The lorax (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Green Party courts Van Jones for future run

thehill.com just reported: "The Green Party invited President Barack Obama’s green-jobs czar to join their ranks, possibly as a future presidential candidate, after he stepped down last Sunday following controversial statements and activities." Grundle2600 (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If Jones makes a statement about joining the Green Party, then we could add it to the article. But this is just an invitation from the Green Party; it doesn't say anything about Jones joining their party. APK is a GLEEk 21:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This information would be well-placed in 'U.S. Green Party'. I don't think it fits well here, since it is a minor thing in Jones' life. The Squicks (talk) 04:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If Jones hasn't commented on it and it hasn't actually affected his life in some way, then I don't think it belongs here. If he makes some statement accepting/rejecting the idea, or it has some specific impact on him, then it would be relevant. --RL0919 (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Citation for Jones "2008 - Time Magazine Environmental Hero"

Under the Awards and honors section, Jones is listed as "2008 - Time Magazine Environmental Hero" without a citation. This should have a reference to this page: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1841778_1841781_1841811,00.html

I can't make the change as I am not confirmed.

CaseyE3100 (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the suggestion. --RL0919 (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Time article

Perhaps we should reexamine the "White polluters" comment. Time, a relible source, has said that this is Jones´ own thoeory, and that he "theorized" it. I think that this RS clears it up and avoids us having to do OR and crystal balling.--68.35.239.206 (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Link here[10].--68.35.239.206 (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of "sympathy"

I'm about to revert the deletion by John Asfukzenski of remarks criticizing the firing. Asfukzenski may wish to argue here for the deletion of this part, and if there is agreement for deletion then it may be deleted. -- Hoary (talk) 03:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon deleted it anyway. So much for the notion of discussion. -- Hoary (talk) 03:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I deleted it again, was put back in by Annoynmous ObserverNY (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Reason for deletion - "commentary" of "sympathy" for Jones by the Huffington Post does not qualify as WP:RS and violated WP:NPOV. ObserverNY (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The New Republic is a reliable source and Huffpost is allowed to give there opinion of Jones. annoynmous13:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I must say I find it odd that Worldnetdaily is allowed as a reliable source but The New Republic and Huffingtonpost are not. Huffington post is giving there opinion of the Jones matter and saying they believe he was treated badly. The article doesn't relie on them as a source of fact, just what there opinion was. I find it odd that instead of discussing this at the talk page like Hoary suggested above, both ObserverNY and Soxwon just simply deleted. It sounds like there more interested in slanting the article against Jones rather than improving the article. annoynmous 13:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The only cite of World Net Daily is to support its mention in the article as "conservative" criticism of Jones. If you wish to reword your edit to state "left-wing" or "Liberal" support for Jones, in the interest of WP:BALANCE I will consider it for inclusion. Furthermore, there was substantial discussion and consensus reached on this talk page about renaming the sub-section "Environmental justice". Please do not arbitrarily change something like this without discussing first. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I don't see any consensus on the issue calling it Environmental Justice. I see you making the case and a lot of people disagreeing with you. No one agreed that your proposal was the right one.

Also you must once provide a reason why worldnetdaily is reliable but Huffington post. Also the New Republic is a mainstream source and the authors critcism of obama not supporting him should be included.

Don't event a consensus that doesn't exist. annoynmous 17:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's clear from jones article that he is advocating both. He's saying that the enviro-justice movement is part of the new eco-capitalist movement. annoynmous 17:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Annoynmous - Please refer to the archived discussion here: [11]. Assume WP:good faith. ObserverNY (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Fine, I don't see any final consensus where everybody agrees with you. It's clear to me that jones is advocating both. Your reasoning that communists can't be capitalists would be true if jones were still a communist. He says clearily in the article where that quote comes from that he abandoned his early radical viewpoints around 2000.

Anyway I've added both as a compromise. I agree jones is part of the Enviro-justice movement, but that doesn't mean he isn't also an eco-capitalist.annoynmous 17:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits again. Please do not make this an edit war. If other editors would like to weigh in on annoynmous's edits and re-visit the issue, I encourage other input. Until then, please do not change the language of that section or keep attempting to introduce POV sources. ObserverNY (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

You are not the boss of this article. The New Rebublic is a mainstream source and the Huffington Post is a widely read website. Either provided a reason why they shouldn't be included other than you don't like them or stop deleting valid sources. annoynmous 17:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

To add - The New Republic is NOT WP:RS or WP:NPOV. There is not a single WP:RS which demonstrates that Jones ever renounced his communist ideology. If you can find a mainstream source such as the NYT, WAPO, LATimes, Chicago Sun, CNN, MSNBC, etc. which clearly states that Jones has publicly disavowed his radical past, then we can discuss re-introducing "eco-capitalism". Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

How is the New Rebublic not a reliable source. It is a widely published magazine with a very centrist to liberal outlook. Also Van Jones never renounced his communist ideology?

Jones' fixation on solidarity dates from this experience. He took an objective look at the movement's effectiveness and decided that the changes he was seeking were actually getting farther away. Not only did the left need to be more unified, he decided, it might also benefit from a fundamental shift in tactics. "I realized that there are a lot of people who are capitalists -- shudder, shudder -- who are really committed to fairly significant change in the economy, and were having bigger impacts than me and a lot of my friends with our protest signs," he said.

First, he discarded the hostility and antagonism with which he had previously greeted the world, which he said was part of the ego-driven romance of being seen as a revolutionary. "Before, we would fight anybody, any time," he said. "No concession was good enough; we never said 'Thank you.' Now, I put the issues and constituencies first. I'll work with anybody, I'll fight anybody if it will push our issues forward. ... I'm willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends."

His new philosophy emphasizes effectiveness, which he believes is inextricably tied to unity. He still considers himself a revolutionary, just a more effective one, who has realized that the progressive left's insistence on remaining a counterculture destroys its potential as a political movement. "One of my big heroes is Malcolm X, not because I agree with Malcolm, but because he wasn't afraid to change in public," he said.

This says to me that he clearily considers himself a mainstream progressive. It would be nice if people actually read the sources that quotes come from. annoynmous 18:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Annoynmous - this is not a WP:Soapbox. I don't CARE what you believe Jones "clearily considers himself". Irrelevant. Not encyclopaedic, speculation and POV interpretation. I am asking other editors to weigh in on this and am bowing out until I hear from others. Perhaps I am totally misguided in my amateur grip of Wiki policy. Cheers. ObserverNY (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Well you are because you obviously missed this part of wikipedia policy:

Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, for example the New York Times in the United States and The Times in Great Britain, as well as widely used conglomerates such as the Associated Press. Some caveats:

News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact, and should be attributed in-text. In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations may be used.

The New Republic is considered by most people to be a high quality source and in the article it's clearily defined as an opinion piece. annoynmous 18:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I will concede the The New Republic as a WP:RS, however not to be used to quote the Huffington Post. ObserverNY (talk) 19:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Where in the article does the author quote the Huffington Post. It's clearily John Mcwhorther's opinion, no one elses. What's wrong with ackowledging that the huffington post supported him. The article states he was criticized by groups like Worldnetdaily and supported by groups like huffington post. It's seems to me only fair to give people who defended jones a say as well as his critics. annoynmous 19:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• To assist in resolving this dispute, you both may wish to consider dispute resolution. Hopefully by now you both realise that edit warring is completely pointless as it only leads to blocks. I'd consider starting with WP:3O, or take it to a relevant noticeboard (e.g. reliable sources board or the content board. Best of luck. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

call for other editors

Look, I don't want to get banned for WP:3RR. Will somebody else please address the environmental justice/eco-capitalism New Republic/Huffington Post issue with annoynmous? Please? Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

What Issue is there. Both Enviro-justice and eco-capitalism are in the article. You have given no reason why he isn't an eco-capitalist. Jones specifically mentions the term in the article he wrote.

As for the New Republic being a reliable, opinion pieces in major news magazines are allowed under wikipedia guidlines as long as it is stated as opinion which it is in the article. annoynmous 18:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

IF WorldNutDaily is a RS, then so is New Republic and HuffPo. 86.142.52.111 (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The additions in this edit by User:annoynmous look OK to me. Tose from the two particular sources discussed above look to me to be within the WP:RS guideline; specifically, under WP:RS#Statements of opinion. Disclaimer: I am a past editor of this article, and it could be said that my opinions about this are not free of WP:COI. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Please change Democrat to Democratic

In the Resignation section, last paragraph first sentance

"Former mayor of San Francisco and Democrat speaker"...

Should be "Democratic speaker"

[12] Democratic –adjective 1. pertaining to or of the nature of democracy or a democracy. 2. pertaining to or characterized by the principle of political or social equality for all: democratic treatment. 3. advocating or upholding democracy. 4. (initial capital letter) Politics. a. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the Democratic party. b. of, pertaining to, or belonging to the Democratic-Republican party.

Kynetx (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Kynetx

Fixed.--The lorax (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Timing of Jones' Statement that he didn't undersigned what he signed

As written, the Van Jones article is misleading regarding when he distanced himself from the petition. It implies that his statement that he didn't understand the petition was days after June 2004, but he didn't distance himself until 2009.

And your point is, oh unsigned one? ObserverNY (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Gee if I had to guess I would say that his point is that it should be corrected. But that's just me going out on a limb "ObserverNY" --71.61.216.94 (talk) 00:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that the assertion in the inline prose, "Several days later, Jones' 2004 signature on a 9-11 Truth petition became public," is in the context of a discussion about events in 2009. The footnote presently numbered [55] also seems to sufficiently clarify this point. More clarification couldn't hurt, though, if it can be done without becoming pedantic. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Willie Brown quote

The proposed addition of the Willie Brown quote is a nearly perfect example of WP:UNDUE. The quote takes up a minor portion of the ref, an op-ed piece that is a series of unrelated observations. Highlighting this minor (and factually unsupported) assertion gives it undeserved prominence.Jimintheatl (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Rd232 ^talk 13:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. As the Mayor of San Francisco, Willie Brown had a great deal of interaction with Van Jones; his statement is remarkable, relevant, and sourced. There can be no justification for deleting it, other than political bias.Apostle12 (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

No one denies that Willie Brown is notable, but his comment is not. It is flippant, not much more than a Twitter post, not supported by any facts or argument.Jimintheatl (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone other than Brown making this type of criticism of Jones? If this isn't a more widespread type of criticism than just one person's opinion, then we have a case that is clearly addressed in the BLP policy: "The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article." If Brown is leading a chorus (like Beck was in the political criticisms that led to Jones' resignation), then that's another matter entirely. But a viewpoint held by just one person, even if the person is notable and the opinion is seriously held, does not belong in the article. --RL0919 (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Brown's comments specifically addressed the larger matter of Van Jones' involvement in STORM, which was a police review board that, by all accounts, worked to make the job of law enforcement much more difficult. In Oakland, CA, for example, STORM spearheaded efforts encouraging that city's burgeoning criminal class to file bogus complaints against effective police officers in an effort to hobble them with "Internal Affairs" proceedings. Brown was not leading the chorus, however in this column he made a point of adding his very relevant voice to the chorus of political criticisms that led to Jones' resignation. There was nothing flippant about Brown's statement, and he was hardly a lone voice; many people objected to Van Jones being part of the Obama team, Democrats and Republicans alike. That Brown would criticize Jones, a fellow Democrat, is important, and I believe the article should include it.Apostle12 (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Brown's comments came after Jones' resignation, so he can't be considered part of the criticism that led to that resignation. Brown's comments relate to three points: 1) that he should have been consulted before Jones was appointed; 2) that Jones slanted cases against police officers while with Bay Area PoliceWatch; and 3) that Jones is "unreliable". I've never seen anyone else make points 1 and 3. If there are other reliable sources that make point 2, then Brown could be joined with those. Since this does not seem to have been a major point of the criticism leading to Jones' resignation, it would probably belong under the Earlier activism section rather than under the Resignation section where it was placed before. --RL0919 (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's the sort of off-hand, after-the-fact, unsupported "tweet" that has no place here; it barely has any place in HIS OWN op-ed, so why give it nearly as much space here? As to AP12's soapbox, we see where you're coming from, but Willie Brown did not elaborate as you have.Jimintheatl (talk) 01:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I take strong exception to your "soapbox" comment. I mention the context of Brown's comment regarding Van Jones' attitude toward the police to demonstrate that Brown's comment was not "flippant" at all. He had serious objections to Jones' anti-cop attitude. Apostle12 (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

add wp link for Heroes of the Environment (2008)

add wp link for Heroes of the Environment (2008) 99.54.137.25 (talk) 05:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Y Done. Thanks for the suggestion. --RL0919 (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Add Category:Sustainability advocates

Add Category:Sustainability advocates 99.190.88.247 (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Y Done. Thanks for the suggestion. --RL0919 (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Question

Why is this guy protected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prettyflowers1 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Back when there was a lot of discussion about Jones on blogs and Glenn Beck's shows, the article was experiencing vandalism from non-registered editors, such as this and this. So an administrator put a two-month semi-protection on the article to stop the vandalism. Jones resigned long before the two months expired, and the editing of the page has calmed, but the admin hasn't come back to change the protection status. You could request for it to be unprotected, but the protection expires on the 16th of this month anyway. In the meantime, if there is a specific edit you would like to have made, you can request it on this talk page and assuming it isn't controversial, some auto-confirmed user will be happy to make the edit for you. (See above for some examples that were requested and fulfilled.) --RL0919 (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

I've removed the {{POV}} tag from the top of the article, because there don't appear to be any recent talk page comments or article edits indicating a dispute over its overall neutrality, and on my reading the article seems reasonably balanced. If someone sees a a significant imbalance in the article overall, you can put the tag back, but we should be discussing it here rather than just letting the tag sit there. If there is a problem with a particular section, please add {{POV-section}} under the appropriate section header. --RL0919 (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

[{SP:ATTACK}] in this section below: Earlier activism

In 1992, while still a law student at Yale, Jones participated as a volunteer legal monitor for a protest of the Rodney King verdict in San Francisco. He and many other participants in the protest were arrested. The district attorney later dropped the charges against Jones. The arrested protesters, including Jones, won a small legal settlement. Jones later said that "the incident deepened my disaffection with the system and accelerated my political radicalization."[18] In October 2005 Jones said he was "a rowdy nationalist"[15] before the King verdict was announced, but that by August of that year (1992) he was a communist.[15] Jones's activism was also spurred on by witnessing racial inequality in New Haven, Connecticut: "I was seeing kids at Yale do drugs and talk about it openly, and have nothing happen to them or, if anything, get sent to rehab...And then I was seeing kids three blocks away, in the housing projects, doing the same drugs, in smaller amounts, go to prison."[14]

When he graduated from law school, Jones gave up plans to take a job in Washington, D.C., and moved to San Francisco instead.[15] He got involved with Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), a group explicitly committed to revolutionary Marxist politics[19] whose points of unity were revolutionary democracy, revolutionary feminism, revolutionary internationalism, the central role of the working class, urban Marxism, and Third World Communism.[20] While associated with STORM, Jones actively began protesting police brutality.[15]

The East Bay Press article is an opinion / commentary blog post. There is nothing reliable or verifiable in reference #15. It just leads to a blog and ultimately to defamation of character for the subject and even the subject matter. Venus III (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The article you are referring to, "The New Face of Environmentalism", was the cover story for the November 2, 2005 print issue of the East Bay Express, a long-established local newsweekly in the Bay Area. It is not in any way a "blog post". It is categorized on their website under "News" and "Feature", not as an opinion column, and it was written by a reporter who wrote dozens of other news articles for them. Moreover, the profile is generally flattering towards Jones, hardly "defamation of character". In any case, how on earth is defamation to say that someone protested police brutality, or that he moved to San Francisco instead of Washington? Especially when both of these things can also be found in other sources? It's clear that the object of objection here is the claim that he was a communist, which in the article is quoted as coming from his own mouth. So either the article's quotes from Jones are fabricated (something for which I have seen zero evidence), or this is also a non-defamatory piece of reporting. --RL0919 (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

[{SP:ATTACK}] in this section below: The defamation of character is linked to the reference #19 and #20 and #15. All of which lead to opinion and defamation of character. If the reference is questionable then so are the words associated with it. The reference #15 is a blog, whether the quotes were fabricated or not, it is an opinion piece. The issue here is the reference material. Earlier activism

In 1992, while still a law student at Yale, Jones participated as a volunteer legal monitor for a protest of the Rodney King verdict in San Francisco. He and many other participants in the protest were arrested. The district attorney later dropped the charges against Jones. The arrested protesters, including Jones, won a small legal settlement. Jones later said that "the incident deepened my disaffection with the system and accelerated my political radicalization."[18] In October 2005 Jones said he was "a rowdy nationalist"[15] before the King verdict was announced, but that by August of that year (1992) he was a communist.[15] Jones's activism was also spurred on by witnessing racial inequality in New Haven, Connecticut: "I was seeing kids at Yale do drugs and talk about it openly, and have nothing happen to them or, if anything, get sent to rehab...And then I was seeing kids three blocks away, in the housing projects, doing the same drugs, in smaller amounts, go to prison."[14]

When he graduated from law school, Jones gave up plans to take a job in Washington, D.C., and moved to San Francisco instead.[15] He got involved with Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), a group explicitly committed to revolutionary Marxist politics[19] whose points of unity were revolutionary democracy, revolutionary feminism, revolutionary internationalism, the central role of the working class, urban Marxism, and Third World Communism.[20] While associated with STORM, Jones actively began protesting police brutality.[15]

The East Bay Press article is an opinion / commentary blog post. There is nothing reliable or verifiable in reference #15. It just leads to a blog and ultimately to defamation of character for the subject and even the subject matter. Venus III (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Print newspaper articles are not blogs and never will be, no matter how often you repeat the claim. It is a feature piece and therefore does contain some material that reflects conclusions or interpretations by the reporter, but the portions cited in the article are straight factual reporting. Quotes from Jones about his own past are not a reporter's opinion. You simply saying it is not reliable does not establish in any way that it isn't. This piece was published by a widely circulated paper in the area where Jones lived, and had his picture on the cover. If it contained substantial inaccuracy, he had ample opportunity to challenge it, but I know of no such challenge by the subject or any reliable source. Your opinion that it is "defamation" is not a reliable source.

Source notes 19 and 20 go to primary source material explaining the positions of STORM, not to anything directly about Jones, and therefore cannot possibly be defamation of him. The repeated use of words like "blog" and "defamation", regardless of whether they apply, makes your arguments less credible, not more. --RL0919 (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

[{NPOV}]in this section below: Resignation

Jones resigned from his position as Special Advisor in September 2009, after receiving criticism from conservative groups such as WorldNetDaily and Americans for Prosperity.[40][41] The most notable critic was Fox News commentator Glenn Beck, who featured Jones on 14 episodes of his show.[42][43] They forced Jones in July and August 2009 to defend his past including membership of a socialist group and support for Mumia Abu-Jamal, a death row prisoner, the fairness of whose conviction has been disputed by organizations including Amnesty International.[44][45][46][47] In July 2009 Color of Change, an organization that Jones founded in 2005 and left in 2007, launched a campaign urging advertisers on Beck's Fox News show to pull their ads, in response to comments by Beck in which he "called President Obama a racist who has a 'deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.'"[48] In September 2009, DefendGlenn.com, a website launched in response to the boycott campaign, posted a video[49] on Youtube of a February 2009 event at which Jones called Congressional Republicans "assholes".[50][51] Jones responded by saying that the comments "were clearly inappropriate" and that "they do not reflect the experience I have had since I joined the [Obama] administration."[52]

Fox is an opinion / commentary arena repeatedly proven as misleading and providing viewers with false information. Other groups mentioned also have an agenda in this section.

Also, "They forced Jones in July and August 2009 to defend his past including membership of a socialist group." The article is about Jones, not groups with agendas. Remove the fluff.

Some editorials, such as those on the Huffington Post expressed continued support for Jones, singling out the efforts of Glenn Beck to force his resignation.[64][65] John McWhorter, in The New Republic, related his analysis to the Obama presidency in general, saying that allowing Jones to resign was "spineless".[66]

Editorials are opinion / commentary regardless of position on an issue or political agenda. Remove the fluff. There are plenty of available outlets for opinion on the internet, tv, radio and print. Venus III (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It is acceptable to cite opinion sources for their opinion on a subject, provided that undue weight isn't given to uncommon opinions. However, I do agree that the resignation section could use some cleanup. There is too much reliance on primary sources for information that could be summarized from secondary sources instead. But surely you aren't suggesting that the article should not mention that conservative opinion outlets played a role in the controversy that led to his resignation? That would mean ignoring a widely known, sourceable and significant fact about the subject. --RL0919 (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being heavy handed here, I rather enjoyed the post myself; but it does not change the fact it is opinion. For example, the post #15 refers to, closes with the below paragraph:

"But in the short term, expect to see Jones more often on the national stage. And expect Shellenberger and Nordhaus' book, now scheduled for publication in fall 2006, to be greeted with a new round of dismissal and outrage. The two authors have a knack for getting people to think, but only the least defensive activists seem ready to receive their message. Meanwhile, Jones' warm-as-sunshine style is winning him far more friends. The progressive movement probably needs all three men: the two apostates nailing their criticisms to the door to the church, and the preacher inside the tent. Hallelujah."

So many questions. So much opinion. Not enough answers. Not enough fact. This kind of rhetoric belongs in blogs, not wikipedia. This source is not reliable, not verifiable, and is opinion. I've no doubt we can find better sources in the Bay Area. Venus III (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

References #19 and #20 lead to a file regarding STORM that has no author associated with it. Once again, the problem here is a lack of verifiable and reliable source. Exhaustive research on the matter has led to nothing but opinion and defamation of character. I've found an article and am currently fact-checking for support. If the source is verified, I'll come back to propose its use instead, along with new words for the article here. Venus III (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what terms like 'blog' and 'defamation' actually mean, because you keep using them in ways that don't match their meanings. Print articles cannot be blogs. If a source does not mention a person, and is used exclusively to describe something else, then it cannot possibly be defamation. The meaning of those words simply does not allow for such uses.

As to sources: Sources are not required to have named authors, although that does weaken (not eliminate) credibility. But you keep talking about sources not being "verifiable". Sources themselves are what is used for verification, so I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. How are we supposed to "verify" what is in newspaper articles, especially ones that have not been contradicted, challenged or questioned in any other reliable source? (If seemingly reliable sources disagree with one another, that's another situation, but not one that applies in this case as far as I know.) What exactly would you consider a "verified" source? Of course, better sources are always welcomed, so if you have found a new source, please tell us what it is. You can tell us what the source is now; we don't need you to "verify" it for us first. And specific editing proposals would be a welcome change from generalized ranting about "defamation". --RL0919 (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Categories

I notice that recently editors have been attempting to add potentially contentious political categories, sometimes categories that don't even exist. First it was "Category:American Communists" (doesn't exist because the capitalization is wrong), then "Category:Black Nationalists" (doesn't exist under either capitalization) and "Category:American communists". This last is the only existing category. The description of the category says it is for "people who have, at one time or another, been active members of a communist party" (emphasis added). That's been the description since March 2008, so it seems well established. Based on that description, I'm not sure if the category is applicable. Jones has stated that he was a communist, but that could just mean in a general ideological sense. I don't remember seeing anything specific about party affiliation. If there is a reliable source regarding any specific communist party affiliation, then the category should stay. If not, then presumably it should go. --RL0919 (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Naming

shouldn't the article be renamed "Anthony Jones" and "Van Jones" be a redirect? Efcmagnew (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No. The relevant policy is explained at WP:COMMONNAME. We title articles using the name the subject is known by most commonly, as determined by usage in sources. He is overwhelmingly referred to as "Van Jones", regardless of what his birth name was. --RL0919 (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Defense of cop killers?

How come this isn't mentioned anywhere in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.231.239.198 (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're refering to Mumia Abu-Jamal it's briefly mentioned in the resignation section. With controversial individuals it's important to make sure the article stays WP:NPOV, can be sourced per WP:RS and doesn't give WP:undue weight.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

IP edits to lead

24.147.62.213 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) keeps cutting the same material from the lead (e.g., [13], [14]) while being reverted by multiple other editors. The edits are not obvious vandalism like the usual political and racial comments that get inserted, but it is obvious that other editors are not on board with the deletion. The IP never explains a reason for the deletions and seems to be ignoring requests to explain that have been made in edit summaries and on the IP's user talk page. I'm opening this thread in a last-ditch attempt to stop the IP's edit warring and get some explanation of why they keep doing this. If the IP editor would like to explain, or if there is another editor who agrees with the edits and would like to say why, that would be greatly appreciated. Otherwise, the next time the IP editor makes this cut, I'm going to request a block. --RL0919 (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The information while not complimentary appears to be sourced and relavant. We really need an explanation or I agree that prevenative steps may be needed. There's an aditional problem with the edits. Hypotheticaly, if there is info that were to be removed, it would need to leave a proper paragraph. Leaving a sentance that says In July 2009 he became his name appearing on a petition for 911Truth.org. isn't improvement.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You have no sources for many of the statements you make and keep reasserting. Such as referring to him as a 'Radical Marxist'. You need to have a source for this. Where is it stated that he was a Marxist? And to use the word 'radical' seems to be a personal opinion, not a statement of fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.62.213 (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you carefully read what you're removing? The statement you're removing never calls him a "radical marxist". The statement that is there looks sourced to the new york times piece.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "Radical Marxist" doesn't appear anywhere in the article, much less in the cut material. If you think the material doesn't match the sources, then explain where the mismatches are. Just cutting a large part of a paragraph without explanation gives other editors no basis for understanding what you are trying to do. By the way, before you finally posted here, I had already reported your activity to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. If you intend to begin participating in the editorial process instead of just cutting things without explanation, I'd be happy to update the report to note that. --RL0919 (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Addendum: For what it is worth, I did find an attribution mistake in the material you were cutting. The source cited for the quoted phrase "embroiled in controversy" did not contain that phrase. Another source used in the lead did, so I updated the attribution. Still that hardly justifies the wholesale cutting you have been doing. --RL0919 (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like our IP editor has moved to a new address, 24.218.27.209 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but the editing pattern is similar so I'm assuming it is the same person. I've updated the report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:24.147.62.213 reported by User:RL0919 (Result: ) to note this. ThinkEnemies (talk · contribs) has already given the new IP a warning for edit warring. Unfortunately, if this editor is going to jump from IP to IP and continue edit warring with no real engagement in discussion, then we may have to request that the page be semi-protected again, as it was during the height of the media coverage. --RL0919 (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

Maybe there should be a criticism section followed by a rebuttal section. The criticism section would be written as if Beck had written it and the rebuttal as if Van Jones had written it. Any takers among people who can edit the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.2.250 (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This sort of "back and forth" approach to handling criticisms of a subject is discouraged, as in Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_structure. This is an encyclopedia article, not a debate about Jones. --RL0919 (talk) 02:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

[{SD:ATTACK}] Fake Website References Fake Citing Leads to Fake Reporter [{SD:ATTACK}]

This article contains references to fake, unverifiable news stories and other related links to fake online sources which lead to defamation of character, bias of opinion, a fake reporter Eliza Strickland and is subject to speedy deletion under the rules defined in "biographies of living persons." Venus III Venus III (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Venus III (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC) [{sd:attack}] Please refer to the guidelines for biographies of living persons and the rules for speedy deletion.

Please refer to them yourself. The idea that this article is subject to speedy deletion is laughable. Also, calling the author of a profile in an established local newspaper a "fake reporter" does not give much credence to your otherwise unspecified claims about "fake online sources". Faulty sources do make their way into articles and that should be corrected if it has happened here, but broad accusations don't help. If you have a specific concern about a specific source, you should state it clearly: which source, why it is a problem, and what alternative sources provide evidence to support your claims. --RL0919 (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

East Bay Express Type Alternative weekly Format Tabloid Owner Stephen Buel, et al. Publisher Jody Colley Editor Stephen Buel Founded 1978 Headquarters 620 3rd St Oakland, CA 94607

Reference #15 is not a credible reference. It is a tabloid. There is no way to verify and make this source reliable. We need to find another source.

Reference #19 and #20 is a document with no author. Again, no way to verify and it cannot be considered reliable or credible. Furthermore, the site leads to defamation of character for the subject of this article as well as other misleading information.

I'm fact checking another source and will get back to you as soon as I have the information. 97.125.48.54 (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime, it would be prudent to take the material out of the article. As is our duty here. 97.125.48.54 (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} Add to "External Links": Van Jones interview on Tavis Smiley Show http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/201002/20100225.html DVmandorla (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Done.  fetchcomms☛ 21:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Current communist?

Appears not per cited article. It says:

. . . he had pulled away from spirituality during his communist days. During his 2000 crisis, he looked for answers in Buddhism . . .

indicating in at least two ways that his communist days ended prior to 2000. There doesn't seem to be any authority for the proposition that he is a communist currently. ^Bongo_matic 05:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how that indicates in any way that his communist days have ended. Also, I see that Kyle Smith, Van Jones — unfit for print, New York Post, September 13, 2009 says, "If Comrade Jones has disavowed communism, I couldn’t find any mention of it." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not standard English to refer to "his communist days" if they continue. Also, indicating that he was not spiritual during his communist days, and then citing a return spirituality at some point after he was known to be a communist further indicates that his communists days had ended by the time he returned to spiritual pursuits. With respect to the NYPost, the lack of a proof of a positive doesn't prove the negative. ^Bongo_matic 03:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that "not standard english" explains this, but then I'm not a professional writer. It seems to me that saying, similarly, "John Smith pulled away from spirituality during his political days. In 2000, he looked to Buddhism ..." doesn't indicate anything about the ending of John's political days either prior or subsequent to 2000. However, we now have a reliable journalistic source (that NY Post article mentioned above) saying as of September 2009, "If Comrade Jones has disavowed communism, I couldn’t find any mention of it." I'm really engaged on this article and am not going to insert mention of that into it, but it does seem to me that this would be a legitimate and useful thing for the article to point out. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

His website clearly states that he is not currently a communist. http://vanjones.net/the-truth-about-van-jones/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.216.79 (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Commie or not?

SOmeone told me this guy is a commie. I know the entry do be saying that he was alleged to be a commie. Well, was he or isn't he? We need something definitive. I thinks that he might be a commie-but, hey, it be a free country! We need the wixi to be quite accurates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.36.165 (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Jones himself has expressed his affinity for Marxism on occasion, if not outright affiliation. I got the impression he was not at all ashamed of it either. I apologize for not having a reference handy. 24.214.238.86 (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Jones states he is no longer a communist, but once was, in a section on his personal website: http://vanjones.net/the-truth-about-van-jones/ I'm not sure what the policy is about referencing someones personal website as a source, generally that seems like it wouldn't make sense but when the issue at hand is someones personal beliefs it would seem their own words are the most fair sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.216.79 (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The answer is you don't. You use an objective third party source. He shied away from the word "communnist?" Fine, does he still preach Marxism, socialism, or other forms of collectivism? Does he still pursue them as political, social, or cultural goals? Does he actively criticize polemics against the fundamentals concepts of same? I'm pretty sure the evidence is available, one way or the other. 2601:0:4200:C97:7CAC:3A44:160A:8633 (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

"Allegations" vs "direct involvement"

Van Jones was directly involved with the group STORM. Several of the already existing citations either omit this fact, or where it is stated they state it clearly. What I have not seen is anywhere that it has been said to be alleged.

In the article, cite 19, Jones himself does not deny his involvement. The lead of the article should reflect these more concise and accurate facts. Progressingamerica (talk) 02:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Career

I started by trying to insert a section on the "#cut50" organization/project and its work on criminal justice reform, but quickly realized there was a lot of missing content generally under the "career" header. Also this page didn't reflect the organizational principles of other public figures (I was looking at Eli Pariser, Glenn Beck and Al Gore among others) so I reworked the headers to better divide up the content. There is still a fair bit of missing material, he wrote a book called Rebuild the Dream that was a NYT bestseller, each of this organizations has done a bunch of prominent work, and he has covered a bunch of major stories for CNN. I will come back to this and make further additions at a later date, would love help with this, especially formatting stuff, as I am new to editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crackedvessel (talk • contribs) 22:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Van Jones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101130060920/http://thewitness.org/article.php?id=695 to http://www.thewitness.org/article.php?id=695
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090305142903/http://greenforall.org:80/resources/green-for-all-2008-annual-report to http://www.greenforall.org/resources/green-for-all-2008-annual-report
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100228005422/http://www.americanprogress.org:80/issues/2010/02/van_jones.html to http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/02/van_jones.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160203121618/http://www.nj.com/news/times/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-19/126699394749660.xml&coll=5 to http://www.nj.com/news/times/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-19/126699394749660.xml&coll=5
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120913051418/http://www.dosomething.org/blog/chatterbox/brick-winner-may-replace-tavis-smiley to http://www.dosomething.org/blog/chatterbox/brick-winner-may-replace-tavis-smiley

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Van Jones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160324155245/http://gawker.com/5352832/who-is-van-jones to http://gawker.com/5352832/who-is-van-jones

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Where does the name "Van" come from?

David1776 (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Spouses relationship to Jimmy Carter

I removed poorly sourced material claiming that Van Jones' wife is the grandniece of Jimmy Carter. I tried finding better sources for this claim but could not. It is possibly true or it is possible that Jones' wife and the former President's grandniece share the same name. If someone can find a better source for this claim, please feel free to restore the claim. SueDonem (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Summary section

The summary section on this page contained extremely outdated information about Jones current occupation and was generally over-long and unwieldy. I edited it to reflect the more direct, succinct style of the bio pages of other public figures, simply listing out his most notable jobs and awards and clarifying his current job. The material that I removed from the summary is all contained elsewhere on the page, in most cases in much greater detail. Crackedvessel (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the Awards section needs more editing; yes, he has received much recognition, but everything does not need to be listed on this page. I suggest that it be limited to awards from national or higher organizations.Parkwells (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

9/11 Truther

In the first paragraph of the bio Jones name "appearing" on a petition on 911truth.org is mentioned, which is true. But There is no mention that he subsequently denied having signed any petition, and that this denial was not rebutted by the group, and they removed his signature stating they could find no record of him signing anything. It would seem that including a sentence about his name "appearing" on the petition without also stating immediately afterward that he denies having ever signed it is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.216.79 (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I separated out this topic from the larger section on his resignation because these accusations appear to be of a far greater magnitude than the rest (see the link to the article by Charles Krauthammer) and also proven demonstrably false, unlike many of the other accusations. Crackedvessel (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it should be made clear immediately that the claim was false and 911truth.org found they had no record of his signature. We don't have to go through Krauthammer saying it's important before learning that fact. It is now 2017 and time to clean up the article from the plethora of quotes during media attention.Parkwells (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Parents should be identified as in most other articles about notable personalities. ----

This looks like a useful article on the subject of Van Jones. http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2016/12/07/the-messy-truth-about-van-jones-n2256193 75.175.109.9 (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I think a search for a more neutral source based on reporting rather than opinion columnists would produce a better article. Malkin describes Andrew Breitbart as the "late great" and repeats his remarks trashing Jones. Understand that Townhall columnists, including Ann Coulter, are highly conservative.Parkwells (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Resignation Section Must Be Fixed or Deleted

Please refrain from he said / she said and quoting opinionated reporters. We don't care what a reporter thinks, nor what a blogger thinks, nor any other type of opinion. Please fix this section and take out all opinion oriented content and leave only the facts. I will check back in 24 hours to see it has been done. I removed a considerable portion to a previous entry in a section titled "Early Activism" due to lack of verifiable reference and citing. Don't make me have to do it again. It leads to defamation of character and biased material and absolutely nothing VERIFIABLE. If you all stick to the facts and adhere to our guidelines we would appreciate it. We do not care about any opinions one way or another. OPINIONS are not FACT. I'm recommending to the director of wikimedia that quotes be banned from political entries; unless the quote comes from the person for whom the biography is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venus III (talk • contribs) 03:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

First, part of the material you deleted from the "Early Activism" section was in fact a quote from Jones, so if it is OK to quote the subject then why did you delete it? Second, you are not the boss of us. You can check back as often as you want; barking orders on a talk page is not going to win you much support from other editors. I would suggest you read WP:V and WP:RS to get a better understanding of what is accepted as "verifiable" here. --RL0919 (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I certainly hope the National Enquirer does not make its way into what is acceptable. The East Bay Express is a tabloid. Please remove anything having to do with it. #15 is not a reliable verifiable source. Neither is #19 #20- which leads to defamation of character on the subject and other subjects in a non reliable verifiable source. This constitutes immediate removal. So please remove. 97.125.48.54 (talk) 04:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Above you will find a detailed reasoning for my request. I'm currently fact checking another source. But to leave it up there is wrong. Please remove it.

Being on tabloid-size paper does not make a publication unreliable. You have presented no legitimate evidence that the East Bay Express profile is unreliable beyond your own repeated assertions. And you should read the latest version of the article, because now you are complaining by number about references that were changed since your previous complaints (what was note 15 is now 16, and what was note 19 is no longer in the article). Personally, I'm going to refrain from responding to your comments unless you have legitimate improvements to suggest, because it is an obvious waste of time at this point. If someone else wants respond to you, more power to them. --RL0919 (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Holy Christ, the resignation section is a joke, just like the rest of the article. No mention of Jones's statements indicating that white people and corporations deliberately pollute black neighborhoods to kill black people, no mention of his racially-tinged comments concerning school shootings, no mention of his disruption of an event meant to bring together police and children. This whole fucking article is a complete whitewash that reads like it was written by Van "I signed that petition but now that I have been caught I claim otherwise" Jones.

You are absolutely right. This article is a disgraceful defense of an indefensible asshole. 98.215.210.156 (talk) 04:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Daver852

Van Jones is arguably one of the most malignantly racist agitators to ever have emerged onto the public scene. There is absolutely nothing this man ever says or writes that shows objectivity or receptivity. He acts as one who has declared all out war on all caucasian people. His aggressive, often violent tone, shows more raw intolerance toward whites than even legacy black activists like Al Sharpton and Malik Zulu Shabazz. He demonstrates no restraint or wisdom, and picks fights with the voracity of a delinquent teenager. He consistently portrays the black community and himself as wallowing in self pity. The fact that Obama has chosen this mas as an adviser is testimony to Obama administration's deeply racist bias, and is a greater travesty of political balance than even Donald Trump's inclusion of Steve Bannon within his cabinet. If Van Jones advised Obama, then it is not surprising to find that the 2016 presidential election was a "whitelash" against the Obama administration. Jones' extremist left influence on said administration certainly gave Americans reason to lash out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.216.19 (talk) 12:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The Talk page is to be used to improve the article, not to argue about opinions of the subject of the biography, or of the current administration or previous one. In early 2017, it is time to reduce the resignation section to facts, rather than quotes that repeat everyone's opinions. The incident is an example of political infighting, with each side trying to gain leverage. We don't have to repeat all the claims here, years later. Fundamentally, Jones attracted too much divisive attention and was proving to be a liability for the administration, so it was time for him to leave.Parkwells (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Nothing Burger?

Calling the Trump-Russia connection *on tape* a "Nothing Burger" is significant since he is a nightly panelist on CNN and speaks voluminously regarding this alleged collusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:58A:8600:6375:6497:2CF8:874C:70F3 (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2G360HrSAs This statement is publically available and can be confirmed by literally anyone with an internet connection, why is this being continously removed under the pretense of "false allegations" and "highly questionable source" when the video is literally the person himself clearly stating the "nothing burger" line? There is nothing "false" or "highly questionable" about any of this. King Arthur6687 (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

This is outrageous. The entire nothingburger statement itself is clearly not edited and it is accompanied by video. It doesn't even matter if this clip was stitched to anything, it stands on its own. Zatherz (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2017

The nothingburger should be added as there is 100% proof he said it. To be deleting it is 1984 in action. Clown town (talk) 01:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

It is a fact, with recorded proof, it is relevant, and it will stay here as long as it's accurately sourced. No worries. Justin15w (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Would appear Wikipedia is a leftist harbinger of fake news. Sources be damned if it doesn't fit the narrative, amirite? Keep on further locking down the article and erasing facts until history is rewritten. King Arthur6687 (talk) 04:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@BlueboyLI: Please be aware you're in violation of the one revert per day rule on this article. Justin15w (talk) 04:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Justin15w: As requested here is your enlightenment: You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page. I did not revert, I simply removed material that was poorly sourced. BlueboyLI (talk) 04:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

So it's my understanding that a video of the person in question stating the information provided on this wiki page is poorly sourced? Justin15w (talk) 04:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Regardless, removal of the exact material in a previous edit counts as a revert. I've asked the Admin Noticeboard to weigh in on this. Secondly ... guys? There is a VIDEO of him saying this. I am not for or against anyone but am simply trying to improve this wiki as you can see in my edit history. I am not biased. How can this reversion even stand? Justin15w (talk) 04:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

That is correct. You may want to familiarize yourself with the rules for editing BLPs: The 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 libelous. BlueboyLI (talk) 04:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, libelous material always comes from the subject actually stating the very thing in the wikipedia page. Stop being an activist. Put the factual information on the page. You sound ridiculous right now. Justin15w (talk) 04:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Firstly I'm no activist, just an editor who wants to keep wikipedia neutral & troll free. I'm sorry if my desire to help you become a better editor sounds ridiculous to you. BlueboyLI (talk) 05:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Does contentious material that is well-sourced (as in, a video) and that is not potentially libelous qualify for wikipedia inclusion? Justin15w (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

YouTube is not allowed as a reliable source in BLPs. Go here for more info on reliable sources. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources BlueboyLI (talk) 05:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Does a newsweek article stating what's inside the video not count as a legitimate source? http://www.newsweek.com/van-jones-cnn-nothing-burger-629853 Justin15w (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Consensus is being established below. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 17:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 July 2017

You should include the part where Van Jones called the Trump/Russia collusion story run by his employer, CNN, a "nothing burger." 174.192.9.93 (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

http://www.newsweek.com/van-jones-cnn-nothing-burger-629853 http://www.wnd.com/2017/06/van-jones-russia-scandal-a-big-nothing-burger/ http://thehill.com/homenews/media/340118-cnns-van-jones-okeefe-russia-nothingburger-video-a-hoax http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/28/cnns-van-jones-calls-russia-story-nothing-burger-l/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2G360HrSAs King Arthur6687 (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Consensus is being established below. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 21:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Request for consensus re: "nothingburger"

Which of these sources are acceptable for the inclusion of the nothingburger comment?

http://www.newsweek.com/van-jones-cnn-nothing-burger-629853 http://www.wnd.com/2017/06/van-jones-russia-scandal-a-big-nothing-burger/ http://thehill.com/homenews/media/340118-cnns-van-jones-okeefe-russia-nothingburger-video-a-hoax http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/28/cnns-van-jones-calls-russia-story-nothing-burger-l/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2G360HrSAs

Just curious as to which source is the most acceptable.

Thanks.

Justin15w (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The question is, should we include any mention of it at all? We don't include everything ever mentioned in a source about someone. It's quite possible that an editorial consensus could determine that this bit of ambush journalism is simply not important or relevant enough to Jones' life to include. The burden lies on the editor wishing to include contentious material in a BLP to demonstrate that such a consensus exists. Edit-warring the material is not acceptable. I would suggest starting an RFC if you wish to get a broader consensus opinion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I would go with Newsweek, seems the biggest name of the bunch. Ideally I'd just cite them all. As for the question of whether it should be mentioned: There are notable third-parties to the original source video reporting on it, that is notability and should satisfy requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. King Arthur6687 (talk) 06:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean which source is the most acceptable? The actual source, of course, which is the Veritas video. All of these other links would just be sources to sources. Zatherz (talk) 08:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

And secondary sources are preferred on Wikipedia... Saturnalia0 (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps adding Jones' response would be satisfying to all parties involved in the dispute? Such as in James O'Keefe#CNN undercover videos (2017)? Saturnalia0 (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I find no objection with that proposal as long as both sides of this are properly shown; that Jones did say "nothing burger" in relation to the Russia story (which he did!), and as proposed his response to the video showing him saying that line. King Arthur6687 (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

At this point, the material should not be included at all. O'Keeffe is a convicted criminal with a track record of misrepresentation and deceptive editing of the videos he releases. We cannot verify the context of what Jones actually said, and in particular whether he was referring to the substantive matter of what he expected the political outcome to be. A heavily edited if not doctored recording is not a reliable source and fails BLP standards. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)coop

What is your evidence that this video was "heavily edited if not doctored"? Nobody else has established this but it sounds like you've got the inside scoop, so please share. 2601:600:9B80:5C91:5921:AA43:9199:EEE9 (talk) 22:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The evidence that it is heavily edited is plain to see in the video. After the "How you been?" "I'm good" exchange, there is a cut. We don't know what may have been said leading up to "What do you think is going to happen this week with the whole Russia thing?" This excision of context means we don't know if Jones' "nothingburger" remark refers to the gravity of the evidence of collusion, or to the expected political impact of the scandal, or to the ratings impact of the story, or to something else. Then there is an abrupt cut after "There's nothing there you can do..." so we don't know how that sentence might have ended. Ambiguous and manipulative video from a disreputable source does not merit inclusion in the article. Ewulp (talk) 03:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm among those editors who also believes this doesn't belong; it was a 5-minute flash-in-the-pan news story that disappeared from view almost instantly, and like pretty much all of O'Keefe's "scoops," turned out to be a giant nothingburger itself. What news coverage there was, ended up focusing on the misleading manipulation and editing of the interview and on Jones' cogent refutation which basically shut down the story; as such, that might belong in O'Keefe's biography or in an article about Project Veritas, it doesn't belong here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The proposed content addition tells us nothing about the subject of this article: Van Jones. Debating over which source to use is nonsensical when the actual proposed text addition doesn't belong here regardless. (And by the way, O'Keefe & his Project Veritas are about as far away from Wikipedia's reliability requirements as you can get, and the other sources mentioned above basically just say "according to O'Keefe".) Try to remember this article is a BLP, and more importantly, this is an encyclopedia. I can just imagine the response the 7th grade teacher will get when she asks her student to explain what a "nothing burger" and a "Russia thing" is in the report he turned in about Van Jones: "I have no idea - it didn't say, but it must be important, because it was in Wikipedia!" Xenophrenic (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

This might be relevant on Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, but I don't see how it's relevant here. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The problem in regards to Jones is that he and his network have used extensive time and energy in covering the "Russia thing" for months and then he goes on video and says it's all a big hoax, a spin story or as he said so well him self; a "nothingburger". I'd say it belongs in the article. Beatitudinem (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Nothingburger

It's manifestly clear that the exclusion of the Nothingburger statement is political. Wikipedia is notoriously left-leading, so it tends not to include politically inconvenient facts even when

I wish to restart this debate. The description by Van Jones of the Russia issue as a "nothingburger" was significant enough that he felt the need to address it in a segment on CNN. It has been reported by numerous reputable and mainstream news orgnaizations. It should be included. JDiala (talk) 01:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Van Jones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150627195622/http://humanrightsaward.org/past-honorees/ to http://humanrightsaward.org/past-honorees/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Van Jones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160729071802/http://chicagoist.com/2012/08/31/prince_announces_welcome_2_chicago.php to http://chicagoist.com/2012/08/31/prince_announces_welcome_2_chicago.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

A subheading about the resignation is needed

I came to this Wikipedia entry to find out what Van Jones had resigned from, since I had no other information about the event. The table of contents gave no clue so I had to read the whole entry to find out he had worked in the White House and resigned from there. So, I went to add the subheading "Resignation from White House role" in the appropriate place, in order to make the entry more helpful to readers, and discovered the restrictions that are in place. I do not want to get involved in a highly politicized debate about Van Jones with anyone here, or risk being sanctioned in any way. I'd like people who were involved in these debates to reflect on the impacts of their behavior. I have noticed it is getting harder to edit and contribute to Wikipedia, because of political controversies like this. If anyone else with more Wikipedia editing experience would like to add in such a subheading, that would be great. Thank you. EvidenceFairy (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Jones' departure from the White House Council position is covered where it should logically appear in the Van_Jones#White_House_Council_on_Environmental_Quality section, which is in the table of contents, so I'm not understanding your concern. Are you proposing that we should have a separate subheader for every time the subject ends a position, project or job? I don't see the utility in that. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

My apologies for not being clearer. For most people who work for a time in the White House, it remains a career highlight or notable event for the rest of their life. In Van Jones' case, the significance of his time there and the reason he ended it, goes beyond just one person ending one of their jobs. Some argue it set a precedent for future political scandals involving White House appointees for the remainder of Obama's term of office. I would have just fixed the issue of the subheading myself, but this is the first time I've encountered WP:ARBAPDS, which made me want to discuss the issue here first instead.EvidenceFairy (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I guess I'm still just not seeing how Jones' 6-month stint in the White House position, and departure, warrant the multiple sub-headers you are suggesting (See WP:STRUCTURE). I certainly don't see any "precedent-setting" handling of the situation conveyed by the presently cited sources; such situations are actually rather routine long before and long after the Jones' stint. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Van Jones

How tall is Van Jones? I've Googled it, but it doesn't tell what Van Jones Height and Weight are! Debra4504 (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Puff Piece

This reads like a PR brochure released by a political candidate. Did you just abandon all pretense of NPOV? —joeFriday— ^{talk}  16:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any constructive suggestions for what should be added to the article or changed, and what reliable sources support those additions or changes? Simply declaring that something is a "puff piece" does not help solve a problem. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

At a certain point in his career, Mr. Jones called Republicans "assholes." The incident has been delicately paraphrased in this Wikipedia entry as "strong language." I tried twice to revise this high-flown (and inaccurate) euphemism to something slightly more direct and honest, e.g., "vulgar" or "crude" language. But the guardians of Mr. Jones's reputation were having none of it. Perhaps this is what —joeFriday— means when he talks about the entry being a "puff piece."

NicholasNotabene (talk) 10:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Why did Van Jones apologize?

At a certain point in his career, Van Jones publicly referred to Republicans as "assholes." A Wikipedia editor insists on referring to this incident with the euphemism of "strong language." At various points over the last several weeks, or perhaps months at this point, I have tried changing this euphemism to some word slightly more honest: e.g., crude, vulgar, inflammatory, incendiary. It keeps getting reverted. I have to confess my puzzlement: If this is merely "strong" language, why in the world did Van Jones apologize for using it? Surely "strength" is good, after all? Mr. Jones himself stated, in making his apology, that his previous comment had been "clearly inappropriate." Why so? Perhaps it was clearly inappropriate because it was crude, vulgar, and inflammatory, if not incendiary? If I'm forced to edit this yet again, perhaps using Mr. Jones's own locution of "clearly inappropriate," is the guardian of Mr. Jones's reputation going to revert my edit yet again? NicholasNotabene (talk) 03:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Just a few words of advice. (1) If you'll read the advisory notice located at the top of this Talk page, you'll see that it warns you: Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged. By your own admission, you have repeatedly, "over the last several weeks, or perhaps months", tried to insert your problematic wording over the objections of multiple editors, without reaching consensus to do so. For that alone, according to the advisory, "you may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned." (2) The same advisory warns you: Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). This revert and also this one both remove the word "strong" and add the word "inflammatory", and were made less than 17 hours apart. For that, you "... may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense." (3) If you happened to miss the advisory when leaving multiple comments at this Talk page, the following bold message also pops up whenever you edit this article:

You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article.
You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article.
You are required to abide by a civility restriction, and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page.

You are violating that civility restriction every time you (repeatedly) refer to your fellow editors disparagingly as "guardians of Mr. Jones's reputation". As of tonight, you've managed to hit the trifecta of blockable offenses. You may find it helpful to review our WP:BLP policy, and learn that every Wikipedia editor is required to be a guardian of all living persons against pointy edits such as these. Heed the warnings. I won't be reporting you right now, but I can't speak for everyone else.

Now back to the content issue. I'm not convinced by your argument that Jones referring to himself as an "asshole" is "inflammatory" or "vulgar" - that doesn't make a lot of sense. It's in the same league as "dickhead", "fucktard", "uppity", and other common colorful terms frequently used to describe someone's demeanor. If you'll watch the video of his presentation, in context, you'll see he is using the term in almost complimentary fashion to explain how the Republicans were able to push legislation through while the Democrats couldn't - and he added that the Democrats would need to start emulating the Republicans.

So tell me, NicholasNotabene, exactly what encyclopedic information about Van Jones are you trying to convey to our readers with your proposed wording changes? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 06:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Quote: "I'm not convinced by your argument that Jones referring to himself [except, whoops, he was actually referring to Congressional Republicans, but let's blithely ignore that fact] as an "asshole" is 'inflammatory' or 'vulgar' - that doesn't make a lot of sense. It's in the same league as 'dickhead', 'fucktard', 'uppity', and other common colorful terms frequently used to describe someone's demeanor. If you'll watch the video of his presentation, in context, you'll see he is using the term in almost complimentary fashion…"

Sure, you bet. Calling someone an "asshole" isn't inflammatory or "vulgar" (your sneer quotes).

Neither is calling them "dickhead", "fucktard", or "uppity." So if I were, for example, to (hypothetically) refer to you, using your own words, as an "uppity asshole" and a "dickhead fucktard," you'd take that "in almost complimentary fashion," and not be offended in the least — right?

Please. Instead of threatening me ("Heed the warnings. I won't be reporting you right now, but…"), why don't you just go ahead and block me or whatever it is you want to do in your piddling little position of authority? Your political bias is sticking out blatantly and you either can't see it or you simply refuse to admit it. The word "asshole" is insulting and inflammatory whether it comes from Van Jones or Mother Theresa, but please, go ahead, tie yourself in knots, and find some way to justify your views by throwing me off Wikipedia on the same day some other Wikipedia person posted a message on my Talk Page that I am "an awesome Wikipedian!"

I'm sure you can find a way to justify both your personal prejudices and your actions. Maybe you can even justify blocking me by citing the very same language — insulting, inflammatory, vulgar, crude, coarse, and abusive language, btw — that you yourself have so coyly introduced onto this page. NicholasNotabene (talk) 01:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)01:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Nobody wants you to be blocked. If someone *wanted* you to be blocked, they wouldn't bother providing you extensive warnings and talk page discussion explaining why your behavior is inappropriate - they'd just block you as WP:NOTHERE and be done with it. Xenophrenic's trying to help you, but you're not listening. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello! A kibitzer here, in a piddling little position of authority. I have the technical ability to block anyone I please. However, I'm in no mood to do so. ¶ Now let me doff my "piddling authority figure" hat. I agree with you, NicholasNotabene, that "asshole" is insulting and inflammatory. (Except, arguably, when it's entirely justified, as for example when applied to people such as -- oops, I'd better not say.) If we have good evidence that somebody used the term "asshole", and if the identification/insult is noteworthy, then to me as well, "strong language" seems a perverse euphemism for it. And I'm unconvinced by Xenophrenic's argument to the contrary. ¶ Let's appeal for accurate wording, not for martyrdom. -- Hoary (talk) 01:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

"Xenophrenic's trying to help you, but you're not listening." Yeah, God save us all from such "help." And such "civility." It was so civil to introduce the epithets "dickhead", "fucktard", and "uppity" onto the page (and into my face) while warning me of my uncivil attitude.

If someone wants another person blocked from Wikipedia, that's certainly the way to go about it: with concerned "warnings" and with all the i's dotted and the t's crossed, all the while looking to heaven, citing Wikipedia procedure, and making placatory noises about "civility." Over committing the Wikipedia crime of noting, in passing, that someone's use of the word "asshole" in a public context is inflammatory, instead of defending said abusive vulgarity. That's some "help" there, thanks. NicholasNotabene (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

N. B. My last comment above is not addressed to Hoary, whoever that may be. NicholasNotabene (talk) 02:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Me? I'm just a fly-by-night person of, as it happens, the aforementioned piddling position. (The conventional description of the position is of a janitor with a mop and bucket; but if you want to add urination to it, that's OK: I'm thick skinned.) ¶ But let's keep to the (non?) issue. I've just taken a look at the cited source. Jones called Republicans assholes. He also said that he was, at times, an asshole. And the cited source seems to take the term, in its context, to mean not "person whose most representative meronym is anus" but rather "abrasively and obnoxiously unscrupulous person". Within this context, the article's current characterization as "strong language" seems adroit. -- Hoary (talk) 04:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Al Gore under See Also

Is there a reason Al Gore is listed under "See Also"? I don't mind one way or the other, but the only connection between Gore and Jones established in the article is that Gore blurbed his book. If there's a deeper connection we should include that in the article; otherwise the link to Gore within the article should suffice and a See Also reference would not be warranted. Circumspect (talk) 02:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

New Dream Corps Project: New Yorkers United for Justice

Please add New Yorkers United for Justice to the summary section listing the Dream Corps projects Mr. Jones currently oversees.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethakin (talk • contribs) 21:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Reform Alliance

In April it was announced that Van Jones was the CEO of a prison reform organization founded by Jay-Z, Meek Mill and Robert Kraft and Michael Rubin among others. This seems quite notable and was widely covered n the media, and was recently in the media again due to the developments in the Meek Mill trial. I was going to add a section for Reform Alliance to the "career" header, but can't because of the new restrictions. Does anyone with higher permissions than mine want to add this new section? Basic information on the Reform Alliance can be found here: https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/24/entertainment/jay-z-meek-mill-prison/index.html Crackedvessel (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC) @crackedvessel

Advice for citation needed

New editor here! I'm participating in an editathon and wanted to add a citation for this sentence, "Prince went on The View with Jones and Rosario Dawson to promote the concerts." The source that I found was the actual "The View" television appearance. I'd like some guidance on how to navigate this and am open to feedback. Lhamilt77 (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)