Talk:Justin Jones (Tennessee politician)

Missing Career Information

The biographical account stops with Jones enrolling at Vanderbilit Divinity College and the article continues with an account of his protests, arrests, and criminal acts. This creates the impression that the latter consituted his career before his election to the Tennessee legislature. This should be clarified. If his profession was indeed that of protester, it would also be relevant to know how he supported himself. If he engaged in some other kind of work, it should be included. WmDKing (talk) 10:17, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Should this page be protected?

While maybe not overt vandalism, there was some obviously loaded language with a citation from Fox News. For now, I think we should stick to the most obvious facts, that Jones was expelled for participating in a protest, and not say he "broke house rules by disrupting business," to paraphrase.

I was going to edit it myself but someone beat me to it in real time. So clearly emotions are high and this somewhat obscure page could potentially become a source of propaganda for either side.

Disclaimer: I am a Democrat so my opinion on this is obvious. But I think my suggestion is fair. 2603:7081:1603:A300:ACCE:C908:CA51:9CF (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

It shouldn't exist. It's vanity for career insurrectionist who has been arrested 15 times. 2604:CA00:13B:3D53:0:0:E7F:AB5D (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Is it Wikipedia practice to protect pages pre-emptively? Wiki. is supposed to be a user-created encyclopedia and so far this process seems to be working with Justin Jones. WmDKing (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Should the successor/predecessor in his role be "Vacant" instead?

Considering he did not immediately follow himself (impossible; that would simply be a contiguous term/continuously held seat), shouldn't the infobox section for his role in the Tennessee House be changed to having the role be "Vacant" between April 6 and April 10 (thus, for the part ending April 6, successor = Vacant; and for the part starting April 10, predecessor = Vacant as well)? 206.71.246.250 (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Vacancies happen all the time in legislative bodies and keeping track of said vacancies (especially for state legislatures or municipal councils) is difficult. The place to dictate if the seat was vacant at any point would be for the future page of the 52nd Tennessee House of Representatives page in its member history. Indicating a vacancy by infobox per every single politician would take a tremendous amount of effort for a pointless point. To add onto this related to legislative bodies, even during the transition from term to term, each individual's term ends at a specific time but may be inaugurated into the new term later or sooner than other members. Do we count the seconds the seat was empty as the time it was vacant? My answer is no, but something to think about regarding other future occurrences that may happen like this one. BWellsOdyssey (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

In this segment how are the races (black/white) relevant or necessary information?

"The Tennessee House voted on April 6, 2023, to expel Jones, alongside Pearson, who are both black. Johnson, who is white, survived the vote." Smankey415 (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

That should be self-evident, but in case you really need an explanation, follow the sources. The decision has ignited fierce partisan debate across the nation, as well as allegations of racism in the disparate treatment of Jones and Pearson, who are Black, compared with Johnson, who is White.[1] – Muboshgu (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be included then as context? Without that it sounds like the article is implying racism rather than it being what it is, an allegation of racism. Smankey415 (talk) 04:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

That has no effect in this. The white woman wasn't expelled because she was smart. When presented with the opportunity to shout into the megaphone like both Justin's we're doing she declined and continued to whisper. She did absolutely nothing compared to the Justin's Antonio B.1234 (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

 ——— 

That's your opinion, which is not WP:RS. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Just pointing out that this last response was added after the following sub-section was started.

What Antonio B. is saying is a valid argument that you also yourself added to the article, source included. So why now sound a false alarm about "not WP:RS". Str1977 ^(talk) 22:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits and unfounded reverts

I recently made two (and a half) changes to the article, which were promptly reverted under questionable reasoning [2]

1. I removed the word "allegedly" from the sentence: >>He was charged in 2019 with assaulting Glen Casada, a member of the Tennessee House of Representatives, by allegedly throwing a drink, believed to be a hot coffee, at him.<<
My reasons: While Jones was only charged and never convicted of this act, his throwing liquid is not a matter of opinion, allegation or dispute but can be seen on video. Furthermore, the sentence already says that "he was charged with" that. Hence, any worries about "innocent until proven guilty" is covered by that. Finally, he wasn't charged with "assuaulting Casada by allegedly throwing a drink", he was charged with "assaulting Casada by throwing" it.

2. The second change was in response to the section above, hence I placed this here as a subsection. The race of the Tennesee Three is highlighted without any reasoning: "expel Jones, alongside Pearson, who are both black. Johnson, who is white, survived the vote." This suggests that they were treated differently BECAUSE of their race, without actually saying so. Hence it is innuendo. If we want to include the allegation - which usually exists in all such cases - we need to do so explicitely and with sources. As long as this is not done, this racialist innuendo has to go. Note that, as the discussion above shows, this is not the only possible explanation.

2 1/2. A minor change was that I simplied "voted on April 6, 2023, to expel" by simply saying that the legislature "expelled them". Not only is "voted to expel" more wordy, it would also be true if the vote had had the opposite outcome.

For these reasons, I will reinstate my well-founded changes. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

These are all clearly controversial, please get consensus for them here before continuing to edit war. To address your points in particular:

1. The source says "authorities said". This is not a fact, it is an allegation.

2. Nearly all the news articles covering this event made the same point about race. This is clearly relevant to the topic.

3. "Voted to expel" is an important wording, as there are other ways that one could be expelled which are not immediately obvious to the reader. I don't see how making this less clear is an improvement. – bradv 20:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Number 1: We follow sources, not WP:OR interpretation of what you see on the video. The cited source says (emphasis added) "Jones, 23, was charged with assault in February after authorities said he threw a cup of liquid at Casada."
• Number 2: This has been discussed on this talk page before. Jones and Pearson are black, Johnson is white. This has been noted in the sources, and by Johnson herself, when she said that she suspects race is the reason she wasn't expelled and the two Justins were. This mention is WP:DUE.
• Number 2 1/2: Bradv makes a good point and keeping "voted to" is only two additional words. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

There's no consensus for the status quo either.

Ad 1. It is an allegation - it is also a fact, even if you try to deny it for POV reasons. We already say that he was charged with that. But he wasn't charged with "allegedly doing something" but with "doing something. It would be another.

Ad 2. The point about the three's "race" is that the status inserts innuendo, thus dispensing with actual sources or with including differing explanations. Yes, it has been discussed before but the result of that discussion is not what you would prefer. Inuendo is unencylopedic and again pushing a racialist POV.

Ad 3. That's a minor issue. I don't see how a legislature can expel a member if not by voting on that. But if other insist on making it wordy, so be it.

Str1977 ^(talk) 21:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

1. "Charged with something" means "allegedly doing something" unless later determined so by a court, which this wasn't.

2. Mentioning their races is not "innuendo". The sources are quite explicit on the racial factor and I don't get where you see the result of that discussion is not what you would prefer. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

1. Yes, if someone is charged with something it is common to say they "allegedly did something". But that's not what the article does. It says he was "charged with allgedly doing something" - that's saying the same thing twice.

2. As long as the article didn't spell out that some people said that they were treated more severely than their white colleague - and the article never spelled that out, let alone source it, this was innuendo. You could just as easily state that the two excluded ones are men and the spared one a woman. These are undoubtedly true. If now someone questions whether she was really spared BECAUSE she was a woman, you could always say that you never claimed that. Which would technically be true. Thus it is innuendo. You mention something without clearly spelling out the causality. It's one of the oldest tricks in the book.

No, the result of the discussion above is not what you prefer: you were the only one defending the status quo while three editors disagreed. And you know that perfectly well, because you recently (i.e. after this discussion here) added another response to try to change that picture.

However, your recent addition almost made the section NPOV. I removed the weasel word and now it's okay. It still could be better but it's acceptable now. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)