Talk:Van Jones

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"

[1] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

IP edits to lead

24.147.62.213 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) keeps cutting the same material from the lead (e.g., [2], [3]) 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)

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)