Jump to content

Talk:Van Jones

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.163.2.250 (talk) at 01:37, 28 February 2010 (Please Resoond). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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?

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)[reply]

Add Category:Sustainability advocates

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

checkY Done. Thanks for the suggestion. --RL0919 (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Bongomatic 05:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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. Bongomatic 03:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Naming

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

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)[reply]

IP edits to lead

24.147.62.213 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) keeps cutting the same material from the lead (e.g., [1], [2]) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[{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) [1] 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.[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  1. ^ Speedy Deletion
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Van_Jones&oldid=346795008"