Talk:Van Jones

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)

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., [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)

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)

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)

[{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)

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.

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)

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)