Talk:Van Jones/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Semi-Protection

Given Glenn Beck's coverage of Van Jones, I think this page should be semi-protected. After all, Beck's Wikipedia page is semi-protected.

Reliefappearance (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

How funny that each day as Mr. Van Jones gets more coverage and people find out more radical things about him, the content of this source of information is changed and revised to make him look less frightening. Too bad that the people who are doing this forgot to do it before the word got out and everyone looked up and printed the facts about Mr. Van Jones. Obama should have thought about this before he named him the Green Jobs Czar, before he designed the now famous and useless "stimulus" package that has not stimulated anything other than the pockets of the unions, ACORN, the Apollo Project, the Tides Foundation, Social Justice movements and who knows how many other radical left and communist organizations that are trying to take over our country.

None of this general-purpose ranting has anything to do with the subject of this article. I know it's taken as given amongst the bug-eyed Glenn Beck crowd that Obama has engineered a commie takeover of the US, but that's not a mainstream political opinion. It's crazy talk. This article has been taken over by nutjobs. To read it, you'd think that something he said fifteen years ago matters far more than all the work he's done since then. It's a classic smear job and doesn't belong here. Here's a hint: Van Jones is not currently a communist. 24.19.56.18 (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Van Jones' past is not that easy to erase. Never thought I would see the day when an ex-convict who would not be allowed to hold a low level job at any city or county due to the fact that he would have failed the background check that is required, would get to visit the White House on a regular basis and hold the job of counselor to the President on issues related to the environment, jobs, and the economy. It is a very sad day in America when peace-loving Americans are told they are acting "un-American" only because they are voicing opinions related to freedom of choice about a health plan that is being pushed on them, freedom of speech and questioning if their representatives in Congress are reading the bill. Now people surrounding the President of the United States are radicals, nationalists, communists, and extremists and it is all good, all considered business as usual.

Oh, but let's not forget that terrorists have rights. Mr. Van Jones has been a big advocate of prisoners' rights in the past. I wonder if he had anything to do with giving terrorists the right to remain silent, get an attorney, and making sure the CIA no longer is allowed to question them. Our founding fathers must be turning in their graves as they see what is happening in America today. It will not be long before the Constitution is revised to fit the agenda of Mr. Van Jones and our other new leaders.

Mr. Van Jones' "Color of Change" organization has been trying to silence the opposition by collecting signatures to get advertisers to stop promoting their products on the Glenn Beck program. He may be the force behind the decision to have a new Diversity Czar who will make sure to forever quiet the voices of those who do not agree. Be prepared to see radical changes in the airways, on the internet and any other mass media outlets.

Communism is alive and well in America! Our nation is being "Fundamentally Transformed" just as Obama promised. We will be told how to think, what to eat, how many kids we can have and how we should raise them, how much we should weight, what type of cars we should drive and how old we should be when it is time to die with dignity before we end up costing the government too much money. Smoking, drinking and having fun will be a thing of the past.

Radical changes from radical leaders like Mr. Van Jones are now taking place in America. September 11th has now been declared and signed into law by our president as "A day of Service"(?). What happened to remembering those who died painfully and innocently on that awful day as they went to work? Why is no one in NY complaining about this? Are they all blind or do they no longer care? Did our President think of consulting the families of those who died that day? Why is no one asking those questions? No, this is definitely a new era, an era of "responsibility"; isn't this what our President told us on his Inaugural speech? In the minds of the new Democrat Party, Americans are not sophisticated enough to know how to run their own lives so they need to be told. How is that CHANGE working for you?

[Special:Contributions/75.74.249.161|75.74.249.161]] (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 75.74.249.161 (talk) 03:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions for improving the article?

Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual/Collaborating_with_Other_Editors/Communicating_with_Your_Fellow_Editors

Reliefappearance (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok folks lets get this on the level this man is a self proclaimed communist. Therefore it needs to be a major part of this mans page. I feel that something like that needs to been known by everyone. How would you feel if a guy was a confirmed pedophile and later decided to change his ways are you going to let him run your kids daycare? Its the same thing when a communist is allowed to become part of our republic we stand to lose more than anyone can imagine.

Here is a quote from the communist himself, “I met all these young radical people of color — I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ‘This is what I need to be a part of.’” Although he already had a plane ticket, he decided to stay in San Francisco. “I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary.” In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. “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.”

Do you have any suggestions for improving the article?

Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual/Collaborating_with_Other_Editors/Communicating_with_Your_Fellow_Editors

Reliefappearance (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Van Jones as issued two apologies through the whitehouse in 24 hours. That is the real deal folks. JohnHistory (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Add category communist

This man is a self-described communist who has devoted much of his life to marxist-leninism. He belongs in the category American communists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.85.63 (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

[Interjected] What's the source? Be bold and add it if you have a source. 24.199.34.242 (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's a source, the East Bay Express for one:

Jones told the East Bay Express in 2005:

"I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th [1992], and then the verdicts came down on April 29th. By August, I was a communist. (...)"

"I met all these young radical people of color – I mean really radical: communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.' I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary."

But i'm sure this will be scrubbed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.108.228 (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

He was once a college student, so should he be categorized as a former college student? The political evolution section explains the context of the communist references and clearly explains that he's a proponent of market based solutions.

Gfanslow (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's oxymoronic to present "as fact" an avowed communist who favors market solutions. Market solutions fall within the realm of capitalism. He can't have it both ways...it's clearly codespeak. Thoughtthinker (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This man is very controversial and has made several offensive public statements. The Wikipedia page sounds as though Mr. Jones edited it himself. I wish someone more familiar with Wikipedia than myself would give a more complete picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.171.34.222 (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

gfanslow, you are obstructing logic. What you said would be like if someone else said "so and so was a part of the NBA" and then you say it that shouldn't be added, because then shouldn't we add that so and so is also a human being? Do you see how wrong that is? You can't compare avowed communists with the number of college grads. You just can't. JohnHistory (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

I agree with the above, its nice that a commie nutjob gets appointed to such a high ranking position, I know ill sleep better at night. I also enjoyed all of his 'many awards' all in 2008? lmfao —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.255.18.151 (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the source? Be bold and add it if you have a source. 24.199.34.242 (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems like user User:Hidenothing:Hidenothing is whitewashing this page pretty often. Can anything be done about this? 98.221.253.140 (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, must be nice to be an admitted communist and somehow get a job working for the United States government. Looks like Messiah Obama's time with Racist Reverand Wright and government-hater William Ayers has carried over into his Presidency. What a sick world we are living in!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.202.229 (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It's clear that the people adding this are adding it for the purposes of promoting a non-neutral point of view. Is there a way of phrasing this information that communicates what is important about this person without telling readers what to think about him? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I've given in a try. The paragraph didn't fit well in the introduction- I moved the information about his young activism to the section about his youth. The fact that he holds a White House position is already the subject of a pargraph in the article, but this paragraph didn't add any new information from reliable sources; the section on "Color of Change" would be an interesting new paragraph, but no reliable sources were cited that I could use to create such a paragraph. New users- Wikipedia is only for communicating verifiable facts, and not for drawing conclusions or making judgements; see WP:NPOV for more information on that. Obviously there's still plenty of room for improvement of this article as more sources write about Jones.-FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

hey fisherqueen i've been reading these comments tha you ask for sources but I must have missed the source that has van jones publicly denouncing that he is still a communuist. please tell me what that source is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.54.176.39 (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the category- the article cited says that he was in a socialist organization in his youth, but it seems to imply that he is no longer part of that organization. Can we get a source verifying that he still identifies himself as a socialist or a communist, or is a member of the Socialist or Communist Party? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It's oxymoronic to present "as fact" an avowed communist who favors market solutions. Market solutions fall within the realm of capitalism. He can't have it both ways...it's clearly codespeak. Thoughtthinker (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Clearly codespeak? What does that even mean? Do you have any idea how crazy you sound? This article is under attack. 24.19.56.18 (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

If, after labeling himself a communist, Van Jones eagerly embraced capitalism, it must be asked: is it possible that he didn't really understand the meaning and implications of the term "communist" when he ascribed it to himself? Is it possible that what's going on here is a semantical war between ideologues, one that boils down to much ado about little? --Panglos (talk) 10:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

the "Awards and honors" section

this section seems extremely POV, i checked several other Wikipedia biography pages and none of them had a section like it, where even the trivial awards are listed for all to see. more prominent people who have won more awards than him do not have such a section(Bill Gates for example, and he is a knight of the realm). and some of the stuff are trivial (“Sexiest Men Living”) , plain useless ("Elle Magazine Green Award"), and just downright POV (the rest of them). the awards should be either written into the article or just deleted outright.Random219 (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Lists like this do appear in other biographical articles (and occasionally there will even be a whole article of such), but it is easy for them to become trivial. I haven't looked at the list in this article too closely (because there have been plenty of other things to do with this article), but it probably just needs culling so it focuses on more significant items (things like fellowships and awards from notable foundations) and omits most of the magazine/website list entries. --RL0919 (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I made a first pass at cutting things that shouldn't be there. (For example, having a bestselling book is an achievement, but it is not an "award" or an "honor".) --RL0919 (talk) 22:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"Color of Change"

Shouldn't this article at least mention the group "Color of Change?" He seems to be deeply associated with it. Here is the article I found about this.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33134

And plus, he is mentioned in the wiki article for Color of Change.

Jessemckay (talk) 22:40-22:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This speaks to objectivity. "Wow, must be nice to be an admitted communist and somehow get a job working for the United States government. Looks like Messiah Obama's time with Racist Reverend Wright and government-hater William Ayers has carried over into his Presidency. What a sick world we are living in!!!!" I had to edit "Reverend" because it was misspelled. This was a give away. Most conservatives can't spell "Obama." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.12.254.179 (talk) 06:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

And your objectivity is worthy of everyone's envy isn't it. Nice job proving you're an idiot too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.177.204.222 (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Removals of Carefully Cited Information

Attempts to add factual, relevant -- unfortunately controversial -- information about Jones was removed by "FisherQueen" alleging lack of documentation. The added language has been thoroughly cited, and there are many more confirmatory citations easily found on Web Search Engines. Attempts to suppress this information are the kind of censorship I experienced in communist countries and is not appropriate to the United States of America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewen12 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Obamaland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.206.168 (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where "Obamaland" is, but the detailed explanation of every sentence of the paragraph in question is at User talk:Dewen12. I'm afraid most of it is simply against Wikipedia's rules, so it won't be able to stay in this article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

(copied from User talk:Dewen12, discussing this content)

By his own account and international reporting, Jones evolved as a "roudy [Black] nationalist" collaborating as an avowed Communist with radical Marxists and Maoists.

• The article says that he was part of a socialist organization which read the work of Marx and Lenin in his youth. I added that to the section on his youth, with the source you cited. The word 'radical' is an emotionally weighted word, not neutral. 'Marxists and Maoists' doesn't seem to accurately paraphrase what that section of the article says.

Appointed as a so-called "green czar" among the officials President Obama has installed in his government avoiding advice and consent of the Senate ,

• The article already discusses his White House position. "So-called" is a word which makes a value judgement, not neutral. 'Avoiding advice and consent of the Senate' is your own analysis, not verifiable fact. The source you cite is a blog, and so not usable.

Jones was reported in August 2009 when a Black activist organization he founded called "Color of Change" , began pressuring companies to stop advertising with the popular Glenn Beck cable TV show.

• This is interesting, and might be a useful addition to the article. But your only cited source is WorldNetDaily, which is not a reliable source, both because it has a strong bias against the subject, and also because it publishes incorrect or inaccurate information too often for Wikipedia to be able to use it as verification of facts. I'd be interested in adding a paragraph about this if it has been discussed in a more reliable source.

This occurred after Beck reported Jone's involvement in the "Apollo Alliance," where Beck cited Jones as a key architect of so-called "stimulus" and "cap and trade" legislation -- both highly controversial programs reported by the Congressional Budget as likely sources of deficits and job loss.

• There are no independent sources here. You've linked to the congressional budget, but not to the coverage of this matter in independent sources. Again you use the non-neutral phrase "so-called."

Irrespective of partisan views on these issues, concerns now arise that suppression of this reporting (including removal of carefully cited information from Wikipedia due to alleged lack of documentation), has a chilling effect on freedom of the press and ultimately representative government.

• This entire sentence is your personal analysis, and does not contain any verifiable facts. It is, in its entirety, a violation of WP:NPOV.

In addition to these problems, you've dropped the paragraph into the middle of the introduction in a way that interferes with the readability of the article- an article needs to be organized in a way that would make sense to a reader from beginning to end. I hope this helps you understand why this paragraph simply won't work in the way you have written it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I am 100% confident that this paragraph is a violation of WP:NPOV, for the reasons I've discussed here, in the edit summaries, and at User talk:Dewen12. Rather than edit-war over it, which is against the rules, I've asked for a third opinion at Wikipedia:Third opinion. I hope that a few more voices will be helpful in weighing in on whether or not Wikipedia's policies would allow this paragraph to continue in the article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I hear clearly FisherQueen's argument that the wikipedia article should remain NPOV and thus the POV additions would be best to be left out. rkmlai (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

(from WP:3O, though there are now three editors discussing here) The proposed addition also would require better sourcing, doubly so since this article treats a living person. A reader leaving this article should have basically the same impression and know most of the same information as if they had consumed the relevant articles in the New York Times, BBC, and similar news sources noted for their fact-checking and reliability. Points that are never treated by that caliber of source probably do not belong in the article. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what an awful paragraph. I tried to rewrite it, but found that the sourcing was so incredibly poor and the wording was so emotive and slanted as to warrant a complete do-over. There is useful content there (he was appointed a "green czar" and he got into a conflict with Glen Beck) but better sources are absolutely required. No blogs, no commentary (except when citing directly attributed NOTABLE opinions -- for example that of Glen Beck), and more mainstream sources are required. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The article already mentions the Special Advisor position (though not the informal "green czar" appellation). He didn't "get into a conflict with Glenn Beck" - that was Color of Change, an organisation he founded and left several years before the Beck saga. Rd232 ^talk 18:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of Mr. Joens time in prison? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jspugh (talk • contribs) 00:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you point to a specific reliable source that discusses that in enough detail to use? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Jones never went to prison. That's why it isn't in the article. Falcon8765 (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I went to the color of change website and found this petition on their home page. http://colorofchange.org/ I don't know if this would be considered a reliable source or not, but I can't imagine a more reliable source than the very group being accused. I hope this will allow at least this portion of the information aforementioned to be added to his wiki. Thank you.--Butch864 (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

former black nationalist and communist

I'm new to Wiki editing but I noticed there's some fishy stuff going on here. From 1992 to around 2004, Jones was a known activist, specifically a black nationalist. He was a member of the radical group S.T.O.R.M. in San Francisco. He was active and briefly arrested during the King protests in '92, and "became a communist" after his experience being held in city jail. I didn't even mention this because he was held for just 4 hours. This information is fact, available everywhere. It's a significant part of Jones professional development so it bears mentioning "above the fold" yet a user, Hidenothing, has deleted my edits and claimed he/she "Removed inaccurate information." Facts are facts, Hidenothing. What are you afraid of? 68.110.203.144 (talk) 13:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

68.110.203.144 has made 3 edits, 2 to the main and one here. Anarchangel (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

so? is there a problem with that?RodentofDeath (talk) 06:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't sign my post. I forgot to log in.CheshireCatRI (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Leftwingers tend to be people who don't have jobs and have nothing better to do than sit around editing Wikipedia all day between bong hits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.216.15.11 (talk) 15:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There, you see, the facts. And if you want more proof? 150.216.15.11, unlike leftwingers, is too busy even to sign his post, or have made more than eight edits since March 2008.

Ad hominem? I would say not, and am a good man and will not do nothing. Anarchangel (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Let's refrain from personal attacks and discuss this civilly. Random blogs aren't reliable sources, but here is a source where Van Jones discusses the whole brouhaha during the Rodney King protests: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/van-jones/15-years-ago-rodney-king-_b_48361.html This should be sourced instead per WP:SELFPUB.--The lorax (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

the east bay express is a reliable source. the huffington post is biased and is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.90.26 (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• The Huffington Post link comes from an article that Van Jones himself wrote. WP:SELFPUB sources tend to be considered more reliable than alternative news weeklies.--The lorax (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Replacing a source because of a controversy over which one is preferred is one thing; removing the entire section because of it is quite another, lorax. Restored. Anarchangel (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF, shouldn't we be conscious that this is a pretty contentious claim that is being singled out; we should include as much information to not make this seem taken out of context. I think we can put this information into the Early Activism section and remove Political Evolution all together. The Awards section is a bit trivial as well and should be weaved into prose somehow.--The lorax (talk) 03:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see some documentation that Van Jones has denied his past communist professions, as stated in the current page. As it reads now, it seems way too syrupy, and glosses over relevant facts. Way too many external links are directed to his own web sites, hardly a source of unbiased facts, and I also agree that Huffington is not credible either on this or any topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.190.232 (talk) 04:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I too would like to see a cited reliable source to quote Mr. Jones that he refutes communist activities. I would also agree that Huffington post blogs or any blogs are NOT reliable sources per WP:RS and should be removed. 74.229.224.16 (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The Huffington Post is a controversial source -- I don't think there is a strong consensus one way or the other as to the reliability of its news articles. It's blog posts on the other hand, are not appropriate sources unless one of the standard exceptions (such as Jones writing about himself) applies. I just cut reference to a blog cited in response to the Beck criticisms. There are two other cites to The Huffington Post in the article. One is a blog post by Jones, which is allowed per WP:SELFPUB. The other is a news article about a relatively non-controversial topic, which seems to be well documented (including interview quotes from Jones himself), so I think that is OK to keep. --RL0919 (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

SOMETHING FISHY GOING ON

I see all the damning information I read yesterday has been removed. == —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.82.28 (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

One contribution. There is indeed something fishy going on, even if it is only a sudden spate of IPs. Anarchangel (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

STORM’S embrace with Marxism, inspiration from Mao Tse-tung

I'm stunned that neither this article nor the one on STORM mentions the organizations' goal of creating a Marxist-Leninist-Socialist "utopia". The STORM article has a link to one of [STORM's "self-assessment" and history|http://www.leftspot.com/blog/files/docs/STORMSummation.pdf], which has the following quote:

STORM’S Approach to Marxism
STORM was never formally a “Marxist-Leninist” organization, and we never had a systematic Marxist theoretical framework. But we did have a political commitment to the fundamental ideas of Marxism-Leninism. We upheld the Marxist critique of capitalist exploitation. We agreed with Lenin’s analysis of the state and the party. And we found inspiration and guidance in the insurgent revolutionary strategies developed by Third World revolutionaries like Mao Tse-tung and Amilcar Cabral.

--Tjdadis (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, this article is about Van Jones, not about STORM. If you think there should be an article about STORM, and have better sources than the blog you cite here, go for it, and have fun writing it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

As to the "blog", the link was to a PDF of a STORM publication, the same link that this wikipedia references in its current STORM article. So I dont see any dispute that the PDF is genuine copy of STORM's own publication as a "self-assessment" and history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjdadis (talk • contribs) 00:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

There's already a discussion of STORM in this article, and mention of Jones' being a communist. But that section begs the question of Jones' being inspired by Marx, Lenin and Mao. It begs that Jones' founded STORM and therefore was a leader in its espousal of policies that lead the the death and enslavement of up to a billion people continuously during a 70 year history. A philosophy that this country fought for nearly 50 years.

Yet, this man has government clearance to work in the White House and reports directly to the President. --Tjdadis (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I find it frightening that pages related to members of the Obama administration aren't editable. I've lost a lot of faith in Wikipedia today. Controversy is part of life and IS a fact. So, we're not allowing facts because they're controversial??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GAP123 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You can edit the articles if you aren't an IP address and have a username. Every article related to the Obama administration is plagued with vandalism. Falcon8765 (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't heard any suggestions for what the article is missing.--The lorax (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Because you haven't been listening... OH SNAP! Ninja337 (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would anyone waste time editing knowing one of you will delete it. I agree with sinebot. I've lost a lot of faith in Wikipedia. Someone needs to start a new one that is open and free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.15.181 (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate information on Van Jones

Here is the inaccurate sentence on Wikipedia about Van Jones

"Jones started his career as a staunch critic of capitalism; his outrage over the Rodney King verdict radicalized him to the point where he declared himself a communist (he has since renounced these views) and actively began protesting police brutality.[17]"

No where is Van Jones directly or indirectly quoted as saying he has renounced communism. The author states, "Van Jones renounced his rowdy black nationalism on the way toward becoming an influential leader of the new progressive politics." But that sentence is only her opinion (my 30 years in journalism and public relations knows the difference between an opinion and an indirect or direct quote).

And I'm not convinced that a reporter with the East Bay News is a credible "independent" source about this controversial person.

The parenthesis (he [Van Jones] has since renounced these [communist] views) needs to be removed from the Wikipedia site until direct evidence of that claim can be footnoted/sourced from an independent source or from Van Jones himself in a public statement.

Usmcpao (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)usmcpao

Agree. 74.229.224.16 (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Eva Paterson, Jones's former boss, backs up what is presently written:

“ This charge is easily refuted - most obviously by the pro-business, market-based ideas Van has promoted for years, including in his best-selling book, The Green Collar Economy. Van's book is a veritable song of praise to capitalism, especially the socially responsible and eco-friendly kind.

Yes, for a while, Van and his student-aged friends ran around spouting 1960s rhetoric and romanticizing revolutionary icons. But that was years ago. Way back then, I counseled him to rethink his tactics and to work for change in wiser ways.

In time, he jettisoned his youthful notions and moved on to seek more effective and attainable solutions.

”

::The lorax (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a blog of personal opinion and not a reliable source per WP:RS. 74.229.224.16 (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The Huffington Post, although biased, is a reasonably reliable source for this case. Falcon8765 (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "(he has since renounced these views)" does not need to be there, let the facts that appear later in the section speak for themselves -- he later wrote a book that some interpret as a renunciation however he never explicitly said "I am not a communist anymore". -- Dougie WII (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Will we ever hear the truth?

I wonder if Obama will ever stand in defense of this 'friend", "adviser" or whatever Jones is calling himself these days. But he sure isn't calling him self in anything protesting against being a communist! Rep. Dianne Watson must ALSO be one as well... let's keep the information that we KNOW on the front page in here and stop molding people into what you want instead of what is real. MitchinaMitchina (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

His writings and the policies he advocates in no way indicates that he is a Communist as of the present. Falcon8765 (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Many of us held positions as college students that we don't hold as adults. I certainly did. If everyone who was a communist in college were still a communist, then the Communist Party would have stood a good chance of winning the last election. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting standard. Is it Wikipedia policy? If so, please apply your reasoning to Bob McDonnell where his Boston University thesis is cited critically. Either include the information brought up into this article, or apply your "it was a position he held a long time ago" standard to similar articles. If you refuse to do this, then we have a problem. No, sorry, you can't ignore the request, you're an administrator. 68.84.6.98 (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The article currently mentions the (reliably sourced) fact that Jones became a communist in the early 1990s, and it also mentions Glenn Beck's criticism suggesting that he is still a communist. What the article does not contain is any forthright claim of fact saying that he is still a communist, because there is apparently no reliable source to verify such a statement. If you have a reliable source to verify that, please bring it forward and the article can be updated accordingly. Bear in mind that because this is a biography of a living person, controversial claims must be strongly sourced, to avoid exposing Wikipedia and its editors to libel claims. --RL0919 (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

no selective quoting from primary sources to support a POV are your own words, yet Bob McDonnell still references a primary source, that being a student thesis, and quotes it directly: '"At page 20 of the thesis, he wrote, "man’s basic nature is inclined towards evil, and when the exercise of liberty takes the shape of pornography, drug abuse, or homosexuality, the government must restrain, punish, and deter."' This quotation is not found in the Washington Post article being referenced, rather, it is taken from the primary source itself. There is a clear double standard being employed. If not, please explain how primary sourcing can be applied there, but not here. 68.84.6.98 (talk) 05:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not edited on or even read the article about Bob McDonnell, so I can't speak to what might be going on there. You might have noticed that this is a volunteer operation, where editors and administrators work on items that they choose. There is no global responsibility for any individual editor or administrator to personally fix every problem that might exist on articles that they are not working on. If you think something inappropriate is in that article, I suggest you take it up at Talk:Bob McDonnell (if you haven't already), or simply fix the problem yourself. --RL0919 (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Van Jones

This bio left out alot of important subject matter such as he has been arrested and spent 8 years in jail for the Rodney King arrest. Looks like someone is telling you what to say 75.87.93.103 (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Because that is patently false; there would be a bunch more wharrgarbl over his appointment if that were the case. For clarification, he was arrested along with hundreds of others, however all charges were dropped.Falcon8765 (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

See [1]; lots of rumors and such running around, that is most likely the truth. Falcon8765 (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

A few issues

Having looked over this article a couple of times now, and having fixed some "easy" issues, there are a few more significant items that I wanted to bring up here. In descending order of importance (as I see it):

• Plagiarism - There are some passages in the article that have been lifted word-for-word from sources, not as quotes but as straight text. This is not acceptable and the passages need to be rewritten. In particular, the "Early life" section has verbatim passages from the Kolbert article, and the "Early activism" subsection is only slightly paraphrased from one of Jones's own blog posts. There may be other cases that I haven't found. Update: The two particular sections mentioned have been rewritten. Hopefully there are no others with this problem.
• POV - Some of the attempts to insert criticism of Jones into the article have been ham-handed and inappropriate, but the complaint of bias in the article has some foundation. For example, the high-profile criticism of Jones by Glenn Beck goes completely unmentioned, even though a refutation of it is cited as a source. That's pretty clearly a one-sided approach. The fact of Beck's criticisms should be mentioned, preferably cited from a neutral news source. There have been at least a couple of discussions of this in the LA Times "Show Tracker" blog that could be cited, and perhaps some other sources that aren't anti-Jones opinion pieces. Update: Beck's criticisms are now mentioned with appropriate sources. There may still be other POV issues.
• Full name - Per MOS:BIO, the lead ought to mention that "Van" is a nickname. The name of the article itself is fine, since he is best known as Van Jones, but a number of sources correctly mention that his given name is Anthony. Update: Given name added to lead.

I don't know that I will have time to fix all these myself, but they all need to be tackled, ideally before the semi-protection expires so that it doesn't have to be done while fighting vandals at the same time. --RL0919 (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Updated above. --RL0919 (talk) 03:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I read this article and its so biased toward van jones its absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.242.155 (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The profile of Van Jones is is an excellent example of historical revisionism. Obviously this was written as an attempt to rewrite history and influence agenda. Lets get this corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.211.105 (talk) 06:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Political Evolution Edit

I replaced the description of STORM with the description from STORM's own document. The original description described STORM as a collective which "dreamed of a multiracial socialist utopia". That is exceptionally vague. I replaced that description with STORM's description of themselves from their document, "Reclaiming Revolution, History, Summation, and Lessons from the work of Standing Togethor to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM)".

There was already a ref link to the document. I reused the link, although there are problems with the link. This document is becoming difficult to access. I will wait to see if the current ref link will be repaired, if it is not then I have the document and can post it. Aseidave (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

A repost of the document by a Wikipedia editor would probably both be a copyright violation and fail to qualify as a reliable source (since it would be hard to confirm the document wasn't tampered with). Neither would allow the source to be used as a citation in an article. A better bet would be to use a tool like the Internet Archive or WebCite. At the moment, the url currently used for that document has two archive copies in the Internet Archive, so those can be used if something happens to the original. --RL0919 (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The link to the .pdf file of the STORM document in this article is unreliable. I have found the same document in its entirety at Scribd.com. The link is here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/19223898/Reclaiming-Revolution-history-summation-lessons-from-the-work-of-STORM- I will update the ref tag to point to the scribd.com copy of the document. --AStanhope (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that's begging for the link to be removed later as unreliable/copyvio. The use of Internet Archive and WebCite has the support of the Wikipedia community. As far as I know there is no such support for the use of Scribd. I'll put in a {{cite web}} template with the Internet Archive link included in the 'archiveurl' field. That will give readers access to both the original url (when it works) and the archive (when it doesn't). --RL0919 (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

East Bay Express's response to Glenn Beck

Shouldn't we include East Bay Express's response to Glenn Beck? He's citing their profile, so it would seem fair to include their response to how he's interpreting it?--The lorax (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, why is this page so focused on Glenn Beck? Yes he talks about all this stuff on his show, howevewr I do believe this was Van Jones Wikipedia page, not Glenn's. Lets put Glenn's actions and words on GLENN'S wikipedia page and stick to Jones on this one. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.213.230 (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Beck is only mentioned in a few sentences, so I'm not sure what makes you believe the article is focused on him. Because Beck is a prominent and respected commentator, his criticisms of Jones have been widely circulated and have achieved attention from other news outlets. Therefore it is highly appropriate that they be mentioned here. That doesn't make the article about him. --RL0919 (talk) 21:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that should be included as that is not a response from the paper, as much as it is a personal opinion in their BLOG section and not the news section of their paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.83.28.130 (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this doesn't belong, for a few reasons: 1) It is a blogged response by a staff writer, and thus should not be presented as if it were a formal response by the paper; 2) It is a criticism of Beck's usage of sources rather than a commentary on Jones per se, and thus is more appropriately placed in the article on Beck (where it would probably not be considered noteworthy enough to include); and finally, 3) The very mention of Beck's source appears to be introduced solely for the purpose of poking a hole in his claims, creating a tit-for-tat presentation that gives undue weight to the response. --RL0919 (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree it does not belong either. For example, President Bush's article is not full of citations from Keith Olbermann's program is it? This article is not about Glenn Beck. Reliefappearance (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Van Jones in Quotes

VAN JONES: All we do is take out the dirty power system, the dirty power generation in a system and just replace it with some clean stuff, put a solar panel on top of this system. We don't deal with how we are consuming water, we don't deal with how we're treating our other sister and other brothers' species, we don't deal with toxins, we don't deal with the way we treat each other, if that's not a part of this movement, let me tell you what you'll have. This is all you'll have. You'll have solar powered bulldozers, solar powered buzz saws, and biofuel bombers and we'll be fighting wars over lithium for the batteries instead of oil for the engines and we'll still have a dead planet. This movement is deeper than a solar panel, deeper than a solar panel. Don't stop there. Don't stop there. No, we're going to change the whole system.

VAN JONES: And our Native American sisters and brothers who were pushed and bullied and mistreated and shoved into all the land we didn't want, where it was all hot and windy, well, guess what, renewable energy. Guess what, solar industry. Guess what, wind industry. They now own and control 80% of the renewable energy resources. No more broken treaties. No more broken treaties. Give them the wealth. Give them the wealth. Give them the dignity. Give them the respect that they deserve. No justice on stolen land. We owe them a debt.

VAN JONES: What about our immigrant sisters and brothers? What about our immigrant sisters and brothers? What about people who come here from all around the world, who we're willing to have out in the fields with poison being sprayed on them, poison being sprayed on them because we have the wrong agricultural system and then we're and we're willing to poison them and poison the Earth to put food on our table but we don't want to give them rights and we don't want to give them dignity and we don't want to give them respect?

VAN JONES: The white polluters and the white environmentals are essentially steering poison into the people of colored communities.

So basically we have a person that believes in the redistribution of wealth (hmn...wasn't this a controversial topic during the election season?) based on race, believes "we have the wrong agricultural system," and believes whites are deliberately poisoning (implied by actively "steering") minorities. This is controversial , and yet, it is not found anywhere in the article. Why is that? 68.84.6.98 (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Quit pushing your point of view about. Falcon8765 (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me? How is quoting someone pushing a POV? Are you saying these quotes aren't controversial or notable? If so, please explain and cut the false, ad hominem, bad faith, accusation. 68.84.6.98 (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a quote, but I am not sure what you are proposing for the article. What is the fact about Jones that you want to add to the article, and what is the independent source that discusses that fact? Random quotes without context, selected to make a point or push a specific point of view, aren't that useful in an encyclopedia article . -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Quite true. I think this article could be easily managed if editors simply remembered that 1) original research is not allowed, especially not in articles about living people; and 2) only factual statements (including statements about the opinions of notable people) belong in the article, with reliable sources to back them up. That means: no straight statements that he is a communist without a reliable source to show it, no selective quoting from primary sources to support a POV, and no giving undue weight to the opinions of non-notable people just because they "rebut" the opinions of others. Most of this talk page, and probably half the article's edits, would disappear if these rules had been consistently followed. --RL0919 (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Bingo. This also implies that germane facts that comply with this should not be deleted. At this very moment, and after a quick read, I for one think this page is very close to complete and NPOV (including fairly neutral statement-of-fact vocabulary) unless new germane information presents itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JayWhitney (talk • contribs) 00:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the fact about Jones that you want to add to the article, and what is the independent source that discusses that fact? Yes, I understand the process by which information is included into articles, and was not expecting any direct quotations to be inserted into this one, nor do I expect any editorializing (despite the fairly obvious nature of the quotations) - I'm merely preempting the deflection that will no doubt occur when these quotes are referenced in a credible, verifiable source. Expect it to happen. 68.84.6.98 (talk) 05:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

[2] "You've never seen a Columbine done by a black child. Never. They always say, 'We can't believe it happened here. We can't believe it's these suburban white kids.' It's only them. Now, a black kid might shoot another black kid. He's not going to shoot up the whole school." Verifiable, from a reputable source. 68.84.6.98 (talk) 04:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

To be fair the article should point out that Van Jones is a self admitted communist

Van Jones has admitted that he is a communist and is for radical changes in the US government —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.114.248.43 (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

His declaration that he became a communist in the early 1990s is included in the Early activism section, with citation to an article with a published quote from him on the matter. If there is some other "admission" in a reliable source that you believe should be included, please specify the source so it can be reviewed. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"he declared himself a communist[10] and actively began protesting police brutality"

These two concepts have nothing to do with each other. The most police brutality happened under Stalin a pillar of modern communism. These two items are mentioned together as part of a deliberate advertising campaign to make it sound acceptable that Jones, an advisor to the president, said he was Communist. However any neutral information source that doesn't want to be guilty of bias would not have such nonsensical associations such as associating communism with anti-police brutality.myclob (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The reference indicates that it wasn't Stalin that influenced Jones to begin protesting police brutality, but the Rodney King verdict. I didn't see anything about Stalin in the source. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You are right. There is nothing about Stalin from Van Jones. I brought it up to make a point. I brought up Stalin to prove that it does not follow that someone who is apposed to police brutality would naturally become a communist, such as this sentence implied: "he declared himself a communist[10] and actively began protesting police brutality". myclob (talk) 01:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing the sources used for the paragraph, it is clear that they say Jones did both things. It's not clear that they ought to be joined in one sentence. Based on the Strickland article, it seems that he became a communist first, then started protesting police brutality slightly later, when he was with STORM. So they should probably be separated in the article's narrative. (Speaking of inappropriate joining, it would be helpful if editors raising concerns about specific passages in the article would not join them with inflammatory remarks.) --RL0919 (talk) 01:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The section had plagiarism issues due to use of very close paraphrasing from a source, plus there was some seemingly irrelevant material talking about another person who Jones worked with at STORM. So I re-wrote the section to address all of the above. --RL0919 (talk) 02:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a quote from an interview he did as the head of the Ella Baker Center

VAN JONES: "The white polluters and the white environmentals are essentially steering poison into the people of colored communities". ~March 2009

This is the most news worthy thing Van Jones has ever said, but do you think this article will ever show it? I give it a 0% chance... pointing this type of "un-helpful" information would not be "prudent" in this "political environment".myclob (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Please, don't add any more quotes to this talk page; they are not helpful. If you think there is a fact missing from the article, just state the fact you think is missing, and cite your source. There's nothing we can do with quotations; an encyclopedia article doesn't need very many of those. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Myclob, if you're pointing this out because you want to start a section about how Van Jones actively has spoken out against environmental racism, then by all means, go for it!--The lorax (talk) 02:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Myclob - Go for it. You have my support. That quote is absolutely verifiable. Also, please see my comment below re: Jones actually being a Red Green rather than an "eco-capitalist". The article may need to be re-worded to indicate that while Jones claims to be a Blue Green, his rhetoric and actual philosophy indicate otherwise. ObserverNY (talk) 11:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I have moved my proposed section to a new section, because after a couple of days no one had commented on it. myclob (talk) 12:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Do we need to semi-protect the talk page?

Based on the spate of vandalism in the past hour, and the general level of non-constructive edits from IP users, I'm starting to wonder if semi-protection needs to be applied to this Talk page in addition to the article. --RL0919 (talk) 04:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Normally I wouldn't support protection of a talk page, but that's really bad today. I'm going to put a very brief semiprotect on the talk page, just for a few hours. -11:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I semiprotected, but I also created an unprotected talk page, because I really hate to discourage new users who might be helpful. I'll keep an eye on the unprotected talk page and sweep it of vandalism from time to time... constructive edits can be moved here or just linked to. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Since the semi-protection for the talk page has expired, I assume the notice about it should be removed. There is only one brief discussion on the unprotected talk page, which ironically occurred after the protection expired. We could consolidate that into this talk page. Or should we wait, in case this evening brings in another round of drunk racists with too much time on their hands? --RL0919 (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Eco-Capitalism vs. Eco-Socialism/Blue Green vs. Red Green

This article describes Van Jones as an Eco-Capitalist. On the surface, it appears that the rhetoric produced by the groups founded by Jones subscribe to eco-capitalism in name only so that the American public will buy it, that philosophically, Jones is a Red Green. The video aired on Glenn Beck last night from March, 2009, clearly shows Jones wildly excited about "changing the system". http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108441 I would be interested in other editors' take on this apparent discrepancy in the way the article is currently presented and Jones' actual philosophy. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I listened to the entire speech (there's a YouTube link in the WND article), and I'm not sure what specifically is the discrepancy. Since WND isn't likely to be accepted as a reliable source for interpreting the views of left-wing activists, can you explain what it is in the speech that you think is inconsistent with something stated in the encyclopedia article? It's entirely possible that his views are misleadingly described in the encyclopedia article, but just listening to the speech and reading the WND article didn't lead me to any particular conclusion about that. --RL0919 (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I will listen to the rest of Jones' rhetoric later, I got half way through to hear him compare "clean coal energy" to "unicorns pulling cars". I said, WAIT A MINUTE, didn't Obama campaign on "clean coal energy"? Oh yes, he did: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GehK7Q_QxPc So who is lying? Is Jones' mocking his boss? ObserverNY (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Based on those comments, we should make sure that the Van Jones article doesn't erroneously describe him as a supporter of clean coal. Fortunately, at the moment there is no mention of clean coal in the article, so we're safe on that. As for any contrast between Jones's views and Obama's, that would appear to be original research, unless there is a reliable source drawing the comparison. --RL0919 (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't even watched the entire tape yet, but I'm surprised Beck's people didn't pick up on that. There are just so many lies and exposes the poor man can fit in in an hour! I'm pretty sure they've got someone watching the Wikipedia pages because Beck made an aside about it. Got that Beck people? CLEAN COAL ENERGY - the ultimate campaign lie. Van Jones thinks it's as plausible as unicorns. But you are right, at this point it is original research but extremely notable, if'n you ask me. ObserverNY (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Just a quick note - tonight Beck played the segment about Van Jones and Clean Coal Technology being as real as the tooth fairy and unicorns, but unfortunately he didn't tie it to BHO's campaign plug for Clean Coal Technology. I guess we'll just have to wait until a reputable media source ties the two together to add to the article. ObserverNY (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Paterson blog post material

I had previously cut a quote from Eva Paterson, which was recently restored by The lorax. The source is a blog post on The Huffington Post website. That site has been discussed a number of times on the reliable sources notice board. As far as I understand it, the consensus is that while its news articles might or might not be considered reliable sources, it's blog posts are no better than any other blog. And in general, blog posts don't qualify as reliable sources unless it is the subject posting about himself, or a post from an established expert on the subject. Paterson doesn't qualify for either exception, so I believe this material should be excluded per WP:RS. --RL0919 (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Paterson originally posted this on her organization's website. Would that qualify as a more reliable source?--The lorax (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2009

(UTC)

The lorax - Boy that source irks me. Beck said that Van Jones was "arrested and jailed" which is absolutely true, not that Jones served prison time. ObserverNY (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Imho, The Huffington Post does not qualify as a source due to WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV. ObserverNY (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

In response to the question about whether the posting on her own organization's website qualifies as a reliable source, I would say, no it is not sufficiently reliable to use in a BLP. There is no evidence that the organization provides any editorial vetting for the blog posts, and in particular Paterson is the organization president, so it's pretty close to WP:SELFPUB. That would be OK if she was writing about herself, but in this instance the subject is someone else. And frankly this article has enough controversy around it that we should skew towards being more cautious in our use of sources. --RL0919 (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Glenn Beck also discussed this quote on his show. It seems reasonable to quote someone who was Jones's boss, who knew him personally back when he was younger.--The lorax (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind using it if the quote was characterized as being from a POV source. ObserverNY (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

If the quote has been repeated in a reliable news source, then we could potentially cite that rather than the blog posting. Nothing says that material initially from an "unreliable" (per WP guidelines) source can't be used if it is later repeated in a "reliable" source. Attributed, of course, to Paterson as the quoted party, just as we would for any other occasion where controversial material comes from a particular individual. --RL0919 (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Would Glenn Beck's show then count as a reliable source in order to cite Paterson's quote?--The lorax (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

He's on major tv and radio networks, so yes his shows qualify as reliable sources (bearing in mind that much of what he says is citeable only as opinion, not fact). Did he actually quote her? The link ObserverNY you gave only had a mention of her, not any quotes. Of course it doesn't have to be Beck, as there are numerous reliable news sources out there, if one can be found with the relevant material. Ideally, a more neutral, "just the facts" type source would be preferable over those that surround every fact with heavy layers of opinion. --RL0919 (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi RL0919 - Um, I didn't provide any link in this section, merely agreed that I would be ok with using a quote from Glenn Beck. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Sorry, it was The lorax that gave the link. His comment and yours were at the same indent level and I got confused. Now corrected above. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks! ObserverNY (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Color of Change

It seems to me that instead of having Color of Change listed as a sort of afterthought under "other" that it should precede Green for All for both chronological and political development reasons. Also, since it is mentioned in the overview, I think it deserves a little more detail. Opinions? ObserverNY (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I agree. The "Social and environmental activism" section is a bit disjointed due to it being combined out of what was previously multiple sections. --RL0919 (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool - well, I have some stuff to do, but take a look at what I did. Please feel free to add to, comment, fix(?) anything I may have messed up. ObserverNY (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Stupid question - Has anyone ever looked into who the OTHER co-founder(s) of Color of Change is/are? ObserverNY (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Answering my own stupid question - this source[3] says the co-founder is James Rucker. Is this guy noteworthy? A simple mention? If I had bothered to read all of the colorofchange page I would have seen this: Prior, James served as Director of Grassroots Mobilization for MoveOn.org Political Action and Moveon.org Civic Action and was instrumental in developing and executing on fundraising, technology, and campaign strategies.I think in the political scheme of things. MoveOn.org affiliations are worthy of mention. Let me know before I add that. ObserverNY (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Presumably it is appropriate to mention him. This isn't an article about Rucker or Color of Change, so information about any history he had outside of his association with Jones should be kept brief. It appears that he has his own article, so any extended details should go there. --RL0919 (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent advice. Agreed. ObserverNY (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Controversies section

Why isn't there a controversies section for this guy? He's very outspoken and has been criticized routinely by very high-profile people. Here's just one of the controversies that should be mentioned: [4]

The issue you link to is mentioned in the article. (Am I the only editor here who is tired of complaints about stuff supposedly being missing from the article, that come form people who apparently haven't bothered to read the article?) "Controversy" sections tend to segregate material in an artificial way that makes articles even more POV-oriented. If Jones was criticized for something he did or said, then that belongs in whatever section is most relevant to him doing or saying that thing. (Assuming, of course, that the criticism is documented in reliable sources, etc.) --RL0919 (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

A Controversies section in this case is necessary, especially considering the highly-controversial (and what some would most-definitely classify as racist) statements this man has made on tape which have come to light in the last week. I think we can all agree at this point that people aren't coming online looking for Jones' wiki page because they are interested in learning more about solar panels.CheshireCatRI (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The most damaging stuff has just come out today. I used to scoff at the Right's notion that the environmental movement's real agenda has less to do with the environment and more to do with the far Left's war on capitalism. Jones lays it all out for the public to see. That he has a far more radical agenda than the one he espouses for mainstream public consumption (reparations for slavery, the dismantling of our economic system etc) is plain. Obama doesn't need this stuff right now. I predict the next entry will be: "Jones resigned his position with the Obama administration in Sept. of 2009..." Sean Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.45.187 (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If that happens, please allow me the honour of adding that fact. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

What new damaging stuff? Despite Glenn Beck's wall-to-wall coverage of him, a recent Fox News article actually wrote this about him: "Jones has mellowed considerably since the '90s. In some respects, he is about as mainstream as environmentalists come".--The lorax (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The lorax - and you didn't read that as tongue in cheek? Mellow as in ELF? LOL! ObserverNY (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

This is not a place for forum discussions. People come here to help change the article for the better, and this kind of polemic leads many people astray. Thank you, Xavexgoem (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me - to the lorax - were you offended by my response to the quote you selected from the FOX article? If so, my apologies. I was offering my interpretation of something to be potentially included in the article. My comment was not meant to be to the "detriment" of the article as Xavexgoem suggests. ObserverNY (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I think this is a good idea... what does his status as a "9/11 Truther" have to do with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights? -- Dougie WII (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The "signature" line for him says, "Van Jones, executive director, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights". More generally, creating "Controversy" sections tends to have undesirable results: If there are a lot of critics editing the article, the "Controversy" section is inflated to make the subject look "really controversial". Or if there are a lot of supporters editing, the existence of a "Controversy" section can be used to whitewash the rest of the article by putting anything that seems negative there. Sometimes both. --RL0919 (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur with RL0919. The signing took place under the Ella Baker umbrella and is in the appropriate place. However, if a reference can be found for this group being responsible for the creation of the term "9/11 Truther", I think that would be worth adding. ObserverNY (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

What about his support of convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal? Where will that fit in? -- Dougie WII (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Provide specifics from one or more reliable sources and we can figure it out. --RL0919 (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/26032820/who-is-van-jones.htm -- Dougie WII (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

```` i note that the article by elizabeth kolbert in the new yorker in january, 2009, is a reference in footnote 9. . . . what i do not understand is the failure to include the information that, with the $430,000 in 2004 and 2005 from a new york foundation to "green jobs, not jail", he failed to produce even one job and described the effort as a "complete and utter failure" and that all of the money was "wasted". This appears to be his only endeavor to create green jobs. ````longoverdue —Preceding unsigned comment added by Longoverdue (talk • contribs) 23:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Facts. vs. opinion

The Lorax - I see you removed my edit in the overview: Jones signed signed a statement for 911Truth.org in 2004 demanding an investigation into what the Bush Administration may have done that “deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.”. It is completely irrelevant what Jones says now. This is a documented fact, reported in a major newspaper. Your "reason" for removal is like saying Benjamin Franklin signed the U.S. Constitution, but years later, "he didn't really mean it". The 9/11 Truther item is referenced further down in the article and if you wish to include Jones' "denial" in that section, please do. I am restoring my edit. I will not fight those opposed to including Hussein in this article regarding the President's name, as the main Wiki article does not include it in the header. ObserverNY (talk) 12:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

P.S. - I changed it to read: In 2004, Jones signed a statement for 911Truth.org. This is irrefutable fact, sans any commentary, merely an historical reference which is elaborated on later. ObserverNY (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

WP:LEAD says we should "summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." Is this particular incident as notable as any of the other things in his life? I would say it would be notable for inclusion if he truly believed what he signed (or participated in such events/wrote essays/made public statements supporting the truthers) but Jones says of his inclusion in this petition, "I do not agree with this statement and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever." I think it's dubious we would deem this notable for the lead paragraph.--The lorax (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The signing of the 911Truth.org statement is extremely notable, far more notable than his "asshole" statement, imho. Since it is expanded on later in the article, it is appropriate to mention it in the overview. The overview is supposed to provide a brief summary of items explored in greater detail later on in the article. This man holds a White House position. He signed the petition as The Executive Director of the Ella Baker Center. (#46) If he is willy nilly signing conspiracy theory petitions simply because ....why? Because he wanted to get buddy buddy with Jeanine Garafola? People need to know what this man has signed on to. By all means. Include his "denial" in the follow up.ObserverNY (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I would be happy to change the word statement to petition. ObserverNY (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I see the "denial" quote is already there. I changed statement to petition as Jones refers to it that way himself. ObserverNY (talk) 13:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Doug Wll - good cite. ObserverNY (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

To The Lorax - It might interest you to know that Democrat Bob Beckel announced on Fox and Friends this morning that he thinks Van Jones should "step down". Therefore, your attempt to cite criticism of this issue as only "conservative" and "only an indiscretion of his radicalist youth" is completely unwarranted and WP:POV. Stick to the facts please. ObserverNY (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I'm trying to place it into context; most criticism has come from conservatives save for Bob Beckel.--The lorax (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, you are giving undue weight to a simple fact in the overview. Please stop changing it. ObserverNY (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Since the 9/11 truther stuff came out, I haven't heard one mainstream Democratic analyst say that he should keep his job. They all said he'll be gone by Tuesday (probably much sooner). -- Dougie WII (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether he'll ride out the storm or not is all speculation at this point. Placing the truther petition (which Jones has refuted) in the lead paragraph with no context whatsoever is undue weight; it would make more sense to mention the recent conservative criticism.--The lorax (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if he "refutes" it from now until doomsday, his signature is on it as the Executive Director for the Ella Baker Center. It is expanded on further on in the article and is therefore "notable" as a fact. I'm sorry you don't like the "fact", the lorax", but that's what Wikipedia is SUPPOSED to be presenting. ObserverNY (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I don't think it makes sense to put either item in the introduction. The criticism is heaped on him because of his position in the Obama administration. It should be mentioned there. If/When he "resigns" you can note in the introduction that he resigned over controversy. Currently he works for the White House. That is enough information for the introduction and any details should be in the appropriate section.

Reliefappearance (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. I will add that he signed the petition as the Executive Director of the Elle Baker Center, if you wish, however it is the event itself that is notable. The controversy that ensued as the result of this FACT being made public is already covered in the sub-section on the Ella Baker Center. If he resigns, then it will be notable in the Obama White House section. ObserverNY (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Now it has relevant context. He didn't just sign the petition as Van Jones, Joe Schmoe, he signed it as the ED on behalf of an organization. ObserverNY (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

To the Lorax - you have hit WP:3RR with your edits on the overview. Please cease and desist. I'm not amenable to running to admins, please find the maturity to leave the section alone. ObserverNY (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, I don't want to edit war about this. I've tried to reach a compromise over your insertion of the truther tidbit; I'm not removing it, only adding context surrounding it. 1) This is not something he stands behind. 2) The original petition was thought by many signatories to be merely a support for victim's families calls for an investigation:

Paul Hawken also released a statement corroborating Jones take on it:

“ In the fall of 2004, I was approached by 911Truth.org to support the grieving families of the 9/11 tragedy. Family members who had lost a loved one, and many American citizens, felt that the 9/11 Commission had not fully explored key questions involving that fateful day. My concern then and now was for the victims. I felt that a deeper inquiry into policies and security would be helpful to reach a fuller understanding of the cause of 9/11 and how to prevent future terrorist attacks. I do not recollect any of the questions that are posed on the website, never saw the subsequent press release of Oct 26, 2004, and never signed such a statement. I was interested in questions, not blame; inquiry, not jumping to conclusions. It is unfortunate that Van’s name has been used in this way as I know he would not knowingly endorse a statement that would place blame or create divisiveness. ”

So let's try to work out a compromise regarding the lead paragraph.--The lorax (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, there is an entire sub-section on this issue. The overview is the place to summarize notable events in a person's life. It was his signing of the document and the ultimate exposure of this fact by the media, that has made it noteworthy. If you feel that the Ella Baker section needs more detail and it can be supported with verifiable sources, that is the place to insert it, not in the overview. It doesn't MATTER if Jones was "confused" or "misunderstood" the nature of the petition. The FACT is he signed it as the Executive Director of The Ella Baker Center. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Republicans are A-holes comment

Jones made this comment at a public lecture, where he also signed copies of his book.

Then, as a member of the Obama administration, he apologized for making the remarks, IMO making it notable.

Reliefappearance (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Biographies aren't intended to be about current, ongoing & trivial controversies. If filled with comments made at lectures, many biographies would run for 100s of pages. This is meant to read as an encyclopedia entry, not a book. How and why is this newsworthy and why does it belong in Van Jones's biography? Do you feel this news is significant enough to be remembered and included in a biography of Van Jones 100 years from now? Are you sure this isn't because of your negative POV regarding Van Jones? - Sloopydrew (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do you assume I have a negative POV regarding Van Jones? You are not assuming good faith. Van Jones works at the White House and is overseeing the distribution of 80 billion taxpayer dollars approved by Congress. Is 80 billion dollars trivial to you? Reliefappearance (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You area not to decide what is a "trivial controversy" a controversy is just that, a controversy. This article needs a controversy section because I there are several of them. Since you questioned the earlier commentators anti -Jones agenda, could it be that you have pro Jones agenda? What he has said about whites pumping poison into minority neighborhoods is hardly "trivial" and yes this stuff would be in a book about him, but that was after you said this is not a book. So, you seem a little confused. Also, Van Jones signing of the 9/11 conspiracy list is also controversial. So, there is a pattern of controversies here that are glaring in their omission. I predict that Van Jones won't have a job come tuesday, in that case it will one big controversy and these omissions will look silly on retrospection. JohnHistory (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

CNN just called Van Jones comments "controversial". Literally, as I wrote this so that is just one more source for this being a real controversy and I don't think people saying "trivial" are correct. Van Jones also said that he was a "communist". Is that not controversial? CNN is saying these are bonafide "controversial statements." In addition, issuing two apologies in a 24 hour period proves that this is significant and a real controversy. Again, issuing two apologies in 24 hours is definitive proof. JohnHistory (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

CNN running Van Jones comments as "controversial" and Van Jones has issued two apologies in last 24 hours. This is not trivial.

There needs to be a whole controversy section or at least inclusion. The man has said so many controversial things, and with the 2 apologies he has issued in the last 24 hours it can no longer be ignored. Again, CNN is now showing more about stuff such as him saying only white kids shoot up schools. The omissions are glaring such as himself saying he became a "communist". CNN says this is very controversial and getting into vetting issues. JohnHistory (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Every panelist I have seen on the two leading cable news shows have said he needs to resign. This is the real deal. Blindfolds are not going to make this article honest. I mean those are liberal panelists saying he can't survive these "controversies" and yet you wouldn't think they even existed if you just went by wikipedia JohnHistory (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Van Jones saying that "white polluters and environmentalists steer poison into minority neighborhoods."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=em_B6fouTfk —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnHistory (talk • contribs) 00:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The reasons that Wikipedia does not use separate 'controversy' sections are discussed above, under the heading Controversies section. Are there any verifiable facts which are missing from the article? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I propose that we re-name the political evolution section to political beliefs and public perception as it is set up in the Bill O'Reilly article: [5]. Section should be moved to after other. ObserverNY (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

That subsection is just biographical history about his shift towards focusing on environmentalism. It's not a broader section on "public perception," and I don't think it should be turned into one. I think it just needs to be retitled to reflect what its content is. Maybe "Shift to environmentalist" or something like that. --RL0919 (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, but did he ever "shift"? I know this is not a forum, but to develop the idea, Jones' Marxist-Leninist STORM days helped him to discover that through the "green" movement, they could fool the "white polluters" into believing that they were just peace loving, reformed revolutionaries who now want to recycle and build windmills when in fact, Jones hadn't abandoned any of his radical ideology at all and merely wants to use the "green movement" as a vehicle of social justice and transformation of America. Or so it seems to me. Anyway, predictions are he won't make it through this Labor Day weekend. Odds anyone? ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 10:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

At the very least he shifted the focus of what he discusses in public, a fact which is discussed in various sources. Any in-article discussion about his motives would need to be based on reliable sources, and I don't care to offer talk page commentary on the subject. I will offer this prediction: within a few weeks of his leaving government, whether it is today or years from now, the article will stabilize, because most of the motivation for aggressive POV-pushing will dissipate. --RL0919 (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

When are you going to get real? He has left the administration BECAUSE of controversy, yet there is no controversy section. There are hundreds of article I could point out with a reaching controversy section, yet this article is still lacking. 68.84.6.98 (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Conservative crticisms

I just added a significant batch of material on the conservative criticisms of Jones, including those made by Glenn Beck and also the recent call for his resignation/firing by a Republican congressman. In the past, material about Beck's criticisms have been deleted on the grounds that they are supposedly not notable enough for the article. So this time I have included multiple citations from third-party news sources, including CBS, the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post, all clear cases of reliable sources that establish the notability of these criticisms, several of which mention Beck by name as the leading critic. (Note that the Post is even specifically mentioned in WP:RS as an example of a top-tier reliable news source.) If someone still thinks that all mention of these criticisms still doesn't belong in the article, despite the growing coverage in mainstream news sources, I'd love to see an explanation given here. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the criticism is "conservative" anymore. That in some ways minimizing say, alleging that 9/11 was an inside job, or white environmentalists are steering pollution in minority neighborhoods, or saying Bush looked like a crackhead and all Republicans are "assholes".

The Liberal commentators I saw today all said he should resign, or not have been appointed in the first place. That was CNN, and Fox. Just because places like the NY Times have thus far avoided it doesn't make this criticism. By that standard criticism of Beck and Bush , etc should be labeled "liberal criticism".

again, the 9/11 stuff and his language aren't liberal or conservative, they are just controversial period. 71.245.236.40 (talk) 02:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

So far, the news coverage of the controversy has talked about conservatives criticizing Jones. Some liberals may have been critical, but the secondary coverage hasn't discussed that point. There's an issue of original research that must avoided, where editors bring in their own knowledge about a critic's general political beliefs to synthesize a point about "conservative" or "liberal" critics. I put in only what the secondary coverage explicitly said. If news articles start explicitly saying that the criticism has spread to non-conservatives, then that can be brought into the article. --RL0919 (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want to do the Beck angle then that should include Jones' former group trying to cut off his sponsors, and then have that be it's own thing between them. 71.245.236.40 (talk) 02:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

It's a reasonable point to mention and it's in some of the secondary sources. I just didn't get to it in my writing effort. There's always room for improvement. :-) --RL0919 (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Little Green Footballs, of all blogs, is defending Jones.--The lorax (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Defending Jones The lorax says, interesting so I checked the link and found this: "There’s no need to lie about my position" and this "I am not “supporting” or “defending” Van Jones, and I’ve made that extremely clear." oooops. Hobartimus (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It's misleading to say Glenn Beck "called Van Jones a communist" along with other things, when Van Jones in fact called himself a communist, and Beck was quoting Van Jones. Also, Beck talks about the United State of America, and negative effects on it, not specifically on a "Republican form of Government" which is also a little bit misleading. JohnHistory (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

I also think the whole "conservative criticism" thing is misleading because it play into a general left leaning news black out on Van Jones.

For example, look at this.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/The-Van-Jones-non-feeding-non-frenzy-57271402.html 71.245.236.40 (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Political Evolution Section Misleading and without source. Please remove "late 1990s'" from the section.

"By the late 1990s, Jones began promoting eco-capitalism.[24] In 2005 the Ella Baker Center expanded its vision beyond the immediate concerns of policing, declaring that "If we really wanted to help our communities escape the cycle of incarceration, we had to start focusing on job, wealth and health creation."[17] In 2005, Jones and the Ella Baker Center produced the "Social Equity Track" for the United Nations' World Environment Day celebration, held that year in San Francisco.[25] It was the official beginning of what would eventually become Ella Baker Center's Green-Collar Jobs Campaign."

There is no evidence given that Van Jones had "politically evolved" to "eco-capitalism" by the late 1990's in the source. I think that is a way of trying to make it seem like he changed his views much longer ago then is verifiable. In fact, the next part says that he started focusing on said 'eco-capitalism" beginning in "2005" not the "the late 1990's." I think the "late 1990's" should be removed. 71.245.236.40 (talk) 02:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Okay, I changed it I thought I couldn't but I was just not logged in. JohnHistory (talk) 02:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Lock the page down all ready

Just lock it down. Sheesh. Trueslicky (talk) 07:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Environmental-racism/justice vs. eco-capitalism

I just read through the source for the opening sentence re: eco-capitalism. I disagree that this is what Jones is advocating and I don't believe Wikipedia should be giving him credit for anything remotely related to the word "capitalism". If you read the following passage, you will clearly see that all Jones sought to do was "repackage" the environmental justice movement:

• Today’s environmental justice movement was designed to protect our interests in a toxic, pollution-based economy. It was not designed to promote our interests in a mushrooming, $250 billion green economy. Nor was any other racial justice movement or network. It is wildly unrealistic to assume that the already over-stretched and under-funded EJ groups can somehow meet this colossal, historic challenge on their own. It is unfair to expect them to do so.

• So we stand now at the dawn of a new economy. But no part of the racial justice movement is charged with the task of ensuring that the new laws and new industries do right by low-income people and people of color.

• We must change this. If we do not get involved, we will end up with eco-apartheid–a society with ecological haves and have-nots.

I would like the opinion of others on this before I change the language in the Green for All section. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I think that section is an advertisement for what this guy says he wants to do, although all his attempts at these things have been complete failures. -- Dougie WII (talk) 10:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Assuming it is done in a neutral fashion, I think it would be best to describe his views in a couple of sentences rather than try to compact them into a single word or short phrase, be it 'eco-capitalism' or any other. --RL0919 (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, "promoting eco-capitalism" has got to go. Perhaps environmental civil rights, or something more social justice based, then capitalistic. I mean, we have that vid I linked where he clearly separates himself from the "White environmentalists who are steering poison into people of color neighborhoods." 71.245.236.40 (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

WP:LEAD

From WP:LEAD "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies."

I fully agree. The media has been in a frenzy over this guy over the last week, and the lead downplays this dramatically. Few people would know of this man if it weren't for the intense controversies of the last week. Happyme22 (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Happyme - Then perhaps you can help me by policing the WP:LEAD against vandalism by the lorax who keeps attempting to remove the sentence referring to Jones's signing of the 911Truth.org petition. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I think we should remove the sentence about 9/11 Truth from the second paragraph, and in the first paragraph talk about the current controversy regarding his job being related to his past statements which are further down the article. Reliefappearance (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

If we conclude that the gripes of this week amount to a notable controversy (see WP:RECENT) suitable for the intro, just dropping the petition in the intro doesn't cut it. A minor fact with no context is not intro material. Mention the controversy itself in the context of his current job, leave the details (the petition, "assholes", etc.) for the article. Gamaliel (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Op-Eds and blogs are only reliable for statements of opinion, not facts

Per WP:RS, "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion.

"There is, however, an important exception to sourcing statements of opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. 'Self-published blogs' in this context refers to personal and group blogs (see: WP:BLP#Sources and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source).

"Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a 'blog' style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more 'traditional' 20th-century format of a classic news story. However, the distinction between 'opinion pieces' and news should be considered carefully." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Lorax, you restored an edit[6] that cites a blog as it's source. Blogs aren't usually considered reliable sources and should not be used for claims about third-parties. If you're not familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BLP, you should probably have a look at them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Primary Sources to Integrate into the Article and Replace Eco-Capitalism

These Vid's are primary sources and very crucial to get an understanding of what he believes in especially in terms of the Environmental movement, and Revolution. These sources should be used explain his views through his own words and replace the dubious "eco-capitalism" label.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh4Z0V0zNQg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6gOmIalJVw JohnHistory (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Most YouTube videos are not WP:RS. See WP:Reliable_source_examples#Are_IRC.2C_MySpace.2C_and_YouTube_reliable_sources.3F for more information. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Political Beliefs & Public Reception

I have created a new section following the White House Environmental Council section. This is the appropriate place to cite any recent issues that have been brought to light. Please check to make sure that specific quotes or items have not already been mentioned. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

To the Lorax - I see you are back to your old tricks of yesterday. I asked you nicely to try and exhibit some reason and maturity. Please don't make me babysit you. The information you added about Jones' college years was good. Trying to remove the 9/11 Truth signatory fact in the overview for the 4th time .... BAD. ObserverNY (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

If it's going to be in the intro, we should probably include information explaining that he says he didn't read it and doesn't support it. Remember that WP:BLP applies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Then you would have to add the spokesperson for the 9/11 Truthers saying they contacted everyone to make sure that they did support it. Also, it should be put that he "alleges" that he didn't sign it or support it because all evidence points to the contrary and it is very, extremely convenient to deny it now. Perhaps, adding that he denies reading or supporting it AFTER a whole controversy about it was generated would be the best way because he only rejected it AFTER the controversy not before hand. JohnHistory (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Good call - those quotes were already in the 9/11 Truth sub-section under Ella Baker so I moved the entire sub-section to Political Beliefs and Public reception.ObserverNY (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Hold up, assume good faith, ObserverNY; leaving the part about him signing the 9/11 truth statement alone with no context is unfair and POV; also, other signatories have said that they were misled by the petition, JohnHistory.--The lorax (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The Lorax - noooooo, your repeated attempts to add superfluous information which is covered in detail (see above) in the overview is WP:POV. And do tell, who else was "misled"? Howard Zinn - international socialist? Jeanine Garafola? Give it up Lorax. I really don't want to have to report you. I expect you to "get it". Put appropriate information in the appropriate location, it's simple. ObserverNY (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

How is putting in that he subsequently has disavowed these statements superfluous? If he stood behind these statements, that would be one thing to include such a statement, but to leave it vague in light of his disavowal and others coming forward to complain they were misled too smacks of POV.--The lorax (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Jones' rebuttal IS IN THE ARTICLE!!!! It does NOT belong in the WP:LEAD. Jones SIGNED the petition. That is a FACT. It is not WP:POV. If I were to write, "Jones showed his true colors as a traitor and ludicrous (his favorite word) buffoon by signing the 9/11 Truth petition in 2004".... THAT would be POV. You cannot make a simply stated FACT POV. ObserverNY (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

You have the disavowal of him and the fact that he doesn't deny signing it. That's enough. Otherwise this is a slippery slope and this is not an article about the two people you mentioned, nor what they allege they were misled about. This is not about them or that but Van Jones. JohnHistory (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

I bet 8 years later it might in some peoples interests to say they were "misled" what difference does that make? And the people you cited are known for extreme views. Also, what is worse - believing the Government may have played a role in allowing 9/11 or being the Green Tsar for Obama and not even carefully reading something you sign? Either way, it is very bad for him JohnHistory (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

JohnHistory: I'm not sure the statement by the 9/11 Truth.org spokesperson is even relevent given Jones isn't disputing that he signed the petition. He's saying that he didn't actually read it or didn't read it carefully enough. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

To the Lorax - I am also removing your Howard Zinn, Rabbi Lerner sentence. Please read the following about an essay written by Lerner 3 years after her signed the 9/11 Truth petition [7] ObserverNY (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I agree it does not belong. Regardless of who was mislead or who wasn't or what happened with the petition. This article is about Van Jones, not about the petition itself. However, the fact that he signed it, the fact that he made a statement DOES belong here. Reliefappearance (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, the real source, Politico, points out and I have read a couple things that Zinn "flirted" with this 9/11 conspiracy stuff quite a bit in the past. Check out my links below. We should add that he was on the "organizing committee" for a march predicated with much conspiracy implication. JohnHistory (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

I'm 50/50 on this. Why would his name be on this list if he wasn't involved? Also, it is a weak source. Reliefappearance (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Simple

In the Early Life section, the final sentence reads that he earned his J.D. Could we change that to Juris Doctor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzeise (talk • contribs) 19:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Why? Are you trying to make people confuse him with a M.D.? Should we change Phd's too? JohnHistory (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

J.D. is fine just like PhD is fine, and B.A. is fine and so on. This is how people refer to their degrees, but if you really really want to I guess you could. JohnHistory (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Easy now. All the examples you use are much more commonly used than J.D. Every doctor I've ever met has a nametag that reads M.D. I have yet to meet a lawyer who does the same.Jzeise (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. M.D. is M.D. If it is linked people can just click if they are curious. I don't see why you are so interested in having "doctor" spelled out? Either way. JohnHistory (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Because people do not recognize what J.D. means nearly as often or easily as M.D.Jzeise (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Also, because I'm a giant liberal green communist and I'd call him a Saint if I couldJzeise (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Not reallyJzeise (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Jones' reputation may well put Yale Law School out of business. - J.D. is fine. Ohhhhh, I know why they want it changed - people may confuse it with Juvenile Delinquent .......LOL! sorry, couldn't help myself. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I added wikilinks for both "B.A." and "J.D." This is actually recommended practice to help clarify the meaning of degrees for those less familiar with the abbreviations. --RL0919 (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

30 billion or 80 billion???

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/13/stimulus/index.html

"and $30 billion on energy-related projects that Obama says will create "green jobs.""

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/10/AR2009081002676.html?hpid=moreheadlines

"although the administration has allocated as much as $80 billion through the stimulus package to create more than 6 million green jobs," —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reliefappearance (talk • contribs) 19:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2009/02/10/stimulus0210.html

"Green energy programs ..House: 39.4 ..Senate: 74"

Reliefappearance (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there a specific edit to the article that you are proposing here? Also, as a general note since I've seen this happen several times on this page: It is typical to put new sections at the end of the talk page rather than at the top. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ya I figured out to just push New Section. I thought we were doing new ones at the top. Sorry about that. Reliefappearance (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Another 9/11 Connection Uncovered.

Zinn and Rabbi only said that signed onto what the politico article calls "Truther Lite" and they only said this when Politico reporter called them yesterday so if they are added, it should made clear that this was after the Jones controversy started and that they still were wanting an investigation, etc. I think that is why it should be taken out because it is confusing and not related.

But, this is the main thing that must be added to help confirm this. Check out who is on the organizing committee! JohnHistory (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

http://www.rense.com/general18/march.htm

(Earlier Politico article should be the real source for the rabbi and Zinn since the one currently there is not a credible source. I think that should go though.)

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0909/Trutherismlite_and_a_second_Jones_tie.html?showall

Rense.com is not a reliable source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Can someone cite this in the article? He was on the organizing committee in San Fran to demand inquiry into 9/11. It could probably go under (as I put it in already) the 9/11 section and also can be in the section about what he was doing in the time range of 2002 since he helped organize this at the time. JohnHistory (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

They are not a reliable source for their own organization? That seems silly to me. Also, the source I was planning on using is the Politico article that finds them reliable for their own organizing committee's. Use Politico then. JohnHistory (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

The Rense.com article seems to publishing a press release by another organization called War Times. The problem with the Politico link is that it's a blog. We shouldn't be using blogs for controverial information on WP:BLP. In fact, according to WP:BLP, we're supposed to remove any poorly sourced information immediately and without discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Even though it's Ben Smith a journalist and a journalistic piece? Anyway, there are many stories on it so if that is not acceptable I can find another one that is. But this is not a typical "blog" piece at all. It's hard to believe that Van Jones name, along with other STORM people, was falsely added to a 9/11 Rally where he lived at the time, and yet also signed the 9/11 Truth Petition about two years later. JohnHistory (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Yes, blogs are only acceptable as WP:RS is it's subject to the full editorial control of a newspaper. Even then, I don't think we're supposed to use it for controversial biographical information. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't have to be a newspaper; it could be any reputable news organization (a tv network, for example), including one that is online only. What counts is editorial control and reputation for reliability. --RL0919 (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Sorry, my wording was a bit sloppy. Thanks for the correction. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ben Smith is a professional journalist posting a blog on a reliable journalism site. AFAIK he doesn't post opinion pieces in his blog but merely posts stories in a more informal conversational style. I really don't see the difference between what he does and an article on the front page except for the aforementioned style difference and the word blog above it. So I'm re-adding my Politico source, and if that doesn't satisfy you might I suggest instead of simply removing every source with the word "blog" in it check to see if it is in other sources. -- Gudeldar (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note that per WP:V, the burden of proof is on the editor who restores the material. What verifiable evidence do you have that this blog is subject to the full editorial control of the publication? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not a reasonable standard. We have no way of knowing the inner workings of a publication. Smith is a professional journalist working for a mainstream professional publication, and that satisfies the RS standard. Gamaliel (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're free to be bold and change Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on WP:V and WP:RS. Let me know how it goes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That's hardly what I'm suggesting and you know it. Objecting to your personal interpretation of RS hardly qualifies as rewriting the pillars of WP. As I've already responded to you on this subject in a section below, I suggest we continue it there. Gamaliel (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

With so many people citing the Press Release, notably Politico's Ben Smith, and the fact that it simply a list of it's organizers, it's definitely "reliable." Nobody is saying it's reliable for information on 9/11 All I'm saying is that it's reliable for it's list of organizers and I am clearly not alone in believing that. Who else could be better for listing the committee's organizers then the organization itself???JohnHistory (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Here it is again. Search "Van Jones". This makes his other comment seem totally ludicrous. He was in on the conspiracy since 2002, and then signed the petition in 2004. JohnHistory (talk)JohnHistory

http://www.rense.com/general18/march.htm

IMO it's shaky, let the media do the investigative work and let them report on it, then we can add it to the article. 67.248.232.224 (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I just did a little checking on the rense.com source. Glenn Beck just Twittered about it. It is also reported in the Beltway Blog. I think we're just going to have to sit tight till Beck or another mainstream source exposes this and reports it. As of right now, much as I hate to say it, it appears to constitute VERY GOOD original research. Check out some of the other names on that list. Good grief. ObserverNY (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Reliable sources we can use for 9/11 Truth.org petition section

Here are some WP:RS we can use for 9/11 Truth.org petition section: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Never Can Say Goodbye

It has ended. The Squicks (talk) 04:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Editors trying to revert and possibility of new campaign to make Van Jones image less tarnished.

The discussion here had already told me that Blogs were unacceptable, but then blog i had mentioned was reinstated tonight.

Also, the Zinn and rabbi, who were contacted only yesterday and who have made many contradictory statements, was put back in the article despite the source being a blog, and their mentioning having been labeled as irrelevant and outside the scope of the Van Jones article. Let's watch this in the future, rogue editors may try to keep obfuscating and or reverting. thanks. JohnHistory (talk) 07:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

I have no interest in untarnishing (is that a word?) the image of a guy I hadn't heard of last week. I put in information from Politico, a source which meets the requirements of RS completely. Hinting at sinister conspiracies isn't a good way to encourage collaborative editing and not assuming good faith of your fellow editors. Gamaliel (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It was a blog. you didn't read the discussion. If that is allowed then in the same "blog" it states the contradictory statements of Zinn, and also that Van Jones participated in a 9/11 San Francisco march to demand inquiry into 9/11. So, it very misleading that all of that would be let out in your edit, and also it is a BLOG, which if you had read the discussion, is not allowed. JohnHistory (talk) 07:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Said Politico Blog also references Van Jones as part of an organizing committee in 2002 for 9/11 truth commission. I think you are barking up the wrong tree. JohnHistory (talk) 07:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

I read the discussion and added my comments to it. All "blogs" are not treated alike just like a book I write and photocopy and give to 12 friends is not treated the same as a Pulitzer-winning history

book. If the second source you mention meets RS, it can go in. Gamaliel (talk) 07:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

So, then by your logic, Van Jones participation ,as cited in the blog, for a 2002 9/11 rally must be included? If you don't also include that, and the contradictions with Zinn, you are showing a lack of integrity in this process. Here is the bottom line, that Blog had already been considered not acceptable, you are in no place at almost 4 am EST to overrule that and if you do then you need to include the afore mentioned "critical" parts of that blog, which you won't because you are demonstrating an agenda. Wait for others to rule on this please. JohnHistory (talk) 07:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Stop vandalizing the article! JohnHistory (talk) 07:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Johnhistory

Additionally, the inclusion of said material had, beside it being a blog, been deemed not acceptable to the content of this page. You are in fact violating this article in 3 areas. A. not honestly using the source (2002 9/11 rally info and Zinn's contradictions), B. it being deemed a blog, C. the material being deemed not appropriate for Van Jones controversy specifically.

Please, stop and wait till late. Otherwise, you are showing clear and present Vandalism. thank you. JohnHistory (talk) 07:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Gamaliel is vandalizing this article repeatedly! JohnHistory (talk) 07:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

As I stated on your talk page, please do not label good faith edits as vandalism. Also, be aware that you're in danger of violating WP:3RR. APK that's not my name 08:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page this is not "good faith" this is clear vandalism as I point out in 3 separate ways above. JohnHistory (talk) 08:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

(copied from my talk page) If you think labeling his edits as vandalism is a good idea, I suggest you read this. You've already violated 3RR, so it would be in your best interest to take a break from the article. APK that's not my name 08:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool it, I'm just following all the precedents I labeled that you have not addressed. What I have done is perfectly acceptable the fact that you coming at me and not the person ignoring it all is what is questionable. Why don't you cool your jets and deal with the issue I outlined so clearly. Instead of getting into a wiki war why don't you tell me about how all of the mentioned A. B. C. points are wrong and we can stick to the issues and not squabble pointlessly, unless, of course, that is your point. thanks. JohnHistory (talk) 09:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

That was unnecessary. My comments have been very civil, but you're interpreting my advice (how to avoid a block) as something negative. I don't even know what it is you want me to address because I haven't been following the edit war or talk page discussion. What caught my attention was your edit summary and removal of The Politico as a source. Ben Smith's blog is a reliable source; if someone has told you different, then he or she is mistaken (read #5). His blog is currently used 113 times in various articles, including ones that are very closely watched. (ex: John McCain, Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008, A More Perfect Union (speech), Jeremiah Wright controversy, Bill Ayers presidential election controversy, etc.) On a related note, someone is removing Jake Tapper's blog (ABC News) as a source. His blog (currently used 138 times in articles such as Presidency of Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, Joe Biden, Inauguration of Barack Obama, Barack Obama "Hope" poster, etc.) is about as reliable as it gets. He's the Senior White House Correspondent. In case you can't tell, what I'm trying to say is certain blogs can be used as sources. APK that's not my name 13:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I was merely suggesting that you do "follow" the discussion where (I was the one who tried to originally use said blog and don't mind using it though the Rabbi and Zinn things have been deemed not relevant for Jones) because the discussion thus far had deemed it not appropriate and further more not relevant, and it's usage beyond those points was leaving out crucial info such as Jones involvement in the 2002 San Fran 9/11 Rally. I was mere stating that this should wait till there can a consensus because a general one had already been concluded prior to such an early time in the morning. That was all I saying and doing. JohnHistory (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

JohnHistory, you have been around since 2007, so you should know that it is quite uncivil to accuse others of vandalism and to violate the 3RR on such spurious grounds. I've reported the 3RR, but regardless I urge you to discuss instead of accuse. Gamaliel (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Gamaliel, I objected to you bucking the consensus (As it has been upheld) and reinstating stuff deemed irrelevant, and not usable, and also not representing the piece accurately. That was all. I have already talked to the Admin. JohnHistory (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Johnhistory.

Then I urge you to discuss those issues instead of insinuating that there is some kind of pro-Jones campaign among editors, breaking the 3RR, and calling people who disagree with you vandals. That is prohibited behavior and it only distracts from the issues you are trying to address. Gamaliel (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Redundancy/discrepancies in "Political beliefs and public reception" section

Since there seems to be a lot of changes going on in the "Political beliefs and public reception" section at the moment I'll just point these items out for someone else to resolve.

• The following Mike Pence quote exists in both the 4th and the 7th paragraphs of this section.

  "His extremist views and coarse rhetoric have no place in this administration or the public debate."

• Additionally the 4th paragraph makes reference to "Senator Kit Bond" and the 7th paragraph makes reference to "Senator Christopher S. Bond".

• Additionally references to representatives and senators are appearing both with and without (party-state) affiliation tags in this section.

Guest458 (talk) 08:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Make the changes then! :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be_bold_in_editing_articles

Reliefappearance (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Disgrace

This article is a disgrace and blatantly displays absolutely everything that can go wrong with the Wikipedia community.

At least the subject is no longer an important one and after the recent events fade into the past, hopefully a more balanced article can form. -- Dougie WII (talk) 08:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Do care to elaborate on the "disgrace?"

I think resigning amid a controversy from a Czar position in the whitehouse is beyond noteworthy. As far Van Jones being disgraced that is something I will leave up to historians, but I think many would say you are right on that pointJohnHistory (talk) 10:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

I agree that the article is a complete mess and now that it is a Drudge headline people will be coming here to read it and to be honest I am embarrassed by the state of it. Now that it's over, I'm sure none of the recent editors will be around to improve it. Reliefappearance (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Let them move on to the next controversy. This article will benefit greatly from having fewer efforts at POV-pushing based on whatever is the latest-breaking blog, which will allow more reflective editing based on quality sources and encyclopedic aims. --RL0919 (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

None of you are assuming "Good Fatih." I"ll be here. JohnHistory (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Furthermore, when I came here it was completely void of the controversy that would later that night cause Van Jones to resign. That was the real disgrace. Not even one mention of it here at this time yesterday! JohnHistory (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Resignation reference

Rather than the one sentence article from the AP, this goes into more depth. Franke-Ruta, Garance (2009-09-06). "White House Adviser Van Jones Resigns Amid Controversy Over Past Activism". Washington Post. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 11:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Go right ahead!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be_bold_in_editing_articles

Reliefappearance (talk) 11:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

apologies to the Lorax - didn't see addition of 911.truth signing at end of overview. ObserverNY (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Fine, but the Lead is a mess. Fix it Lorax. Reliefappearance (talk) 12:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm also ok with the Lorax's move of the Resignation section I just put together up into the WH Council section. What would you like to see in the WP:LEAD, Reliefappearance? Rather than barking orders, helpful suggestions would be welcomed. ObserverNY (talk) 12:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I've removed the first reference - the washingtontimes.com one - on the grounds that it didn't specifically state that Jones resigned because he signed the petition. All it says is that he did sign it - and to combine that with the second reference is a violation of WP:SYN. To that end, it's somewhat redundant with the WaPo article, which does sort of draw a connection there. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome HelloAnnyong! Wikipedia instructs us to be welcoming, right? Other editors on the Van Jones article should be aware of the fact that Helloannyong is a 3RR editor who accused me of having the intention of turning IB articles to "garbage" and is taking part in a lynch mob against me [13] to have me banned from Wikipedia. You have fun HA! Cheers! ObserverNY (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Um, okay. I don't really know what a "3RR editor" is, but I'll admit that I've interacted with Observer before. However, the reason that I came to this page was that I saw Jones in the news this morning and read the article, and saw an inconsistency between the refs and the text. No more, no less. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

LEAD

Lorax, the lead is a mess, why make it worse? I'm asking you to please fix it. Remember, it's in the news. the page is hot, make it right. Reliefappearance (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliefappearance - I didn't see the addition of the last line in the overview. I am okay with the way it reads now and reversed my own undo of The Lorax's edit. ObserverNY (talk) 12:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Reliefappearance, I took a quick glance through the lead and for the most part it seems to cover all the issues in the article, what do you suggest should be included?--The lorax (talk) 13:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I added an eerily prescient comment from Gavin Newsom in the lead.--The lorax (talk) 13:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm ok with that quote and cite. See, we CAN work together Lorax. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The lead was a mess for a short time. Sorry I started yelling about it I should have waited for the work to be done.Reliefappearance (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hobartimus made an interesting change to the lead that I liked, but I undid it because of the way you guys have the lead organized. I still think it needs to be changed. It is sufficient to simply say he worked at the White House and what his position was and that he resigned due to controversy. It should also be in the first paragraph. Any description of his duties at the White House should go in the appropriate section, not the lead. From now on I will avoid making direct changes to the lead because I feel I'm just getting in the way.Reliefappearance (talk) 18:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Certain blogs are reliable sources.

(similar to what I've already stated on this page - in response to this edit)

Ben Smith's blog (via The Politico} is a reliable source; if someone disagrees, then he or she is mistaken (read #5). His blog is currently used 113 times in various articles, including ones that are very closely watched. (ex: John McCain, Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008, A More Perfect Union (speech), Jeremiah Wright controversy, Bill Ayers presidential election controversy, etc.) Jake Tapper's blog (via ABC News) is currently used 138 times in articles such as Presidency of Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, Joe Biden, Inauguration of Barack Obama, Barack Obama "Hope" poster, etc. His blog is about as reliable as it gets. He's the Chief White House Correspondent, so I doubt ABC News would consider him unreliable. In case you can't tell, what I'm trying to say is certain blogs can be used as sources. APK that's not my name 14:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

APK - what is your position on the Examiner? Thanks, ObserverNY (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Examiner.com is not considered a RS because the writers are citizen journalists with no editorial oversight. (Note: examiner.com is not the same as sfexaminer.com or washingtonexaminer.com - same parent company, but the last two are actual newspapers) APK that's not my name 15:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Are these blogs under the full editorial control of these publications? So far, no one has presented any evidence that they are. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Such evidence is almost possible to produce and is not required for the RS standard. These sources are from mainstream, legitimate news organizations on the websites of those organizations and should not be removed. Gamaliel (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Except that it is in the standard. It's mentioned explicitly. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The standard does not require an editor to produce unobtainable evidence of the internal workings of a news organization. The fact that a professional journalist writes a blog on the website of his employer, a professional news organization, is more than sufficient to meet this standard. Gamaliel (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, that's not what the policy says. In fact, it says "where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think the part you quoted is relevant. In the case of Politico, I don't think anyone is interested in Smith's opinion. Gamaliel (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It's relevant because you claimed "Such evidence is almost possible to produce and is not required for the RS standard.". The reality is that it is required, and if it's impossible to produce, then it's not a reliable source according to the policies as written. If you don't like the wording of the policies, this is not the place to debate them. Go to their talk pages and lobby for them to be changed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't connected any of these policy quotes. The quote about the "opinions of a professional" is irrelevant because no one is quoting Smith's opinion and I don't believe it is an opinion piece. RS does not require internal evidence of the workings of a professional news publication, and you haven't quoted anything that backs up that assertion. I'm not interested in debating policy, I'm simply pointing out that it doesn't prohibit blogs and it doesn't place the impossible requirements that you claim it does. Politico meets the reliable source standard. Ben Smith is a professional journalist in the employ of Politico. That's all we need. Gamaliel (talk) 04:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I contacted Ben Smith and in his reply, he found it "strange" that there would be some kind of doubt in regards to his blog's credibility, considering he's one of Politico's "senior political writers". Smith said there's not an official statement on the site explicitly saying his Politico blog has full editorial control, but that he could write a statement if it would solve the problem. He also asked where this debate was taking place, so a link to this discussion was provided.

I find it strange that A Quest For Knowledge doesn't have a problem with the Politico article I added yesterday (co-authored by Ben Smith), but doesn't want to use a Politico blog authored by the same individual. APK that's not my name 05:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to keep up with all the changes and I've (somewhat) lost interest in the article. However, if you like, I can double my efforts to make sure that WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BLP are followed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

APK - Thank you for the clarification. ObserverNY (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

As well as Jake Tapper's ABC News blog. I posted it at the noticeboard since A Quest For Knowledge kept deleting it, there's only one response so far, but it does say it is a reliable source. -- Dougie WII (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

He's pretty reliable for most subjects, although occasionally he does drift a bit into commentary or pundit mode. Reliability isn't an on-off switch for entire websites, writers, or columns. There is a spectrum of reliability (and perhaps a threshold below which we shouldn't fall), and that's very dependent of the context of the statement and what it's being used for. If Tapper makes an aside that the weather in Washington is "blistering hot" this month I don't think we should use that in an article about climatology, that's just color commentary. Wikidemon (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

If this blog is reliable for controversial information about WP:BLP, then can you please show me where the news organization says that it's subject to its full editorial control and that it takes responsibility for its content? If it meets these qualifications, it should be easy to show and we can end this debate quite easily. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The policy makes no such requirement other than to use our judgment. A professional news website is not a blog aggregator. A journalist writing journalism on his employer's website is obviously under the editorial control of his employer. The magic word blog doesn't turn that page into an unreliable libel machine. Let's not abandon common sense in the face of a faulty interpretation of policy. Gamaliel (talk) 04:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet, again, that's not what the policy states. What it actually says is that "where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed." Can you please show me where the news organization takes responsibility for a blog's opinions as required by WP:V? If you can't answer this simple question, then not only does the content fail WP:V, but WP:BLP says editors should remove controversial information immediately and without discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't say that you need to find some sort of proof for it. If so, quote the part that says you have to, not something else that you use to infer it from. Then quote the part that explains what sort of proof is required and how to obtain that proof. If you can't, then the policy does not require that you do those things. Gamaliel (talk) 04:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Please refer to the guidelines for biographies for living persons and the rules for speedy deletion. This article contains fake references that lead to fake websites that lead to fake blogs and fake material and a fake reporter which leads to defamation of character, biased material and otherwise non verifiable information. Note to users: A blog is not a verifiable source for information. Further attempts to insert such material will result in the deletion of this article and blocking of the user. Opinions are like assholes people- everybody's got one; but it has no place in the wikiworld. Here we like facts, not opinions. I'm recommending to the wikimedia director that all biographies of living persons be banned until people can grow up and stop having political fights in our forum. Keep your politics to yourself and out of Wiki. I'm further recommending the deletion of all articles related to the person who repeatedly breaks our guidelines. As well as blocking the user. There are plenty of outlets for opinion. This is not an opinion forum. Unbiased verifiable facts are all we accept here in this forum.

Venus III (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Van Jones/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This page would better serve the public by including a more complete section of criticism.Yonatanmenachem (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 00:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 20:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)