Talk:Van Jones

Nothing Burger?

Calling the Trump-Russia connection *on tape* a "Nothing Burger" is significant since he is a nightly panelist on CNN and speaks voluminously regarding this alleged collusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:58A:8600:6375:6497:2CF8:874C:70F3 (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2G360HrSAs This statement is publically available and can be confirmed by literally anyone with an internet connection, why is this being continously removed under the pretense of "false allegations" and "highly questionable source" when the video is literally the person himself clearly stating the "nothing burger" line? There is nothing "false" or "highly questionable" about any of this. King Arthur6687 (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

This is outrageous. The entire nothingburger statement itself is clearly not edited and it is accompanied by video. It doesn't even matter if this clip was stitched to anything, it stands on its own. Zatherz (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Resignation Section Must Be Fixed or Deleted

Please refrain from he said / she said and quoting opinionated reporters. We don't care what a reporter thinks, nor what a blogger thinks, nor any other type of opinion. Please fix this section and take out all opinion oriented content and leave only the facts. I will check back in 24 hours to see it has been done. I removed a considerable portion to a previous entry in a section titled "Early Activism" due to lack of verifiable reference and citing. Don't make me have to do it again. It leads to defamation of character and biased material and absolutely nothing VERIFIABLE. If you all stick to the facts and adhere to our guidelines we would appreciate it. We do not care about any opinions one way or another. OPINIONS are not FACT. I'm recommending to the director of wikimedia that quotes be banned from political entries; unless the quote comes from the person for whom the biography is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venus III (talk • contribs) 03:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

First, part of the material you deleted from the "Early Activism" section was in fact a quote from Jones, so if it is OK to quote the subject then why did you delete it? Second, you are not the boss of us. You can check back as often as you want; barking orders on a talk page is not going to win you much support from other editors. I would suggest you read WP:V and WP:RS to get a better understanding of what is accepted as "verifiable" here. --RL0919 (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I certainly hope the National Enquirer does not make its way into what is acceptable. The East Bay Express is a tabloid. Please remove anything having to do with it. #15 is not a reliable verifiable source. Neither is #19 #20- which leads to defamation of character on the subject and other subjects in a non reliable verifiable source. This constitutes immediate removal. So please remove. 97.125.48.54 (talk) 04:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Above you will find a detailed reasoning for my request. I'm currently fact checking another source. But to leave it up there is wrong. Please remove it.

Being on tabloid-size paper does not make a publication unreliable. You have presented no legitimate evidence that the East Bay Express profile is unreliable beyond your own repeated assertions. And you should read the latest version of the article, because now you are complaining by number about references that were changed since your previous complaints (what was note 15 is now 16, and what was note 19 is no longer in the article). Personally, I'm going to refrain from responding to your comments unless you have legitimate improvements to suggest, because it is an obvious waste of time at this point. If someone else wants respond to you, more power to them. --RL0919 (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Holy Christ, the resignation section is a joke, just like the rest of the article. No mention of Jones's statements indicating that white people and corporations deliberately pollute black neighborhoods to kill black people, no mention of his racially-tinged comments concerning school shootings, no mention of his disruption of an event meant to bring together police and children. This whole fucking article is a complete whitewash that reads like it was written by Van "I signed that petition but now that I have been caught I claim otherwise" Jones.

You are absolutely right. This article is a disgraceful defense of an indefensible asshole. 98.215.210.156 (talk) 04:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Daver852

Van Jones is arguably one of the most malignantly racist agitators to ever have emerged onto the public scene. There is absolutely nothing this man ever says or writes that shows objectivity or receptivity. He acts as one who has declared all out war on all caucasian people. His aggressive, often violent tone, shows more raw intolerance toward whites than even legacy black activists like Al Sharpton and Malik Zulu Shabazz. He demonstrates no restraint or wisdom, and picks fights with the voracity of a delinquent teenager. He consistently portrays the black community and himself as wallowing in self pity. The fact that Obama has chosen this mas as an adviser is testimony to Obama administration's deeply racist bias, and is a greater travesty of political balance than even Donald Trump's inclusion of Steve Bannon within his cabinet. If Van Jones advised Obama, then it is not surprising to find that the 2016 presidential election was a "whitelash" against the Obama administration. Jones' extremist left influence on said administration certainly gave Americans reason to lash out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.216.19 (talk) 12:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The Talk page is to be used to improve the article, not to argue about opinions of the subject of the biography, or of the current administration or previous one. In early 2017, it is time to reduce the resignation section to facts, rather than quotes that repeat everyone's opinions. The incident is an example of political infighting, with each side trying to gain leverage. We don't have to repeat all the claims here, years later. Fundamentally, Jones attracted too much divisive attention and was proving to be a liability for the administration, so it was time for him to leave.Parkwells (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

9/11 Truther

In the first paragraph of the bio Jones name "appearing" on a petition on 911truth.org is mentioned, which is true. But There is no mention that he subsequently denied having signed any petition, and that this denial was not rebutted by the group, and they removed his signature stating they could find no record of him signing anything. It would seem that including a sentence about his name "appearing" on the petition without also stating immediately afterward that he denies having ever signed it is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.216.79 (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I separated out this topic from the larger section on his resignation because these accusations appear to be of a far greater magnitude than the rest (see the link to the article by Charles Krauthammer) and also proven demonstrably false, unlike many of the other accusations. Crackedvessel (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it should be made clear immediately that the claim was false and 911truth.org found they had no record of his signature. We don't have to go through Krauthammer saying it's important before learning that fact. It is now 2017 and time to clean up the article from the plethora of quotes during media attention.Parkwells (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Parents should be identified as in most other articles about notable personalities. ----

This looks like a useful article on the subject of Van Jones. http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2016/12/07/the-messy-truth-about-van-jones-n2256193 75.175.109.9 (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I think a search for a more neutral source based on reporting rather than opinion columnists would produce a better article. Malkin describes Andrew Breitbart as the "late great" and repeats his remarks trashing Jones. Understand that Townhall columnists, including Ann Coulter, are highly conservative.Parkwells (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2017

The nothingburger should be added as there is 100% proof he said it. To be deleting it is 1984 in action. Clown town (talk) 01:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

It is a fact, with recorded proof, it is relevant, and it will stay here as long as it's accurately sourced. No worries. Justin15w (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Would appear Wikipedia is a leftist harbinger of fake news. Sources be damned if it doesn't fit the narrative, amirite? Keep on further locking down the article and erasing facts until history is rewritten. King Arthur6687 (talk) 04:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@BlueboyLI: Please be aware you're in violation of the one revert per day rule on this article. Justin15w (talk) 04:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Justin15w: As requested here is your enlightenment: You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page. I did not revert, I simply removed material that was poorly sourced. BlueboyLI (talk) 04:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

So it's my understanding that a video of the person in question stating the information provided on this wiki page is poorly sourced? Justin15w (talk) 04:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Regardless, removal of the exact material in a previous edit counts as a revert. I've asked the Admin Noticeboard to weigh in on this. Secondly ... guys? There is a VIDEO of him saying this. I am not for or against anyone but am simply trying to improve this wiki as you can see in my edit history. I am not biased. How can this reversion even stand? Justin15w (talk) 04:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

That is correct. You may want to familiarize yourself with the rules for editing BLPs: The article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libelous. BlueboyLI (talk) 04:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, libelous material always comes from the subject actually stating the very thing in the wikipedia page. Stop being an activist. Put the factual information on the page. You sound ridiculous right now. Justin15w (talk) 04:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Firstly I'm no activist, just an editor who wants to keep wikipedia neutral & troll free. I'm sorry if my desire to help you become a better editor sounds ridiculous to you. BlueboyLI (talk) 05:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Does contentious material that is well-sourced (as in, a video) and that is not potentially libelous qualify for wikipedia inclusion? Justin15w (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

YouTube is not allowed as a reliable source in BLPs. Go here for more info on reliable sources. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources BlueboyLI (talk) 05:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Does a newsweek article stating what's inside the video not count as a legitimate source? http://www.newsweek.com/van-jones-cnn-nothing-burger-629853 Justin15w (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Consensus is being established below. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 17:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 July 2017

You should include the part where Van Jones called the Trump/Russia collusion story run by his employer, CNN, a "nothing burger." 174.192.9.93 (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

http://www.newsweek.com/van-jones-cnn-nothing-burger-629853 http://www.wnd.com/2017/06/van-jones-russia-scandal-a-big-nothing-burger/ http://thehill.com/homenews/media/340118-cnns-van-jones-okeefe-russia-nothingburger-video-a-hoax http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/28/cnns-van-jones-calls-russia-story-nothing-burger-l/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2G360HrSAs King Arthur6687 (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Consensus is being established below. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 21:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Request for consensus re: "nothingburger"

Which of these sources are acceptable for the inclusion of the nothingburger comment?

http://www.newsweek.com/van-jones-cnn-nothing-burger-629853 http://www.wnd.com/2017/06/van-jones-russia-scandal-a-big-nothing-burger/ http://thehill.com/homenews/media/340118-cnns-van-jones-okeefe-russia-nothingburger-video-a-hoax http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/28/cnns-van-jones-calls-russia-story-nothing-burger-l/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2G360HrSAs

Just curious as to which source is the most acceptable.

Thanks.

Justin15w (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The question is, should we include any mention of it at all? We don't include everything ever mentioned in a source about someone. It's quite possible that an editorial consensus could determine that this bit of ambush journalism is simply not important or relevant enough to Jones' life to include. The burden lies on the editor wishing to include contentious material in a BLP to demonstrate that such a consensus exists. Edit-warring the material is not acceptable. I would suggest starting an RFC if you wish to get a broader consensus opinion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I would go with Newsweek, seems the biggest name of the bunch. Ideally I'd just cite them all. As for the question of whether it should be mentioned: There are notable third-parties to the original source video reporting on it, that is notability and should satisfy requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. King Arthur6687 (talk) 06:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean which source is the most acceptable? The actual source, of course, which is the Veritas video. All of these other links would just be sources to sources. Zatherz (talk) 08:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

And secondary sources are preferred on Wikipedia... Saturnalia0 (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps adding Jones' response would be satisfying to all parties involved in the dispute? Such as in James O'Keefe#CNN undercover videos (2017)? Saturnalia0 (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I find no objection with that proposal as long as both sides of this are properly shown; that Jones did say "nothing burger" in relation to the Russia story (which he did!), and as proposed his response to the video showing him saying that line. King Arthur6687 (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

At this point, the material should not be included at all. O'Keeffe is a convicted criminal with a track record of misrepresentation and deceptive editing of the videos he releases. We cannot verify the context of what Jones actually said, and in particular whether he was referring to the substantive matter of what he expected the political outcome to be. A heavily edited if not doctored recording is not a reliable source and fails BLP standards. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)coop

What is your evidence that this video was "heavily edited if not doctored"? Nobody else has established this but it sounds like you've got the inside scoop, so please share. 2601:600:9B80:5C91:5921:AA43:9199:EEE9 (talk) 22:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The evidence that it is heavily edited is plain to see in the video. After the "How you been?" "I'm good" exchange, there is a cut. We don't know what may have been said leading up to "What do you think is going to happen this week with the whole Russia thing?" This excision of context means we don't know if Jones' "nothingburger" remark refers to the gravity of the evidence of collusion, or to the expected political impact of the scandal, or to the ratings impact of the story, or to something else. Then there is an abrupt cut after "There's nothing there you can do..." so we don't know how that sentence might have ended. Ambiguous and manipulative video from a disreputable source does not merit inclusion in the article. Ewulp (talk) 03:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm among those editors who also believes this doesn't belong; it was a 5-minute flash-in-the-pan news story that disappeared from view almost instantly, and like pretty much all of O'Keefe's "scoops," turned out to be a giant nothingburger itself. What news coverage there was, ended up focusing on the misleading manipulation and editing of the interview and on Jones' cogent refutation which basically shut down the story; as such, that might belong in O'Keefe's biography or in an article about Project Veritas, it doesn't belong here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The proposed content addition tells us nothing about the subject of this article: Van Jones. Debating over which source to use is nonsensical when the actual proposed text addition doesn't belong here regardless. (And by the way, O'Keefe & his Project Veritas are about as far away from Wikipedia's reliability requirements as you can get, and the other sources mentioned above basically just say "according to O'Keefe".) Try to remember this article is a BLP, and more importantly, this is an encyclopedia. I can just imagine the response the 7th grade teacher will get when she asks her student to explain what a "nothing burger" and a "Russia thing" is in the report he turned in about Van Jones: "I have no idea - it didn't say, but it must be important, because it was in Wikipedia!" Xenophrenic (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

This might be relevant on Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, but I don't see how it's relevant here. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The problem in regards to Jones is that he and his network have used extensive time and energy in covering the "Russia thing" for months and then he goes on video and says it's all a big hoax, a spin story or as he said so well him self; a "nothingburger". I'd say it belongs in the article. Beatitudinem (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Nothingburger

It's manifestly clear that the exclusion of the Nothingburger statement is political. Wikipedia is notoriously left-leading, so it tends not to include politically inconvenient facts even when

I wish to restart this debate. The description by Van Jones of the Russia issue as a "nothingburger" was significant enough that he felt the need to address it in a segment on CNN. It has been reported by numerous reputable and mainstream news orgnaizations. It should be included. JDiala (talk) 01:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Van Jones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150627195622/http://humanrightsaward.org/past-honorees/ to http://humanrightsaward.org/past-honorees/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Van Jones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160729071802/http://chicagoist.com/2012/08/31/prince_announces_welcome_2_chicago.php to http://chicagoist.com/2012/08/31/prince_announces_welcome_2_chicago.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Please fix this typo

I can't fix this myself due to Extended Confirmed Protection:

Please fix the typo "lawsuists" in the Ella Baker Center section (end of third paragraph). Thanks!

A subheading about the resignation is needed

I came to this Wikipedia entry to find out what Van Jones had resigned from, since I had no other information about the event. The table of contents gave no clue so I had to read the whole entry to find out he had worked in the White House and resigned from there. So, I went to add the subheading "Resignation from White House role" in the appropriate place, in order to make the entry more helpful to readers, and discovered the restrictions that are in place. I do not want to get involved in a highly politicized debate about Van Jones with anyone here, or risk being sanctioned in any way. I'd like people who were involved in these debates to reflect on the impacts of their behavior. I have noticed it is getting harder to edit and contribute to Wikipedia, because of political controversies like this. If anyone else with more Wikipedia editing experience would like to add in such a subheading, that would be great. Thank you. EvidenceFairy (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)