Talk:Van Jones

Fix the Bias

Another thing wrong on the main page is that van jones did not just get involved with STORM but FOUNDED IT!!!

Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM) is van jones CREATION!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altrek242 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll say it again: Restore my "Controversy" section. The user who removed that section essentially invites people to mix ideology with facts. Plus, there's no doubt in my mind that it's the "Controversy" that prompts the "customer" public to this page. Furthermore, controversy sections are completely valid in a biographical article, especially when controversy is part of that person's life. Witness Jimmy Wales' page. For those NOT "in the know" Jimmy Wales is a co-founder of Wikipedia and is the founder of Wikimedia. NB and Observe carefully: controversy surrounds Wales AND IT IS DESCRIBED IN ITS OWN SECTION. Keep this page to substantiated germane fact and move the controversy and creatively colorful wording (read: "bias") back to the Controversy section! Think objectively as the founder of Wikipedia intended and help keep Wikipedia as a neutral resource. Need help with objectism? Go read Ayn Rand.

Without isolating controversy from the facts, presentation of the facts will continue to be tainted by bias. Controversy is relevant, and isolating it will help to keep ideology from tainting facts.

Frankly, I think this page is an embarrassment to Wikipedia (Glenn Beck called attention to it, which harms Wikipedia's credibility and reputation in some measure, and this got my attention). Certain people should be blushing over their appearance in its history and one user in particular has a persistence that calls his/her neutrality into question. (S)he may not necessarily be a vandal to the page but (s)he is definitely a vandal to Wikipedia's mission and image... - JayWhitney (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Glenn Beck's page is kept scrubbed of all controversy by his minions. Nice double standard there, boyo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.72.17.15 (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, adding a Controversy or Reception section invites more battles than it's worth. Some editors seem to have enough difficulty distinguishing between where simple facts should be stated and where a topic can be elaborated upon. This man's entire life is controversial - for the time being, for the sake of neutrality, I recommend working with the article's present format. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Van Jones said he was a "communist"; it is part of his life, it should be on his page! Somebody with a modicum of social responsibility for the sake of accuracy should re-add this reference to the first mention of his labeling himself a "communist":

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/gyrobase/the_new_face_of_environmentalism/Content?oid=290098&showFullText=true

This is a serious omission, among many others on Van Jones that do harm to wikipedia's image. JohnHistory (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory (Has the East Bay Express been deemed "not a credible publication"?

Respectful observation: This is what happens when when people with inherent bias are allowed to moderate and control political exposition. NB: I was a teacher. Silence the dissenters (read as: "Quiet class!")

Just a little superscript and you'll likely end the dabate. - JayWhitney (talk) 11:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Van Jones is and has been for the last 17 years a self-avowed communist even naming his four year old son after a guerilla fighter. He is also a CZAR not a special advisor but a CZAR unfortunately this FisherQueen that has protected his page from the truth being told works for him or for the White House. Hey FisherQueen! If you have the guts to read these messages why don't you unprotect your master's wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.1.132.103 (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I seem to have permission to edit this page, so in the spirit of my evangelical-esque desire that Wikipedia remain a bastion of fact (I use it a lot for medicine, where there is actual peer review to fall back upon), I've made some changes that hopefully offer a step towards resolving this brouhaha.

I've added a "Controversy" section and moved anything that is not said by Van Jones himself or are statements or opinions of others such as Glenn Beck, Eva Paterson, and other bloggers there. The central debate/controversy seems to be whether or not Mr. Jones is still a communist. It's a bunch of he-said/she-said of opinion and things that cannot be corroborated. History seems clear and documented, it's the present that is a matter of controversy. Writing in Wikipedia does not create fact nor does it change history. Wikipedia reflects fact and cites history.

I pre-justify the Controversy section as the existence of the controversy is fact, and must be germane given the attention it gets and given the debate about edits to this page.

Plus, consider that the fame and notoriety from this controversy is why many would visit this Wiki page and people are probably at least as interested in the controversy as they are in Van Jones himself. - JayWhitney (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is blatantly POV and an embarrassment to wikipedia. The absence of detail of this man's radical communist views, given his closeness to the president, is incredible. I dont have time to edit war with committed leftists, but I hope others will note the blatant sanitization of the entire article and the absence of documentation of who this man really is. Hadrianheugh (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a biographical article in an encyclopedia, not an ideological essay that explains what is important because of someone's "closeness to the president" or any other political considerations. It is supposed to neutrally summarize the facts about the subject as they are presented in reliable sources. The article already mentions that he became a communist, that he worked with an avowedly Marxist organization, etc. But these are not the only things that he has done, and the article reflects that. Just because these things are repeated a million times in blogs does not mean they should take up the majority of the article. If you have facts from reliable sources (not original research based on interpreting quotes) that you believe are missing from the article, please name the specific facts and supply the sources. Drive-by carping does not help to improve anything. --RL0919 (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with RL0919. The article is not blatantly POV, however I have been trying to stave off a blatantly pro-Jones editor from inserting feel good fluff in the overview. Let the facts speak for themselves. ObserverNY (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

the section where beck is quoted just seems to make beck look like an intolerant racist conservative asshole, it doesn't balance out the article at all, does anyone else think so? that section Should be rewritten so it's more NPOV

The only direct Van Jones quotation where he mentions being a communist is plain. He says, in reflection on younger days, "I was a communist." Using this quotation to justify claims that he is still a communist shows a blatant disregard for both the literal sense of the words on the page -- it is called PAST tense for a reason -- and the intent of the quote, which was to reflect on his former days of being too radical. I'm no pro-Jones sympathizer, but I at least think references to Jones' "self-identification as a communist" should consistently say something like "former self-identification" or "self-identification as a communist at one point in his life." It seems a fair compromise; the right gets to have its field day calling people communist, and the left gets to at least make sure the right doesn't temporally skew the bare facts of the matter. Sighter Goliant (talk) 08:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Resignation from administration

This seems to be an awfully abbreviated statement of the case Beck made against Van Jones. Nothing about being a self-vowed communist, "give them the wealth", stating green jobs was just a jumping off point to a socialist revolution, cutting a CD with Mumia where the says Israel has been unfairly occupying Palestine since 1948, poisining people of color, etc. This essentially has been pared down to the mainstream media version that makes it look like Jones is some innocent guy that's been slimed to death with ridiculous accusations and lies, and there's nothing in there an average American would be upset about. Isn't this violating NPOV to leave out relevant details to enforce a point of view? It's probably better to put these details into a "Glenn Beck criticism of Van Jones" article and put in a main article link to it, since it won't survive in here. It would also make it easy for any reader to have a ready reference to what the fuss was about, since they won't find it in here. Bachcell (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Jones resigned from his position as Special Advisor in September 2009. The campaign to push him to resign, covered notably by commentators such as Glenn Beck,[citation needed] produced three main points from Van Jones's past which he was forced to defend: a remark in February 2009 in which he called Congress Republicans "assholes";[37][38] a 2004 signature on a "911 truth" petition, the views of which Van Jones then disowned;[39] and a leftwing past including membership of a socialist group and support for Mumia Abu-Jamal.[40] After what Jones described as a "vicious smear campaign", he resigned, saying that he could not "in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past. We need all hands on deck, fighting for the future

WP:NPOV is not served by repeating every interpretation Beck made of any action by Van Jones he disapproved of. The main issues as reported by mainstream media are all that is needed. The article should not become a WP:Coatrack. Rd232 ^talk 21:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Is that a joke? If "mainstream" coverage is all that is needed, then there should have never been any negative information in the article until he resigned??? Bachcell (talk)

Indeed, Beck's claims were not noteworthy until they did their damage and the mainstream press reported on it. The fact that a guy calls Republicans Assholes, said he used to be a communist, and what else was it, signed some crazy petition, is not a notable thing. Do we add a "communist" reference to every person who ever said that, write articles about everyone who signed a fringe petition, or write articles about the millions of people who call Republicans assholes? Of course not. It only became an encyclopedic issue once it meant something. Wikidemon (talk) 05:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

In a quick re-read of the resignation section, it appears to me that it focuses more on Beck's "racist" comment than Jones! This should not be the case. I may have missed it, but the fact that Jones is on tape claiming the "white polluters poisoned communities of color" needs to be in this article somewhere, especially since this dude was going to be in charge of green jobs. As I said, I may have missed it, but it needs to be in there. Thanks ObserverNY (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(a) Beck's comment is there to explain the sequence of events. (b) Van Jones has no doubt made millions of comments in his life, many of which may be recorded. Evidence of their notability needs to be shown (i.e. coverage in secondary sources. Rd232 ^talk 09:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, shouldn't we include the fact that the call for boycotting only happened after Beck had a piece critical of Van Jones? Soxwon (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Dangerous territory for WP:NPOV if we imply a connection and don't have sources to explicitly support that connection. Rd232 ^talk 14:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

EXACTLY! Which is why I'm not sure why the Color of Change criticism is in there. Soxwon (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Is an unwarranted connection implied? The point is the Assholes Video was released in response to the boycott, and the boycott needs to be minimally explained. Rd232 ^talk 15:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

proposed new section for discusion

User:The lorax and User:ObserverNY suggested that we make the following section:

Van Jones advocates conservation and regulation as a way of encouraging environmental justice and opposing Environmental racism. For instance in January 2008, from an “EON Deep Democracy Interview Series: Green Jobs Not Jails - The Third Wave of Environmentalism” Van Jones said: "First of all, we began to realize that we’re entering into a third wave of environmentalism in the United States. The first wave is sort of the Teddy Roosevelt, conservation era which had its day and then, in 1963, Rachel Carson writes a book, “Silent Spring”, and she’s talking about “toxics”, and the environment and that really kind of opens up a whole new wave. So its no longer just conservation but it’s conservation, plus regulation, trying to regulate the “bad”, and that wave kind of continued to be developed and got kind of a 2.5 upgrade because of the environmental justice community who said “what a minute, you’re regulating but you’re not regulating “equally”, the white polluters and white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people-of-color communities, because they don’t have a racial justice frame”. myclob (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is long enough that it cannot be taken out of context, it links to more information, if they want to learn about his beliefs, and what they are. What do you think? 12:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that it is a little too long. I think the last part is enough and the first part really doesnt have that much to do with those comments . They could stand alone and as long as you leave "racial justice" as the last word, and give plenty of context. To include the TR stuff is undue weight, as in all the things he has said, it is the last that is important.--Die4Dixie (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It has to be clear that he's attributing the "white polluters steering poison into people-of-color communities" view to the "environmental justice community". Rd232 ^talk 12:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Maybe we could just say that he claimed that the EJ justice folks say that (and they do).--Die4Dixie (talk) 13:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC) It is not nearly as controversial as I had thought at first.

I think the problem I have with representing Van Jones as an advocate of "opposing" Environmental Racism is that his method of doing so creates allegations of Reverse-Environmental Racism. Imho, and I know this is not a forum, but if evidence existed of mega-corporations polluting poor communities, race should NEVER have been brought into the matter, least of all by someone who was later given the responsibility of creating "green jobs". Where is Mr. Jones' "racial-justice frame" for the good white folk who play by the rules, pay their taxes and do things right? Every white environmentalist is "bad"? I'm just so tired of the hypocrisy. Thanks for giving my input consideration. ObserverNY (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

There is a disproportionate amount of pollution affecting poorer, minority neighborhoods that is caused by white polluters though and that's a significant part of the framework behind the study of environmental racism.--The lorax (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Considering the Wiki article on environmental racism claims it was so named by Benjamin Chavis Muhammad, I'd say you've got a LONG way to go to prove that environmental racism is anything more than pure hyperbole. ObserverNY (talk) 08:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Go ahead and propose modifications.... myclob (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY, it is a fallacy to suggest that environmental racism is hyperbole because of a person. Is there something about this person that you object to? Reliefappearance (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Mark Lloyd

Van Jones fans may be interested in helping out with Mark Lloyd, and its history. The entire "controversy" section has been removed every time it has been built up with references. It now looks like the same stub found on the official FCC website. There has been continuous scrubbing of any controversial information which not been as successful on this page. The consensus seems to be that if Lloyd resigns, and it is covered by RS, then it can be documented, but not if only documented by conservative talk shows or other media. Bachcell (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You are incorrect. That is not the consensus. Whether a source meets WP:RS has nothing to do with whether it is "liberal" or "conservative" Reliefappearance (talk) 04:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Mumia Abu-Jamal

I first added the Jamal reference because his name had been mentioned in the WaPo and Politico articles in relation to Jones' resignation; neither source mentions the Abu-Jamal conspiracy theory. Changing the sourced content from "convicted of killing a police officer" to "whose conviction for killing a police officer has been disputed" is POV and unrelated to Jones' bio (Disputed by whom? Not the Supreme Court.). This article should state the fact he was convicted of murder; the political conspiracy can be found on Abu-Jamal's article. I've already added NPOV RS that briefly describe Abu-Jumal's background. Politico describes him as a "convicted murderer" and "a former Black Panther on death row whose murder conviction in the death of a police officer is a cause célèbre for some on the left." Translation: He a convicted cop-killer with a leftist fan club. WaPo describes him as a "death-row inmate...who was convicted of shooting a Philadelphia police officer in 1981." Translation: He a convicted cop-killer. APK is a GLEEk 19:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not NPOV to mention Van Jones supporting Mumia, and merely describing Mumia as a cop killer. It just isn't. A minimal allusion to why Jones might have supported him (cf Mumia Abu-Jamal#Popular support and opposition) is required. Rd232 ^talk 19:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a more neutral sentence would be "whose conviction for killing a police officer has been disputed by some on the left"?--The lorax (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) But adding the phrase "has been disputed" without saying who disputes it and why the U.S. Supreme Court let the conviction stand is NPOV? The U.S. judicial system considers him a murderer; thus, mainstream news publications say he's a convicted murderer. Adding that it was "disputed" when there's nothing to dispute is promoting a fringe theory. (I'm really not trying to imply you're a fringe theorist, it's just the wording comes across as Truther_y/Birther_y.) APK is a GLEEk 20:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Nothing that you've said addresses my previous point. And if you bothered to read the Mumia article, you wouldn't throw "fringe" at that view so easily. Rd232 ^talk 20:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I live and work in a liberal neighborhood in one of the country's most liberal cities, so I'm very familiar with Abu-Jamal's fringe following. I've read the article, but thanks for your obvious concern. I've specifically addressed your point. How about addressing my point(s)? Muchas gracias. APK is a GLEEk 00:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If he is a convicted murderer and is described in reliable sources as such, we really can't invent a "his conviction is disputed" phrasing. It is misleading to the reader and goes over the line. And even if we were to insert some sort of dispute, the conviction itself is apparently not disputed at all, what can be disputed is circumstances, etc but not the fact of the conviction itself. Hobartimus (talk) 03:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"his conviction is disputed" is short-hand for "the validity of his conviction is disputed". I have no problems expanding that, or taking sources from Mumia Abu-Jamal, or finding new ones. The point stands that it is not neutral to describe a person supporting X when X sounds insupportable, and omit the reasons why the person does so. Please see WP:BLP policy: it is particularly important that we don't casually give the impression that a person is supporting something insupportable. The previous version (I've just edited again) gave the impression that he supported a cop killer and by extension supported cop killing. Rd232 ^talk 19:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverted since there was no consensus and the wording, as explained already, is misleading. The current wording does not violate WP:BLP. If someone wants to read about Abu-Jamal's case, the wikilink is there for a reason. Hobartimus said it best - "We really can't invent a "his conviction is disputed" phrasing." APK say that you love me 21:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added a source from the Mumia article. At the risk of repeating myself, it certainly is a violation of BLP amongst other policies to imply that a BLP subject supports a cop killer qua cop killer and by extension supports cop killing. Rd232 ^talk 13:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Just like it violates NPOV to pick one organization as having disputed the upheld conviction. If we're going to pick one, why not the French Communist Party which the Los Angeles Times described as "one of Abu-Jamal's most vocal supporters"? I've added the suggested comprise made by The lorax. APK say that you love me 15:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverted, because you deleted two sources and a specific statement and replaced it with unsourced "leftists". Name an organisation whose opinion on this would be more relevant that that of Amnesty International. Really, do we have to have an WP:RFC about this? If you want to drop the detail, a compromise would be going back to the vaguer "the validity of whose conviction has been disputed" and leave the two new footnotes. Rd232 ^talk 16:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think an RFC is the only way because you're using two sources that do not even mention Van Jones, the subject of this article, violating WP:SYNTH. The Politico source says "a former Black Panther on death row whose murder conviction in the death of a police officer is a cause célèbre for some on the left." That clearly backs up the wording. Hobartimus said it best, "If he is a convicted murderer and is described in reliable sources as such, we really can't invent a 'his conviction is disputed' phrasing. It is misleading to the reader and goes over the line. And even if we were to insert some sort of dispute, the conviction itself is apparently not disputed at all, what can be disputed is circumstances, etc but not the fact of the conviction itself." BTW, it's a good thing you redacted this statement. APK say that you love me 16:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

WTF? You delete the sources that back up the point, then complain the sources don't back up the point? The sources are "A Life in the Balance: The Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal". Amnesty International. February 17, 2000. Retrieved 2007-10-18. Taylor Jr., Stuart (1995). "Guilty and Framed". The American Lawyer. Retrieved 2008-01-22. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help). These back up the point that the conviction is disputed, and not by un-named "leftists". There is zero synthesis here, don't be ridiculous. PS "leftists" is a POV word in itself, it has no place in an encyclopedia article. PPS And how is it you've gone back to the strawman that we shouldn't imply a dispute of the fact of the conviction? The "validity" wording put that straw man behind us. Rd232 ^talk 16:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)Anyway, if you can't accept the current version or the suggested compromise, I suggest you post at WP:NPOVN. Rd232 ^talk 16:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I edited this section, changing "validity" to "fairness" before noticing this discussion. AI notes that the validity of the evidence used to obtain the conviction has been questioned, considers that evidence to be contradictory and incomplete, and has concluded that the proceedings used to convict and sentence Mumia Abu-Jamal to death were in violation of minimum international standards that govern fair trial procedures and the use of the death penalty. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a better word choice in this context. Rd232 ^talk 07:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Change Eco-capitalism to Environmental Justice

To the Lorax - I see you undid my edit. Van Jones never promoted eco-capitalism. Read the definition of environmental justice. You will see it addresses everything Jones advocated. Capitalism is not advocated by communists, it's that simple. ObserverNY (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

He advocated both though; if you read The Green Collar Economy it is clear, he is an eco-capitalist as well.--The lorax (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Green Party courts Van Jones for future run

thehill.com just reported: "The Green Party invited President Barack Obama’s green-jobs czar to join their ranks, possibly as a future presidential candidate, after he stepped down last Sunday following controversial statements and activities." Grundle2600 (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If Jones makes a statement about joining the Green Party, then we could add it to the article. But this is just an invitation from the Green Party; it doesn't say anything about Jones joining their party. APK is a GLEEk 21:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This information would be well-placed in 'U.S. Green Party'. I don't think it fits well here, since it is a minor thing in Jones' life. The Squicks (talk) 04:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If Jones hasn't commented on it and it hasn't actually affected his life in some way, then I don't think it belongs here. If he makes some statement accepting/rejecting the idea, or it has some specific impact on him, then it would be relevant. --RL0919 (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Citation for Jones "2008 - Time Magazine Environmental Hero"

Under the Awards and honors section, Jones is listed as "2008 - Time Magazine Environmental Hero" without a citation. This should have a reference to this page: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1841778_1841781_1841811,00.html

I can't make the change as I am not confirmed.

CaseyE3100 (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the suggestion. --RL0919 (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Time article

Perhaps we should reexamine the "White polluters" comment. Time, a relible source, has said that this is Jones´ own thoeory, and that he "theorized" it. I think that this RS clears it up and avoids us having to do OR and crystal balling.--68.35.239.206 (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Link here[1].--68.35.239.206 (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of "sympathy"

I'm about to revert the deletion by John Asfukzenski of remarks criticizing the firing. Asfukzenski may wish to argue here for the deletion of this part, and if there is agreement for deletion then it may be deleted. -- Hoary (talk) 03:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon deleted it anyway. So much for the notion of discussion. -- Hoary (talk) 03:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I deleted it again, was put back in by Annoynmous ObserverNY (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Reason for deletion - "commentary" of "sympathy" for Jones by the Huffington Post does not qualify as WP:RS and violated WP:NPOV. ObserverNY (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The New Republic is a reliable source and Huffpost is allowed to give there opinion of Jones. annoynmous13:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I must say I find it odd that Worldnetdaily is allowed as a reliable source but The New Republic and Huffingtonpost are not. Huffington post is giving there opinion of the Jones matter and saying they believe he was treated badly. The article doesn't relie on them as a source of fact, just what there opinion was. I find it odd that instead of discussing this at the talk page like Hoary suggested above, both ObserverNY and Soxwon just simply deleted. It sounds like there more interested in slanting the article against Jones rather than improving the article. annoynmous 13:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The only cite of World Net Daily is to support its mention in the article as "conservative" criticism of Jones. If you wish to reword your edit to state "left-wing" or "Liberal" support for Jones, in the interest of WP:BALANCE I will consider it for inclusion. Furthermore, there was substantial discussion and consensus reached on this talk page about renaming the sub-section "Environmental justice". Please do not arbitrarily change something like this without discussing first. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I don't see any consensus on the issue calling it Environmental Justice. I see you making the case and a lot of people disagreeing with you. No one agreed that your proposal was the right one.

Also you must once provide a reason why worldnetdaily is reliable but Huffington post. Also the New Republic is a mainstream source and the authors critcism of obama not supporting him should be included.

Don't event a consensus that doesn't exist. annoynmous 17:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's clear from jones article that he is advocating both. He's saying that the enviro-justice movement is part of the new eco-capitalist movement. annoynmous 17:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Annoynmous - Please refer to the archived discussion here: [2]. Assume WP:good faith. ObserverNY (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Fine, I don't see any final consensus where everybody agrees with you. It's clear to me that jones is advocating both. Your reasoning that communists can't be capitalists would be true if jones were still a communist. He says clearily in the article where that quote comes from that he abandoned his early radical viewpoints around 2000.

Anyway I've added both as a compromise. I agree jones is part of the Enviro-justice movement, but that doesn't mean he isn't also an eco-capitalist.annoynmous 17:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits again. Please do not make this an edit war. If other editors would like to weigh in on annoynmous's edits and re-visit the issue, I encourage other input. Until then, please do not change the language of that section or keep attempting to introduce POV sources. ObserverNY (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

You are not the boss of this article. The New Rebublic is a mainstream source and the Huffington Post is a widely read website. Either provided a reason why they shouldn't be included other than you don't like them or stop deleting valid sources. annoynmous 17:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

To add - The New Republic is NOT WP:RS or WP:NPOV. There is not a single WP:RS which demonstrates that Jones ever renounced his communist ideology. If you can find a mainstream source such as the NYT, WAPO, LATimes, Chicago Sun, CNN, MSNBC, etc. which clearly states that Jones has publicly disavowed his radical past, then we can discuss re-introducing "eco-capitalism". Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

How is the New Rebublic not a reliable source. It is a widely published magazine with a very centrist to liberal outlook. Also Van Jones never renounced his communist ideology?

Jones' fixation on solidarity dates from this experience. He took an objective look at the movement's effectiveness and decided that the changes he was seeking were actually getting farther away. Not only did the left need to be more unified, he decided, it might also benefit from a fundamental shift in tactics. "I realized that there are a lot of people who are capitalists -- shudder, shudder -- who are really committed to fairly significant change in the economy, and were having bigger impacts than me and a lot of my friends with our protest signs," he said.

First, he discarded the hostility and antagonism with which he had previously greeted the world, which he said was part of the ego-driven romance of being seen as a revolutionary. "Before, we would fight anybody, any time," he said. "No concession was good enough; we never said 'Thank you.' Now, I put the issues and constituencies first. I'll work with anybody, I'll fight anybody if it will push our issues forward. ... I'm willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends."

His new philosophy emphasizes effectiveness, which he believes is inextricably tied to unity. He still considers himself a revolutionary, just a more effective one, who has realized that the progressive left's insistence on remaining a counterculture destroys its potential as a political movement. "One of my big heroes is Malcolm X, not because I agree with Malcolm, but because he wasn't afraid to change in public," he said.

This says to me that he clearily considers himself a mainstream progressive. It would be nice if people actually read the sources that quotes come from. annoynmous 18:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Annoynmous - this is not a WP:Soapbox. I don't CARE what you believe Jones "clearily considers himself". Irrelevant. Not encyclopaedic, speculation and POV interpretation. I am asking other editors to weigh in on this and am bowing out until I hear from others. Perhaps I am totally misguided in my amateur grip of Wiki policy. Cheers. ObserverNY (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Well you are because you obviously missed this part of wikipedia policy:

Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, for example the New York Times in the United States and The Times in Great Britain, as well as widely used conglomerates such as the Associated Press. Some caveats:

News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact, and should be attributed in-text. In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations may be used.

The New Republic is considered by most people to be a high quality source and in the article it's clearily defined as an opinion piece. annoynmous 18:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I will concede the The New Republic as a WP:RS, however not to be used to quote the Huffington Post. ObserverNY (talk) 19:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Where in the article does the author quote the Huffington Post. It's clearily John Mcwhorther's opinion, no one elses. What's wrong with ackowledging that the huffington post supported him. The article states he was criticized by groups like Worldnetdaily and supported by groups like huffington post. It's seems to me only fair to give people who defended jones a say as well as his critics. annoynmous 19:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

call for other editors

Look, I don't want to get banned for WP:3RR. Will somebody else please address the environmental justice/eco-capitalism New Republic/Huffington Post issue with annoynmous? Please? Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

What Issue is there. Both Enviro-justice and eco-capitalism are in the article. You have given no reason why he isn't an eco-capitalist. Jones specifically mentions the term in the article he wrote.

As for the New Republic being a reliable, opinion pieces in major news magazines are allowed under wikipedia guidlines as long as it is stated as opinion which it is in the article. annoynmous 18:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Please change Democrat to Democratic

In the Resignation section, last paragraph first sentance

"Former mayor of San Francisco and Democrat speaker"...

Should be "Democratic speaker"

[3] Democratic –adjective 1. pertaining to or of the nature of democracy or a democracy. 2. pertaining to or characterized by the principle of political or social equality for all: democratic treatment. 3. advocating or upholding democracy. 4. (initial capital letter) Politics. a. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the Democratic party. b. of, pertaining to, or belonging to the Democratic-Republican party.

Kynetx (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Kynetx

Fixed.--The lorax (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Timing of Jones' Statement that he didn't undersigned what he signed

As written, the Van Jones article is misleading regarding when he distanced himself from the petition. It implies that his statement that he didn't understand the petition was days after June 2004, but he didn't distance himself until 2009.