Talk:Van Jones/Unprotected

Welcome to Wikipedia! While the talk page is protected, new and unregistered users can leave their ideas about improving this encyclopedia here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Framing Mumia Abu Jamal as a "Cop Killer" problematic

I deeply resent and object to the use of the term "cop-killer" in this supposedly "informational Wiki-article" (See footnote 47) - not only is the case against political prisoner Mumia Abu Jamal filled with holes, and lacking evidence, it is totally problematic in nature to use the term "cop killer" as it is extremely biased.

See: "Jones' comments referring to Republicans as "assholes" and his support for convicted cop killer and former Black Panther Mumia Abu Jamal were also contributors to the campaign against him.[47]"

The man has been convicted for murdering a cop. Would "cop murderer" be a less bias term? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.216.94 (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Video

The last word Mr. Jones uses in the video is "uppity", not "ugly."

Good catch. This has been fixed. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm simply amazed at the rate at which wikipedia is deteriorating in its ability to provide unbiased information regarding political figures. The "Van" Jones page is a perfect example. Wise up Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.4.254 (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The page on Van Jones is hopeless compromised with right wing spew. It should be protected. Van has been singing the praises of entrepreneurship as a way to create jobs and improve the urban environment for more than a decade. It is all on the public record. Putting in the article every nutty thing someone has said about him distorts history beyond belief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.77.206 (talk) 05:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The van jones page does not say anything of his radical communist past and the FACT he is the founder of STORM..He is a self proclaimed communist and has not denounced that..He has no business in American Politics or in the American Government.

Protection

Wow.. even talk pages are protected now? I was going to weigh in with a legitimate suggestion but fuck it now. I'm not going to bother with Wikipedia again.

The talk page is temporarily protected because, since Glenn Beck has started focusing on Van Jones in his television show, the talk page has been badly disrupted by excessive amounts of edits like this one, which were making it impossible to get any work done. Those brand new users who do have useful comments to contribute can leave them here- as you can see above, editors working on this article are watching this talk page, too. If you are too offended by the temporary protection of the talk page from vandalism to participate, though, we respect your decision, and will do the best we can without your idea. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Correction to "A**holes" Video Controversy Section

Under the "Republicans are assholes" video section, RealClear Politics is cited as the source (footnote #38). This is inaccurate, since that web page only contains a link to the video which was put up by the group "DefendGlenn.com" on September 1st, which has nearly 300,000 views. The story should thus discuss briefly the group DefendGlenn.com [1], and the footnoted link #38 should be to the YouTube video source and not a website which merely embedded it (RCP). Here is the source: [2] This is quite significant since the "assholes" video came at a time when Van Jones was not under significant scrutiny, but after the video was released the media feeding frenzy began which led to Jones' resignation. It is further significant since the group "DefendGlenn.com" [3] was started as a response to Glenn Beck's attacks on Van Jones and the group he founded, Color of Change. (example: CNN report [4] citing DefendGlenn.com video)

3 points??

In the article, it says, "The campaign, heavily covered by Fox News,[citation needed] produced three main points from Van Jones' past which he was forced to defend: a statement 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". What was the third point?? The sentence only lists 2: Calling Republicans "assholes" and signing the "truther" petition. Where's the third point? --Bayowolf (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Error needs correcting

Find the following text in the article, "The campaign, heavily covered by Fox News,[citation needed] produced three main points from Van Jones' past which he was forced to defend." After that only two points were listed, and the sentence ends with a semicolon. It appears that the third point was deleted. If the deletion was intentional, then of course the word "three" needs to be changed to "two." Otherwise the third point needs to be restored or added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.89.233.40 (talk) 08:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If the fact that Fox News covered the controversy extensively is relevant, shouldn't it also be added that other mainstream media outlets ignored the story until he was forced to resign? In fact, the NY Times specifically issued a statement attributing their lack of coverage to a labor day staff shortage.

Also, the fact that this page does not have an independent controversy section does a disservice to Wikipedia. This article is obviously strongly slanted in a pro-Obama/pro-Van Jones manner. One of the many reasons no one trusts Wikipedia.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.216.94 (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

fixed. Rd232 ^talk 21:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

media coverage

If the fact that Fox News covered the controversy extensively is relevant, shouldn't it also be added that other mainstream media outlets ignored the story until he was forced to resign? In fact, the NY Times specifically issued a statement attributing their lack of coverage to a labor day staff shortage.

independent controversy section

Also, the fact that this page does not have an independent controversy section does a disservice to Wikipedia. This article is obviously strongly slanted in a pro-Obama/pro-Van Jones manner. One of the many reasons no one trusts Wikipedia.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.216.94 (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Please refer to the guidelines for biographies of living persons and the speedy deletion that will apply here. I've found several references that lead to defamation of character and a fake reporter Eliza Strickland with fake websites and links. Please remove the violation immediately or be the subject of speedy deletion. Venus III (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)