This 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 libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article is not written from a neutral standpoint -- Scott Jensen is labeled as an "anti-vaccine propagandist". Please flag and update accordingly. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia -- not a left wing hit piece rag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.65.68 ( talk) 22:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Wiki should be a source of information not political propaganda. This is written as a political smear job on Dr. Scott Jensen. Any edits to add factual information are immediately reverted. Why such a strong bias? Wikipedia should not be involved in election tampering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MinnesotaMuse ( talk • contribs) 22:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I am concerned by the recent rash of promotional edits and edits at odds with the source. As multiple editors have said in edit summaries, every statement in the article must be directly supported by a cited source, and should not be modified in a way that varies them from what the sources say. Neutrality talk 15:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
This edit, despite its edsum, introduced more vagueness to the lead imho. Comments anybody?, - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
During the COVID-19 pandemic Jensen received criticism from medical groups for his opposition to COVID-19 restrictions, and his promotion of COVID-19 misinformation.Bakkster Man ( talk) 16:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I've removed a cite to OntheIssues in the lead section for three reasons:
-- Neutrality talk 20:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Should “ On the Issues” by Snopes to add information in this article’s lead about the subjects political stances? On the Issues’s reports that Jensen is still a “moderate Republican” citing his provided stances from his gubernatorial campaign website among other things. While the only current listed source says he has left behind his moderate stance completely and has moved right. Should OTI’s take be reflected in the article? See the following options:
Option A (current): According to the Star Tribune, Jensen was regarded as a moderate and maverick during his term in the legislature, but his views have shifted to the right after leaving the legislature.
Option B (change with On The Issues source): Jensen has been regarded as a moderate and as a political maverick, especially during his tenure in the legislature, but media outlets, such as the Star Tribune, have noted that his views have shifted to the right since leaving the legislature.
Thanks— MNBug ( talk) 03:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Current: Jensen practices family medicine at his clinic in the western Twin Cities. A maverick moderate Republican during his tenure in the legislature, his views shifted to the right after he left the legislature.
Proposed Compromise: Jensen practices family medicine at his clinic in the western Twin Cities. Gaining a reputation as a maverick moderate Republican during his tenure in the legislature, Jensen has considered himself an “independent Republican”. According to the Star Tribune, his views have shifted to the right after he left the legislature.
Note: THE ABOVE COMPROMISE IS OPEN TO POSSIBLE CHANGE
I've removed a quote from the lead section from Jensen describing himself (" Jensen calls himself an "independent kind of Republican"). I don't think we need this in the lead, as his political views are already covered, and frankly I don't think it would belong in the body either. Neutrality talk 14:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi.Proposed Compromise. I think this should stay. First reason is that it is not a direct quote and it differs from how the Star Tribune sees him (“moderate” vs “independent” Republican). Second reason why this is a good addition has to do with the second half of the thing with the “according to the Star Tribune”. Not as reliable sources refer to Jensen as a “radical liberal” and a “RINO (Republican In Name Only)”. It is Star Tribune’s perspective is that he has moved to the right where as others lambast him as a “faux conservative”. Jensen himself still touts his history as a moderate while others have indicated a shift to the right in his viewpoints. As you can imagine, there are very different points of view on him and I think this edit helps clarify those without generalizing or making blanket claims. I am personally open to making some small adjustments to the version I like. Thanks. TuckerAnders ( talk) 19:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Proposed Compromise don’t know much about subject but it sounds nice and neutral Beachboiz ( talk) 23:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC
Pinging the following user who might be interested in commenting: Mcb133aco, Myotus. -- MNBug
A lot of the sources that are cited here point to someone who's deliberately catered to the anti-vax movement in spite of his medical credentials (similar to Simone Gold). In my opinion, her article is firm and fair on this issue. This article, however, seems awfully charitable with the language that it uses. I'm curious why the stark difference? Being impartial does not mean facts have to be sanitized. Just my two cents. -- Woko Sapien ( talk) 19:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
TuckerAnders, I don't see anything on this talk page about vaccine skepticism. Where is this consensus? EvergreenFir (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
In June, Scott Jensen made comments that were interpreted as indicating threatened retaliation against the Board of Medical Practices [1]. I've included a few sources below [2, 3, 4]. This info should be added to the page prior to the August 9th primary election in MN.
1: https://mn.gov/boards/medical-practice/
4: https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/republican-gubernatorial-candidate-scott-jensen-threatens-retaliation-against-medical-board/ CptCanuck15 ( talk) 20:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
In the section labeled "Abortion" there is a grammatical error - it says "He said that he supported an ban of all abortions " but it should be 'He said that he supported a ban of all abortions ". I can't edit the page to fix it. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Red Slapper (
talk •
contribs) 00:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
This 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 libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article is not written from a neutral standpoint -- Scott Jensen is labeled as an "anti-vaccine propagandist". Please flag and update accordingly. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia -- not a left wing hit piece rag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.65.68 ( talk) 22:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Wiki should be a source of information not political propaganda. This is written as a political smear job on Dr. Scott Jensen. Any edits to add factual information are immediately reverted. Why such a strong bias? Wikipedia should not be involved in election tampering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MinnesotaMuse ( talk • contribs) 22:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I am concerned by the recent rash of promotional edits and edits at odds with the source. As multiple editors have said in edit summaries, every statement in the article must be directly supported by a cited source, and should not be modified in a way that varies them from what the sources say. Neutrality talk 15:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
This edit, despite its edsum, introduced more vagueness to the lead imho. Comments anybody?, - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
During the COVID-19 pandemic Jensen received criticism from medical groups for his opposition to COVID-19 restrictions, and his promotion of COVID-19 misinformation.Bakkster Man ( talk) 16:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I've removed a cite to OntheIssues in the lead section for three reasons:
-- Neutrality talk 20:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Should “ On the Issues” by Snopes to add information in this article’s lead about the subjects political stances? On the Issues’s reports that Jensen is still a “moderate Republican” citing his provided stances from his gubernatorial campaign website among other things. While the only current listed source says he has left behind his moderate stance completely and has moved right. Should OTI’s take be reflected in the article? See the following options:
Option A (current): According to the Star Tribune, Jensen was regarded as a moderate and maverick during his term in the legislature, but his views have shifted to the right after leaving the legislature.
Option B (change with On The Issues source): Jensen has been regarded as a moderate and as a political maverick, especially during his tenure in the legislature, but media outlets, such as the Star Tribune, have noted that his views have shifted to the right since leaving the legislature.
Thanks— MNBug ( talk) 03:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Current: Jensen practices family medicine at his clinic in the western Twin Cities. A maverick moderate Republican during his tenure in the legislature, his views shifted to the right after he left the legislature.
Proposed Compromise: Jensen practices family medicine at his clinic in the western Twin Cities. Gaining a reputation as a maverick moderate Republican during his tenure in the legislature, Jensen has considered himself an “independent Republican”. According to the Star Tribune, his views have shifted to the right after he left the legislature.
Note: THE ABOVE COMPROMISE IS OPEN TO POSSIBLE CHANGE
I've removed a quote from the lead section from Jensen describing himself (" Jensen calls himself an "independent kind of Republican"). I don't think we need this in the lead, as his political views are already covered, and frankly I don't think it would belong in the body either. Neutrality talk 14:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi.Proposed Compromise. I think this should stay. First reason is that it is not a direct quote and it differs from how the Star Tribune sees him (“moderate” vs “independent” Republican). Second reason why this is a good addition has to do with the second half of the thing with the “according to the Star Tribune”. Not as reliable sources refer to Jensen as a “radical liberal” and a “RINO (Republican In Name Only)”. It is Star Tribune’s perspective is that he has moved to the right where as others lambast him as a “faux conservative”. Jensen himself still touts his history as a moderate while others have indicated a shift to the right in his viewpoints. As you can imagine, there are very different points of view on him and I think this edit helps clarify those without generalizing or making blanket claims. I am personally open to making some small adjustments to the version I like. Thanks. TuckerAnders ( talk) 19:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Proposed Compromise don’t know much about subject but it sounds nice and neutral Beachboiz ( talk) 23:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC
Pinging the following user who might be interested in commenting: Mcb133aco, Myotus. -- MNBug
A lot of the sources that are cited here point to someone who's deliberately catered to the anti-vax movement in spite of his medical credentials (similar to Simone Gold). In my opinion, her article is firm and fair on this issue. This article, however, seems awfully charitable with the language that it uses. I'm curious why the stark difference? Being impartial does not mean facts have to be sanitized. Just my two cents. -- Woko Sapien ( talk) 19:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
TuckerAnders, I don't see anything on this talk page about vaccine skepticism. Where is this consensus? EvergreenFir (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
In June, Scott Jensen made comments that were interpreted as indicating threatened retaliation against the Board of Medical Practices [1]. I've included a few sources below [2, 3, 4]. This info should be added to the page prior to the August 9th primary election in MN.
1: https://mn.gov/boards/medical-practice/
4: https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/republican-gubernatorial-candidate-scott-jensen-threatens-retaliation-against-medical-board/ CptCanuck15 ( talk) 20:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
In the section labeled "Abortion" there is a grammatical error - it says "He said that he supported an ban of all abortions " but it should be 'He said that he supported a ban of all abortions ". I can't edit the page to fix it. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Red Slapper (
talk •
contribs) 00:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)