Talk:Robert Jensen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
An article about Jensen needs more than just shots about his 9/11 editorial. Remember WP:NPOV's commands about balance. And as for this sentence: He is best known for a series of controversial opinion pieces he published in the Houston Chronicle shortly after the September 11th terrorist attacks. Really? Better than for his professorship? Better than for the three books he's written and who knows how many magazine and other opeds? This language is too authoritative. Maybe conservatives like him least becuase of his 9/11 editorial, but this hardly makes it what he is most well-known for. · Katefan0(scribble) 13:31, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Then by all means, Katefan, quit whining and write it! I intentionally flagged this article as a biography stub with the hopes that somebody with the time would develop it beyond the 4 or 5 sentences I put in to get it started. And yes, he is best known for the 9/11 articles which made national news and got him condemned by the university president. Beyond that, the guy's a minor assistant journalism professor of no particular distinction. Using the "google" test so many of your buddies are fond of, the terms "Robert Jensen" and "9/11" get 30,000 hits compared to 22,000 for "robert jensen" and "professor" and 19,000 for "robert jensen" and "journalism," so going by that he is indeed best known for the 9/11 incidents. Rangerdude 16:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-
- Just a reminder that all edits should be NPOV. It is not sufficient to write a POV stub and then expect other editors to fight to make it NPOV. Thanks, -Willmcw 20:15, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Just a reminder that the current stub addresses the material contained in a neutral point of view manner without giving either favor or condemnation to Jensen's most widely known activity. If you contest this, please state the specific wordings you dislike. If you think other material should be added, then please specify what material that you would like to see (or better yet - add it yourself). Rangerdude 21:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV demands that we seek balance. You created the article yourself and chose to add only what you felt is Jensen's worst criticism and leave the rest of the article substantially devoid of other information. You cannot claim ignorance of this policy because I myself have pointed it out to you on more than one occasion. It is not enough to simply dump criticisms (or glowing praise without regard to criticisms) into a stub (or other article) and expect the rest of Wikipedia to balance it for you, as you have done in this article, as well as Houston Chronicle, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas Media Watch, Sherry Sylvester, Texans for True Mobility, etc. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:21, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks but no thanks. WP is STRICTLY a voluntary project and the purpose of stubs is to get an article going with some basic material - not introduce a polished essay that conforms to your personal concept of NPOV, which happens to be far more POV in its own right than you admit.. If you spent half the time actually adding whatever material it is you want to this article as you do whining and complaining to me about it, you wouldn't even have an issue to whine about - especially given that since it's still a stub and only has a few sentences to start with. Rangerdude 22:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- There is no "sorry but no" about it. NPOV is an official policy, non-negotiable. You clearly have time to create stubs about Jensen, Cragg Hines etc.; why not create them a little slower and instead make the articles better before you continue on to another one? Also, please refrain from being uncivil. This is the second time you've said I was "whining" today when my issues are legitimate. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:45, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks but no thanks. WP is STRICTLY a voluntary project and the purpose of stubs is to get an article going with some basic material - not introduce a polished essay that conforms to your personal concept of NPOV, which happens to be far more POV in its own right than you admit.. If you spent half the time actually adding whatever material it is you want to this article as you do whining and complaining to me about it, you wouldn't even have an issue to whine about - especially given that since it's still a stub and only has a few sentences to start with. Rangerdude 22:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV demands that we seek balance. You created the article yourself and chose to add only what you felt is Jensen's worst criticism and leave the rest of the article substantially devoid of other information. You cannot claim ignorance of this policy because I myself have pointed it out to you on more than one occasion. It is not enough to simply dump criticisms (or glowing praise without regard to criticisms) into a stub (or other article) and expect the rest of Wikipedia to balance it for you, as you have done in this article, as well as Houston Chronicle, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas Media Watch, Sherry Sylvester, Texans for True Mobility, etc. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:21, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Just a reminder that the current stub addresses the material contained in a neutral point of view manner without giving either favor or condemnation to Jensen's most widely known activity. If you contest this, please state the specific wordings you dislike. If you think other material should be added, then please specify what material that you would like to see (or better yet - add it yourself). Rangerdude 21:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-
It is absolutely fucking ridiculous to copy his autobiography from his faculty page and put it here. Accordingly I have altered the sentence, "He also is involved in a number of activist groups working against U.S. military and economic domination of the rest of the world." I have deleted everything from "domination of the rest of the world" and replaced it with "policies." If someone is so inclined, I imagine you could put after policies, "which he believes are an attempt to dominate the rest of the world." I guess that assumes he wrote his faculty profile... but something tells me the department secretary didn't think this stuff up.
[edit] Removed this paragraph
I removed the following paragraph as it came across as original analysis, as well as non-NPOV:
- The counter to this criticism, however, is that there is a bankruptcy of critical information in the U.S. news media that disadvantages citizens of the U.S. markedly when it comes to being presented with critiques by the like of Jensen's (see the propaganda model [1]). Thus, the fact that thousands complained about Jensen's so soon after the attacks is hardly surprising, especially given the hysterical propagandistic coverage that permeated most U.S. mainstream news coverage. In a less Americentric vantage point, Jensen's critique could be said to have mimicked the majority of the rest of the world's sentiments, as various global polling studies have amply demonstrated (i.e. rather high unpopularity of President George W. Bush and past aggressive U.S. foreign policies). The fact that he raised the ire of an elitist, wealthy University president could be interpreted as admirable, even the responsibility of an intellectual.
This statement is unreferenced and seems to be a Wikipedia author's own defense of Jensen's editorial, rather than a paraphrasing of any notable non-Wikipedia defense of Jensen. Also, language like "elitist, wealthy University president" or "hysterical propagandistic coverage" is, of course, not ever remotely NPOV. Peter G Werner 17:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
