Talk:Scott Jensen (Minnesota politician)

Article takes a point of view

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)

Promotional editing / editing at odds with source

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)

Vagueness?

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)

I'm not sure vague is the right term, the previous wording seemed to be WP:WEASEL wording. I certainly don't think the change made things more vague, although I agree the sentence can continue to be improved.

Criticism is a reasonable description, but opposition might help distinguish from the criticism mentioned later. Is COVID-19 lockdowns the right term and blue-link, or was he opposed to NPIs more generally (masks, etc)? Regarding promotion of misinformation, in the body of the article it is more broad than just vaccines, with the notable one being the Medicare costs inflating the death count.

Proposed alternative: 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)

Current version seems the best. I like statement first, then reaction to it, rather than vice versa. Neutrality^talk 16:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

"OnTheIssues" cite

I've removed a cite to OntheIssues in the lead section for three reasons:

• First, it appears unnecessary because we already have other (better) citations for the same point (Jensen was moderate in the legislature, then moved to the right).
• Second, I believe OTI is at least partly user-generated. Take note of this 2013 Q&A: "We are run by volunteers and low-paid part-time staff, all of whom have 'day jobs.'" It's not a professionally staffed operation, and we avoid using user-generated content as sources.
• Third, its insertion made the sentence not match the sources, because the current lead-in of that sentence said "According to the Star Tribune..."

--Neutrality^talk 20:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality, thank you for addressing your concern here. I think it should be included because, as we know, only one source does not tell the whole story. Maybe the lead can be adjusted to reflect how his views were moderate and some, like ST, saw them shift right after the legislature. OTI has been included in multiple high profile politician pages, like Chris Sununu, so its reliability shouldn’t be an issue. Thanks! MNBug (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

(1) That a low-quality source is on more than one page is an argument for taking it off those pages, not expanding its use. (2) I don't see OTI as conflicting with, or contradicting, the Star Tribune. Both are focused on legislative votes. Neutrality^talk 20:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. First, since the source is done by paid volunteers does not hurt its verifiability. Then the same can be said about Wikipedia (Ha)! Because it is also run by Snopes, one of the most reliable fact-checking organizations in the country. Also, OTI uses listed gubernatorial campaign stances in its calculations, which conflicts with ST. I think it is a strong contribution that shows the nuance of Jensen’s beliefs. MNBug (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

We don't cite Wikipedia in Wikipedia's own articles, either, precisely because it's user-generated. Neutrality^talk 20:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Does OTI have the same reputation for fact checking as snopes.com? Does it have meaningful editorial oversight? Those are the questions we need to know whether it is a WP:QS, especially for a WP:BLP. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Those are good questions. Snopes DOES run OTI. So given that they are the same organization, I would say yes to all of the above.MNBug (talk)

Are you able to verify that? Same organization does not necessarily mean the same editorial control. For example, the outlets run by G/O Media cover the entire range of reliability, from the generally reliable The A.V. Club to the intentionally unreliable satire of The Onion. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is run by the same editorial control. The lead editor of OTI is a college professor and a Snopes political editor. All the other editors are also current or former Snopes editors too. In 2022, Snopes also fully integrated OTI into their main organization fact-checking company.So, it is one in the same.-MNBug (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Who wrote the OTI profile on Jensen? Who edited it? We simply don't know, isn't that the case. Neutrality^talk 21:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that integration? Bakkster Man (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Here is one source: https://www.snopes.com/2022/01/06/were-launching-ontheissues-today/. It talks about Snopes’ purchase/integration and their goals for making a non-partisan fact-checked guide and newsletter —MNBug (talk • contribs) 21:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

That says that Snopes was launching a new newsletter in January 2022 called On the Issues. It says nothing about OTI's politician profiles at all, and it doesn't reflect at all who wrote the OTI profile on Jensen, who edited it, etc. Moreover, presumably most or all of this candidate/politician profile was created pre-Jan. 2022. Jensen left office in early January 2021. Neutrality^talk 21:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

It was edited after Jensen left office and was running for Governor by OTI staff. If you read closely, the article linked says Snopes’s OTI will do “reviews of spotlight candidates and public figures”, which this linked thing on Jensen is.MNBug (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

We have no idea what was edited afterward, though. We just get a "last updated" statement. As for the "reviews," that seems like they may be a feature of the email newsletters, not these candidate profile. Neutrality^talk 22:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

That is the last stated edit on the page. Last to touch it was the staff. These candidate profiles are a part of the reviews. This is an expanded version of one in a recent Snopes newsletter. I looked very extensively into the source before defending it. The other user has already read and thanked me for the source. If you have any concerns, please state so now. MNBug (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted your re-insertion. You lack consensus for this, and the burden is on you to establish both (1) the reliability of the source and (2) whether it's proper weight. We are not going to use an "aggregator" style website to try to undercut what the mainstream source says here. Take it to an RfC if you want. Neutrality^talk 03:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Using “On The Issues” in lead section

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)

• Option A (status quo): Most consistent with the sources, more concise, more appropriate for the lead section. "especially during his tenure in the legislature" is very clearly synthesis here. The best sources (Star Tribune) say very clearly that he was a moderate in the legislature, then moved to the right after retiring from the Senate. There are also problems with the "On the Issues" website, detailed above: it seems to be user-generated content. It's especially inappropriate here to use an aggregator source to try to muddy the waters or undercut the better sources. Neutrality^talk 04:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• Option A: This is supported by the source and the section of the article on his 2022 gubernatorial campaign. I'm not completely opposed to the use of OnTheIssues if clearly signposted but it seems to be the weaker, less recent source here, and the Star Tribune already covers the statement made. JackWilfred (talk) 11:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• Option A: Until I see a good rebuttal, I am supporting Option A. Segaton (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• Option A: For reasons already given above. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Option A: The source uses the term "maverick," but so what? Just don't even see the reason for doing so. More concise sentence anyway. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Option A, OnTheIssues is plainly not a WP:RS. Note that it was only acquired by Snopes in January 2022; the press release refers to a newsletter and the fact that they brought the team onboard. I do not think Snopes has taken over updating the website, which appears to be largely defunct (no updates in 2022, still lists 2020 as an upcoming election) and was certainly not an RS on its own. Even their updates before then seem unprofessional and sporadic - they still prominently feature a quiz to match you with a 2016 candidate on their website. It's basically just raw data thrown onto a website, which makes it inappropriate to use it as a source. On top of this, it is completely inappropriate to attribute Star Tribune as "the media" and report OnTheIssues, a weaker source, as fact - the wording in option B is basically "the reality is X, but THE MEDIA says Y", which would be a severe WP:SYNTH problem even if OnTheIssues was usable at all - especially since the sources don't even directly contradict, making it WP:OR to boot. --Aquillion (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Quote/self-description in lead section

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)

• I've removed this content from the lead section, and would ask that other users come to this section of the talk page and seek consensus before seeking to re-insert. Neutrality^talk 18:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

  I agree, we should prefer independent descriptions, rather than his self-description. Could you share the full text of the sentence used in the attribution, as you mentioned a second half of the sentence which seemed to alter the context in your view? Bakkster Man (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

  Bakkster Man, I have pulled out the entire quote from the article:

  “Is there a place for me in the Republican party? I consider myself an independent kind of Republican. I see myself as someone who takes a pretty moderate view on social issues. I’m passionate about trying to get out of the way of people’s personal liberties.”

  From my point of view, though, this does not seem different from what is in the proposed version. In addition, there does not seem to be a direct quote used in the most recent version of this sentence before its removal. When looking over the article, this does in fact support TuckerAnders's claim that many people see Jensen's views in different ways: from shifting right to still "far left" (moderate). Here is a section of the article, "That criticism led then-party chair Paul Hepperla to say that Jensen had 'taken a strong turn to the left.'" That shows that there are two different ways people and groups view Jensen -- still a left-leaning/moderate compared to turned conservative/right -- and that needs to be reflected. I sugguest you might want to look at the replies below, too. -- MNBug (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

  I like the compromise, capturing the multiple perspectives with neutral wording. Bakkster Man (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

  Why in the world would we have the subject's self-description, as reflected in a random interview, plus a random 2019 interview from a local party official, in the lead section? Maybe, maybe this belongs in the body of the article, but certainly not the lead. I certainly think we can say in the body of the article that there was some conflict between Jensen and the Carver County Republican Party. But that's not the kind of thing that belongs in the lead. Neutrality^talk 21:18, 22 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)

TuckerAnders, I agree with your points. I am for a version of the Proposed Compromise. I especially agree with the idea that Jensen and others still see him as a moderate while others, like ST, have noted that shift to the right. I think those nuanced views on his opinions needs to be reflected rather than "generalized". I have a recent source here that show that too: https://tennesseestar.com/2021/12/23/minnesota-gubernatorial-candidate-dr-scott-jensen-responds-to-criticisms-of-discussion-with-state-rep-john-thompson/ (this source is not 100% reliable but it provides some good insight). Like Tucker said, I would be willing to edit this statement slightly. However, it currently includes many of Neutrality's major points, so I think it is a really good middle of the road option. -- MNBug (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

• If multiple reliable sources described him in various ways, that would be one thing. But we don't give equal billing to what the RS say and a subject's own self-description. As for the "Tennessee Star," that is not a legitimate source: Politico 2018 article described it as part of a "part of a growing trend of opaque, locally focused, ideological outlets, dressed up as traditional newspapers." Neutrality^talk 21:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

---

Proposed Compromise don’t know much about subject but it sounds nice and neutralBeachboiz (talk) 23:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC

This user has a grand total of 6 edits across the entire encyclopedia. I'm not sure how you were alerted to this page, but keep WP:CANVASS in mind. Neutrality^talk 21:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Pinging the following user who might be interested in commenting: Mcb133aco, Myotus. -- MNBug

WP:CANVASS. Neutrality^talk 21:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

TuckerAnders: You straight-up lack consensus for the edits that you're trying to make. If you want to start a specific RfC on Version 1 vs. Version 2, you're allowed to do that. But there's no consensus for many of the edits that you're making, and many haven't even been discussed at all. Neutrality^talk 02:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I will be reinstating though the one edit above because there IS consensus for that which you can see above here TuckerAnders (talk) 02:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

TuckerAnders: No, there simply isn't consensus. Consensus is not counting heads, and there has simply not been a consensus. I've made points that have simply not been responded to. There's also an editor above with 6 total edits that weighed in because content "sounded nice." That's not the kind of comment we give any weight to. Another editor is apparently relying on a fake news site ("Tennessee Star"). If you want to start an RfC, go ahead and do that (in clean Version 1 vs. Version 2 style). But stop trying to strong-arm in new content. Neutrality^talk 02:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

A mjpsory of editors were in favor of this change as you can see above. You happen to be the only one against. Please do not go against consensus just because you personally don’t like the result. TuckerAnders (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Consensus isn't based on counting heads. It's not based on "majorities." Again, read WP:CONSENSUS. Neutrality^talk 03:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I read it. I saw this quote “Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached”. A “wide agreement” has seemed to have been clearly reached…. TuckerAnders (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Again, there's no "wide agreement." Literally zero people commented on the bizarre "some of his views" construction. Nobody commented on your watering down of the anti-vaccine descriptions, because you never brought it to the talk page. Ditto with the strange "built a reputation as" (rather than simply "regarded as"). And even if you actually had presented your proposal in a real way, there's no consensus here -- only a small handful of users, one of whom is an WP:SPA with six edits, one of whom cited a bizarre fake news website from Tennessee. Neutrality^talk 03:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Needlessly sanitized?

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)

Woko Sapien, a series of quasi-single-purpose accounts have focused on this article; it needs more independent eyeballs (and also semi-protection). Neutrality^talk 02:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be fine for the most part. Maybe some slight changes might be needed. However, he and Gold have very different profiles. TuckerAnders (talk) 03:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Neutrality: It does seem like an edit war is brewing. Semi-protection would probably be useful at a bare minimum.--Woko Sapien (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Vaccines

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)

I blocked TuckerAnders for 24 hours for violating the three revert rule. This block is not an endorsement of either version of the article that is being debated, but is merely for edit warring. Upon expiry of the block, I suggest that all editors involved discuss the proposed changes and avoid additional edit warring. Malinaccier (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Medical Board news

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/

2: https://www.startribune.com/gop-governor-candidate-scott-jensen-seeks-to-reshape-board-that-investigated-his-medical-license/600183042/

3: https://www.marshallindependent.com/news/minnesota-news-apwire/2022/06/minnesota-republican-threatens-retaliation-against-medical-board/

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)