Talk:Robert Jensen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

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)

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.

Removed this paragraph[edit]

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)[reply]


How convenient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.64.4 (talk) 07:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Readers of Jensen's page would benefit from inclusion of a link to this extensive review of one of his books, The Heart of Whiteness. I tried to add a link, but got rejected. Could someone add it?

http://stuffwhitepeopledo.blogspot.com/2008/04/saturday-book-rec-heart-of-whiteness.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.215.223 (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes?[edit]

Can we add quotes? I liked this quote: ""I'm not a pacifist in philosophical terms. I think there are times and places where using violence to stop a greater injustice can be morally justified. This ain't the track I'm gonna go down, though... There were times in US history when that was possible. Even as late as the 1960's, there were revolutionary moments in the world where something more dramatic might have been possible. This is not such a time. So we must first put aside any fantasies about "the revolution"... It doesn't mean however that we put aside revolutionary ideals. To recognize that this is not a revolutionary moment in history, that we are not going to topple sistems of unjust and unsustainable power does not mean that one gives up revolutionary or radical ideals. It means one is sensible about how you strategically try to deploy them in this world. So when I talk about action, I want figure out how do you retain a radical spirit, even if in the moment radical action is not possible or sensible." from his talk Taking Politics Seriously: Looking Beyond the Election and Beyond Elections - http://www.zmag.org/zaudio/2911 (minute 28)Brinerustle (talk) 10:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radical Christian links to Christian Atheism??[edit]

Anyone else think that linking the description "radical christian" to christian atheism without some qualifying remarks will result in puzzlement and perhaps the identification of christian atheism as a form of radical christianity. It's true that Jenson has described himself in these terms, whilst acknowledging at the same time that his beliefs have not changed much from his earlier christian atheism. Perhaps that could be made clearer, and the link placed on the latter term? 62.254.133.139 (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert Jensen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Robert Jensen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Robert Jensen (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some proposed changes[edit]

I am Robert Jensen, the subject of this page. As of Sept. 1, 2018, I have retired from the University of Texas. So, this: "has been professor of journalism at the University of Texas at Austin since 1992." Should be updated to say: "was a professor in the School of Journalism at the University of Texas at Austin from 1992-2018." I also thought it would be helpful if somewhere on the page this was included: "Jensen's writing is archived at http://robertwjensen.org/." And, finally, in the "Controversy/Views on transgender ideology," I would suggest adding this: "More of Jensen's writing on this subject is online at http://robertwjensen.org/articles/by-topic/gender-sexuality-and-pornography/." Thank you. RobertWJensen (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 18-SEP-2018[edit]

  Edit request partially implemented  

  1. Green tickY The status as former instructor was appended to the lead section.
  2. Red XN The personal website is already reflected in the infobox and in the External links section. Notwithstanding the vast array of links to the subject's written works already furnished within the article, the storage of excess links within the article's prose are generally not allowed. (See WP:NOTLINKFARM.)
Regards,  spintendo  23:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section[edit]

Two things that the text of the criticism section did not (in my mind) make clear: 1. Regarding the 9/11 controversy, were those people that condnemned him for writing what he wrote denying that the US government had killed civilians for political reasons? Or, were they not denying that, but merely condemning Robert Jensen for his criticism? 2. The transgender section seems to me to be very vaguely written -- after reading it, I still have no clue what any of those mentioned's opinions actually are :) Firejuggler86 (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Acknowledging the user is blocked, but for general future reference): the tl;dr on the trans thing appears to be “trans people aren’t valid because reasons” but I’m not slogging through paragraphs of academic logorrhea to confirm that. Dronebogus (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
His stated reasons appear to be tied up with his erotophobia. He conflates drag with transgender "ideology" with pornography, which apparently can be resolved by embracing his version of radical feminism. He's real big on either/or stuff like "Instead of embracing transgenderism to resolved gender conflicts, why not embrace radical feminism?"
It's not just that he sees them as mutually exclusive; he seems to think that radical feminism is some sort of mystery religion that liberates the soul. Something tells me there was a process of extreme guilt underlying his experience, but he seems completely dodgy on any scientific studies both confirming that gender identification can have a neurological basis and that transitioning and affirmative care can mean the difference between life and death for trans children and adults.
Honestly, he never comes off the slightest bit convincing, but I think his career got a big boost from the anti-porn movement, as he was the first male to really lean into it who wasn't a Bible thumper. Accuracy Banshee (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_Jensen&oldid=1203050387"