Talk:Duck Dynasty/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

number of episodes

Where are the number of episodes listed? http://www.aetv.com/duck-dynasty/video/#9773635913 shows the last one was episode 21. Where does it show how many they have total made? Or if they have a full second season, do we just guess it'll have the same number as the first season did? Dream Focus 23:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Phil Robertson and Washington Redskins

I can find no evidence that he was ever drafted by the Redskins, and that is from going over the picks by the Redskins each year of the 60s (Bradshaw followed him and was a star QB in 1968 and 1969 so in theory this would have been 1965 to 1967 but I checked a few years before and after just to be safe. Most of the other articles citing a connection indicate that the Redskins "showed interest" and may have offered him a contract, equivalent to a free agent signing. Neither is the same as expending a draft pick even with there being far more draft picks in those days (20 rounds). Unless someone can produce evidence otherwise suggest this be changed to something like "had interest from the Washington Redskins" instead of "was drafted by". `Aapold (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It says he was "drafted into the NFL" but didn't mention any team. [1] [2] Dream Focus 23:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It's false. There is no Phil Robertson or Alexander Robertson OR Phil Alexander Robertson or any variation of. In 1975, a Randy Robertson recorded statistics in a single season at QB with Louisiana Tech. He may have been on the team, but he did NOT record any statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.49.177 (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Just clarifying something I wrote on the IPs page, but we can't just say it's false. We need to report what the reliable sources say. As far as I know, there's no doubt that he played football at Louisiana Tech. It was in Terry Bradshaw's book, I believe. the NFL, I'm not too sure about but in any case, Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources, which means we need to see a report somewhere in a legitimate media outlet calling his career into question. We can't just do it ourselves by looking up statistics and drawing conclusions, that's known as original research. Dayewalker (talk) 06:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/redneck-millionaires-built-duck-dynasty-duck-call-business/story?id=15961955#.T4H3ytl5nXo. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 07:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

ABC news article: For 25 years, Robertson said he stood in his dilapidated shed and handcrafted duck calls out of cedar trees native to Monroe-area swamps.

Wikipedia bit that referenced the ABC news article: Phil Robertson spent 25 years standing in his dilapidated shed, handcrafting duck calls from the native cedar trees of the swamps of Monroe, Louisiana and West Monroe, Louisiana.

Stradivarius's edit: The family business began in a garden shed, where Phil Robertson spent 25 years making duck calls from Louisiana cedar trees. [3] This was later corrected from "garden" to "dilapidated" as the sources said.

Figured I'd clarify it in case anyone wondered about this message. Dream Focus 15:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Willie's Son Will

I thought I saw on this page a few months ago that it said Will was adopted, and now it is not there, I could be wrong, but this is indeed true, they even talk about the day they brought him home in one of the episodes, not to mention the fact he is clearly not the same ethnicity as Willie and Korie. It is mentioned that Rebecca is adopted so it only makes sense that it says this for Will to since he is after all, adopted.Zdawg1029 (talk) 03:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

On the show they had an episode mentioning how they adopted Will. I notice some keep trying to take that information out [4] and it keeps getting put back in. There is no reason not to mention this. They treat their children all the same, loving family, kids are happy. Dream Focus 00:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Episode Descriptions Need to Be Severely Edited

I don't know how quite to say this but the episode descriptions reads like someone who speaks broken English. I'm not messing around with trying to fix it, because my edits always get reversed but someone needs to clean up the episode descriptions so that they read like proper English. As it stands now, it's like the episode descriptions read like a three year old from a foreign country who learned their English from badly dubbed Godzilla films wrote that stuff.

98.209.246.195 (talk) 10:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Christine Robertson

Season 3, EP3, Si mentions being "happily married for 43 years". That would make it difficult to have a wife born in 1983.

Windsor (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

There is an IP addresses that has been blocked repeatedly for adding in false information. User_talk:75.87.126.76 He/she/it usually tries to do it in a way that it would seem like a legitimate edit. Dream Focus 00:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It says next to Christine "Seasons 1 and 4" to state which season she has/will appear in. I am fairly confident she did not appear in season 1, Si did not even mention he was married until season 3 so I am removing that, unless someone can prove otherwise.Zdawg1029 (talk) 01:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Staring

I don't know why it is necessary to add every single persons name in the infobox on the right. Shouldn't the only peoples name that appears where it says "staring" be the people in the opening credits?Zdawg1029 (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Other Cast

The Other Cast section has a few ridiculous additions to it. Someone added Beau? Really? Is that important? Since when did the "other cast" section mean "everyone who has ever been on the show"? Only like 3 people should be listed on there.Zdawg1029 (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I have trimmed it -- and made other adjustments. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Much better. I'm glad someone else saw how useless some of those additions were. I chalk it up to overzealous people just wanting to edit something, anything on Wikipedia.Zdawg1029 (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Birthdates

Just a few general notes regarding dates:

1) My edit for Jep's birthday noted it as September 7, if not that exact date then in the days immediately preceding or succeeding it. Therefore, reverting it to May 28 is probably not in the best interest of providing accurate information. His own tweet: https://twitter.com/JepDuckman/status/376451042000773120 and one from his wife Jessica: https://twitter.com/JessicaDuckWife/status/376355056087736321

2) If you watch the season 4 opener, in which Phil and Kay renew their wedding vows, Kay states that they are celebrating their 48th wedding anniversary, therefore making an anniversary year of 1966 impossible.

3) In Phil Robertson's book "Happy Happy Happy: My Life and Legacy as the Duck Commander," note that on page 54, Phil writes, "We started going together when she was in ninth grade and I was in tenth." Phil's birth date of April 24, 1946 has been reported numerous times by numerous sources, so how can Kay's alleged birth year of 1950 even be possible? She could not have been born any later than 1947. Also, the citation used for her birth date is from that same book, and nowhere in it is Kay's birth date even mentioned.

4) By searching Google Books for Willie and Korie's book "The Duck Commander Family," and navigating to page 35, you will see Korie's birth date noted as October 24, 1973.

Thank you. Tannerbc11 (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

@Tannerbc11: As the administrator who reverted you in protection of WP:BLP, your entire edit was reverted because it added information that was demonstrably and visibly not in the source - you cannot cite a claim of a birthday of "August 26, 1985" based on "Twitter: @friar_martin_dc". August 26, 2013. Retrieved 27 September 2013., which makes no mention of a year at all. Now that you've explained that some of your changes represent original research, it seems that the wholesale reversion was the best choice, because original research is not allowed. If a reliable source indicates they were married in 1966, we cannot guess otherwise, and we can't guess that Kay "could not have been born any later than 1947" based on your evident assumption that Phil was a certain age in 10th grade. We know Phil's birthdate. If we do not certainly know Kay's, the article shouldn't guess. Even if we do, it should only be included in accordance with WP:BLP if there are no privacy concerns.

If you know that a source does not verify information, you can remove it - so certainly, if you have the book and it doesn't mention Kay's date of birth, it should be taken out. But please do not guess when placing content on Wikipedia, especially content related to living people. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Moonriddengirl. No assumptions, and as I said to you on your talk page, if someone says "thanks for the birthday wishes" on Twitter, it doesn't necessarily mean that day is their birthday, they could be thanking everyone a day or two later. Sources need to actually say something, you can't use addition by subtraction, if the fact is not there, such as birth year, you leave it out of the article all together.Zdawg1029 (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl: @Zdawg1029: Now that point 4 is apparently the only one with any validity, is there any issue with adding it to the article? I'm telling you, Korie herself explicitly stated her own full birth date on that page. Search it in Google Books. And regarding Jep's birth date, it has become patently obvious throughout this conversation that it is not May 28, 1978, so why not just remove it entirely? The same goes for Kay's. Tannerbc11 (talk) 02:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes I see it and yes I say go ahead and add it for Korie since it does specifically say her birthday. And I have no problem removing Jep's unless someone can produce some kind of source saying this is his birthday.Zdawg1029 (talk) 02:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Might I ask why the birthdates are notable in the first place? As far as I know, they would only be appropriate in a biographical article, not a cast list. Or is this normal for a reality show's page?––Ɔ Ȿ♭ இ ☎ ℡ ☎ 07:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Good point. But I guess it isn't a problem if there is an actual source.Zdawg1029 (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it is a problem if it's completely unnecessary, referenced or not. From WP:INDISCRIMINATE: "[...]merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." I don't mean to just quote policy, but I think this applies here because their birthdates have no bearing on their descriptions.––Ɔ Ȿ♭ இ ☎ ℡ ☎ 18:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The only reason I would say it is okay to add birth dates if verified is because of the interest factor. I know that for some reason I can't figure out, I am always curious how old someone is, so I find myself checking Wikipedia constantly to find out, so if the information is out there, it is nice to know, it doesn't really hurt to add it. If it was something like the kids birthdays or their anniversary or when her cycle starts every month, I would say that isn't suitable for inclusion, but it would be nice to know how old someone is, at the very least just include the year of birth.Zdawg1029 (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's interesting to see how old someone is and I'm all for WP:IAR, but it still doesn't belong where it is. Maybe if they're squeezed into the infobox or some other non-prose place.

I was just about to save this when the perfect idea popped into my head! Idea:The family tree! It's perfect! The dates are completely appropriate in (or wherever) the person's name-box-thing.––Ɔ Ȿ♭ இ ☎ ℡ ☎ 18:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with that idea. I don't know if there is enough room for the whole date, but at the very least we can add the year, or both, up to you.Zdawg1029 (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Birth dates of living people are a special consideration due to privacy concerns. As WP:BLP notes at WP:DOB: "With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year." Even if we find an obscure source that includes the date of birth, we can't use it unless we have reason to believe that the subject is okay with it. Only if it's widely published can we use the full date. And, of course, we can't speculate about the date at all. We must have solid sourcing for this. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I think adding just the year is fine if it is sourced.Zdawg1029 (talk) 11:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if sourced. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2013

I would like to see more information from someone on your staff look into and add the educational background of the Robertsons, specifically Phil. I read that he has a Master's degree and taught High School English. I also read that three of his children have completed college.

Many people who are not fan of this show may not be because they feel or think they are just plain rednecks, but they are putting on some of it as a persona to make for a sensational television show and they do it from their heart, and take themselves and their good fortune as it being something that they earned, but that they also respect. They are truly men and women who love God and I am of the opinion they feel they have been blessed.

Thank you for reading this and considering this request.

Jenny Williams 71.28.36.40 (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Jenny - Do you have some suggested sources. I haven't looked at the Robertson's history, but other than Phil going to the same college as Terry Bradshaw, I know little about it. If you were to do the legwork, I'd be happy to write the insertion. Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

What is the request to semi protect the article from? To protect it from what?Zdawg1029 (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why the IP pasted that in here - she's just suggesting/requesting some edits. I'll delete that banner to avoid confusion. Ckruschke (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Random trivia and POV pushing. The educational backgrounds of specific cast members is in no way relevant to the article's coverage of the TV series as a whole. Are we also going to head on over to Seinfeld or Survivor and start listing personal accomplishments of the entire series' cast? This is trivia and would be promptly removed. As for POV, you've made it clear that your only reason for wanting to inject biographical information is to portray Phil Robertson in a better light, in lieu of the prejudice he publicly expressed toward gay people. You can't use Wikipedia as a means of damage control to salvage someone's reputation. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not Facebook, Twitter nor any other form of social networking.

If there are articles specific to the cast members themselves, then any biographical information should be appropriately covered there, including educational background. I don't know if any members of the Robertson family have their own articles, much less whether or not they're considered notable people in the first place. Maybe that's something for you to look into; but that information doesn't belong in this article. 98.86.120.239 (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually your comments are much more POV pushing than the other anon editor's requests - if anything your biased negativity is perfectly balancing her similarly biased pro stance. I see no reason why a sentence or two on their educational background would be trivial as personal sketches are common on the Wiki pages for many reality shows - especially if it's "knuckle-dragging high school dropout" as you have implied... Ckruschke (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Faulty section header

The section header that reads "Phil Robertson's remarks about homosexuality" should read "Phil Robertson's remarks about homosexuality and race"; his comments were about both and offensive about both.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/19/showbiz/duck-dynasty-suspension/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.208.235 (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done At this point the controversy is centered entirely on the portion of Robertson's comments that relate to gays, as evidenced by A&E's statement. Roccodrift (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

At that point on the 19th, yes; but now (the night of the 20th) the racial comments have come much more under public scrutiny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.18.252 (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It is true that there has been widespread discussion of more than just the remarks concerning homosexuality. I propose changing the section heading to "GQ magazine interview", which is neutral and allows for some wiggle room within the section. Comments? Roccodrift (talk) 06:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Good observation, Roccodrift. I note that the heading has already been revised, but your proposed "GQ magazine interview" would be an even better and more neutral heading. When thinking of neutral, one can always ask 'How would the Encyclopedia Britannica word it?'.

You'll discover, however, if you haven't already, that there are a number of Wikipedia contributors, editors, etc. who choose to slant articles (and the language in them) to suit their own personal perspectives and preferences. Then, when someone else tries to neutralize an article, they accuse them of violating the NPOV ; when it is in fact they, themselves, who are violating it. Observe the first comment from ‘unsigned,’ "...his comments were about both and offensive about both." It is not Wikipedia’s intended mission to judge what is offensive and what isn’t. Neutrality means—as stated in the NPOV—reporting the facts, all the facts, and letting the reader decide. Hackercraft (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Editing controversy?

Was there really an editing controversy? The section reads like a home-spun advert rather than anything controversial. I think it should be removed entirely or perhaps a sentence could be added somewhere else if the sourcing holds up. Sportfan5000 (talk) 09:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The section might be better renamed. Restating it as a controversy in the level 3 header is a superfluous redundancy considering the level 2 header identifies what follows under it, as "controversies". I think something like "Directorial misdirection" would be more appropriate, and I do think the content is indicative of such a header.

Requiring a christian who understands the importance of directing prayer through Christ's name to discontinue that spiritually vital requirement, or otherwise muting its occurrence, and inserting spurious bleeps to bolster the false impression of vulgar, profane speech is certainly controversial. Indeed, it's a cruel affliction—requiring one's assent in the violation of one's own conscientious. These are not minor points, and if the sources support verification of the content, endeavoring its removal would be a considerably tendentious portent; in my opinion.—John Cline (talk) 12:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Does the sourcing though, support this as a controversy or more a editorial development? Perhaps if it was cleaned up a bit it would come off as a controversy? Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Looking into it the original claim comes from what is likely a unreliable source, but it is an interview. Not many have picked up on the story and it looks like no one has verified the claims one way or another. However, in the light of the anti-gay remarks this is being picked up as a religious battle of sorts so someone will hopefully follow up and get to why the show was being bleeped at all, and what merits the censoring prayers claims hold. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree; and appreciate your copyedit of the section. You improved it well in my opinion; thank you.—John Cline (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, hopefully someone will investigate what was really going on or A&E will respond officially. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Suicide considered by cast members' son because of pressure

Would it be appropriate to include the very recent revelation on CNN, CBS and Fox by a cast members' teenage son (Reed) that he considered suicide recently because of "pressure of the show". He never explained what was the actual source of the pressure. --63.3.5.132 (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Um, no. Speculating about the reasons behind an (alleged) suicide attempt, and about the sexuality, of a vulnerable young person is highly inappropriate, on Wikipedia or anywhere else. I considered removing this comment as a WP:BLP violation rather than responding to it. Consider yourself warned. Robofish (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The young man himself chose to do an interview on this topic alone and it aired on TV recently. Your point about speculating is noted and I will delete it myself. But my original question remains: Would it be appropriate to include the very recent revelation by the the teenage son himself that he considered suicide because of "pressure of the show"? He decided against it because he said, "it would be a selfish act." There was no suicide attempt, as you incorrectly stated, so that should also be removed by you. --63.3.5.132 (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

A&E still airing new 4th season and old episodes with Phil

Under the 'Phil Robertson GQ Interview' section where it states "The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely."[54]", there should be something added after that to the effect that A&E will be airing the new 4th season (starting in January) with Phil in every episode and a rerun marathon of the entire show with Phil very soon before the 4th season starts, despite A&E claims that they can't have Phil on the show anymore and he must be removed from their network.--63.3.5.132 (talk) 02:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not needed in the GQ interview section but a brief mention in the intro of the article may be helpful. Sportfan5000 (talk) 09:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

It may be useful for inclusion; I wouldn't oppose it outright but I would scrutinize it closely to help ensure its best placement in the article. I've been reviewing many sources; with many more to review. I do remember seeing reliably sourced news reports along these lines, like this one, for example.—John Cline (talk) 10:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Moral Clause

I removed this section while sourced the article is speculating. If the article isn't sure we shouldn't be putting it in the encyclopedia. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Bigoted comments controversy/Don Lemon

Might be nice to add that African Americans also object to his comments and in fact some commentators wondered why that was not mentioned more. (Don Lemon really went on about it on CNN). Lots of news sources, including comments from NAACP here. As well as variety of other types of comments about the controversy it raised. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 07:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

GQ is a reliable source, and they printed the entire interview. So why don't we just add the entire thing? Obviously, because the only portion worth including is the part that got him canned by A&E. The network zeroed in on the part about gays, which means that is the only part that rates inclusion in Robertson's bio. Roccodrift (talk) 07:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I see the quotes made it in. Here are a couple links to CNN's Don Lemon's comments which are interesting since he's gay and African-American and doesn't support firing. Mediate and Daily Caller and Townhall reporting or commenting on Piers Morgan interview. If someone else finds of interest, anyway. (Actually, when news first broke about firing, Lemon quite surprisingly was ranting about the "Gay lobby" on CNN but I guess he toned it down. I didn't see any coverage of those dissenting comments.)Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2013

Lisa Robertson airs on Duck Dynasty. She airs on the "Redneck Roadtrip" episode in Season 1.

Brady2845 (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done - Irrespective of the malformed request, this content adds nothing of encyclopedic value to the article; regardless of placement. And its inclusion contravenes WP:INDISCRIMINATE.—John Cline (talk) 14:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

How is this pertinent to the interview? Was a direct reference made to these groups by Phil during the interview? If so, then additional quotes should be included to tie it in. If not, this information is irrelevant, and an attempt to distort the actual conversation. Additionally, one source is not cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.142.161.25 (talk) 11:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Conversion therapy

I don't watch the show but I just wanted to see what Wikipedia had to say about the controversy.

Conversion therapy seems to be irrelevant since Phil Robertson doesn't mention it. Everything from the first time that term is mentioned should go, in my opinion, because it has nothing to do with the show.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

• I looked through the two referenced sources, and never once does he say anything about that. The only thing he says is: "‘Jesus will take sins away, if you’re a homosexual he’ll take it away, if you’re an adulterer, if you’re a liar, what’s the difference?" If anything is mentioned at all, it should be just what was actually said, not someone's exaggerations, and should only be in the article for the guy himself, it not having anything to do with the show. Dream Focus 19:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm sure the conversion therapy remarks will be seen for what they are soon enough and I'm happy to wait until reliable sources confirm the terminology. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
    • While you're waiting (and I hope you're patient), you should probably take a gander at WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. Roccodrift (talk) 22:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your opinion, why don't we let reliable sources do all the talking? Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP violations

Roccodrift did a mass revert that removed both content and a number of ref improvements. I did not see any BLP violations in the content, but perhaps he was referring to this:

Conversion therapy is a range of pseudo-scientific treatments that aim to change sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual.[73][74][75][76][77] Advocates of conversion therapy tend to be fundamentalist Christian groups and other right-wing religious organizations.[78][79] Medical and scientific organizations consider it potentially harmful.

There may be some WP:SYNTH. In any case, if there are any BLP issues, they should be discussed here rather than reverting multiple editors efforts in one fell swoop.- MrX 18:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

This seems pretty clear to me: "Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

If anything in Sportsfan's edit is salvageable, we can figure that out here. But given that he relies so heavily on tabloid sources, I'm not all that hopeful. Roccodrift (talk) 19:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The conversion therapy material has been removed. Is there any remaining content that is of concern?- MrX 19:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Everything sourced with Radar Online needs needed to be either removed or re-sourced. ("RadarOnline.com is an American entertainment and gossip website...") Looks like BlackKite took care of it. Roccodrift (talk) 19:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The underlying issue seemed to be with the sourcing of the original statement which is fine, as I cited the original article with the interview. Additional reliable sources have also followed up on this so Radaronline, although perfectly correct, is no longer needed. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

In the controversy section, Palin is listed amongst the conservatives who have responded, along with this assertion:

"Palin later revealed in an interview that she had commented without reading the comments."

This strikes me as irrelevant to the point, which is simply to list examples of conservative responses, and probably a case of some editor trying to discredit Palin. Whether or not Palin's opinion was an informed one is irrelevant to the passage. 114.47.34.176 (talk) 09:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Good catch. Roccodrift (talk) 09:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Controversy's? Controversy's what?

Pretty sure the plural of Controversy is "Controversies." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.76.132 (talk) 07:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC) Apparently  Done. You no longer find "Controversy's" in the article if you do a FIND. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Opening section and Paul Whatever his name (CEO)

The line about him being suspended from the show is 1) unreferenced and 2) in the context of the article opening random and does not help give a summary of the article that is to follow. The stuff about Phil needs to be sourced, if it cannot be sourced then it should be deleted, if it can be sourced it should be moved into the main article somewhere appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.40.144 (talk) 12:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done The Article says about A&E/Phil Robertson, "widely-reported in the media" and two sources are given. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Suspension lifted

Since I'm not always the best with words I'll note this here for someone else to add source --Jnorton7558 (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Headline: "A&E Backs Down on Phil Robertson's Duck Dynasty Suspension." (Dec 27th 5pm)

• http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/12/27/ae-backs-down-on-phil-robertsons-duck-dynasty-suspension/

Willy and rest of the cast/family said they would not proceed without their patriarch. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It's time to trim down and de-weight the material about the GQ interview, which is now considerably less significant since it has become apparent that it isn't going to mean the show has ended. Roccodrift (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works. We don't decide significance or notability based on A&E's actions.- MrX 00:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

And the show was never going to end because of this, as Phil had already stated he would be leaving. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Can I borrow your crystal ball? And yes, now we can trim this violation of undue weight now that the story will be ending. Arzel (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

A&E's reaction catalyzed the controversy, but their capitulation does not make it go away.

Notability is NOTTEMPORARY. Using the logic that you have posited, we would need to start trimming 9/11 also. Our neutrality policy requires that we include material in proportion to it's prominence in reliable sources. Nothing has changed about the 100s of sources for this controversy.

I'm not opposed to trimming unnecessary detail, if there is any. What specifically do you propose that we trim (anyone)?- MrX 01:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

What crystal ball are you talking about? The information came from Phil's own interview. I think we trust him to say what he thinks. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Before we can decide what is unnecessary, we should begin by asking what is necessary. Clearly, a mention of the interview and the contents thereof that affected the show is necessary. A&E's announcement of the suspension is necessary. Some mention of the media feeding frenzy is necessary. A&E's subsequent about-face is necessary. The Robertson family's statement on regretting coarse language is necessary.

Unnecessary: Jesse Jackson; Sarah Palin; Bobby Jindal; HRC; NAACP; NOW; Cracker Barrel; death threats of unknown credibility; boycott threats that were never carried out.

This section can easily be reduced to a couple of paragraphs, and it should be. Roccodrift (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we should remove

"The Robertson family also released a statement about A&E's decision; supporting Phil and backing his earlier statements as: "grounded in the word of the Bible." The statement also said they are in talks with the network as they cannot see going forward without their patriarch "at the helm." Robertson was reluctant to sign on before the show started and stated in a July 2013 interview that he did not plan on being on the show long and that he thought it would go on without him."

because it's self-serving and non-encyclopedic.- MrX 02:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Those items are only necessary if we care about a neutral point of view and reliable sources. We can, of course, disregard national news coverage on every network if we wish. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if we should just start a sub article as all that is needed. It was publicly played politicking. The family pulled together to support Phil stating they would not go on without him. However, that contradict's Phil own words that he was going to leave the show soon and the show would go on without him. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It's been almost four hours and already this has hit nearly a thousand articles about this so I think calling it over is a bit premature. Why don't we wait just a bit and see what develops. The show has only taken off in the last year and this is the biggest thing to happen in its existence. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

True. Now this: Willie Robertson (and clan) happy "It's over." [5] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Gospel

I noticed the line "Phil also professes belief in the gospel of Jesus Christ." Is this even notable? And why is Jesus Christ linked? Why is Jesus mentioned at all, is there another gospel that it needs to be disambiguated from? 202.81.249.205 (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

At first, I was going to disagree with you, but after some thought, it doesn't really need to be included here. It's mentioned on his own article, and the source given here is no longer available. I replaced it with something more appropriate. I also removed the recent controversy from that section because it found in the lead and the Controversy section. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is very important to this family! Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if that's a reply to me or the OP but... True, but it doesn't really have to do with the show -- except for the prayers (and that is mentioned). --Musdan77 (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I spoke generally--Their religion (and spreading it) is more important to them than the show. When they insisted on the pray at the end of the show,A&E folded also. (That is my understanding.) If you understand the Church of Christ (if you watch the show you see them there in church events) you understand their driving passion. It is no little thing to the Robertson clan, and to ask them to do less could truly be a 'show stopper'. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

This bit has multiple problems

Republican Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal and other conservatives noted the issue as a First Amendment right to free speech, however "First Amendment applies only to federal laws, and not to private enterprise," and the Robertson family are independent contractors rather than employees of the network. Jerry L. Fielding, a Republican member of the Alabama Senate suggested proposing a resolution in support of the controversial comments.

There's some serious POV-pushing going on here.

Issues:

1. The CNN source mentions only Jindal in connection with any discussion of the First Amendment. It does not attribute that same opinion to "other conservatives".
2. According to CNN, what Jindal said was that he didn't think A&E believed in the First Amendment. It is not apparent that Jindal felt Robertson's First Amendment rights were violated, yet the article prose attempts to assign that opinion to him.
3. Whenever we see an editor use the conjunctive "however" as a segueway into material from a second source, we can be just about 99% sure that SYNTH is taking place. Sure enough, this is a great example, because the second half of the sentence consists of material brought in from a Washington Times op-ed to rebut Jindal. The problem is that it rebuts an argument that Jindal didn't actually make. Mr. Lotfi does a fine job of pointing out that the First Amendment isn't applicable, but AFAICT nobody quoted in our article actually said that it does apply.
4. Fielding, the Alabama legislator, did not propose a resolution "in support of the controversial comments"; he proposed a resolution in support of Robertson. This is evident in the first paragraph in the source [6], and also here [7].
5. It's not at all clear what these sentences have to do with the rest of the paragraph, which begins by describing A&E's reversal of Robertson's suspension, and ends way out in left field with a sentence about a resolution proposed in the Alabama legislature. Obviously, we have a bunch of discombobulated stuff glommed together, and a paragraph break is needed.

Roccodrift (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you actually dispute that many conservatives were beating the free speech first amendment drum? If so we can certainly find other sources to support that part of the statement, which is certainly true. We can cite Palin again, although she admitted she hadn't read the comments she was talking about. Etc. etc. Let's avoid getting too worked up over what are easy editing issues to resolve. Sportfan5000 (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I dispute that it's in the source provided. If such a source exists, maybe you should -oh, I dunno- put it in the article instead of reinserting unsourced content. Surely you understand that your assurances are insufficient, no? And while you're at it, you should also address the very obvious factual error that you just reinserted. The statement that Fielding's resolution was to support Robertson's comments is demonstrably false. Why did you put it back in? Quite frankly, that wasn't a very constructive edit you just made. Roccodrift (talk) 12:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It seems that you are in the best position to copyedit the prose for clarifications and improved readability; having vested such thorough research. I suggest to you however, that inclusions of synthesis have an as similar likelihood of occurring by good faith actions as they do by a POV pushers craft! It is proper to maintain a disciplined tendency to give deference and favor to assumptions of good faith; until we have reasonably observed otherwise. Do you not agree with this?—John Cline (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'll go along with that. I don't think I implied that good faith wasn't in play, only that there was a poorly constructed sentence that attempted to glue together incompatible material from different sources. When I spoke of "however" being part of a construct that often denotes SYNTH, I was speaking of a telltale indicator; not necessarily a tool of malfeasance (although, it certainly does get used that way often enough). Roccodrift (talk) 12:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, and hope not to have implied an aspersion against you, for I believe you are clearly motivated by good intentions. You have certainly been reasonable and fair by your editing manner in the examples by your hand which I have observed. My comment above relates to your suggesting that "There's some serious POV-pushing going on here." I don't know if that is accurate, it may be, but it does remove wp:agf because "POV-pushing" is more deliberate, and intolerably wrong. I only ask that you carefully choose your prose when describing a concern; for clarity alone. Cheers—John Cline (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm seeing something else? I don't see any obvious factual error about Fielding. What we have is Jerry L. Fielding, a Republican member of the Alabama Senate said he would propose a resolution in support of Robertson, and credited Christian conservatives for obtaining the reinstatement. Is something not true there? Let's fix it. Sportfan5000 (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Unlogical mess: Edit request

"Following public support for Phil, as well as support for the suspension, he was reinstated nine days later.[7]"

"Despite opposition by those who sought and obtained Phil's suspension, A&E reinstated Phil nine days later because of public support for Phil.[7]" Please before Spock's logical brain explodes.--63.3.5.132 (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done What we have is more neutral. Sportfan5000 (talk) 06:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

What we have is an illogical mess that says he was reinstated, i.e. un-suspended, because of "support for the suspension". I disagree that my request is not neutral and request the edit again.--63.3.5.132 (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Rewording may make sense but "Despite opposition by those who sought and obtained Phil's suspension" is not neutral. If you have another suggestion that remains neutral I'm sure it's worth looking at. I think we would have to add something about Phil and the family making public apologies but that may make it too wordy for the lead. Sportfan5000 (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Still not sure how that is not neutral. It is a fact A&E caved to pressure despite opposition from the groups. If anything, makes A&E look wishy-washy. It certainly doesn't make the groups look bad...they are sticking to there original request. What am I not seeing here? -63.3.5.132 (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

How about this: "A&E reinstated Phil nine days later because of public support for Phil and possible loss of revenue. Opposition groups were not satisfied and continued to press the issue."-63.3.5.132 (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Phil's so-called apology had nothing to do with this since he did not apologize for saying homosexual acts were a sin. Sources say A&E felt the heat and caved for money. I don't see any sources saying it was because of the apology.--63.3.5.132 (talk) 07:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia endeavors to present facts and allow the reader to reach an informed decision based on their reading of those facts. We do not endeavor to teach our reader what a particular fact means, (that becomes bias). Therefor, while it is encyclopedic prose to say Robertson was reinstated some days later, (factually true), we wouldn't say " ... some days later because ... "; as everything following "because" is a bias inflection trying to teach meaning. Firstly, we don't know why or how the decision was reached. You say it's "because of public support for Phil and possible loss of revenue", (pure WP:OR by the way), until another editor comes along saying it's "because A&E realized they would double their revenues after the majority demographic involved inevitably interpreted the gesture as an act of forgiveness; given in a divine season". That is what you seem to "not be seeing". That's my take on "NPOV 101". Cheers—John Cline (talk) 07:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you agree it needs fixing bad? I've tried my best to fix it. Maybe a more experienced person can dodge the errors you say I am making. Anyone else willing to give it a go?--63.3.5.132 (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the current wording has a silent "because". He was reinstated nine days later, why? because of public support. Needs fixing.--63.3.5.132 (talk) 10:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

One last try: "A&E reinstated Phil nine days later following public support for Phil. Opposition groups were not satisfied and continued to press the issue."-63.3.5.132 (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Or, "Following public support for Phil, A&E reinstated Phil nine days later. Opposition groups were not satisfied and continued to press the issue." -63.3.5.132 (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I consider it practically given that improvements are always possible. They must be genuine improvements however, and many times that is an elusive measure. I will look at copy editing the passage soon, because you have underlined some good things to consider, in my opinion. Best of all; create an account for yourself, and join us in building this noble work.—John Cline (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is my copy edit; extracted from included sources. It follows my effort at neutral use of encyclopedic prose; itself open for further improvements. Cheers—John Cline (talk) 07:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense and is okay by me. Thanks for helping out were I failed. However, I believe the original editor was trying to say the orignal groups were not happy with the re-instatement and were still going at it. Can't we still add: "Opposition groups were not satisfied and continued to press the issue." But perhaps it is an obvious stmt the reader would already grasp on their own. I see GLAAD intends to contact all the sponsers now and demand they take a stand on Phil's homosexual comments, either support or condemn.--63.3.5.132 (talk) 06:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

was Kay really born in 1950?

Public records via Ancestry.com show that Kay was born December 21, 1947 and her first son Allan was born January 5, 1965 and Phil was born April 24, 1946. The 1950 birth date would make her 14 when Allan was born. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.126.100.83 (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

If Kay was born in 1947.. married in 1964 and gave birth in 1965.. it lines up with all statements of her getting married at 16.. having her son one year later.. being married eight years and having her third son at 24... and a tweet from her daughter in-law during her 65th birthday in 2012... and celebrating their 49th anniversary in 2013.. all life events point to her being one year younger than Phil and the same site that Wikipedia cites for Alan's birthday also lists Kay's birthday as 66 years old.. it just seems having her born in 1950 contradicts all other statements of her life... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickmxp (talk • contribs) 02:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm new to this and am probably not doing thing right but here are some sources... Sources.. Kay 66 years old by people search used to find Alan's age.. http://www.intelius.com/results.php?ReportType=1&qf=Marsha&qmi=k&qn=Robertson&qcs=West+Monroe%2C+LA&focusfirst=0

Tweet by daughter in law Jessica Robertson during Kay's 65th birthday in 2012 featured in same article sourced for her and Phil being high-school sweet hearts.... http://tv.yahoo.com/news/duck-dynasty--couples--how-they-met-234103918.html

This article.states Kay married Phil when she was 16 and he was 18.. Phil turned 18 in April of 1964 and if Kay was born in 1967 she would've turned 16 in Dec of 1963... http://www.gospelherald.com/articles/48853/20130912/duck-dynastys-phil-and-kay-robertson-%E2%80%93-a-marriage-restored-in-christ.htm Nickmxp (talk) 11:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Word Help

Hey! Is it okay to put picked instead of hoed because it is the same thing. Yoshi24517 (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

No. If you were paraphrasing the events and things said, you could but; when you present a quotation, you are required to transcribe it faithfully, to exactly match the sourced quote, (with few exceptions). This is covered at MOS:QUOTE, for more information.—John Cline (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok! Thanks! Yoshi24517 (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Besides, hoed and picked are not the same thing. You hoe the cotten with a hoe to remove weeds and pull dirt around the cotten plant to support it. You harvest the cotten by picking it off the plant. Although I am sure Robertson both hoed and picked the cotten back in the day.--63.3.5.132 (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Deleting Question.Yoshi24517 (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It is not necessary, or even proper, to alter a talk page, except under special circumstances. The question is fair, and can benefit others who read it later. Archiving old threads is something to consider, but that is a broader consideration.—John Cline (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yoshi, Talk pages are for questions and discussion. Your question is okay.-63.3.5.132 (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Religious Freedom: Edit request

"The suspension started a nationwide debate about tolerance and religion.[6]"

Requested change: "The suspension started a nationwide debate about tolerance and religious freedom.[6]" Isn't that what is meant and what really was the source of the debate: a clash between tolerance toward gays and religious freedom - a freedom, constitutionally protected right, to say what your religous beliefs are when asked by a reporter without fear of being fired.--63.3.5.132 (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
"Religious persecution is the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group of individuals as a response to their religious beliefs or affiliations or lack thereof. Religious persecution can be considered the opposite of freedom of religion." -Wikipedia's definition. Phil was the victim of religious persecution, being targeted by groups which resulted in his being summarily fired for exercising his religious freedom to state his religious beliefs.--63.3.5.132 (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done The media reports of this being religious freedom issue are, at best, a fringe view. Even citing this as a free speech issue has been refuted. Phil was free to express his views, religious-based or otherwise, and he faced the responsibility of the consequences of his actions. No one inhibited his free speech or his religion. Sportfan5000 (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Reject that it is fringe. Everyone was talking about Phils right to state his religious beliefs without being targeted for firing.--63.3.5.132 (talk) 06:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

That is your opinion, but is not bore out in WP:Reliable sources. If the majority of sources say otherwise then we will look to emulate what they state. Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

What is it you are claiming the majority of reliable sources are saying as relates to the edit change? Please give some examples which contradict my requested change to: "The suspension started a nationwide debate about tolerance and religious freedom.[6]"-63.3.5.132 (talk) 10:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Sportfan5000 - I have to say I agree with the IP. The whole discussion - on the Robertson's side - was that Phil should have the right to freely speak to what his faith states - i.e. he quoted the Bible - nothing more nothing less. The repercussions from the far left because they embrace gay rights, is beside the point as far as the IP's requested insertion go. I'm not sure what is controversial or incorrect about that statement. I'm about to make the edit myself, but it would be bad form to do so since the Talk thread has not been finalized, because I see no reason why this statement is fringe in the least so please elaborate on your position. Ckruschke (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

I understand that, as you term the "far left" we can call it the religious right, sees the issue as one of religious freedom, but that's not how more mainstream media saw it. No one was forbidding Phil from expressing his views, he freely did so, and he was admonished for his comments that were seen as homophobic and racist. The introduction should be brief but perhaps who saw this as a religious freedom issue could be added in the body of the article. It would need to be balanced with statements that refuted that view. Meanwhile the source we have stated is neutral and respected worldwide, they didn't state religious freedom just religion. Let's see if anyone else has a different take on this. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The statement at the top of this section was made in a Reuters story authored by Eric Kelsey that was carried by numerous news organizations worldwide. Attempting to downplay it by attributing it narrowly to the BBC isn't just non-neutral; it's false. The Reuters piece was a hard news story, not an op-ed or a column, and material extracted from it deserves to be treated as fact. Roccodrift (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Also, the sentence, as found in the article, is a quote, but it doesn't have quotation marks. So, I guess it could be changed that way, but it may be better to remove that and replace it with something else. And since it's in the lead, it could/should just be a summary of what's in the main section below. --Musdan77 (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I had added quote marks as appropriate but they were reverted. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think quotation marks are needed? It's not a quote of any third party's statement and none appeared in the original news story. Also, it is a summary of material that appears in the body of the article, where the debate is described in great detail. Roccodrift (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

When said, "changed that way," I was talking about what was suggested by the OP/IP. It is not simply a summary, but a quote of an article that shouldn't be quoted as is. --Musdan77 (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

No reply, but change(s) made to the item in discussion.. The sentence either should be put in quotes or the wording changed so that it's not verbatim. If (and preferably) the latter, then sources aren't necessary (certainly not more than one) -- as long as it's a reflection of the GQ Interview section. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Still no reply? OK, I'll wait awhile and make the needed changes to follow policy. Copyright violations are a serious issue. I just thought that we should have a consensus as to what the change should be. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I also think that we shouldn't use quotation marks here, at least in this way. I agree that copying the whole sentence from Reuters raises plagiarism concerns, but to avoid the concerns, my understanding is that need to use in-text attribution. If we use in-text attribution, I don't think using quotation marks is necessary, based on the descriptions and examples on the plagiarism and in-text attribution articles.LyricalCat (talk) 06:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• There is no copyright issue here. Nor is there any other valid reason to use quotation marks or inline attribution. Nobody is being quoted, and it isn't anybody's opinion. It's a straight fact from a hard news story published worldwide by a major wire service. Not only are quotes not needed for that sentence, they aren't allowed. Roccodrift (talk) 07:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I don't think it's that clear-cut. According to this page, "Public domain works should not be confused with works that are publicly available. Works posted in the internet for example, are publicly available, but are not generally in the public domain. Copying such works may therefore violate the author's copyright." So from my understanding, the Reuters article is copyrighted; also see this page. I think the key issue here is whether this sentence lacks creativity, as described here. If it does lack creativity, then by using an in-text attribution, we risk running into the problem illustrated in the New York Times example here. My feeling is that we don't need either quotes or an in-text attribution in this particular case, because I think it's the simplest way to state a fact; I think Reuters and the BBC using the exact same phrasing in their articles supports this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LyricalCat (talk • contribs) 07:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it is clear cut. All that's quoted is a fragment of a sentence. You can't copyright a sentence fragment, and lifting seven words out of a news story is easily justifiable under Fair use. Any notion that this is a copyright problem fails ab initio. Roccodrift (talk) 07:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Interestingly, the BBC article says "The suspension sparked a nationwide debate over tolerance and religion", but this article changed "sparked" to the more mundane "started", presumably to avoid copyright/plagiarism issues. LyricalCat (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand now that the original editor was directly quoting one source, which was ref. However, other sources were more accurate in their conclusions, such as CNN that reported the debate this way:

For supporters of groups like GLAAD, the "Duck Dynasty" debate was primarily about whether offensive depictions of minorities -- what GLAAD called "vile and extreme stereotypes" -- were acceptable in public discourse. These people said no.

For supporters of Robertson, including a number of conservative politicians, the debate was about whether a deeply religious man had the right to speak freely about the tenets of his faith. These people said yes.

(further down in the article) Jindal added, "Today is a good day for the freedoms of speech and religious liberty. The left is going to have to get accustomed to the fact that it does not have a monopoly on free speech and is not the only group who is permitted to voice its opinion in the public square.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/27/showbiz/duck-dynasty-resumes/

I still disagree that the majority of debate was about "religion". They were not talking about religion in the broad sense, which Reuters incorrectly implies. Everyone was/still is talking about religious freedom, as CNN more accurately described. Despite claims that many picked up on Reuters version, I find no such repeating of their accessment of the debate by others and no evidence of that has been supplied, despite my asking to see it. I find CNN much more accurate in this case.--63.3.5.132 (talk) 06:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC) Few, if any, were debating the Christian (or Muslim) religion's actual teaching: homosexual acts are sin. That would be a debate between "tolerance and religion", as Reuters decribed. But there was little, if any, mainstream media discussing the Christian religion being right or wrong based on religious scripture(a "religion" discussion). The mainstream media had all already labeled that as "anti-gay hate speech", so no debate was needed about Christian religion at all. They were debating whether a religious person had the right to speak their religious beliefs(even if perceived as anti-gay or hateful by many) without facing harsh repercussions for doing so. CNN got it right.--63.3.5.132 (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I now suggest: "The suspension started a nationwide debate about tolerance, religion and religious freedom.[Reuters][BBC][CNN]"--63.3.5.132 (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

As soon as I have the free time, within 36 hours, I'll see to it that your last suggestion is worked into the article. For what it's worth, you are correct in much of what you said in this thread. I'm prepared to defend its rightful inclusion if necessary.—John Cline (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I haven't quite made it through all the text but I note that the CNN link right above, that we already have in the article, does not support "The suspension started a nationwide debate about ... religious freedom." It eludes that some people were talking about how freely they could express the tenets of their faith, and used several nearly interchangeable buzzwords that would require synthesis to make that point. And it doesn't say that the controversy sparked national conversation about religious freedom. I think we may have to stick with the more generic tolerance and religion for now. Sportfan5000 (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I anticipated these possibilities, and understand the verification requirements involved. It appears worthy enough, to me; to research the matter further—seeing if, where, and how it may fit in the article. And accommodate its inclusion, if and when that becomes more clear. Conversely; it may be as much: a synthesized extrapolation—saying the debate is about religion, (whether a broad or narrow construction)? The terms are nuanced, and the end is religious freedom; using a generalization of the issues at core

It has been mentioned, (in the article), that "freedom of speech" has not been abrogated; per the constitutional freedom it was written to be. So what freedom was encroached; prompting the Robertsons to say in their statement that "expressing his faith, [is] his constitutionally protected right", (hint: it's not freedom of speech)?

That there are four freedoms is well known; like Paris is to France. After removing freedom of speech, what's left? And that is what we are talking about, (in this national debate). Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I may have misstated my thoughts a bit. I don't think the intro section statement itself should be changed but if a neutral way to present some undue content that one side was characterizing this as a religious freedom issue might be appropriate. If we do include that then we should also look for the response to that supposition. I believe I saw a few articles specifically refuting that. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Were they Clean-Cut Yuppies before Duck Dynasty?

There are rumors floating around the internet about the Robertson's being clean-cut yuppies before they grew beards for Duck Dynasty. I can't validate these photos, but I thought Wikipedia should be made aware of them. Being "fake rednecks" is likely a bigger controversy.

• http://www.refinedguy.com/2013/03/27/duck-dynasty-cast-before-and-after-style-pics/#26
• http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/20/1264354/-Duck-Dynasty-is-a-Fake-Yuppies-in-Red-Neck-Drag-Con-Job (scroll down to see the "before photos")
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW343K1-upo (warning strong language)

Sbmeirow • Talk • 19:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

This is not the least but surprising. It would be an interesting aspect to include in the article if some reliable sources can be found. - MrX 19:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Those photos of somebody or other and the same guy's rant twice not very convincing and silly stuff even for talk pages. Please try to come up with real WP:RS or its kind of wasting time here. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I posted it here, ONLY, because I can't validate it, in the hopes that someone else might have links to something that might be able to prove or disprove it. The only person wasting time is "Carolmooredc", since "MrX" already stated the obvious. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

They have shown pictures of the kids without beards on the show Nickmxp (talk) 05:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

LA Gov. Jindal statements need updating: Edit request

Gov. Jindal further clarified his original response after A&E reinstated Phil Robertson: "Today is a good day for the freedoms of speech and religious liberty. The left is going to have to get accustomed to the fact that it does not have a monopoly on free speech and is not the only group who is permitted to voice its opinion in the public square." http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/27/showbiz/duck-dynasty-resumes/

Jindal, like so many others, have now explained they were not only talking about freedom of speech, but freedom of religious speech, without being persecuted for doing so and driven from public square. His quotes need to be updated and expanded upon if they are to accurate. Or removed as self-promoting political skirt-tailing.--63.3.5.132 (talk) 07:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done — The quote and sentiment from Governor Bobby Jindal is what it is (from the state where the Robertson family lives) and there are four links to documenting articles, after that sentence. Readers can read and decide for themselves what it all means. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Making a difference in the American culture

Headline: "'Duck Dynasty' star: Show leading students to pray"

• http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/01/13/duck-dynasty-star-show-leading-students-to-pray/?intcmp=features

The star is Phil's grandson, son of Willy Robertson. — FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

CORRECTION: The 'star' is Phil Robertson's granddaughter, not grandson. "Sixteen-year-old Sadie Robertson told an audience in Montgomery on Sunday that young people are forming "Duck Dynasty clubs" to pray before lunch at school. She said it's an awesome thing for a TV show to be able to bring prayer into schools." [8] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC) I think it would be a good idea to have a section informing the reader of such notable impacts the show has had on American culture...Nickmxp (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)