Talk:Duck Dynasty/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Characterizing Advocacy Groups as Anti-Gay Is Inaccurate

In the section entitled "Phil Robertson's GQ Interview" the phrase "anti-gay advocacy groups" should be changed to "anti-homosexual-behavior advocacy groups" or "pro-traditional-family advocacy groups" to make the article neutral and self-consistent. Later in that section, the phrase "and other individuals characterizing his sentiments as anti-gay" is used to express that a controversy exists about the characterization. Is there not the same controversy about how pro-traditional-family advocacy groups are characterized? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perusteltu (talk • contribs) 07:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Some of the groups rising to his defense are specifically anti-gay groups and are known, sometimes solely, for being Christian anti-gay groups. See List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-gay hate groups. Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for citing that source. The Southern Poverty Law Center's characterizations are controversial. "As genuine 'hate groups'...have dwindled, the SPLC has broadened its target list in order to justify its continued existence. In recent years, whole categories and new groups have been added not because of actual 'hate' activities, but because they hold conservative positions on controversial political issues such as...homosexuality." It can be argued that groups who promote homosexual activity are "anti-gay" because some homosexual behaviors cause health problems . Consider that groups that advocate smoking can be described as anti-smoker because smoking causes health problems. Thus, to make the section "Phil Robertson's GQ Interview" neutral and accurate, the phrase "anti-gay groups" should be changed. Perusteltu (talk) 04:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The SPLC is highly regarded and they're mainly seen as controversial by the very groups that have been shown to being motivated by hate against others. The Family Research Council that you quote is a fairly good example. And the odd reference to the health issues of anal sex? That applies to heterosexual Christian couples who copulate anally as well so that's not really any gay argument. More of an excuse to get better educated about anal sex, and I'm not sure what that has to do with anything here. In America the SPLC is pretty much widely regarded as being the experts in the field so I'll take their specific guidance as more valid in this case. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind if the phrase "anti-gay advocacy groups" were changed to "traditional-family advocacy groups"? Traditional-family advocacy groups are similar to anti-smoking advocacy groups. It can be argued that both group types are motivated by kindness. They are advocating healthy living. The SPLC has accused falsely the FRC. Please check the SPLC's line of reasoning. Perusteltu (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia, the SPLC, and the news organizations call them anti-gay groups, I think that says it all. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia says this about the SPLC's categorization: "The SPLC's expertise on hate groups has been questioned by journalist Ken Silverstein who argues that the organization sometimes exaggerates the threats posed by certain groups[17] In the wake of an August 2012 shooting at the headquarters of the Family Research Council, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank criticized the SPLC's listing of the Family Research Council as an anti-gay hate group while others[who?] defended the categorization." Thus, because of the controversy, do you not agree that the phrase "anti-gay advocacy groups" in this article should at least be qualified with the word "allegedly"? Perusteltu (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

No. We are not listing hundreds of groups as the SPLC does, and that those comments refer to. We are simply noting that Robertson's noted supporters include anti-gay hate groups as reported by the media. If this section becomes its own article, there likely would be an expansion that would name those groups. Then all we would need to do is show that the media report them as anti-gay hate groups. We could include a lot of trivial information but at this point discussing SPLC at all does not seem to serve the article. Sportfan5000 (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The cited media report does not report them as anti-gay groups. Thus, this Wikipedia article should not either. Would you mind if the phrase "anti-gay advocacy groups" were changed to "conservative groups" to be consistent with the cited article? Also, please realize that anti-smoking groups are pro-smoker. Perusteltu (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I've added a reference note to specify which groups are being cited as supporters and a link to the list of anti-gay hate groups. There might be more than just the three but they were the only ones i saw being reported on. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Now that the article contains a reference to the controversial SPLC characterization, would you mind if the word "allegedly" were added to the questionable phrase so that is reads "allegedly anti-gay advocacy groups"? Also the reference to the SPLC should also reference the criticism. "The designation of 'hate groups' has inspired criticism from conservative elected officials and non-profits." . Do you not agree that anti-smoking groups are pro-smoker because they directly or indirectly encourage smokers to breathe cleaner air? Perusteltu (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The characterization is, unsurprisingly, most controversial with the groups themselves, and religious groups who espouse similar anti-gay rhetoric. In this article we do not label them as anti-gay hate groups, just anti-gay advocacy groups. And that is what they primarily are. I think what we have is sufficient and more explanation as to why they are characterized that way can be seen in the article about Anti-gay hate groups. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

What do you think about changing the phrase from "anti-gay advocacy groups" to "anti-gay-behavior advocacy groups"? The groups are not anti-gay regardless of the SPLC's mischaracterization of those groups. Consider this line of reasoning. 1. Smoking is a behavior. 2. That behavior increases health risks. 3. Some groups encourage smokers to quit smoking to reduce smokers' health risks. (E.g, The FDA issued this required warning: “WARNING: Quitting smoking now greatly reduces serious risks to your health”). 4. Thus, the groups are able to be anti-smoking and pro-smoker simultaneously. 5. In the same way, because homosexual behavior has been associated with health risks, groups that oppose the normalization of homosexual behavior are able to be anti-gay-behavior and pro-human-being simultaneously. 6. Hence, to be accurate, the phrase "anti-gay advocacy groups" should at least be changed to "anti-gay-behavior advocacy groups." Perusteltu (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Please realize that the SPLC ‘s characterization has been criticized by a Washington Post writer. Also, please consider the line of reasoning above. The groups are pro-human-being. Thus, the biased phrase “anti-gay organizations” should be made neutral and verifiable, e.g., “organizations called ‘anti-gay’ by the SPLC, which has been criticized for misapplying that label.” Perusteltu (talk) 07:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think its very neutral to call a group by something another group categorized them as ... that would seem to be citing an SPLC point of view rather than a neutral point of view... unless they describe themselves as an anti gay advocacy group I don't see how it is neutral to apply that label for them ...Nickmxp (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Nick, thank you for seeing the need to replace the biased phrase “anti-gay organizations,” which is in the current version of the article. That biased phrase should be replaced. A possible replacement is this phrase "organizations called ‘anti-gay’ by the SPLC," which is accurate and verifiable, but does not balance the SPLC's point of view with more accurate points of view. A balanced replacement could be "organizations called ‘anti-gay’ by the SPLC and called 'pro-traditional-family' by conservatives." Another potential balanced replacement is "public-policy organizations". Perusteltu (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

How about just saying "other organizations"?Nickmxp (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Those are anti-gay hate groups, 3 of only 20 or so that are known for this by the main organization that tracks such things besides the FBI, who also relies on the SPLC research. It's simply false to label them as "other groups" when they are known as anti-gay hate groups, a label which they, and their supporters, obviously don't like. There is very limited criticism of the label, especially from anyone other than the groups and their supporters, but that is given in the articles about the hate group listing which has remained in the footnote here. I'm fine leaving it anti-gay advocacy groups but we can change to groups designated as anti-gay hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center instead. I don't favor making that change. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the neutrality in that.. I'm pretty sure the groups themselves would disagree with such a label.... it is not false to label them as other groups because I'm sure there were other groups that have not been labeled by the splc that supported Phill than other than those three...when reading the section there is a point of view presented that only those with a certain point of view ... republicans, social conservatives and anti gay groups supported Phil.. and a much more vague term for those who denounced his view ... aside from glaad everyone is given a general term.. such a news agencies and others... giving the impression that the side that backed glaad was neutral and the side that backed Phil was ideological...Nickmxp (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC) But personally I think that whole paragraph could be scrapped without affecting the already large section..Nickmxp (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that simply stating that the organizations are "anti-gay" is a violation of Wikipedia:NPOV, both because the organization wouldn't agree with this, and because I don't think that the SPLC characterization can be viewed as an irrefutable consensus which Wikipedia can state as a fact. Therefore, I suggest simply adding the word "allegedly" (i.e. "allegedly anti-gay organizations"). This phrasing implies that there is a reasonably strong case for them being anti-gay, but doesn't go so far as to imply that it's an undeniable fact. The link to the SPLC page would provide the reader with sufficient further information to make his or her own judgment about the accuracy and reliability of the claim. LyricalCat (talk) 06:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Using "allegedly" is stating, in Wikipedia's voice that Wikipedia doesn't believe these groups could be anti-gay, when in fact they have been shown to be exactly that, we have two full articles that lay out those arguments and include the very limited criticism of those findings. The SPLC is highly respected among law enforcement for their work and their successes include a string of legal victories, including shutting down large portions of the Ku Klux Klan. Sorry, hate groups don't to say they are misunderstood when they campaign against LGBT people. Sportfan5000 (talk) 06:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Sportsfan, the groups have not been shown to be anti-gay hate groups. A Washington Post writer has called the application of that label to the Family Research Council reckless and absurd. "[The SPLC is] reckless in labeling as a 'hate group' a policy shop that advocates for a full range of conservative Christian positions, on issues from stem cells to euthanasia....[I]t’s absurd...." Also, please consider that the FDA campaigns against smoking because the FDA is pro-smoker; the FDA is concerned about each smoker's well being. Possibly, it is because the SPLC seems to have missed that fact that they mislabeled some groups. Thus, in addition to correcting the biased phrase, I think the SPLC citation in this article should mention the criticism. Perusteltu (talk) 07:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

By that logic we should also include the praise of the group which is three times as much and from a wide swath rather than two reporters. Sportfan5000 (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The SPLC citation already includes praise. Perusteltu (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Sportfan, why are you objecting to the addition of another point of view to the SPLC's point of view? Perusteltu (talk) 07:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

To put things into perspective it would be a non neutral point of view to say the controversy surrounding Phil was based off comments he made on the biblically immoral act of homosexuality and then citing biblical references as sources for such a statement.... even though the Bible is more world renowned and respected than the splc .. it would not be neutral to insert that statement into.to this article even though many would deem it correct ... it would be something to note in an article that was entirely about homosexuality... but if every time you list an organization and then label it as anti gay . You've pressed a point of view onto the reader ... and since this label is one that the organizations don't apply themselves you are pushing the splc's view of that group onto the reader ... and area And really such inclusion is unneeded... just using allegedly states in Wikipedia's voice that Wikipedia doesn't believe them to be anti gay , calling them something they don't call themselves is using Wikipedia's voice to say Wikipedia has a point of view the group that the group denies and has yet been unable to convince Wikipedia otherwise... that's not neutral... Nickmxp (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC) Also shouldn't we include the entire response from Phil on what is sinful? “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.” It would seem to help the reader understand why it sparked a debate on religion ... btw please forgive my grammar and typos .. I'm on a highly uncooperative tablet ....Nickmxp (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Nick, what do you think about replacing the inaccurate phrase with the accurate "anti-homosexual-behavior groups"? Consider that anti-homosexual-behavior groups advocate lifestyle changes that benefit the health of persons involved in those habits. Thus, in this section, the phrase "anti-gay groups" is not only biased, but also false. Perusteltu (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I honestly believe that would be equally non neutral... after all I don't believe that is a label they would give themselves... I think they label themselves as pro traditional marriage groups... after all these groups generally deal with more than just homosexual behavior...it would be like labeling this article the GQ ARTICLE insead of the duck dynasty article...Nickmxp (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind if the article were moved toward neutrality with the replacement "pro-traditional-family groups" and with the addition of the mention of criticism to the SPLC footnote? Perusteltu (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

My personal belief is that the whole paragraph should be scrubbed as it deals primarily with critisms and defenses of the statements and not the show... I think a placement of both terms would be a bit of overkill ... but if there is a sincere need to use an adjective to describe the groups... which I really don't see... I would think the balanced thing would be to say "three traditional marriage groups classified by the splc as being anti gay" as not all traditional marriage groups are classified by the splc as being anti gay and there no citation that all groups cited by the splc as being anti gay defended Phil's remarks... but again.. I'd strongly suggest just using other groups... or remove the section all togetherNickmxp (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I paraphrased your suggested sentence and updated the citation. Perusteltu (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Sportsfan, since you wrote, "I'm fine leaving it anti-gay advocacy groups but we can change to groups designated as anti-gay hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center instead," would you make that change as we move toward consensus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perusteltu (talk • contribs) 20:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

This is my issue with the term... if this was an article about stem cell research would we still classify these organizations as anti gay groups?... I think not.. I dare say we might use the label they use to describe themselves.. it would seem the relevance of the anti gay label here is because the statements where criticized as anti gay.... it just doesn't seem neutral... it seems like the label is being applied selectively to bolster the claim that his remarks are anti gay... Nickmxp (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

To help balance the description, I added the phrase "but one such SPLC designation has been criticized as being reckless and absurd". However, the section does still seem to be biased toward the inaccurate label "anti-gay," when his statements were actually pro-self-evident-truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perusteltu (talk • contribs) 04:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

also are there any reliable news sources pertaining to the petitions that label the petitioners as anti gay hate groups? or are we just making that connection for the reader? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickmxp (talk • contribs) 23:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Spin-off article has been created

Relevant to the RfC ongoing above, editors are advised that a spin-off article has been created: Phil Robertson ''GQ'' interview controversy. Roccodrift (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Is there such a phrase as black washing an issue? If not there needs to be.. Nickmxp (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Ditto. But at this point if a certain editor wants to create a page to continue to grind his axe, then so be it... However, I predict in a year or two, being asked on this page to incorporate that "stub" into the main article and then the above discussion will start all over again. Ckruschke (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Article full protected for three days

Due to the last few days' edit warring, I have full protected it in its current shape. There are also sockpuppetry allegations and other issues to be resolved elsewhere. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: The SPI case came up negative. Collect (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

This is NOT a "reality" show

It is a psuedo-reality, SCRIPTED show and these people are playing characters, which makes them ACTORS. NativeSonKY (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

"D'oh. All "reality shows" have a strong element of reality in that people do portray themselves - and in the case of the Robertsons, they seem to take the portrayal of their beliefs seriously, though the "events" are scripted ... think of it as a modern "Ozzie and Harriet" in some cases - but they portray who they are, not arbitrary characters. Collect (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The show seems to be based on The Waltons tv show, 3-generations of a family living life together, with religiously-themed lessons woven into the story line, w/narrator (The Waltons: Grandpa's grandson John-boy - Duck Dynsasty: Grandpa's son Willie) at the end summing up the show by explaining how everyone played their part and learned a lesson about life together.--63.3.5.132 (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

According to Phil's book the idea behind the show was to show a functional family in a reality T.V. show..Jase didn't think it would work.Nickmxp (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

NativeSonKY - by this definition, "none" of the reality shows on TV would be considered "actual" reality shows because Duck Dynasty isn't the only one that steers the action in an "interesting" way. In fact almost all of them do. Ckruschke (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

I agree with Ckrushke. Lots of reality shows are scripted; but that doesn't mean it's fiction. If it were really "not real", do yo think A&E would tolerate the Robertson's religion? The family states their beliefs and are not acting. Lovecherry (talk) 08:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

one such SPLC designation has been criticized as being reckless and absurd

I object to this content which has been repeatedly added by Perusteltu (talk · contribs):

"... but one such SPLC designation has been criticized as being reckless and absurd, and"

The Dana Milbank op ed pre-dates this controversy and is the opinion of one person. It has very little relevancy to this article and is WP:UNDUE.- MrX 19:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It has also been removed on the basis of WP:POV railroad, and WP:NPOV but without that editor posting here as to why those [ages apply. "WP:UNDUE" applies if excess weight is given on a topic -- I doubt that a single reference can attract that as an argument, however.

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources,

Having zero coverage of a viewpoint in any article is unlikely to meet NPOV requirements, I suspect. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

That awkward moment when you realize the sources cited for the anti gay petitioners have nothing to do with the petitions but with a reliable source that calls the petitioners anti gay... Nickmxp (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• What Perusteltu has done here is a classic case of WP:SYN. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Mr. X., thank you for creating this section in Talk. Please also see the discussion about the content to which you object in the existing section above (Talk:Duck_Dynasty#Characterizing_Advocacy_Groups_as_Anti-Gay_Is_Inaccurate. In that section, I first proposed adding the content to balance the SPLC's point of view.

One of your objections is that Mr. Milbank's criticism of the SPLC's judgment predates the GQ controversy. However, the controversy is also predated by the SPLC's designation. So, that objection does not make sense.

Your other objection is that Mr. Milbank's view is his view. However, the SPLC's view is its view. The FRC has its view of itself. And over one-hundred persons, many of which you probably recognize, have stood publically "in solidary with the Family Research Council, American Family Association, National Organization for Marriage, ..., and other pro-family organizations..."[1].

Please realize how important it is for the SPLC's designation to be balanced. The SPLC motivated a shooter to attack the FRC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perusteltu (talk • contribs) 23:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

According to that syn article..a " precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia." Since the splc designation wasn't mentioned by a source in relation to the topic the designation should have never been added in the first place... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickmxp (talk • contribs) 04:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Nick, which of the following replacements of the SPLC designation do you prefer?

1. "other organizations"
2. "pro-family organizations"
3. "pro-traditional-family organizations"
4. <something else>

Perusteltu (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

No references cited about the three petitioners.. no need to reference them... there where a lot of petitions started.. change. Org had thirty separate ones... don't know what made these more special than others... and why aren't duck dynasty fans included? They were his largest source of support.. Nickmxp (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed the footnote for those isn't actually a reference. Deleting the shebang altogether seems the simplest choice here. If someone actually finds a reference discussing the support of these there, it might make sense to add it back (with whatever designators the source uses). Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that the next ref, Edge Boston does declare every single supporter of Robertson (in this incident) as being anti-gay (without any invocation of SPLC however). But the other source cited to combine the supporter's list—The Week—doesn't issue such a proclamation about any of them. So if somebody insists on adding the anti-gay label in this context, which can be attributed to Edge Boston without WP:SYN, then the list of supporters needs to be split in two according to the source that mentions them, per WP:V. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I changed it to a footnote so it's clear it's not a reference. The three groups should not be highlighted on their own as they are mainly known for their anti-gay rhetoric. I'm not sure what you mean about split in two? Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I do believe that's what that syn thing is about... because it seems to be the only reason the label is being applied is because some characterized his sentiments as anti gay.. it implies a motive for support that was not widely reported on... I don't recall one person saying I support Phil Robertson because I hate homosexuals... yet we are using the label to say these guys support Phil Robertson because they hate homosexuals ergo the characterization of his comments as anti gay is a fact.. even though him and millions of other people saw his statements differently.... Nickmxp (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The media widely cited his statements as being anti-gay, again and again, it was even in many of the headlines. This was the basic core of the entire controversy, that he made statements that were widely interpreted as being anti-gay, regardless of what he believes, or why. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I think there is a distinction between he report on someone who made comments characterized as being anti gay and reporting on someone who made anti gay comments.. the latter would have no need for opinions on why his comments were not anti gay... which of course there where plenty... the anti gay label for his comments are clearly contentious which is why they need to be sourced when referenced... I think if news papers frame the label as a characterization of other in order to appear neutral.. shouldn't we? Nickmxp (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

BTW I've started a discussion the other day in the words to watch talk pages proposing when and how to properly use SPLC labels and maintain neutrality.. your opinions would be welcomed Nickmxp (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

also if you look at the lead paragraphs linked in the foot notes for the anti gay organizations.. you quickly realize that only one organization is listed (described by wikipedia as an activist group opposed to gay marriage, the other "organization" is described as a social commentator, and the final "organization" is a politician... this is starting to look like original research... to expound a non nuetral point of view... using a contentious claim.. to apply a motive that was not widely reported on... but other than that... and the fact that fans of the show are excluded.. i see no problem here....Nickmxp (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I added reference to criticism of the SPLC designation in the same note that praises the SPLC. The article is still biased. Perusteltu (talk) 04:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• This has nothing to do with SPLC. It also has nothing to do with any organizations that commented on this, be they hate groups or others. Why would we mention what some group they have nothing to do with, said about them? Dream Focus 16:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

  I removed it. [2] They are not members of these hate groups nor have supported them in any way. So its not relevant at all. Guilt by association should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. Dream Focus 16:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

  And I put it back. There's absolutely no problem with including sourced material about which groups have supported Robertson. It's useful background information. Black Kite 18:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It's definitely guilt by association. We could list those groups individually, but really there were so many people and groups making statements on both sides, it's ridiculous to list them all. Plus, there was an uncited claim about the SPLC being "one of the few leading authorities on hate groups in the U.S." - and a discussion about the SPLC really doesn't belong in this article. StAnselm (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The only reason this is even in the article is because it was national and international news, and chief among those arguing against Phil's detractors decrying him for anti-gay rhetoric was … anti-gay hate groups. It's a red herring to whether or not the Robertson's were members of the groups, we likely will never know, just as it doesn't matter if they are big supporters of the national level politicians who also spoke on their behalf. The information should be presented with due weight and let the reader decide if the information is of interest to them. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Rather than restarting the edit war from a week ago over this content, can I suggest that any interested editors immediately escalate the issue to an RFC or other process? There has been enough fallout already.--Trystan (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a request for comments above for condensing the GQ section... the proposed condensing removes this and all other information about the controversy that is not relevant to the show... but if the hate group label sticks can we also mention Dan Savage's christian bashing? I mean it is also widely reported that those opposed to his comments had been characterized as anti christian by many people so surely it would be of note to the reader that one of his criticizers had been under fire for bullying christians.Nickmxp (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 January 2014

Undo this edit which added wikia to the official website. Jnorton7558 (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Family Tree

Someone please shade in Willie's son Willie as being appeared on the show, he has been on several times. And I am fairly certain I saw Jase's daughter Mia on an episode the other night, the one where Jase was staying with Willie. I don't feel like figuring out how to make their box yellow.Zdawg1029 (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

And now that I think about it, wasn't their an episode where Willie had to watch some of Jep's kids? I don't think I saw it so I don't know which ones were on it, but someone needs to update the family members that appeared on the show.Zdawg1029 (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

On the family tree, the birth year for Kay is wrong. She was born December 21, 1947, not December 21, 1950. Source is public records on Ancestry.com. Oldest son Allan was born January 5, 1965 according to the same public records. As the tree currently is, it makes it look like Allan was born when Kay was 14. The same public records show that Phil was born April 24, 1946. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.126.100.83 (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Just a thought, but if Miss Kaye was born in 1947, either the year they were married, or the age when they were married, is wrong. Simple math. I'm not sure which to change, but I thought I'd mention it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.190.194 (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the year they were married is wrong.... According to Phil's book they started dating shortly after her father died and were married two years later... death records show her father died in 1962 (when Kay was 14)... I just don't know how to add it without it being original research.Nickmxp (talk) 11:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe you're right that Jases's daughter Mia appeared in the show, on the episode "A-Jase-ent living". Willie also babysits two of Jep's kids, Priscilla and River. Willie's daughter Bella has also been in the show a few times, most of them being at the end when Phil says the prayer. Lil' Will has made appearances on the show as well, and on the upcoming season of Duck Dynasty Rebecca Robertson will appear. I would change the Family tree if I knew how too, but I don't. --Lovecherry (talk) 08:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Lovecherry

Fixed....Nickmxp (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing this. -----Lovecherry (talk) 07:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

It's so lame that there's this elaborate of a graphic for "Duck Dynasty" anyway. Wikipedia's out of control when it comes to overdoing pop culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.69.204.131 (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I think since this show is about a family.. the inclusion of the graph is relevant to show the connections between cast members...Nickmxp (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Aired episode count

If someone could update the num_episode parameter within the infobox to 57, that would be great. Thank you! – Recollected • 03:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Either side of the controversy split politically?

I'm new and not sure if I'm posting a debate for this page correctly. If not I apologize and request my post be moved to the proper area. My concern is that pro-free speech is represented by only republicans while anti-free speech is represented by only democrats. This makes democrats look extremely intolerant. Ultra-liberal author, professor and activist, Camille Paglia said during a radio interview “I speak with authority here, because I was openly gay before the ‘Stonewall rebellion,’ when it cost you something to be so. And I personally feel as a libertarian that people have the right to free thought and free speech,” [removed rest of quoted article] And the way the article is written on Wiki is exactly what's being highlighted in the controversy section. There are republicans that denounced the comments made by Phil and there are democrats that support his right to free speech... yet only republicans are listed in support and only democrats are listed in opposition. It makes democrats look extremely intolerant. Here is the source: http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/19/paglia-duck-dynasty-uproar-utterly-fascist-utterly-stalinist/

And I'm sure if someone bothered to look then they'd find equal representation by both parties on both sides. 76.4.110.65 (talk) 05:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I trimmed the quote to just the relevant part, that she also defended phil on a free-speech basis, as I think it might by a copyright issue to post entire articles like that, people can follow the link if they wish. The source does support adding Paglia as among those who supported based on a free speech basis but I'm not sure it's that big of deal. Once the article is unprotected we can look to amending what is currently there. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it's absolutely a big deal.. especially since she is a gay rights activist. Her opinion is more important than anyone else listed. If you're gonna include politics then both sides should be represented. You also say "most of his support" The support was for free speech - an important detail. The way it's written (with that key detail missing) makes it sound like they were supporting the basis of the comment and not his right to free speech. You currently have it "he garnered much of his support from social conservatives, some religious groups, and including sponsors, Republican politicians including Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, and Mike Huckabee." only at the very end of the section, after the reader's first impressions have already formed, do you mention free speech. Remove the last paragraph and condense the first paragraph to "much of his support, such as [whomever] advocated the 1st amendment and his right to free speech. Others, such as [whomever] advocated his right to religious freedom." This way, the discourse is properly framed.

You mention a cultural war (not even sure why that's included as it's already mentioned somewhat in the first paragraph) but not what it was about. It was more than just the 1st amendment... it was also about the intolerance by advocates of gay rights to disregard any opinion other than theirs. You also say that some contended that the 1st amendment is not applicable. First, one person doesn't equal some. Second, it sounds like you're trying to lead opinions to disregard the 1st amendment. People will make that determination on their own. You don't counter any of the anti-gay rhetoric - you allow the reader to form their own opinion. When the time comes, I'd like to take a shot at rewritting the controversy section. It's written horribly biased. Do I post the rewrite here or on the main page? 76.4.110.65 (talk) 04:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I proposed a trimming awhile back that has yet to be formally closed that would effectively eliminate a lot of these issues by keeping the scope of the controversy in relation to the show... which given this article is about the show... it seemed appropriate.. Nickmxp (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

"others contended that the First Amendment is not applicable"

Why is this the case? You cant make a blanket claim backed by nothing. Surely there is a reason one might suggest it is not the case.(Lihaas (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)).

After reviewing several news stories touching on this, I think the sentence could use some reworking. It may be a bit of a strawman to suggest that Jindal and others think the First Amendment literally applies; rather, they seem to be citing it to invoke a general principle. In terms of expanding the explanation in the second half of the sentence, we could potentially use this quote, "This is what the First Amendment protects us from -- laws being made that restrict freedom of religion, the press and/or speech. It does not protect us from how society responds to the expression of one's religion, the press or speech."CNN--Trystan (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Or we could just say that others argued the first amendment only apply to laws... just for the sake of keeping things short... the section is pretty large... Nickmxp (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It sounds to me that the sentence isn't referring to free speech but rather how people react to free speech. You are allowed to say whatever you want (free speech) but that doesn't free you from consequences of what you say. If that be the message then the sentence needs rewording - or eliminated as it's clutter that people can decide for themselves. If you're going to contest responses to free speech then you really should contest the anti-gay rhetoric. As the harshness made many gay activists look intolerant to differening opinions. Of course, adding all this would weigh the section down - which is why removing it is ideal. 76.4.110.65 (talk) 03:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

GQ section needs condensing

The GQ section is growing larger as everything is being dumped back into it, even stuff that was previously rejected by consensus on Talk. Time to start condensing this section as it has now grown to 1/6 or more of the article.--63.3.5.132 (talk) 04:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually I think we're letting the dust settle a little bit and see if this genuinely has gone away. Frankly i think we're still missing if sales of DD items increased as a show of support or if they can separate that from end-of-year sales. This remains among the most notable things about the show, if not the most notable. This controversy made DD a household name and captured media headlines for at least a week. It's been less than a week since he was reinstated, perhaps the whitewashing of this article can hold off a bit longer. Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Careful now - this DID NOT make DD a household name as it was already that when it made news as the #1 reality show over a year ago and had received favorable and copious press even before then. That even GLAAD or even FoxNews are no longer talking about this as a relevant issue, it appears that the only ones who are continuing to carry it on is Wikipedia...

That being said, if we can show that the "controversy" (which in my opinion was only made as such because it was during a slow news period) only increased sales in DD product, that would be noteworthy. Beyond that, the narrative on this page is clearly well beyond what is warranted. Ckruschke (talk) 12:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Whitewashing is different from condensing. It is possible to include the relevant material to the actual controversy between A&E and DD, as was discussed above. The section is the Blob now (25% of article) and needs condensing. There is no need to wait for anything else to happen or not happen. That's wiki policy.--63.3.5.132 (talk) 04:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It would seem the only people involved in the decision to suspend and revoke the suspension of Phil was a&e, glaad, the Robertson's,and their supporters... as this is an article about the show and not an article about the national debate.I think we should limit it's scope to just how it affected the show... you could really boil the whole thing down to a paragraph that stated like a&e suspended Phil after glaad issued a statements condemning an opinion he expressed on sin and homosexuality... (insert exact quote here() and lifted the suspension a few days after the Robertson's said they wouldn't do the show without him and strong support from fans of the show.. all the other stuff is really not relevant in an article about the show.. if the effect of the controversy had on the nation was notable enough the a separate article should be written on the matter... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickmxp (talk • contribs) 07:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC) here's a suggested condensed section... basically keeping what hapeened in that affected the show and cutting out each sides opinion of the issue wich isn't relative to the show...

On December 18, 2013, A&E announced that it was suspending Phil Robertson from the show indefinitely over remarks he made during an interview with Drew Magary of GQ magazine.[62] During the interview for a featured article in GQ's January 2014 issue, titled "What the Duck?", Magary asked Robertson: "What, in your mind, is sinful?"[63] Robertson replied:

"Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men." Continuing rhetorically, Robertson questioned the appeal of same-sex relationships, particularly amongst men, saying: "It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”[64]

A&E released a statement that read: "We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson's comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty. His personal views in no way reflect those of A&E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely."[62]

Robertson responded to the initial criticism by saying that he is a "product of the 60s" but has since lived his life on Biblical principles. He added, "I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me."[65] The Robertson family also released a statement about A&E's decision, supporting Phil and saying that while some of his comments were "coarse", his beliefs are "grounded in the teachings of the Bible."[66] The statement also said that the family was in talks with the network, as they could not imagine going forward "without [their] patriarch at the helm."[66]

In the first public interview since the GQ interview went viral, Robertson stood by his comments and said, "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?"[94][95][96]

United Press International reported that A&E CEO Nancy Dubuc has received death threats for the decision to suspend Roberts indefinitely.[97]

Robertson also drew criticism for viewpoints he expressed that critics characterized as "minimizing the era" of racial segregation in the southern United States, calling his comments "insensitive".[83][84][85]

I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash. We're going across the field [...] They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, 'I tell you what: These doggone white people'—not a word! [...] Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.

On December 27, A&E released a statement reversing Robertson's suspension. The network cited Robertson's and the family's regret for the use of "coarse language" in regards to discussing body parts,[98] and stated that A&E would launch a public service announcement across the channel's "entire portfolio" that would promote "tolerance and acceptance among all people."[99] GLAAD condemned the decision, stating A&E has "chosen profits over African American and gay people."[100] A Human Rights Campaign representative saw the reinstatement as a positive step and said they had been assured that "the Robertson family is now open […] to address the real harm that such anti-gay and racist comments can cause."[101]

That effectively eliminates notable criticism, of both Phil and the network, so no. Still too soon, and once the new season starts within a few days, we'll have a new round of news on how the controversy impacted the show and sales of products. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

In my humble opinion I think it would be better for a separate article on the GQ controversy stating all the view points and opinions about the controversy listed... this page is about the television show... not the controversy... although I believe the controversy should be noted I tthink it's scope should be limited to the show.. the criticisms and displays of support had little or no stated impact on the decision to reinstate Phil... the removed statements where not about the show or the cast members but about the statements surrounding the controversy... it eliminates both notable criticism and notable defenses of the statements and focuses on the effect of the controversy relative to the show.. which I thought would be the best way to condense the section.. what could we do to better condense this section? I have to agree it is too large for a section in an article about a show... Nickmxp (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I support that - move everything over - it will become a stub - and then in a year it will die a merciful death because it is "much ado about nothing". OR we could cut the content down now to what is warranted. I don't have any problem with a controversies section - almost every reality show page on Wiki has one and I think its warranted - but this issue has clearly grown way beyond reality. Ckruschke (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Agreed! You are wise beyond your years. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Section condensed and gq controversy page created.... fill it up.... :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Phil_Robetson_GQ_controversy

Please ignore the pink slip at the top.. I'm new to wiki and accidentally put the submit request on a blank page... the resubmit is on the bottom of the page... ya live ya learn..

Sorry but the removing-of-things-embarassing-to-Phil campaign needs to stop. It's too early to wipe away this content as it's not even a few months old. Sportfan5000 (talk) 10:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the time reference.. this an encyclopedia not a news article.. it should not be time sensitive...Please understand my intent is to not remove things just because they may be embarrassing to Phil... but because currently almost half the references in an article about a television show link to articles about a two week period of the television show thats been airing for years...in an effort of good faith I waited for agreement to the changes and then created an additional page for the controversary to ensure that anyone searching for the details of the actual controversy could see it's affect outside the television show... I have yet to see any stated valid reason for inclusion of such material in this article other than that it is considered embarrassing to phil.... I don't see that as a valid reason to continue with such a large growth on the page...especially when all defenses of phil (aside statements from him and the family) have been removed.. with the only rational for it's inclusion being that those statements was based on the shows reaction to the controversy... I agree with you that if this was an article about the gq controversy one would be remissed to not go into such detail... but this is an article about the television show Duck Dynasty... and I think that distinction needs to be made to the reader...I would also welcome any suggestions to expand upon the seperate article related to the GQ controversy itself,,, Nickmxp (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Sportfan5000 - I don't care if Phil Robertson is right, wrong, or indifferent. This has nothing to do with "protecting Duck Dynasty" and everything to due with giving the issue its due weight. We are way beyond its due weight... Ckruschke (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

This controversy is the first most people have even heard of this show, it's the biggest thing to happen to this show. It;s now a part of history and it's got a life of its own. Once we have a separate article maybe a summary here would be appropriate. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Although I think I finally understand your point of view, I must disagree...The show was already wildy popular before the controversy.. it broke records... The controversy didn't make the show popular but rather the show's popularity is what made the controversy... also the removed sections made no reference to the impact the controversy had on the show... which was unquestionably positive...i read where even fox's new years eve show beat out all other networks due to the appearance of willie... walmart was selling out of duck dynasty stuff, yada yada yada, you could go all day listing the positive impact...even though the reading of the controversy section as is leads to the reader to think it had a negative impact... But I don't think we should expand the GQ section to include all those aspects for the very same reason I don't think we should be listing every opinion we can find about the controversy into the article...it would become very very bloated... and in the spirit of keeping the talk section relevant I request that further undoing of the agreed upon condensing of the article be abstained from until an agreement to revert to a large subsection is made... because the main premise here is to condense the section to make the article more about the television show... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickmxp (talk • contribs) 01:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should the "GQ controversy" section be condensed as proposed above?

Should the "GQ controversy" section be condensed as proposed above? Nickmxp (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Not yet, despite the non-stop campaigning to whitewash these national-, and internationally-coevered events, the story is far from being a closed chapter. In hindsight we'll know the financial affects of these events and what, if any fallout will come to the Robertson's or A&E. Let the headlines fully disappear first, and let's see what the dollar signs are for all of this, then we can see what has a lasting impact. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• In Favor, this article is not about a national event nor should it be used as a proxy for one.The removed sections have no bearing on the decision cast by A&E .. nor can I see how their inclusion would remain relevant after any financial effects take place. and if there is any addition to be made in the future.. the already large size of the section could dissuade further additions...it also appear to be un encyclopedic to wait for new headlines before making a change on past articles..the only reason stated in the talk discussion thus far is that the responses include criticism and that to condense it would be white washing.. even though the critisms by GLAAD have been retained and all signs of support outside of the company have been removed.. and the notations that his comments recieved critisms have been retained... is there an enclopedic reason for instance to note what dan savage had to say about the controversy? or what sarah palin had to say? Maybe, but not in an article that is about a television show...which is why I started an article based purely on the controversy... but I don't think inclusion of this material should be based on whether or not a seperate article was deemed notable enough to be on wikipedia.. primarily because if it is notable enough then removing the addition bloat on this page would be a non point and if it is not notable enough.. then making an article about an issue wikipedia doesn't seem to think is notable enough to have it's own article is a misuse of the page.. to put it short an sweet the head line of this article reads "Duck Dynasty" not "Phil Robertson's GQ interview."Nickmxp (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support I've already said my peace above. The issue is not about "whitewashing", despite Sportfan5000 continued and unsupported accusations to the contrary, its about due weight and we've FAR exceeded that. I don't give two hoots about Duck Dynasty, but for someone to come to this page and read the overabundance of material on the GQ issue is misleading to the actual public impact of the issue (which has been effectively dead for weeks). No reason to wait - the jury is already in... Ckruschke (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

*Support The article suffers from WP:RECENTISM and contains a great deal of POV-pushing and WP:ADVOCACY by SPA editors. It needs trimming to bring the controversy within due weight and needs to be adjusted for neutrality. Roccodrift (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC) Indefinitely blocked as a WP:SOCK. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

after twenty four hours and still no other point of dissent on this issue I think it would be safe to break this filibuster to edit that was based on an unfounded assumption that the proposed edits are a result of bad faith editing... this article is about a television show and the focus of this article and really the talk pages as well need to be on the show...in both cases the two week controversy has swallowed up this topic... but please don't treat this as an end all of the section.. it could probably still use some condensing or even expanding if information relevant to the show is found. The edit was just a starting point to get this article back into being about a show that has a bunch of funny hillbillies in it! Lol.. Nickmxp (talk) 12:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

RFCs usually last for 30 days so that more editors have an opportunity to comment. In my experience, the RFC would need to have no new comments for at least a week before being able to be closed. It's also not appropriate for an involved editor to conclude the RFC, especially if there is not WP:SNOW consensus.- MrX 13:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Opposed to any deletion of content by a new editor who only edits Duck Dynasty related articles, and may possibly have a conflict of interest. I think it would be more productive to discuss what should be removed, or to make single small edits (leave the citations), and wait to see if anyone objects by reverting. If that edit sticks, then make another small one, and so on.- MrX 13:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

My apologies.. I wasn't aware of the thirty day thing as you noted I am new and there was a call to end discussion.... as for conflict of interest it should be noted that other than the edit I proposed in response to a request posed by another editor and made after approval of other editors I have made no edits to the GQ section.. and have made other relevant edits about the show.. and I don't see how my of experience makes the content removed any more relevant to the show.. if anything you could call it a conflict of disinterest.. but I am curious what need for the inclusion of such items do you believe there is for this article? Nickmxp (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries. To answer your question, I do agree that the section is overweight, but I think it would be best to wait until the controversy subsides before cutting it much. Weeks later, there is still media coverage, for example Source: Networks upset with A&E for 'caving' on Phil Robertson, 'Duck Dynasty' and Phil Robertson Is Back on Duck Dynasty. There may also be a need to add more relevant content, while removing some of the less relevant content.

Items I would favor trimming

"The Robertson family also released a statement about A&E's decision, supporting Phil and saying that while some of his comments were "coarse", his beliefs are "grounded in the teachings of the Bible." The statement also said that the family was in talks with the network, as they could not imagine going forward "without [their] patriarch at the helm."(Robertson, who was reluctant to sign on before the show started, 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.) " "Dan Savage opined that he felt that Robertson's comments about African-Americans under Jim Crow laws were "much more offensive", but because in American culture issues of sex are generally discussed more than issues of race, his comments about race would be discussed far less, in favor of issues about gay sexuality." "In the first public interview since the GQ interview went viral, Robertson stood by his comments and said, "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?"" "United Press International reported that A&E CEO Nancy Dubuc has received death threats for the decision to suspend Roberts indefinitely." "CNN reported that the controversy showed that a culture war was at play, in part because of what GLAAD characterized as "offensive depictions of minorities" in public discourse.[103] Republican Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal and other conservatives noted the issue as a First Amendment right to free speech,[103][104][105][106] but others contended that the First Amendment is not applicable.[107] 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."

- MrX 17:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Good points.. I think iI'll just bow out of this issue.. given the number of reverts to changes in the GQ section I don't think I would have the time or fortitude for a line by line discussion on trimming... good day to you all Nickmxp (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support trimming per WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP And I would note that ad homs on editors are improper -- insinuations that an editor has a COI belong only on the proper noticeboard, and is poisonous in discussions on this talk page. WP:AGF should be followed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I think your last point "CNN reported" can be eliminated and condensed with the first paragraph. The first paragraph says "most of his support came from" but it doesn't say they were supporting his 1st amendment right. The way it's written confuses the reader. It makes it sound like they were supporting the basis of his comment and not his right to free speech 76.4.110.65 (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I see the suggestion as just a starting point :)Nickmxp (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion to eliminate and condense the paragraph: "CNN reported that the controversy showed that a culture war was at play, in part because of what GLAAD characterized as "offensive depictions of minorities" in public discourse.[103] Republican Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal and other conservatives noted the issue as a First Amendment right to free speech, but others contended that the First Amendment is not applicable. 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."

Eliminate it and condense it with the first paragraph: "He garnered much of his support from advocates of the first amendment who cited his right to free speech and religious freedom, such as: social conservatives, including his corporate sponsors, some religious groups, Republican politicians including Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal and Mike Huckabee." 76.4.110.65 (talk) 05:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

For reference this was the condensing proposed... that paragraph was removed entirely.... as it didn't have a stated effect on his reinstatement... On December 18, 2013, A&E announced that it was suspending Phil Robertson from the show indefinitely over remarks he made during an interview with Drew Magary of GQ magazine.[62] During the interview for a featured article in GQ's January 2014 issue, titled "What the Duck?", Magary asked Robertson: "What, in your mind, is sinful?"[63] Robertson replied:"Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men." Continuing rhetorically, Robertson questioned the appeal of same-sex relationships, particularly amongst men, saying: "It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”[64]A&E released a statement that read: "We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson's comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty. His personal views in no way reflect those of A&E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely."[62]Robertson responded to the initial criticism by saying that he is a "product of the 60s" but has since lived his life on Biblical principles. He added, "I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me."[65] The Robertson family also released a statement about A&E's decision, supporting Phil and saying that while some of his comments were "coarse", his beliefs are "grounded in the teachings of the Bible."[66] The statement also said that the family was in talks with the network, as they could not imagine going forward "without [their] patriarch at the helm."[66]In the first public interview since the GQ interview went viral, Robertson stood by his comments and said, "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?"[94][95][96]United Press International reported that A&E CEO Nancy Dubuc has received death threats for the decision to suspend Roberts indefinitely.[97]Robertson also drew criticism for viewpoints he expressed that critics characterized as "minimizing the era" of racial segregation in the southern United States, calling his comments "insensitive".[83][84][85]I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash. We're going across the field [...] They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, 'I tell you what: These doggone white people'—not a word! [...] Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.On December 27, A&E released a statement reversing Robertson's suspension. The network cited Robertson's and the family's regret for the use of "coarse language" in regards to discussing body parts,[98] and stated that A&E would launch a public service announcement across the channel's "entire portfolio" that would promote "tolerance and acceptance among all people."[99] GLAAD condemned the decision, stating A&E has "chosen profits over African American and gay people."[100] A Human Rights Campaign representative saw the reinstatement as a positive step and said they had been assured that "the Robertson family is now open […] to address the real harm that such anti-gay and racist comments can cause."[101] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickmxp (talk • contribs) 17:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The more I think about it the more I think the entire section can be condensed into a single paragraph. It reads like tabloid journalism and without social media it never would have been a story. Both sides used it to push an agenda - making the entire incident POV. Even the way it's written on Wikipedia is POV. The GQ quote isn't framed properly and makes it sound like those were his only comments. His support isn't framed properly making it sound like they supported the basis of his comments and not his 1st amendment right. His opposition is clearly dominant and pushing opinions in that direction. His comments about his upbringing in the south were from his own personal interactions - not a generalization of the entire population (which is what people turned it into) You have death threats from 4th hand sources. You counter the 1st amendment claims, but don't include the gay activists that supported Phil. You could basically sum it up by saying something like:

"during a GQ interview, Phil Robertson, made some remarks that were deemed insensitive, which led to his temporary suspension and sparked a debate across social media. One side advocated the 1st amendment and free speech; the other side contested anti-gay, racially insensitive remarks. The debates led to some sponsors pulling Duck Dynasty merchandise from their shelves, but public outcry forced them to reconsider and bring the merchandise back."

A link to GQ interview is sufficient and allows people to form their own opinion. Really, the whole thing never would have happened if not for people pushing agendas... then when people heard what he actually said, they realized that his words were insensitive, but a religious guy not agreeing with the gay lifestyle isn't exactly news. It was all POV and agenda driven tabloid journalism. Truthfully, the entire thing was probably a publicity stunt cooked up by A&E and Phil Robertson. He'll say just enough to be insensitive but not enough to discipline. Social and tabloid medias took the bait and ran with it.76.4.110.65 (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Nickmxp - know you are trying and I applaude you for coming back to the issue, but I continue to feel that this section is gigantically overblown and it doesn't need a tweak - it needs a major haircut. Ckruschke (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Personally I feel this controversy could be summed up in a paragraph for this article... but there seemed to have been a desire to add more depth to the event..which I don't really agree or disagree with, so I figured a good middle ground would have been more depth in relation to the show.. like what impacted the suspension and reversed it... I saw all opinions outside of the show as irrelevant to the show.. but if we can get consensus on a paragraph... that would be desirable in terms of topic cohesion... Nickmxp (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Death threats?

That sounds like hearsay. The supposed threats were first reported by TMZ who said "We're told she's been receiving death threats." Who were they told by? It was never confirmed by "Nancy Dubuc" And no sources were ever given. Wiki is supposed to be factual, not assuming an unnamed source is legitimate. Even the quote from GQ doesn't reference any of the other perceived ill-behaviors derived from the Bible. These are important as it frames the "controversial" comments as well as people defending free speech. I'm sorry, the entire controversy section seems completely biased... and I'm not even a fan of the show - I've never seen an episode76.4.110.65 (talk) 05:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It's worth looking into but generally people give details about death threats to the police and FBI, who almost never take that information public. The controversy section is likely to be fully rewritten if the sub-article is kept from deletion, then only the most relevant details to the show will be kept here. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

if it can't be verified then it can't be called encyclopedic.... Nickmxp (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It's already been verified and reported on, looking into if anything came of it wouldn't be a bad idea. Sportfan5000 (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Nope -- the UPI report said that TMZ said an anonymous source claimed that the person had threats. This is not even to the level of a credible claim as made in the article, and seems not to be properly in this article. By a country mile. Collect (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

As I stated, it's worth looking to see what has come of it. Other outlets have also reported so if nothing else the death threats themselves were widely reported. Let the sources determine the content. Sportfan5000 (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

In short, it is unverified speculation from a third-hand anonymous source -- it does not belong in this article. Pushing for it as being "verified" is a BLP violation -- it is not properly in the article, it is potentially defamatory, it is weakly sourced, it relies on speculation and innuendo, and it is an example of BLP abuse at its worst. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Invoke BLP to suppress content isn't helpful in this situation. I've seen other sources that report the death threats as a matter of fact so likely we just need to source this better. Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

When in doubt accuse those who actually follow the policy of whitewashing and trying to censor Wikipedia -- that sort of argument is the death knell of Wikipedia if you really believe it. This is not "suppressing content" it is trying to actually do the right thing per policy and your position is precisely the wrong one for anyone to take seriously. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

When in doubt scream BLP and accuse others of not following policy. See? Others can play that game as well. It's very hard to take your tactics seriously. What you may have missed is that I'm insisting on following reliable sources, looking into what has been reported about this. It's your choice what you do. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources that claim it as a fact. (Not blog or opinion pieces..) I don't see the problem with it... but I think any information should be verifiable... Nickmxp (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC) And by verifiable I mean someone looked into the claim and found the claim to be true.. that would suggest the claim made was verified as true... Nickmxp (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe there are sources who have looked into this and reported on it, even though we don't yet include them. What you would then need to have is reliable sources who refute the claims, if the point is to prove them untrue. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Well if a reliable source reported on the claim without acknowledging an anonymous source then it would be verifiable.... I think it would better to very something is true before adding than to verify something is false before removing.... Nickmxp (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm not stating it clearly. We need to see what the sources have to say. They report on death threats, they did so nationally. If they delve into it further then so can we. If they don't then we really can't. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I think a better source should be found... my wife told me TMZ is more of a gossip paparazzi type deal than a news agency... could you post some sources here whilst the page is locked for reference?Nickmxp (talk) 02:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Better sources are available but I'll let you look for yourself to see what they are. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I've looked for better sources and none were found. Every site the reports the threats got their info from TMZ. None of the major networks (NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX or CNN reported the threats. Business Week or Huff Po. never mention it either) Surely the way this story dominated the airwaves, there'd be at least one reputable organisation with a confirmed source. For all anyone knows the source could have been an 8 yr old on Twitter. 76.4.110.65 (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

My experience is different, I found major news outlets that did report the threat, none of them citing TMZ, or an eight-year-old. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

If you get time please source them here...Nickmxp (talk) 03:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I found a reliable source. On Good Morning America they say A&E has been receiving death threats - it mentions no one specific, however. And doesn't go into detail as to whether they were made if A&E put the show back on or whether they were made if A&E kept the show off. Remember, by this point, it had already been discussed about bringing the show back. I'm still looking for a direct link that shows context, but so far, no direct link to A&E saying it. Was it during an interview? Was it a press release? Was it an FBI report? Also, how were the threats made? On a blog? Over the phone? A letter? Personally, I think it's too vague and unless more info can be found, any reference to the threats will be misleading. As it stands now, it reminds me of the incident involving the foreign Miss America winner. On Twitter, fake accounts were calling her names and instead of due diligence, the media ran with the story because it fit an agenda. They gave the impression that she was being victimized... when in fact it was just a few trolls - which happens all the time, and to everyone, on social media. Anyway, the GMA link follows. Link: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/ae-receives-death-threats-duck-dynasty-stars-suspension-21298084 76.4.110.65 (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Not in the best situation to qatch videos... but.. given there is a non anonymous source then I see no reason to remove it...True it could have been empty threats.. but it could have had some impact on the company's decision... which in my view means that the tidbit is relevant to the controversy in relation to the show... maybe we should add the additional source?...Nickmxp (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

But unless you know if/how it affected any decision... it remains speculation. Speculation isn't relevant to an article, especially Wiki. People come here for facts and leaving a speculation will only cause confusions. The source still remains anonymous. GMA only says "A&E has received death threats." They don't name a source or how they found out. Currently, it is written as "A&E CEO Nancy Dubuc has received death threats for the decision to suspend Roberts indefinitely" It is complete speculation to assume that the threats were directed at Nancy Dubuc, as well as, if they were made because of the suspension or because of his reinstatement. The source is quoting TMZ - so the source link is 4th hand gossip76.4.110.65 (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

We can only cover what reliable sources do, if they don't cover if, and how, this affected anything then we can't either. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yet, Wiki is covering it. There is no credible source saying who the threats were made against or what they were directed at. If Wiki insists on keeping the threats in the article, then the only credible way to do so would be "Anonymous sources reported that A&E received death threats amidst the controversy." 76.4.110.65 (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

If I'm reading you correctly it could state that good morning america reported a and e received death threats admidst the controversy .... if they didn't report an anonymous source then they probably verified the statement.... Nickmxp (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 February 2014

70.94.65.227 (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Christine Robertson

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

He did change it, after it the protection ended, but I reverted it (please see the article history) because it was a person not worth mentioning. Yoshi24517^Chat _Absent 04:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Should the mention that Phil's anti-gay comments were publicly supported by groups primarily known for anti-gay rhetoric be omitted?

Note:There is another RfC about including Robertson's comments about black people below.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Should the mention that Phil's anti-gay comments were publicly supported by groups primarily known for anti-gay rhetoric be omitted? Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• No. They should be included, as this is the entire point of the controversy, a cultural divide that saw the controversy as revolving around anti-gay rhetoric vs. a religious right to free speech. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
• Omit. Firstly, it is a very dubious claim that these groups are primarily known for this (especially, the National Organization for Marriage, judging by its article). Secondly, it is undue weight to single out these groups - the article mentions " social conservatives" and "some religious groups". These people and groups aren't mentioned by name, and presumably the organizations in question fall under "social conservatives". Thirdly, use of the phrase "hate group" here suggests guilt by association - being praised by a hate group doesn't automatically make you bad. StAnselm (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
• "omit" implies motive not widely reported on... no reference calling the groups anti gay in relation to the controversy... the statement reads like orignal research... two of the referenced groups are not actual groups but members of groups...one of those members said his comments weren't anti-gay... and I suggest the phrase be ommited from the article and have this RFC used to gain consensus on it's inclusion given the previously noted concerns over violations.. such a NPOV, SYN, LABEL, BLP...Nickmxp (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
• Omit, obviously. StAnselm and Nickmxp have summed it up perfectly. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Omit As I said, its guilt by association. They are not a member of these groups, nor have supported them. Dream Focus 09:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• It's probably unsupported by sources that they are primarily known for anti-gay rhetoric. I suggested in the section above how to deal with this given the divergence in source coverage. Some sources, e.g. Edge Boston declared anti-gay everyone who supported Roberston in this incident. Other sources like The Week, which also compiled a similar list, didn't apply that label to the supporters, but only to Robertson's statemets. So this is clearly something that needs attribution and careful writing. Also, pulling characterizations from other sources that didn't cover this incident should be avoided per WP:SYN. The "label your enemy" essay has more thoughts on this. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Omit – per others. United States Man (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• Omit And we should be wary of making any inference that "evil person A supports evil person B, therefore evil person B supports evil person A" in any event. Collect (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• I say they shouldn't be omitted unless the same rationale was applied against groups who could be said to be known to oppose such statements. Otherwise a balanced presentation merely shows that staunch, vocal extremes were quick to opine; as the nation was drawn in.—John Cline (talk) 08:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the rationale for labels applied to the other side of the argument is that they are self applied labels... Nickmxp (talk) 11:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Omit.Invited here by Legobot, no previous connection to the article. I think it's summed up nicely in previous comments that the phrase opens up doors for vagaries that don't belong. GRUcrule (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
• Omit This should be an article about a television show, not an in-depth piece about one of the castmembers. Robertson's comments are only important in so far as they impacted the TV series. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GQ controversy

Now edited to be as NPOV as possible, removing over citation, and removing the "black" comments which had been discussed on this and other talk pages in the past without any consensus for inclusion. Also tried to remove any POV intonations from any wording. The "death threats" was an allegation and not a report of a direct fact known to CNN. Collect (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Restoring status quo version until consensus for these sweeping changes can be worked out. Removing citations from contentious material seems dubious at best, removing the "black" comments is utterly censorship and as far as I know only discussed on the biography page which was similarly whitewashed. The death threats were discussed here already and consensus was they should stay but the sourcing improved. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Look -- I made a compromise edit. I suggest you start an RfC if you want to have everything you seem to insist on -- as for me, I think the compromise is sound. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The edit was not a compromise one, it removed sources(!) which a controversy needs, and an entire notable chapter of the controversy. Using the term compromise does not make it so, and if you really meant it to be so you likely would have tried to work it out here first. Especially as you know those edits would be reverted, and highly questioned. The edit degraded our reporting of this content, even if some editors wish it would all go away. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

And you forgot the RfC already held on the "black comments" and try telling me I lied -- sorry -- AGF is at the bungee point here. Collect (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Where is that RfC please? Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh? I link to it on my UT page but here it is again: [3] and you may remember you took part in it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I had hoped you would be pointing out a discussion related to this article that I had missed, instead of that. Gaining a consensus there does not mean the same arguments will fly here. The Rfc has started so let's see what others have to say. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that an RfC in which you participated, dealing with the same material about the same person is somehow in your view unrelated to that discussion closed a week ago? Really?? See WP:FORUMSHOPPING and WP:POINT please. Collect (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Mythologizing events to suit your needs is not very helpful. I've already addressed these issues, but for those who care: My involvement there was 6-7 weeks ago, I saw how things were going on that article and gave up on it altogether as did a few other editors. The material was on the same issue but was not written or sourced well, and in the context of what had been happening with all the other content that didn't show Robertson in a positive light, it is unsurprising it was also edit-warred away. Much like we are seeing here. Wikipedia:Don't call the kettle black would apply to suggesting anyone else is forum shopping, something that is hard to do when we are talking about using the content on the very article the content belongs. I'm not enjoying these skirmishes so i'll let you have the last word and just focus on participating in the RfC. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)