Talk:Phil Robertson/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Phil Robertson. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Terry Bradshaw went to high school in Louisiana not Texas

The Bleacher Report April 1, 2013 article by Gabe Zaldivar references a New York Post April 1, 2013 article by Debbie Little. Here is the questionable quote about Bradshaw being from Texas.

"Bradshaw, a high-school football sensation from Texas and two years younger, caused a media frenzy when he first arrived at the school, according to now-retired defensive backs coach EJ Lewis."

Terry Bradshaw went to Woodlawn High School in Shreveport, Louisiana. He was born in Louisiana, spent a portion of his childhood in Iowa (3rd to 6th grade), but returned to Shreveport for junior high. It is understandable how a New York City reporter could be confused about the location of Shreveport; it is just 30 miles from Texas. Both of New York City's football teams play in New Jersey. The next Super Bowl will be in New Jersey, not in New York State. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up! Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 21:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

On the term "Yuppie"

The only reason I chose to include that little tidbit in the article is because I feel that Phil has been instrumental in bringing that term back into the mainstream vocabulary of Americans. If anyone has questions about that topic, feel free to discuss it below. Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 00:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Did you intend to put that before the A&E video reference? EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 00:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Not that last part, let me fix that... Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 02:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Unless you have a citation to show that he's relevant to yuppie's increased use, it's OR. I see nothing relevant on the yuppie page. Catch phrases are generally trivia not worthy of inclusion unless you can show some broader impact.--Xanzzibar (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you did not see, but there is already something on the Yuppie page about Phil's use of the word. Also, his catch phrases are of major importance to include in the article, and I can provide sources to prove it. Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 22:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a popular culture section (which are also frowned on, but that's another point entirely) mentioning he says it. There's nothing on it that says his use of it has shaped current trends. Do not add OR claims to articles, especially BLP ones. --Xanzzibar (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

fb group

A Facebook group in support of him, created shortly after the incident, gained over one million "likes" in less than 24 hours. What is the facebook group mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolmmwa (talk • contribs) 03:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Please provide secondary sources that discuss the supporting Facebook group. - Mr X 13:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The FB page is linked in the reference. Bahooka (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

What is "the reference"? There are 28 in the article. Also, a Facebook page is not a secondary reference. Perhaps I'm missing something?- Mr X 15:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Reference 21 from CBS Houston. This is in the last paragraph of the 'GQ comments' section. Bahooka (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I see. I guess the OP is suggesting that we put the name of the Facebook group in the article. - Mr X 15:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Morals Clause

Edited Morals Clause section to remove the direct copy from article. Article says "A&E knew of Robertson's controversial views - expounded in videotaped sermons and elsewhere - before the show premiered in spring 2012, and warned him not to overshare on hot-button topics such as gay rights and race relations, according to a producer familiar with the situation. Phil and other family members also probably signed contracts containing "morals clauses" in which they promised to, among other things, avoid anything that would embarrass or bring shame to A&E or the brand. Such clauses are standard in the entertainment and sports industries." http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-duck-dynasty-ae-warned-phil-robertson-about-speaking-out-too-much-20131220,0,7276941.story#ixzz2oDv5FWfa Hu (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

It was very very close, but not a direct copy. Thanks for the rewrite. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Too much detail? Some not needed? Some repeating itself? Expanding too far starts getting into UNDUE territory?

An Niteshift36 (talk · contribs) has removed some sourced content, but left other content in the article that, I would posit, is far less important than what was removed. In this second revert by this editor, contributions from four other editors were removed. I am opening this section so that Niteshift36 can explain their reverts. - Mr X 03:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Pretty simple and the edit summary covered it. Let's look at repeating first: The article already says in the first sentence that he was suspended. Then you say it again in the second paragraph. It's redundant. What is too much detail? I don't think the name of the GQ reporter who did nothing more than record words is needed. Nor do I think the big chunk about the wording of the A&E press release. This is a bio of Robertson, not a PR page for A&E. Use the source with that wording as a citation for the suspension and move on. Instead, you keep harping on it and expanding the section to the point of where it start to....wait for it... get into UNDUE terrority, just like I said in the edit summary. Point of fact, there was already an existing discussion on that section and it's clearly a contentious section of a BLP, so some discussion before doubling the size of it might have been prudent. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, what you have done is left material that is overly favorable to the subject, while removing content that is critical of the subject. The content is no longer representative of our reliable sources and thus, non-neutral. In other words, you have provided a WP:SOAPBOX from which the subject and his supporters (such a Jindal) can effectively amplify his viewpoint. Much of the remaining content is dependent on a primary sources and a local new source. This violates any number of our norms for content, including WP:UNDUE.- Mr X 04:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Local news sources are every bit as valid as a national one, so that's a red herring. I left Jindal because a sitting Governor commenting is pretty notable. If you'd like to cut down what he said, I'd be fine with that. What is left still represent reliable sources. Saying it doesn't is absurd. It just doesn't represent the parts you want discussed. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to using those sources; I'm opposed to relying on them when there are better sources. My last edit attempted to address the issues that you raised. I did not simply revert content. I think it's best to limit the content to the comments from the subject and A&E. Jindal's comments are not central to this controversy; they are merely political coatracking. (Also, please read WP:THREAD for help formatting your talk page comments.) - Mr X 05:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

If you aren't opposed to the sources, why are you complaining about them? If you're going to include Robertson's quote, you need to include all of it, not just the part that sounds negative. As for the formatting part....give it a rest. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought I explained that: When you remove national sources, but leave local and primary sources, that's less than optimal. We infact do not need to include all of Robertson's quote. We are an encyclopedia, not his press agent. Also, your last exit could easily be interpreted as crossing 3RR.- Mr X 05:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

No, a "national" source is no more reliable than a local one. That's just your prejudice. And no, I ADDED info to the article (unless you're whining about removing the reporter name, which is pretty lame). What I added was all of the quote, which we do need. You can't cherry pick the bad part and then claim that makes it balanced. That's not being his press agent, that's being fair. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The reporter's name isn't lame, it adds useful context; imparting knowledge that prevents spurious intellect, like calling him a reporter, (one of many), instead of the interviewer, (the one many reporters are quoting, and misquoting, aside their own commentary).

Anyway, I can't stress enough my disenchantment; when working with an editor who's driven to remove as much content from an article as they can devise—like calling it "lame" for example, (good one).

Fortunately there are no deadlines, and time itself will serve to overcome the harmful recklessness you are bringing to this article. I lament the seeming certainty that you are not objective to any possibilities that you could be wrong, and the time I've misappropriated discussing things when my intention and desire was to have been moving this article to improvement with well placed copyedits—especially the latter! Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I feel badly; having stepped away, to return and find this section in such disrepair. Niteshift36, in my opinion you are the largest force driving its deterioration.

Our collaboration should endeavor to accurately present the facts in this matter, letting the reader reach an informed decision themselves; for having read it. Your purpose here is contrary to that end; inconsiderate of the good faith efforts of others.

Most recently you removed mentioning that "comments were made during an interview with Drew Magary of GQ magazine."—preferring a less informative summary, saying" "comments were made during an interview with GQ magazine". The next sentence begins: Magary asked Robertson: "What, in your mind, is sinful?". Clearly you have introduced ambiguity; no one unfamiliar would connect the meaning of "Magary" in the context you have forced.

Three times you have restored your preferred version; favoring reinstatement of: "Robertson released a statement which in which he stated in part". Each time, you removed its corrected form although it had earned its place by the consensus of editors who gave their assent with subsequent edits; seeing no reason for its removal. Until of course you returned; teaching us all how editing ought to be.[1],[2], and [3]

Your cause is not greater than wp:3rr and your tendentiousness has wrought disruption. You have forced several errors, subtle in themselves, but no less detrimental. Like your insistence to say: "On December 18, 2013, A&E indefinitely suspended Robertson". In fact they merely "announced the indefinite suspension of Robertson". The actual suspension has not occurred, and because of verifiable developments, may never occur. It's a bit like the adage where an employee tells the boss: "you can't fire me, I quit!" but in this case it goes: "You can't suspend me from filming, instead you can go away; filming no more." The announcement is currently hollow though you insist on presenting it using verbiage as if it has already happened.

I came to this article to find information I needed; to become informed. The information was not in the article so I painstakingly researched sources to find answers; including the verifiable information in the article. I now find, once again, I can not find reliable answers here; like what did Robertson actually say, what did A&E actually say, and what effect does context have on the prose. Most of this is gone once again; removed by you. Check your motives sir, and get with the program.—John Cline (talk) 07:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Finally, it's not just you two tag team agenda pushing. First, pay attention to what I actually said. I didn't call your precious contribution of the reporters name "lame", I called your complaining about the removal of it lame. If you're going to be a big drama queen over it, at least get it right. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

That's why "name calling" is discouraged here; it confuses the discussion.—John Cline (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Good thing that I didn't call anyone a name then. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

True—John Cline (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I would support putting at least some of that contextual material back in, especially the GQ attribution. I think we need to avoid lengthy quotes if we can. I plan to trim other parts of the article where there are lengthy quotes from the subject combined with colloquialisms that are very non-encyclopedic in tone and substance.

I would strongly advise Niteshift36 to stop edit warring. As of now, I count four reverts within a 24 hour span: 1st Revert, 2nd Revert, 3rd Revert, 4th Revert and a Warning. It would also help if he indented properly and didn't add bullets to each of his replies.- Mr X 13:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

As I said, the fact that you consider removing the reporters name a "revert", while not counting your own "improvements" that change material speaks volumes. Calling that a revert is pedantic and overly legalistic. I stepped away from this for a day or so and it looks like I'm no longer the only one who can see through the reactionary editing going on here. I'd also find it helpful if you quit whining about bullet points. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

You should also limit yourself to information directly related to Roberston without being unduly promoting one point of view. If you are going to include Cracker Barrel then you need to include those which have side with Robertson...which then leads to weight issues in general. Don't pick and choose which fits your personal narrative. Arzel (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that including a notable reaction (action; not just words) by a major retailer is worth including in the brief form that I added. I'm not at all opposed to including the fact that Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, and a Facebook group support his free speech prerogative, as long as we keep it concise without self-serving quotes. How's that work for you?- Mr X 15:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

What works for me is for you not to push your clear POV. Also for you not to treat WP like a Newspaper. You do realize that CB has already gone back. This is the problem with reactionary edits. Arzel (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Some editors are trying too hard to be a newspaper. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to engage myself in this, but I just wanted to state that I think that listing his support (both groups and notable individuals) is a pretty good idea. In doing so, you may also wish to list petitions from sites such as change.org who have been successful in gathering enough signatures to send to A&E. Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 15:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

No need to apologize; your input is helpful. I'm OK with mentioning notable petitions very briefly. I think we should rely on secondary sources though, as opposed to simply linking to the petitions. - Mr X 15:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Just gave a quick read. We included the response by the LGBT community, but don't mention perhaps the larger outpouring of support he received (the whole iSupportPhil fallout). Seems that would be worth a mention. Morphh ^(talk) 22:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

We also include a response from the African American community. As I said before, I'm not opposed to including a mention of organizations or notable people that support Patterson's remarks. - Mr X 23:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

What rubbish...if you are for NPOV, then stop asking others to add equal weight to your reactionary POV pushing all the time. You keep messing with BLP's like this and you'll probably end up permabanned...I'll have my popcorn ready. You represent what's worse about this website. Whats with the blockquotes...how tabloidish. Why can't we as encyclopedia writers simply state that he made comments that members of the the gay community strongly objected to? You guys quote what suits your needs, but do you quote other things he has said from the thing he is most notable for, namely the TV show? Of course not. Leave the quotes for the NEWSPAPERS and rise above such fodder if you really want to demonstrate NPOV in a BLP. Remember that the core directive of BLP is do no harm.--MONGO 05:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any specific, policy-based comments about content? If so, I would be interested in hearing them. Feel free to discuss my behavior on my talk page, at ANI, or I guess, in a movie theater. - Mr X 13:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

What part of what I stated above can't you read? Your goal surely appears to present one side of the story and expect others to provide the other...you do harm by injecting negativism in a BLP. I encourntered the same horseplay with conspiracy theory POV pushers were they like to add nonsense and then make others waste time trying to disprove a negative. But this is worse since this is a BLP. If you cannot edit here in a dispassionate and neutral voice you shouldn't edit here at all.--MONGO 16:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Ouch. Your argument consists almost entirely of ad hominems, speculation about my motives without evidence, and a rant about an unrelated conspiracy theories. None of this has relevance to the actual content and how it may or may not conform to policies, such as

WP:PUBLICFIGURE: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it".
WP:NPOV: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."
WP:PRIMARY: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.". - Mr X 17:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

....MrX...you still do not seem to get it. If you were editing dispassionately and neutrally you would be adding the negatives and the positives as equally as possible. You're not doing that...you're asking others to counterbalance your negatives. Besides that, there is the issue of the blockquoting which looks tabloidish and unencyclopedic...we're not a newspaper. All this brings up the issue with UNDUE mentioned earlier, but I haven't weighed that out yet, though it sure looks like that is something to be alarmed about. I'm not passive aggressive so lets be very clear...I think your contributions here violate BLP.--MONGO 17:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

If you want to find material to balance what I added to the article then fire up your editor and add it. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. I am on record as agreeing that all of the quotes should probably go, negative as well as promotional, so I suggest you discuss that with Dreamfocus, but let's not just remove the unflattering material. I'm fully convinced that that material that I added is not WP:UNDUE in that it is supported by multiple sources. If you disagree, feel free to present specific evidence to the contrary. If your bottom line is that you believe that the material that I added is a BLP violation, then I would be happy to see it discussed at WP:BLPN. Would you like to initiate it, or shall I?- Mr X 18:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The parenthetical (homosexuals) should be changed to (people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness)

The last paragraph is a mischaracterization of what Phil Robertson said. The full speech was 45 minutes long, and referred to the general rejection of God in American society. The reference to scripture was to Romans chapter 1. In no place in his 45 minute speech did Phil direct his comments at homosexuals. Further, the scripture that he quoted, which does reference homosexuals, clearly establishes the "subject" to be human beings who have not seen fit to retain the knowledge of God. Not "Homosexuals" as the article states. Homosexual behavior is mentioned in the scripture as a byproduct or consequence of "exchanging the truth of God for a lie." Homosexuality is clearly listed as one of many consequences of denying God, and not as a state of being to which all of the other conditions apply.

Further, the subject of the passage is established in verse 18, and is consistently continued using the pronoun "they" throughout. In verse 18, the subject is clearly "people who suppress the truth by their wickedness", not "homosexuals."

Romans Chapter 1 verses 18 - 23

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Rracine (talk) 04:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I deleted it for now since the corrected version would be of questionable notability. Not sure if that qualifies as "done" or not. VictorD7 (talk) 07:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done - We follow sources, not the original research of users who have read (and quoted lengthy bible verses). These bible passages are frequently used to condemn homosexuality, and more importantly, that's what multiple sources say. If there are reasons to questions whether or not I represented the sources accurately, we can discuss it, but misleading it ain't.- Mr X 13:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

We aren't slaves to sloppy journalism, and just because something appears in "sources" doesn't mean it's appropriate for this article, or else it could be whole lot longer. We certainly aren't required to include demonstrably false material (per the video of his actual speech), especially regarding very recent events and on a biography page where Wikipedia could potentially have liability concerns. VictorD7 (talk) 22:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Distortion

[4] Concerning the lead, A&E suspended him based on his comments about homosexuals, not for any racial remarks. I am against the following bias comment as well. "Robertson remarked that being black in Louisiana during the pre-civil rights era was not all that bad, stating:" This is misleading. He did not say it like that. Taking things out of context and distorting them should not be tolerated. Dream Focus 13:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The actual interview is at [5]. "I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash." He worked with them, and never heard them complaining. Twisting someone's words around to make it sound like they said something else, can not be tolerated. Dream Focus 13:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You've set up a false premise. The article is about Robertson's life, especially is public life, achievements and public remarks, not the A&E suspension. He has received abundant recent media coverage for both his anti-gay remarks as well as his racially insensitive remarks. You don't get the privilege of personally interpreting those remark; we must follow sources.

What I think get's us into the most problem is direct quotes, and the conflict between keeping them short for brevity (thus omitting context) or including everything, thus overwhelming the article. Here is my proposal: Let's agree to move all of the quotes to the quote field of the refs, and stick to concise summaries of all of the content, including the anti-gay remarks, racially insensitive remarks, and notable reaction to his remarks. But let's not whitewash the article by only removing the negative material, or changing "racially insensitive" to "controversial comments about the south".

Also, we have a de facto standard across the encyclopedia to use "gay" or "LGBT" rather than "homosexual" which is more of a clinical term. Of course, the exception is its use in direct quotes.- Mr X 14:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

ETA: Considering what your complaint was, I'm surprised that you removed every bit of content about his racially insensitive remarks from the lede and the body, and an entire paragraph about his anti-gay remarks, while leaving trivial detail about his religion and geese flying over head. - Mr X 14:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec)I can not find that "standard" - "homosexual" search count is over 13,000 in articles. "LGBT" has a count of 17,00, and "gay" (which is not always used with one meaning) has a count of 39,000 of which a very significant number are not about sexual orientation. Specifically the intersection of all three terms has a search count of nearly 4,000 -- so the "de facto standard" is not one. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. His nonsense about a de facto standard is obviously something he just made up. Dream Focus 14:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a bit rude. I made it up? - Mr X 14:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is the support for the gay vs. homosexual standard (or common practice, if you prefer): WT:WikiProject LGBT studies#Guidelines regarding gay/lesbian vs. homosexual.- Mr X 14:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me. It just sounds like made up nonsense. My mistake. That links to the other discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Archive_43#Suggested_guidelines_for_gay_and_homosexual where six people supported the suggested guidelines, and one opposed. The guidelines say to use whatever is in the source you are referencing. Dream Focus 14:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

X, excuse me for being blunt, but I don't care what the LGBT Studies project decided in a small discussion. They are people interested in the topic, not the arbiters of the MOS. Their decision means nothing to me or this article. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me for also being blunt, but I'm not that interested in what you care about. I linked to a discussion that is very relevant to MOS:IDENTITY. These are widely accepted practices, and I'm guessing that I know what I'm talking about since I have probably edited far more articles that touch on LGBT topics than you have. (It would be helpful if you would please stop double indenting your talk page posts.)- Mr X 17:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, the LGBT project isn't involved in this discussion, but I am. So you kinda got stuck with what I think as part of the conversation. Tough luck for you. You are correct in guessing you've edited more homosexual related articles. Congratulations. If this were a contest about who edited the most homosexual related articles, you'd be the big winner. But Wikipedia isn't a contest and your edit count doesn't make you an expert. You know what would be helpful too? If you stop wasting my time yakking about your preferences in formatting. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY says that this matter should be driven by sourcing, and "arguments to avoid" include WP:MOREX. A discussion elsewhere, involving just six editors (who are not working on this article), would not seem to be a controlling influence. Roccodrift (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Discuss each issue separately, don't try to remove all the quotes because you didn't get the ones you wanted put in there. The part about the A&E suspension should not include something not related to that suspension in the same sentence. That is incorrect information. They suspended him for his comments on homosexuals, not anything else. I just reverted you for that, I didn't change anything at all. Dream Focus 14:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I think we need to apply the editorial standards equitably, and not simply fill the article with lengthy quotes that give glowing praise to the subject and have little encyclopedic value.

Let's start by discussion the justification for removing all of the embarrassing racial comments and the resulting reaction by large civil rights organizations. How shall we fix this?- Mr X 14:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Um -- d'ya think ya might have made some editorial commentary there? I rather suspect the fact he stated he identifies with blacks seems to be exceedingly pertinent, as is the fact that his "anti-gay" comments were a statement of his personal beliefs as to what is in the Bible. I tend to be in accord with the famed non-Voltaire Voltaire quote: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. [6] and so I tend not to insert my own opinions of what a person says - but rely on the actual words used. Collect (talk) 14:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

No. You seem to be interpreting the primary source. Have you studied the secondary sources? BTW, I personally support Robertson's right to say whatever he wants, but I'm not going to help bury the public reaction to those comments nor should you. If you believe that I "inserted my own opinion" then please provide evidence, preferably after you have read the sources.- Mr X 14:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I believe you may well have "inserted your own opinion", by continuing to highlight material that the media and, more importantly, Robertson's longsuffering employer, has deemed less important in the grand scheme of things. Mind you, the NAACP is not the arbiter of what matters, either in Robertson's bio or in his ill-fated GQ interview. In an exhaustive 80kb exposé, there would be a place for it; in this 13kb sketch, it is undue weight. If/when somebody produces evidence that A&E was acting, in part, on Robertson's remarks about African-Americans, then it should be mentioned in passing (e.g., "... and also because of his comments about African-Americans."). Absent that, inclusion of the long quotation and accompanying prose (3kb) that I removed [7] amounts to POV-pushing. Roccodrift (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

"I believe you may well have "inserted your own opinion" "That requires evidence, not vague generalization. No, the NAACP is not the arbiter of what matters; our sources are. Have you read them? Editors removing extremely well-sourced material simply because it is unfavorable to an article's subject, and doing this across multiple articles, amounts to POV-pushing.- Mr X 18:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

"I believe you may well have "inserted your own opinion" is my own opinion, and requires no evidence beyond the fact that I said it. I didn't remove the material because it's unfavorable; I removed it because gives undue weight to something that isn't relevant to the narrative of Robertson's life. If you come up with sourcing that indicates the material is in some way consequential, I may be swayed. Absent that, it doesn't belong in the article. Roccodrift (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

If you're not convinced by ~500 news articles in the past week that this material is WP:DUE and consequential, then I'm probably wasting my time trying to convince you. - Mr X 18:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Is that really your argument? OK, so if you're saying it's consequential, tell us how it's consequential. What effect did it have on the course of Robertson's life? To include it in the article, the answer cannot be "because there's 500 hits on Google News". Roccodrift (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

You're argument assumes that news coverage does not make an event worthy of inclusion, when the opposite is the case. That's when we include it. I don't think anyone believes the "effect it had on the course of his life" test, because no one makes an effort to follow that test. Otherwise they would remove allegedly recruited by the Redskins (what's the effect if he didn't follow through), acclaimed by his students (what's the point if he left the job), speaks on pro-life causes, etc. In fact, some of this stuff has a much weaker basis for inclusion. Robertson being acclaimed by his students is sourced to a self-serving description on his own website. It doesn't quote any student, and it's not from an independent media source. We don't exclude media scrutiny because it arguably paints him in a bad light. --JamesAM (talk) 20:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Robertson didn't say he identified with blacks. I take it to serve two purposes. One: as an observer of blacks. He claims to have seen what this separate group was like as a close observer. Two: it serves the decidely racist purpose of supposedly giving Robertson a license to be a bigot. He's like the white man who says to a middle-class black person, "I'm blacker than you, so I get to say the n-word." Robertson supposedly worked alongside black agricultural workers, so he's supposed to be able to say whatever he wants without criticism, regardless of the numerous gaps in rights between him and the people working beside him. So we disagree. But that's not really an important consideration, because reliable sources trump editors' opinions. My point is that we don't yield to your interpretation of the comments rather than those of other editors. We go by the reliable sources. The comments are race are notable. They've had lots of media coverage. Many media commentators have argued that his comments on race were much worse than his comments on sexual orientation. If A&E's statements only refer to his comments on sexual orientation, that simply means that we don't attribute his suspension to the race comments (unless we get sources to that effect). Just because A&E didn't suspend him due to race doesn't make those comments non-notable. --JamesAM (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@JamesAM:Exactly. Our standard for inclusion is verifiability, and our standard for the amount of content to includ is due weight. In addition to what JamesAM aptly pointed out, the suggestion that we must convince a single editor that the topic is consequential is simply not grounded in policy, or for that matter, reality. - Mr X 20:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Distortions of truth

I started to comment on this very topic myself, yesterday, but was sidetracked. Pardon me for not staying away, and, if you will, be kind in your manner of indulgence as I place my opinion before you. It seems impossible for any of the 500 hits to be in relation to what Robertson said because Magary did such an utterly poor job of faithfully reproducing Robertson's sentiments that it seems nearly impossible that anyone could harvest an inkling of meaning regardless of the effort applied. For example, what did Robertson say here: "We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy."? I can't say with certainty that the four dots are meant grammatically to be an ellipsis. Otherwise, let me describe what Robertson actually said, more clearly: "I never, with my eyes, saw ... the blues." At best, readers reacted to what Magary said Robertson said and not at all to what Robertson said. In my opinion.—John Cline (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not for us to figure out. This is why it is so important to use secondary sources so that we, the editors, do not have to employ original research to try to figure out what Robertson meant. If we simple let the sources report their facts and analysis, all we have to do is accurately paraphrase them in the article. If there is credible criticism of Magary's journalistic competence or integrity, from a reliable source, then that would be worth adding to the article and appropriate for provided a different point of view than is currently in the mainstream.- Mr X 20:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I understand, and primarily agree. I only diverge because we do exercise desecration over our segue into the verifiable content we include. I presume you know that consensus did change regarding "verifiability not truth", elevating truth to its rightful place and honorable station. I don't have enough time this second to write a throughly fair illustration, though I hope to gather some diffs and write more on this, later; or at best, intermittently. Merry Christmas; everyone—John Cline (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

OK. Merry Christmas!- Mr X 22:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not clear from the interview what the context or point was since the GQ writer didn't give us the question he asked. All we know from Robertson's given comments was that he didn't mention "Jim Crow" or "civil rights", but was just relaying his personal, positive experiences with black people as a youth. Frankly it's a non-story that generated a few headlines (mostly at agenda driven outfits), but probably won't have legs. It certainly doesn't appear to be the cause of his suspension, making the since deleted intro sentence misleading. VictorD7 (talk) 22:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Racially insensitive remarks

Here is content that is in dispute. For those who object to this content, I would like to understand their policy-based reasons for rejecting the content. For those who believe that the content misrepresents sources, please propose alternative wording that you believe more accurately represents the sources.

Content and sources

Robertson also drew criticism for his racial views which he expressed in the same interview. Robertson remarked that being black in Louisiana during the pre-civil rights era was not all that bad, stating:

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.

In response, the LGBT civil rights advocacy group Human Rights Campaign and the African-American civil rights organization NAACP wrote a joint letter to the president of A&E calling Robertson's remarks dangerous and inaccurate.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

^ Merritt, Jonathan (December 19, 2013). "The Real Duck Dynasty Scandal: Phil Robertson's Comments on Race". The Atlantic. Retrieved December 22, 2013. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ Sieczkowski, Cavan (December 19, 2013). "'Duck Dynasty' Star Phil Robertson Claims Black People Were 'Happy' Pre-Civil Rights". Sieczkowski. Huffington Post. Retrieved December 22, 2013. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ Gicas, Peter (December 18, 2013). "Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson Thinks Black People Were Happy Before the Civil Rights Movement". E! Entertainment. Retrieved December 22, 2013.
^ Sheets, Connor Adams (December 19, 2013). "NAACP Blasts Phil Robertson Over 'Racist' Remarks In New 'Duck Dynasty' Row". International Business Times. Retrieved December 23, 2013. On Wednesday he was suspended by the network as anti-gay comments he made in a controversial interview with GQ for an article in its January edition drew outrage from many, including gay-rights groups like GLAAD, who were offended by his homophobic remarks. Now he is getting heat from groups including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) for racially insensitive comments he made in the same GQ interview. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Additional sources

- Mr X 21:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything objectionable here. MilesMoney (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The part that says "Robertson remarked that being black in Louisiana during the pre-civil rights era was not all that bad" is misleading, that's not what he said. Dream Focus 04:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not literally what he said -- we quote him immediately afterwards -- but it's a fair summary of his sentiment. MilesMoney (talk) 04:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Saying "it's a fair summary of his sentiment" is another way of saying "it's original research". Roccodrift (talk) 04:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree - that's a dreadful summary. St Anselm (talk) 04:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

So easy to criticize, yet so hard to improve upon. Show me a better summary. MilesMoney (talk) 04:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

You realise, don't you, that the same material appears in Duck Dynasty? There the summary is "Robertson also drew criticism for racial views expressed in same interview." St Anselm (talk) 05:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

That's far less POV, is a neutral and dispassionate manner in which to summarize the response to his comments.--MONGO 12:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I would be amenable to dropping or rewording "Robertson remarked that being black in Louisiana during the pre-civil rights era was not all that bad, stating:" if that helps. We could follow our source more directly and say something like "Robertson remarked that blacks in Louisiana during the pre-civil rights era were happy. He said," - Mr X 12:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

It's generally standard that the subject be quoted and then followed up with a plethora of reliable secondary references...then what the response was to the comments which are also backed with a plethora of reliable secondary sources. But do no harm means we as encyclopedists refrain from editorializing. So I believe the best way to surmise this situation is to state that after an interview in which Robertson said (quote), (ref)-(ref)-(ref), a number of entities such as....responded that (quote), (ref)-(ref)-(ref) then move on...anything in a BLP has to stick to the facts only and doesn't need to violate that policy or exceed UNDUE...while his comments may very well have been antagonistic to many, its our job to be impartial in this sort of affair and bear in mind the recentism of the matter. We dont yet know what the collateral damage if any may come from this.--MONGO 15:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess something like that would be fine with me, as long as we don't try to sweep the entire thing under a rug.- Mr X 16:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Your solution is to reword the lie but still keep the lie? "Robertson remarked that blacks in Louisiana during the pre-civil rights era were happy." is not accurate. He didn't mention anything about civil rights movement. He said when he was younger, he didn't hear them complaining all the time. Just quote exactly what he said, or don't say anything at all because its misleading. Don't give undue weight to bias sources just trying to make a story to get attention. Dream Focus 16:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Robertson related what his personal observations were. Other sources have made it into a broad commentary on black life in the era. Why do we have to repeat their distortion? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What are you talking about? I already conceded that we can remove the media analysis and skip directly to the quote and the reaction by the two large civil rights organizations.- Mr X 17:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm responding to the comment directly above mine. Especially "Your solution is to reword the lie but still keep the lie". Their reaction is based on something he didn't say. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:23, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I know. That's the one I was responding to also.- Mr X 17:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

We don't have to include the quote at all. The vast majority of the man's comments and news articles about him aren't mentioned in the article ("Swept under the rug"? Seriously? Sounds like crusading language.). The "racial" quote is problematic because the context and point are unknown. The GQ writer failed to provide his actual question or any context. The presented quote was seized on by some agenda driven sources seeking to find a new angle of attack on the guy, and was briefly mentioned by a couple of major media outlets. The number of "sources" is irrelevant. It's not like they independently verified anything or provided additional reporting. It's just websites copying each other, and frankly the list isn't that impressive anyway. Much of it is opinion writers using the story as a prop to launch into opinionated diatribes that may or may not have anything to do with what Robertson actually said. Furthermore, they tend to complain about the lack of attention his "racial" comments have received. There have likely been far more news articles about the overwhelming backlash against the GLAAD/A&E move (including the social media support), and yet that's absent from the article.

Wiki policy cautions us to be extra careful when deciding whether a recent story, particularly an ongoing one involving a living person, merits inclusion. I notice you rushed to add Cracker Barrel removing some of its Duck Dynasty products from shelves, a move that was reversed due to a massive backlash within a day or so. Between those two events another editor properly removed the inclusion, so it's unclear whether you would have rushed as quickly to add the about face or would have wanted to add it (the full CB story) on your own now if you were just showing up here, but that episode underscores that Wikipedia shouldn't be a source for currently breaking news. Just because something pops in the partisan blogosphere for a couple of days doesn't necessarily mean it warrants inclusion in this encyclopedia article.

The Cracker Barrel story was skewed, possibly recentist detail, but at least it was true. The since deleted characterization of his "racial" comments was speculative at best. The GQ homosexuality comments merit inclusion because they were cited by A&E as the reason for his suspension, but there's certainly no indication that the "racial" comments had anything to do with the suspension, contrary to the since deleted implication, so there's no more reason to include them than any other quotes currently absent, especially if we're agreeing that the "Jim Crow/civil rights" angle taken by the sources in question is unverifiable. VictorD7 (talk) 02:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I concede that the folks who wish to keep this content out the article have, by shear weight, established a consensus to do so. I'm not seeing any benefit to my continued participation in this thread, especially given that my objectivity has been repeatedly questioned. - Mr X 19:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

A&E Folds (Dec 27th)

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/

Willie and rest of the cast/family said they would not proceed without their patriarch. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It's time to trim the GQ section down to size. It contains way too much weight and detail for an event that is now no longer such a big deal. Roccodrift (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Actually, one could argue that the brevity of the suspension diminishes the level of notability and the amount of attention it merits. Once again, we have an incident that was all over the 24 hour news cycle, we act like it's the story of the century for a few days, edit like this is a newspaper, then watch the incident begin the slow slide into a more rational perspective. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The story is of diminished importance and the GQ section needs serious trimming given its current skewed, undue weight on the page. VictorD7 (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, MrX, it was A&E's actions that gave this whole thing legs to begin with. Much of the news coverage was based on the fact of Robertson's suspension, and absent the suspension this whole thing is scarcely a hiccup. Roccodrift (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It does not become less significant because A&E caved, so editing it down would be inappropriate. MilesMoney (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)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. - Mr X 01:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the "suspension" ended after a few days without him actually missing anything means that it shouldn't consume half the Career section space of a man who had already been rich and famous for quite a while, much less most of that section space as it currently does. Wikipedia editors are also routinely warned to be on guard against recentism. Comparing it to 9/11 is absurd. A better analogy might be if there was a report of a major terrorist attack that sent the media buzzing, but it turned out to be a hoax or dud that didn't kill anyone. The emphasis was skewed even before A&E caved. Duck Dynasty outfits were the most popular Halloween costumes ([8], [9]) even before this latest controversy. At this point there are probably more stories about the backlash from Christians and other supporters than the initial round covering the comments themselves and outrage from GLAAD and A&E (not to mention the other cherry-picked quotes seized on by some ex post facto), and yet the backlash wasn't even mentioned in the article (briefly, but quickly deleted), despite today's events underscoring that it was the more notable phenomenon over the past week. VictorD7 (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this controversy should not overwhelm the rest of the content in the career section. I don't think that the backlash is the larger story at all, but it is certainly worth mentioning. I have a couple of thoughts on how adjust the career section: The block quotes make this material seem more voluminous than it actually is. Perhaps if we eliminated the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th block quote, that would help. I also think that the rest of the career section should be expanded, especially the early career section and the first paragraph under "Duck Dynasty".- Mr X 02:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTTEMPORARY is being misused here. The very first line of that guideline is "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article." This is not a question of the notability of an article. Robertson is clear notable. What we're discussing it the weight this incident should be given. Please don't pretend to have guidelines backing you up when they don't apply to the situation. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

No argument has been made for how the latest chapter in the story -- A&E folding under pressure -- makes the whole story less due. MilesMoney (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

False. Roccodrift (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Diffs or it didn't happen. MilesMoney (talk) 04:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Niteshift36, who still can't or won't indent properly, is correct that notability does not apply to content within an already notable article. However, WP:DUE still applies and I have yet to see an argument refuting it. To recap: "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."- Mr X 03:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Mr X, who still can't or won't stop ~~whining~~ obsessing about indenting, sat here and told us it was about the notability guideline. Now the story changed. Focus on the number of sources is wrong headed. If 500 sources (that would be hundreds) report that Justin Bieber bought a hat, does that make it important? Of course not. What we've done here is take an incident that actually only lasted a few days and made it a focal point of the article about his life. This short-lived incident is being overrepresented here. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The story didn't change. A&E did not fire up their time-travel machine and interrupt the GQ interview. Everything that was due before remains due now. MilesMoney (talk) 04:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Um, many of us were arguing UNDUE before. This simply supports it. If we didn't think it was due before, this doesn't enhance it. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

This changes nothing. If it was undue then, it remains undue. If it was due then, it remains due. You need to come up with an actual argument, not just "but look, A&E backed down". This does not change the past. MilesMoney (talk) 04:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It was. It still is being given undue weight. Nothing has changed. This lends support to that. My position hasn't changed, so don't pretend like it has. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. It's really just that simple. Parties are welcome to take this to WP:NPOVN if they disagree.- Mr X 04:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that invoking WP:NOTTEMPORARY here is nonsense. That has to do with notability related to article creation; it has nothing to do with article content. The more appropriate standard is WP:RECENTISM, and perhaps ancillary to that, WP:NOTNEWS. Because the story has changed (considerably), the impact and appropriate level of weight that should be given to certain parts of the story has also changed.

For example, let's think about Robertson's college football career. If he'd gone into pro football, more coverage of his college football days would be appropriate. But since he didn't, it's not. Roccodrift (talk) 04:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Causality does not work that way. If the article were written about someone who's not in pro football, any material that's due would remain due regardless of whether they go pro. Perhaps if they go pro, then additional material might be due, but that's all. MilesMoney (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I've already retracted NOTTEMPORARY. RECENTISM is an essay and nothing in NOTNEWS precludes including widely-reported events in an article.- Mr X 04:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course you retracted it, because is was completely wrong. I wonder how many other places you've sneaked that by. Yes, Recentism is an essay. That means it's not a binding rule. That doesn't mean it can't provide good guidance. You are correct that NOTNEWS doesn't necessarily preclude the inclusion, nor does it demand the inclusion or exempt the material from UNDUE. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Short of time machines, you've offered no argument for UNDUE. Try again. MilesMoney (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Johnny Come Lately, but you just need to scroll up. We've talked about UNDUE for days. Just because you breezed in later doesn't mean it didn't happen. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

If you've been saying it's undue all along, then these new developments change nothing, and all you have are the arguments that, for days now, have failed to gain traction. MilesMoney (talk) 06:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

No, the new developments simply show how much in violation of WP:NEWS you and some of your fellow editors were violating. Rather than waiting for a historical perspective you went all in for a minute by minute narrative of this. The scope of inclusion has been undue since the beginning. Now that A&E has retreated it is clear just how blown out of proportion this really was. Arzel (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. The new events show how minor and "tempest in a teacup" this actually was. Again, it supports the contention that this was a NOTNEWS issue being given UNDUE weight. Miles, I know you've been banned from a ton of your favorite articles and need a new place to disrupt, but just repeating "nothing changed" or "time machine" isn't really persuasive. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I've never edited this article before, but coming in and looking at it, you'd think the most important thing Robertson was involved with is the GQ interview. The smallest section is on the show. Shouldn't that be reversed? Even expanding the details of his involvement on the television show would balance out the weight concerns. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a sensible suggestion. It's not as if the material has lost its relevance, it's just that the article was skimpy in the first place. Let's fill out the other parts and then see if anything looks undue. MilesMoney (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm....The single section about this event is too big compared to the rest of it. The remaining article is light in comparison. Don't look now, but that was UNDUE means; when one incident/event is being disproportionately focused on. You're welcome. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's see, we could retain valuable material and add more, or we could remove valuable material and leave the article empty. So many choices... MilesMoney (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Or take a look at what is actually valuable. In the end, BLP would have us have a short article rather than one that provides an unnecessarily negative POV just because we want to fill up more space. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The Picture

Isn't the picture attached to an article supposed to reflect the person around the time when they are notable? This guy isn't known for his clean-shaven college days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.23.40.34 (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily. there is also a question of free use. If you have a suitable, newer, photo that is free to use, then we can look at it. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It adds context. The Duck Dynasty show personas do not necessarily reflect the true persons behind them. The long beards are a recent addition. Hu (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Although the college picture is worthy, there should also be a picture with his current beard! Definitely needs two pictures, the current (missing) picture being the most important. — IMHO, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

picture in the infobox

He is famous for his beard. Why show a very old picture of him without one? Dream Focus 18:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but is there a more recent photo available? - Mr X 18:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Did neither of you notice this topic already exists just above here? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

"Why show?" Because Wikipedia is about providing information and background and context, not about regurgitating images everyone is familiar with. An overwhelming majority (98 percent?) of the people viewing the page have seen or read news items about the controversy or have seen the show. They would be familiar with the famous beard. 99 percent of that 99 percent have not seen him in his clean-cut earlier days, which have much to do with how the man was shaped and what he believes. Thus the early adult photo adds useful contextual information. Hu (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Although the college picture is worthy, there should also be a picture with his current beard! Definitely needs two pictures, the current (missing) picture being the most important. — IMHO, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Military service?

Resolved

Which branch of the military did Phil serve in, and for how long? Timothy Horrigan (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

You do not seem to have a WP:POINT. Please see your talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

It was a fair question. It's reasonable to expect that someone as deeply patriotic as Phil Robertson would have served in the military at some point, especially considering his advanced weapons skills. As written, the article suggests that he dodged the draft, which seems grossly at odds with his image. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to guess you didn't serve Timothy. Otherwise you'd be aware that the US military really doesn't care about what "advanced weapons skills" you bring to them, they will teach you their way. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Did he serve? I'm not aware of that fact, but if he did it certainly belongs in the article. From my knowledge of him, I suspect he'd rather not have volunteered, as his love of hunting was so strong.Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Students and teachers were generally given deferments in the 60's and 70's - I suspect he was one of millions of teachers in that position, and he likely had a 2-S while in college as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Article talk pages, as Timothy Horrigan is well aware, are for discussing improvements to their respective articles, not for making general comments about the subject. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

From watching the TV reality show, you quickly learn that his colorful brother, Si (short for Silas), served in Vietnam. This overshadows any service that Phil Robertson may (or may not) have provided in the U.S. Military. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Done

Sportsman's Ministry video, the latest BLP problem

There are numerous problems with this addition [10]:

No context. How do we know Robertson was speaking seriously, and not tongue-in-cheek?
Marcotte's Slate piece is originally sourced from Crooks and Liars blog, which fails WP:BLPSOURCES.
Even if the quote stands as something Robertson said in seriousness, its significance is not established and should be viewed through jaundiced eyes because nobody would give a rat's petootie about it were it not that certain factions of the media just lost the battle -spectacularly- to end Robertson's career.
And even if this turns out to be something that actually matters, adding the aside about Robertson marrying a young wife is pure OR and SYNTH, not NPOV, and could not be left in the article unless it is demonstrated that somebody besides Marcotte gives a rip about it.

Roccodrift (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyone watching the video can see he is joking if you watch it in context. [11] It shows the transcript there also. The media trying to stir up something to get some ratings, taking things out of context. Pick your ducks means to pluck the ducks you shot, he an avid duck hunter of course. Dream Focus 23:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, screw trying to defend the inclusion of this material taken out of context. Instead, make an issue of defending Marcotte's questionable honor and hope people forget that this addition is biased. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

As much as some may prefer it, WP:NPOV requires that we include this material in some brief form. It is every bit as relevant to Robertson's biography as his college football stats or his musings about Jesus. Here are some sourced to get us started:

Would anyone like to take a stab at a first draft?- Mr X 18:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

REQUIRES it? Before we "take a stab" at any draft, I want to be shown where it REQUIRES that this material be shoved into the article. Not your personal interpretation of the guideline X. Something substantial. You can prove it is required or you can alter your wording. Take your pick. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased."

From WP:DUE: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

From WP:WEIGHT: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."

The prominence and diversity of the sources would seem to require that a biography about Phil Robertson would not simply omit a controversy about Phil Robertson that has been widely reported by major, respected news organizations. The content is relevant to Robertson's view of the world, or at the very least, his public-facing view of the world. A biography without this material would be incomplete and would fail to serve our readers' need to understand the subject in its totality.- Mr X 19:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

In other words, there is no requirement that this material be added. Misrepresenting NPOV, as you did here, doesn't make it required, nor will quoting a part of DUE that doesn't apply. Your whole premise is based on the notion that this is a) relevant and b) that his joking remarks (that he said was a joke in writing months before this) were actually serious advice. You haven't really proven either of those. It's just been you quoting guidelines and pretending that they fit. We've seen that behavior from you in the past. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

We have lots of secondary sources that cover this. I think it is notable to include something about it. QuackGuru (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Number of sources don't add up to inherent notability. I see a couple of hundred sources talking about how around 100 movies and shows won't be available on Netflex streaming after tonight. That's not notable either. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

If he was kidding, find a secondary source that says he was kidding. Otherwise, this is just WP:OR. MilesMoney (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

We already have one: "According to People magazine, Robertson shared the exact same sentiment in his book "Happy, Happy, Happy: My Life and Legacy as the Duck Commander." In the book, he writes that the idea of a 20 year old marrying for money is a joke. "Now, that's a joke, and a lot of people seem to laugh at it, but there is a certain amount of truth in it," he writes of his suggestion to marry a 15 year old."[12].

This, of course, should be noted. I'll again suggest, however, that people focus more on expanding the article on a whole than simply trying to tack on every controversy the media decides to focus on during a holiday week. The additions do cause a balance problem, but only because the article is currently structured to put more weight on controversy than noting the businessman or television personality aspects that he is actually noteworthy for. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no objection for expanding other parts of the article as long as you have the sources. QuackGuru (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Robertson is not a businessman with some controversies, he's a public figure who courts controversy with statements that can be expected to get coverage. Have you considered that he may well be more notable for those controversies than for his business? MilesMoney (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Um, even without the show, he'd probably get past GNG. He DID found and build a $40-60 million business that is a recognized name in their industry. That's not insignificant. Just because you never heard of before this incident doesn't mean there was no life before that. This myopic notion that the show and recent incidents are all there is to the man isn't helpful. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

He's notable because he's on one of the most watched cable programs in the United States. That should take precedence over everything else. His long-term notability comes from his successful business. These specific issues are flashes in the media pan that we probably won't be talking about in two weeks. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your first sentence, and I think several of us have suggested expanding the Duck Dynasty section. I'm not sure that I agree that "his long-term notability comes from his successful business." Was he notable before his television appearances? Is anyone still talking about the Robertson's football, baseball, and track activities from 40 years ago? We really can't predict if we will be talking about this controversy in two weeks. What we do know, is that people are talking about it now, and quite extensively. Certainly it merits at least a few sentences. - Mr X 20:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

You know why you aren't sure? Because you know almost nothing about his business or industry. All you know about him is recent. That's why you're here, to make those points. When a person builds an industry leading business worth 10's of millions of dollars, it's usually notable. Did you know the company was the focus of a TV show on Outdoor Channel for 2 years before Duck Dynasty ever aired? Of course you didn't. that's why you're not sure. The only thing you appear to be sure of is your mission here. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
And yeah, people do still talk about his football activities. Mainly because of his association with Bradshaw, but it still gets mentioned. You say we can't predict what people will be talking about in two weeks, yet you're in a complete rush to bloat this article with long quotes, presented in a poor light, instead of actually waiting to see what people are talking about. Look no further than the Cracker Barrel incident to see what I mean. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

wp:notnews is precisely why we don't just add a few sentences now. Encyclopedias are written from a historical perspective a joke that he made that has the left delirious is not Historical. Arzel (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

If only we all had your crystal ball. MilesMoney (talk) 22:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

So instead, you'd rather do damage for a year and then say "gee, you were right"? Presuming you'd actually concede it a year from now. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Damage? What are you talking about? Every last thing is reliably sourced. Frankly, this is exactly what Robertson wants. He's making these statements because he expects them to get coverage. MilesMoney (talk) 23:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The damage of presenting a joke in a serious manner, in a negative light, just because you think it's popular right now. When are you going to learn that just because something has a freakin source doesn't mean it belongs? Are you incapable of understanding that? Do you need 10 or 20 examples to make it clear? Or are you intelligent enough to grasp that simple fact and stop repeating "it's sourced" as your justification? Funny, you make your sarcastic remarks about crystal balls, then have the gall to act like you know "exactly what Robertson wants". Niteshift36 (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

He made that statement 5 years ago. Seem a little odd to think that he planned that some Liberals would pounce on his joke to try and make him look like he supports grown men marrying underage girls. But I suppose since the left lost on the previous issue they have to find something new to try and destroy him with. Arzel (talk) 23:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

We do not include every little thing that a celebrity does that gets in the news. This is not something that should be included, as several have stated already. No consensus to add it. What would you say anyway? "He once made a joke years ago, and some morons are twisting it out of context either to deliberately mislead people and slander him for their own agenda, or just mentioning it to get attention for their slow news week." Dream Focus 23:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what consensus is. It's not about two or three people adamantly opposed to following policy. MilesMoney (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It's also not 2 or 3 people misrepresenting guidelines to make a point. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

You're absolutely right: I am here to make a point. The point is that we're just here to report what the sources say, not praise or bury. MilesMoney (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. You came to this article to make a point. You have an agenda. It's clear. And now that you've been banned from so many other articles for being a POV warrior there, you have plenty of time to try to drive your agenda here. That's nothing to be proud of. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The "policy" most important on a BLP is WP:BLP. It is up to those seeking to include contentious claims to obtain WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion. If there is no such consensus, then arguing that "consensus does not count" is contrary to Wikipedia policies and is, in fact, about as WP:POINTY as possible. I fear one editor may have crossed that line (sigh) Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

They're not contentious; your behavior is. These facts are reliably sourced and belong in the article. There's no basis for keeping them out. MilesMoney (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Sheesh! If any editors deem a claim "contentious" then that is how Wikipedia treats the claim - especially in any BLP and per WP:BLP. That you somehow think they are not contentious is nicely irrelevant to the Wikipedia usage of the term. Clear? Collect (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

No, that sort of self-serving misinterpretation of policy would put reliable sources at the mercy of obstructionists. It's not how we do things. MilesMoney (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who has ever watched the Duck Dynasty show knows exactly what Phil tells his own grandsons and granddaughters about teenage sex and teenage marriage - don't do it! So, all the so-called reliable sources attempting to drum up a joke into a big controvery is easily debunked and, so this garbage has no place on a wikipedia BLP.-63.3.5.132 (talk) 03:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

This video makes Phil look bad. Therefore, it does not belong in this article, since he is a true American hero. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 06:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for being honest, at least. It's very obvious that many of those who insist that we avoid reporting controversies about Robertson share your motivations. The difference is that they know not to be so direct. It turns out that making someone look bad is allowed by policy, and even required. That's why they talk about WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP instead. It's not any more convincing, it's not nearly as honest, but it's common. MilesMoney (talk) 07:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll go on record and say that not only do I not regard him as a hero, I've never even watched an episode of Duck Dynasty. My objections have been based on policy and guidelines, just not the way you imagine they're written. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Not my hero. Nor is he my target! Wiki is not supposed to be a WP:BATTLEGROUND. It does not belong because it is easily debunked as a tongue-in-cheek joke he made about his own teenage marriage. Period. WEikipedia does not allow obvious jokes to be taken out of context and used to destroy a BLP's image. Find some bad stuff that is reliably sourced and not taken out of context by sources and that would meet wiki policy.--63.3.5.132 (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

User:TimothyHorrigan, that was am uncalled for snarky comment directed at me. If you check the Duck Dynasty Talk page, you will see I have tried to get something that makes Phil "look bad" about his nephew admitting recently on CNN that he "considered suicide" because of "pressures of the show". Check my original diff on the Duck Dynasty Talk page before I removed some stuff and I believe you will agree you owe me an apology, sir. Do you want to help me get that included on the Duck Dynasty article? It's gone nowhere.--63.3.5.132 (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

NPOV BLP violation: Edit request

"Robertson and Marsha "Kay" Carroway started dating in 1964, when Kay was only 14 years old."

What exactly is the point of saying she was 14? I see that as a NPOV BLP violation because it tries to put Phil in a bad light as some sort of child molester, otherwise it would read: "Robertson and Marsha "Kay" Carroway started dating in 1964, when Kay was 14 years old and Phil was 17, not uncommon in 1960's rural America." At the very least, it needs to read: "...when Kay was 14 years old and Phil was 17." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.5.132 (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a fair point. The inclusion of "only" is pretty POV. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

So who can change that now? The article is locked down over a duck joke being taken out of context by some sources with agendas. Will Wiki allow a nasty BLP violation like this to go on for five more days, or what? Being made to look like a child molester is about as low as one can go, and using the powerful voice of wiki to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.5.132 (talk) 04:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

[Merritt-1] Merritt, Jonathan (December 19, 2013). "The Real Duck Dynasty Scandal: Phil Robertson's Comments on Race". The Atlantic. Retrieved December 22, 2013. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[Sieczkowski-2] Sieczkowski, Cavan (December 19, 2013). "'Duck Dynasty' Star Phil Robertson Claims Black People Were 'Happy' Pre-Civil Rights". Sieczkowski. Huffington Post. Retrieved December 22, 2013. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[Gicas-3] Gicas, Peter (December 18, 2013). "Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson Thinks Black People Were Happy Before the Civil Rights Movement". E! Entertainment. Retrieved December 22, 2013.

[Sheets-4] Sheets, Connor Adams (December 19, 2013). "NAACP Blasts Phil Robertson Over 'Racist' Remarks In New 'Duck Dynasty' Row". International Business Times. Retrieved December 23, 2013. On Wednesday he was suspended by the network as anti-gay comments he made in a controversial interview with GQ for an article in its January edition drew outrage from many, including gay-rights groups like GLAAD, who were offended by his homophobic remarks. Now he is getting heat from groups including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) for racially insensitive comments he made in the same GQ interview. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]