Talk:Phil Robertson

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)

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)

GQ Comments

I don't know why people continue to remove the quotes he gave to GQ. They seem highly relevant to me, and removing them appears to be a form of whitewashing his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreww401 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• First of all, claiming "whitewashing" in your opening comment is a considerable lack of good faith. Second, just because you personally see them as "highly relevant" doesn't make you right. That's why the talk page is here. Third, you added a lot more than some quotes. You made some very POV edits. Lastly, you need to watch the 3RR. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec) First, describing his comments as homophobic and racist violates WP:NPOV. Second, adding all those quotes gives WP:UNDUE weight to this one aspect of his life, and results in WP:RECENTISM. The event should be mentioned, but looks about right already. Bahooka (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Apologies if claiming "whitewashing" indicated a lack of good faith. But I don't see how the edits were POV. I included his quotes. I described them as homophobic and racist because he claimed that homosexuals were sinners and that black people were better off under Jim Crow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreww401 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

"I don't see how the edits were POV... I just inserted my own POV based on how I see things." Good grief. Roccodrift (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• First, you shouldn't describe them that way. That's your personal interpretation. Calling homosexuality a sin isn't displaying a fear of homosexuality or a hatred of it. In fact, if you look at his entire quote, not just the part you selected, you'd see he said “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists." I don't see anything in there that indicates homophobia. He disagress with the practice, but advocates that one should love them and tell them about Jesus. Where is the homophobia in that? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Including homosexuals on a shortlist with drunks and terrorists indicates he's a beacon of homosexual acceptance. And saying that Jim Crow laws made African Americans better off isn't racist? Andreww401 (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Where did he specifically mention Jim Crow laws?--Cjv110ma (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Robertson was pointing out what's in the Bible. Are we pretending that he wrote the Bible? Roccodrift (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

For his Jim Crow comments, I'd refer you to his Wikipedia page, but apparently we can't include that. So I'll refer you instead to the GQ article. It's right there on the first page, in a box and everything. And no, I don't think he wrote the Bible, but he wasn't just quoting it. He was using that portion to support his own views on homosexuals. So yes, that's homophobic. Just like it was racist when people quoted the Bible's verses on slavery to defend the enslavement of Africans. Andreww401 (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

When there is evidence A&E took action based on his Jim Crow comments, then we'll have something to discuss. As it stands now, this controversy is based entirely on what he said about gays, so that's the only part that needs to be covered. Roccodrift (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

A&E took action after receiving joint complaints from HRC and the NAACP. While his homophobic remarks have received somewhat of a majority of coverage, his racist remarks are also usually mentioned prominently in the news articles covering the controversy. See http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/19/showbiz/duck-dynasty-suspension/index.html?hpt=hp_c2 for an example. Andreww401 (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Using the terms "homophobic" and "racist" are value-laden labels and should not be used per WP:LABEL. I would say that also includes on the talk page, particularly in a WP:BLP. Bring down the bias in editing. Also, Robertson never said that blacks were better off under Jim Crow and did not even use the term "Jim Crow" in that article. The NAACP and Human Rights Campaign used the term. Bahooka (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, having homosexuals in a short list of people isn't necessarily equating them with the people in the list. It IS, however, comparing them with people in the list. Please note that in the Bible where it lists homosexuality as a damnable offense, it DOES list the people Phil Robertson compared them with, but it also says they can go to Heaven if they accept Jesus. The difference between comparing them with the people in the list is that by Biblical Christianity's standards they should be noted along with the mentioned sinners. Even liars and cowards can't go to Heaven.

This does not mean that his comments were hateful. It means that he is saying something that people don't agree with. After all, who hasn't lied before? I think we all have.:: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.146.7 (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Personal Life

Phil Robertson is a Church Elder at White's Ferry Road Church.

Phil, and his wife Kay along with their youngest son Jep Robertson and grandson, Reed Robertson were featured in an I Am Second Video that has garnered 1.8+ million YouTube Views. The video description is as follows:

Three generations. One duck related Dynasty. The Robertson family story told through the lens of Phil, Kay, Jep and Reed. From their humble beginnings and struggle in keeping their family together to a behind the scenes look into the Robertsons' continued commitment to faith, family and ducks a midst their immense success.

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. - MrX 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?- MrX 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. - MrX 15:38, 21 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? - MrX 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)

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)

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)

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. - MrX 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.- MrX 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.) - MrX 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.- MrX 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)

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.- MrX 13:10, 22 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?- MrX 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)

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. - MrX 15:49, 22 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)