Talk:David Robertson (minister)

[Untitled]
I'm on mobile at the moment, will continue to add links but a bit at a time as I don't have a reliable connection. axa (talk)

Controversies
I noted that there had previously been a controversy section on this article which had been removed. I have recreated one because he has been involved in a fairly recent controversy with his article being pulled by the editor of a major UK Christian website. Robertson himself has written at length and been interviewed about this perceived censorship of his work (he has referred to it repeatedly as being cancelled which I think is a bit debatable given that as far as I know he was free to continue working for the news outlet but that article was deemed to have breached their editorial line (albeit after having already been publically posted). There are other controversies he has been involved in but there is probably an argument to break it down into two parts (controversies and Personal views maybe?)--Tiptop19 (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't normally have controversy sections on biographies of living people. The problem is that we would need to demonstrate that the incident/statement is indeed controversial. You didn't do that with the Watson references. To make matters worse, you cherry-picked the description, including "brilliant" but not "descending into hell". StAnselm (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I looked at three at random (Steve Chalke, Lyle Shelton and Bart Compolo) and they both had controversy sections so it may be worth seeing that we work at moving then all towards a consistent approach. I think the quote the descending into hell part of the quote is not a condemnation of the video here has just posted but a reference to the whole world going to hell in a basket. I included another quote is him showing approval of this person so I think there's an appreciation demonstrated by him for his output which I think at best would be deemed fairly controversial even in Calvinistic circles. That said, maybe it's better creating a section on his positions taken which would portray his thought better. So pro-brexit, anti- Scottish independence, pro-life (or anti-abortion- not sure if what the wiki convention on that would be) etc with adequate quotes from his work on that. Tiptop19 (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you can't rely on his tweets for that. See WP:BLP. StAnselm (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I looked at the BLP page and clearly you can use Tweets and blogs to express a person's held views (obviously not as evidence for something self-serving). The controversy he was involved with re: Meghan Markle is fairly note worthy (and something he has endlessly gone on about himself). It made eternity news and was published on Premier Christianity initially and I think claiming it cannot be in his biography because of him blogging about it, seems rather debatable at best (and not clearly in contravention of the guidelines unless I missed something you can direct me to). Tiptop19 (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it made Eternity news - I wonder why you didn't include that. His tweets are only "controversial" if they get a reaction - basically, we should be relying on reliable secondary sources reporting on what he has said. But what he tweeted definitely involved claims about third parties and so isn't allowed under WP:BLPSELFPUB #2. StAnselm (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Eternity news (as you may know) was an interview with him after them supporting the view he was cancelled which I would assume would fall foul of the rules - but the opening paragraphs do point out his controversial views so maybe I can just resintate with that added reference? https://www.eternitynews.com.au/opinion/on-being-cancelled/ I think the idea it caused controvery is hard to debate given that Premier Christianity removed the post and apologised. I do note that Doug Wilson's page takes a different approach to the controversial topics by just listing them as "on Topic" which may be a useful way forward. Tiptop19 (talk) 13:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes - it's particularly the editorial comments from John Sandeman that we're interested in. They would be enough to support a statement like "Robertson received support from Eternity News newspaper in Australia". StAnselm (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with StAnselm. The issue with a controversy section of such a figure, especially a religious one, is that it is highly selective. In the grand scale of Robertson's career and ministry, this was a storm in a teacup, one of the hundreds of "controversial" incidents, which are usually deemed so by his opponents. Hence why previous sections have been removed. It would be like Donald Trump's wiki page having a section on controversies and it only mentioned his remarks about boycotting Starbucks. You'd rightly question why this is noted as the primary controversy and would thus undermine the integrity of the whole page. Such sections should be informative about the person rather than appearing to be used to serve an editor's agenda against the person.Cbowsie (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)