Talk:Mark Robinson (American politician)/Archive 1

Edit warring
OleLooseygoosey, please discuss your changes here, instead of edit warring. Courtesy ping: Greyjoy. -- Ashley yoursmile!  11:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Explain how I have engaged in edit warring OleLooseygoosey (talk) 11:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Explain how editing two elements of a page equals “edit warring”. It seems as though only half of the parties seem this as “edit warring” OleLooseygoosey (talk) 11:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * OleLooseygoosey, you are changing the content back to how your preferred version, even when other editors are reverting it back. Reverting more than three times on a single page can get you blocked from editing, which is why you were warned on your talk page about it. Whatever changes you want to make should be discussed under this thread that I've opened. Other editors who edit this article shall also participate and reach a consensus if the content is to be removed from the page. -- Ashley yoursmile!  11:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

No other editors have reverted it. I made my edits and was flagged instantly. Within seconds. Please explain OleLooseygoosey (talk) 11:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you please send the consensus that was reached regarding the information prior to my proposed edits. I would like to view this so called consensus. OleLooseygoosey (talk) 11:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Other editors who edit this page will come across this discussion and participate. Ashley  yoursmile!  11:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello OleLooseygoosey, as per WP:BRD; you have been bold and made edits which you believe would improve Wikipedia, another editor (or editors) disagreed with your edit and reverted your edit, now the correct approach is to discuss the changes you believe should be made with other users so a consensus can be reached.  Grey joy talk 11:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you please answer my question. You stated that a consensus must be made on order to change a post. Can you please provide the consensus regarding this post.

Robinson believes that homosexuality will lead to legalized pedophilia. On the 2016 Pulse Nightclub shooting, Robinson expressed his condolences for the victims, but in response to the shooting he further emphasized his position that homosexuality is an "abominable sin.” Robinson believes adults have the right to undergo a transition, but does not believe that minors do, describing minors who express interest with the term "mentally raped." He is opposed to abortion. Robinson does not believe in climate change. He does not support legalizing recreational marijuana. OleLooseygoosey (talk) 11:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I think its worth moving the conflict language above to the "Controversies" section from the "Beliefs" section. Its factually stated and sourced, but it doesn't provide a comprehensive view of his belief system rather focusing on past negative/controversial/hateful statements. RandomNC (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

"Beliefs" section should also be changed to "Views" for neutrality and to align to what's actually being discussed. RandomNC (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Mark Robinson 2000s (cropped).jpg

School indoctrination
Needs inclusion Wikipietime (talk) 12:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * MarkRobinsonHeadshot.png

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Mark Robinson (cropped).png

The Assembly NC
There has been a claim that the following cite is not reliably sourced.

"Since he took office as lieutenant governor, Robinson spent many Sundays delivering speeches at conservative churches, in which he espouses his view that the United States is a Christian nation and that climate change is "godless ... junk science.""

This claim that the cite is not reliable is simply wrong. The Assembly NC is a digital magazine that focuses on in-depth state-level reporting, much like a North Carolina version of Texas Monthly. The publication has been covered by other publications within the state (e.g., https://indyweek.com/news/15-minutes/15-minutes-kyle-villemain/).

The author of this particular in-depth feature piece, Tim Funk, is an experienced mainstream journalist who has also written for the Charlotte Observer: "Tim Funk covers politics and the Republican National Convention for the Observer. He's the newspaper's former Washington and Raleigh correspondent, and also covered faith & values for 15 years. He has won numerous awards from the North Carolina Press Association. He has a master’s degree in journalism from the University of Missouri." https://www.charlotteobserver.com/profile/218243995

Really baffled by the questioning of this source. It's not as prominent as the BBC or the Washington Post, but it's perfectly reliable. And this kind of long-form, detailed journalism is exactly what we should be using to contextualize and summarize, rather than one-off sources about individual speeches/events. Neutralitytalk 04:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * From the website: The majority of The Assembly’s writing and photography is from freelancers, and we’d love for you to be part of it. It's the same thing as WP:FORBESCON, where even "subject-matter experts" can not be used for BLPs. Aside from that, I'm not seeing the need to duplicate information. And even then, there is a lot of WP:NPOV puffery such as espouses his view and spent many Sundays ... at conservative churches. A better way to word this would be Since taking office, Robinson often makes speeches at local churches where he maintains that America is a Christian nation. and then his quote about climate change can be added to the above section where it is already made clear he denies climate change. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


 * (1) No, freelance journalists are not the same as amateur blog contributors. I have no idea where you got such a notion, but that's simply incorrect. Almost every mainstream publication solicits submissions from freelancers, which they vet as usual. Tim Funk is an experienced mainstream journalist, The Assembly is a real publication. It is not some random blog. (2) The language is right from the source: "Since taking office in 2021, the lieutenant governor has spent many of his Sundays giving thunderous speeches in churches." How is this "puffery"? This is purely descriptive. And just denying climate change as a political view is different than saying that climate change is "godless." Neutralitytalk 05:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The difference between "blog contributors" and "freelance journalists" is pretty much zilch in the modern, digital world. It's not our job to discern them. Forbes is also not some random blog. Also, MOS:WTW. You know darn well "thunderous" would be puffery. This is an encyclopedia, not a news source. We have higher standards against such words.
 * I don't get what you mean about climate change. He has said he doesn't believe in it because it is godless, hence that is his view on it. The religious reasoning behind his view does not make it any less political. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Your musings about the "modern, digital world" are really not material. Nothing in our reliable source policy suggests that this particular source is not reliable. You are claiming that all freelancer articles are "unreliable"? I'm content to see what other users say, but it's absolutely strange that you're contesting the reliability of this source &mdash; which, as I've explained, is an article from a mainstream journalist of 15+ years experience, published by a known media organization with a professional staff. Neutralitytalk 16:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Known media organization? It gets less than 2,500 results on Google. I have seen blogs with more third-party coverage and results. If this was not for a BLP, I would be fine. But it is.
 * And even then, I still hardly see the need for that sentence. It adds nothing to the article that we do not already know. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't measure a source's usefulness by counting Google hits. Let me ask you this: if the exact same article, by the exact same author, was published in the Charlotte Observer, would you also deem that "unreliable"? Neutralitytalk 17:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Depends, but nonetheless you're still missing the point. That sentence is poor, regardless of the source validity. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Coming here late but just want to drop my two cents, yes, The Assembly is definitely reliable. They are new but I noticed them almost immediately after they went live two years ago. They actually just hired Carli Brosseau, Michael Hewlett, and Ren Larson, all experienced journalists to build their own permanent reporting staff. They exercise professional editorial control and their freelance input hasn't been two bad. John Drescher, who wrote a piece on the Hamlet fire for them, has quite the resume, including a book published by a university press. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Cool, the sentence still fails WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. We already know he is a religious zealot and hates climate change. The sentence should not be added as is. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I wasn't commenting on that, but as you've brought it to my attention, yes it seems like an odd sentence, especially the last part summarizing what he does at these churches. That he has been a guest speaker at numerous churches while serving as Lt. Gov does seem perfectly fair to include, but "in which he espouses his view that the United States is a Christian nation and that climate change is "godless ... junk science."" is an odd way for an encyclopedia article to word something and appears somewhat lacking context. I would think "Since he took office as lieutenant governor, Robinson spent many Sundays delivering speeches at conservative churches." would be a good sentence on its own and could serve as the introductory sentence to a discussion of some of his more attention/coverage-grabbing individual speeches, like the one in Seagrove.
 * My main problem with the Wikipedia article is the lack of balance on his tenure, which focuses almost wholly on his publicly stated views and not on anything he's actually done as lieutenant governor. Granted, the office ain't the legislative powerhouse it used to be and is little more than a bully pulpit for people who want to be a (usually losing) candidate in a gubernatorial race, but Robinson's education indoctrination reporting task force was something he actually did using his ex offico seat on the State Board of Education...-Indy beetle (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage
Pinging you've both been adding/removing content about Robinson's stance on same-sex marriage. Indy, you removed this content:

with an edit summary saying Can you explain why you think this content is unsupported? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Most my of my edit was about adding content which TheXuitts seemed to be eager to remove for reasons which are relatively unclear to me (see my diff, it was mostly about clarifying small details such as when and why he dropped out of college, how he thought alleged problems with school instruction should be handled, etc). As I said on March 20, with regards to Robinson's views on same sex marriage, this news article says: "appears open to banning same-sex marriage. He said couples ought to be able to 'maintain a household,' but he said he doesn’t consider same-sex relationships true marriages." There is a difference between "appears open to banning same-sex marriage" (Anderson's words) and "He supports legislation banning same-sex marriage," (as the Wikipedia article said at the time). Anderson makes no reference to marriage "legislation", and "appears open to banning" is not the same thing as wants to ban. His statements about Robinson's beliefs leaves room for clarification to be had, since Anderson seems wary to ascribe Robinson's obvious personal and religious beliefs with political intent to achieve a specific policy outcome. I'm perfectly open to changing my mind if we have RS confirmation that Robinson supports a legislative ban on same-sex marriage, but I'm not seeing that yet. -Indy beetle (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The citation you removed says "If elected as North Carolina’s next governor, he says he’d get behind measures that outlaw abortion in all cases, ban same-sex marriage and reshape how public schoolchildren are taught." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Admittedly, I did not notice that so fair point. But at the same time that first mention is in passing, and Anderson's more detailed description of these views later in the article is much more circumspect. I'm struggling to find more clear confirmation from other RSes that show Robinson has explicitly supported a legislative reversal of same sex marriage. -Indy beetle (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

cites
could someone help me find some sources for the far right conspiracy theorist claim. As, I think that does deserve merit considering the things he has said in the past. Dianaaaaaaaa (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The way this works is that you find sources about the person and let them guide you in how you write the article, not asserting what you believe/want to be true and then looking for sources which support your point of view afterwards. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * thanks for taking the time to make our encyclopedia more accurate.
 * to you this seems to be a topic of considerable interest, and we certainly encourage you to find new appropriately sourced content, and add it, everywhere your own editorial discretion suggests.
 * learn best practices, and your additions will likely stay.
 * Saintstephen000 (talk) Saintstephen000 (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Bias
The picture your biased "information" paints of Lt. Governor Robinson belies the tremendous support he enjoys in North Carolina. Wikipedia has become just another propaganda outlet for leftism. 2600:4040:B0DC:7E00:344D:B0BA:E2EF:9B7D (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)


 * What specifically in this article is "biased"? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, because a largely supported politician can not also be anti-semetic. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed! Wikipedia has become utter garbage. The bias here is disgusting! If you compare a Wikipedia article of someone of a similar description on the left the bias becomes much more apparent! Dacroce1 (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, I ask, 11 months later, What specifically in this article is "biased"? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)