Talk:Phil Robertson/Archive 2

Failed religious-persecution of Phil: Edit request
Article now reads: "After a strong backlash from supporters, including a Facebook page that accumulated 1.5 million likes[26] and statements from political figures condemning the move[27][28], A&E lifted the suspension before a single episode was impacted.[5]"

Request change to: "After a strong backlash from Duck Dynasty fans and those who oppose religious-persecution in general, as well as a Facebook page that accumulated 1.5 million likes[26] and statements from political figures condemning A&E's action[27][28], A&E lifted the suspension after nine days. A single episode was never impacted and A&E aired a rerun marathon of all 4 seasons, which starred Phil, during that same nine day suspension-period.[5]"

Supporting sources: There were several reports/interviews on CNN and Fox where show-hosts, reporters and guests said that GLADD and other anti-gay groups "failed in their attempts" at "religious persecution of Phil" because they didn't understand the demographic of the show's millions of viewers as well as those who oppose religious persecution of any type, including the TMZ host (who is gay) and a CNN host, who is gay and black. Many comments were also made that GLADD and other anti-gay groups targeting Phil were by their nature "anti-religion" or "intolerant of religion", because most religions consider homosexual "acts" a sin and so would always be a target of GLADD's "bullying and intolerance toward religion".-63.3.5.132 (talk) 04:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's terrible when intolerance isn't tolerated. Oh, wait... MilesMoney (talk) 07:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Religious persecution is the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group of individuals as a response to their religious beliefs or affiliations or lack thereof. Religious persecution can be considered the opposite of freedom of religion." -Wikpedia's definition.--63.3.5.132 (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, there is no evidence that Phil has been intolerant to anyone, either black or gay. There is evidence he exercised his religious freedom when the reporter asked him to make a list of sins and he honestly replied with his Christian religious beliefs.  Now, if someone can prove Phil made any intolerant "actions" like not hiring a homosexual because they were gay or a black person because they were black, or called a homosexual or black person an epithet, then that would be an action of intolerance, and serious consequences should and would follow.  I would support that.  So, until any intolerant actions can be proven, a religious person is free to say what he believes when asked and that should not be a firing situation in this USA, which still is the land of the free, including religious freedom.  Phil's words have no power over anyone, unless you yourself chose to give them power over your freedom and make your own life miserable over what is said by a person you don't even know.  If you are offended, you can let A&E know, don't watch the show, don't support the sponsers.  That would be you exercising your freedom.  But many have said calling for Phil's firing or the show to be canceled is "religious persecution"  and intolerance in action.  So again I ask for the edit change above.--63.3.5.132 (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you provide reliable sources that have said that calls for the show's cancellation because of Robertson's remarks amounts to religious persecution? That would be a starting point. Then we can weight that coverage in relation to the other content about this controversy to see if it meets WP:DUE.- MrX 00:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I could if I knew how to search CNN, TMZ and Fox websites for clips or transcripts. I can't figure it out. Does anyone?--63.3.5.132 (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you feel needs further references in my edit request above? Is it strictly "...and those who oppose religious-persecution in general..."?  Is the rest not OK to change without further references?--63.3.5.132 (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we would need references for
 * "After a strong backlash from 'Duck Dynasty Fans'"
 * "those who oppose religious-persecution in general"
 * Aside from those two items, the current wording is better in my view. "Support, including a, b and c..." rather than "support from fans, a, b and c". The latter tends to implicitly inflate the amount of support received.
 * I also object to "A single episode was never impacted and A&E aired a rerun marathon of all 4 seasons, which starred Phil, during that same nine day suspension-period." as excessively detailed and imparting no addition biographical information. TMZ is not a reliable source and the sexual orientation and/or race of the commentator is not important. - MrX 01:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay.
 * "After a strong backlash from 'Duck Dynasty Fans'"
 * One source: www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/a-e-welcomes-phil-robertson-667647 "...prompted objections from many fans of the show."
 * Second source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/phil-robertsons-suspension-from-duck-dynasty-sends-fans-rallying-to-his-side/2013/12/19/eb1c427e-68f8-11e3-997b-9213b17dac97_story.html


 * "those who oppose religious-persecution in general"
 * One source: www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/a-e-welcomes-phil-robertson-667647 "...petition started by Christian fans gathered north of 200,000 signatures demanding he be put back on the series. The organizers of the petition, IStandWithPhil.com, praised his reinstatement, though questioned if their voices had been heard. “Despite our celebration, we remain uncertain of A&E's true intent. Today, in the network’s statement of their core values – centered on ‘creativity, inclusion, and mutual respect’ - Faith Driven Consumers are left wondering whether A&E considers us to be a part of America's rich rainbow of diversity," said a satement from Chris Stone, founder of Faith Driven Consumer. “Do they also now embrace the biblically based values and worldview held by the Robertson family and millions of Faith Driven Consumers?" These people obviously supported Phil because they thought his suspension was based on his expressing his religious beliefs...thus religious persecution. If you read the petition, it is very clear they and therefore signers of the petition believe it was religious persecution.  Also see wikipedia's definition of Religious Persecution above.--63.3.5.132 (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Using Wikipedia's definition, Phil was clearly the victim of religious persecution, being targeted by groups which resulted in his being summarily fired for exercising his religious freedom to state his religious beliefs.--63.3.5.132 (talk) 05:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Second source: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-duck-dynasty-fans-outraged-over-aes-phil-robertson-punishment-20131219,0,4223629.story#axzz2pEE8lWf2 "Whether they were fans of the show or not, many conservative Christians took great offense that Robertson was removed from the show for expressing his beliefs."
 * Third source: http://www.change.org/petitions/a-e-networks-end-the-wrongful-suspension-of-phil-robertson On Dec 20 reached 100,000 signatures supporting his right to state his religious beliefs without being persecuted for doing so.--63.3.5.132 (talk) 09:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree there is too much with facebook, and maybe the politicans. That is on the Duck Dynasty page.  Remove facebook, because it is more important to say WHO supported Phil, rather than quote numbers of unknown facebook supporters, who are likely the fans, Christians, etc. That brings us back to only a, b and c.--63.3.5.132 (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "A single episode was never impacted and A&E aired a rerun marathon of all 4 seasons, which starred Phil, during that same nine day suspension-period."
 * I think this needs to be included. I believe it provides just enough detail about what A&E was actually doing during the so-called suspension, i.e making money off the controversy with marathon, and how quickly they folded in just nine days.  All important, IMHO. Source for marathon: www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/a-e-welcomes-phil-robertson-667647 "Encores of the series have continued to air, including a marathon on Christmas Day."--63.3.5.132 (talk) 03:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * http://www.abpnews.com/culture/media-and-arts/item/9109-sbc-leaders-back-duck-dynasty-star
 * http://www.albertmohler.com/2013/12/19/you-have-been-warned-the-duck-dynasty-controversy
 * "The controversy over Duck Dynasty sends a clear signal to anyone who has anything to risk in public life,” Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention and one of the largest seminaries in the world. “Say nothing about the sinfulness of homosexual acts or risk sure and certain destruction by the revolutionaries of the new morality. You have been warned.” He is describing religious persecution as defined by Wikipedia.--63.3.5.132 (talk) 09:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * http://www.abpnews.com/culture/media-and-arts/item/9109-sbc-leaders-back-duck-dynasty-star
 * Denny Burk, associate professor at Boyce College, Southern Seminary’s undergraduate arm, said he predicted privately months ago on his blog “that it would only be a matter of time before the media sniffed out the views of the 'Duck Dynasty' guys about sexuality.” “So here’s my second prediction: This won’t end with Phil Robertson’s suspension. The other guys on the program will be dogged in every interview from here on out until they give their opinions as well. And as soon as they do, the entire cast will be branded heretical by the sexual revolutionaries that dominate popular culture. When that happens, that will be the end.” Burk said he hopes he is wrong, but if the controversy brings about 'Duck Dynasty’s' demise: “It means that A&E is yet another sector of popular culture in which Christian views about sexual norms are not allowed. The cultural space for our views is shrinking rapidly, and there are people who won’t stop shrinking the space until there’s no space left at all.”  He is also descibing religious persecution as defined by wikipedia.--63.3.5.132 (talk) 09:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * http://www.christianpost.com/news/phil-robertson-the-new-rosa-parks-gop-candidate-says-duck-dynasty-star-stands-against-christian-persecution-111278/
 * GOP candidate in Illinois running in the 11th district, Ian Bayne, insisted that in the same way Rosa Parks stood up against racial persecution, Robertson made a stand against religious persecution. Bayne added that this exposure of Robertson's situation is an eye-opener for many who may have been previously in disbelief that the Bible is fast becoming considered 'hate speech' by the media and society." Many in the media have labeled the Bible saying homosexuality is a sin as anti-gay hate speech, and anyone repeating it is subject to religious persecution as defined by wikipedia.--63.3.5.132 (talk) 09:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Admitting that I didn't read every word of this section, what I did see were two things 1) a lot of material looking like WP:SYNTH/WP:OR and 2) someone who clearly is a fan of Robertson trying to make a point. While I've fought to keep this article from being used as a platform to bash the man, I won't support turning it into a love letter to him either. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Niteshift36. It would seem to require some WP:SYNTH to bridge the gap between these sources and your requested edit. Also, some of your sources would not be considered reliable as third party sources for a bio (ABPNews, albertmohler.com, change.org).- MrX 18:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My understanding of WP:RS is that a "unreliable" sources can be used when it is simply directly quoting a man in an interview situation, which is what the 3 sources above do.--63.3.5.132 (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind I'm trying to decribe Phil Robertson supporters as the media has when quoting them, not use these sources as opinions or even quote anyone in the article.
 * Albert Mohler is very important Southern Baptist leader. He is not some unreliable blogger spouting off.
 * More relable sources which describe those who supported Phil Robertson:
 * http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/12/28/opposing-groups-issue-statements-regarding-phil-robertson/
 * "Advocacy group Faith Driven Consumer, which campaigned vigorously that Robertson’s suspension be dropped, issued this statement."
 * http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-12-28/entertainment/chi-duck-dynasty-reverses-phil-robertsons-suspension-20131227_1_cable-nonfiction-series-ae-networks-duck-dynasty
 * "Vocal opposition from "Duck Dynasty" fans was swift in coming and an online petition started by Faith Driven Consumer, a group that connects Christian shoppers with faith-compatible companies, gained more than 260,000 signatures since Robertson's suspension began."
 * http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/27/showbiz/duck-dynasty-resumes/
 * "For supporters of Robertson, including a number of conservative politicians, the debate was about whether a deeply religious man had the right to speak freely about the tenets of his faith."
 * "Gov.Jindal: "Today is a good day for the freedoms of speech and religious liberty. The left is going to have to get accustomed to the fact that it does not have a monopoly on free speech and is not the only group who is permitted to voice its opinion in the public square."--63.3.5.132 (talk) 08:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * TO nightshift: WP:AssumeGoodFaith I am not "clearly a fan of Phil" and could prove it if my diffs on the Duck Dynasty Talk page had not been scrubbed by someone weeks ago after I chose to delete my own specualtion after being warned about speulating about Phil's religious beliefs playing a role in his nephew considering suicide because of pressure, considering gays often consider suicide when faced with religious pressure to conform.  So, no, not "clearly a fan".  Also, your unfounded accusation that adding "Duck Dynasty fans and those who oppose religious-persecution in general" is a love letter to Phil is illogical.  Your describing that as a "love letter to Phil" is quite disturbing and seems to be coming from a mindset of WP:Ownership. It was only descibing WHO managed to get Phil reinstated. I have not disparaged anyones motives here, but mine have been attacked twice now without any supporting evidence.  Maybe this is why wiki is having such a hard time keeping new editors.  Not a very welcoming place to have open discussions on very difficult topics without unfounded accusations and snarky comments (addendum: by others, not you--63.3.5.132 (talk) 07:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)) being thrown at me for no other reason than to disparage me and send me on my way.--63.3.5.132 (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see where I didn't assume good faith. If you're not a fan, you certainly act like one. Ok, happy now? It doesn't change what I said. As for the "love letter" part, you really, really need to look at who your talking to and then go re-read the guideline you cited about ownership. I've fought to keep the article from becoming a platform to bash him and you want to try to alienate me now? Good luck with that Lone Ranger act. You seem to be missing one huge fundamental point here: this is a biography. It is an article about an individual. This is not where you tack your list of theories about a social issue to the front door. To add what you're suggesting is more the building of a WP:COATRACK than improving a biography. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And you just keep going when a simply "my mistake" would be responded to with understanding and forgiveness. I have written things about Phil which were scrubbed. You chose to ignore that fact when using your crystal ball to label me a fan.  Maybe you agreed with me the joke about teenage marriage should not be included and below, but that does not give you any right to try to label me a "fan", which implies heavy bias, does not assume good faith, and is the kiss of death on wiki. The snarky comments were not made by you, but 2 others. I should have made that clearer. Sorry.--63.3.5.132 (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is, only part of it was my mistake. I acknowledged that part. The rest was yours and I won't apologize for your errors, nor should I let your allegation passed unaddressed. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: Chick-Phil-a Day
"Chick-Phil-A Day founder Eric Odom said he chose to hold the event at Chick-fil-A locations because the Robertson controversy reminded him of what happened to the fast food chain's CEO, Dan Cathy, when he publicly denounced gay marriage in 2012. Odom works as a director of interactive media at the conservative organizing website Grassroots.com, but said he has taken on Robertson's cause on his own. Odom created the "We Stand With Phil Robertson" Facebook page, which now has more than 1.5 million likes."
 * http://www.businessinsider.com/duck-dynasty-spawns-chick-phil-a-day-2013-12

Needs some mention.--63.3.5.132 (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/27/chick-fil-a-duck-dynasty_n_4508177.html
 * http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2013/12/27/duck-dynasty-fans-plan-chick-phil-day-in-support-robertson/
 * http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/12/27/257640983/stories-merge-as-duck-dynasty-fans-plan-chick-phil-a-day
 * The FB page is mentioned. The day should not be. Again, a minor event that shouldn't cloud a biography. Minor stuff by supporters is no more notable than the minor stuff by detrators, as suggested below. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Charlie Sheen comments about Phil: Edit request

 * nydailynews.com/news/national/charlie-sheen-rips-duck-dynasty-star-article-1.1555042

"Charlie Sheen ripped the “Duck Dynasty” star as “mallard-brained” and a "shower dodger". The idea that you have a job outside of dirt-clod stacking is a miracle," the "Anger Management" star writes. "Shame on you. You're the only surviving brain donor I've ever known." Needs some mention as popular reaction to Phil.-63.3.5.132 (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Doesn't merit any mention. Aside form the fact that it was a minor hiccup in the news cycle that fell off the radar in less than 48 hours, this is a biography. Just because some celeb with twitter account had an opinion doesn't mean it is notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wertlos in any BLP. Collect (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If the supportive comments of a sitting governor and lt. governor (among others) don't merit inclusion, then the rants of an actor don't either. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * An official statement by the current governor of Louisiana should be in the article. There is no possible reason to mention what random celebrities said though.   D r e a m Focus  16:08, 4 January 2014 (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) Why are people removing the "black" comments commented by Robertson? However the homosexual comments are staying? I'll keep changing it until I'm giving a clear reason why the Homosexual comments stay and the "black" comments can't be added, which are both from the same article.Ron John (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Why are you asking a question that's already been answered? If you try to force a change against the consensus of other editors, it isn't likely to end well. I suggest you read the previous discussion to gain some insight into why this material isn't in the article. Roccodrift (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read WP:EW to see why "I'll keep changing it" is an ill-advised position. If you seek WP:CONSENSUS - that would be proper.  But it appears your words do not  envision seeking a consensus.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus one way or the other for this content. I suggest taking it to WP:NPOVN or WP:DRN to get outside help. In my view, omitting the material is a violation of WP:NPOV. - MrX 16:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And so WP:BLP governs -- it is required that those seeking inclusion obtain consensus for any contentious claims being added to any BLP.  The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So why are the black comments not included while the homosexual references are? Why is the section so verbose with quotes and detail anyway?  Why not change it to just say that during the interview, he reinforced his Christian beliefs in regards to sexuality and in his rural community he did not witness any of the racial episodes that had occurred elsewhere in the country at the time?  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I still see no consensus to why the black comments are not included but the homosexual ones are. I tried and you guys got me blocked. I sense a conspiracy of some sort. I see no real consensus here. I'd change it again, but I don't want to get into another edit war so and I'm going to solicit help with this one within the wiki community of course.--Ron John (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That seems to be a reasonable way to do it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In my view, the views that merit inclusion are those that had an effect on his TV career. That would exclude his recollections on race relations. I agree with Mufka's suggestion, I also think the lengthy quotations are undue. Roccodrift (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Been saying we made the section too long and detailed for a long time now. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am new to this but I have the same concern, the topic was all over the news and the radio and within the black community. Those comments made quite a stir. Someone who knows how to do this should include it. Also, why are people trying to make him sound like a pedobear by the whole "started dating his wife when she was Only 14" but not mentioning he was born in 1946 so it's possible he was 17, 18 at the most during the 60's when it was more common for highschool sweethearts to get married one day.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.34.207 (talk) 21:09, 30 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.

{{edit semi-protected} Please add the following to the Personal Life section of the Phil_Robertson page, under the heading "Beliefs"} Phil Robertson has stated on video that he believes men should marry 15- to 16-year-old girls. Mataliandy (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Read the talk page. Note that there is no support for this edit.  Rinse. Repeat. Collect (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Should a separate article be written?
I think this article is becoming imbalanced from this single incident in Robertson's life and that a separate article is warranted for more extensive coverage of it. I started an article draft, intending to convert the redirect of What the Duck? into a page focused on the GQ article and the controversy around it. Does anyone disagree that a focused article is necessary, or have ideas in general; for a better title or some such?—John Cline (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No. It is sufficiently covered (actually, more than sufficiently) at Duck Dynasty and a spin-off article would likely become a WP:POVFORK. Roccodrift (talk) 03:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Any spin-off will most likely become a dumping ground for every negative quote or opinion written. Considering it will still fall under BLP guidelines for the subject, that's not a good thing. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, John, but I agree with Niteshift and Roccodrift. The GQ section is already overly covered at Duck Dynasty article...1/6 of the article now (update: 25% now--63.3.5.132 (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)) and continues to grow larger like the Blob. Imbalanced there for a flash-in-the-media's-pan event. My suggestion is to try to condense the DD article GQ section...needs it bad and will take much experience to avoid POV pushing while maintaining balance there.  GQ section is about the right length on this BLP, but in my opinion is written in much too favorable light for Phil, but that may be due to avoiding BLP violations.--63.3.5.132 (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Where are Shreveport and New Orleans NAACP???
Has any kind of statement been issued???User:JCHeverly 00:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * About what? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * About this joker's racist pro-Jim Crow comments? Did they issue a statement denouncing goober's comments?User:JCHeverly 00:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your personal opinions and commentary are not appropriate here. This page is for discussion regarding the improvement of the article.  See our talk page guidelines. -- John Reaves 00:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There were no pro-Jim Crow comments. Some idiot reporters tried to get attention by exaggerating things.  We had this discussion previously on this talk page.  Please read exactly what the person said, and think for yourself.   D r e a m Focus  02:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Out of a sense of fairness, I thought a reply from the NAACP should be included. I have "binged" the incident and it's pathetic the NAACP didn't SEEM to bother to respond.  That's lame.  So, I guess the article is good.  You can't include apathy.  As far as Robertson, I don't see him anymore, just the guy who killed Buffalo Billy and Captain America in Easy Rider.User:JCHeverly 02:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Over quoted?
Now that the dust has settled, what do people think about removing the over reliance on quotes, notably in the GQ and Beliefs sections? A succinct summary of the GQ comments as reported by the sources would suffice. The current state is quite undue on text length to relevance alone.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course some will pop in and opine that notability isn't temporary, but I've said all along that this is being given undue importance and smells of recentism. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Notability isn't temporary" is about keeping the article as a whole. It's presumably what would keep the article around in ten (two?) years when people may have no idea what a Duck Dynasty is. The quotes are still the thing that appear most often about him in a Google search and the thing that distinguished him in notability from all other members of the show. Simply, the quotes still seem to be important to sources, now and at the time he said them. __ E L A Q U E A T E  20:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I know what "notability isn't temporary means". I said someone will opine that. I didn't say it is correctly applied. Further, you seem to only consider the word notability in terms of a single policy. Notability means something notable, but not only as it pertains to WP:N. When we look at policies like WP:NOTNEWS we see uses of the word "notable" in things like "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Yes, "enduring notability" is part of the question here. Some will come here and say "notability isn't temporary", using the policy incorrectly as an argument. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well we seem to agree that those people you predict will be using the wrong policy to support their yet-to-be-made arguments will be incorrect. The policy N isn't about the content itself, it's only about whether to have a topic covered as an article or list. As far as this article, I don't see where we've covered news that would specifically be considered "routine". __ E L A Q U E A T E  21:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've argued for weeks that this content is being given too much weight. What we currently have is much more concise than where it started. I still think it's UNDUE, but an improvement from where we started. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * More to the point, the quotes themselves aren't important enough to the article to make the article unweighted, especially when an accurate summary of the quotes, as described by the sources will keep the weight in balance. Does quoting Roberts quoting Corinthians do anything to improve the article?  Of course not.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And while some were swooning from the media coverage, they missed the undue weight the matter is being given. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Undue weight among sources, or here? Because it still seems to be the main thing people connect to the subject. Maybe that will pass some day. __ E L A Q U E A T E  22:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If a thousand sources mention Roberts AE flap, of course it's not undue. But it is undue to, bloat, for the lack of a better word this article with every detail.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Subject's bride
"Two years later, when Kay was still 15, they were married,undefined the coupling withstanding early tribulation to endure. In a 2013 editorial published by Yahoo TV, correspondent: Kelly Woo, described the Robertson's union as '[a] long-standing, rock-solid marriage'. Their first son, Alan, was born while they were attending college."Per wp:N, NOTCENSORED, this not particularly controversial tidbit should be included, IMO. Incidentally, there are many scholarly citations that probably could be found that would support the contention that such age of marriage in that era was quite the norm. I'll be back from Google in a moment.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC) Hmm. Well, seehere. Maybe there'd be something eghere, if I had a JSTOR acct....
 * Do you not realize that you added "15" into a sentence that has a source stating she was 16? Please be more careful in the future.  Roccodrift (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The source says about 15 or 16.  QuackGuru  ( talk ) 23:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Which source says that? I see one unequivocally stating 15, and another unequivocally stating 16.  Roccodrift (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you prefer 16 that works for me.  QuackGuru  ( talk ) 02:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

If sources conflict, we should also ask what weight is properly due the "tidbit" in a BLP. I suggest that the desire to say "15" indicates a desire to give greater weight to the "tidbit" than is found in other BLPs, and, as a contentious claim, that age would require extremely strong independent sourcing. In fact I doubt that if it were not for the age, the "tidbit" would even be discussed for any living person. Thus, absent extremely strong sourcing, I suggest that any specific age being given is of undue weight. Saying "many scholarly sources probably could be found" is not really the same as furnishing extremely strong sourcing for a claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The question rests on motives, yes, a source can be biased. For example how is an emancipated minor considered "under age"? Also; we write using the concept of a summary style. How many other biographies on Wikipedia which mention the subjects spouse, extenuate their ages when they were married? I haven't seen any, so why is it so important here? And if it is important, then I think it's also important to define her emancipated status.—John Cline (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * what is this "under age" nonsense? Was the marriage legal? If it was, then she clearly couldn't have been "under age".Niteshift36 (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I was alluding to the source's title "... Robertson Tells Men to Marry Underage Girls ...", in which Robertson actually says "young" not "underage", and; as you point out, you can't marry someone considered "underage" but you certainly can marry someone "young". We can't malign a subject here just because it appears in a source somewhere, and if the intent is to malign, well, the motive itself is malicious and refutes itself.—John Cline (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Just because the author writes a titillating title, hoping to shock people into reading it, doesn't mean we should repeat it outside of a direct quote. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Was Kay really born in 1950?

If Kay was born in 1947.. married in 1964 and gave birth in 1965.. it lines up with all statements of her getting married at 16.. having her son one year later.. being married eight years and having her third son at 24... and a tweet from her daughter in-law during her 65th birthday in 2012... and celebrating their 49th anniversary in 2013.. all life events point to her being one year younger than Phil and the same site that Wikipedia cites for Alan's birthday also lists Kay's birthday as 66 years old.. it just seems having her born in 1950 contradicts all other statements of her life... not to mention she would've been 15 in 1966 when she got married and 14 in 1965 when her first son was born... and currently 63 years old.. which contradicts many sources cited in the entry... I'm new to this and am probably not doing thing right but here are some sources... Kay 66 years old by people search used to find Alan's age.. http://www.intelius.com/results.php?ReportType=1&qf=Marsha&qmi=k&qn=Robertson&qcs=West+Monroe%2C+LA&focusfirst=0 Tweet by daughter in law Jessica Robertson during Kay's 65th birthday in 2012 featured in same article sourced for her and Phil being high-school sweet hearts.... http://tv.yahoo.com/news/duck-dynasty--couples--how-they-met-234103918.html This article.states Kay married Phil when she was 16 and he was 18.. Phil turned 18 in April of 1964 and if Kay was born in 1967 she would've turned 16 in Dec of 1963... http://www.gospelherald.com/articles/48853/20130912/duck-dynastys-phil-and-kay-robertson-%E2%80%93-a-marriage-restored-in-christ.htm

And considering they celebrated their 49th wedding anniversary in an episode last year, it would seem mathematically correct to state they were married in 1964 Nickmxp (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Intelius is not a reliable source. So scratch it. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand.. intelius is the same source cited by the duck dynasty page in reference to Alan's date of birth... Nickmxp (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. I'm not editing that article. If I do, I'll remove it because it fails RS. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

My apologies I was directed here by another user on the duck dynasty article to raise the question of birth and marriage dates.. but your sources of them being married in 1966 have contradicting information.. the first source is the only source that states a marriage year of 1966.. but also states Kay was sixteen when they married and then featured a tweet from her step daughter stating she was 65 in 2012.. if she was 65 in Dec of 2012 she would'vejjust turned 16 in Dec of 1963... I didn't see a marriage year in the other articles... Nickmxp (talk) 03:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Also here is an interview with miss Kay in parade magazine from 2013 that stated her age at 65... http://www.parade.com/231229/erinhill/

That article is also cited on Wikipedia in the article about Mrs Robertson... Nickmxp (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * cmt - To snappy headline writers, everywhere: When the Robertsons were married, age of majority was 21 . So, both groom and bride were quote unquote under age. I suppose the family's more recently proffered age for Miss Kay, correct or fibbed, is proof the allegedly mid-teens marriage factoid is controversial and, pending compelling reasons, its mention should be avoided. The issue of teenage dating always is controversial in blps but the reason I'd suggested the marriage info was simply for encyclopedic accuracy full disclosure, :~) and, I admit, because of subject's joking reference, seemingly, to the same, which had engendered such note and um, controversy .  (By way of comparison, see the comment on the Mitt Romney blp talkpage, "'This article used to indicate that Mitt was dating a teenager [edited: the future Ann Romney, emphasis mine--Hodgdon] when he went to college and now that is glossed over...'." And, it's true, Romney's blp, which has FA status, w concern the Romneys' marriage, lets readers do whatever math themselves:"'By the end of his [French Mormon mission] stint in December 1968.... At their first meeting following his return, Romney and Ann Davies reconnected and decided to get married. ... The couple married on March 21, 1969....')"  --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The term for marriage is "age of consent" and both appear to have met that legal requirement.  "Legal age" is not the same as "age of majority" but refers clearly to "age of consent."    All the rest appears simply of undue weight and something nor generally covered in BLPs.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Cheers, Collect; but nonetheless um I beg to differ.... That is, owing to the fact that the headline mentioned above claimed that the legal, teenage marriages advocated by the subject would involved those "underage," the only way for this to be possible would be for the news editor involved to be referring to age of majority, as the age of consent would have to been reached for pundit Robertson's "advocated" (obviously jokingly) EARLY marriages to take place, legally, in the first place."Great Britain, after considerable national debate, chose 16 at its magic number in 2003, although a minority of liberal Britons, led by gay rights activist Peter Tatchell, continue to push for a cut-off at 14 years. In 2008, Canada has also settled upon 16. French law sets the age of majority, in matters of romance, at 15. Our other closest cultural and moral allies fall into a similar range: Belgium (16), Denmark (15), Germany (14-16), Greece (15), Holland (16), Italy (14), Norway (16) and Sweden (15). The outliers are even lower, not higher, such as Spain's threshold of 13.--HuffPo link"--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the marriage year here is the source contains contradicting information... and most of the sources that state a marriage year of 1966 also state the same line in the source article of Kay being 16... leading the reader to believe that Kay (being born in late Dec) was actually 15 in 1966 and Phil was 20 when they got married.. which I've yet to see any statemoent made by either Phil or Kay to allude their age difference is anything over one year let alone four... considering the rsource used here to give a year of 1966 also states unequivocally on the same page that she was 16 in 1966 and 65 i acn 2012.. which is mathematically impossible... I think the safest thing to say is that they married when Kay was sixteen.. which gives the reader the option to research current the age of miss Kay to determine a marriage year ... but at the end of the day... I think that they won't be found to have been married in 1966.... probably after they celebrate their 50th anniversary in 2014... Nickmxp (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Also I just ran across a 1963 yearbook from caddo high that shows a picture of  miss kay as a sophmore... if she was born in 1950.. she wouldve been 13 & 14 in 1963... not a sophmore in highschool...http://www.classmates.com/yearbooks/North-Caddo-High-School/14789?page=0
 * Not even sure why you'd bother talking about classmates.com. It will not pass RS. Frankly, I'm surprised the site isn't blacklisted. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Because it does contain a photocopy of her yearbook with 1963 on it's cover and with her picture in sophomore section... it's not a text listing.. but an actual photocopy of someone's yearbook... even though signing up is free it is still a membership site and I think the parade article which lists her correct age would be a satisfactory source for her age.. but I think I would be remiss to remove the current source for her age without a consensus on the verification that the source article now listed is inaccurate... per reasons stated above... is there anyway to verify her being born in 1950? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickmxp (talk • contribs) 17:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Classmates.com is not a RS. Period. This isn't about whether it costs or not. It's not a RS. And does the yearbook state her DOB? Or is this more of your original research, trying to do the math? Seriously, have you read WP:RS, ever? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually I never had.. but the date of birth I'm proposing isn't listed in the article here.. and my point is the date listed is not correct.. in the spirit of verify the date listed on this article.. I've found many contradictions..and am using the yearbook to show that a 1950 year is in accurate.... I've shown a reliable source that has her correct age and am asking for verification on which source is right and why... I have the Robertson's own words to back up my source... death dates of her father when she was fourteen and started dating Phil.. and a year book.. is there anything that can back up this articles claim? Nickmxp (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, let me ask this: What age did she start school? Did she skip any grades? Repeat any grades? Miss a year with an illness? Unless you know all these things (with sources), your math is a guess. It's original research. If there is a reliable source, great. Your calculations aren't acceptable as a source. It's simple: If we can't surce it, we can't include it. No matter how much we want it to be in or how interesting we think it is, no source means no inclusion. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying this source is more reliable than a published article in parade magazine, a published biography of Phil Robertson, a video recorded statement of Kay Robertson and a photocopied year book from 1963 that all contradict what the source listed here says? How did this biography of Phil Robertson become more reliable than his own? Nickmxp (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * WTF are you even talking about. I'm talking about using classmate.com and your math as a reliable source. Have I said a single word about Parade magazine? Dude, stop trying so hard to be right and actually read what I've said. Sheesh. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess you misunderstood my last posts.. my apologies.. I was trying to show my other sources where verifiable and trying to see if the source listed here was verifiable or should the date of birth be changed.. I wasn't trying to include the classmates source in the article but show even more evidence that the source cited here might not be accurate... although I doubt the year books authenticity is questionable regardless of the site it is on. I would understand not including as a source but it relevance is being used here to further show the contradiction... it's not really about me being right it's about Wikipedia being right. And right now I don't think it is. Nickmxp (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

anti-abortion versus pro-life
Moving this over from my talk page since edit waring is happening on this issue:  D r e a m Focus  07:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that he is not apparently part of any "anti-abortion movement" per se, and is "against abortion" but linking to any movement might be not actually called for. The headline using :anti-abortion" is not part of the source, and the source only says "against abortion." Which is likely the proper term to use, and not wikilinked to something which might convey an erroneous impression. Cheers. Collect 20:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Pro-life redirects to Anti-abortion movements also. The source says he makes an anti-abortion speech, meaning he is against abortion obviously.  We all know that "anti" means "against", so anti-abortion is the best term for an encyclopedia to use.  Pro-life can be used for things other than anti-abortion, including those against the death penalty.   D r e a m Focus  20:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Which is a good reason for non-wikilinking here -- there is. moreover, a Pro-life (disambiguation) page as well. This issue is whether linking to a "movement" is proper in the case at hand.  Cheers.  Collect 21:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just because something redirects doesn't make the new destination more correct or the old one less correct. For example, 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta redirects to Delta Force. That doesn't make the former less accurate or the latter a better term, it was just the most common one. I changed the wording to remove both terms. Maybe if we quit worrying about where we can link to, it would help. My wording "opposes abortion" says the same thing as both terms, but is as neutral as it can get. IMO, "anti-abortion" is negative sounding, especially in this article. In the broader sense, I think too much of it focuses on what Robertson opposes and not what he supports. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Pro-life" is an overly polemic term that cannot be used neutrally. "Pro-life" implies that the opposition is "pro-death" (the same as "pro-choice" implies that the opposition is anti-choice).  These are media/political spin terms that we don't need to use here. -- John Reaves 14:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Avoiding them is the political spin. Whether or not you believe life beings at conception, an abortion is performed to end it. Whether it is already a life or is developing into one is immaterial. A life, or potential life, is ended. Being against that is being for the life to develop; pro-life. Regardless, since you cleaned up the stray word I left in there, but left the rest, I'm presuming that you're ok with the elimination of "pro-life"/"anti-abortion" in favor of just stating the simple fact that he opposes abortion. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue of life, or potential life, is the basis of the abortion argument. Therefore, the term "pro-life" cannot be used neutrally, nor can "pro-choice", especially when no one can disagree that someone who is characterized as "pro-life" is "anti-abortion" or opposes abortion. See United_States_pro-life_movement.  I don't want a political argument, I want a neutral encyclopedia, and yes, I think the current version is fine. -- John Reaves 15:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm not too keen on including the DOI part. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Can we include the comments Robertson made about blacks?
Can you we include the comments Robrtson made about blacks in the GQ Section like the homosexual comments that are there?--Ron John (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC) His comments where as follows: Phil On Growing Up in Pre-Civil-Rights-Era Louisiana '''“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.”'''


 * No And this was discussed before, and is tendentious now. Absent strong sourcing that the material is specifically relevant to the BLP, it also failed WP:CONSENSUS.  The homosexual material is present because of the A&E action - else it also would not be especially encyclopedic in this BLP.  I note you have also started a DR/N discussion at the same time, and that you have just come out of your fourth edit war block in a total of a thousand edits.   I recommend a cup of tea at this point. Collect (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No and yes, it's getting out of hand. I recommend to Collect and others to choose not to go with DRN. Just say no. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * An uninvolved editor should Close this redundant RfC. The originating editor has also just started a DRN.  Obvious WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Roccodrift (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * He also posted at NPOV/N. Gee. Collect (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes  QuackGuru  ( talk ) 02:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it violates NPOV not to do so. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No - it is undue for this article, I do think it's time to consider an article dedicated to this controversy, where it would not be undue. I've asked this question below.—John Cline (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No. There is no need to waste space with that.  It wasn't anything offensive, some lazy reporters were just trying to make a story about it.  If anything in the article mentions it though, then the quote of what was actually said should be there.  I see no reason to mention it at all.   D r e a m Focus  03:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it violates NPOV not to do so. --Ron John (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No I'm going to have to agree with  D r e a m Focus  on this one. It isn't necessary on the page. What Robertson said was not offensive or controversial. Reporters are trying to make a huge case out of it when it really holds no weight. The only reason the homosexual comments are on his personal page is because there was a dispute with A&E. His comments are not notable. Meatsgains (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Infobox image
All the other Duck Dynasty cast has an image of them with their famous beards in their infoboxes. So why use an old picture without one for Phil?--76.105.96.92 (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I think there is an issue with finding a good copyright free picture... If ya find one post it on this pageNickmxp (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Lede section material
I do not think that Robertson's religion, marriage, or number of children is worthy or notable enough for the lede. If included, it certainly doesn't belong in the first paragraph. This material is in no way notable or the reason for his bio. Another editor disagreed so I brought it here. What do others think? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you taking this to the talk page and while I agree the first paragraph isn't the right spot, I do believe his family and faith ought to be mentioned as there is a section for them in the article, they both play a major part in his public persona, I mean his show is based off his family and faith and he does tons of religious speaking events. Nickmxp (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * ok. I also indented your comment by using colons. --Malerooster (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Bible Text Used
In the section "Career: GQ Comments", there is a text that has been quoted from the Bible. After carefully visiting every single biblical translation available in English, I've not found any that has the exact translation of 1st Corinthians 6:9-10 found in this page. I request the page be changed to either reflect a true biblical translation (as it is a cited text), or to be paraphrased according to the editors choice of words. This particular text suggest the Bible has the quoted text written in the exact words, which changes the meaning substantially. Instayll (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The quote shown is actually what Phil said paraphrasing the real passage, I attempted to make this clearing in the article as it could have been read either way --Jnorton7558 (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

A&E dispute
This section belongs in Duck Dynasty. It's about the show, not the man. Also this isn't much of a dispute, so we shouldn't make claims of one, when one doesn't exist. I'm in favor of snipping this section entirely. Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The entire section is based on a single YouTube video which is ot a strong source per WP:BLP for making contentious claims. We would need a secondary reliable source making such claims, not a primary source which may be evanescent. Collect (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The video was edited, and the quotes used in this BLP section were clearly wrenched from context in any event. Not a valid section. Collect (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Obviously someone has already added additional sources for the section, resolving the second discussion point here. Regarding the first; the event wasn't about the show, it was about HIS place in the show, and whether HIS comments should eliminate that place. You might as well suggest there should be no mention of the Ross and Brand radio prank mess, on their individual pages. The bulk of the information should be on the show's page - or the individual page regarding the event - but a mention of it absolutely belongs on this article. And it's pretty hard to argue, that this wasn't much of a dispute - simply by the fact that 1.5 million people argued to bring him back. But even if that hadn't happened - when something like this has quite the domination of the news cycle it did, and is surrounding a show which has found startling 'overnight' success, it's fair to call it a dispute worth noting in an encyclopedic source. CleverTitania (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Phil Roberston is very wise. His anti-gay views are very correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.56.141 (talk) 02:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2014
Please change the last line of the opening paragraph from "He is also featured on the television show Buck Commander" to "He was also featured on the television show Benelli Presents Duck Commander". Phil does not appear on Buck Commander.

Butlerblog (talk) 05:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. According to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw5qNwPLJ_c he was on Buck Commander once, which is what it currently says. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 16:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Speaker at CPAC
Phil Robertson spoke today at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) with an enthusiastic reception. He accepted a Breitbart award, "Defender of the First Amendment Award". -- Narnia.Gate7 (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Another reference has pictures and greater detail. -- AstroU (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We can't use those pictures. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

How Do I Neutrally Correct What I consider a Lie?
There is much in this page about religion, one of the touchiest of all subjects. I have been getting rude messages from someone using the handle Hell in a Bucket because I changed "Robertson, a devout Christian,..." to "Robertson, a supposedly devout Christian,..." in the intro, and changed "Robertson is a devout Christian, ..." to "Robertson claims to be a devout Christian, ..." in the Personal Life section. My changes are technically correct, and if I could find a more diplomatic way to word them, without lying, I would do so. I am asking for help to do so. My reasoning follows:
 * A very vocal minority is claiming the generic term, Christian, defined as those who believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, for their own private use. Since I am a "liberal" Christian, an Episcopalian, who tries to follow Jesus's message of peace and love, I cannot stand seeing someone like Phil Robertson preaching hate, yet being credited with being Christian, thereby demeaning the label of Christian. Hate is not a Christian value. This misuse of the label, Christian, for the last decade or two has, IMHO, resulted in the increase in atheism in the United States that has occurred during that time.
 * Most of these people are what appear to me to be a subset of Fundamentalist Protestants and Pentecostal Protestants, but whatever they are, they do not represent all of Christianity, even if their beliefs are sincere and not hateful. Just because they try to claim that label is not a reason for Wikipedia, a supposedly neutral voice, to adopt their invalid usage. Doing so insults the majority of Christians (by the dictionary definition), since this minority's definition excludes all of us who disagree with Phil Robertson and his ilk.

Wikipedia should not be a propaganda tool for a minority group that falsely claims the label of a much larger group as their exclusive property. Can we find a reasonable way to prevent this misuse? Can we find a neutral way of phrasing that is not insulting, but does not accept their misuse? SFFrog 13:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You've been told once already. Find someone who meets WP:RS for matters of Christian morality, then quote their comments on Phil Robertson. Give sources, make it clear that it's an opinion from an independent and substantial source, not an objective judgement.
 * There is also the question of "What is Christianity?" and whether it includes homophobia or not. If you find a definitive answer to that one, then the worldwide Anglican church could use a definitive ruling on it. Good luck with the search. There's also the problem of Melancthon and sola fide. If Robertson has sufficient faith, does his strand of Christianity care what his actions are? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Andy. BTW, you were correct that I was referring to his hate speech toward gays, and I'm a straight, happily married heterosexual who is just a strong supporter of civil rights, including those of the LGBT population. I'm also just a layman, certainly not a trained theologian, who has been vexed by this problem for years. I've been trying to prevent the misuse of the label, Christian, but I can see by your response that I have a lot to learn about terminology in Wikipedia. I followed all three of your links and see that I have not the time or energy to delve deeply into a theological discussion that is obviously centuries old. Do you have any suggestions about what I can do about my edits to the Phil Robertson page other than to revert them completely myself? I still feel that the original wording uses Wikipedia as a propaganda tool for a minority. SFFrog 13:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It's down to what reliable sources say, but fundamentally you are committing a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Robertson (as far as we know) supposed that Jesus was the Son of God and all that stuff; that makes him a Christian. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

To John Cline
Hi, John.

On 22 December 2013 you corrected a change I had made. As I do not understand Wiki too well yet, would you explain the change to me -- and the error I made. Thank you very much for your edit and for any help. All the best ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwoldin (talk • contribs) 17:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Is the bible been changed
I have heard over and over again from my family (husband and my son) that you can’t believe a lot of what the bible teaches. I want to know the true word of God and how to live by his word 2601:4C3:C100:49A0:2C35:DC7C:8DF:EBB5 (talk) 03:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I need to talk I'm ready can you help
I need to talk I'm ready can you help me please 47.220.226.47 (talk) 06:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The Blind
On September 28,2023,a movie about Phil Robertson’s life, “The Blind” began playing in theaters. His life story with his testimony of becoming a Christian is portrayed in this movie. 2600:1700:E08:5180:4DD1:8B4:ED15:FA65 (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)