Biography Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

Please provide secondary sources that discuss the supporting Facebook group. - MrX 13:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

I agree, but is there a more recent photo available? - MrX 18:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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