Talk:Mark Robinson (American politician)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Edit warring

OleLooseygoosey, please discuss your changes here, instead of edit warring. Courtesy ping: Greyjoy. --Ashleyyoursmile! 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. --Ashleyyoursmile! 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. Ashleyyoursmile! 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. Greyjoy ^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)

References

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:

• Mark Robinson 2000s (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

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:

• MarkRobinsonHeadshot.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2022 (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:

• Mark Robinson (cropped).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

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."

References

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. Neutrality^talk 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." Neutrality^talk 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 — 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. Neutrality^talk 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"? Neutrality^talk 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 @TheXuitts and Indy beetle: you've both been adding/removing content about Robinson's stance on same-sex marriage. Indy, you removed this content:

He supports legislation banning same-sex marriage.

Citation: Anderson, Bryson (September 18, 2022). "The enigma of Mark Robinson: How NC's outspoken lieutenant governor is climbing the GOP ladder". WRAL. Capitol Broadcasting Company. Retrieved September 18, 2022.

with an edit summary saying "Re-adding my info which you removed. Don't like it, take it to ANI. I'm sure they'll love the unsupported claim about his stance on gay marriage legislation on a BLP..." Can you explain why you think this content is unsupported? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Firefangledfeathers: 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)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

[[File:|140px|Mark Robinson ]]

Mark Robinson

• ... that when he is sworn in, Mark Robinson (pictured) will become the first Black lieutenant governor of North Carolina?
  • ALT1:... that Mark Robinson (pictured) launched his political career with a speech before a city council that went viral?

• Reviewed: IOU Template:Did you know nominations/Kaya Toast

Moved to mainspace by Muboshgu (talk). Self-nominated at 23:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC).

• Article moved into article space on 4 November - not the date on the nomination but still within the time limit. Long enough, adequate sourcing, neutral tone. ALT0 is interesting and backed up by the sources in the article with an inline citation. ALT1 is a little less interesting and the source is behind a paywall, but I'll assume good faith that it's in there. Image is correctly licensed and appears in the article. Awaiting QPQ review. BigDom (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• BigDom, I've provided the QPQ. And I'm open to any rewrites that make it more interesting. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Muboshgu Good to go in that case. Both ALTs are fine as they are, just the first one is a little more interesting to me personally is all. BigDom (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Political views and remarks

It says that he called children spoiled brats but I cannot find anything about that can someone send me a link to prove it? 2603:6080:2100:D12B:2DE1:552E:4F29:80AB (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The link is in the citation at the end of the sentence. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2024

Remove bias language calling him a conspiracy theorist. It's name calling and contains no facts 2600:1012:B32C:307F:654F:F021:3944:2854 (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The fact you object to is well established in the article with citations. Skyerise (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

UNDUE

The Political views and remarks section has too many extraneous quotes by people who are not Mark Robinson. Per WP:UNDUE, not every viewpoint Robinson has needs to be extensively contextualized or criticized by a political opponent. Cf. Rishi Sunak § Political positions for an example that reads much better. —  AjaxSmack  17:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I took a pass at the first two subsections. More to be done. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I wasn't volunteering someone else, but just didn't want to step into anything too fast. —  AjaxSmack  18:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• Let's face it, if Robinson's career had happened 40 years ago this wouldn't be an issue. This is why I struggle to keep up with articles involving current controversial political figures, and am resigned to leaving them in such poor state. A bunch of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS issues. Every thing they say gets reported on and then within 48 hours is added to the laundry list of "can you believe they said this" in their respective article. Granted, the lieutenant governor can't do much but deliver speeches, but we should really be thinking along the lines of "Would the George Wallace article be better served by a Controversial Statements section?" And in the section, should it be noted that these statements "have drawn criticism" (without discussing the merits of Robinson's statements in particular, what political statement doesn't "draw criticism" these days)? At least when I added the info on the FACTS Task Force it was about an actual, official action he had taken, controversial as it was, and not just "he said something and some people don't like what he said". Granted, historical hindsight can offer immense clarity. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2024

Education for Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson was completed at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. His degree is a B.A. in History. He graduated December 9th, 2022.

This link shares that information and has also been noted in several speeches: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/election/voter-guide/article285045767.html Jwwaugh (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: The provided source does not confirm the graduation date and only addresses this on one line:

Education: UNC-Greensboro, Bachelor of Arts, History.

Since this is a candidate Q&A its unclear if this has been fact checked by the paper or is just the candidate's own answer printed verbatim. I wasn't able to find another source confirming that he has graduated, but found a couple saying he dropped out 3 classes short of graduation. Its possible he gave this response because he is very close to a degree, as many other politicians have.

If you find other secondary sources confirming that he has graduated please reopen the request. Thanks. Jamedeus (talk) 03:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Please see the following link from the UNCG Graduation on December 9, 2022. You will see Mark Keith Robinson under graduates.

https://commencement.uncg.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/2022-Fall-Commencement-Program.pdf 2600:1004:B217:1A80:1C3A:88EB:BE43:D761 (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

You can also view this. This is the State of the State Response given by Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson where he mentions finishing his degree:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xkWHugf46o8 2600:1004:B217:1A80:1C3A:88EB:BE43:D761 (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Please see the following link from the UNCG Graduation on December 9, 2022. You will see Mark Keith Robinson under graduates.

https://commencement.uncg.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/2022-Fall-Commencement-Program.pdf

You can also view this. This is the State of the State Response given by Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson where he mentions finishing his degree:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xkWHugf46o82600 Jwwaugh (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

“Anti black statements”

https://theurbannews.com/government/2023/robinson-im-not-no-african-american/ I’m sorry but saying that you identify as just American and not African American isn’t anti black like I’m of Irish decent but I identify as just American not Irish American that doesn’t make me anti Irish 2600:8801:1187:7F00:5843:1048:41E6:90E6 (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

You didn't read the whole article, did you? It actually says other things than the headline, and details other attacks against blacks and women. Skyerise (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this before editing, but I did just revert the addition of "anti-Black" to the lead. If there are strong sources describing Robinson's statements as anti-Black (or something synonymous), I would be happy to review them. The sources provided, including theurbannews, were not so strong. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that his views on racial issues in the American context are, well, quixotic at best, but I think qualifying them as "anti-black", especially in the lead, is not the proper approach, especially with such niche sourcing. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree and have restored the material, which I don't think was recently added. Technically, citations aren't required in the lead and I believe this is well enough supported in the body to be mentioned in the lead. Skyerise (talk) 11:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I reverted. Since this is a BLP, such a contentious statement needs to be well-sourced and supported by consensus (since it's been challenged). It was recently added to the lead. The body content is not great other, leaning heavily on Talking Points Memo, a not terrible but obviously biased source.

The sources used in this proposed lead change are:

• An opinion piece in the Fayeteville Observer, obviously not usable
• A piece in The Urban News, a local news source of uncertain reliability
• A piece in the Washington Post that does not describe any of Robinson's comments as anti-Black
• The above-mentioned Talking Points Memo article

This is a person with tons of state-level coverage and solid amounts of national and international coverage. There are strong sources out there, and if they're not describing Robinson's statements as anti-Black, we shouldn't be either. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

"Baselessly"..."Without evidence"

This is in a single sentence. We get it Wiki you don't like this guy, but you should at least attempt to write correctly. Or is it just a code that noone should take this seriously? 222.108.156.194 (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

We are approaching the subject neutrally, but I do agree that "baselessly" and "with no evidence" in the same sentence is redundant and have cut the latter part. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia - you labeled Mark Robinson as an antisemite by taking a speech he made against dictators out of context. Zero creds, Wiki! 170.203.43.28 (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The whole "Antisemitic remarks" section makes no mention of any speech about dictators. Zero creds, IP! -Indy beetle (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

What statements were you referring to when you said he has been known to make antisemitic statements. I’m curious. The question of what that means exactly crossed my mind when I read it. Again, I’m just asking for examples. RoadSanta (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Judgmental statements

It’s not up to Wiki writers to judge character. What you present as facts are not always so. 2603:8081:7E00:3B98:91FE:18F4:8141:3001 (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Bias Coverage

This article offensively attacks Robinson's Christian faith using aggressive and negatively charged language,

For example, it uses phrases like anti-LGBTQ , instead it could say he holds traditional Christian values on gender and sexuality.

He doesn't identify as anti LGTBQ or anti-Semitic… only the phrases he uses to self identify himself should be used in this article Pch2024 (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that many RS characterize his comments as such; "He doesn't identify as anti LGTBQ" ---> "transgenderism, homosexuality, any of that filth. And yes I called it filth." Replace "transgenderism, homosexuality" with any other category and then explain how the statement is not in fact an articulation of an anti-[category] position. I'm not sure how that is biased or why anyone would have a problem with it. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Left-wing bias

The article looks clearly like a smear attempt trying to harm patriotic-conservative voices. 2003:DA:C729:AA00:5148:1011:A09D:92E6 (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a factual biography. What does that say about him that you think it's a smear attempt? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The third paragraph in the introduction section does sound very biased and could be reworded to sound more neutral and perhaps given its own section further down. Bjoh249 (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Ambiguous regrdng Anti-gay and transphobic comments

The closing line, "... North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein made similar comments ...." needs to be made SPECIFIC - "similar anti-gay comments" or "similar criticsm of ant-gay comments". Thanks 68.100.227.7 (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Good catch. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)