Talk:Mark Robinson (American politician)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mark Robinson (American politician) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 14 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

A fact from Mark Robinson (American politician) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 November 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that when he is sworn in next year, Mark Robinson will become the first Black lieutenant governor of North Carolina?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2020/November. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mark Robinson (American politician).

Wikipedia

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Mark Robinson (American politician). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Mark Robinson (American politician) at the Reference desk.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal 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
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

United States: North Carolina / 50,000 Challenge Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	North Carolina portal This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article was created or improved during this WikiProject's 50,000 Challenge, which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help!

African diaspora Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Firearms Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Discrimination Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Clarification about Boing Boing source

Hi, I just added a source from Boing Boing that alleges more posts by Robinson. WP:RSP states that Boing Boing has no consensus about its reliability, so normally I would not trust this source. That being said, the author of the article is Rob Beschizza, who is also associated with NBC, CNN, and Al Jazeera, which are reliable sources. As such, I'm making the argument that Beschizza is a reliable and trustworthy journalist in this case. Just wanted to make that clarification in case somebody asks. Di (they-them) (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally oppose using its content or citing it. Its content is mainly on details about Robinson's sexual fantasies (i.e. Urolagnia), which don't have as much value as Robinson's comments on Nazism and Hitler. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like it simply because of the combative tone of that article, wait for more serious RS to cover that info. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "alleged" when describing the Nude Africa comments

This article currently uses the words "alleged" and "allegedly" when describing the things said by Robinson on the Nude Africa forum. I personally don't think this is necessary or appropriate, as the CNN source doesn't use this language and there is ample evidence that he did say them. He did deny that he made the posts, but Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies applies. This essay states Most importantly, if the allegation is widely supported by reliable sources but the denial exists only in X's own words, then the denial is not compelling or significant per Hitchens' razor. As such I am going to remove the use of "alleged" in this context. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Di (they-them) I agree with your assessment. The comments were proved to be connected to him in a variety of ways including his full name, photo, username, and email—as pointed out by the CNN report—so I'd say WP:MRDA applies. Of course he denies it.

— Tha†emoover†here (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi figurines

Has there been any discussion about adding the Meidas Touch report of Robinson buying Nazi SS soldier figurines and Nazi tank miniatures and posing them for photographs? If not, I'm proposing the discussion take place here to determine if it's relevant to the article.

— Tha†emoover†here (talk) 09:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was hesitant to add this a while back because I couldn't find reliable sources covering it, but these seem to be good. I'll add it. Di (they-them) (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Di (they-them) Meidas Touch is a progressive political action committee, turned "media" organization. I would argue based off it's origins that it is in no way a reliable source, especially with regard to its reporting of a conservative candidate. If this is the standard of Wikipedia, then it is a very low standard. 104.35.207.163 (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree. MTS does not strike me as a reliable source. We would need independent confirmation from an RS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree as well. We need a reliable source, and Meidas Touch doesn't seem to fit the bill. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the mention from the article pending better sourcing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should Robinson's sexual comments and interests be mentioned in the lead?

This is not about WP:CENSOR, but whether Robinson self-identifying as a "perv" or enjoying transgender pornography merits being in the lead. I believe Robinson's comments on Adolf Hitler, Nazism, and slavery are far more controversial and serious than ones on sexuality and pornography. Also I find it rather incongruous to include transgender pornography in the same sentence as Hitler, Mein Kampf, Nazism, and slavery. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we routinely mention a subject's sexual proclivities in the lead of their articles when such information is available and properly sourced? If yes, then it should stay. If not, then it should go. That said, I strongly believe that there has been sufficient coverage to justify its discussion in the body of the article. But we need to be consistent in the way we present controversial claims in BLPs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was taking a look at some other BLPs, and there have been many politicians who've been embroiled in scandals but their lead isn't overloaded with as many labels as possible. Bill Clinton handles this fairly well, as does Matt Gaetz (even though he's still under investigation, and has not been indicted or convicted of any crimes).

I dropped the WP:OVERCITE prose in the lead and left it summarizing the body per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, notice it doesn't say LEADCOPIESBODY. Kcmastrpc (talk) 00:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ehhh. I'd say the removal of his exact comments on the forum is fair enough - his political career is not overly connected to whether or not he's a "perv" or what genres of pornography he dabbles in. But I don't agree with the scaling down of his past comments to just "many controversial statements" - particularly given how much coverage his candidacy has received in relation to them, it feels only fair that we actually mention what these comments are - e.g. conspiracy theories, homophobia, Holocaust denial. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which statements should we attribute? Why are the antisemitic comments and/or homophobic comments more due than racist or sexist comments? When I look at an article like Kanye West the tail of the lead seems DUE, because he has made a lot of controversial statements in the past several years, but there was an inflection point at which he suffered material consequences from it. If Robinson loses the race and reliable sources attribute it to this scandal I'm still unsure whether or not we should cover every ridiculous thing this guy espoused which cost him the election. Something like, "During the 2024 election, CNN exposed Robinson having made several extreme and offensive comments on an Internet forum over a decade ago, and as a result most of his staff resigned (and his run for Governor resulted in a landslide victory for his Democrat opponent). Italics is obviously WP:CRYSTALBALL. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree, but "extreme" is ambiguous. Robinson's opponent Josh Stein is Jewish, and Robinson's controversies have strong parallels to Doug Mastriano's in Pennsylvania two years ago. Reuters found photos of Mastriano wearing a Confederate uniform. Mastriano's lead mentions his controversies in detail--i.e. election denial, January 6th, Christian nationalism, QAnon, etc.

Side-note: Almost all major forecasters have the race as "Likely Democrat" (Robinsons' opponent is a strong favorite but not guaranteed to win). JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 Nov 2024

It has been proposed in this section that Mark Robinson (American politician) be renamed and moved to Mark Robinson.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

Mark Robinson (American politician) → Mark Robinson

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: He is the most notable Mark Robinson (similar to Mike Johnson). However, there should still be a disambiguation page for people with the same name, like with Johnson.

AwesomeAndEpicGamer (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed: Considering all the others, my impression is that any current popularity of this article is just WP:RECENTISM, and the nominator hasn't made any attempt to show otherwise. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This Mark Robinson has the longest article of any Mark Robinson on Wikipedia and if you search his name on the web (like on Google), the American politician comes up immediately (in the US). AwesomeAndEpicGamer (talk) 02:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This Mark Robinson has only been an active politician at a sub-national level for less than 4 years and given the scandals, might very well be done after this cycle. The DAB page lists multiple other Mark Robinsons with longer careers in both politics and other fields, so while the pageviews might be in favour of this subject (the nominator has not presented pageview evidence yet), the long-term significance criterion is likely not satisfied. The comparison to Mike Johnson can also be distinguished on the basis that Johnson is the head of a branch of government at the national level and has been an active politician for a decade. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose good faith proposal mostly per above. Subject is a relative newcomer to subnational politics who has garnered an unusual amount of attention due to various controversies in his personal life and campaign for Governor of NC. At the risk of crystalballing, it seems more likely than not that his campaign will be unsuccessful. The election is now three days off. If he were to win, I might be inclined to reconsider. But otherwise I suspect that what prominence in public life he may currently have, will quickly fade. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Heavy interest in the final days of a highly controversial political campaign is not evidence of a long term trend. If he loses, the online interest will rapidly fade. Cullen328 (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ad Orientem. Maybe if he becomes governor we can reconsider, but not now. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 19:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now - I agree that he's currently the most famous Mark Robinson, but he's only been in politics since 2020, and I really, really doubt that he'll have a political career in the future. If he somehow manages to win this election and doesn't disappear from politics, that might change things, so let's wait at the very least. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree that the American politician Mark Robinson is the best-known person with this name, but this appears to violate WP:RECENTISM if he were to lose, and he is a subnational politician. Kevin McCarthy and Mike Johnson are/were Speaker of the House.

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]