Talk:Pat Robertson

Suggesting move-protection
As much as I really don't lament the passing of, WP's rules are there for a reason. I had to undo a move vandalization-- some passing admin might wanna consider breaking out the green lock, 's all I'm sayin'. Xterra1 13:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


 * This was the first instance of page move vandalism, so it isn’t necessary now. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 13:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; I hadn't checked the edit log before I made that comment. Plus, I'd just woke up. Heh, guess that's why I don't have the blockhammer! :-P -Xterra1 15:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, he is no longer in the category of 'living persons' such protections would no longer seem to apply. BeefsteakMaters (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Assuming that by "protections" you mean contentious material, BLP can (and should) still apply. We don't throw those kinds of protections out the window immediately upon someone's death.  Generally, it's up to editorial consensus based on the situation and the material in question (WP:BDP).   Butler Blog   (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Correct. BLP applies to living and recently deceased people. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 16:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Your comment itself is a BLP attack, and I've redacted it.  Let's refrain from editorializing like this, please, as this encourages others to escalate it even further.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Was just stating my own opinion, so...whatever. Sorry for violating policy, I guess. Whatever the case, I wouldn't have taken my opinions to the article itself. Mainly saying "Hey, I share the negative opinion of the guy, but let's not vandalize the article to express it" on the talk page, like, y'know, you're *supposed to*. <b style="color:blue">Xt</b><b style="color:red">er</b><b style="color:purple">ra</b><b style="color:black">1</b> 22:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That's why I didn't make a big deal of it, but yes. Just as I'm supposed to say something when someone expresses opinions like that ;) Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Can we make where only extended confirmed user or only administers can move the page? Cwater1 (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure the point. No recent page move vandalism. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 19:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it has to be enough times. Just wondering though. Cwater1 (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * When it comes to protection, the general rule is you try to just block the one editor if that is the problem. Typically by the third instance (the same person or not) we protect.  Sometimes quicker if it is obvious that it is going to be (or is) a target for vandalism.  That applies to more or less any kind of protection.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2023
Under the controversies section, I request that this is added to the article.

'''Robertson also expressed support for Ivory Coast President Laurent Gbagbo, claiming he was the victim of voter fraud in the 2010 election. ''' I would add that after the sentence that mentions his support for Charles Taylor and Mobutu. 217.180.201.156 (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Adding this material to the article would constitute undue weight. If you can find more significant coverage in reliable sources that discuss this, the proposed addition could be worth discussing. — SamX &#91;talk · contribs&#93; 04:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

This sentence makes no sense
The following sentence (n.53) makes no sense: 'Robertson added that Jerusalem is a "spiritual symbol that must not be given away" because "Jesus Christ the Messiah will come down to the part of Jerusalem that the Arabs want," and this would be "not good."' As it stands, it alleges that PR is opposed to the Second Coming happening at Jerusalem. Can you Wikipeople write English? 145.224.21.211 (talk) 01:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * You could have made your point just fine without adding insults to it. Please review the civility policy.  Butler Blog   (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not see anything particularly wrong with that sentence in the article. The text (quote and all) is taken almost exactly from the referenced source. There are not many ways to summarize what Robertson said. Any better phrasing would only come after finding a better source than what was used and one which had the full text of Robertson's remarks. Whether the text of the article "alleges that PR is opposed to the Second Coming happening at Jerusalem" (your statement) appears to be your conclusion, not necessarily that of Robertson, nor that of the WP article writer. The reader can determine for himself what Robertson might have meant by his remarks. --L.Smithfield (talk) 06:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Hypocrisy on Sex Before Marriage
Despite being a stalwart against sex before marriage Robertson married his wife six months after impregnating her, lied about it and worse. This should very definitely be added to the Family and relationships section. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1987/10/09/no-big-deal-for-robertson/09870d6b-2a44-4d14-8438-cb101c2ce1c3/ 2404:440C:27BF:7338:E9A2:8A9F:B60F:8491 (talk) 10:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)