Talk:Pat Robertson/Archive 2

Hoi I was reading that!
While it seems he was a piece of shit I would like to read about why first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.150.178 (talk • contribs) 28 Aug 2005

The above quote reflect, it appears, the mean view of the average Wik editor working on this piece.

Dispassionate objectivity at it's finest, huh?

ps I took out this SMEAR:

"In chapter 12 of his book, "The Taking of Hill 610 And Other Essays on Friendship", Paul "Pete" McCloskey, Jr. asserts that Robertson served in Korea as the "liquor officer" responsible for keeping the officers' clubs supplied with liquor. There, McCloskey claims, Robertson was known to drink and to frequent prostitutes."

Again, pay attention all you haters:

McCloskey is a political ENEMY of Robertson's. I'm sure McCloskey saw Pat pleasuring himself to the delightful stylings of the Andrews Sister as well, but how does this matter? His comments are irrelevant and deliberately denigrating. They serve no other purpose.

Wait! I know why they're appropriate...because he's a MINISTER, right?

Wrong. He didn't get saved until many years after the Korean War.

So, this is just more gratuitous hateful slime from some egregiously liberal contributor  and that's why it's gone.

Big Daddy 02:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

God this is SO FRUSTRATING!!! Who took out the section about Robertson besting Bush (the sitting VP at the time) in Iowa?

That was HEADLINE NEWS and literally shook the Republican establishment to it's bones. It clearly was the highlight of Pat's political career. Why oh why do the editors here feel they have to DENIGRATE him at every...freaking...single...turn???? Arrrggghhhah!!!

Much Love,

Big Daddy 16:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The best version of that paragraph is here:. It was later removed in a mass reversion of one of your chainedits. It is nearly impossible to improve or even retain the article at any quality, however, with POV warriors going at it - on both sides. If only the responsible editors around here didn't have to play catchup all the time. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment
About 20% of this now over-long article is devoted to the Hugo Chavez comments. It's silly "recentism" and people need perspective here. Not the first and probably not the last flap. Leave it out of the intro and avoid skewing relative emphasis in the article itself. Marskell 17:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * hmm..Recentism... maybe we should make Controversies over statements by Pat Robertson into a separate article. That would trim some fat. MPS 17:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * "Recentism" is my very own neologism that I liberally throw around whenever I can... I do think it's a problem. I'd actually suggest simply shortening what's in here. It doesn't need four level four headlines. Marskell 17:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm with you there. But why don't we give it a week or so more to play out, then work out what is worth keeping, maybe find somewhere (possibly not in Wikipedia) to factor out the long version. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:14, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

To whomever is reverting my edits...QUIT IT!!!

Based on the quality of the writing in this article and the OBVIOUS lack of knowledge of both Roberston and Christianity, I'm FAR more qualified to edit this piece than the majority of people who have contributed.

And no, HATING PAT ROBERTSON WITH ALL YOUR HEART does not make you qualified.

I edited this piece on his net worth as follows:

"Primarily because of his shrewd business deals, Pat Robertson has become a very rich man. Hit net worth is estimated to be over $200 million USD according to the 2002 book The Best Democracy Money Can Buy by Greg Palast. One of the most prescient of Robertson's investments was purchasing a number of FM radio stations in the 1960s (when they were viewed by most as worthless technology) and selling them in the 1980s for massive gains."

This ENTIRE article on Robertson is hallmarked by two salient aspects:

1) Piss poor writing. 2) Abject hate.

Why then the resistance when I am improving both?

And I KNOW Pat Robertson, have met him and worked on his campaign in 1988. I doubt any of you haters can make the same claim.

Big Daddy 04:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I looked over your edits. You need to adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, Mr. Specificity...tell me where???

Ps To suggest that it is **I** who am bringing a POV to this HATCHET JOB would be laughable, if it weren't so pathetic.

I KNOW Robertson.

These HATERS don't.

And I KNOW the kind of Christianity he practices. More or less.

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say you don't have a clue.

So, how am I the one bringing a POV?

Big Daddy 21:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

ps You replaced my edit by putting back this piece of crap???

Robertson's net worth is between $200 million and $1 billion USD according to the 2002 book The Best Democracy Money Can Buy by Greg Palast. Robertson has made a number of shrewd business deals. Probably the most lucrative was the purchase of a number of FM radio stations in the 1960s (when they were viewed by most investors as worthless technology) and selling them in the 1980s for massive gains. He also has interests in diverse assets, including a shuttered California refinery.

$200 million  - $1Billion?

An $800 million range???

Do you have even the foggiest notion of how preposterous that kind of a statement is? And in an encyclopedia you want people to respect??

And the cite, as is the case in the overwhelming number of instances in this article, is from one of his enemies.

If this doesn't get corrected, I'm gonna have to report your revisions as bias.

It's just too obvious now...

Ps If you're gonna use Palast, then I feel compelled to add this line to bring some semblance of balance:

"However, Florida Congresswoman Katherine Harris claims that Palast’s conclusions are "twisted and maniacally partisan."

Big Daddy 22:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I reverted a POV edit into a not POV piece. It attributes statements to speakers. It does not attribute opinion statements to wikipedia. Your edit included a fact not attributed to a source, and had wikipedia calling someone "prescient." Your threat to "report my revision as bias," is hollow. I am proud of all of my contributions to this encyclopedia. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 22:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I edited out this piece on China and abortions:

"It has since been speculated that as founder of the Zhaodaole China Internet portal and part-owner of a cable network in China, Robertson was unwilling to risk straining relations with the Chinese government. "

It has since been...'SPECULATED'?????

And you think this garbage collection should be left in?

Sorry pal, this is NOTHING to be proud of.

And the crackpot rightwing WelchReport (check out his site when you get the chance) doing the speculation, is HARDLY a viable source of news much less speculation.

So, why was it included in this article in Wikipedia about Pat Robertson?

Hmmmm.....

Big Daddy 19:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I know you can tell the difference between people. That was not the edit to which I was referring, as is obvious by the timestamp on my message. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 00:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I would certainly agree that welchreport is not an appropriate citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:02, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Right, we only cite LEFT WING crackpots in Wikipedia. Never right wing ones...

Big Daddy 16:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

How NOT to move forward
Jmabel's PHONY offer of 'good faith' is below. The reason it was rescinded in less than 24 hours is cause I saw thru it and called him out. Naturally, he high tailed it. Thanks for saving us BOTH a lot of time.

You know a reasonable person would think that if someone who KNOWS Christianity came in here to help sort out a piece about a famous CHRISTIAN preacher that's heretofore been primarily edited by people clueless about Christianity and generally hostile to the preacher, he would be welcomed.

A reasonable person that is...

Big Daddy 16:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

 Note: the following was originally the first item in this section, under the heading "How to move forward. Contrary to how we normally do things, Big Daddy changed the heading and placed his comment in front'' of mine. Rather than majorly compound the mess, I will respond below in a new section. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:56, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

"Big Daddy", if you would try to assume good faith, as I am assuming yours, we might actually make some progress here, instead of an unproductive mudslinging fest. Obviously, you have disagreements with a lot of the other editors on this article, and obviously we are not making a lot of progress by you making edits, having them deleted, and then coming to the talk page and calling everyone names.

May I suggest that you list here the three to five edits that you most would like to see made in the article (additions, deletions, whatever), preferably with reasons or (in the case of additions) citations, as appropriate, and see if we can build consensus around some of them. I agree with you that this article remains biased against Robertson; believe it or not, a year or so ago it was even more so. At that time I removed most of the most egregious attacks, a few (but not all) of which have probably crept back in. And I'll be frank: I don't like the guy. But that's not what the article should be about, it should be about him.

And, assuming Big Daddy is willing to proceed this way, my comment to those who are left of center (or, I suppose, merely left of Robertson, a far larger group) who are working on this: I ask you to honestly consider in each case how you would handle similar matters in editing an article on Ted Kennedy (or, for that "merely left of Robertson" group, Gerald Ford or Billy Graham). -- Jmabel | Talk 04:00, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel,

Fine, I'll take your challenge. Understand that I'm more than a bit skeptical based on a PREPONDERANCE of experiences I've had in the less than a week here, but you seem like a stand up guy and I'll take you at your word.

I think you'll find, that when I'm confident I'm dealing with an HONEST broker, I am very reasonable and don't insist that my every notion be embodied in the article.

Let's start with something relatively straight forward. This piece of salacious slime that I've edited out THREE TIMES now only to have it put back in:

" In chapter 12 of his book, "The Taking of Hill 610 And Other Essays on Friendship", Paul "Pete" McCloskey, Jr. asserts that Robertson served in Korea as the "liquor officer" responsible for keeping the officers' clubs supplied with liquor. There, McCloskey claims, Robertson was known to drink and to frequent prostitutes.[2]"

How is this relevant? Again, if you say he's a preacher, I will remind you that the Korea War happened LONG before Pat accepted Jesus.

Is it relevant to the lawsuit regarding his Korean war service? No.

So, why is it included??

Ps Here's a hint. Liberals LOVE to call Christians hypocrite. But, of course, it's impossible to call a liberal a hypocrite on moral matters because they presumably don't have any standards to begin with.

So, introducing salacious sexual charges against a Born Again Christian fits a template.

You'll read me discussing templates quite a bit in these discussions because they provide a macro way of analyzing the way cheap shot artists operate.

The liberal template is: Christian minister on the outside but raging sex pervert on the downlow. That's what most liberals think.

Of course, Jimmy Swaggart, Bakker and not a few Catholic Priests have been more than willing to cooperate with this stereotype.

But not everybody fits it. And Pat Robertson is one of them.

But, does that stop liberals? Hell no. They just come up with some irrelevant (to his Christian phase) story and slap it up there.

This should be easy. Get rid of all the ad hominem crap about Robertson and prostitutes.

Then we can move on to greater and grander things.

Big Daddy

Ps I had to laugh when I read where you wrote "Believe it or not, a year or so ago (this article) was even more (slanted)."

I have no doubt that it was...LOL! NO doubt!

Big Daddy 03:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I take it that the above can be summarized as, no, you will not assume my good faith. Offer withdrawn. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:28, September 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Accepting Jesus may wipe one's soul clean of sin, but it does not erase one's biography of deeds. If there is a reasonable source for biographical info, good or bad, we should include it. To many Christians there is no shame, and indeed much glory, in recounting how even the lowest may be raised up. Even Jesus consorted with a prostitute. I'm not familiar with this particular charge, but if it is properly-sourced then I see no reason to exclude it. -Willmcw 09:25, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

My friend, it's clear you HAVE NO IDEA what it means to be a born again Christian.

A liberal describing Christianity is like listening to a gay friend of mine describing woman's breasts. He'll tell you their number, color shape and size, but he...just...doesn't...get it! lol!


 * Jesus Christ was a liberal. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by RLent (talk • contribs) 24 Jan 2006

And you guys don't get Christianity. (Other than you HATE Roberston's version. And probably any legitimate version as well.)

To say "Even Jesus consorted with a prostitute." as a justification for SMEARING a man is beyond low...It's DESPICABLE.

You're statement 'Accepting Jesus may wipe one's soul clean of sin' is both pandering and dishonest. Where in the scripture does it say that?

It was a cheezy attempt to SOUND sympathetic to Christians.

You might have better luck trying that argument in metafilter. I see thru insincere drivel like this as if it was saran wrap.

But wait, there's more. This takes the cake - Read this carefully:

"If there is a reasonable source for biographical info, good or bad, we should include it."

Oh really? Do you really want that standard applied to liberals, too?

Should we just trash-collect any and every negative thing we have on them and put it in an encyclopedic entry???

You write: "But it does not erase one's biography of deeds." That's besides the point. It's obvious to EVERYONE what you're trying to do...SMEAR him as a lecher to fit your pre-conceived template of Christian ministers.

But it doesn't work since these allegations happened BEFORE he was a Christian and your INSISTENCE that this uterly gratuitous hearsay be included ,along with the VANDALIZING of my edits, PROVE just how vicious and hateful your agenda is.

They're coming out...

Big Daddy 15:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd just say that beyond specifics, it's useful to remember that we aren't in a war -- it's not me vs you, or us vs them, it's all of us working together to make a good encyclopedia, that's the ultimate goal. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 14:43, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I want to know which editor(s) keeps VANDALIZING this page. Which editor keeps PUTTING BACK IN that slime, sleaze and speculation about Roberston?

Speculating that his refusal to denounce China's one child policy was motivated by greedy furtive motives, sliming him with irrelevant 'consorting with prostitute' charges made by his political enemies, insinuating that he really isn't pro-life or that Operation Blessing isn't really a charitable organization?

C'mon. Be Bold. You obviously think what you're doing is right...Which of you BRAVE editor will confess to REPEATEDLY putting that trash back in?

Do tell me...so I can report you.

Thanks! Your pal,

16:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Look, can we tone down the rhetoric a little bit? I won't even justify your comments about liberals and Christianity.  Let's focus on the article instead.  If you think that someone is misbehaving, by all means try Dispute resolution, but otherwise please stop making threats that get us no closer toward agreement on the article's quality.  Which is of course why we're all here. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 16:30, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Katefan,

You're kidding, right?

Work together??

The only thing the editors of this article want to work together on is how to slime Pat Robertson without making it seem like they're sliming Pat Robertson.

I find it curious that you keep focusing on me as some sort of 'disrupter' in here when all I am trying to do is 'take out the trash' sort to speak.

Why not focus on the ad hominem, cheap and tawdry insults against Robertson? Or do you also feel that kind of sliming is appropriate in an article on Robertson since he had the double 'evil whammy' of being an evangelist and a republican activist?

Prove me wrong,I'm happy to give anyone the benefit of the doubt at first, but your clarion call for us to 'get along together' resonates to my ear as a call for me to disarm.

So...what do you think...do ad hominem attacks about Robertson and prostitutes from OVER 50 years ago belong in this article??

Big Daddy

Ps Interesting, that for all the flak I've been getting, it's not for lack of intellectual firepower. It's all snivelly little remarks about my tone etc.

But the tone of the article is what I find disturbing. Is it perhaps I'm too smart and don't bite on the obvious attempts by the Robertson-haters to misdirect?

And why is it that everyone in Wikipedia, with a few outstanding exceptions, begins their DEFENSE of a conservative commentator with

"Trust me, I'm no fan of _____..."

LOL!

And those are the ones arguing to clean the article up!

A little bit like having the auto salesman negotiate with his showroom manager to get you a 'better deal' on that new car, huh?

Let's see now...Does he really have MY best interests at heart??

Lol!

17:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Look, this isn't Usenet. Mudslinging is annoying at best and disruptive at worst.  Focus on content.  I'm ignoring your comments that aren't related to content, and most others here probably are too -- in other words, you're just talking to yourself.  What exactly do you think should be changed?  Let's take it piece by piece and talk it out here before engaging in edit warring. Also, please sign your posts by using four tildes in a row ~, and please try not to use so many line breaks.  Consolidate your sentences -- there's no need to have one sentence per line break; it's making this page scroll way too much. Thanks. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 18:04, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * concur. I think Assume good faith applies here. Let's make this article NPOV without killing each other. I also concur that there's no need to have one sentence per line break. Also, Please do not bite the newcomers MPS 19:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Vacuous statement
In discussing his presidential run: "Among his policies, he wanted to ban illegal drugs&hellip;" What, if anything, does this mean? Aren't illegal drugs, by definition, already banned? If no one can explain this, I'm inclined to delete the remark. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:58, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * I can only pose a guess: perhaps he opposed legalization of drugs. Again, this is just my guess. MPS 17:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's a guess. In their NEVER ENDING attempt to make Pat look like a nut, the liberal editor who included this PREPOSTEROUS statement...had it backfire!

Big Daddy 02:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

(A) the state ment has no purpose. (B) liberal or conservative Pat is crazy, he needs no help.--Dahveed323 08:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

To the anon re: prayer
The reason I have removed your addition is because it is improperly sourced and improperly phrased. We can't simply state "Robertson prayed for a vacancy. In 2005 Rehnquist died." In order to include such information in that section, Robertson must have linked the two events somewhere taht we can quote. For instance (and I have no idea if this is true or not, it's just a for instance): In a 2005 interview on CNN, Robertson said Rehnquist died as a result of his prayer. Similarly, we can't write "Robertson prayed for a vacancy. In 2005 his prayers were answered and Rehnquist died." Obviously that's completely unprovable. But what we CAN do is say "Robertson claimed it was as a result of his prayer." If that's indeed the case. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 19:38, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel responds to Big Daddy
"Big Daddy" refers to my "PHONY offer of 'good faith'". Frankly, I think language like that belongs more in an RfC than here on the discussion page of an article, but since this is where it has been raised, this is where I'll address it.

You would never guess from his remarks that my most recent edit to the article was specifically in support of a suggestion of his, the one before that was removal of a disparagement of Robertson's status as a Christian voice, and that I have expressed that I'd like to see the "I Hate Pat Robertson" blog link removed from the article. In fact, while I've been around Wikipedia a long time and something might have slipped my memory, I don't believe I've made one "anti-Robertson" edit to this article. All of my edits have been to tone down what I agree with "Big Daddy" is a animus against Robertson in this article.

"Big Daddy" claims that I rescinded my offer because he "saw thru it and called [me] out." Let me be clear: My offer began, "'Big Daddy', if you would try to assume good faith, as I am assuming yours, we might actually make some progress here." His response included, "Liberals LOVE to call Christians hypocrite. But, of course, it's impossible to call a liberal a hypocrite on moral matters because they presumably don't have any standards to begin with... So, introducing salacious sexual charges against a Born Again Christian fits a template... a macro way of analyzing the way cheap shot artists operate... But, does that stop liberals? Hell no. They just come up with some irrelevant (to his Christian phase) story and slap it up there..." If this is his idea of presuming good faith, I'd hate to see how he addresses those he thinks are acting in bad faith. I withdrew my offer because I am not willing to try to help him while he feels free to hurl abuse at me. End of story.

Perhaps I went too far in simply rescinding the offer, so let me also be clear about this: if "Big Daddy" will, in the future, stick to discussing the substance of the article, I will again be willing to actively help him get his concerns addressed. But if he wants to hang out here insulting me and other contributors? I may find myself coincidentally going the same direction as him at times&mdash;I think this article is biased against Robertson, and so does he&mdash;but I certainly won't be doing anything for his sake. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:26, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Big Daddy responds to Jmabel
JMabel writes: "I will again be willing to actively help him get his concerns addressed. " Great...water under the bridge...bygones...and all that stuff. Let's get to work. It's hard for me to contain my anger because I feel this is still such a hit piece, but I will try...

Here are 3 areas where I think the article needs to be re-worked:

1) The inclusion of his alleged consorting with prostitutes.

2) His testimony, that is how he came to Christ.

3) The ridiculous net worth article written by a radical leftist.

If you look above you'll find I gave VERY SPECIFIC AND DETAILED REASONS why these sections are seriously in violation of Wik's nPOV policy. I have also re-written each section and EVERY FREAKIN' time it gets removed and replaced by the slime. If we're gonna work together, and I'll extend to you the olive branch of good faith that you mean what you say, then you HAVE TO address these serious violations of POV. If you want to defend there inclusion, I'll listen with an open mind, but there has to be a consistent standard. The fact is that Pat Robertson is treated much, much worse than he would be if this was truly a neutral encyclopedia. Since we all putatively want Wik to become nPOV, then let's get to work... Best Regards, Big Daddy 15:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Big Daddy 16:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, let's look at these one by one. I have some questions to you, because I'm by no means expert on Robertson.
 * I would say that the contrast between someone's life before conversion and after is at least somewhat germane, but I would certainly agree that the specifics of "consorting with prostitutes" would not be particularly relevant unless he has engaged the topic himself in his writing/preaching. Does Robertson himself ever allude to his own "life of sin" prior to his conversion? If so, what sins (if any) does he single out. Has he engaged (either to acknowledge or deny) this particular point? I know that is a pretty standard trope for converts who become preachers, but I can't remember hearing Robertson ever use it. I would argue that the details are relevant exactly insofar as Robertson himself has engaged them; other than that, his sex life before his conversion should be his own business: he was not a public figure in any way at that time, nor was he claiming to be any kind of moral paragon, and, frankly, a soldier paying for sex is not news. On the other hand, the thing about being known for procuring liquor probably should stay, given decent citation, partly because it is unusual and partly because it reflects on his own claims about his military record.
 * The article should certainly contain Robertson's own account of how he came to Christ. I don't have an immediate opinion on whether it should contain anyone else's commentary on that. I can't tell from your one phrase what you want to do here.
 * It seems to me that his net worth is worth mentioning one way or another: he's a rich man, self-made, and therefore his wealth merits mention. Are you saying that his wealth is irrelevant to the article, in which case I'm afraid we disagree on this point: for anyone who started from roughly nothing and made millions of dollars, that is a fact worth noting. Do you have a source you would consider more appropriate to cite? Or are you saying this should be handled in some particular different way? -- Jmabel | Talk 17:03, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel,

EXCELLENT questions! I'll try and tackle number one for starters...

The short answer to your question is that no, Pat's  spiritual narrative is NOT that he was some awful drug-riddled, whoremongering sinner who came to a glorious salvation. True enough, this kind of spiritual 'rags to riches' testimony was a common theme in many people's stories back in the 70's when Pat's ministry first began to emerge. But, Robertson was conspicuously different in that regard. In fact, the novelty was that he came from exactly the OPPOSITE background. His story was how the son of a senator, an Ivy League lawyer, an uppercrust blue blood from the east coast could find God. It was quite unique for that time, especially the charismatic circles that Robertson travelled in, and it resonated well. Thus, there is ABSOLUTELY NO RELEVANCE WHATSOEVER to anything about Pat as it pertains to those 'prostitution-loving' charges in Korea. These are flat out smears emanating from ONLY his opponents and specfically intended to make Pat look like a hypocrite. They have NOTHING to do with his conversion testimony. More to follow... Big Daddy 20:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Question #2 Has to do with his salvation story. I just know it reads very clunky and clearly written by someone who doesn't get it. I sense no malice in it as it's basically a restatement of the account in one of Pat's own books. I did a reasonable re-write of this earlier that was inexplicably removed. It may be up in the another section of Talk. No one should have a problem with it.

Question #3: Personal Finances. Point 1 NO encyclopedia entry about ANYONE should have a line where the subject's net worth is estimated within an 800 MILLION DOLLAR RANGE. LOL! But that's exactly what's in this article. If you can't find a tighter range or more accurate number, leave it out. Further, I found a relevant quote about Pallast's 'work' from US Congresswoman Katherine Harris( you may remembrer her from the Florida 2000 election.) Someone unfortunately reverted it out, but probably should be re-insterted. She basically called out Pallast for what he is...a TOTALLY partisan hack.

But more to the core, why is Pallast even being used? That's what's so disturbing about the Wik articles on conservatives. Wik wants to and claims to be neutral, but just a cursory glance at the reference sources make it plain that


 * They are telling the subject's story from the vantage point of their ENEMIES. ***

This section on Pat's finances is a PERFECT example. I have no problem whatsoever with us listing his new worth since he is a businessman. If he was 'just' a preacher, it would be a smear. But the number has got to be a trustworthy number from a reliable source. Not some wild quess from a partisan.

Big Daddy Ps Thanks again for such insightful questions. You have emerged as one of the most fair-minded people I've worked with in Wik thus far.Big Daddy 20:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I have removed the prostitution remark. I hope it stays out. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:08, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Who's sliming whom?
"The only thing the editors of this article want to work together on is how to slime Pat Robertson without making it seem like they're sliming Pat Robertson."

If the article is written properly, the only person sliming Robertson will be Robertson. Not only should we assume good faith with each other, we should assume the reader is intelligent enough to make up their own mind. If Roberston has put his foot in his mouth, then that will show by simply quoting him and his notable critics and supporters. If he hasn't, then that will show by simply quoting him and his notable critics and supporters. If that isn't good enough, I am reminded of the disclaimer we have on every edit page screen: If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. Insults, threats, projection and a general lack of civility aren't going help an editor's case much, either. "As you do unto the least of these, you do unto me." Fire Star 05:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds good but I'm not buying it. I'm partial to Pat Robertson...sympathetic to his point of view might be a better way of putting it, but even I know he has ROUTINELY put his foot in his mouth. The question goes to motive. Do we have to CHRONICLE EVERY SINGLE misstep in word or deed he makes? That hardly seems like an equitable standard. It turns us from Wikipedia to the National Enquirkipedia. So what is the motivation of those who insist we include all of these blunders? I think it's obvious. And that's why I fight them. They have a political agenda and suggesting it's Pat Robertson's fault that his entry here looks like it was written by Anton Levey is not really helpful.


 * ps Since we're quoting scriptures now, allow me to remind you it is written "For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you." In other words...just be fair. Big Daddy 16:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm kind of with Big Daddy here. We would do the reader more of a service covering three or so incidents in some depth (including any revised position after some initial gaffe) than making a laundry list, and mentioning other such incidents at one-sentence level (with citations for those who wish to follow up). But I know from my experience in Wikipedia that I am probably fighting a losing battle with that suggestion.


 * However, the following should not be a losing battle: we should be covering in similar depth the certainly commendable work Robertson's groups have done in terms of charity work, and should be much more expansive on his theology. I would say that the bias of the article shows far more in its omissions than in its inclusions, and would suggest to Big Daddy that, from what I have experienced over time in Wikipedia, he will get a much more sympathetic hearing adding well-sourced material to fill in omissions than trying to get clearly sourced material removed from the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:10, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

JMabel,

More excellent comments. I agree with you in part although, professionally I'm guided by the philosphy of the old masters which suggests it's what you TAKE OUT that makes something a masterpiece. But your point is well taken. It's amazing that when I first read this article the ONLY thing really mentioning Operation Blessing was some slanted piece about Diamond mines and even called it an 'ostensible' charity. Wait for my research, but my understanding is that Robertson's Operation Blessing has given in excess of ONE HUNDRED MILLION BUCKS. through the years. There are other wonderful things the ministry has done as well. Keep in mind, the PRIMARY mission of the 700 club is to get people saved. That is, to have them make Jesus their Lord. And in second place would no doubt be Pat's Passion for very conservative politics (at least by Wik standards.)

So, as much as a certain segment of society considers that a priceless gift to the community, an equal or perhaps greater segment consider it worthless and dangerous. That's why it may not be wise to list ALL of the accomplishments Pat is proud of. lol! More later. Big Daddy 20:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Good to see you can avoid an extra space after each sentence.


 * At this point, then, I would recommend a quick survey of the articles about similar figures to Robertson, and perhaps a pattern can be recognised in aid of a "standard" treatment of the article in line with others of like content. At least it would perhaps diminish the effect that people were ganging up on Robertson. I haven't edited Robertson's (or any similar articles) much beyond reverting obvious vandalism, so my advice is mostly theoretical I'm afraid, but that is what would make sense to me. Regards, Fire Star 03:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that'd do any good. Wikipedia is inconsistent by nature.  I think we should just focus on making this particular article better and to hew to NPOV standards.  If we do that, what other articles say won't matter in this context. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 15:37, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

To be fair...
...to criticisms of this page, the Controversies section is a little jumbled and meandering. Suggest:
 * If we have military service in sect. 1 move the Korean War controversy into it.
 * Further trim the Hugo Chavez stuff.
 * Actually drop the Barbara Boxer reference due to notability. Mis-quotes and out of context criticisms are dime-a-dozen really. Marskell 15:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I took out the Boxer reference altogether. It's sourced, but not really fair.  For me, doesn't answer the "so what?" question. As you said, misrepresentations are a dime a dozen, and this doesn't strike me as a particularly earthshattering one. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 15:45, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Robertson Leaving Christian Coalition
I recently learned that Robertson resigned his post at the Christian Coalition amid allegations and a successful lawsuit, related to what was described as "Jim Crow-style racial descrimination", including the forcing of black employees to enter the premises via alternate, back entrances and forcing them to take lunch breaks segregated from white employees.

Curiously, the Wiki omits this fact, saying only that "Robertson left in 2001." It's not clear to me why this is ommitted but I've chosen not to edit the article myself; I don't believe that I can maintain NPOV about this subject. But I would like to know if this information made it to the people working on this, or not. - Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.206.213.5 (talk • contribs) 9 Sept 2005


 * You "recently learned". Do you have a citation? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:07, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's certainly potentially information that could be included, if there is a reputable source to summarize that treats the subject. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 04:57, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Not just reputable, but not highly biased either. Furthermore it's incumbent upon us that we treat sources producing these kind of outlandish charges with 'great care.' This is per Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales edict. Big Daddy 16:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane Katrina
I think the claim that Robertson blamed Ellen Degeneres for Hurricane Katrina is a send-up, but it's so hard to be sure. Does anyone know one way or the other? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.203.152.165 (talk • contribs) 11 Sept 2005
 * This seems to have been a case of an editor with a temporary immunity to satire. It's out of there. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:28, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't know who originally posted. Quite possibly bad faith. I reverted and re-reverted when noticing the error (thanks, presumably, to the anon who started this thread). Marskell 22:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I found a source, but I can't vouch for it. It doesn't say when and where Robertson made the assertion, and the article itself is unsigned. If a better source isn't found it should eventually be removed. -Willmcw 05:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You are citing a satire site. See : "Dateline Hollywood was founded in 360 BC as "Gladiators Weekly" to cover the booming entertainment industry in the coliseums of ancient Rome&hellip;" -- Jmabel | Talk 04:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You are correct. I was mistaken. Thanks for pointing out the error. -Willmcw 07:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The Barbara Boxer issue...
...is a mis-attribution not an accusation. NN and very mild as far as Robertson goes. Including does seem to my mind a case of including any criticism we can think of. Marskell 05:01, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. There's much more scathing criticism that can/could be/is leveled; this just seems like a case of "so what?" &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 05:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, he has not issued a retraction. Until he does, I think the paragraph belongs in the article. --Asbl 14:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * A biographical article of this length does not need to be a comprehensive list of gaffes and incidents. This is a minor one. There are more than enough to choose from in Robertson's case. If we discuss a small representative sample well, and refer the user to where they can find more comprehensive biographies, we do much more of a service than if this article becomes mainly a list of gaffes and controversies. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I've removed this again as there does appear to be consensus. Asbl, take a look at the list of quotes from the links. If "absolutely appalling" makes the cut than virtually everything he's ever said publicly does too. --Marskell 09:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Can we at least put the media matters link to the story in the external link section? Another question. If the Barbara Boxer story is "too small" what about the Chinese Abortions? --Asbl 19:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The only cite on the Chinese abortions (assuming you mean the passage I removed) was a site so far right they make Robertson look like a liberal. If there is a good citation on that, fine, but this was definitely not a good citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Huh???? The Chinese Abortions story is still there right above the Hugo Chavez story. --Asbl 04:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, my comments may have been confusing. I thought you were referring to a cut I made last week. I didn't remove the entire section, just some material from a hard-right source (well to Robertson's right. Yes, there is such a thing). The remaining material is cited from a source I would also usually avoid as being extreme, but since its politics are in the same turf as Robertson's own, it's probably reasonable in this case. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Consider three things: Yes, this a judgement call as lists of these sorts will always be but Chinese abortions makes much more sense to my mind than BB comments. I don't have a problem with the external link. --Marskell 09:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The "link" issue. What's a more controversial topic, Chinese abortions of Barbara Boxer's opinion of Judge Roberts? The former, obviously.
 * Words used. Not particularly flamboyant in either case.
 * Response generated. Major for abortions, minor for Boxer.

Degeneres stuff..
Hey Will, I think that Degeneres stuff didn't happen. datelinehollywood.com seems to be a satire site on the order of The Onion. The sad thing is that it actually reads like it could be true. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 05:11, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Aha. That explains why no real news source has it. If that's the case, then it should go. I'll delete it. Thanks, -Willmcw 05:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I made the same mistake a few days ago! &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 05:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Requests_for_comment/BigDaddy777
For those interested, an RfC has been filed against User:BigDaddy777 at Requests_for_comment/BigDaddy777. Your comments would be appreciated. -- 69.121.133.154 06:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Prostitutes?
I took out this smear:

"During pre-trial depositions, another veteran who had served with Robertson, Paul Brosman, Jr., spoke of rumors during the war that Robertson had been carousing with prostitutes and hassling Korean women. Brosman stated that Robertson himself talked about his exploits with prostitutes."

This story is relevant in that Robertson was suing about his war record. The IRRELEVANT slime about what he did years before he became a minister is not. Please keep this kind of garbage collecting out of Wikipedia. Thanks! Big Daddy 16:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I reverted your deletion. This is supposed to be a full biography, not a haiography. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, now we know WHO is starting the edit war. Don't revert my deletion. This is your first warning. It's coming out. Big Daddy 16:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Not only will I revert your deletion again, I will continue to do so untill you make a compelling argument why I should not. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

You are in violation of Wikipedia rules and will be reported. You do not have unilateral authority to decide what stays and what goes. If you would have followed rules, you would have found if a consensus feels that this slime belongs in here. Big Daddy 17:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Such a consensus exists. Poll it. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

No, the burden is on you to poll it especially since you claim 'a consensus exists.' You crossed the line this time, reverting my edit 3 times in one day. Big Daddy 17:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I have done no such thing. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, it's out of your hands now. Your violation of the 3rr rule is for others to adjudicate. Your own words - "Not only will I revert your deletion again, I will continue to do so..." demonstrates the utter contempt you have for the policies and practices of Wikipedia. Big Daddy 17:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The correct place to report 3rr violations is WP:AN3. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Testimony
I cleaned up Pat's testimony section ever so slightly. It seems to have been written by someone who knows little about Christian conversion. Saying he was 'preached to' is clunky and nonsensical. I also DELETED the word 'apparently' in reference to Pat's speaking in tongues. It suggests a POV.

Here it is:

In 1956 Robertson was led to faith in Christ by Dutch missionary Cornelius Vanderbreggen, who impressed Robertson both by his lifestyle and his message. Vanderbreggen quoted Proverbs (3:5, 6), "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths", which Robertson considers to be the "guiding principle" of his life. Soon afterwards, he 'spoke in tongues' for the first time. He was ordained as a minister of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1961.

Inclusion of Pre-trial Deposition Information
Please express your view on
 * ''During pre-trial depositions, another veteran who had served with Robertson, Paul Brosman, Jr., spoke of rumors during the war that Robertson had been carousing with prostitutes and hassling Korean women. Brosman stated that Robertson himself talked about his exploits with prostitutes.

Keep

Change
 * 1) No reason to do anything to this passage. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC) No reason why a response by Robertson or surrogates is not appropriate per always reasonable Kate.  Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete


 * 1) I say we delete. This passage serves no purpose other than to slime Robertson. The section is about a lawsuit over Pat's COMBAT duty. How does the fact that someone claimed he went to hookers have any bearing on this whatsoever?  Do we also want to include the 'notable' testimony of someone who said he masturbated to Peggy Lee records as well??
 * The ONLY possible defense of it's inclusion would have been, that as a minister, this would be considered hypocritical behavior ala Jimmy Swaggart. But the time frame these incidents are alleged to have occurred are WAY before Pat even became a Christian. He never claimed to be pure prior to his conversion.  Thus, there is no legit reason to keep this slime in here. ) Big Daddy 17:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm a little on the fence about this. On one hand, I don't think "it happened before he became a Christian" can be a defense against every bad act someone has committed -- so the question then becomes, was it a big enough deal to warrant mentioning?  It does seem a little bit long ago, and to me it's not really very shocking that a soldier in wartime might've gotten frisky with the locals.  On the other hand, his status as a moral leader makes the question more legitimate.  I would never think it was okay to simply not mention George Bush's alcoholism because later he was born again -- rather, I'd want to see it mentioned in the context of his conversion.  Has Robertson ever said anything about the prostitution stuff?  It seems to me like its inclusion could be blunted by allowing some sort of refutation or mea culpa and that might satisfy both sides. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 17:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Kate, at least in this instance, I respect your opinion. But, to explain a little bit about Christianity, (and I've already gone through this ad infinitum in previous comments on this page) what a person did prior to becoming a Christian is irrelevant UNLESS the person who became a believer makes it relevant. And Robertson does not. Being delivered from alcoholism is very much part of George Bush's testimony. Being delivered from prostitutes is not part of Robertson's.
 * He was NOT a moral leader in Korea nor did he claim to be. And his testimony is NOT about being dredged up from the bottom of society. He was the son of a US senator for goodness sake. It has NO context with respect to his conversion. And it should be obvious to all what's really going on here. Another conservative. Another slimejob. When will it stop? Big Daddy 17:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * BD777, I'm not sure why you feel the need to "explain a little bit about Christianity" to me, but I'll tell you now that it's not necessary. Why you assume I'm a religionless heathen is beyond me -- I was raised Southern Baptist.  Does that shock you?  Second, whether he was a religious leader in Korea is irrelevant. He is one now. That makes his actions -- past and present -- subject to more scrutiny. Please stop demagoguing now. We're all talking nicely for the moment, so let's not turn it into another flamefest please.  I'll ask again -- has he ever talked about it? &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 17:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "I was raised Southern Baptist." So was Bill Clinton.
 * But I don't care what your religious background is. It makes ZERO difference to me and I'm sorry if you interpreted my comments as such. They were not intended to be.
 * To answer your question - "Has he ever talked about it?" No. Never. End of story. It's a A FIFTY YEAR OLD slime. Let it go... Big Daddy 17:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Really? You must've cared a little bit, if you wanted to "explain a little bit about Christianity" to me. Maybe you just misspoke. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 17:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Please...just let it go. Big Daddy 17:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, if he hasn't talked about it, that idea is bust. Mark me down as neutral. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 17:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Does a failure to have a he-said-she-said mean that factual statments (So and so testified X in a deposition) get removed from an article? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No, not necessarily. I'm just not sure yet how I feel about the importance of the info. Need to think on it a bit more and maybe see how other folks feel. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 18:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Delete unless the libel suit was based in part on the allegation. The comment is a tangent otherwise. Note that the fact this alleged behaviour occured in the 50s before he was a Christain has nothing to do with my vote. The information is relevant in-itself and I'd support re-inserting above under military service, for instance, if someone proves "The Taking of Hill 610 And Other Essays on Friendship" is a notable book. Marskell 18:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe my proposed change (below) addresses the reason the allegation is in the Korean section. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Delete. If as a soldier in the 1950s he frequented prostitutes, that is not exactly remarkable. We do not routinely put information like that in articles about men who were soldiers. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Korean War Libel Suit - needs copyediting, more work, check for accidental copyvios on my part.

In the late 1980s, Pat Robertson sued Congressman Pete McCloskey and Representative Andy Jacobs for libel. McCloskey, who served with Robertson in Korea, made claims that Robertson was spared combat duty when his powerful father intervened on his behalf. Jacobs repeated these statements publicly. In pre-trial depositions Paul Brosman, Jr., another veteran who had served with Robertson accused him of carousing with prostitutes and sexually harassing a cleaning girl. The trial found letters from Robertson's father on Senate stationary to Marine officials expressing concern with Robertson's training to be a combat officer.

Additionally, Robertson admitted he hired John Hasbrouck to interview McCloskey. Hasbrouck represented himself as a reporter for "Worldwide News Service," and interviewed McCloskey. Robertson admitted in a deposition that he told Hasbrouck what questions to ask and reviewed the hour-long tape before deciding to sue McCloskey.

Robertson ended the lawsuit before trial, asserting that the March 8 trial date, the day of the "Super Tuesday" primaries, was too inconvenient. The court ordered that Robertson pay a percentage of McCloskey's court costs, but not legal fees.


 * Again:


 * "In pre-trial depositions Paul Brosman, Jr., another veteran who had served with Robertson accused him of carousing with prostitutes and sexually harassing a cleaning girl."


 * "As a further result of this case, reporters dug deeper into Robertson's past. They found that he had claimed his IQ at various times as 159, 139 and 137. In a book he wrote, he described himself as a "Yale-educated tax lawyer," though he had not passed the bar. He claimed he was on a board of directors of a bank, when he was only actually on an advisory board. Claims of graduate study only turned out to be a summer introductory course."


 * Are tangential to the section in question. Brosman "accused him..."; no, he "testified that..." Lot's of things are testified to in civil suits. I'm not saying this information is irrelevant, just that it shouldn't arrive apropos of nothing. Marskell 18:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * (please note that I am still editing the passage, and welcome others to do so as well). The accusation that I am still trying to source is that he dropped the suit when it became embarassing. I will find that source shortly. Whoever removed the reporters bit was correct -that's material for elsewhere. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Robertson responded to the charge on 10/28/87 - the LA Times wrote - Robertson claimed that the allegations were "an attack by liberals to discredit me." Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Given this, I will move the prostitutes thing and the Robertson response to the part about the rest of said charges higher up in the article, and insert the above libel suit stuff in place of the current libel suit. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Hugo
I believe I fixed the problems with the Korean War. Moving on to Hugo:


 * Not so fast there...


 * If the Wik standard is:


 * 1) Present a tangential and irrelevant smear just to embarass a guy.


 * 2) Allow him to respond by saying "It's just my political enemies."


 * Then Wik would become no more reliable a repository of useful information than a prosecuting attorney asking a defendant 'When did you stop beating your wife?'


 * I'll hold my fire for now because, sad as it may be, this seems to be the way the current crop of editors interpret fair and balanced.


 * But, I disagree that the problem is fixed and I vehemently disagree with your entire approach to this matter - Unilateral and defiant multiple-reverting of my edits, falsely claiming a consensus only to be proven wrong, still using the material, but in a different section, etc. So long as this slur remains in the article, I will feel the liberty to use it as a model for dredging up decades old slurs from 'notable sources' about people like John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Jon Stewart and Al Franken so as to include them in their  articles  (being sure, of course, to include the obligatory "It's just my political enemies" denial so as to be fair. It's not what I think we should do, but this appears to be the prevailing approach. Big Daddy 20:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

This section is way to long, and is a perfect example of Recentism. Suggestions? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 19:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I boldly edited the section down to reasonable size. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 19:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * First, I support removing war record out of controversy and incorporating into military service which already existed.
 * I'm still ambivalent, however, about the prostitute thing. I know BigD comes up with a lot of bull (hey sorry, I do mean it companionably) but I actually understand his comparison to 'When did you stop beating your wife?'. Easy, easy, easy to say he slept with prostitutes thirty years later, and as I say lots of things get testified to in civil court. I'd still rather quote the book if its notability and professionalism can be asserted.
 * If by a perfect example of Recentism you're talking about Hugo Chavez, MPS and I devised that page precisely with this section in mind! Yes, over-blown. Stick to gov't quotes as much as possible and don't use more than three or four. I'll look again myself tomorrow (incidentally, kudos on the work Hipocrite but one to many edits to log back through now). Marskell 23:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I apologize for scratched comment. Marskell 08:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Now, that's a decent Wikipedian. Big Daddy 08:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I notice the Hugo bit actually was trimmed. Seems fair. We don't need a thousand and one sound bites. Marskell 06:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Prostitution, again
If you can find a reputable source saying everyone frequented prostitutes, please feel free to insert it. Robertson's comment about attack by liberals refers to the prostitution bit, so please make sure that any removal of text regarding the prostituion bit also removes that comment. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 05:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Katherine Moon documents that U.S. military use of prostitutes in Korea was extensive enough to be economically significant: she cites the SOFA Joint Committee Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Civil-Military Relations saying of the draw-down of U.S. troops in the 1970s "&hellip;base closures and restationing of U.S. Forces resulted in widespread dislocations among Koreans living in villages adjacent to U.S. bases . . . and resulted in increased competition among bar owners, "business girls," and merchants." She also cites a Stars and Stripes article as indicating that "the village of Yongjugol&hellip; in the summer of 1970 had 'boasted a total of over 2,200 "entertainers" who catered to the needs and wants of about 18,000 soldiers from the 2nd Inf. Div. and other units in the area&hellip;'" Consider that ratio. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

More unsourced nastiness
"Allegations have arisen that he was pressured to fail the bar exam due to his unethical conduct in the military as well as a more recent illegal abortion he had for his then girlfriend Helga Williams." Allegations don't "arise" all on their own. Unless this gets a clear citation, it should be removed. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Quotes
I removed the quotes section -- one of them was already placed in its proper context earlier in the article and the other one was just intended to be nasty. It's really not fair to cherry pick quotes designed to make the man look like a monster; there's just no way to have an NPOV quotes section. It's best left to wikiquote. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 22:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Kate, the quote that you removed that you described as "just intended to be nasty" was "[Y]ou're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists . . . Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don't have to be nice to them."

What do you mean by "just intended to be nasty"? Do you mean that Robertson was intending to be nasty? If so, I don't see that as a good reason to remove the quote. If you mean that the wikipedia editor who added the quote was intending to be nasty, I'm just not sure what you mean. How can it be "nasty" to simply quote the exact words that the subject of the article uttered? If there's anything nasty about the quote, the nastiness falls on Robertson's head. In what context can what he said be considered un-nasty? Or are we to sweep his nastiness under the rug because he's a "member of the clergy"?--Dickius 13:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * At its most basic, a cherry-picked "list of quotes," in any article, is just not a good idea. Anybody can pick a quote, potentially out of context, and present it as if to pass judgment on the person (whether pro or con). That is what Wikiquote is for -- you can link to the person's wikiquote page, where a myriad of quotes can be deposited for anyone to see. It removes the potential for cherry-picking quotes that can serve to unbalance the article as a whole. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 14:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not quite so opposed to a quotes sections. Quotes that are a summative example of a person's worldview or self-definition certainly have a place. In this case, I agree with the removal because the quotes didn't meet either criterion. I added the quotes to Karl Popper—a different man to be sure, but there you'll find examples of what I consider appropriate. Marskell 16:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

"Claims of end of days" section
How is Robertson's recent, rather non-committal statement that certain events might be signs of the End Times but he really doesn't know worthy of a section in an encyclopedia article? Anyone who believes in the Second Coming could say such a thing: it might be soon, we don't know. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No one is responding, I am cutting it. FWIW, here is the cut text. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * On October 10, 2005 Robertson claimed recent natural disasters (Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Rita, Hurricane Stan and the Kashmir Earthquake) around the globe could point to the end of the world and the imminent return of Jesus Christ.


 * Robertson said in an interview with CNN, "It's possible. I don't have any special revelation to say it is, but the Bible does indicate such a time will happen in the end of time. And could this be it? It might be."

[End cut material]

Recent removals
The following passages were recently removed from the article:

"Allegations have arisen that he was pressured to fail the bar exam due to his unethical conduct in the military as well as a more recent illegal abortion he had for his then girlfriend Helga Williams."

I think we are just as well off without that, especially with the unsources "allegations".

Further down, after the mention of Operation Blessing International:

"His critics, such as Palast, claim the money was actually spent to bring heavy equipment for Robertson's African Development Corporation, a diamond mining operation. He has purchased thoroughbred race horses, although he has stated on many occasions he is opposed to gambling. Robertson claims he bought the horses because he is 'amazed by their athleticism'."

I am not sure why this was removed. I would tend to restore it, though I certainly won't do so without discussion. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I put it back it.--The Grza 06:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

ACLJ description
The description of the ACLJ as representing "people of faith" implies that it has legally represented people of non-Christian faiths before and I yet to find any case in which it has. Unless someone can cite an example of where it has legally represented believers of non-Christian faiths before (i.e. Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Etc.) then the description should specifically mention that they represent Christians, not all people of faith. --Cab88 00:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Unsourced quote
I've removed the following passage from "Message to Dover, PA":


 * Robertson clarified his comments with another inflammatory remark about Dover:
 * "God is tolerant and loving, but we can't keep sticking our finger in his eye forever. If they have future problems in Dover, I recommend they call on Charles Darwin. Maybe he can help them."

The Yahoo article that claimed to be the source of this quote does not actually include it. Until we've got a source, this needs to stay off the article page.--chris.lawson 18:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Source found, passage re-inserted into article.--chris.lawson 19:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

So-called "POV category"
People keep deleting the category LGBT rights opposition from the categories section, with edit summaries similar to "rm POV category". The inclusion of Robertson in this category is not POV; Robertson himself has stated many times that he opposes homosexuality, and there's a whole section of the article dedicated to these views. Continued removal of this category will be construed as vandalism and reported as such. If the category offends other editors' NPOV sensibilities, please nominate it for deletion, but do not single out this article as a target for your policy complaints. See also WP:POINT.--chris.lawson 18:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * A category is not a "policy", and your accusation of vandalism is completely without merit. The existance of a category is not a license to violate basic Wikipedia rules (WP:NPOV). Mirror Vax 18:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * As I said, if you have a problem with the category, nominate it for deletion. Do not disrupt this page to make a point.--chris.lawson 18:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You have an odd view of what is "disruptive". Making a minor edit to a single article is not very disruptive, even if you think it's a bad edit. Deleting a category is VERY disruptive, unless the category is empty. Mirror Vax 19:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * As you yourself just admitted: "Making a minor edit to a single article is not very disruptive" (emphasis mine), but it is disruptive. WP:POINT makes no distinction among levels of disruption. The policy is not "Do not disrupt Wikipedia much to make a point." The policy is "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point." Period. Full stop. If you truly believe the category is hopelessly POV, nominating it for deletion is not disruptive. Rather, it would be productive, because a community consensus would result from the discussion.


 * Why, pray tell, do you find it so incredibly POV that Pat Robertson should be included in this category, while you put up no fight at all to keep folks such as George W. Bush, Jesse Helms, Ralph Reed, or James Dobson out of it? All four of them are vehemently anti-homosexual, as is Pat Robertson.--chris.lawson 19:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * A good edit is not disruptive. I believe my edits are good edits (a point which I thought was too obvious to mention, but I guess I have to since you insist on assuming bad faith). As for whether those other people belong in the category, I haven't given it any thought. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. Why do I have to have an opinion about unrelated articles? There's a lot of nonsense in Wikipedia - does the fact that we can't fix everything all at once prohibit us from fixing one thing? Mirror Vax 22:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Please explain how removing this category from this page is a "good edit."--chris.lawson 22:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV. Mirror Vax 22:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Stop being obtuse. How does the inclusion of the category here violate that policy?--chris.lawson 23:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If you can't see why it isn't neutral, try considering something analogous from the other political side. How does Category:Family values opposition strike you? Neutral? Fair? Mirror Vax 23:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "Family values" is an ambiguous phrase used by the right as a euphemism for "gay people and single mothers are inferior individuals". "LGBT rights" is neutral language. And one more time: if you have a problem with the category, this page is not the place to have that argument. Make that argument on the CfD nomination.--chris.lawson 23:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, at least it's clear now that you can't seperate your politics from the goals of Wikipedia. I suggest you refrain from editing politically-charged articles. And one last time, I am not talking about the category in the abstract, but applied to this article. There may be valid uses for the category. I don't know. Mirror Vax 23:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, at least it's clear now that you can't separate your politics from the goals of Wikipedia. I suggest you refrain from editing politically-charged articles. Do you dispute the fact that Robertson opposes homosexuals being granted the same rights as heterosexuals?--chris.lawson 23:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, that isn't remotely fair or accurate. Like many traditional religious types, Robertson regards homosexuality as wicked. His positions follow logically from that. Mirror Vax 00:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

General Overview
I think this is one of wikipedia's weaker articles by far. Far too much is devoted to the modern controvercies attatched to his name, and not enough information is devoted biographically and politically. The Chavez section alone rivals most of the article's main information, which I think is overall an unhealthy sign. I think by the inclusion of such overwhelming amount of "controversies" within the article there is a strong POV. Granted, Mr. Robertson is a very controversial figure, but ideally there should be an academic responsibility to establish more information about the man as opposed to merely his effect upon popular culture at large. It definately needs to be cleaned up and expanded. I would suggest trying to merge the numerous controversy categories. Quite frankly, it looks pretty silly when they outnumber the biographical categories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.15.240.144 (talk • contribs)
 * Suffice it to say, I don't think this is one of wikipedia weaker articles. I have suggested in the past that we could create a controversies stemming from Pat Robertson's comments article but nobody agreed with me. I think that it is generally agreed that Pat Robertson makes controversial statements, and it makes sense to me that chronicling these statements would be within the scope of an encyclopedia. MPS 16:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I would tend to agree MPS with the idea of a separate article for the controversial statements. I do agree they should be included in the encyclopedia. My only point is that it tends to dilute the article as a biographical medium by posting them jointly. Quite honestly, if this were the norm for articles on controversial public figures, a similar fifty percent of content would be devoted to modern controversy. I would agree with making two different articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.15.241.4 (talk • contribs)
 * Please sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ) . Better yet, get an account MPS 17:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

yeah, this whole article is just outright annoying and was originally written and edited by a Pat Robertson Hating Liberalist that is biased on his own thinking... i'm tired of hearing that Robertson is biased and and everything else that the controversial section proposes. That is what the whole article about.... only 1/8 of it is actually is bibliography... and it fails to include many of his accomplishes with depth, unlike all of the mistakes he's made that are pin pointed and attacked... doesn't everyone sin and make mistakes... how would you like it if i made an article with the whole focus on everything that you have ever done wrong your entire life? this makes me sick.It's time for our country to take a stand for Christianity, and Robertson is one of the only people willing to start this Restoration Period, and because of that he gets shot down and ridiculed by everyone in his pathway. Think of all of the people that are actually threats to this nation... people care more about getting rid of those trying to help... and not those trying to hurt. Robertson is simply obeying God, His commandments and Will, and refuses to back down from His beliefs. See, i guess CHristianity in itself if a controversy to the Satan-owned world. SO yes, he does cause controversy, but it is needed, and its time for other faith based Christians to stand in unison as he is to bring this nation back to its foundation. There is NO WAY that anyone can deny the reason and faith of the founders and their reason for creating America in the first place and we have completely thrown that out. So now Roberston is simply restoring it. ChristinaAnn 02:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Roy Gene to Everyone
Does not every major leader deserve a fair and unopinionated report? I do not understand people sometimes! Besides whether or not Pat is being slimed, why would he have to be slimed? This isn't a political activist site! This isn't a anti-Christian, atheistic, ACLU opinion site! Nor is a pro-Christian, ACLJ, evangelistic site! For the love of the Almighty this is an encyclopedia! This is exactly what happens when you let the everyday person write in something like this: they can't help but slip in their own personal views.

You people need to realize that people use this web encyclopedia as a source of information. Therefore, should not the information that these people get be fair and unopinionated? Nor either for or against the topic in question?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.81.40 (talk • contribs)
 * Check out Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Most people agree with you that this article should be NPOV. What we may not agree on is how to accomplsih this. MPS 18:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Please sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ) . Better yet, get an account MPS 17:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

There must be a way to better integrate the controversies
A laundry list of controversies makes a bad article. How can we better tame the anecdotal format of this article? Lotsofissues 09:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've suggested several times that if someone is interested in doing the research on his actual theology, it would be an excellent and presumably uncontroversial addition to the article. But I take it that your point is less one of accing non-controversial material than of somehow dealing with the controversies less polemically? That's a tough one, because he simply is an enormously controversial figure. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think by adding more positive and neutral information, such as what Jmabel suggested, is the best way to go. When I added the section on his family and salvation experience it did soften the article somewhat. I'd do the research and add the information but I have other commitments. As long as he keeps producing controversial sound bites it's going to be a very difficult balancing act. -JCarriker 07:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Net worth
"Robertson's net worth is between $200 million and $1 billion USD according to the 2002 book The Best Democracy Money Can Buy by Greg Palast. "

While I concede it might be interesting to have Robertson's net worth notated in the article. This source was a work produced by a well-known left-wing author. I think we can all agree that in order to maintain a NPOV we should refrain from citing Left & Right POVs.

Tindy 18:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The issue isn't the source's politics, it is the source's accuracy with facts. Do you have any reason to doubt that? If so, please present it. But (just for two U.S. examples) The Nation on the left and the Wall Street Journal on the right both have excellent reputations for reportorial accuracy. I'd consider them both very credible sources on factual matters. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * While I agree with you that the Wall Street Journal is a credible resource I fail to see how comparing a reputable Newspaper with a slight RPOV with a non-reputable author with a hard LPOV. If we can cite Greg Palast's works on Mr. Robertson we can cite his works surrounding the 2004 election in which he so clearly explains that Kerry truly won the election. I think we can all agree that there is some controversy surrounding the 2000 and 2004 elections but these controversies are sparked by the extreme LPOV. Since Greg Palast represents the extreme LPOV I think we should cease to cite his articles in a section. I am not trying to inject my POV. I am trying to maintain a NPOV. I do not agree with citing Ann Coulter on issues surrounding Bill Clinton in the same way that I do not agree with citing Greg Palast on issues surrounding Pat Roberston. Citing either of these authors would be neglecting Wikipedia's goal of attaining NPOV. Tindy 14:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Attempt to Minimize Achievement
when reading Mr. Robertson's Education & Military service I noticed that while he did receive a Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from Yale University Law School he was unable to pass the bar. Implication: he must not be as smart as we thought!

We make this assessment by converse error.

All lawyers went to law school All lawyers passed the bar exam

Therefore everyone that went to law school passed the bar exam. CONVERSE ERROR!

Wouldn't it be more relevant to the reader if rather than listing things that he has been unable to do (such as: becoming the pope, join a Swedish volleyball team, become a millionaire on "Who' wants to be a Millionaire"), we listed the things he has accomplished? Is it important for the reader to know that he was unable to pass the bar exam or does it satisfy some Na-na-na-boo-boo need in the author to explicitly show Mr. Robertson's apparent incompetence in passing the bar?

Tindy 19:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Regarding your removal of the Brosman, Jr. allegation and the quote from Robertson, both have sources and have previously been argued about on the talk page, and the community has come to a consensus, that these belong and that they do have validity. The accusations are listed as accusations and the facts as facts.


 * Similarly, regarding his net worth, this is a citation of fact that isn't under dispute. The politics regarding the book itself can be questioned all day long, but unless you have some reason to doubt the veracity of the claim, it should stay in the article.


 * On a final note, the fact that he graduated from law school but failed to pass the bar exam is of some note. Few professions require licensing as strict as in the legal arena, where expending the education you paid so dearly for is conditioned entirely upon such a test.  Failure is significant, as well as the fact that he decided not to continue to pursue it, not least because without this citation it appears as though he is a licensed lawyer. --The Grza  06:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Who came to this consensus? I'm kind of new to editing on Wikipedia. I would like to know how a "consensus" is met and who can use a "consensus" as an argument backing up their claims.


 * 2) I thought I just disputed the figure. I do not claim to know what his net worth is but I would rather have no information in the article than incorrect information. Until an estimation of his net worth can be attain from a reputable source, this should be ommitted. The logic of leaving something in the article unless you have a reason why it is incorrect is the biggest problem with wikipedia today. We should be more critical of the content in wikipedia. Things should only be in wikipedia if there is a reason to why it is CORRECT. Continuing to operate this way will only diminish the project's accuracy.


 * 3) Failure is dependent upon some action being unsuccessfully attempted. Is there any evidence that he even attempted to take the bar exam? If not, then this statement is not accurate and your points are mute. Until you can come up with evidence that he attempted to take the bar exam I will remove this entry. This clause: "but was unable to pass the bar exam" seems to have been artificially injected in order to dampen is accomplishment of attaining a degree from Yale Law School.


 * 4) If you are defending the clause because it might provide the reader insight as to why he is not a lawyer today: how are we to ascertain Mr. Roberston's reasons for moving on to theology. Implying that we do is inheritly false unless backed up with fact. The facts are: ...he graduated from Yale Law School in 1955 and he went on to earn a Master of Divinity degree from New York Theological Seminary in 1959.

Tindy 15:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

removed section: robertson calls criticism of Iraq war "treason"
I removed this section because it isn't important to the article. First, it is a mere quote. In an encyclopedia, events should be described briefly and with context, both of which quotations aren't very good at. Second, the additions reflect an anti-Robertson point of view. Posting multiple quotes from sources that oppose Robertson, such as this from mediamatters.org, without any balance, gives the article an anti-Robertson point of view - almost making it an extension of mediamatters.org. Wikipedia is not a propoganda machine.--DDerby- (talk) 08:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Tons of quotes by Media Matters for America is not POV. Just because they have truthful stories that do not flatter him, does not make the article POV; it just means that Roberson is a pathetic individual. In this particular case, though, I agree that the quote is not critical to the article, as there are tons of controversial (read that to mean idiotic) quotes that he has made. It is not pratctical to list them all. Only the ones that have generated the most outrage should be listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asbl (talk • contribs) 21 Dec 2005

Bar exam
No one seems to have a citation for his having taken and failed the bar exam. Twice now, someone has removed my fact request for a citation from the article. If no citation is forthcoming, this claim should be removed. It's perfectly possible, but given his otherwise strong academic record, lacking citation it seems equally possible that he had already decided not to pursue a career in law and never took the exam. I honestly have no idea, but if it's true it should be possible to cite it. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Typing Pat Robertson "bar exam" into Google yields 20000 hits. All of the ones I checked confirm that he failed the exam. Of course several of those web pages are of dubious value, but  looks fairly good and cites a paper source (the 5/25/92 issue of Christian News -- can anyone confirm this?). --Stephan Schulz 09:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Disney Correction
The article says "This incident was perhaps the best known of Robertson's nearly continual demands that government comply with his interpretation of biblical law.", regarding his disapproval of gay celebration at Disney. Since Disney is not a government entity, this sentence is factually incorrect, and I am removing it. Vonspringer 05:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Embarrassment
This man is an embarrassment to and the nadir of all that the Western civilazation stands for. *shakes head* Project2501a 19:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

once again...
The controversies is getting overloaded with tangents. I removed termites and aliens and I'd please ask that we set a high bar for inclusion on his quotes. Marskell 18:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Some believe...
IMHO this guy is bat fuck insane, which makes the statement "Some believe Pat Roberson to be bat fuck insane" factual. Being bold, I guess that means I can add it. ;) - Noclip 02:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Copied
Who ever made this page did a really good job of copying and pasting. Most of the article has been copied verbatim from his personal page. Good job wikipedia people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.160.106.110 (talk • contribs) 24 Jan 2006


 * I don't think that is true at all, but can you give an example of anything (other than a quotation) that is copied verbatim? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Pat making a killing?
Someone should include a section on all his profitable ventures, including that one with his diet shakes. It seems to me that all his money laundering schemes are spread thinly over the article that an average reader might mistake him for an honest not for profit Christian evangelist. Furthermore, to all the editors who watch the article and discussion pages, does anyone actually like this guy? --Hurricane Angel 02:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Robertson Condemns Alien enthusiasts to Death.
It could be that my last edit was "just a quote." I can accept that. But...

A TV Evangelist with political ties and a nationwide forum has advocated death by bludgeoning. The heinous crime that this punishment is issued for is liking Aliens.

Robertson's logic is that Aliens are demons and if you like a demon they can haul you off and smash your head in with a rock.

How does he know that Aliens are demons? He said its all laid out in Deuteronomy. He is sincerely advocating Capitol Punishment over an article of his faith.

I think this is highly relevant. Its an important aspect of the mans controversial nature.

Would someone please write this better than I and add it the Controversies section. Billyjoekoepsel 20:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I presume you are saying that he is advocating capital punishment, not the Megadeath album you linked to. - Jmabel | Talk 05:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Nah. It's the Megadeth album. --DanielCD 14:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * New frontiers in Christian metal? - Jmabel | Talk 05:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Nah. That was a bad joke. sry. I actually have no clue. --DanielCD 05:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * But it was funny while it lasted. --DanielCD 05:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

So-called educational controversies
Does anyone care about these self-aggradizing statements? Why is it wedged among national headline controversies? Anyone else support junking the trivial stuff? Lotsofissues 10:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed judicial activism and 9/11
In a search of 700+ US newspapers via Newsbank, in a 4 day period after show, about 25 articles containing the query "Pat Robertson" were found. Most were brief articles quoting some comments he made on that show. But most did not focus on his 9/11 comments, rather his qualified praise of Guilani and his warning against Muslim judges. The articles were too brief to contain quotes from groups condemning him. It was too trivial of a matter for a response. There is no controversy--including his quotes would just be filler.

Lotsofissues 10:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Let's not clutter up the articles with trivial stuff. If it were important, it would be in the main press. But there's so little substance here that to mention it would cause more confusion than anything. --DanielCD 00:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

POV
Whoever keeps placing the POV tag... There's no point in placing it unless you give a reason here. Otherwise no one has any idea what you are referring to. --DanielCD 00:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Who's writing this
I suppose the world just hates televangelists, now? It would really be great if a neutral party could write. I'm really looking for his beliefs and not his stock portfolio.. This is nothing but political banter! 3-28-03 b.Ag 207.10.54.33 09:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That's exactly it, it's because we don't like televangelists. Not because Pat Robertson is a piece of crap of a human being. --Hurricane Angel 17:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Robertson combines politics and religion. Naturally article has to treat the two together. If the Pope appeared on television urging divine intervention in policial matters then we'd spend more time in that article on politics too. I'd also guess that we spend more time on politics than theology because Robertson's political beliefs are more unusual than his religious beliefs. -Will Beback 21:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It would help if you guys gave some specific criticism rather than just bashing the man. If there's something you feel is POV, you need to work on it or point it out so someone will see the specific issue you are referring to. Generalities don't help much in improving articles like this. And pejorative comments help even less. Pat Robertson himself would acknowledge that there isn't any strong line between politics and religion, so I fail to see anything constructive here. --DanielCD 21:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

"Personal wealth" section
The "Personal Wealth" section has a few areas I think need clearing up or possible varification.
 * The statement "He is the nation's number three cable operator, behind Ted Turner and HBO." is confusing. What exactly is meant by "cable operator"? Does it refer to cable TV networks? If so, that should be made clear.
 * The statement "Politicians know him as the head of the 1.7 million member Christian Coalition, widely considered to be the most powerful lobbying group in the United States." presents a few problems. It isn't just polititions who know him as the head of Christian Coalition. Is the CC really "widely considered to be the most powerful lobbying group in the United States" or simply one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the United States? Some cites for this claim would be nice. --Cab88 20:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Difficult to write about Pat Robertson
i think it is very difficult to write about pat robertson without making him look like an idiot. if you write the facts, it seems like you are slamming him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.106.140.254 (talk • contribs) 4 April 2006.


 * Beliefs are hard to describe neutrally, whereas stock and ratings are pre-quantified, easy-to-cite information. His politics stand as a matter of public record, but the interpretation of those actions is, um, somewhat varied. To summarize: He believes that Christian ideology should dominate in American politics, that the Rapture is near, and Jesus is the Final Judge of all our actions. He believes gays; non-Baptists and "liberals" (whatever this means nowadays) are all going to Hell. In short, he fits the description of a high-profile Fundamentalist Christian Dominionist with access to significant political and social influence. Beyond that, everything's partisan.
 * My personal opinion is that he's a threat to the national security of America, as he portrays a national school curriculum of hard sciences and math as "secularist". If we're to preserve America's wealth, as well as it generally peaceful role as global hegemon, such skills will be indispensable, while knowledge of how to "pray really hard" will be a inexcusable waste of time and resources. However, since at least several dozen million Americans put value in his words, I guess our decline as a world superpower will be our own fault. Anyway, would that be considered bashing, or criticism? OParker 04:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review in Progress
There is a peer review of the Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy underway which is seeking reviewers. If you would like to, please visit the page and leave your comments. We would be appreciative. Kyaa the Catlord 16:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

References Biased
Reference 6 ( http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050919/blumenthal )is clearly a biased page.

The page says "Robertson pocketed [..] Government grants for Operation Blessing" giving the indication that Robertson was the beneficiary and not the charitable organisation. There are many other examples of that.

If the references are biased, and the Wiki uses the references to support it's claims, then the Wiki is biased.


 * I agree that this article is highly biased. I don’t like Pat Robertson at all, in fact I think he’s a jack ass. But really, the way this article presents the facts are very biased. Jake b 05:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is NOT a biased article, this is who Pat Robertson is. He has participated in much disreputable business, religious and political deals and that should be reflected in the biography.  It is in fact the basis of his entire career and success.  This is who Pat is. (Anonymous User) May 24, 2006

Baptist
Since the article clearly states that Robertson no longer identifies as a Baptist, can we remove that label? StaticElectric 19:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Fascist
Whatever one's view of Pat Robertson's political outlook, the fact that the first sentence of this article says that he is a fascist is unacceptable, it seems to me. User:Josephx23 12:01 AM, 24 October 2006