Talk:Pat Robertson/Archive 1

message: It's sad to see that people can't put aside their personal hatred of someone and just write about the facts. This article on Robertson is amazingly biased, that in order to edit it in a fair, impartial manner, the whole article would have to be re-written.
This type of writing is what can make this 'encyclopedia' so non-credible.
: I do happen to agree with this anon editor, even though I don't happen to favor Robertson. Anyone out here that knows a bit about him willing to work on the article? I'll stick around and try to make sure it stays NPOV, but this may require a bit of work, and definetly someone who knows Pat more than I do. Lyellin 14:37, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)
::I agree it's a disgrace and an embarassement to wikipedia. Unfortunately, i don't know enough about him either. I think that I may know of a wikipedian, who can present releiable opposing views.
-JCarriker 15:49, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
I concur with JCarriker, and I'm pretty far left politically. It's not that individual sentences are POV, it's the overall selection of what material to cover. I'm trying to work to make it more evenhanded, but I know relatively little about the subject.
Assuming intellectual honesty on the part of whoever has contributed to this, let me focus for the moment on one paragraph:
: In the late 1980s, Pat Robertson was involved in a libel lawsuit with Congressman Pete McCloskey, who served with Robertson in Korea; McCloskey and other veterans had accused Robertson of having had his father pull strings to keep him from the front lines, as well as carousing with prostitutes and hassling Korean women.
* "was involved in a libel lawsuit with..." Precisely who sued whom?
* In what forum were McCloskey et. al.'s allegations made? Given that it was libel rather than slander, I assume they were published somewhere.
* What was the outcome of the suit? Did it ever reach a courtroom? Was it settled? Did McCloskey withdraw his remarks or stand by them? If (as I suspect) the suit was thrown out on the basis of the very limited protection of public figures from libel in the U.S., was there ever any legal ruling on the merits of the case?
* Where is a citation for this? Is this Palast again, or another source?
Jmabel 16:55, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
Also, could someone clarify: we say "However, he did win the Washington state Republican primary, though he failed to receive the party nomination." Is this saying that there was some nomination specific to Washington state that he did not get despite winning that states primary? If not (and I think not), the last phrase is completely redundant, since we've already said he didn't make it past primary season. -- Jmabel 17:06, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
Not one-sided at all. We don't need racist thoughts on Wikipedia
--Arbiteroftruth 07:01, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The article now is pretty balanced, but if you take a look at the version as it was on Aug 2 when these remarks were first being made, it was more of a hatchet job. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:37, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
I cleaned up and clarified some of the portions detailing his short-lived political career. Again, there were gratiutious cheap shots at almost every turn.
ps I know A LOT about Robertson. (At least his career in the 70's and 80's, I've kind of lost track of him lately.) I'll try and contribute when I have some time.
Big Daddy 16:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very One Sided 

message: Hey all - trying to get this page out of cleanup, where it's taken up semi-permanent residence.  Did a lot of NPOV work, reorganized all of controversies under one heading with bulleted sub-controversies.  Tried to take into account the problems that have been discussed here, feel free to contact me about them on my talk page.  This stil needs some work, but its not embarassingly POV anymore.  NiceGuyJoey 20:20, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
Unless it's been substantively changed since you posted this, is is still indeed EMBARASSINGLY  POV.
Look, I know most wik's are liberals and I know liberals HATE Pat Robertson with ALL THEIR HEARTS if for no other reason than he's a rich, powerful white man who has led thousands of people into born again Christianity. 
I mean, for a liberal, what's NOT to hate? lol!
Seriously though, try to remember, this is an encyclopedia, not the bulletin board of your local ACLU chapter's website.
I added a  piece detailng  some of the good things Robertson's many charities do.
I hope you can find it in your hearts to shoehorn this possibility into your world view.
It's in the 'Attacking Gays' or something section right after you trashed him for his interesting views on natural disasters.
Here it is: 
However, Robertson's charitable outreach program 'Operation Blessing'
has always been there to support, comfort and provide material sustenance to victims of natural disasters such as hurricanes.
For example, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Operation Blessing ministers were on the scene distributing food, water, cooking equipment, cleaning kits, and  disaster supplies to key staging areas in Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana in addition to giving grants to help area organizations purchase food, cots, blankets, and other necessities.
Big Daddy 15:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Overhaul of page 

message: "Robertson's support of former Liberian president Charles Taylor. In various episodes of his 700 Club program during the United States' involvement in the Liberian Civil War in June and July of 2003"
The wiki page for the Liberian civil war dates it from 1989 to 1996, not 2003. Maybe this should be corrected?
----
I removed this section from the article on account of the fact that the incident is mentioned further on. If you want to re-insert or do sometbing else with it, feel free.
On August 22, 2005, Robertson, speaking on his Christian Broadcast Network (CBN), stated that America should assasinate the democratically elected leader of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez.  Robertson said that Chavez was a threat to America and it would be cheaper to assasinate him than to fight a $200 billion war against Venezuela.  If this were to happen, Robertson said that there shouldn't be any disruption in the oil supply from Venezuela to the United States.  Robertson summed it up by saying assasination was the "Christian thing to do".
Alr 00:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting information 

message: The external links have really gotten out of balance. It's running about 8-2 anti-Robertson. This needs to be redressed. None of the anti-Robertson stuff is wildly inappropriate (I'd still like to remove the "I Hate Pat Robertson" blog, but it seems that every time I do, someone re-adds it, and no one else seems to want to delete it, so I won't edit against apparent consensus), so the way to get balance is to add more pro-Robertson links. Any suggestions? I don't spend a lot of time browsing the Right Side of the Web. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:56, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
:I agree with the deletion of the "I hate Pat Robertson" blog, but the 8-2 thing doesn't bother me.  An article on Stalin wouldn't be required to be 50% pro / 50% con, and Robertson is seen as a pretty negative figure outside of the Religious Right. The imbalance is unsurprising. — ceejayoz ★ 20:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links out of balance 

message: Look, I don't like Pat Robertson any more than any of you, but... "scumbag" freely littering the article? Very one-sided, and the entire article probably needs to be re-written.  
:I agree.  It hardly seems fair to leave in "scumbag" and not include "asshole," "douche," "motherfucker," "shithead," "cocksucker", and "God-fearing Jesus monkey."  --Pull My Finger 01:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insults?? Major overhaul needed. 

message: http://www.thebscorner.com/archives/PatRobertson.jpg
Big Daddy 16:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  better pic? 

message: Are a televangelist's psychotic ramblings really deserving of main page exposure? Just sayin'. Tronno 00:15, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
:Sure. Crazy people make the news all the time. The furor over this is pretty notable. ~~ N (t/c) 01:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robertson on the Wiki main page 

message: President Hugo Chavez is a former lieutenant colonel who won the presidential election of Venezuela on December 6, 1998 by the largest percent of voters (56.2%) in four decades, running on an anti-corruption and anti-poverty platform, and condemning the two major parties that had dominated Venezuelan politics since 1958. He also defeated a recall vote in 2004, with a 59.2% majority, under observation of the Carter Center and the Organization of American States, after an unsuccessful coup against him in 2002. President Hugo Chavez maintains that the coup was supported by the United States of America.
: This paragraph does not belong in an article on Pat Robertson. It belongs in an article about Hugo Chavez. --Asbl 05:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur with Asbl. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:24, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
It's actualy very relevent, seeing as how Pat Robinson just called for the assasination of Hugo Chavez.
I also think it is relevant in light of Robinson's comments. Perhaps it can be shortened though to just include the important points, that he was democratically elected several times etc. --Fluxaviator 10:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone have an issue with this paragraph, which Paul August deleted, and which I reinserted, captured from national news ... AP, CNN, etc. ?? =

message: I added the NPOV tag, mainly due to the section about Chavez. I personally agree with the POV expressed in that section, but this is irrelevent -- this article is not to be a rejoinder to Robertsons ravings, but a neutral description of him. Critiquing him is something that should be done in other fora. Once this article has been "neutralized" a bit, the tag will be removed. --Zantastik talk 12:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you here, the last couple sentences don't belong. Is there a way, though, to only apply the tag to that section? It seems to me that having that tag over the enitre article is unnessesary, since it is literally only a few dozen words that need to be changed. --TomaydoDemato 13:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Agreed, this sentence in particular doesn't belong there:
Due to the above statements which have little or no basis in fact (the Jackal has been behind bars for years, and there is no evidence to prove that Chávez tried to gain access to nuclear technology from Iran) Robertson's credibility has reached an all-time low, and his statements are taken with a grain of salt by the vast majority of Americans.
I'll cut it out--that should be enough to remove the tag.  Blueboy96 13:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I had put in a paragraph pointing out Robertson's ties to communists (through his business dealings in China) and extremists (through his business partnership with Al Qaeda-harboring war criminal Charles Taylor) in the Chavez section.  Babajobu removed it, rightly, since it was sarcastic and/or had POV issues.  That said, I think the page does need to reflect that hey, this guy who's accusing someone else of launching communism and extremism has ties to those things that are at least as strong. :)  But... I can't figure out how to make that point in a "factual" and not sarcastic/POV-issues way.  Pat's ties to China and Taylor each have their own section already; do I just have to rely on people to read for comprehension, and put two and two together? --Danbirchall
:It's best to have a source saying such things, instead of drawing the conclusion yourself.  You might read around to see if you notice that connection being made by someone. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:29, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
::Thanks, Katefan0.  The sources exist for the connections (I've linked to them from the China and Taylor sections) but I'll have to see whether anyone in the media is pointing out that particular hypocrisy and quote them. --Danbirchall
:::No problem, for what it was worth!  Glad you asked here; you're learning your way around WP pretty well it seems. Hope you're also having fun in the process. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:37, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
I took out this paragraph:
"The recent generous offer by Chavez of oil to the hurricane ravaged regions of the USA has been a source of much embarassement to Robertson and his followers."
Great encyclopedic entry, huh? lol!
The only people who should be embarassed are the liberal editors of this piece who let this slam shot stay in for however long it did.
ps There are many more corrections to this piece to come including comments by Moehler that he respected Robertson for correcting himself. Or does Wik just want to 'garbage-collect' negative quotations about Robertson and censor anything that's positive? A cursory reading would surely suggest that...
Big Daddy 02:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How/where to contrast Pat's commie/extremist accusation of Chavez, and Pat's own commie/extremist ties? 

message: It is terribly unbalanced to use a word with liar connotations in the title. 
lots of issues  | leave me a message 04:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone reword equivocate to position in the Chinese abortion section? 

message: Could someone able to circumvent "protection" add an interwiki to 
eo:Pat ROBERTSON. Given the journalistic currency of the fellow, there may well be other-language Wikipedias besides Esperanto that have new articles that need links, too. --209.16.182.132 05:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Raul654! - Haruo --209.16.182.132 06:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  add eo: please 

message: This heavily viewed article is in sorry shape.  As always there will be lots of vandalism of a reviled figure but just ban those ppl without warning. 
lots of issues  | leave me a message 16:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. The article  was protected over 12 hrs ago, let's see if things have settled down. But if it's as bad as yesterday,  it'll only get protected again. –Hajor 17:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can the ban be removed?