Talk:Pat Robertson/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hoi I was reading that! 

message: 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)
replies: text: hmm..wikipedia: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)
replies: text: "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)

text: 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)

text: I looked over your edits. You need to adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

text: 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 - «Talk» 22:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

text: 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 - «Talk» 00:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: In discussing his presidential run: "Among his policies, he wanted to ban illegal drugs…" 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)
thread_title:  Vacuous statement 

message: 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. · 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)
thread_title:  Robertson Leaving Christian Coalition 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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…" -- Jmabel | Talk 04:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. I was mistaken. Thanks for pointing out the error. -Willmcw 07:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hurricane Katrina 

message: ...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)
replies: text: I agree.  There's much more scathing criticism that can/could be/is leveled; this just seems like a case of "so what?" · Katefan0(scribble) 05:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because he has done worse things does not mitigate what he did to Boxer (how would you like it if someone attributed to you something you never said?) I would agree with you that this is a non-issue only if he issues a retraction. 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Huh???? The Chinese Abortions story is still there right above the Hugo Chavez story. --Asbl 04:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Barbara Boxer issue... 

message: 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. · Katefan0(scribble) 05:11, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I made the same mistake a few days ago! · Katefan0(scribble) 05:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Degeneres stuff.. 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: I reverted your deletion. This is supposed to be a full biography, not a haiography. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

text: 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 - «Talk» 17:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Such a consensus exists. Poll it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I have done no such thing. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The correct place to report 3rr violations is WP:AN3. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Prostitutes?]] 

message: 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 - «Talk» 05:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 "…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… 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…'" Consider that ratio. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prostitution, again 

message: "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)
thread_title: More unsourced nastiness

message: 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. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. · Katefan0(scribble) 14:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: 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)
replies: text: I put it back it.--TheGrza 06:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent removals 

message: 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)
thread_title: ACLJ description

message: 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)
replies: text: Source found, passage re-inserted into article.--chris.lawson 19:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced quote 

message: 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)
replies: text: Please sign your comments with four tildes ( ~~~~) . Better yet, get an account MPS 17:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roy Gene to Everyone 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  There must be a way to better integrate the controversies  

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Net worth 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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
=== References ===
Is there something in the Wikipedia rule book about including citations? I don't think an indefinite article can make a case for itself. We should reference the book that he wrote that says this and then quote him directly (a page number would be great).
I nominate this entry under "Education background" for deletion until we have a more definitive citation: 
"In a book Robertson wrote, he described himself as a "Yale-educated tax lawyer," though he had not passed the bar. "
Tindy 19:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed section: robertson calls criticism of Iraq war "treason" 

message: Is there something in the Wikipedia rule book about including citations? I don't think an indefinite article can make a case for itself. We should reference the book that he wrote that says this and then quote him directly (a page number would be great).
I nominate this entry under "Education background" for deletion until we have a more definitive citation: 
"In a book Robertson wrote, he described himself as a "Yale-educated tax lawyer," though he had not passed the bar. "
Tindy 19:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: No one seems to have a citation for his having taken and failed the bar exam. Twice now, someone has removed my  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bar exam 

message: 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)
thread_title: Disney Correction

message: 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)
thread_title:  Embarrassment 

message: 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)
thread_title:  once again... 

message: 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)
thread_title: Some believe...

message: 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)
thread_title:  Copied 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pat making a killing? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Nah. It's the Megadeth album. --DanielCD 14:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  New frontiers in Christian metal? - Jmabel | Talk 05:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah. That was a bad joke. sry. I actually have no clue. --DanielCD 05:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: But it was funny while it lasted. --DanielCD 05:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Robertson Condemns Alien enthusiasts to Death.

message: 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)
thread_title:  So-called educational controversies 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I've removed judicial activism and 9/11 

message: 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)
thread_title: POV

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Who's writing this

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Personal wealth" section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Difficult to write about Pat Robertson 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Peer Review in Progress 

message: 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)
thread_title: Baptist