Talk:Pat Robertson/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

New Page Devoted to Criticism?

The controversy page does seem too long. Perhaps we should create a page of Robertson's controversies, like those about criticisms against Michael Moore and Bill O'Reilly or Fox News Channel. -- Sebastian89, September 5, 2007.

I am all for that. Garik 11 13:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.26.240.128 (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to comment about Pat Robertson's views on Dover, PA. You say that we in DOVER, PA should not look to god for help because we basically kicked him out of our town, but do they teach creationisim or inteligent design in your public schools? Did you or your town ever even make an attemt to teach inteligent design in your public school system? Do not critisize us for attempting and "failing" when you haven't even taken the step to attempt. And further more, just because we have chosen to keep our education and religion seperate does not mean that god will look poorly upon us should we need his help. - A Dover, PA resident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.131.112 (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Leg Press Controversy

I have to say that I feel Pat Robertson, at the age of 73, leg pressed a ton is a load of crap. Personally, I don't know of anyone that can leg press that much weight, although I'm certain there is someone that can. I myself can top out at about 1,150 pounds and I'm 25 years of age. I have trouble believing that any human that isn't some fantatical, steroid popping powerlifter or professional strength athlete can leg press such a tremendous weight. Robertson might be a fit man, particularly for his age, but his ego is totally out of control to make such a claim. Odin's Beard

After watching the video, it's pretty clear that he's in good shape. That being said, he's not even doing full leg presses. On the leg press machine, he's extending his legs about 6-12 inches at best. Any trained excercise instructor would say that this isn't actually a real rep, as the actual difficulty in lifting weights lies in using a full range of motion. Robertson also was "cheating" by using his arms to help straighten his legs.

This all being said, he is moving the weight. Also, the weights he was lifting in the video don't really equal 1000 lbs. With twenty 45 lb weights on his machine, he's only moving 900 lbs, and only a few inches at that. A better estimate of how much he could actually press would be around 400-500 if he were actually doing the workout correctly and safely. I'd prefer to see him doing squats, which is a much better full body exercise than the leg press which isolates the legs.

1,150? Jesus, man. You ought to be playing pro-football. "the leg-press record for football players at Florida State University is 665 pounds less [than 2000]." At 2000, Pat Robertson can kick Hercules' butt.ap link

It seems likely that he thinks he can leg-press 2000 pounds, but if he can it is only because he is essentially cheating by doing the process wrong. If he could do 2000 pounds properly at his age, I think we'd be able to add him to the category of superhumans. Is there an official standard for what constitutes a leg-press? --tjstrf 00:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I sort-of agree about the squats, since free weights provide more functional strength by working stabilizing groups. That said, Robertson doesn't look like he's getting very good instruction on technique, and it's pretty easy to hurt yourself on a free squat if you don't know what you're doing. I might just sigh and have him work on a Smith machine. It's tougher to "cheat" on a Smith than on a press machine, but there's still a lot of structure keeping you from keeling over and breaking/tearing something important. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

ok, all of you making these assumptions obviously do not have strong faith in God what so ever. did not God give the judge Samson enough strength to tear down a stone pillard building with his bare hands when he was blind, beaten, and hindered with shackles? He was at an old age too, and had been working by grinding grain. If you don't believe this then you can read Judges 16:21-31 in the Bible. Now, Samson was not ever considered a "superhuman", yet i'm sure he could've leg pressed way more than 2,000! How is it not possible that God has given this same strength to another faith filled, believing Christian. ANYTHING is possible with God if you enough faith. The Bible says, with enough faith, you can move mountains. Pat Robertson has enough faith to be given enough strength to leg press 2,000. Besides, this whole thing happened 3YEARS AGO! This is old news, and the media had no new dirt to bring up on him, so they went searching his sight and found this small detail. Robertson certainly does not make this truth into a well known thing obviously, because he has kept it quiet for 3 years until the media decided to hunt it down. You have no basis to say "his ego is totally out of control to make such a claim." So i'm tired of you people who think you know everything to give this man a break and worry about the problems in your own lives that are much more important. If i had not been with him and seen it myself then i would have no basis myself to share this truth. But i was and so was his doctor, Dr. W, who has sworn through his profession that he would not lie. but regardless of this, please think about the powerful of God and His miracles before you completely disregard this truth! ChristinaAnn 02:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, i removed the subjective view on it being impossible, etc. because that is a biased opinion and has nothing to do with Robertson's biography. i think it is safe to keep it just at his claim for the 2,000, but for there to be a neutral agreement that there is no further information that needs to be added. yes? ChristinaAnn 02:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral? You're the one being biased with your God-nonsense!

no, i said i removed that section because it IS biased, and there is no adds saying anything about God in there thank you very much... and yes neutral... that statement is all that is needed, no extra saying anything about God, against him, proving it wrong, etc, because it is all biased... so no, i am NOT being biased in that edit. besides, i'm tired of you people using this website to point fingures and accuse people, it's unneccesary ChristinaAnn 20:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

ChristinaAnn, you must have a pretty low opinion of God if you think he performs miracles such as helping Pat Robertson leg press 2000 pounds. I mean, it's a joke. Life is a miracle. Consciousness is a miracle. Pat Robertson, on the other hand, is a sideshow act, like the traditional Amazing Hercules act where a muscleman lifts some wooden dumbbells supposedly weighing 10,000 pounds over his head. Many people used to go to these sideshow acts and buy into them, too. All I'm saying is, if that's a miracle, talk about using divine powers in vain. It's people like Pat Robertson who facilitate my lack of faith. What's he gonna do as a follow-up, call upon the almighty powers of God to help him find the winning Sprite bottle cap? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.183.98.48 (talk • contribs) .

Certainly the idea that it is "impossible" shouldn't be there unless it is properly sourced - that is what an encyclopedia is for, afterall. Likewise, this isn't the place for a discussion of whether God has given Mr. Robertson supernatural strength - unless, of course, you have sources backing that up as well. --Tim4christ17 09:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Another point - why is this topic referenced in the first place? How is it relevant/important in a biography about Mr. Robertson? --Tim4christ17 09:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it easily qualifies as being a topic of interest. It was reported on by seeveral major news sites, and it ties in heavily to one of his business ventures. Elijya 13:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Trust me, the majority of clear thinking Christians view Robertson as simply a hurdle to overcome in presenting a positive light on the faith. A scant few actually believe his super human strength claims as well as his blasphemic claims of his ability to control nature through prayer. There is nothing wrong with this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.35.90.142 (talk • contribs) .

Betcha a nickel they're fake weights.

I remember seeing a video of Ronnie Coleman legpressing something around 3000 pounds during one of his workouts. I'm sure a pure powerlifter could do more.

Yeah, he pressed 2,000 lbs. And so have I. Just not all at once, of course.

Changed "glutes and quads at maximum extension" to "hip and knee joints at maximum flexion" because only joints can be flexed or extended. user: callmematthew September 22, 2006

It seems some of you are so anti-Pat you just aren't giving him even reasonable benefit of the doubt. The odds of him being able to in one go push up 2000 pounds in the position he does his work with the technique is reasonably good. He is not a professional bodybuilder. He never said, I can do this with great form and according to the standards usually employed in record attempts. He just made a comment about his ability to do it. Chances are he doesn;t know this other info. Anyways, it doesn't deserve so much space. Basejumper 20:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, as an admitted atheist, with a lot of intelligence & knowledge, I have just one question regarding such "miracles"; If this "deity" can do all this as claimed, then why doesn't it remove ignorance, gullibility & stupidity, as seen in these comments by moronic believers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluesman Mark (talk • contribs) 14:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

What this article needs

I have been following this article with interest for a couple months. Permit me to be bold about what might be a way to get the article tidied up. I can see some folk have tried discussing a way to improve the article, but it seems the notion is fruitless as long as there are dozens of editors flying around who aren't going to respect a discussion and are just going to come along every day and insert their views for or against Robertson without regard to consensus.

What I think it needs is for the editing to be indefinitely restricted (I assume there is a way to do this on Wikipedia). Those serious editors who are prepared to discuss the entire article reasonably should do that, and if need be administrators themselves can do any revisions agreed on.

At the moment the article is terrible. I can't believe over 400 words have been expended on the "leg press controversy". When it comes to the end of Pat Robertson's life, this controversy will be a blip. I know there are some folk who think Pat Robertson is an idiot, and I admit - I am one of them. But this latest incident needs a maximum of a couple of sentences, not two paragraphs of analysis. David L Rattigan 15:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection might not be a bad thing, I agree. Semi-protection, btw, is a method of keeping a page from being vandalized by stopping anyone who is anonymous/a very new account from editing the page. (See the article Abraham Lincoln for an example) But full protection would probably not be necessary or beneficial. --tjstrf 16:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

ok, i agree with both of you... but David, you say this, yet you firmly announce that you have your own biased opinion against him, and you threw in an extra insult that was not needed to prove this. Shouldn't the writers and editors of this biography not show their opinions at all? i think that is on thing that needs to be expressed in the characteristics of the certain people allowed to edit this. Besides, it's not just the leg press controversy, it is all of them. People are spending too much time on the minute details and are not focusing on bringing together the main picture of his life. The majority of the article is uneeded subjective information. thanks for at least listening to this opinion on what to do though. ChristinaAnn 02:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I am usually quite upfront about my biases, because usually if you don't admit you have a bias from the start, someone later tries to "expose" you and use it to discredit you.

In the case above, I was also overcompensating to try and preempt anyone saying I was just trying to defend Robertson. David L Rattigan 07:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

exactly, this article doesn't need people like you or me with our biased opinions editing it! you admit it, i admit it... we are examples of people with biases that should not be given the chance to edit it with an on-going war of whose edit is correct. ChristinaAnn 20:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, Christina. Having a bias doesn't disqualify anyone so long as they are capable of editing from an NPOV without simply pushing their own opinion. If everyone gave up editing articles on which they had a personal point-of-view, there would be very little editing going on! David L Rattigan 20:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Citation for leg press claims

I removed the 'citation' given for his leg press claims in that section, it came from a non-NPov source - The christian broadcasting service. Cleary not a nuetral source and put in a tag that this claim needed to be verified from a nuetral and reliable source. DRCarroll 20:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The claims are probably not verifiable, for reasons that have been covered adequately. That's not what the source is for, though - it's to verify the existence of Robertson's claim. As such, CBN is a perfectly good source - it sources the statement that "Robertson says that he leg-pressed one ton with the help of a protein shake". No more, no less. Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I went back to the original article and made some minor changes of for the 'immposibility'. As for CBN as a source the inofrmation must be verifible - it says that right at the bottom of the editing window. Making a claim and then having a website that Robertson himself set-up becoming the arbiter of facts is a fallacy DRCarroll 20:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What Zetawoof is saying is perfectly valid. Even if the CBN website that "Robertson set up himself" is the source, it is still proving that the claim IS still present. Regardless of who wrote it, that is proof that someone is claiming it. The claim came from Robertson himself, so what better way to show that claim then using something he did write himself? Zetawoof is correct and that source is valid. ChristinaAnn 20:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep. As I said, the only claim that the article is making is that Robertson says he did these improbable things. The article doesn't need to prove that they actually happened, as it makes no such claim. Compare Allagash Abductions, for example; the article doesn't claim that an actual alien abduction occurred - which would be totally unverifiable - but simply states that certain people made certain claims - which is eminently verifiable. The same principle holds here. Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It maybe verifiable to the 'guys' who watched him, but it is not verfiable as an encyclopedic source. Which requires proof, not just someone say' i saw this' That is why i changed the aticle to the state it was in. These are claims, and have no independent basis in fact, and therefore are highly questionable and unverifiable to be placed as an encylcopedic article. In short the 'source' fails validity as proof occurance on every level DRCarroll 21:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Need I repeat myself again? The article doesn't claim that Pat Robertson did these exercises. It claims that he says that he did. Do you see the difference? It's an important one. Zetawoof^(ζ) 21:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a claim. We are reporting it as a claim, not as truth. A claim being verifiable and it's actually being true are two entirely different things, which certain users just don't seem to be able to catch onto. --tjstrf 21:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

And thats why the atricle is he way it is, Mr Roberston claims he did this , but we have no indepedent way of verifying, which is part and parcel of Wiki. And ill say it again, its right at the bottom of the edit window that content must not violate copyright and verifiable. The article points out his claims and further point that these claims are not proven. I can claim that i am in fact the re-incarnation of Flipper, but i cannot prove it. And if it cannot be proved independently it remains a claim and is in no way true. DRCarroll 21:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

but the WHOLE point of this disagreement is that they ARE NOT TRYING TO PROVE THAT THE CLAIM IS TRUE! they are simply trying to show that Robertson is claiming it with a source... you are not understanding and you need to drop it

Absolutely. It is perfectly valid to cite a source to demonstrate that a claim was made.

I frankly cannot see why anything about the leg press thing is of encyclopedic importance, though. - Jmabel | Talk 17:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Source for leg-press claims: Explaining it clearly

The article does not say that Pat Robertson leg-pressed 2,000lbs. The article says that Robertson claimed to have leg-pressed 2,000lbs. "Robertson claimed to have leg-pressed 2,000lbs" is a factual statement, verified by his website where makes the claim. No one is disputing that he made the claim, and the source merely verifies that he made the claim, not that the claim was true. David L Rattigan 21:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. For those who still don't get it, "Pat Robertson claims to have leg-pressed 2000 pounds" is a true and verifiable statement. "Pat Robertson has leg-pressed 2000 pounds" is not. We can verify that he made the claim, but not that he actually did the action.--tjstrf 22:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Whch raise the questio that if were trying to buld an online encylcopdia here, why we would not ascertain the veracity of his claims. As ive said anyone can come onto to Wiki and makes claims, that the claim was made may or may not be true. But we need to ascertain the facts , and 'claims' arent facts DRCarroll 22:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't. Wikipedia does not make value judgements. Instead, we cite the value judgments of others. Just because someone is a crackpot doesn't mean we have to mock them in the article. Instead, just cite the experts who say he claims to have done the impossible and let the reader catch on for themselves. A claim is not a fact, but it is a fact that the claim exists. --tjstrf 22:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Its not a question 'value judgments' its a question factual accuracy. Would we allow someone to post that Rwanada neve happened. The reasons we have experts to to explain the accuracy of such 'claims'. That the claim has been made is undeniable. But without unveriable and accurate sources upon the actual truth of his claims. Then by extension one could claim that the sun will rise in the west tommorow and be taken seriously

I think you should give up now, 'cause seriously, people only have so much patience, and I can see this becoming unpleasant (not by me, but people with less patience). Several people have made the same point over and over, and it seems you are just not getting it. Sorry. David L Rattigan 22:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If a significant minority claimed that Rwanda had never happened, then yes, we would say Organization n claims that the Rwandan genocide is a myth. Have you not read the articles we have on Holocaust Denial?--tjstrf 22:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have read them and they are claims and named as such, in which they would have thier own article, which holocaust deniers do. But frankly i dont understand what your objections are. You want to have the article include 'claims'. Okay its there. Im saying that claims do not become proof simply because something was said about someone or something. I believe that wiki is supposed to a NPOV source for fact , not claims. Henc i dont understand what seems to be your upset nature DRCarroll 22:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that wiki is supposed to a NPOV source for fact , not claims.. You are wrong. Everything in wikipedia is merely a claim that has been made by a independent verifiable source. Wikipedia is not set up to determine what is actually "fact" or what is actually "true". As hard as it may be for you to fathom, the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability. There is a verifiable source of information that shows that Pat made these claims. That is all we are saying. If there are other verifiable sources that say "Pat did not lift 2000 lbs" or that "It is impossible for Pat to have lifted 2000 lbs." then perhaps they can also be included in the article. I'm pretty sure most readers are quite well aware that Pat Robertson is incapable of lifting 2000 lbs and they can evaluate his claim on their own without much help. Vivaldi (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

We aren't saying it's proven that he did it, we're saying it's proven that he claimed to have done so. The existance of the claim is verified. Basically, don't screw with the article too much and we'll all be fine. --tjstrf 23:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I know he did it, im saying that if were going to try to be a reliable source for factual information. And if wree ever going to get some of these tags of the controversial articles then we have to have a higher standard than "well, he said he did this" DRCarroll 00:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

We do have factual information: well sourced claims on both sides. Wikipedia does not determine what the truth is, we are an enyclopedia, not investigative journalists. The section is properly NPOV'ed, verified, and should be left alone. Work on the main article, not Pat's claims to superhuman strength. --tjstrf 00:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, I agree with everything Zetawolf, Tjstrf, Rattingtyon, and basicly everybody else has said. The link isn't proof that he did it, it's proof that he SAID he did it. Elijya 21:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to agree with Zetawolf, Tjstrf, David L Rattigan, Elijya, and everyone else. CBN can be used as a source for the claim that "Pat Robertson says that he lifted 2000 lbs." Now in the grand scheme of things -- given the long history of bizarre statements and proclamations by Pat -- I'm not sure that in the future his 2000 lbs. claim will be considered one of his most notable dumb remarks -- but for the time being, it is one of the top 5 things that most people on the street might now about Pat, so it seems like we should keep it in the article for now. Vivaldi (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with nearly everybody else that the current sourcing is adequate. As for the size of the leg press section, if it expands further it could always be spun off into a separate article, with just a brief mention remaining here. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed this conversation. If anyone ever asks questions like this again, send them to WP:NOR. Wikipedians don't have to prove or disprove crank theories. We just cite reputable sources documenting a balanced representation f other people's arguments and claims. MPS 21:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Anti-semitic people

This category keeps getting re-added. Why is that? I don't see anything in the article that point in that direction, so I am removing it for now. -- Karl Meier 18:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

And the same thing is apparently also the case with the "foreign support for apartheid" category, so I am removing that also for now.. -- Karl Meier 18:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

A reminder regarding the fact template

The following statement was tagged with a fact template:

Through his charitable organization, Operation Blessing International, Robertson is found to have invested $1,200,000 in the guise of aid to refugees in Rwanda.

As the Template:Fact page will inform you, this is not a proper use of the fact tag, and has in fact been explicitly directed against by Jimbo Wales. Negative statements about living people should never be fact tagged, but rather either moved to talk or deleted pending a source. This is for the sake of accuracy, kindness, and in extreme cases even our own legal security. Thank you. --tjstrf 04:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Other than the slightly snide wording, this would seem to be a positive, not a negative. Or did the context mean he was "investing" in something other than aid? - Jmabel | Talk 00:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, note the wording "in the guise of". In other words, it alleges, without any source, that he invested (for profit) in Rwanda under the guise of humanitarian aid. Not acceptable without a source, and a classic example of misuse of the Fact template. --tjstrf 00:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Power of Prayers

It would be appropriate to mention the following: "Several studies of prayer effectiveness have yielded null results. A 2001 double-blind study of the Mayo Clinic found no significant difference in the recovery rates between people who were (unbeknownst to them) assigned to a group that prayed for them and those who were not. Similarly, the MANTRA study conducted by Duke University found no differences in outcome of cardiac procedures as a result of prayer. In another similar study published in the American Heart Journal in 2006, Christian intercessory prayer when reading a scripted prayer was found to have no effect on the recovery of heart surgery patients; however, the study found patients who had knowledge of receiving prayer had slightly higher instances of complications than those who did not know if they were being prayed for or those who did not receive prayer." Or at least provide a link to this info. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer#Experimental_evaluation_of_prayer for more info. PJ 15:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be appropriate in an article on the power of prayer, and possibly on prayer as such, but not in an article on Robertson, any more than on any other religious figure who believes in the power of prayer, which is to say pretty much any Evangelical Protestant, any Catholic, and most other religious people of any persuasion. - Jmabel | Talk 05:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Jambel - if we put it in here it would also belong in every article about every religious person who believes in prayer. Vpoko 19:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There should be something about Pat's claim that prayer can cure flat feet, though :) Gazpacho 18:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Citecheck template removed

The citecheck template flags articles that may contain inappropriate citations such as quotes out of context. I see no discussion of an inappropriate citations on this page or the most recent archive. Durova 02:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Interracial Marriage?

How did the (uncited) claim that PR is against interracial marriage make it into the article? Does anyone have any source for this? If so, it should be cited. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.173.6.51 (talk • contribs) 26 September 2006.

I'll have a look; sounds like lack of conformity w/ WP:BLP. - Jmabel | Talk 01:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like that claim was already out of the article by the time I looked. Sections Personal wealth and especially Libel lawsuit were generally detrimental and uncited. I've removed these. They'd be welcome back if citable. - Jmabel | Talk 01:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality of "Controversies and Criticisms" section

I've added the "npov," "unsourced" and "weasel" tags to the section. The POV is subtle (e.g. "Among his more controversial statements..."), there are still many unsourced statements, and there's uses of weasel words (e.g. "...others claim he is a liar..."). Jinxmchue 18:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Phi Beta Kappa Membership

The current article states: "He graduated with honors and enrolled at Washington and Lee University, where he majored in history and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa, ..."

Could someone confirm this? The Phi Beta Kappa Membership Directory (Harris Publishing, New York, 2000) does not list him as a member. There should be some way of establishing what is a factual matter.

JMartens 18:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

At the very least Robertson's own site says so. - Jmabel | Talk 00:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

External Links Edit

I deleted the reference to an Internet article from arabnews.com Did Robertson Use the Word 'Assassination'? because it seems to be more of an editorial and contains little, if any encyclopedic value, and instead restates what Robertson already said. --Goldendroplets 04:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC) The external link to the Operation Blessing photos needs to be revised. The new URL is http://www.paparazzopresents.org

Is it a controversy...

if no group or ppl condemn his outrageous remark? In the laundry list of controversies, many so-called controversies are unattached to opposition. So is it original research for us to in those cases label them controversies. Do I have consensus that unless public reaction is noted, remarks should not be found in controversies?

lots of issues | leave me a message 09:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

---

In "Charles Taylor, gold, diamonds and racehorse controversy" someone on 4 December 2006 changed a direct quote from [1] that says in the original "But the resulting furor over Pat's direct participation in a gambling racket eventually caused him to sell the horse a month after the Times story broke". In this sentence they changed the word "Pat's" to "Robertson's" for the innane reason that "use of the first name only is disrespectful". 4.246.204.88 06:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Article picture

Can't we get a better picture for this article? Although I am certainly no fan of Robertson, the picture looks ridiculous and he looks like he's making the devil horns gesture. It isn't appropriate. Asarelah 19:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

devil horns? does the devil even have horns?

The picture looks like he's making the "Devil horns", or corna gesture with his hands. This link shows what I'm talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_horns Also, please sign your posts using four tildes. When you edit a page, there are instructions on the top on how to sign. Thank you Asarelah 18:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Bother to even read that article, it has many meenings. --E tac 19:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course it does, but Americans commonly refer to it as the "devil horns". Asarelah 19:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean Americans like anyone who is a Texas Longhorns fan? --E tac 19:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Texas Longhorns fans are the exception, not the rule. Asarelah 20:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Or anyone who attends a rock concert? --E tac 20:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Or the fact that it is just a hand and has no meaning other than what you intend for it to mean, which in this case is likely nothing. --E tac 20:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the "Devil horns" have little to do with the devil is irrelevant. Robertson really looks like he's making the gesture in the picture, and he is certainly not a fan of metal. This screenshot of him unintentionally making the gesture is ridiculous and misleading to readers. The picture also makes him look like he's in the middle of taking a crap. Its certainly not good enough quality for an encyclopedia. Asarelah 20:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the picture should be replaced with a better representation of Mr. Robertson, specifically one in which his eyes are open and facing the camera. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 20:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"and he is certainly not a fan of metal" How do you know? --E tac 20:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Jesus, are you seriously asking this question or are you just trying to be contrary? Do you know anything about Robertson? He called for content regulation for rock music on radio and television, and he had links to the PMRC, for crying out loud! Asarelah 02:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all my name is not Jesus, it's E_tac. Your point is? Not all rock music contains content that he would find objectionable. Maybe he rocks out to some Petra. For someone with all these user boxes about how you are "liberal" (oh by the way Tipper Gore founded the PMRC), and how you are "straight but not narrow", lol. You sure seem to be ignorant and very close minded to the possibility that Pat Robertson just might be "rocking for the Rock". By the way the picture is gone so why are you still arguing about this? --E tac 03:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I might ask you the same thing...why are you asking if Robertson is a fan of metal? Come on, Pat Robertson? He regarded Stryper as satanic. And no shit Tipper Gore founded the PMRC. I'm not particularly fond of her either. Asarelah 03:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That's cute, sticking the "citation needed" on my remark about Stryper. You know what? I'm done arguing with you. But please be sure you take some pictures of good ol' Pat if you ever happen to bump into him at Ozzfest. We can add them to the article. ;) Asarelah 03:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ozzfest???? I thought this debate was if Robertson could possibly be a metal fan, not a Hot Topic Mallcore fan. --E tac 03:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming

I couldn't edit this article but the statement that President Bush "pulled out of Kyoto in 2001" is wrong. The Bush Administration continued the policy of the Clinton Administration with regard to Kyoto. Whoever has editing privileges will please correct this error. Thanks. 24.34.183.29 04:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Anti-asian remarks

Pat sold his soul to the devil a long time ago - hence all this mess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.60.125.182 (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

its not anti-asian. its how God made us. get over it

Please remember to sign your posts using four tildes. Instructions on how to do so are visible on the top of talk page when you edit it. Asarelah

Please see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view... "its how God made us" would not be acceptable in a Wikipedia article. --Shadowlink1014 00:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I also noticed this part of the article. It doesn't seem his remark had anything to do with asians, and was about plastic surgery. I don't see that it is noteworthy that he mentioned asians have slanty eyes. They do. Is there anybody who feels Eastern Asian people do not have slanty looking eyes? Basejumper 14:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Asian eyes are not slanty. Asian eyelids have an epicanthic fold. --Hugh7 (talk) 10:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this "Anti-asian" section is, at the very least, not pertinent, and it needs to be removed ASAP - unless there is a significant body of references (quotes from asian people and organizations, articles, that sort of thing) regarding this alleged "offensiveness". IMO the section detriments the perceived neutrality and quality of the article significantly. Null Nihils 04:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any controversy with that statement. Unless the reader views having eyes like an Asian as a bad thing, then no one is being insulted. There is also no mention of any reaction by any pertinent groups with regard to the incident. The idea is to let people know of existing controversy, not try to create a controversy. 198.82.108.52 20:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Alleged Death Threats

It's well known, as the article notes, that Pat Robertson said the U.S. ought to assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. Less well known are two other cases where Robertson is alleged to have threatened individuals. Here's one case: Bodybuilder says Robertson threatened to kill him and his family. Another case contained in a lawsuit, ANDREA PETERSON v. M.G. "PAT" ROBERTSON, states that

Robertson became angry and, according to Ms. Johnson, told her to deliver a message to her brother: "Pam, you tell your brother that stallions who are out of control get shot. They get taken down. They get shot."

... The plaintiff alleges, for example, that in the spring of 1993, Les Naghiu, Chief of Security of CBN, at Robertson’s direction, threatened to harm the Petersons. Specifically, Mr. Naghiu allegedly warned Mark Peterson, "You have a nice family, so take care, because the water is deep and I swim better than you."

Given the allegatory nature of these charges, are they worthy of entry into this article? Troll 8745 22:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If there was a lawsuit, then it qualifies for being mentioned within the article. However, unless robertson lost the lawsuit, all that could be said would be along the lines of "a lawsuit filed by [plaintiff] alleged that Robertson [verb]ed [plaintiff]", which wouldn't carry much weight or do anything other than be moderately prejudicial. 198.82.108.52 20:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

criticism

we should make another article for the criticism section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.59.90.192 (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree that the controversy section has gotten long enough to the point where a new article is probably warranted, but seeing as how these controversies are a major part of what makes him so notable (not the ONLY part, but a major one no doubt), I think we should keep it on the main page. I'm just guessing, but I'd say a good percentage of the readers arriving at this page are curious specifically about all the headlines he has made (and continues to make). --Shadowlink1014 14:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Pat

He an evangelist who has dementia or something. His faith can't heal you, his predictions won't happen. He hates gay people, loves money, claims to love God and Jesus. He hates Protestants, which they have done nothing to pervert the Gospels. Claims that prayer will only help you if you donate money to him. Hates Dover, PA because of a couple of dumb people, Do I need to go on? He's a lunatic, and is NOT a Christian. --66.218.18.250 20:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a page to discuss how to improve an encyclopedia article, not a forum to discuss your views on the subject (as much as I agree with them). By the way, Robertson is a Southern Baptist, which is a type of Protestantism. Asarelah 22:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

claims to be stop defending himAmandalu862 (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant spam link

"Robertson claims on his web site that through training and his "Age-Defying energy shake", he is able to leg press 2,000 pounds while others claim he is a liar, pushing a common energy formula." What follows is a "citation", which links to... an advertisement for the miracle-working shake. There is no citation for the actual statement and the reader is merely offered the shake itself. --132.69.234.73 20:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Editing of Millitary Service

I had inputed some very credible and substantiated accounts of his millitary service to the article, only to have it removed. I think this article needs to be watched more carefully to mantain TRUTHFULL neutrality.

Edited:

Accounts of his service, and controversies regarding it.

This was deleted, with no reference left as to its existence. Wikipedia needs to monitor it more closely. As the validity of such articles is only had when ALL facts are included.

• Your edits violated WP:RS and have been removed again, and they will continue to be removed until you find a reliable source for the information. Letters written to newspapers and the "Schlatter Family Site" are not reliable sources. They are strictly POV. Jinxmchue 13:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• You, clearly, have misinterpreted the need for reliable referencing. As long as an entry is REFERENCED it is reliable. Any reference, as long as it is published, is considered reliable under MLA formatting regulations, thus warrants publication. If some find the entry biased, fine, I find plenty more here in wikipedia biased as well. A good researcher will know how to sift through that bias and come to a middle-truth. If you can't do that, go back to middle school and learn how to write and research an essay.

I will re-submit it.

And I will re-remove. This is not an elementary school essay. This is Wikipedia. There are unique and specific rules and guidelines to follow. Among the top ones are Reliable Sources (WP:RS) and Verifiability (WP:V). Please read these and find sources that fit both. Letters to a newspaper found on a family's personal website do not fit either. Heck, even if you had a link to a webpage from the newspaper that printed the letter, the letter itself still wouldn't make the cut. Please do not reinsert this information without proper referencing. Continued disruption will be reported. Jinxmchue 01:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• "Secondary sources draw on primary sources in order to make generalizations or original interpretive, analytical, synthetic, or explanatory claims. A journalist's analysis or commentary of a traffic accident based on eye-witness reports is a secondary source. An International Herald Tribune analysis and commentary on a United Nations Security Council resolution is a secondary source. An historian's interpretation of the decline of the Roman Empire, or analysis of the historical Jesus, constitute secondary sources. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, verifiable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we present verifiable accounts of views and arguments of reliable scholars, and not interpretations of primary source material by Wikipedians."

This seems to state that NEWSPAPERS ARE PREFERRED AND RELIABLE. Furthermore, it remains neutral as the article does not agree with, nor denounce Mr. Cronin's claims. It simply publishes them. Wikipedia remains NEUTRAL while Mr. Cronin does NOT. I see no fault in putting this up, and in fact notice a violation of neutrality in your repeated attempts to remove it. I referenced, in proper format, the newspaper itself, thus releasing the oness of proof from the website.

Please refrain from continued idiocy, as it is childish, and not a good representation of the wikipedia community at large.

Cheers.

Newspapers are reliable sources, yes, when they are reporting news. Letters to newspapers, however, are not reliable sources, particularly when there's no way to verify such a letter was actually published and no way to verify the claims made within said letters. See WP:RS, WP:V and also WP:Biographies of living persons which states:

Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space.

You simply have not met the burden of proof on this highly charged material, Dave, thus it will continue to be removed until your sources improve.

Incidentally, I find it quite amusing that you are trying to play Wiki lawyer with that "not a good representation of the wikipedia community at large" bit when you don't even use Wiki properly. You don't follow the policies and guidelines, you don't sign your edits here in Talk, etc. Jinxmchue 05:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"edit wars"

This is a request from fellow editors to help mediate this "editing conflict" before I request arbitration. I have requested mediation but some feedback from other editors would be helpful. I feel that my inclusion of Mr. Cronin's statement is viable and adds to the article. His words are not neutral, but the posting is. If we use jinxmchue's version of neutrality than we would not be able to label Adolf Hitler as "anti-semetic" in his article. It is from a RELIABLE second party source, and was published, on paper, in February of 1988.

I would like some more insight into the matter. Thank you. User:Dave8904

Hey, you know what? I've got a RELIABLE second party source (my own family's website) that has reproduced a letter to the editor someone wrote years and years ago that claims Dave8904 wears women's underwear. I think I should be able to use this on Wiki. What do you think, Dave? Jinxmchue 05:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from the personal attacks, you will only be asked once. I have reported this for Arbritration - perhaps that can settle it. Furthermore, I have not, as can be noted, referenced the website and have now simply referenced the paper article. If I do wear women's underwear, it's for the comfort, not the style. Dave8904 05:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It was not a personal attack, Dave. That was called being absurd to make a point. Just because some yahoo can get a letter published in a newspaper does not mean that said letter can be included in a Wikipedia article, particularly if the material added is highly controversial. Please review the Wiki guidelines I linked to above. Jinxmchue 06:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, it has been reported. Cheers. Dave8904 06:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Report away, Dave. I've no doubt I will be vindicated. Jinxmchue 06:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

I think this article needs some heavy clean-up, as it seems biased, in general, towards Mr. Robertson. Due to the fact that not all claims are sourced, and that many of the material sourced is from Auto-Biographies I think this article needs work. Dave8904 18:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Examples of everything you're referring to would help, Dave. Jinxmchue 04:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Statements Concerning Ariel Sharon

Under the Ariel Sharon subsection of the controversies section the line "Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals" is no longer true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.17.195.85 (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Pat Robertson and Ellen Degeneres

I want to note that there is no mention of Pat Robertson's attack on Ellen Degeneres. In September 2005, Robertson said that Hurricane Katrina was God’s way of expressing its anger at the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences for its selection of Ellen Degeneres to host the '05 Emmy Awards. “By choosing an avowed lesbian for this national event, these Hollywood elites have clearly invited God’s wrath,” Robertson said on “The 700 Club” on Sunday. “Is it any surprise that the Almighty chose to strike at Miss Degeneres’ hometown?”

Robertson also noted that the last time Degeneres hosted the Emmys, in 2001, the September 11 terrorism attacks took place shortly before the ceremony.

‘This is the second time in a row that God has invoked a disaster shortly before lesbian Ellen Degeneres hosted the Emmy Awards,’ Robertson explained to his approximately one million viewers. ‘America is waiting for her to apologize for the death and destruction that her sexual deviance has brought onto this great nation.’

Robertson added that other tragedies of the past several years can be linked to Degeneres’ growing national prominence. September, 2003, for example, is both the month that her talk show debuted and when insurgents first gained a foothold in Iraq following the successful March invasion. ‘Now we know why things took a turn for the worse,’ he explained.

In order to avoid further tragedy, Robertson called not only for the Television Academy to find a new heterosexual host, but to bar all homosexuals and bisexuals from taking part in the ceremony.

He said employees at the Christian Broadcasting Network had put together a list of 283 nominees, presenters, and invited guests at the Emmys known to be of sexually deviant persuasions.

‘God already allows one awards show to promote the homosexual agenda,’ Robertson declared. ‘But clearly He will not tolerate such sinful behavior to spread beyond the Tonys.’ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Imuchemi (talk • contribs) 18:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

This is a misconception based on a satirical Dateline Hollywood article from 2005. It didn't actually happen. source. 72.155.165.186 15:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Marion? - why does he have a girls name?

Is this his real name, or has someone just replaced "Patrick" with a girls name? - The Daddy 14:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"Marion" can be a man's name. John Wayne's real name was Marion, believe it or not. Asarelah 17:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

A little sexist are we? Or just ignorant? See also: Marion Barry. Jinxmchue 17:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up Asarelah. And Jinxmchue, please assume good faith, I only enquired because A) I've never heard of a man with the name "Marion". B) I thought somebody had vandalised the subject's actual name and put a female one in its place. - The Daddy 20:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Puns in media

Family Guy Episode 25, season 4 at 12:54, fictional anti Gay infomercial is credited "Pat Robertson industires" Arnljot76 17:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed apparent vandlism

Removed apparent vandalism: '2003 Alzheimer's Patient of the Year' [2]
Is this someone's idea of a joke? Null Nihils 04:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

ok, that is fricken hysterical. I'm laughing so hard right now. Falkonry (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

First Amendment

Can I assume that the sentence "Robertson violated the First Ammendment of the Constitution" is vandalism? -Swiftus —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.137.145.225 (talk) 12:28, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Article split?

I recently added the template:

Does anyone think this should happen? PLEASE NOTE: If nobody responds within 3 days I will automatically make the change.

I think it should be condensed first and then see if it needs to be split. It's just a huge, unregulated mess right now. I mean, does the whole leg press issue actually require 4+ paragraphs? It's hardly notable enough for that much coverage. Jinxmchue 17:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: I decided to be bold and move the "Controversies and criticisms" to a new page called "Pat Robertson controversies". Although, I do agree with Jinxmchue on the fact the articles might need to condensed first. Noahcs 21:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You had an editor who disagreed with the split, you didn't provide any reasons as to why it should be done, and you didn't leave a proper summary in place of the removed content, so I reverted your edits and replaced the new article with a redirect. I also restored the links you moved, since it looked like you were ghettoizing criticism. Reinis^talk 19:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Biased against Robertson

This article fails to mention at all the great good that his various organizations such as Operation Blessing have done to the world. Also, it says here that he and Jerry Falwell blamed "pagans, abortionists, feminists, gays, lesbians, the American Civil Liberties Union and the People For the American Way." for the 9/11 attacks. That quote is taken out of context, he said that the attacks were a retribution by god for the "sinful" acts of those peoples/organizations, in the context in which it is show it seems that he is directly implicating those peoples in the planning and carrying out of those attacks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swiftfire242 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point. It's mostly a "Examples of Pat sticking his foot in his mouth" page. WAVY 10 Fan 18:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The question, though, is there any third-party sources that mention the good side of Pat Robertson, instead of the bad side that many people know about? I'm all for keeping the article balanced, but with Robertson practically demonised by his detractors, is there a non-biased list of Robertson's charitable efforts? -- azumanga 01:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

A lot of them are mainly tied in with Operation Blessing. Perhaps add a section on that with a link to the main article?Ziiv 11:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think a new section is unnecessary. Operation Blessing is already mentioned in the article; if readers want to read more about Op. Blessing, they can on the Operation Blessing article.—Christopher Mann McKay^talk 01:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

First let me say that I am no fan of Mr. Robertson. But, nevertheless, it is hard to imagine a more blatantly one-sided and biased biography, even on Wikipedia. The catalog of grievances against him is enormous, and enormously detailed, and dwarfs everything else in the article put together. It spills over the gigantic "controversies and criticisms" section, and permeates the rest of the article, as well. The overwhelming preponderance of criticism in this biography is not matched even in the biography of Joseph Stalin. "Neutrality disputed?" It could hardly be any less neutral if the article were entitled, "The evil Pat Robertson." NCdave (talk) 07:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget the Adolf Hitler article too! That article is also one-sided and needs a bit of polishing to make Mr Hitler appear like a more normal person. Are you joking? This man is a lunatic and in any other country in the western world he would have been imprisoned long ago for his hate speech. This article is just about fine.--Xania ^talk 21:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick request to add a category

Category:University or college founders. Thanks! - from the unstable dynamic IP 70.50.199.53 16:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Rudy endorsement

Hasn't Pat's endorsement of Rudy Giuliani for the Republican presidential campaign sparked a lot of controversy? I even learned here that Wiley Drake, a longtime Southern Baptist leader, even went so far as to call for a boycott as mentioned Former So. Baptist official calls for 'boycott' of Pat Robertson (OneNewsNow website). Wouldn't this qualify to be included in the controversy section? WAVY 10 Fan 23:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wiley Drake, the Baptist "official" AFA references, is not the least bit notable to mention; he just some pastor from a church in Buena Park that AFA quoted. Plus, American Family Association is an unreliable source, so you would have to find another source anyways. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 01:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Robertson's endorsement was more of a surprise than something that "sparked a lot of controversy"--at least according to NPR and other sources.—Christopher Mann McKay^talk 01:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Education

"Interesting [sic] enough, McCallie, now a college preparatory school, was at the time a military school. "
Typo aside, why does it matter that McCallie was a military school? How does military school conflict with college preparation?
Does this sentence belong in the article?
--AndersW (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Number 2 revisited

The sheer number of subsections in the controversy/criticism section overwhelmed everything else on this page, per summary style I've spun the section off into Pat Robertson controversies. Anynobody 03:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NWO Pat Rob.jpg

Image:NWO Pat Rob.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

apartheid

see this page - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/opinion/17rich.html?em&ex=1203397200&en=2427f7c3cc6ed0d0&ei=5087

it claims robertson was a supporter of south african apartheid. i don't see anything on the page along those lines. is it true? if so, we should find some sources to quote and get it up on the page. needless to say, it would deserve a mention.

EDIT: i found a page that references it specifically (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEFD7103CF930A25751C0A96E948260), so we now have a credible source and can work this into the page. any ideas on how we might be able to work it in? the "politics" section?

69.249.121.180 (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Mobutu?

The "See also" section includes a link to Mobutu Sese Seko, which includes a one-line comment saying that Mobutu and Pat Robertson were friends. Rather than just putting a reference to "See also", this is significant enough, IMO, to warrant some text in the article. However, the one reference cited by the Mobutu article is just a website set up by some guy with the expressed intent of speaking out against Pat Robertson. If anyone has more reliable sources on this relationship, please contribute it to both articles. Ramorum (talk) 07:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget Charles Taylor of Liberia. Robertson diverted ministry funds into diamond-mining operations in his country in the middle of a genocide. So much for compassionate conservatism. 198.105.45.123 (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Do all the tragedies and violence in the world make you wonder if God really exists? The book of Revelation tells of the destruction of Babylon but identifies Babylon as Jerusalem. The details listed fit the characteristics of the USA very well. America's knowledge about God comes from Jews who wrote the messages contained in the Bible. Established upon the principles set forth in the Bible, America bacame the greatest nation in the history of man. God keeps his word. The nation which honors him lives under the mantle of his safety. The nation which does not honor him receives the results of its own decisions and conduct. A nation's leaders set the standard for the people. An expose of America's primary leaders can be found on the blog at www.krisdoulos,com

Kris Doulos kdavoice@aol.com June 30, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.22.209 (talk) 11:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Dumbass, America was founded on the seperation of church and state, and none of the principles in its foundation were remotely Bible-specific. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion?" Sound familiar? The Byzantine Empire, Middle-Ages Europe and the Spanish, Dutch and British empires however, were all ruled by Christian governments. Perhaps we should follow them into their graves? 198.105.45.123 (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Environmentalism

It appears to that Pat has jumped on the "green" bandwagon lately. He's team up with Al Sharpton to save the Planet, and I think he was at one of the Live 8 or Live Earth events. Can any elaborate?--Dudeman5685 (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

I noticed there is a heavy amount of vandalism on this article. When I first came upon it it said Pat Robertson is the anti-christ or something. Perhaps protection is needed? Crazyconan (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Homophobia category

I'm going to be adding Robertson to this, and to the History of LGBT civil rights in the United States category. Discuss. --98.232.180.37 (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Health?

Mr Robertson is almost eighty. There doesn't seem to be a section here on any health concerns that he might have. Why? Calibanu (talk) 02:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)User Calibanu

Maybe he just doesn't have any of any real significance. What do you want it to say? "Like most 80 year olds, he is in a slow state of decay."? 202.10.95.154 (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"Many interpret Pat Robertson's health as a sign that there is no moral order in the Universe." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.131.215 (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Relations with Roman Catholic Church

There appears to have been a slight degree of controversy over Robertson's relations with Rome. Robertson was been called an ecumenist by some of his fellow Baptist brethren. He has been a supporter of Evangelicals and Catholics Together. I notice this because Robertson has publicly criticized just about everyone except Catholics. [3] ADM (talk) 10:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

2010 Haitian Earthquake Comments

I don't know how to do this, but someone should cite this idiot's comments regarding the recent earthquake. http://www.breitbart.tv/they-have-been-cursed-pat-robertson-says-haiti-swore-a-pact-to-the-devil/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.186.67.19 (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. These comments have also appeared on BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8456322.stm) and there has been outrage but maybe for Americans comments like this are normal because the USA is a much more religious country? How on earth is this guy still allowed to be free?--Xania ^talk 21:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

There should definitely be something about it. It will add to the lengthy controversy section of this "person". Teh man o' god page should probably be protected for awhile too because, you know, he's a douche. Alyssa Milano said so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.176.218 (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This section of the article inaccurately claims that Robertson mentioned Dutty Boukman in his rant. While Boukman seems to be the source of various past claims of a Haitian "pact with the devil" (and likely is the source of this one), it's wrong to say that Robertson actually brought it up. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 07:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"How on earth is this guy still allowed to be free?" Are you serious? I can't stand PR either, but you seriously need to reexamine your view of freedom of speech. 72.158.186.30 (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Check this out: Bois Caïman. I also asked this in jest, but I seem to have gotten a decent reply: Where can I find that painting that depicts the slaves of Haiti making a deal with the devil to overthrow Napoleon-the-third-or-whatever?Civic Cat (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

I definitely recommend it, in light of his recent comments regarding Haiti. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that Haiti is infamous for Voodoo, I imagine that Pat Robertson may soon be feeling rather unwell and that god will only offer semi-protection. Pins and needles apparently. Here's hoping anyway.--Sid the Obscure (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As much as he deserves criticism for what he said, it's best to semi-protect the page. In the hope that this runs its coure quickly enough, I just semi-protected it for 24 hours. Guettarda (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This page is semi-protected, and so can't be edited. When it is no longer semi-protected, this line needs to be changed: "Robertson refered to voodoo priest Dutty Boukman's role in the Haitian revolution when he said Haiti had made a "pact to the Devil" in order to liberate themselves from the French and indirectly attributed the earthquake to the consequences of the Haitian people being "cursed"[50] for doing so.[51]." The first half of the statement is uncited and is, in fact, not true. Robertson never mentioned Dutty Boukman at all.

Robertson's exact words were: ""Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, [...] they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, we will serve you if you'll get us free from the French. True story. And so, the devil said, okay it's a deal."

Referring to Dutty Boukman in this article is a cynical attempt to whitewash and re-write what Robertson said. Regardless, he did not in any way refer to him, and so this should be amended. If anything, one could add, at the end of that statement, "Robertson may have been referring to Dutty Boukman'" or whatever. — Sam 63.138.152.155 (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

you indirectly support him in this mannerAmandalu862 (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

He did it again

{{editsemiprotected}} Robertson claims the earthquake in Haiti was deserved because of a deal with the devil. Please place a note under Controversies and criticisms. Suggestion to comply with the template:

Original: Robertson was criticized worldwide for his call for Hugo Chavez’s assassination[18] and for his remarks concerning Ariel Sharon's health as an act of God.[43]

Suggested: Robertson was criticized worldwide for his call for Hugo Chavez’s assassination[18], for his remarks concerning Ariel Sharon's health as an act of God [43], and the 2010 earthquake in Haiti was the result of a deal with the devil.

It appears these comments already appear in the article. Josh Parris 09:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Homophobia category redux

An anonymous, single-purpose account added this category some time ago. Another user also added a discussion section here, but it was ignored. I have not looked back to see what the category page said back then, but right now, Category:Homophobia unequivocally states:

This category contains articles that discuss or refer to the topic of homophobia.

It is not for labeling individuals or organizations that editors themselves deem to be homophobic. This article does not discuss or refer to homophobia, so I have removed the category. If material from reliable sources can be found to support the category's inclusion, it can be re-added. However, as the article is now and how the category is currently described, the category's inclusion is not at all warranted. Seregain (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)