Jump to content

Talk:Pat Robertson controversies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ironic

[edit]

Most of his words apply to himself and his religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeoo17 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sad

[edit]

What is sad is that he generates so much controversy that there is a dedicated wiki page entitled "Pat Robertson controversies". Now, that's real sad. Falkonry (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

[edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "Robertson " :
    • {{cite book| last = Randi | first = James | authorlink = James Randi | year = 1989 | title = [[The Faith Healers]] | publisher = Prometheus Books | id = ISBN 0-87975-535-0 pages 199–200}}
    • {{cite book| last = Randi | first = James | authorlink = James Randi | year = 1989 | title = [[The Faith Healers]] | publisher = Prometheus Books | id = ISBN 0-87975-535-0 page 200}}
    • {{cite book| last = Randi | first = James | authorlink = James Randi | year = 1989 | title = [[The Faith Healers]] | publisher = Prometheus Books | id = ISBN 0-87975-535-0 page 205}}
    • {{cite book| last = Randi | first = James | authorlink = James Randi | year = 1989 | title = [[The Faith Healers]] | publisher = Prometheus Books | id = ISBN 0-87975-535-0 pages 197–206}}
    • {{cite book| last = Randi | first = James | authorlink = James Randi | year = 1989 | title = [[The Faith Healers]] | publisher = Prometheus Books | id = ISBN 0-87975-535-0 page 204}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 06:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All this needs is some numbers about the multitudes he has inspired to make it to heaven simply so they are assured they will never run in to him again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.157.40 (talk) 06:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relations with Roman Catholic Church

[edit]

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. [1] ADM (talk) 10:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally acting like a cunt

[edit]

Pat Robertson generally acts very badly towards people that are not white, straight, male, evangelical christian americans. This is not really his fault - he is just an asshole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.17.233 (talk) 09:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to the article were reverted because Wikipedia is not redunantly redunant to the point of redundancy. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see this above is the general mind set of most wikipedia users. Dtmckay (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you caught me, I am the Wiki-Pope, I speak for all Wikipedians on matters such as this, and I'm not being sarcastic at all. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this guy? Just this list of sourced activity is astonishing. It really is a great plus point for US devotion to democracy at home that this person is still loose in their society, and even free to proselytise, rather than being incarcerated in an oubliette somewhere. Or a mental institution. Centrepull (talk) 07:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is horribly written

[edit]

Listen, if you are going to put this on wikipedia and call this fact you really need some help writing. Listen to this line: "Harder to explain was why he spent $520,000 on the horse and intended it to compete at the track" Harder to explain? You could put something like he had a harder time to explain, you are giving your liberal and atheistic points of views upon people right there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.159.38.3 (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Harder to explain" works because it wasn't just him that had a hard time explaining: noone could come up with a good explaination for his behavior not being suspicious. Your assumption that those editing this article are atheists betrays your POV intentions ("Harder to explain" doesn't have anything to do with atheism, style and facts aren't the same). I have contributed to this article and I am a Christian (which is why I think folks like Robertson should be held to a higher standard of behavior and shown when they do not meet it). Not enforcing your POV is not the same as being POV. The reason we put it up there and called it fact is that it is well-sourced, and no sources can be found from Robertson or a supporter of his to counter it (even then, we would just put "But some counter that..."). Ian.thomson (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Haitian Earthquake Comments

[edit]

Someone should add this http://www.breitbart.tv/they-have-been-cursed-pat-robertson-says-haiti-swore-a-pact-to-the-devil/ because I don't feel like it and I'm too lazy. And I'm high. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.186.67.19 (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the deleted section on pat Robertson being roundly condemned as I beleive the sources fall under WPVerifiability "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Please let me know if you think it should be re-reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanhoare01 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sections removed

[edit]

I've removed two sections from this article. The first of them was simply listing Robertson's views on global warming - first he didn't believe in it, then he did. That's not really a 'controversy'. The second was about a student being suspended from Regent University due to a picture he posted on Facebook; that is a controversy, but it's really to do with the university, not Robertson, who's only tangentially related to the story. It belongs in the university's article, not this one. Robofish (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edits

[edit]

I have been removing poorly sourced stuff and made a mistake in an edit summary, this coatrack poorly sourced content has been reverted back in, Ian could you please explain why you think a press relase which is a primary document from http://www.commondreams.org/pressreleases/ is a usable source for a blp please mark nutley (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS doesn't restrict the use of press releases, nor does WP:BLP. Even then, the term "press release" in this case isn't quite the same as "press release" if released by, say Toyota or McDonald's. According to Common Dream's writer's guidelines "CommonDreams.org's Progressive NewsWire is a nonprofit news serivce which publishes the latest news releases from the progressive communiity." (Emphasis mine). It's not quite the same as a company trying to use news media services as a means of advertising. Also, a primary source would footage from the 700 Club, this is a secondary source. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can`t currently connect to it, says there is a server loop? do you mind leaving it out until i can check please? mark nutley (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but previous discussions on WP:RSN, treats Commondreams.org as a reliable source. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just went to self revert myself but can`t, i`ll reinsert it tomorrow but shall ask first on the BLPN boards if this is suitable, if you want to bung it back in until then feel free mark nutley (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alzheimer’s

[edit]

This issue seems to have gotten considerable attention,[2][3] including comments from fellow evangelical leaders. We should probably include at least a very brief mention. Perhaps something like:

  • Robertson endorsed the divorce of spouses with Alzheimer’s disease in a comment in September 2011, calling it a "kind of death". He received criticism for it from a number of sources including other evangelical leaders.

Maybe we could make it even shorter. Thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  22:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Edit War about 'Stepanna'

[edit]

Someone keeps insisting on putting that article back, reverting everyone's edits. It's poorly spelled, poorly written, there is no date cited, and no reference as to how it's a controversy. Other opinions? Czolgolz (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have removed it myself, and will revert anybody adding it back without a reference. Freikorp (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First Child Conceived out of wedlock?

[edit]

Does the information that Pat's first child was conceived out of wedlock and that he lied about the date of his wedding to cover it up appropriate for either this article or the main Pat Robertson article? Reference: http://articles.philly.com/1987-10-09/news/26214235_1_pat-robertson-christian-broadcasting-network-news-conference .

I definitely think it does. Done. Freikorp (talk) 10:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

This article has been tagged for neutrality since November 2012, yet the tagger, who simply added the edit summary "disputed neutrality" did not start a conversation on the talk page stating exactly what he thinks is not neutral. I am happy to analyse and make adjustments if anyone points out anything they think is not neutral. Otherwise if nobody comments in the next few days I intend to remove this unexplained tag. Freikorp (talk) 09:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Freikorp (talk) 03:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Pat Robertson controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Pat Robertson controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote 7

[edit]

Fn 7 needs fixing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by American In Brazil (talk • contribs) 02:17, March 28, 2021 (UTC)

@American In Brazil: Yes, and so does Fn 20. The problem is whoever originally added Fn 7 didn't add the title of the article, only the magazine, page number and the date. So unless someone has that particular issue of New York (magazine) from August 18 1986, and adds in the title, I'm afraid it's going to stay in need of fixing. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding the magazine online. Ironically after reading the section this is used to reference I think the entire section may need to be deleted. Robertson does indeed make a statement that many people will not surprisingly find offensive, but there's no secondary coverage of the comments actually causing controversy. I don't think the incident counts as a controversy, by definition, unless someone reacts to it in a negative manner. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Damien Linnane: I also fixed fn. 20. As for controversy, most of what Robertson says is controversial. Whether or not it is offensive is a subjective judgement, not an encyclopedic reference. Let's just leave it 'as is'. Thanks for your comment. P.S. Great self-portrait! American In Brazil (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Pat Robertson's dealings with Charles Taylor" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Pat Robertson's dealings with Charles Taylor has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 19 § Pat Robertson's dealings with Charles Taylor until a consensus is reached. – bradv 23:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pat_Robertson_controversies&oldid=1217246430"