Talk:Pat Robertson

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (Jul. 2003 to Aug. 2005):

1 Other || 2 Very One Sided || 3 Robertson falsely claimed an award on his site || 4 Major Overhaul of page || 5 Untrue portions || 6 Dubious link || 7 Conflicting information || 8 add this || 9 Re: the August 22, 2005 Hugo Chavez Comment: || 10 External links out of balance || 11 Insults?? Major overhaul needed. || 12 better pic? || 13 NPOV and current tags || 14 Robertson on the Wiki main page || 15 Comment on "psychotic ramblings" || 16 Does anyone have an issue with this paragraph, which Paul August deleted, and which I reinserted, captured from national news ... AP, CNN, etc. ?? || 17 NPOV || 18 Fatwa || 19 How/where to contrast Pat's commie/extremist accusation of Chavez, and Pat's own commie/extremist ties? || 20 Can someone reword equivocate to position in the Chinese abortion section? || 21 Formatting while protected || 22 add eo: please || 23 700 Club not so popular now? || 24 Can the ban be removed?

Please add new threads at the bottom of this page.

---

Hoi I was reading that!

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

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.[1]"

Again, pay attention all you haters:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Much Love,

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

The best version of that paragraph is here: [2]. It was later removed in a mass reversion of one of your chainedits. It is nearly impossible to improve or even retain the article at any quality, however, with POV warriors going at it - on both sides. If only the responsible editors around here didn't have to play catchup all the time. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment

About 20% of this now over-long article is devoted to the Hugo Chavez comments. It's silly "recentism" and people need perspective here. Not the first and probably not the last flap. Leave it out of the intro and avoid skewing relative emphasis in the article itself. Marskell 17:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

hmm..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)

"Recentism" is my very own neologism that I liberally throw around whenever I can... I do think it's a problem. I'd actually suggest simply shortening what's in here. It doesn't need four level four headlines. Marskell 17:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm with you there. But why don't we give it a week or so more to play out, then work out what is worth keeping, maybe find somewhere (possibly not in Wikipedia) to factor out the long version. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:14, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

I edited this piece on his net worth as follows:

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

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

1) Piss poor writing. 2) Abject hate.

Why then the resistance when I am improving both?

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

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

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

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

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

I KNOW Robertson.

These HATERS don't.

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

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

So, how am I the one bringing a POV?

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

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

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

$200 million - $1Billion?

An $800 million range???

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

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

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

It's just too obvious now...

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

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

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

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

I edited out this piece on China and abortions:

"It has since been speculated that as founder of the Zhaodaole China Internet portal and part-owner of a cable network in China, Robertson was unwilling to risk straining relations with the Chinese government. [3]"

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

And you think this garbage collection should be left in?

Sorry pal, this is NOTHING to be proud of.

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

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

Hmmmm.....

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

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

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

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

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

How NOT to move forward

Jmabel's PHONY offer of 'good faith' is below. The reason it was rescinded in less than 24 hours is cause I saw thru it and called him out. Naturally, he high tailed it. Thanks for saving us BOTH a lot of time.

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

A reasonable person that is...

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

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

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

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

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

Jmabel,

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, why is it included??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then we can move on to greater and grander things.

Big Daddy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was a cheezy attempt to SOUND sympathetic to Christians.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They're coming out...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks! Your pal,

16:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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

Katefan,

You're kidding, right?

Work together??

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

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

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

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

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

Big Daddy

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

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

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

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

LOL!

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

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

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

Lol!

17:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Look, this isn't Usenet. Mudslinging is annoying at best and disruptive at worst. Focus on content. I'm ignoring your comments that aren't related to content, and most others here probably are too -- in other words, you're just talking to yourself. What exactly do you think should be changed? Let's take it piece by piece and talk it out here before engaging in edit warring. Also, please sign your posts by using four tildes in a row ~~~~, and please try not to use so many line breaks. Consolidate your sentences -- there's no need to have one sentence per line break; it's making this page scroll way too much. Thanks. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:04, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

concur. I think wikipedia:Assume good faith applies here. Let's make this article NPOV without killing each other. I also concur that there's no need to have one sentence per line break. Also, Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers MPS 19:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Vacuous statement

In discussing his presidential run: "Among his policies, he wanted to ban illegal drugs…" What, if anything, does this mean? Aren't illegal drugs, by definition, already banned? If no one can explain this, I'm inclined to delete the remark. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:58, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I can only pose a guess: perhaps he opposed legalization of drugs. Again, this is just my guess. MPS 17:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

To the anon re: prayer

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

Jmabel responds to Big Daddy

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

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

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

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

Big Daddy responds to Jmabel

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

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

1) The inclusion of his alleged consorting with prostitutes.

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

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

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

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

OK, let's look at these one by one. I have some questions to you, because I'm by no means expert on Robertson.

1. I would say that the contrast between someone's life before conversion and after is at least somewhat germane, but I would certainly agree that the specifics of "consorting with prostitutes" would not be particularly relevant unless he has engaged the topic himself in his writing/preaching. Does Robertson himself ever allude to his own "life of sin" prior to his conversion? If so, what sins (if any) does he single out. Has he engaged (either to acknowledge or deny) this particular point? I know that is a pretty standard trope for converts who become preachers, but I can't remember hearing Robertson ever use it. I would argue that the details are relevant exactly insofar as Robertson himself has engaged them; other than that, his sex life before his conversion should be his own business: he was not a public figure in any way at that time, nor was he claiming to be any kind of moral paragon, and, frankly, a soldier paying for sex is not news. On the other hand, the thing about being known for procuring liquor probably should stay, given decent citation, partly because it is unusual and partly because it reflects on his own claims about his military record.
2. The article should certainly contain Robertson's own account of how he came to Christ. I don't have an immediate opinion on whether it should contain anyone else's commentary on that. I can't tell from your one phrase what you want to do here.
3. It seems to me that his net worth is worth mentioning one way or another: he's a rich man, self-made, and therefore his wealth merits mention. Are you saying that his wealth is irrelevant to the article, in which case I'm afraid we disagree on this point: for anyone who started from roughly nothing and made millions of dollars, that is a fact worth noting. Do you have a source you would consider more appropriate to cite? Or are you saying this should be handled in some particular different way? -- Jmabel | Talk 17:03, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who's sliming whom?

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

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

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

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

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

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

JMabel,

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

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

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

At this point, then, I would recommend a quick survey of the articles about similar figures to Robertson, and perhaps a pattern can be recognised in aid of a "standard" treatment of the article in line with others of like content. At least it would perhaps diminish the effect that people were ganging up on Robertson. I haven't edited Robertson's (or any similar articles) much beyond reverting obvious vandalism, so my advice is mostly theoretical I'm afraid, but that is what would make sense to me. Regards, Fire Star 03:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that'd do any good. Wikipedia is inconsistent by nature. I think we should just focus on making this particular article better and to hew to NPOV standards. If we do that, what other articles say won't matter in this context. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:37, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

To be fair...

...to criticisms of this page, the Controversies section is a little jumbled and meandering. Suggest:

• If we have military service in sect. 1 move the Korean War controversy into it.
• Further trim the Hugo Chavez stuff.
• Actually drop the Barbara Boxer reference due to notability. Mis-quotes and out of context criticisms are dime-a-dozen really. Marskell 15:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I took out the Boxer reference altogether. It's sourced, but not really fair. For me, doesn't answer the "so what?" question. As you said, misrepresentations are a dime a dozen, and this doesn't strike me as a particularly earthshattering one. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:45, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Robertson Leaving Christian Coalition

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

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

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)

Hurricane Katrina

I think the claim that Robertson blamed Ellen Degeneres for Hurricane Katrina is a send-up, but it's so hard to be sure. Does anyone know one way or the other? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.203.152.165 (talk • contribs) 11 Sept 2005 (UTC)

• This seems to have been a case of an editor with a temporary immunity to satire. It's out of there. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:28, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Don't know who originally posted. Quite possibly bad faith. I reverted and re-reverted when noticing the error (thanks, presumably, to the anon who started this thread). Marskell 22:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I found a source, but I can't vouch for it.[4] It doesn't say when and where Robertson made the assertion, and the article itself is unsigned. If a better source isn't found it should eventually be removed. -Willmcw 05:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

You are citing a satire site. See [5]: "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)

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

The Barbara Boxer issue...

...is a mis-attribution not an accusation. NN and very mild as far as Robertson goes. Including does seem to my mind a case of including any criticism we can think of. Marskell 05:01, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. There's much more scathing criticism that can/could be/is leveled; this just seems like a case of "so what?" · Katefan0^(scribble) 05:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

::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)

A biographical article of this length does not need to be a comprehensive list of gaffes and incidents. This is a minor one. There are more than enough to choose from in Robertson's case. If we discuss a small representative sample well, and refer the user to where they can find more comprehensive biographies, we do much more of a service than if this article becomes mainly a list of gaffes and controversies. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I've removed this again as there does appear to be consensus. Asbl, take a look at the list of quotes from the links. If "absolutely appalling" makes the cut than virtually everything he's ever said publicly does too. --Marskell 09:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Can we at least put the media matters link to the story in the external link section?
Another question. If the Barbara Boxer story is "too small" what about the Chinese Abortions? --Asbl 19:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The only cite on the Chinese abortions (assuming you mean the passage I removed) was a site so far right they make Robertson look like a liberal. If there is a good citation on that, fine, but this was definitely not a good citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

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

Yes, sorry, my comments may have been confusing. I thought you were referring to a cut I made last week. I didn't remove the entire section, just some material from a hard-right source (well to Robertson's right. Yes, there is such a thing). The remaining material is cited from a source I would also usually avoid as being extreme, but since its politics are in the same turf as Robertson's own, it's probably reasonable in this case. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Consider three things:

• The "link" issue. What's a more controversial topic, Chinese abortions of Barbara Boxer's opinion of Judge Roberts? The former, obviously.
• Words used. Not particularly flamboyant in either case.
• Response generated. Major for abortions, minor for Boxer.

Yes, this a judgement call as lists of these sorts will always be but Chinese abortions makes much more sense to my mind than BB comments. I don't have a problem with the external link. --Marskell 09:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Degeneres stuff..

Hey Will, I think that Degeneres stuff didn't happen. datelinehollywood.com seems to be a satire site on the order of The Onion. The sad thing is that it actually reads like it could be true. · Katefan0^(scribble) 05:11, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Aha. That explains why no real news source has it. If that's the case, then it should go. I'll delete it. Thanks, -Willmcw 05:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I made the same mistake a few days ago! · Katefan0^(scribble) 05:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BigDaddy777

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)

Prostitutes?

I took out this smear:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, it's out of your hands now. Your violation of the 3rr rule is for others to adjudicate. Big Daddy 17:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Testimony

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

Here it is:

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