Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:34, 6 September 2005

Other

887< sarcasm-tag>This article is not biased at all.< /sarcasm-tag> Starbane 04:15, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi, this book is used as a source in the first paragraph: The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. The statement might be made a little stronger if someone who has the book finds the author's source for this info and quotes from that instead. I assume the author cited his source(at least I hope he did). --ArcticFrog 13:38, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)ArcticFrog

there are many accusations about pat robertson and his friendship with brutal dictator mobutu sese seko of zaire. possibly in connection with diamonds. should be checked out. too bad im too lazy!

Pat Robertson seems like a shrewd politician rather than a calm and compassionate religious person August 23, 2005

Based on this article, it's a wonder he has never been indicted or convicted of major crimes. If I hadn't ever known the man myself, I would think he were awful. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a follower, but I think he is (more or less) a good man that's trying to use his money and influence to make a better world for everyone, regardless of what anyone might think of him. BTW, why is it controversial for him to own thoroughbred race horses? Because he doesn't believe in gambling? Which of his horses have participated in gambling events? Could these same horses be involved in equestrian events? Or, perhaps he allows children with lesser means to ride them, which I happen to know is true, since my younger sister has ridden some of his horses with other neighborhood children (we lived within a mile of CBN and his home in Virginia Beach).--Asacan 15:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

interesting little article on his site recently that says that hitler was stopped by the US and the UK.

no mention of the USSR.

20 million dead to stop hitler. not worth a mention.

The Russians were defending their land from invasion. The U.S. and Britain were the key players in stopping Hitler. → JarlaxleArtemis 04:31, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Thats is completely incorrect. The Red Army and the civilians of the Soviet Union had to carry the burden of the war and bound more than 80% of the Wehrmacht forces from 1941-1944. By far the greatest loss of men and material for the Wehrmacht took place at the front against the Red Army. In the end THEIR (The Red Armies) effort decided the war! Just because they also had a ruthless dictator on the top, doesnt lower their importance. And its not only 20 Million dead - its about 20 Million dead civil citizens of the Soviet Union and additionally around 7 Million dead soldiers of the Red Army.

The U.S. did also "only" defend themselves after Pearl Harbour and the war declaration of Hitler (!) against the U.S. The only country truely keeping to pacts (Poland, France) for removing Hitler was Britain. But they couldnt have won the war without the SU either.

Regarding this article im wondering if there is a way to reconcile the two different quotes attributed to him about the nuke at Foggy Bottom? Anyone knowledgeble about that should try to correct it. --Blackireddy 23:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Someone please incorporate this into the article? http://www.msnbc.com/news/936829.asp?0na=x239J0A2-&cp1=1 --Dante Alighieri 19:21 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Nevermind, I did it myself. --Dante Alighieri 20:12 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hephaestos, the contributions origianally made by 66.235.39.157, were legitamate. The source of this information was a program about him on Court TV. This user obviously started vadalising because you were reverting thier contributions. It is quite disturbing to me that you are abusing your admin powers in this manner. I hope you will look more closely next time before making blanket reverts. MB 20:24 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This is the first contribution that 66.235.39.157 left... are you SURE that's all legitimate? My personal favorite part is where Pat's miniscule genitalia is described. ;) --Dante Alighieri 00:26 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Just a misunderstanding; it's cleared up now (on our talk pages if you're bored). - Hephaestos 00:30 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Pat's genitalia is not miniscule, that's just the popular misperception. In actuality, it's minuscule. <g> -- Someone else 00:31 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

On another note, the article claims he sent a bill to Congress, but private citizens can't do that. Can someone who knows clarify his relationship to the bill (e.g. he wrote it and it was introduced to Congress by Representative X)? -- Someone else 00:36 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Let me just say first that I don't know all that much about Robertson, but this article seem very much one sided against Robertson. Why is his net worth in the article. I can not recall seeing anyone's else net worth put in his article. Plus what is the source of that figure?

Forbes Magazine? It's appropriate for anyone with more than a hundred million dollars to have this information tagged. They are power figures, with that much money, and must be closely watched. No one has a right to that much power in silence. For instance we note that Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, George Soros, Rupert Murdoch etc. are very rich. Although it may be more appropriate to put their "rank" (richest, second richest, etc.) than any dollar figure, it's harder to keep that up to date unless we pick one source, say Forbes or Fortune, and stick to it.

"Robertson's scientific background can be seen through the mistakes he has made in the past, bringing "Scientists," to his show that have been arrested for fraudulent manipulation of data, changing data which suggested that Christians had different points of view than actually suggested.

This is called polling. It is all fraud one way or another, with results paid in advance.

In the past, Pat Robertson has attempted to end world hunger by giving $150,000 to a man, Dennis Lee, later known as a scam artist, but had been arrested once before for running a scam similar to the one Robertson participated. He told Robertson he would sell him machines for $275 that would create perpetual motion, or endless power."

What is the source for this informtation ?

I heard this same information on a show on Court TV. マイカル (MB) 15:37, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

This should be removed anyway. Everyone with a lot of money gets suckered once in a while, and, if you look at a list of those who have believed in or invested in perpetual motion devices, it's pretty shocking. This just isn't worth putting in his bio.

Smith03 15:24, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

A bit of balancing information that deserves to be here is that Robertson really does fund a lot of developing nation relief, and was commonly counselling people who called his show after 9/11 against hate responses, and even against revenge thinking - unusual at the time. He also voiced grave doubts about political leaders like Bush claiming to speak or act for God.

Robertson's scientific background can be seen through the mistakes he has made in the past, bringing "Scientists," to his show that have been arrested for fraudulent manipulation of data, changing data which suggested that Christians had different points of view than actually suggested.

In the past, Pat Robertson has attempted to end world hunger by giving $150,000 to a man, Dennis Lee, later known as a scam artist, but had been arrested once before for running a scam similar to the one Robertson participated. He told Robertson he would sell him machines for $275 that would create perpetual motion, or endless power.

He has recently participated in an effort to send forth to Congress a bill that would ban gay sex, something to add to the constitution. Robertson's view of gays has long been vehement and shows itself respectively.

From I what I can make out looking in page history most of this stuff was added by anonymous users who also added offensive info. At the very least this info should be verifed before putting back in and the grammer on the last para certainly needs to be look at Smith03 17:30, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Do you mean grammar?

Moving content that constitued vandalism on the main page, but is great for any talk page: 172 07:51, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"Pat Robertson has recently felt hardship, for he knows he is losing the war against gay rights and his small penis. Pat Robertson has even been known to give $150,000 to a scam artist who told him he would sell him machines for $275 that would create perpetual motion, or endless power. Clearly not a scientist, Pat Robertson suffers from many diseases of the brain. He also has publically announced that he wishes that the 3 supreme court justices that are ill who voted for sodomy to be legalized to die. He is a sham and uses his position to accomplish vendettas of his own in the name of the christian populus. What a coward.

Robertson has even gone to the extent of bringing "Scentists," to his show that have been arrested for fraudulent manipulation of data, data which suggested that christians were on his side for america becomming offensive toward gays. He has even sent forth to congress a bill that would ban gay sex, something to add to the constitution, "Like it would ever pass"

Robertson clearly spends too much time thinking about gay people, it is obvious he is completely gay and can't deal with it. In deed his dick is small and he is hiding behind religion to make it feel bigger."

It's not how I'd state these views, and I doubt that the facts are correct, but the sentiments are right on. 172 07:51, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think this

"He has recently participated in an effort to send forth to Congress a bill that would ban gay sex, something to add to the constitution. Robertson's view of gays has long been vehement and shows itself respectively."

Can be in the article, but we need to know what he supports. I would think it is an amedment to define marriage between one man one woman, I never heard of anyone proposing an amedment to outlaw gay sex, but maybe they have but we should be sure what he supports. Smith03 13:37, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Taken from MNBC article above

Other Baptist and evangelical Christian leaders said they do not share either Robertson’s support for Taylor or his criticism of President Bush’s call for the Liberian leader to go into exile. “I would say that Pat Robertson is way out on his own, in a leaking life raft, on this one,” said Richard Land, head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s public policy arm.

Allen Hertzke, a professor of political science at the University of Oklahoma and the author of a forthcoming book on evangelicals and human rights, said many religious conservatives “will be horrified” by Robertson’s stance. “His comments really feed into the media critique of Christian conservatives, that they are not sophisticated, they don’t care about others, all they care about are Christians around the world — when in fact that is a caricature of the faith-based human rights movement,” Hertzke said.

He also agreed with Jerry Falwell that the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks were caused by "pagans, abortionists, feminists, gays, lesbians, the ACLU and the People for the American Way."

According to Patrobertson.com his official website, Robertson never made these remarks or agreed with Falwell about them. Falwell apparently ( again according to Robertson's website) went on Good Morning America and apologized for the comments and stated as well that Robertson never made the statements. Smith03 15:16, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

• there seems to no disagreement from other sources that Falwell made the comments, but Robertson may have agreed with him at the time of the statements, but may not have been aware or realize what Falwell was saying or thinking of the impact the statement may made. It would be nice to find a full transcript of the show or tape to see and hear what happen and what was said. Smith03 15:33, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Robertson is Falwell's puppet, he agree's with almost everything Falwell says. He probably was just too stupid to realize what Falwell was saying at the time, and didn't realize until people started critisising him for it. マイカル 17:30, Aug 18, 2003 (UTC)

The law firm focuses on pro-family, pro-liberty and pro-life cases nationwide

In this context, what does "pro-liberty" mean? -- Pde 17:55, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

My guess is that's it's a buzzword to imply that anyone opposed to the law is anti-liberty.... just like pro-family and pro-life. --Dante Alighieri 19:52, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

To be serious, rather than flippantly biased, I suspect it means that the law firm takes on cases where Christians feel they have been discriminated against or to assert their rights under the Bill of Rights. I doubt that they take many cases for other religous beliefs (but perhaps they do to establish precedents). If my guess is indeed the case, then perhaps changing it to reflect that would be good.Ark30inf 20:51, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

• "If I could just get a nuclear device inside Foggy Bottom, I think that's the answer." (Robertson on the U.S. State Dept.)

I took this out, but if someone can provide the context of this statement i would have no problem with it going back in, but I don't want to see this article going back to a whole of quotes which may have been said or were said but taken out of context or selectly edited.Smith03 22:21, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This news article explains the context: .

Thanks than please add the full content as well Smith03 22:49, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Assassination? Kidnaping? Nuclear Device?- Please refer to "Instigate acts of Terrorism" in your favorite dictionary...

And the Hitler comparisson..... Nowadays everything is compared to Hitler and the Nazis and the Hollocaust... come on... that was one of the darkest moments of the history of Mankind.... can't compare your everyday South-American Dictator (and notice that most South-American Dictatorships were supported by the US as alternatives to anything remotelly communist) with Hitler...

                Chavez is a democratically elected president, and a very popular one. As  a matter of fact, Venezuela is our only major source of oil that is a democratic country.

Very One Sided

It's sad to see that people can't put aside their personal hatred of someone and just write about the facts. This article on Robertson is amazingly biased, that in order to edit it in a fair, impartial manner, the whole article would have to be re-written.

This type of writing is what can make this 'encyclopedia' so non-credible.

I do happen to agree with this anon editor, even though I don't happen to favor Robertson. Anyone out here that knows a bit about him willing to work on the article? I'll stick around and try to make sure it stays NPOV, but this may require a bit of work, and definetly someone who knows Pat more than I do. Lyellin 14:37, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

I agree it's a disgrace and an embarassement to wikipedia. Unfortunately, i don't know enough about him either. I think that I may know of a wikipedian, who can present releiable opposing views.

-JCarriker 15:49, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

I concur with JCarriker, and I'm pretty far left politically. It's not that individual sentences are POV, it's the overall selection of what material to cover. I'm trying to work to make it more evenhanded, but I know relatively little about the subject.

Assuming intellectual honesty on the part of whoever has contributed to this, let me focus for the moment on one paragraph:

In the late 1980s, Pat Robertson was involved in a libel lawsuit with Congressman Pete McCloskey, who served with Robertson in Korea; McCloskey and other veterans had accused Robertson of having had his father pull strings to keep him from the front lines, as well as carousing with prostitutes and hassling Korean women.

• "was involved in a libel lawsuit with..." Precisely who sued whom?
• In what forum were McCloskey et. al.'s allegations made? Given that it was libel rather than slander, I assume they were published somewhere.
• What was the outcome of the suit? Did it ever reach a courtroom? Was it settled? Did McCloskey withdraw his remarks or stand by them? If (as I suspect) the suit was thrown out on the basis of the very limited protection of public figures from libel in the U.S., was there ever any legal ruling on the merits of the case?
• Where is a citation for this? Is this Palast again, or another source?

Jmabel 16:55, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

Also, could someone clarify: we say "However, he did win the Washington state Republican primary, though he failed to receive the party nomination." Is this saying that there was some nomination specific to Washington state that he did not get despite winning that states primary? If not (and I think not), the last phrase is completely redundant, since we've already said he didn't make it past primary season. -- Jmabel 17:06, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

Not one-sided at all. We don't need racist thoughts on Misplaced Pages --Arbiteroftruth 07:01, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The article now is pretty balanced, but if you take a look at the version as it was on Aug 2 when these remarks were first being made, it was more of a hatchet job. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:37, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

I cleaned up and clarified some of the portions detailing his short-lived political career. Again, there were gratiutious cheap shots at almost every turn.

ps I know A LOT about Robertson. (At least his career in the 70's and 80's, I've kind of lost track of him lately.) I'll try and contribute when I have some time.

Big Daddy 16:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Robertson falsely claimed an award on his site

I searched for any terms related to his most distinguished alumnus award at Yale on google, Yale and the Yale Alumni Assoc. I found nothing but references to an award confined to environmental medicine alumni by that name, and the reference on Pat's personal site. I might have missed something, but does anyone want to verify the rest of those?

Major Overhaul of page

Hey all - trying to get this page out of cleanup, where it's taken up semi-permanent residence. Did a lot of NPOV work, reorganized all of controversies under one heading with bulleted sub-controversies. Tried to take into account the problems that have been discussed here, feel free to contact me about them on my talk page. This stil needs some work, but its not embarassingly POV anymore. NiceGuyJoey 20:20, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Unless it's been substantively changed since you posted this, is is still indeed EMBARASSINGLY POV.

Look, I know most wik's are liberals and I know liberals HATE Pat Robertson with ALL THEIR HEARTS if for no other reason than he's a rich, powerful white man who has led thousands of people into born again Christianity.

I mean, for a liberal, what's NOT to hate? lol!

Seriously though, try to remember, this is an encyclopedia, not the bulletin board of your local ACLU chapter's website.

I added a piece detailng some of the good things Robertson's many charities do.

I hope you can find it in your hearts to shoehorn this possibility into your world view.

It's in the 'Attacking Gays' or something section right after you trashed him for his interesting views on natural disasters.

Here it is: However, Robertson's charitable outreach program 'Operation Blessing' has always been there to support, comfort and provide material sustenance to victims of natural disasters such as hurricanes.

For example, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Operation Blessing ministers were on the scene distributing food, water, cooking equipment, cleaning kits, and disaster supplies to key staging areas in Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana in addition to giving grants to help area organizations purchase food, cots, blankets, and other necessities.

Big Daddy 15:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Untrue portions

Whatever you think of Pat Robertson, he has given his life to Jesus Christ and while that is itself a very controversial thing and has always been in our history it shouldn't given people a licence to lie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Pat_Robertson&diff=0&oldid=12375844

That link shows the many changes made:

Lie 1) Robertson was from a wealthy family. Not true.

Lie 2) That Robertson's father was close to banking interests. He regulated them. Very big difference. Just a lie designed to make a dead person who cannot defend themselves look bad.

Lie 3) That 700 Club is shown on "religious" channels, it's shown on ABC Family

Lie 4) Pat believes in the power of prayer, he has NEVER ever taken credit for what God does. Watch his show as I do and you would know that saying this is ridiculous.

Lie 5) Pat does not attack people, knowing that we are all loved by God equally. Yes equally. He sure has attacked feminism etc but not feminists and there's a big difference.

Lie 6) His comments about 9/11, I watched that program, shocked as we are all were and he said nothing like that.

Lie 7) False claims by that author have been removed, Pat Robertson's charitable works are unquestioned. To say he's in it for the money is a lie.

Lie 8) Quotes, which are unsubstantiated and designed to make Pat look hateful.

That's why I made the changes I made. Wendydrag 04:20, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The things you erased from the article are NOT lies. They're just political terms. If you don't believe me, look up the words in a dictionary. → JarlaxleArtemis 04:33, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedia articles do not call people "supporters of Satan", or ideas "ungodly". - Mustafaa 04:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Great, now the page is protected from editing. And guess what, it gets better. It's stuck on an edit that she made, where "non-believers" are called Satanists! → JarlaxleArtemis 04:49, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

I have removed those phrases. If you like I can unprotect the page-- though she will likely only return again. I can also block her-- but she may also come back later. I belive Boothy may already have blocked her fro vilating the 3RR but I 'll check to make sure. -JCarriker 04:57, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

You should unprotect it now. There are a lot of short phrases that she removed and/or altered to make them POV. → JarlaxleArtemis 04:59, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding "Lie 8)". A quotation was replaced with the text, UNSOURCED QUOTE DELETED. That quote contains the sentences:

Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history.

That exact phrase results in 419 Google hits. Of those I looked at, most seemed to cite Robertson or a Robertson/Ivins interview. On that basis, I believe that we should consider that quotation to be valid. Further, I'd like to encourage User:Wendydrag to avoid contentious references to "lies." This is a collaborative editing process. Thanks for joining us. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:34, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

I see the quotes have been removed from the article. Perhaps they should be added to Wikiquote? → JarlaxleArtemis 21:51, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, lists of quotes should go to Wikiquote. Quotations that are referred to in the text should be included, of course. -Willmcw 22:24, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly where I moved them to. There is even a link to wikiquotes at the bottom of the page. -JCarriker 23:04, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

In the section about Robertson's Chavez comments, their are claims being made that the CIA assassinated Chilean President Salvador Allende as a comparison. It is already known that Allende was killed/commited suicide in the Presidential Palace during the coup of 1973 and CIA interference in that coup is debatable, but generally accepted. However, adding that fact that CIA interfered in Chile is totally irrelavent to Robertson's comments, since the CIA had nothing to do with the death of Allende. -jetfx

Regarding Lie 2, his father was a congressman and according to acusations made agianst him during his presidential bid his father pulled some strings to keep him from being away from the front lines in the Korean War. Regarding Lie 7, Mr Robertson used planes from Operation Blessing to aid in his African diamond mineing. Finally regarding Lie 6, Robertson has said that the 9/11 attacks being the result of being the fault of the courts. The statment that originally caused the contraversy he said in response to Fallwells statement he said he agreed. He later retracted that stament officialy but in his book bring it on he said he agreed with the statment.

P.S. In regard to lie 4, he dosen't but then again he did ask people to pray for god to remove supream court justices. And lie number 5, if he dosen't attack people then why did he attack Bill Clinton for wanting to get rid of morality in the government.He also belives that the genocide of midinites as showing "compasion" read euthanasia and finally belives that aliens are demons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.130.3.103 (talk • contribs) 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Dubious link

"I Hate Pat Robertson - Daily Updated anti-Pat Robertson information." What purpose does this link serve other than to reinforce opinions already dogmatically held by the anti-Robertson crowd? Is this a beneficial service to the casual observer? Links don't have to be purely NPOV but I'm just trying to determine what value there is in one so bitterly partisan. What do you think? (anon 30 June 2005)

• Looks to me like a non-notable blog and, despite its title, not particularly about Robertson. I'll remove it. -- Jmabel | Talk July 1, 2005 05:39 (UTC)

Conflicting information

"Robertson's support of former Liberian president Charles Taylor. In various episodes of his 700 Club program during the United States' involvement in the Liberian Civil War in June and July of 2003" The wiki page for the Liberian civil war dates it from 1989 to 1996, not 2003. Maybe this should be corrected?

I removed this section from the article on account of the fact that the incident is mentioned further on. If you want to re-insert or do sometbing else with it, feel free.

On August 22, 2005, Robertson, speaking on his Christian Broadcast Network (CBN), stated that America should assasinate the democratically elected leader of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. Robertson said that Chavez was a threat to America and it would be cheaper to assasinate him than to fight a $200 billion war against Venezuela. If this were to happen, Robertson said that there shouldn't be any disruption in the oil supply from Venezuela to the United States. Robertson summed it up by saying assasination was the "Christian thing to do".

Alr 00:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

add this

http://www.masonicinfo.com/robertson.htm

Re: the August 22, 2005 Hugo Chavez Comment:

As noted by comments on blogs I've seen online, "the amazing thing about what Robertson said isn't that he suggested the assassination of a head of state. It's what the alleged infraction by this head of state which makes him deserving of execution is. Robertson isn't accusing him of being a tyrant, or of killing his own people, or of violations of human rights (the rights of Christian people in Pat's world), or genocide, or anything else which might normally inspire people to condemn a foreign leader to death."

I think the reaction to this comment could potentially develop into a significant incident that could eventually justify expanding its description on the "Pat Robertson" page, and it's worth keeping a watch on what happens over the next few days

RudolfRadna 16:44, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Can we try not to make this section too large?, I think the comments by Robertson are significant, but its not the most idiotic thing he has said, it is not the first time he has done this sort of thing, it is not likely to end his career unless he goes abroad and get arrested. I added the comments by the Senator because it is significant, --Gorgonzilla 23:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

What a crazy s-head. This loony should be in a straitjacket and not in front of a microphone.

As if we needed more evidence that religious fundamentalism and having a brain are mutually exclusive. What a loving Christian Pat Robertson is... --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:54, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

The last comment with the allegation to the "Divine Comedy" is ok. But is the abundant christian_jewish genocide argument pertinent? Pat Robertson and his foundations is the paradigm about what? What has to be amended and thematized in an article about P.R.. Id est:George Walther Bush spent not even a few USDollars to a non-christian organization with the in US_law system notorious tax-exemption paragraphes. And IF that is the case THEN that is unconstitutional. Please ; include Pat Robertson's Financial Statements of his tv-station and his other Fund Raising Institutions in the final form.

External links out of balance

The external links have really gotten out of balance. It's running about 8-2 anti-Robertson. This needs to be redressed. None of the anti-Robertson stuff is wildly inappropriate (I'd still like to remove the "I Hate Pat Robertson" blog, but it seems that every time I do, someone re-adds it, and no one else seems to want to delete it, so I won't edit against apparent consensus), so the way to get balance is to add more pro-Robertson links. Any suggestions? I don't spend a lot of time browsing the Right Side of the Web. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:56, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion of the "I hate Pat Robertson" blog, but the 8-2 thing doesn't bother me. An article on Stalin wouldn't be required to be 50% pro / 50% con, and Robertson is seen as a pretty negative figure outside of the Religious Right. The imbalance is unsurprising. — ceejayoz 20:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Insults?? Major overhaul needed.

Look, I don't like Pat Robertson any more than any of you, but... "scumbag" freely littering the article? Very one-sided, and the entire article probably needs to be re-written.

I agree. It hardly seems fair to leave in "scumbag" and not include "asshole," "douche," "motherfucker," "shithead," "cocksucker", and "God-fearing Jesus monkey." --Pull My Finger 01:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

God, you guys HATE Pat Robertson.

I took out this excerpt from the 'Korean War' section -

" 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."

It's just another CHEAP TAWDRY SLIMY attack and, since Robertson doesn't even claim to have become a Christian until later in life, this has no relevance to him as a public figure.

Big Daddy 16:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

better pic?

http://www.thebscorner.com/archives/PatRobertson.jpg

Big Daddy 16:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Nice try!

The one being used is actually a pretty good one. I'm surprised you guys don't have him pictured with horns and a tail!

Big Daddy 16:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV and current tags

I have removed the NPOV tag since Talk discussions seem to have arrived at consensus. If an editor wishes to return it, please also outline continuing objections that you think have not been addressed in Talk. I also moved the current tag to the Hugo Chavez comment subsection. I recall a current event template that was designed to go in a section or subsection rather than at the top of the article that read something like "this article or section contains a current event" or something along those lines, but I searched the templates and couldn't find it. I wonder if it was discontinued. At any rate, since only the Chavez comment is current, I moved the tag to that section. If anyone knows of a section-specific current event tag to replace this one, please use it. --AladdinSE 23:42, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

You, Wikipedia_AdMinistrators, try to mastermind the English interpretation. Example:A German Gerd speaks alsready relating to Pat Robertson as "Foreign Policy Advisor" instead of "Foreign Politic(s) Advisor/Consultant". Even IF Karl W. Deutsch OR Schultz OR James Backer III( nowadays employed by Carlyle) speak of Foreign Policy; take note that I do in sharp difference to U.S. Embassy personnel not underscore uniquely the security aspect in Foreign Politics. Now to a more actual point of view what really is going on in Venezuela. Visiting hours after hours nearly every week TEXACO / EXXON /PYF / SHELL / ESSO and other's oil_company interference in The Ministry of Oil and Energy's Venezuelan Government web_site I gatherd enough relevant evidence and experience that in a general manner the U.S.-Administration hires semi-privat subcontractors and full fledged so-called Business-Enterprises to damage the Venezuelan's Government and Venezuelan's Administration Official Websites. That's my point. And. Further implications are: That You should evaluate behind the worthless words of a cleargy/clownesque_man named Pat Robertson what can be proofed. Proofed can be the following facts: Not only websites of Madrassas in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Indya and Sri Lanka and Iraq and PKK in Kurdistan are shoot down by US-Administration financed subcontractors but democratically elected Government Web-Sites for example in Venezuela et cetera as well.

Robertson on the Wiki main page

Are a televangelist's psychotic ramblings really deserving of main page exposure? Just sayin'. Tronno 00:15, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Sure. Crazy people make the news all the time. The furor over this is pretty notable. ~~ N (t/c) 01:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow! this place IS a second home for the MetaFilter clan...er Klan.

Big Daddy 02:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment on "psychotic ramblings"

Remember Charles Manson? Would that have been front page news if he had gone public with his psychotic ramblings before people got killed? Maybe, maybe not.

Yes, I think this is very big news, especially considering the size of Pat Robertson's following compared to the Charles Manson cult, and considering that Robertson's Christian Coalition has swung U.S. presidential elections.

Agree with him or not, this is definitely historical and newsworthy.

Does anyone have an issue with this paragraph, which Paul August deleted, and which I reinserted, captured from national news ... AP, CNN, etc. ?? =

President Hugo Chavez is a former lieutenant colonel who won the presidential election of Venezuela on December 6, 1998 by the largest percent of voters (56.2%) in four decades, running on an anti-corruption and anti-poverty platform, and condemning the two major parties that had dominated Venezuelan politics since 1958. He also defeated a recall vote in 2004, with a 59.2% majority, under observation of the Carter Center and the Organization of American States, after an unsuccessful coup against him in 2002. President Hugo Chavez maintains that the coup was supported by the United States of America.

This paragraph does not belong in an article on Pat Robertson. It belongs in an article about Hugo Chavez. --Asbl 05:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Concur with Asbl. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:24, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

It's actualy very relevent, seeing as how Pat Robinson just called for the assasination of Hugo Chavez.

I also think it is relevant in light of Robinson's comments. Perhaps it can be shortened though to just include the important points, that he was democratically elected several times etc. --Fluxaviator 10:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

IF Misplaced Pages wants to beat the concurrence THEN we must pop up our topics and not "departementalize" them. To the Pat Robertson story indirectly we have to apply higher criterias than have watched only Christian-Jewish CCN/CNN. I have watched more than a half-year ago on several Venezuelan tv-stations pictures and movies which went into details how the Venezuelan US-jolly champ opposition used a wide variety of brutal&violent means to take over the presidential office of Hugo Javez.

It should stay since Robertson keeps using the phrase "dictator".  : 16:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

No, it should go because it's clearly trying to make Robertson look bad for calling for his assasination. How about a few quotes from well respected political and military leaders who, despite disagreeing with Robertson on killing him, agree that Chavez is a bad actor.

That kind of information is more relevant than a pr fluff piece about Chavez. But, of course, including this information would put Robertson in less of an unflattering light and we can't have that, can we?

Big Daddy 02:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

I added the NPOV tag, mainly due to the section about Chavez. I personally agree with the POV expressed in that section, but this is irrelevent -- this article is not to be a rejoinder to Robertsons ravings, but a neutral description of him. Critiquing him is something that should be done in other fora. Once this article has been "neutralized" a bit, the tag will be removed. --Zantastik talk 12:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you here, the last couple sentences don't belong. Is there a way, though, to only apply the tag to that section? It seems to me that having that tag over the enitre article is unnessesary, since it is literally only a few dozen words that need to be changed. --TomaydoDemato 13:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, this sentence in particular doesn't belong there:

Due to the above statements which have little or no basis in fact (the Jackal has been behind bars for years, and there is no evidence to prove that Chávez tried to gain access to nuclear technology from Iran) Robertson's credibility has reached an all-time low, and his statements are taken with a grain of salt by the vast majority of Americans.

I'll cut it out--that should be enough to remove the tag. Blueboy96 13:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Fatwa

I propose in the interest of unbiased fairness, that we use the term Fatwa to describe the recent edict. Clearly, if PR were a muslim cleric, rather than a Baptist, there would be general agreemenet that calling for a killing is a Fatwa. According to the definition on the Misplaced Pages - Fatwa does have a general definition - outside the strict muslim context - and I think it applies here.

Showing how similar the religious right is regardless of belief is an important matter of fact - regardless of those who would prefer to have an "us" and "them" mentality. As an NPOV work, we should treat both sides equally. and that means using words of equally loading regardless if they are "our" fanatics or "theirs".

Feel free to find a proper source that uses the word fatwa and cite it. · Katefan0 17:53, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Well, that was easy enough. I found a couple and put them in. · Katefan0 18:00, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah about 55 show up on Google news, 10,000 on just google. Benjamin Gatti 18:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Referring to non-Islamic statements as "fatwas" is slang (as Fatwa indicates), so it should not be used that way in an encyclopedia article. Nor is the purpose of this article to "show similarity" between Pat Robertson and arbitrary other groups. Gazpacho 18:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

That two newspapers (more, actually) used that word to describe it in editorials is accurate. I don't see how the addition, if properly sourced (which it currently is), is inappropriate, but I'm willing to keep an open mind about arguments to the contrary. · Katefan0 18:13, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

It now looks OK to me too. Thanks for making it NPOV, Benjamin. Gazpacho

A fatwa is a pronouncement on Islamic law. Using it to describe a Christian televangelist's opinion that someone should be killed is not appropriate. --Carnildo 19:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Naw - having one set of rules and definition for "them" and a different set for "us" is inappropriate. The scriptures sayeth "Live by the sword - die by the sword" it means if you're constantly criticising muslims for their fatwas - and then you issue your own fatwa, you don't get to argue that yours is somehow different. And neither do your sychophants Benjamin Gatti

Islam is part of the definition of "fatwa". Do you realize that your edits on this article show a serious lack of NPOV, in this and other areas? ~~ N (t/c) 20:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

N, sorry you're just wrong here. The meaning of a word really has to do with what happens in a person mind when they hear it. When I and many other people hear "fatwa" it means an edict by some religious guy condemning another person to death. Now - I grant you other people think of something difference, and yes I understand that "chai" means "tea" in indian, so we take it to mean "Indian style tea", but chai is tea, and it means tea, and its not just indian, its also russian, and probably polish and ukranian as well. You would perhaps like to think "fatwa" is a muslim word, and so can only apply to muslims, but that's silly - and prejudicial. If Pat wants to issue a Fatwa, there is nothing stopping him - and apparently, he decided to issue one. Whether "fatwa" is the right word or not depends on whether or not that particular word strikes coincides more closely to the set of facts, meanings, and similtudes than any other word. I would suggest it is the shortest word or phrase which conveys they clearest sense of what Pat did. - and challenge you to find a better word. Benjamin Gatti

Thought you all might care to know: the comparison of Robertson's suggestion to a fatwa has already been made in the electronic media -- by Lou Dobbs of CNN on Tuesday August 23, 2005 (23:00 UTC), who called it an "evangelical fatwa". This, of course, says nothing about the propriety or impropriety of this apparent oxymoron. Trujaman

Jon Stewert called it a Patwa, which is more clever. It was not, of course, a "fatwa", or anything analogous to a fatwa. Mirror Vax 00:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not really a fatwa, so labeling it as such is clearly inappropriate. DreamGuy 02:27, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'd say its use is pretty racist but I'm not in the business of making liberals' arguments for them. keith 03:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the word should be in the article, except perhaps (as in "I don't like it, but wouldn't scream if this is consensus") to say that certain sources called his pronouncement a "fatwa". Fatwa has passed into English as an inaccurate (and somewhat culturally nasty) slang based on certain Muslim clerics (notably Khomeini) having issued fatwas calling for certain individuals' deaths. But a fatwa is simply a ruling based on Islamic law, and (even ignoring the difference of religions) Robertson wasn't speaking in the name of anything like canon law. He was simply making an appalling political proposal. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:06, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I think the article already treats the issue as far as it should go -- which is to say, that several (fairly prominent) newspapers' editorial boards used the word, somewhat metaphorically I imagine, to describe his remarks. I don't think it needs to go any farther than what's in there now. · Katefan0 13:37, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Calling Pat's statement a Fatwa is silly, since Fatwa's exist only in the context of Sharia. Since PR was not making a binding Sharia ruling, his exhortation can not be a fatwa. Klonimus 01:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Using fatwa is a bad idea, unless you call all of Robertson's pronouncements fatwas, violent and non-violent. Fatwa is any legal pronouncement, issued by a religious law specialist on a specific issue. See the Fatwa Center. Calling Robertson's pronouncement a fatwa reinforces the incorrect concept a fatwa is solely a death sentence. Nereocystis 15:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Several people have also called Bush 'Hitler,' but I am not sure that the term is fitting. Does wikipedia make a habit of documenting the various negative insinuations and ad hominem attacks made on public figures? <snark>I think I heard someone call al Gore 'Al Snore'... do you want me to add this into his article? </snark> MPS 18:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

How/where to contrast Pat's commie/extremist accusation of Chavez, and Pat's own commie/extremist ties?

I had put in a paragraph pointing out Robertson's ties to communists (through his business dealings in China) and extremists (through his business partnership with Al Qaeda-harboring war criminal Charles Taylor) in the Chavez section. Babajobu removed it, rightly, since it was sarcastic and/or had POV issues. That said, I think the page does need to reflect that hey, this guy who's accusing someone else of launching communism and extremism has ties to those things that are at least as strong. :) But... I can't figure out how to make that point in a "factual" and not sarcastic/POV-issues way. Pat's ties to China and Taylor each have their own section already; do I just have to rely on people to read for comprehension, and put two and two together? --Danbirchall

It's best to have a source saying such things, instead of drawing the conclusion yourself. You might read around to see if you notice that connection being made by someone. · Katefan0 19:29, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Katefan0. The sources exist for the connections (I've linked to them from the China and Taylor sections) but I'll have to see whether anyone in the media is pointing out that particular hypocrisy and quote them. --Danbirchall

No problem, for what it was worth! Glad you asked here; you're learning your way around WP pretty well it seems. Hope you're also having fun in the process. · Katefan0 19:37, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I took out this paragraph:

"The recent generous offer by Chavez of oil to the hurricane ravaged regions of the USA has been a source of much embarassement to Robertson and his followers."

Great encyclopedic entry, huh? lol!

The only people who should be embarassed are the liberal editors of this piece who let this slam shot stay in for however long it did.

ps There are many more corrections to this piece to come including comments by Moehler that he respected Robertson for correcting himself. Or does Wik just want to 'garbage-collect' negative quotations about Robertson and censor anything that's positive? A cursory reading would surely suggest that...

Big Daddy 02:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Can someone reword equivocate to position in the Chinese abortion section?

It is terribly unbalanced to use a word with liar connotations in the title.

lots of issues | leave me a message 04:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Formatting while protected

I'll forget by the time this article is unprotected, but the subject heading "Religious Aspiration" needs to have a lower case a. Please implement when this page is not protected. -SocratesJedi | Talk 05:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I see no such section. →Raul654 05:30, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Presumably SocratesJedi meant that "Religious Career" should read "Religious career". - Haruo sans cookie --209.16.182.132 06:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

add eo: please

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

Thanks, Raul654! - Haruo --209.16.182.132 06:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

700 Club not so popular now?

I would suggest removing the word "popular" as descriptive of the "700 Club", pending review of ratings in major markets. I think it's likely that the show is much less popular now than it once was. - Haruo sans cookie --209.16.182.132 06:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

George Stephanopoulos called for assassination in a Newsweek column and it didn't have a negative impact on Newsweek circulation, to my knowledge:

"But what's unlawful — and unpopular with the allies — is not necessarily immoral. So now that I'm not in the White House, I can say what I couldn't say then: we should seriously explore the assassination option."

- "Why We Should Kill Saddam", Newsweek, December 1, 1997

Of course, I must nonetheless concede that the media and popular opinion have a rather different policy for how to react to someone like Stephanopoulous compared to someone like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. After all, the Wiki articles for both of those religious conservatives are little more than a list of quotes and commentary on the outraged reaction, whereas the Stephanopoulos article does not cite a single full sentence by the subject. Never mind that Robertson has apologized, Wiki still has a full page on that one quote. I can only conclude from this that it is established consensus that Stephanopoulos is uncontroversial and any attempt by me to edit that article to suggest otherwise would surely run afoul of Wiki's No original research policy:

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not

- Jimbo Wales

Bdell555 23:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

1. There is a large difference between and unelected dictator (Saddam) and an elected president (Chavez), and (one hopes) a difference between a politician (Stephanopoulous) and a preacher (Robertson). Not that I like what Stephanopoulous said, but it's not a left-right issue: Jesse Helms had a habit of calling for people's heads, and it did not get this sort of reaction, either. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:26, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hitler was appointed Chancellor on the basis of election results, so it would have made "a large difference" if he had not been? Certainly "politicians" should be held to different standards than "preachers", in the sense that if Robertson ran for office the level of scrutiny would change. Most would not say it should be lowered however. I should note that Stephanopoulos is not the only one to get a free ride where Robertson does not. FDR's Wiki article makes no mention of the fact he called for the summary execution of 50 000 German officers. Perhaps FDR did not represent anyone. See the Morgenthau Plan article for the citations.Bdell555 12:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Stephanopoulos doesn't represent anyone. Pat Robertson claims to represent God and Christianity, and there is solid evidence that in fact he does (at least #2 - and in the minds of many #1). Thus the cognative dissonence between "Thou Shalt not Kill" and "Yeah we should kill 'em" forces us to reconsider the "peacefulness" of an entire religion. Remember that Protastantism doesn't have a single leader, and for some, Pat is part of the apparent leadership. In this event alone, the gap between radical muslims and radical christianity has been eroded. It is in the words of Rumsfield - unhelpfull Benjamin Gatti

"Stephanopoulos doesn't represent anyone." Stephanopoulos, in the very cite, said he was representing how he felt when he was in the Clinton administration.

Because Gatti clearly doesn't like Roberston, (just read his indefensible defense of the use of the Fatwa to describe Pat's political strategy) he's tried to prop him up as a representative of God and Christianity so he can knock him down.

It's logical fallacy 101. The straw man.

And yes the fact that Gatti hates Robertson and know NOTHING about the kind of Christianity Robertson practices is VERY relevant.

Robertson was not speaking as 'God's' representative when he made the Chavez statements. There are times when he claims to have 'a word from God' and those are clearly indicated on his show.

Sorry, Gatti. This was not of those times.

He was asked a political questions and gave a political answer.

Unfortunately for you, in this RECKLESS RUSH to make Robertson a spokesperson for Christianity, your very own words contradict themselves when you later smear him as part of some niche you invented - 'radical christianity.' (Those are the Christians who helped clean up after 911, right?)

Secondly, the Bible does not say 'thou shalt not kill' it says 'thou shalt not murder' I know I can read the original Hebrew.

(Not that taking out Chavez would be any less of a murder lol!) But, it's a bogus charge used by people that don't understand the Bible to cheap shot Christian supporters of capital punishment and war. (And yes, if even the POPE thinks it says 'thou shalt not kill' he's wrong. I can break it down in Hebrew if you want, but the only proof you need is how many times before and after that commandment was delivered, God ordered the wiping out of wholesale tribes of people.

Finally, your despicable attempt to link what you call 'radical' christianity to 'radical islam' is easily debunked.

Robertson felt MILLIONS of lives could be saved by the taking out of one man, where in radical islam circa 2005, the ONE MAN (Osama) tried to take out millions of lives.

In other words you have it ass backwards.

For this and other reasons, I request that you relinquish the editing responsibilities (if you currently have any) of this page to people less filled with rage at Pat Robertson Christianity and God.

Big Daddy 04:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Can the ban be removed?

This heavily viewed article is in sorry shape. As always there will be lots of vandalism of a reviled figure but just ban those ppl without warning.

lots of issues | leave me a message 16:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

OK. The article was protected over 12 hrs ago, let's see if things have settled down. But if it's as bad as yesterday, it'll only get protected again. –Hajor 17:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages) 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. "

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 Misplaced Pages 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)