![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 5 September 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most of his words apply to himself and his religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeoo17 ( talk • contribs) 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
What is sad is that he generates so much controversy that there is a dedicated wiki page entitled "Pat Robertson controversies". Now, that's real sad. Falkonry ( talk) 18:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 06:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
All this needs is some numbers about the multitudes he has inspired to make it to heaven simply so they are assured they will never run in to him again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.157.40 ( talk) 06:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
There appears to have been a slight degree of controversy over Robertson's relations with Rome. Robertson was been called an ecumenist by some of his fellow Baptist brethren. He has been a supporter of Evangelicals and Catholics Together. I notice this because Robertson has publicly criticized just about everyone except Catholics. [1] ADM ( talk) 10:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Pat Robertson generally acts very badly towards people that are not white, straight, male, evangelical christian americans. This is not really his fault - he is just an asshole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.17.233 ( talk) 09:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
As you can see this above is the general mind set of most wikipedia users. Dtmckay ( talk) 21:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Who is this guy? Just this list of sourced activity is astonishing. It really is a great plus point for US devotion to democracy at home that this person is still loose in their society, and even free to proselytise, rather than being incarcerated in an oubliette somewhere. Or a mental institution. Centrepull ( talk) 07:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Listen, if you are going to put this on wikipedia and call this fact you really need some help writing. Listen to this line: "Harder to explain was why he spent $520,000 on the horse and intended it to compete at the track" Harder to explain? You could put something like he had a harder time to explain, you are giving your liberal and atheistic points of views upon people right there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.159.38.3 ( talk) 00:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Someone should add this http://www.breitbart.tv/they-have-been-cursed-pat-robertson-says-haiti-swore-a-pact-to-the-devil/ because I don't feel like it and I'm too lazy. And I'm high. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.186.67.19 ( talk) 20:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I reverted the deleted section on pat Robertson being roundly condemned as I beleive the sources fall under WPVerifiability "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Please let me know if you think it should be re-reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanhoare01 ( talk • contribs) 11:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I've removed two sections from this article. The first of them was simply listing Robertson's views on global warming - first he didn't believe in it, then he did. That's not really a 'controversy'. The second was about a student being suspended from Regent University due to a picture he posted on Facebook; that is a controversy, but it's really to do with the university, not Robertson, who's only tangentially related to the story. It belongs in the university's article, not this one. Robofish ( talk) 22:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I have been removing poorly sourced stuff and made a mistake in an edit summary, this coatrack poorly sourced content has been reverted back in, Ian could you please explain why you think a press relase which is a primary document from http://www.commondreams.org/pressreleases/ is a usable source for a blp please mark nutley ( talk) 20:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
This issue seems to have gotten considerable attention, [2] [3] including comments from fellow evangelical leaders. We should probably include at least a very brief mention. Perhaps something like:
Maybe we could make it even shorter. Thoughts? Will Beback talk 22:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Someone keeps insisting on putting that article back, reverting everyone's edits. It's poorly spelled, poorly written, there is no date cited, and no reference as to how it's a controversy. Other opinions? Czolgolz ( talk) 15:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Does the information that Pat's first child was conceived out of wedlock and that he lied about the date of his wedding to cover it up appropriate for either this article or the main Pat Robertson article? Reference: http://articles.philly.com/1987-10-09/news/26214235_1_pat-robertson-christian-broadcasting-network-news-conference .
This article has been tagged for neutrality since November 2012, yet the tagger, who simply added the edit summary "disputed neutrality" did not start a conversation on the talk page stating exactly what he thinks is not neutral. I am happy to analyse and make adjustments if anyone points out anything they think is not neutral. Otherwise if nobody comments in the next few days I intend to remove this unexplained tag. Freikorp ( talk) 09:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Pat Robertson controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.theocracywatch.org/cz_updates_israel_robertson_times_jan12_05.htm{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1136361055228&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=98303&ran=246793When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Pat Robertson controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Fn 7 needs fixing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by American In Brazil ( talk • contribs) 02:17, March 28, 2021 (UTC)
The redirect
Pat Robertson's dealings with Charles Taylor has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 19 § Pat Robertson's dealings with Charles Taylor until a consensus is reached. –
bradv
23:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)