Talk:Pat Robertson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
This article is part of Charismatic Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Pentecostalism, the Charismatic movement and its relatives and offshoots on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pat Robertson article.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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:

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.

Contents

[edit] Leg Press Controversy

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

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

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

1,150? Jesus, man. You ought to be playing pro-football. "the leg-press record for football players at Florida State University is 665 pounds less [than 2000]." At 2000, Pat Robertson can kick Hercules' butt.ap link
It seems likely that he thinks he can leg-press 2000 pounds, but if he can it is only because he is essentially cheating by doing the process wrong. If he could do 2000 pounds properly at his age, I think we'd be able to add him to the category of superhumans. Is there an official standard for what constitutes a leg-press? --tjstrf 00:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I sort-of agree about the squats, since free weights provide more functional strength by working stabilizing groups. That said, Robertson doesn't look like he's getting very good instruction on technique, and it's pretty easy to hurt yourself on a free squat if you don't know what you're doing. I might just sigh and have him work on a Smith machine. It's tougher to "cheat" on a Smith than on a press machine, but there's still a lot of structure keeping you from keeling over and breaking/tearing something important. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Certainly the idea that it is "impossible" shouldn't be there unless it is properly sourced - that is what an encyclopedia is for, afterall. Likewise, this isn't the place for a discussion of whether God has given Mr. Robertson supernatural strength - unless, of course, you have sources backing that up as well. --Tim4christ17 09:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Another point - why is this topic referenced in the first place? How is it relevant/important in a biography about Mr. Robertson? --Tim4christ17 09:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it easily qualifies as being a topic of interest. It was reported on by seeveral major news sites, and it ties in heavily to one of his business ventures. Elijya 13:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Betcha a nickel they're fake weights.

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

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

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

[edit] Neutrality Dispute

I've looked this article over and can only assume the dispute comes from the "Criticisms and Controversies" header? It seems to me that the article writer(s) did a good job of keeping a nuetral POV. I wouldn't say this article isn't any more biased than the Hitler article is anti-semetic.--jeffrey elliot 20:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What this article needs

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

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

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

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

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

I am usually quite upfront about my biases, because usually if you don't admit you have a bias from the start, someone later tries to "expose" you and use it to discredit you.
In the case above, I was also overcompensating to try and preempt anyone saying I was just trying to defend Robertson. David L Rattigan 07:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Citation for leg press claims

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

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

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

What Zetawoof is saying is perfectly valid. Even if the CBN website that "Robertson set up himself" is the source, it is still proving that the claim IS still present. Regardless of who wrote it, that is proof that someone is claiming it. The claim came from Robertson himself, so what better way to show that claim then using something he did write himself? Zetawoof is correct and that source is valid. ChristinaAnn 20:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Yep. As I said, the only claim that the article is making is that Robertson says he did these improbable things. The article doesn't need to prove that they actually happened, as it makes no such claim. Compare Allagash Abductions, for example; the article doesn't claim that an actual alien abduction occurred - which would be totally unverifiable - but simply states that certain people made certain claims - which is eminently verifiable. The same principle holds here. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Absolutely. It is perfectly valid to cite a source to demonstrate that a claim was made.
I frankly cannot see why anything about the leg press thing is of encyclopedic importance, though. - Jmabel | Talk 17:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source for leg-press claims: Explaining it clearly

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe that wiki is supposed to a NPOV source for fact , not claims.. You are wrong. Everything in wikipedia is merely a claim that has been made by a independent verifiable source. Wikipedia is not set up to determine what is actually "fact" or what is actually "true". As hard as it may be for you to fathom, the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability. There is a verifiable source of information that shows that Pat made these claims. That is all we are saying. If there are other verifiable sources that say "Pat did not lift 2000 lbs" or that "It is impossible for Pat to have lifted 2000 lbs." then perhaps they can also be included in the article. I'm pretty sure most readers are quite well aware that Pat Robertson is incapable of lifting 2000 lbs and they can evaluate his claim on their own without much help. Vivaldi (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
We aren't saying it's proven that he did it, we're saying it's proven that he claimed to have done so. The existance of the claim is verified. Basically, don't screw with the article too much and we'll all be fine. --tjstrf 23:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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

We do have factual information: well sourced claims on both sides. Wikipedia does not determine what the truth is, we are an enyclopedia, not investigative journalists. The section is properly NPOV'ed, verified, and should be left alone. Work on the main article, not Pat's claims to superhuman strength. --tjstrf 00:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Uh, I agree with everything Zetawolf, Tjstrf, Rattingtyon, and basicly everybody else has said. The link isn't proof that he did it, it's proof that he SAID he did it. Elijya 21:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I would also like to agree with Zetawolf, Tjstrf, David L Rattigan, Elijya, and everyone else. CBN can be used as a source for the claim that "Pat Robertson says that he lifted 2000 lbs." Now in the grand scheme of things -- given the long history of bizarre statements and proclamations by Pat -- I'm not sure that in the future his 2000 lbs. claim will be considered one of his most notable dumb remarks -- but for the time being, it is one of the top 5 things that most people on the street might now about Pat, so it seems like we should keep it in the article for now. Vivaldi (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with nearly everybody else that the current sourcing is adequate. As for the size of the leg press section, if it expands further it could always be spun off into a separate article, with just a brief mention remaining here. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed this conversation. If anyone ever asks questions like this again, send them to WP:NOR. Wikipedians don't have to prove or disprove crank theories. We just cite reputable sources documenting a balanced representation f other people's arguments and claims. MPS 21:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-semitic people

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

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

[edit] A reminder regarding the fact template

The following statement was tagged with a fact template:

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

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

Other than the slightly snide wording, this would seem to be a positive, not a negative. Or did the context mean he was "investing" in something other than aid? - Jmabel | Talk 00:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Uhm, note the wording "in the guise of". In other words, it alleges, without any source, that he invested (for profit) in Rwanda under the guise of humanitarian aid. Not acceptable without a source, and a classic example of misuse of the Fact template. --tjstrf 00:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Power of Prayers

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

It would be appropriate in an article on the power of prayer, and possibly on prayer as such, but not in an article on Robertson, any more than on any other religious figure who believes in the power of prayer, which is to say pretty much any Evangelical Protestant, any Catholic, and most other religious people of any persuasion. - Jmabel | Talk 05:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Jambel - if we put it in here it would also belong in every article about every religious person who believes in prayer. Vpoko 19:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
There should be something about Pat's claim that prayer can cure flat feet, though :) Gazpacho 18:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citecheck template removed

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

[edit] Interracial Marriage?

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

I'll have a look; sounds like lack of conformity w/ WP:BLP. - Jmabel | Talk 01:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks like that claim was already out of the article by the time I looked. Sections Personal wealth and especially Libel lawsuit were generally detrimental and uncited. I've removed these. They'd be welcome back if citable. - Jmabel | Talk 01:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foley incident

I suppose that this does not quite rise to the level to belong in the article, but on the "this is what gay people do" remark, columnist Dan Savage responded that this is not what gay people do; this is what closet cases do. (Indirect quotation in Dave Schmader's column [1]) (Savage's extended on remarks on the Foley affair, on The Stranger's blog [2]) - Jmabel | Talk 03:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality of "Controversies and Criticisms" section

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

[edit] Phi Beta Kappa Membership

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

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

JMartens 18:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

At the very least Robertson's own site says so. - Jmabel | Talk 00:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/t/Talk%7EPat_Robertson_5574.html"