Talk:The 700 Club

what is the significance of the number 700? Kingturtle 01:30 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

According to the web site (a scary place for the liberal skeptic IMHO ;) ) Pat Robertson's first television fundraiser was a local affair, in which he set a goal of 700 members pledging $10 each a month, which would apparently acheive the required operating budget of his ministry.

Great, now that I've done the research I guess I have to go add it to the page... thanks for making me do work.

Tommertron 01:54 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks! Kingturtle 02:10 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

I'd say "conservative perspective" rather than "Christian perspective"; I'm a Christian and I disagree with most of what the 700 Club says when it comes to politics. In fact, I'm very irritated that I'm always characterized as having political views that are vastly different from my own simply because of my religious beliefs. - anonymous user

I think most Christians, and for that matter, people, are fairly disturbed by his regular "Pray for the Heathens to Die" messages. Karmafist 23:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I understood the 700 club was a ref. to the rapture. that there was a belief that during the rapture there would be a group of 700 hundred who got to heaven first.

---

Hey, you can put whatever you want in. But... I'd think that a lot of conservatives would also not want to be identified with the show. I think a better term would be "religious-right", or maybe "fundamentalist" or "christian christian."

Man that home site is one SCARY place Avador

I couldn't help but notice that as of late ABC Family has been showing a disclaimer before airing The 700 Club stating that it doesn't represent the channel's views. I'd add this to the article, but I'm afraid I don't know the exact date they started doing so. - Tacubus 03:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The warning labels have been added following his comments on calling for Hugo Chavez' assassination in late August. The comments were made on August 22, the disclaimer was added shortly thereafter, though I do not recall the exact date. I only noticed after watching Drew Carey's Whose Line is it Anyway? and forgot to change the channel like I usually do to avoid listening to Pat. Got a good laugh out of the disclaimer, though. One might wonder if they're thinking of pulling this lunatic outright after today's comments on Ariel Sharon? Dr. Cash 02:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV violation?

Is it just me, or is the section under 'History of the 700 Club' rather biased and spiteful? In addition, it has horrible grammar and spelling. Should this be cleaned up, or removed all together? I recognize the fact that yes, Robertson does espouse views antagonistic to other religions, but it should be written to a higher standard.

Stephonovich 21:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. There also seems to be a lack of sources and references in the whole article. I would like to see this article re-written. ---- 12:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC

The grammar and editorial violations are egregious in the contoversy section. I'm cleaning it up. (SJCstudent) 71.243.129.175 13:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Controversy Section

I'm not sure who wrote the controversy section but the whole thing is poorly written and brings up facts that add nothing to the article; eg what does the fact that a weightlifter popped a blood vessal in his eye have to do with Robertson's claim that he can lift a ton? The article implies that bloody eyes are somehow a testament to the validity of a weightlifting claim. This is, of course, absurd.

The point of a controversy section, in my view, ought to be the illustration of points of conflicting positions on a supposed factual claim. The role of the article should be highlighting these positions while not definitively siding with one camp or another.

Also, not to be a jerk, but this talk page appears very unconcerned with producing a quality article. The discussion seems more focused on airing complaints about Pat Robertson's behavior, statements, and web page. I don't necessarily disagree, I just doubt this is the proper forum for these exchanges. (SJCstudent) 71.243.129.175 13:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The point of the popped blood vessel is that if the world record holder hurt himself lifting, let's say, 1500 lbs, then how was an old man able to press 2000 lbs unharmed? --Agent Aquamarine 19:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's talking about the world record. It seems like it's talking about a record at the Florida State University. If so, that should be changed to the current world record.70.23.92.217 22:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The LGBT community has expressed concern over the comments made on his show, fearing that it will provoke a violent reaction from potentially unstable individuals. [5] I believe this to be a biased and bigoted statement. It looks almost as though Robertson wrote that entry himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.27.106 (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Reference in South Park?

There was a whole section of the South Park episode "Starvin Marvin in Space" that parodies the 700 Club. Should this be mentioned?

This episode parodies all of those donation groups, not just 700 Club and other religious groups. Even it was specifically 700 Club, it would still need a reliable source. --13² 05:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Newly created/added cat is POV/OR

Adding new cat Category:LGBT rights opposition is not appropriate here for reasons stated on the cat's Talk page section entitled, "Cat violates Wiki policy?"

Further, as illustrated on Concerned Women for America, the cat may be controversial, and cats are not used for controversial material. The existence of controversy evidences the cat is inappropriate for the page. In particular, WP:CAT says:

Particular considerations for categorizing articles:

• It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Use the {{Category unsourced}} template if you find an article in a category that is not shown by sources to be appropriate, or the {{Category relevant?}} template if the article gives no clear indication for inclusion in a category.

Obviously, it is not "clear from verifiable information in the article" if the wiki community keeps removing it.

I urge and support removal of the cat, else I urge the addition of either or both cat templates shown above from WP:CAT.

I am repeating this on all pages in which this new cat was added so communities there can discuss. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)