Talk:The 700 Club

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Virginia Low‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Origin of the name 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

His call for violent CIVIL WAR in the United States

On his July 10, 2013 broadcast, he called for a violent CIVIL WAR in the United States of America. He did this without ambiguity. In doing so, he threatened over two hundred million Americans. This now has to be added to the main article. Let's work on the wording, because, honestly, I want CIA to put a bullet in his head, and DOD to put some kinetic warheads into his sats. The United States of America owns those slots, not him. 74.120.133.55 (talk) 04:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership of Geostationary sat slots has been confirmed with the ITU Liason in New York by phonecon moments ago. Will be following up with verifiable Treaty wording from the CTC soon. "The slot, the real estate in space is controlled by the Member State it is assigned to, and not owned by any private entity." 74.120.133.55 (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is 700 Club Asia

where is the article for 700 Club Asia, that is televising in the Philippines?? Jumark27 (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC) Jumark27 (talk) 08:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The 700 Club. 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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Time period?

"As of 2005, The 700 Club airs on Freeform thrice daily"

This is a challenge, since Freeform didn't exist until 2017.

Stacecom (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article also says, "The 700 Club has been in production since 1966 and has aired for over 38 years". Was there a period when it didn't air? Because otherwise, 1966-2018 is not just 38 years. Does this article fail to be updated since the early 2000s? Kumagoro-42 (talk) 07:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of controversial statements

I added a line in the first paragraph of the intro to point out the program's politics are considered controversial, using a CNN page as a source. I think it was important to give the reader the point of view from the get-go. I didn't know anything about the program, and from the entire previous intro I got the impression it was just a nice family show about Christian music. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 07:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]