Talk:Ted Haggard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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 is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ted Haggard article.

This is just a general comment to say that the NPOV work has been excellent over the last couple of days. Let's hope it keeps up for a good article. Zz414 23:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] The Root of All Evil? interview

I'll post the full transcript of the interview (as presented in the program) here for reference. Dawkins: Well, that was really quite a show you gave us today. A fair bit of money seems to have been spent here. Haggard: Yes. I wanted people to be able to worship and enjoy it and then be in a setting where the speaker is close to them – that's why it's in the round – and so they can be up close to me, and so I can look at them. Dawkins: Well, it's certainly very effective, what you do. I mean, it seemed to me to have all the, the arts of – I mean, I was almost reminded, if you'll forgive me, of a sort of Nuremberg Rally. I mean, such incredibly – Doctor Goebbels would have been proud. Haggard (laughing): I don't know anything about the Nuremberg Rallies, but I know lots of Americans think of it as a rock concert.

[Cut away to scene from the service. Haggard wandering around the congregation, shaking hands and talking to people, while a cheesy Christian hair band with a gorgeous female lead singer blows inoffensive pop from the pulpit. Lots of embarrassing whiteboy dancing. A shot of Dawkins standing stoically among the Jesus freaks, hands behind his back, dour look on his face.]

Haggard: When I prepare a presentation, I don't prepare it to get a group of lunatics to come in and just say, "Oh yes, Pastor Ted, you're just so wonderful, I believe everything you say." I would be opposed to that.

[Cut away to scene from the service. Haggard stands at the pulpit and reads the following:
Haggard: Here the Bible says, "Who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God, the Father." This is talking about us. We've been chosen for … what's that word there, everybody?
Crowd (quietly): Obedience.
Haggard: Say it out loud.
Crowd (louder): Obedience!
Haggard: Okay. So, we have been chosen …
Dawkins (voiceover): Every person needs, at the center, some sense of meaning about existence. It is life and death to us – it makes us who we are. Yet most of us, as we grow up and become responsible adults, accept that life is complex – that we live in a world of subtle shades, not sharp black and white. I worry that these born-agains are being persuaded to return to childish certainties. The only truth they need is God; God as interpreted for them by their pastor.]

Haggard: Everybody knows that we believe the Bible's the word of God. And today I talked about … love your neighbor as yourself. Now, I didn't have to produce evidence – sociological evidence or psychological evidence … Dawkins: But you have a book … Haggard: The book is true. Dawkins: How can you say they're asked to think for themselves and they're told everything in this book is true? Haggard: Because they don't have to believe that. Dawkins: I mean, the evidence I present is you can go and read this book, it says one thing, that book says another, that book says another … Haggard: Well, the evidence I can present is we've got a book, written over 1,500 years by 40 different authors on one subject, and it doesn't contradict itself. Where you can't … Dawkins: It doesn't? Haggard: You can't give me two – two – experts in certain areas that are in the same generation, in the same area of study, that don't contradict themselves. Dawkins: That's the beauty of science. We have lots of evidence, and the evidence is all the time coming in, constantly changing our minds. Whereas you have one book which you say, it doesn't change. That's not teaching people to think for themselves.

[Cut away to scene from the service:
Haggard: And we've all decided as a group to go into the holy place – true or false?
Crowd (quietly): True.
Haggard: True! Everybody say: True!
Crowd (loudly): True!
Haggard: All right, then. That's the vote.
Dawkins (voiceover): But my biggest concern is that evangelicals like Haggard are foisting evident falsehoods on their flock. The evangelicals are denying scientific evidence just to support Bronze Age myths.]

Haggard: We fully embrace the scientific method as American evangelicals. And we think as time goes along, as we discover more and more facts, that we'll learn more and more about how God created the heavens and the earth. Dawkins: But the scientific method clearly demonstrates that the world is four and a half billion years old. I mean, do you accept that? Haggard: Yeah, you know what you're doing is you are, you are accepting some of the views that are accepted in some portions of the scientific community, as fact. Where, where in fact, your grandchildren might listen to the tape of you saying that and laugh at you. Dawkins: You want to bet? Haggard: Sometimes it's hard for a human being to study the ear or study the eye and think that happened by accident. Dawkins: I beg your pardon. Did you say "by accident"? Haggard: Yeah. Dawkins: What do you mean, "by accident"? Haggard: That they eye just formed itself somehow. Dawkins: Well, who says it did? Haggard: Well, some evolutionists say it. Dawkins: Not a single one that I've ever met. Haggard: Really? Oh … Dawkins: Really. You obviously know nothing about the subject of evolution. Haggard: Or maybe you haven't met the people I have. [laughs] But you see. You do understand. You do understand that this issue right here of intellectual arrogance is the reason why people like you have a difficult problem with people of faith. I don't communicate an air of superiority over the people, because: 'I know so much more; and if you'd only read the books I know, and if you only knew the scientists I knew, then you would be great like me.' Well. Sir. There could be many things that you know well. There are other things that you don't know well. As you age, you'll find yourself wrong on some things, right on some other things. But please – in the process of it – don't be arrogant.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.203.113.142 (talk • contribs). – the comment added a transcript from 13.43 to 22:29, 3 May 2006.
If the above is from a British TV documentary, how is it not a violation of their copyright to post it here? Edison 14:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
This short transcript is likely fair use in that it only uses a short segment of the program. Additionally, it only uses the text and not the video, so fair use is likely to favor the poster.Utbriancl 18:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the article needs a summary of his stance on evolution in the ideology section. Tomhormby 15:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
None of the Dawkins section of the article is referenced. I thought we had a cite or two in there at one point. Can someone who is familiar with that subject see if they can find some cites we can use to support what has been written? Mr Christopher 23:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Until today we had a link to a YouTube extract from the video, which was removed because of copyright concerns (unjustified concerns, IMO, but probably not arguable). — Matt Crypto 00:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not believe reporting the parking lot altercation is even remotely encyclopedic content. Please address this point if you wish to revert the change. Odometer 17:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
1) Cliched but certainly true: actions speak louder than words. The parking lot exchange demonstrates Haggard's dedication to creationism in a way that his words alone never could. We could quote Haggard a dozen times and people could still think "oh, well, he's pretty progressive, maybe he's just saying that to keep in tight with other evangelicals." His actions in the parking lot, however, are definitive. They are also unique. Consider that we bring in fair use images instead of free images when only that fair use image will adequately portray the subject. Haggard's behavior in the parking lot is one of those unique indicators of his beliefs and personality that we could never demonstrate in another way. That's encyclopedic if anything is.
2) The Root of all Evil? was the first exposure to Haggard that thousands of people ever had (perhaps millions? I'm not sure what the BBC viewership was). This scene in the parking lot was the last we saw of him until the scandal, and thus it is a defining aspect of the man that sticks in so many minds. So it is precisely what many people expect to find here at Wikipedia. It would be strange if we did not include it.
3) You have knowledge of the workings and jargon of Wikipedia, yet this parking lot thing has been your only contribution. A single purpose username already familiar with Wikipedia smells like a sockpuppet. — Coelacan | talk 18:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
"Haggard's behavior in the parking lot is one of those unique indicators of his beliefs and personality that we could never demonstrate in another way." That's a pretty subjective interpretation. Whether it was an isolated instance of losing his temper or a "unique indicator of his believes" is pretty subjective and nearly impossible to determine. Do you have a cite that the parking lot incident was "a defining aspect" of him? I haven't read any articles that have ever mentioned it (perhaps you can indicate some NPOV articles recounting the lasting impressions of the episode?)--he seems to be defined by his role as an evangelical pastor or for his prominent political positions, not for a single impatient episode. I'm not quite sure about whether I think the episode deserves mention, but those reasons just don't seem to persuade me, at least. It does feel like its only purpose is to cast Haggard in a bad light as an irrational or angry person, particularly because it appears it was an isolated incident. Zz414 19:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment, Zz414. I'll try to explain my reasoning in light of your points. "That's a pretty subjective interpretation." I don't think so. Haggard wasn't losing his temper in general. He was losing his temper specifically about evolution. He cares about it that much. He didn't even lose his temper when Dawkins compared him to Goebbels, but evolution was so important to him as to knock him over the edge. "You called my children animals!" is a unique expression of his own beliefs about creationism and his attitude toward evolution. I think we can take Haggard at his word on this belief, but you won't find him wording it like that anywhere else, so it is a unique revelation. "Do you have a cite that the parking lot incident was "a defining aspect" of him?" I should rephrase this, as I misspoke: "thus it is to many first-time viewers a defining aspect of the man that sticks in so many minds." I'm not pretending to know what Ted Haggard's most personal defining aspects are, only that since the film is cut to leave us with that parking lot scene, that is the last impression of Haggard that a person otherwise unfamiliar with him will have had until Mike Jones. "It does feel like its only purpose is to cast Haggard in a bad light as an irrational or angry person". It would be POV if we were unduly spending several paragraphs discussing it. As it is, our treatment of the incident is quite small and I don't think it portrays him as an angry person, but only as a person who got angry about this particular subject. Occasional short-term anger is perfectly human. It's probably also notable that Haggard retained composure for quite a while, including at the "Nuremberg rally" reference. We might do well to mention that he was level-headed through most of it, if this would balance a perception of POV. — Coelacan | talk 19:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
There are two main points that I wanted to address. First, my main beef is that not that it is not a NPOV but that it is simply not worthy content. It's something that people can easily draw spurious conclusions from. For example, I would strongly dispute Coelacan's conclusion that evolution was THE cause that Ted Haggard became angry. I think it was a cumulation of events including Dawkins likening a church service to Nuremberg rally. I think that the parking lot incident being the last impression of Ted Haggard for many people is not relevant to its worthiness. Second, I don't believe the fact that I have only contributed to this article should play any part of this discussion. I know some wikipedia jargon because I read wikipedia and have expectations of wikipedia content. I apologize for not putting an appropriate summary when removing the text the second time. I just messed up. I posted on this talk page after I gave up trying to add a summary after the fact. Can we agree on removing the "parking lot altercation" text? So far the general consensus seems to jive with my view of its unworthiness. Odometer 05:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a big deal either way, but personally, I'm not convinced that we need to mention the "parking lot altercation" at all. It's a minor bit of information at best, and also suffers from the fact that it's an incident described -- and quite possibly spun -- by Dawkins. — Matt Crypto 20:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I vote for keeping it. It is anecdotal, but so is much of history--accounts of people who have met other people qualify easily in biographies, whether critical or not, and though youtube isn't hosting the video anymore, the video still exists and can be seen as biographical. The problem is not the account, but the horrible paucity of other accounts. I'd suggest anyone who has POV problems with it to consider adding more accounts, and anyone who thinks it isn't important to consider how much the dawkins' documentary actually fits into examination of both haggard's political and spiritual notoriety. i personally find dawkins to be a total bore (and really rather un-imaginative) but even still would argue for at least some mention of this conversation. It's also really important for anyone examining the larger issues of what the christians and the media have called "the culture war," in which both Haggard and Dawkins could be seen as a "combatants."--Chalyres 10:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This is just for clarification. Are you voting on keeping the reference to the "Root of All Evil?" or specifically keeping the text on the parking lot altercation? I am in favor of keeping a reference to the documentary. I am not in favor of keeping the text on the parking lot altercation. Odometer 17:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm "voting" for both the reference AND the text.--Chalyres 02:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I modified the text so there are at least fewer POV problems. I still think the real issue is that it doesn't belong here at all but will compromise on this. I don't like adding more text to a minor incident, but since it's there, I think it should be presented as fairly as possible. Odometer 17:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All Saints Church

Remarkably, Ted_Haggard#Relationship_with_President_George_W._Bush this mention of the All Saints Church tax status issue is the first in Wikipedia. Does someone have a citation for Haggard's view? And does someone want to start an article on the broader matter? Jmabel | Talk November 23, 2005

[edit] Unfair Perspective

As an encyclopedia article, one would expect a fair, unbiased look at a subject. It is obvious by some quotes used, as well as by the links provided, that this article was written with an agenda in mind. Also, the theology section is far from what Haggard believes and teaches. (I admit, I am a New Life Church attendee and I have NEVER heard the terms "Third Wave" or "Open Theism." If you are satisfied with reading an article written by a critic, with the agenda of a critic then you should be happy here. If you would rather read Ted Haggards beliefs first hand, go to newlifechurch.org. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.177.130.98 (talk • contribs) 25 Jan 2006.

This is a wiki. You can edit. If you think the article is wrong, and especially if you think it is missing important material, get in there and edit. It will help a lot if you cite your sources when you do that. On the other hand, simple removal of material without explaining the basis on which you are challenging it is simply not acceptable.
Several different people have worked on this article (take a look at its history) and I would agree with you that some have had an agenda hostile to Haggard.
I believe that the "Open Theism" remark is correct. He may not use the term himself, but I'm pretty sure that this is an accurate description of his theology: he does not believe that the future is predetermined. If you think that is wrong, I'd really want to see a citation to the contrary. I think "Third Wave" is correct; if you are part of his congregation, you could probably easily get a definitive answer one way or the other on whether he considers himself a part of it. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
A New Life attendee trying to learn factual information from an encyclopedia? You’ll burn in hell for committing a heinous sin like that! Miller 20:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Image:Signature george.PNG
For what it is worth, the cite for Haggard's beliefs is no longer any good. That went to his website and since the Mike Jones thing Haggard's website has been changed quite a bit. Now there is only a single splash page. Mr Christopher 18:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
There's always [1]. — Matt Crypto 18:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you sir! Mr Christopher 18:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
While I can't quite put my finger on it, something seems to be missing from his "In the news" section...Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 19:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Huh?

I as well, go to New Life Church. But Ted Haggard has never stated that he believes God doesn't know the future. He's stated multiple times that he believes God knows what will happen. Don't you think the crucifixion of Jesus Christ would be a little pointless if he wasn't sure that the "master plan" would work? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.248.122.86 (talk • contribs) 21 April 2006.

"Knows the future" is not the same as "the future is set in concrete". A predetermined future would imply perhaps the loss of human free-will. If God knows who will fall and who will not, then they have no choice in the matter, they can't change what God knows. That's the issue. Wjhonson 21:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If God knows who will fall and who will not, then they have no choice in the matter

I know Wiki isn't the place for religious (or any other)debate, but I had to point out that this isn't entirely true. Technically one could argue that just as a parent can know what their child would do in certain situations, God knows what his "children" will do in certain situations. A parent doesn't make their child go out at midnight when they are supposed to be on punishment, but they know their child well enough to know what they would more than likely do. Most Christian sects preach that humans are the spiritual children of God, and that God knows everything about them. So knowing everything about one's child doesn't necessarily mean you make them do those things.
Just something to think about.
There is another, and (in my opinion) better argument. Say I have a time machine, and I go forward in time and see you killing your parents. I know you did it. But did I make you do it? So, in a similar way, God can know the future, without forcing that future to be the way it turns out. Wjhonson 15:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unattributed comment

The following comment was added in the middle of the second "The Root of All Evil?" quotation:

However, Jacques Monod in Chance and Necessity wrote:
The ancient covenant is in pieces; man knows at last that he is alone in the universe's unfeeling immensity, out of which he emerged only by chance (emphasis added).

There is no attribution for this comment, and it certainly wasn't part of the programme. It clearly adds information to make an argument, and so is a violation of WP:NOR. If properly sourced it could be added after the whole quotation, making it clear who is making the argument, but certainly shouldn't be in the middle. ..dave souza, talk 18:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Media appearances

I have removed the section on media appearances for the second time. I feel it is unsatisfactory to include a large section which is merely copied from another article, and to which this article already refers. I also feel that having so much of this article based on ten minutes of video is unbalanced. I would suggest we create this section when we have at least more than one media appearance to describe. Laurence Boyce 10:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The article needs to discuss his appearance and the context, but not as lengthy as it is in the main article. ErRe 03:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
As well, it should be cited. Rkevins82 19:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Considering it was aired on public TV, it is really easy to find several sources of Haggard's outburst. As an example, here is the full show.[2] ErRe 03:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
It was recently lengthened again. I just fixed some punctuation. I didn't delete it again, but I wouldn't object at all if someone wants to. - Jmabel | Talk 06:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe the last part where he is in the parking lot should be taken off the main page. I don't believe Dawkins would lie about what he said, much less when we could see him angered and kicking them off the property, but the words that he supposedly said can't be confirmed because they weren't on film said by him.--- Or at least add "Dawkins claims that Haggard said..." 75.2.144.127 11:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed this section again as it was getting quite ridiculous. It is totally unbalanced to have this article dominated by ten minutes of video. Laurence Boyce 19:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speaking in tongues

[a small room set aside for prayer and speaking in tongues at New Life Church] lol, who wrote this? That's entirely not true. This article needs more sourcing and cleaning up. Just because it's posted on a site, doesn't make it true. 68.207.165.200 05:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced material

I have removed some material which was unreferenced, or rather it was referenced but the links were broken. Please re-insert this material if you can fix the links. I have also reduced some new material regarding some recent allegations. Please let's not go overboard with this while it remains an unsubstantiated story. Laurence Boyce 18:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two things

First: Could we possibly find a better picture? The one on the article right now could not be less flatering short of photoshop. Aside form being a bit prejudicial I think it actually detracts form the article. Second: The opening paragraph and media reporting describes him as an Evangelicals but this article is in Category:Pentecostals and the two are not percisly speaking the same thing. Which is true? Dalf | Talk 07:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by another: Dalf Talk, why another picture? Thats Ted Haggard himself in this picture. I think this is the best matching picture. Do you think he doesn't look appealing enough for the masses? Well, watch him addressing in his mega church in colorado. This picture is taken from a video. Sura | Sura
I agree with Dalf, lets try to get a new picture - Schrandit 15:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree for a different reason. Specifically that image is fair use but it's a screen capture from a TV programme so IMHO shouldn't be used to illustrate Ted in the main article as this is likely no in accordance with the fair usage reason that's been given. It could potentially be used as part of the criticism part altho I think it's unnecessary there Nil Einne 16:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's what he looks like, except when he's looking like this. There are some formal shots on his site, but I don't know if they'd release all rights or not. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe some people are asking for a 'better' picture. This is an encyclopedia, not a religious fundermentalist sales brochure. The picture on the page represents exactly the image of Ted Haggard that I have seen and such I think it is accurate. how on earth can te picture be 'prejudical' ? - as said, that's what he looks like. 81.76.103.5 18:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

that’s a screen shot from a movie, that’s not what he looks like. even mao has a decent picture. the current one detracts from the article, we need some one who knows about copyright laws. anyone know somebody? - Schrandit 10:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the photo is not ideal. I would much prefer a photo which he had posed for, if anyone knows where to obtain one. Laurence Boyce 18:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's a photo that looks like a standard publicity photo. If it looks good to you guys, then someone with the copyright know-how should use it. Zz414 18:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent news

Not former. The page was recently edited to say that Haggard was a former evangelical pastor. He has merely stepped down pending an investigation. While he probably won't return to his post, we should save the "past tense" until it has been announced that he definitely won't return. Joshfriel 02:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Not going to attempt to add or edit anything, but i thought i'd just add this on the talk page for now. new acting senior pastor/interim senior pastor Parsley stated in an inteview with link posted here that "some indiscretion was admitted" and clarifies that only some, not all. video link: http://www.kktv.com/news/headlines/4557411.html not trying to stir up any trouble, by the way...just help people keep updated. --Chalyres 08:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Added that accordingly. In the future feel free to add it yourself, that's how wikipedia works. Arbusto 09:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thanks, but, uh, no edit link (page is locked?) and just started profile two days ago or so. --Chalyres 09:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, looking through the recent past it looks like its been vandalized. You'll be able to edit it in a few days. Arbusto 11:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The debate that was here has been moved to User:Coelacan/Ted_Haggard as Matt Crypto has pointed out that talk pages are not the place for debate. Please continue arguing there. — Coelacan | talk 21:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
In order to be informative, it should be mentioned in the text that Fratto's attempt to distance the White House from Haggart came only after the news of these controversies had come to be known. PJ 14:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Views on homosexual sex and prostitution

If he is (potentially) embroiled in a scandal over homosexual sex and prostitution, and if he is a religious teacher, shouldn't his views on both issues be included?? Surely he has made statements about what he believes about homosexual sex, and prostitution -- and if he is married, adultery? If the charges are false, these might help to clarify how they attack his beliefs. If the charges are true, these will help might help clarify whether he is consistent or corrupt. Popster1

If I'm reading it correctly, this states he was/is in support of the FMA. Would someone else verify? KillerChihuahua?!? 16:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Confirmed.[3] KillerChihuahua?!? 16:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
His public views on homosexuality and other sexual issues should be included anyway. Regardless of any 'scandals'. Those issues are the core beliefs of Religious Fundermantalists and are important to give truthful teachings about them 81.76.103.5 18:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

So "core" that they weren't included in the article until this news broke? Dubious POV fork. And Haggard is not a Fundamentalist. Watch before slinging term there, unknown user. Zz414 18:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well they should have been included before he was outed. And IMO he IS a Religious Fundermentalist 81.76.103.5 09:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
The main thing is that he is potentially embroiled. He may be guily of the accusations. He may also be innocent of them, or some items may be true, but not all of them. I am one that believes that nothing more then a passing mention should be made before all the facts are in. 72.161.216.93 20:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Right now, it's a pretty big news item. It's all over everything. The article's pretty NPOV so far, but if you think anything needs correction, feel free to suggest changes. It's only a few paragraphs long so far, too. It's just well-cited to avoid any problems. Zz414 20:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separate news section for alleged homosexual affair and drug use

Just to break up the different kinds of news, there are several general articles about Haggard, and then a few about the scandal. They should be divided up because they are distinct items, at least for now. Zz414 20:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced those external links need to be there if they're already included in the footnotes. But I'm not that fussed. Laurence Boyce 21:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Want to remove them? It does make the article even longer, and the footnotes are plenty sufficient. Zz414 21:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Done. Plus I removed another link that didn't seem relevant. Laurence Boyce 21:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of Haggard's statements

From http://www.9news.com - "A look at the contradictions in the different statements Pastor Ted Haggard has made to 9NEWS. 9NEWS at 5 p.m. November 1, 2006." (Windows Media Video file)—Wasabe3543 01:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't view a media file. What are the specific contradictions? He denied it all yesterday, then today he conceded to purchasing drugs, getting a massage, and knowing Jones. Is there anything more? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zz414 (talk • contribs) 17:55, November 3, 2006.
Sure....Wednesday (11/1) night - Reporter: "Did you know Mike Jones?" Haggard: "No I do not know Mike Jones..[video cuts to a different point]..What'd you say his name was?" Reporter: "Mike." Haggard: "Mike..." Voice-over: "But today Haggard admitted he does know Jones - " Cuts to today's interview (full video here) " - a former male prostitute in Denver." Haggard: "I did call him. I did call him." Voice-over: "Haggard said he called him for a massage." Reporter: "How did you find him to get a massage?" Haggard: "A referal." Reporter: "From...?" Haggard: "From the hotel I was staying at." Voice-over: "But Jones says he only advertised in gay newspapers and websites." Jones: "'If you would to hook up with a hot muscular man,' you know, 'I know how to bring pleasure to a man if you want some company gimme a call'" Voice-over: "While the pastor says he met Jones in a hotel, Jones says they always met in his apartment in Denver. Jones said Haggard wouls sometimes drive his motorcycle and would park a few blocks away. But Wednesday night, Haggard told us he doesn't own one." (cut back to Wednesday interview, same as above) Reporter: "Do you own a motorcycle?" Haggard: "No. I have a little scooter." Reporter: "Ok, but you don't have a motorcycle?" Haggard: "No I don't have a motorcycle." Voice-over: "But news reports say Haggard does own a motorcycle" (shot of newspaper clipping: "Ted Haggard rides a motorcyle, favors jeans and open-collared shirts....") After that the reporter gets into speculation about drug use, although Haggard said in the original interview that he'd never done drugs, while today he said that he bought drugs but then threw them away.
We haven't heard the last of this story, and it'll be interesting to see what else develops, but suffice it to say that Haggard has contradicted himself, at the very least about knowing Mike Jones.—Wasabe3543 02:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I think we need to reflect Haggard's use of the word "never" (without comment, of course) in his revelations about "not using" meth. Haiduc 12:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biography

The Biography link is dead. Here is a better one, with a lot of background on his family. His father was famous in his day as an inventor of Gaines Burgers. [4] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bucksburg (talk • contribs) 22:55, 3 November 2006) (UTC)

I've added a link to christianitytoday 's Nov 2005 interview which is sympathetic but not uncritical, and includes the paragraph "Haggard is a loyal member of the Religious Right who dials in for a White House conference call every Monday. Yet he embraces ecological concerns and says the Supreme Court made a good decision in the Lawrence v. Texas case, ordering the government out of the private lives of homosexuals." Depicts him as "optimistic champion of ecumenical evangelism and free-market faith", supportive of diversity, into non-partisan politics...dave souza, talk 06:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Televangelist

Just so we're clear, Haggard's not a televangelist. He's a preacher, yes, but that's distinct from being a televangelist. Zz414 18:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

fyi, Isn't his ex-presidency of the National Association of Evangelicals the more important title? But yes, if you want to use the present tence, preacher is correct. [User:JeffBurdges|JeffBurdges]] 18:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
A "televangelist" is a preacher with a TV show. An "evangelical" is a Christian holding certain beliefs. As Ted Haggard did not (at least as far as the article mentions, and I don't have any knowledge to the contrary) have a TV show, he is not a televangelist. --Psiphiorg 21:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accusation division

I divided the accusations into two sections because they were getting a little long. I think it's easiest to classify them as Jones's allegations and reactions, and Haggard's responses and contradictions. Fair? Zz414 18:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Methamphetamine(s)?

I'm changing "methamphetamines" to methamphetamine, there is only one form (methyl-substituted amphetamine) so it is somewhat misleading. Reb42 22:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New statement from New Life Church

They've officially dismissed him now: http://www.newlifechurch.org/pressrelease110606.pdf Somebody might want to add that to the article.--Injoy 00:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"Our investigation and Pastor Haggard’s public statements have proven without a doubt that he has committed sexually immoral conduct." ! .....dave souza, talk 06:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Allegations"

Haggard has only confessed to knowing Jones, receiving a massage from him, buying drugs, and "some sexual immorality." He's denied a homosexual affair and drug use. Until we see a criminal conviction, a confession, or a smoking gun, we'll have to settle for the "allegations" tag for now. Zz414 19:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that it really matters, it seems a little hypocritical to be against gays in public and having "some sexual immorality" (which he has admitted) with them in private... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.52.149.73 (talk • contribs) 14:12, November 5, 2006.
It may not matter a great deal as to whether Jones is or isn't a hypocrite, but it's pretty important that Wikipedia doesn't go beyond the published facts. — Matt Crypto 22:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
"proven without a doubt statement by church" and firing by the church seems to trump weasel words about "allegations." Edison 06:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
All that means is that the church was convinced that he had done something wrong sexually. It may be that he admitted to them something other than what Jones claims (some hypotheticals: "I didn't have sex with him but I did pay to watch him ___" or "I didn't have sex with him but I did with someone else years ago"). The church's findings of some wrongdoing doesn't necessarily mean he's guilty of this specific wrongdoing. --Psiphiorg

[edit] Jones links

I don't think it's appropriate to include links to Jones's personal promotional sites on Haggard's page. I won't get into a revert war, but I'm open to discussion. This is Haggard's page, not Jones. Zz414 23:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we should keep it. Jones' website is part of the story -- it's been shown in some of the news reports that I've seen. — Matt Crypto 23:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I am against keeping Jones' personal website on this. Now that Mike Jones has his own page in Wikipedia, people can flip to it and get to Mike's website. This page is about Ted Haggard, and only indirectly about Mike Jones. Chip Unicorn 00:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
If he's got his own site, and I now see that he does, then removing the Jones links is entirely appropriate, and both of those links are already on Jones's page. Removed. Zz414 00:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heaven, Where is it? How do we get there?

Does anyone have quotes of the Barbara Walter's special with Ted Haggard (& others) where sex in heaven was a topic? Gemini79 20:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gayle Haggard's letter to New Life Church

The Gazette also published Gayle Haggard's letter to New Life Church on November 5, 2006. Should her letter (or a summary) be on this page? Also, it doesn't look like she has her own wikipedia page. Should she?

Here's her letter:

"Dear Women of New Life Church,

I am so sorry for the circumstances that have led me to write this letter to you today. I know your hearts are broken; mine is as well. Yet my hope rests steadfastly in the Lord who is forever faithful.

What I want you to know is that I love my husband, Ted Haggard, with all my heart. I am committed to him until death "do us part". We started this journey together and with the grace of God, we will finish together.

If I were standing before you today, I would not change one iota of what I have been teaching the women of our church. For those of you who have been concerned that my marriage was so perfect I could not possibly relate to the women who are facing great difficulties, know that this will never again be the case. My test has begun; watch me. I will try to prove myself faithful.

I love you all so much, especially you young women - you were my delight.

To all the church family of New Life Church - Ted and I are so proud of you. You are all we hoped you would be. In our minds, there is no greater church.

As you try to make sense of these past few days, know that Ted believes with all his heart and soul everything he has ever taught you, those things you are putting into practice. He is now the visible and public evidence that every man (woman and child) needs a Savior.

We are grateful for your prayers for our family.

I hold you forever in my heart."

- Gayle Haggard, letter to New Life Church (http://www.gazette.com/display.php?id=1326185&secid=1)

Kylebrotherton 08:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

She doesn't appear to meet our notability requirements so no page for her. One or two quotations from the letter may be merited but definitely not the whole thing (which would be a copyright violation anyway) Nil Einne 16:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voice mails

The article mentions how there are some voicemails that are likely Ted Haggard that orginated from Jones but nothing else about these voice mails. What is said in them and why are they significant? As far as I know they could be Haggard allegedly saying he's an alien for mars who likes to have sex with dolphins and smoke sugar Nil Einne 16:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Here are two links with samples of the voicemails with transcripts: [5] and [6]. —Wasabe3543 23:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

They are significant because Ted Haggard initially denied even knowing Mike Jones. These voice mails were important in linking the two, and essentially, being the evidence that caught Ted Haggard in his lies. --Ubiq 02:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ross Parsley might be spelled wrong

In the article Ross Parsley is sometimes spelled Ross Parsely and other times Ross Parsley. On the New Life Church website it is Ross Parsley (unless there is more than one person there with the same name) 24.117.66.114 17:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed it, though you could have done that. Laurence Boyce 17:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
No, he/she couldn't've, as the article is protected against edits by unregistered or newly-registered users. It would have taken "24." several days to be able to make these changes, whereas you performed them in under four minutes. --Psiphiorg 18:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes, sorry, I forgot. Laurence Boyce 18:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disciplinary Measures Incorrectly Detailed

Minor quibble, but the description of the board process is technically incorrect:

"The board cited the bylaws of the mega-church and said his conduct required them to remove him from his job."

"Required" is not accurate. Maybe "compelled"?

From the statement by the board, the bylaws indicate that they must make a decision about discipline, of which removal is simply one option.

Direct quote:

"The language of our church and bylaws state that as Overseers we must decide in cases where the Senior Pastor has ' demonstrated immoral conduct ' whether we must ' remove the pastor from his position or to discipline him in any way that they deem necessary.' "

4.79.137.4 20:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've made the change you suggest. — Matt Crypto 20:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The scandal is hilarious

It should be recorded that many people find the latest sex and drugs scandal very very funny. 213.202.133.218 23:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Second ! --130.89.190.134 00:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Here, here. I also might be in the minority, though, 'cause i totally wouldn't have charged haggard. I think he's kinda cute. --Chalyres 02:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Even though it's vandalism, I agree, I laughed my ass off. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 04:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

hm, would it be vandalism to add the article to Category:LGBT Christians? dab (ᛏ) 17:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Haggard hasn't admitted outright to any form of gay sex or even interest in that direction. The church didn't say why exactly they were letting him go (for all we know, their investigation turned up him having an affair with as yet unamed female). Furthermore, I'm not sure that having sex a few times with another male even necessarily makes one LGBT- there are many other possible motivations, such as curosity. Until we have a reliable source that has strong evidence for him being in that category he should stay out. JoshuaZ 17:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[Haggard is] steady with [his] wife. [He's] faithful to [his] wife. BabuBhatt 22:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Even if [he is] getting it on [with males]. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 06:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
the "B" is for bisexual. I am thinking the "LGBT Christians" blurb needs to reconsider that there may, or course, be LGBT people who are also Christians, but many or most of them may be profoundly ashamed of the fact. It is perfectly in line with Christian doctrine to be "LGBT" and admit you are a filthy sinner. It is only those arguing that it is alright to be LGBT that run into theological and/or hermeneutic problems. As for TH, saying that he has been battling with his dark affliction for all of his adult life doesn't make it sound like he acted "a few times out of curiosity" to say the least. dab (ᛏ) 11:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I am in agreement with Joshua, we should avoid classifying Haggard as gay or bisexual until we have solid references/cites that would support it. Otherwise we look like we're trying to out people. And also note that in spite of his smarmy "confession", Haggard has yet to admit anything specific. Mr Christopher 15:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reparative Therapy

Rev Ted is now the most prolific testament to the failure of reparative therapy. This article should reflect this.

Has this opinion been published in a reliable source? If not, then the article should not include it. Moreover, I've not heard mention that Haggard has (yet) undergone any reparative therapy that can be attributed a failure. — Matt Crypto 19:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Trying to force in a statement on the failure of reparative therapy appears to push an agenda that is not warranted in this setting. 24.165.7.61 02:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Correction needed in "Haggard's Response" section

In the section titled "Haggard's Response," there is a small correction needed. The article currently says:

Later however, Haggard stepped down as president of the National Association of Evangelicals.[28] He stated, "I am voluntarily stepping aside from leadership so that the overseer process can be allowed to proceed with integrity. I hope to be able to discuss this matter in more detail at a later date. In the interim, I will seek both spiritual advice and guidance."[29]

The quote that is given by Ted Haggard is not referring to stepping down from the NAE. He stepped aside from leadership at New Life Church (placing himself on administrative leave) which is where the quote comes from. He did step down from the NAE as well, but the overseer process came from the church, not the NAE.

If you read footnote 29 (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5112770,00.html) you will see the quote is in context to leaving the church, not the NAE.

Kylel2005 20:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've attempted to fix it. — Matt Crypto 20:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You're correct. I've further edited this passage to reflect the fact that he only went on "administrative leave" from his position at the church. He didn't step down. I don't have a specific citation. 68.178.2.110 00:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

According to Ted's official website he was "dismissed as Senior Pastor of New Life Church". Mr Christopher 21:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An affair?

Based on published reports, I don't think the term affair acurately reflects Haggard's relationship/arrangement with Jones. The allegations are Haggard paid a male prostitute for sex over a three year span (and the dope part). Does paying for sex constitute an affair? Was Haggrad secretly sending Jones flowers, buying him gifts, meeting him for lunch/dinner, taking him on vacations or doing any of the things we typically think of when we think of an affair. Has Jones claimed Haggard ever expressed any romantic love or affection for him? Aren't affairs generally between two people who have some sort of affection for one another and not the result of a paid sexual liason? In fact should we call it a sexual liason instead of an affair? I'd like to hear other opinions on the subject. Mr Christopher 15:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd agree that the word affair doesn't really apply to him hiring a male for sex. I guess the real question would boil down to his romantic feelings for the man and we'll probably never know that because he is so ashamed by who he is to admit anything. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 15:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's what Jones had to say on the subject
"He goes, 'A fantasy of mine is to have an orgy with about six young college guys ranging from 18 to 22 in age,'" Jones told KHOW-AM radio in Colorado. "I will tell you it was not emotional. … Just strictly physical," Jones added.[7] Mr Christopher 15:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
According to that link that is what Jones says Haggard said. You can't use it as a source no matter how funny it is. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 16:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
What? The point is Jones said their relationship was physical and not emotional. So I think the term affair is not ideal I'm just not sure what to substitute for it. "Homosexual relationship"? "Homosexual Liason"? Mr Christopher 16:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
But what I'm saying is that it is from Jones's mouth. In order to determine affair or liason you have to get Haggard's take on the relationship from his own mouth, not from what Jones said he said. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 16:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Wikipedia is not just a list of quotes. We are allowed to make trivial inferences. We can say perhaps "sexual relationship", instead of "affair". Thus leaving it vague as to the romantic component. I think we can all agree, that once-a-month doesn't sound too "involved". Wjhonson 16:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Check this out though, Wikipedia (via this article) is already claiming they had an affair, and neither of them make that claim. So we're already doing a little original research by calling it an affair, no? Jones made the allegations, and the allegation jones made is a physical relationship and not an affair or anything romantic. BY calling it an affair (at least without clarifying that term) we're telling the world these two had some sort of lovey dovey thing going on when in fact the available evidence suggests it was more of a physical sexual thing. So far there is zero evidence this was anything romantic. Mr Christopher 16:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Definitely not an affair since nothing romantic is implied. "Sexual relationship" seems neutral and accurate. Haiduc 16:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you think we should qualify it by describing it as a "homosexual relationship"? Mr Christopher 16:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the word "affair". And OR isn't using a word somebody else didn't use. If you say your underwear is yellow and I say "his underwear is not white" that isn't original research. If we have ten words to choose from to describe "a monthly get-together for sex" we can still pick one of those ten words instead of an exact quote. That isn't OR, it's called just being an editor. Now you may say the word chosen doesn't fit, so change "affir" to "relationship" or "escapade" or some other synonym. 16:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, I just changed it to "Alleged homosexual relationship and drug use" That seems accurate and NPOV. Mr Christopher 17:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"affair, n. 8. A romantic and sexual relationship, sometimes one of brief duration, between two people who are not married to each other." Just some icing on the cake for you guys. The most important part there is "romantic AND sexual". Mike Jones has hinted on more than one occasion that their relationship was sexual, not romantic. So most of us can agree affair wouldn't work. I do, however, think it would be fitting to say he cheated on his wife with a man. I don't see "alleged homosexual relationship" as NPOV. Mike seems to be able to recall every detail of their relationship, not to mention Haggard has lied on more than one occasion about all this and it's a bit obvious he's being intentionally vague by saying he was guilty of "sexual immorality". Keep in mind also, that Haggard is not still denying the homosexual relationship part. I imagine if he was guilty of sexual immorality but not guilty of a gay relationship, that he would clarify what he really did. My two. --Ubiq 14:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dobson

I believe Dobson had initially blamed the media and democrats for the story about Haggard, but I do not recall where I read him saying that. Is anyone familiar with this? Mr Christopher 17:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's from the rockymountain news: "James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, a nationally known conservative Christian organization based in Colorado Springs, blasted the media for its "unconscionable" reporting of "a rumor like this based on nothing but one man's accusation."

"Ted Haggard is a friend of mine, and it appears someone is trying to damage his reputation as a way of influencing the outcome of Tuesday's election - especially the vote on Colorado's marriage-protection amendment - which Ted strongly supports," Dobson said in a statement. " http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5115230,00.html

That isn't the full text of his statements, but i think it may not have been Dobson but actually Falwell or Robertson that specifically mentioned the Dems. then again, i seem to remember it being Dobson and can't find anything more than that at the moment. --Chalyres 03:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Chalyres. I may have gotten my televangialists confused :-) I think it might be noteworthy to inlclude the initial reaction to the allegations by Dobson others in the same evangelical community. I think after Ted's "admission" both Falwell and Pat Robertson made an effort to let the public know that Ted actually had very little influence at all in the christian community (outside of his own church that is). I wish I would have bookmarked more of these article as I was reading. I'll do some digging. Mr Christopher 15:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I can assure you that you'll find a lot if you can stomach watching the 700 club from that friday and monday. I know I, um, sure did. --Chalyres 21:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

--Ubiq 05:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Allegations"?

Why is that section still titled as such, when many of these allegations have been confirmed or confessed? I suggest "Improprieties involving homosexuality and drugs." Haiduc 17:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell us specifically what Haggard has admitted to? Pretty much nothing, other than being a liar, a perv and all. He still says some of the allegations against him are untrue but fails to shed any light on the matter. Even his church said some of the allegations were true beyond a shadow of a doubt, but they avoided specifics too. So much for honesty on the part of Haggard or his church :-) Until Haggard actually admits to something specific i think we are bound to describe them as allegations. Perhaps we might title it "Liar, Deceiver and drug use"? :-) Just kidding. Mr Christopher 18:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I just read the Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker articles, in each their sexual escapades are treated as scandals and not allegations. Perhaps we should follow that lead? Oh, and it's worth noting that Swaggart, like Haggard, confessed to unspecified sins. Mr Christopher 18:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
On the presumption that it is improper to be a preacher and buy illegal drugs, he has admitted to improprieties involving meth. And the board of the church condemned him for illicit sexuality, ergo... Haiduc 23:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I like the idea of refering to the section with the term 'scandal', it is I think more accurate and also more NPOV. The phrase scandal does not imply truth to any of the allegations, only that something happened that became a scandal and I think we can support that assertion. Dalf | Talk 02:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Totally for Scandal, because it actually frees up a lot of NPOV conflict problems. Scandal gives you a bit more leverage to talk about the allegations without slipping into speculation, and since it's moving out of a current event (i DON'T think that much more info will be coming out on this, now overshadowed by the election results, etc.).--Chalyres 03:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the input. I went with "Sex and drugs scandal" because, well that's exactly what it is. Does it sound cliche though? Thanks goodness rock and roll was not aparty to it :-) Mr Christopher 04:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Heh, who knows that it wasn't? ;-) (I think that's a good title.) — Matt Crypto 16:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I hope not, "Sex, drugs and rock and roll scandal" is gonna sound awfull funny... Mr Christopher 16:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually Haggard said that his shows have been described as 'rock concerts' in the interview with Dawkins! So, Sex, drugs and rock and roll is right! :-)WolfKeeper 00:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Haha. I remember that from The Root Of All Evil documentary. Ironic. I think the title, "Gay Sex, Drugs, and Rock and Roll" would be much funnier though :) --Ubiq 05:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganizing the scandal section

What we have now is

  • Sex and drugs scandal
  • Allegations
  • Haggard's response
  • Admission and removal from job

What if we changed "Admission and removal from job" to "Aftermath" (or something close) where we can cover more than just Haggard's removal. There has been quite a bit written about Haggard's confession, criticisms and prominant evangelical leaders have weighed in on the subject.

Second point - What if we changed "Haggard's response" to "Response to allegations" so we can more clearly cover more than just Haggard's reactions? So we'd end up with:

  • Sex and drugs scandal
  • Allegations
  • Response to allegations
  • Aftermath

I think these changes would allow us to cover more than just the "he said she said" between Jones and Haggard.

Thoughts, concerns, opinions? Can I get a witness? Mr Christopher 16:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Amen! Um, I mean, sounds good to me.  :-) --Psiphiorg 17:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
What about mixing the two options? We're still in the "aftermath," as it were, so i think for now keeping Admission... would be better, but i like the "response to allegations," because that definitely would keep anyone from getting two upset that this is not NPOV. Thanks for your work on this, Mr. Christopher. --Chalyres 21:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expanding Political Section

There's a lot of other things that could be added to the political ideology section, and it seems important to expand it. One of the reasons everyone even heard of the allegations in the first place was his impact on politics and the vast amount of interviews he was giving, as well as the Harper's and other's articles about him focusing on his politics. However, something really important ought to be discussed--in some of haggard's interviews, he seems to make it clear that his "pro-free market" stance is actually part of his theology. One important source here is Christopher's Lydon's Open Source, an NPR blog-styled radio discussion program. Furthermore, there is such a blending of politics and theology in some of the most well-known evangelical figures. Witness Falwell's remarks about gays and lesbians right after 9-11. was that a theological statement or a political statement? I argue it would be both, and such would be the case with Haggard's remarks. Part of this might just be that it's difficult to hear someone you look towards for spiritual advice talk about something in the political sphere and not make the connection (you consider him trustworthy already, etc.). A lot of the criticism about Haggard actually came from other christians angry over his blending of free-market capitalism, foreign intervention, and top-heavy tax cuts with his biblical stance. It'll probably be a lot of work, but it'd be interesting and would help put the scandal in context, too. http://www.radioopensource.org/index.php?s=haggard, audio file from dec 19th (christian america). --Chalyres 21:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur and the politics and practices of his church are under represented in the article. I believe it is a 17,000,000 beast and is often described as one of these megachurches. Back to the scandal subject, there is also alot of discussion going on about this in the gay community and so far there has been little mention of their view point as well. Lots of room in this article for expansion. Mr Christopher 21:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to allegations section

That section starts with Haggard's initial denials and I think we should include the initial reaction of various leaders in the evangelical community (and any other noteworthy ones for that matter, be they christian or not). Then go back into focussing on Haggard's specific responses we now see beginning in the remaining paragraphs. I'll try and add more to it this evening. Mr Christopher 21:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dawkins Haggard video transcript

Can be found here Enjoy! Mr Christopher 18:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this particularly valuable or useful in an NPOV way for the article? It seems like everything that's significant (the basic content of the video and the ensuing altercation) are sufficiently described without extra emphasis or POV attention-drawing concerns. Zz414 18:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Considering we have a whole section on the Haggrd/Dawkins video with not one cite I think the link, or one like it, would be highly relevant. We need references for that section is my point. Any article should use cites and given the controversial nature of this subject we would do well to support what we say in the article. Mr Christopher 18:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
That's fair. I just thought your "Enjoy!" comment was more an invitation for people to find POV quotations. I don't know that this site is a particularly reputable source for citation, however. That's my only current concern. Zz414 18:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Curious. Have I done anything that suggests I want to do a POV article? I believe everything I have added to the article has been well supported. And "enjoy" is not a bad word. I cannot speak for the transcript source either, but I think we need to find one we can use and feel good about. As it is now the entire dawkins/haggard sections looks like pure POV and original research. How about you volunteer to help clean that section up? Can you find a reliable source for the video transcript? Mr Christopher 18:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd support Mr Christopher in his assertion that he has actually been very fair. Finding sources is like finding a vein of (insert valuable mineral here) that you get to mine for the joy of finding stuff, which is how i took the "enjoy." I know i enjoy finding un-mined sources, 'cause that's how you get to contribute, and there's this glee one gets realising that you found something really, really good. --Chalyres 21:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I find Mr Christopher's remarks bizarre. First, POV is not in any way wrong in the wikipedia, if you think that, then you need to read WP:NPOV (again), roughly speaking NPOV is ultimately achieved by adding enough cited notable POVs to articles. Given that this program is a notable POV on Haggard, we merely have to accurately describe it and cite it as a source. Under the verifiability rules we do not have to cite a transcript. I'm also a bit, perturbed by the idea that he seems to think that he has to 'feel good' about a transcript. The Wikipedia isn't about feeling good, it's about verifiability, as long as the transcript is verified by editors, any of us could probably put one up on the web under fair use, and another editor could add a reference to it.WolfKeeper 22:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
So since we lack a cite for the video, and no transcript has been found that seems reliable, how do we or the reader verify what is being written in this section reflects reality? The article is making claims about what Dawkins and Haggard said yet there are no cites. Because it lacks a cite it appears POV or original research. THAT is my point and my ONLY point. Nothing more. Oh, and sorry some of you find enthusiasm for the article and enjoyment in editing so disagreable, I'll try and be more stuffy and grumpy next time. I'll try and frown more. <frown> Mr Christopher 23:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Since there's a main article about The Root of All Evil? I don't think references need to be replicated here. The linked transcript looked ok till towards the end, where it had Dawkins' response "Really?" mixed in with the Haggard's statement. Didn't check it carefully, but I did go over the transcript at the head of this talk page and it seemed ok. Oddly enough the YouTube link on this article page seems to be working though rather out of sync, but if that ends and you want me to check anything, I recorded the original Channel 4 broadcast and can look it over. ... dave souza, talk 23:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I added a link to the excerpt of the video that covers only talking with Haggard. The filming was done by channel 4 in the UK and the regulation for UK fair use is here. I would argue that we are covered by fair use in this circumstance, potentially we could even upload this excerpt to the wikipedia itself. We are reporting on an event, we have taken a limited section of the entire work, and it is probably even educational one way or another about evolution and/or christian evangelical stuff. It would be good to ask Channel 4 though.WolfKeeper 00:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I really have a problem with the gay categories and here's why

I know this is a emotionally/polititally charged subject but I really object to us categorizing him as gay or bisexual. The fact that someone has sex with the same sex does not mean they consider themselves to be gay or lesbian. Haggard has not admitted to being gay or bisexual so us putting him in that category is an act of outing on our part in my opinion. Is it wiki policy to add every person who has same sex relations to be added to those categories? Is the mainstream media referring to Haggard as a homosexual? I'm not trying to defend haggard, I am just voicing my concers about these categories. I suspect Haggard would deny he is gay, in spite of his hobbies with Mike Jones:-) What next, do we add him to a Wiki list of drug addicts? This is just wrong in my opinion. I think adding him to those categories is very POV. Again, has Haggard claimed he is gay or bisexual? Does the mainstream media now refer to him as a gay or bisexual man? I'd like to hear the opinions of others on the subject. Mr Christopher 18:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

In agreement. Even having gay sex does not necessarily make someone gay. Nor do we have any actual confirmation that he had gay sex. We have the allegations and the decision by the church to fire him. This is not at all the same. Concluding that he is gay is both not necessarily called for and is original research. Especially given WP:BLP issues, the categories should not be included. JoshuaZ 19:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Also in agreement, strongly. Unless he states that he is gay, it is speculation. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ditto, though one might note that he might be homosexual without being gay. Or maybe he's bi... Or maybe.... Exploding Boy 19:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. I'm homosexual/gay/queer (i'm not even slightly confused about that part) but where does this "having homosexual sex doesn't make you gay?" come from? i think the only reason we could not call him gay in the article is because he has not admitted to it. I guess i have decidedly different ideas about outing. can someone please explain to me how one can be homosexual without being gay? It seems to be pre-supposed as axiomatic here, but i've never heard of such an idea (and neither has my queer-history master's degree partner), so i'm really lost here. --Chalyres 21:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

While homosexual and gay are synonyms one can have gay sex without being gay. The more common example might be some sort of making out - I've seen drunk heterosexual girls make out, that doesn't make them lesbians. However, this claim is debatable. The more serious issue is the WP:OR issue. JoshuaZ 22:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
JoshuaZ, are you suggesting those hot babes on girls gone wild are not lesbians? Oh man I want my money back now! Chalyres, if you start buggering one of the gals from Deperate Housewives shall we deem you a closeted hetero (and get you some sort of treatment)? Mr Christopher 22:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


Are the accusations from Mike Jones "original research?" There's a new interview with him here: http://radaronline.com/features/2006/11/confessions_of_an_angry_hustler_rev_ted_haggard.php

I hate to debate this too much, but i kind of feel like i ought to, only because i still don't understand the rationale. If you have forced homosexual or heterosexual sex, then that's rape. If you pay for homosexual sex monthly for three years, i think that's something different. The category "gay" is a difficult one, i'll admit (i usually refer to myself as anarchoqueer, but we're not talking about me), but i think the much larger issue here is the indentification of homosex as an abberation within a specific context. within a religious-cultural context that sees homosex as fallen, unnatural, etc, in which it can be "changed" and is not a default preference, than having gay sex all you want still doesn't make you gay as long as you repent or "fought against" it. What i'm arguing is this. The only NPOV reason to not label Haggard as gay is that so far the accusations are un-admitted. IF Haggard had sex with the man as often as is claimed, then there would be nothing biased about calling him gay or bisexual. --Chalyres 22:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

and who says i haven't? Doing some "original research?" --Chalyres 22:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I did preface this by saying it is a charged subject :-) Haggard has not admitted to being gay or bi for that matter, all indications are he still views himself as "straight" (he's not leaving his wife for Jones). Indeed he has indulged in homosexual sex (complete with kissing, an activity associated with intimacy) and publicly claimed what he did was wrong (even though he has not gone into detail as to what exactly he and Mr Jones did). For us to label him homosexual or bisexual would seem POV (outing even). It would be appropriate for us to quote experts on the subject who deem him gay or bi, but for us to do things like put him in categories like that would be innapropriate. Mr Christopher 22:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Right. But perhaps the question is not whether he has admitted being homosexual, or whether he thinks of himself as homosexual, the question seems to be more whether other people (notable points of view) now consider him to be so. He has after all admitted to "sexual immorality" in the face of accusations of being engaged in a homosexual relationship with a gay man, so clearly his name and this article is associated with homosexuality even if by some spectacular happenstance it turned out he wasn't actually gay and he was actually having sex with the guy's sister(!). But in any case by adding the article to the category we are associating the article, and the references it contains to his accuser (who is mentioned in the article) who evidently is homosexual and his accusations, not necessarily Haggard as being a homosexual.WolfKeeper 23:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"Gay" is an identity. Being gay suggests an exclusive attraction to members of one's own sex, and at least some type of identification with the large gay culture. If Haggard identifies as "gay," then he's been doing a good job of hiding it, and he hasn't said so publicly. A homosexual is someone who is more or less exclusively attracted to members of his or her own sex; we don't know if that's the case with Haggard or not, since, again, he hasn't said anything about it. We do know he has 5 kids, so that might make him bisexual, but again, we can't say with any certainty. In all likelihood he's deeply conflicted about his exclusive same-sex desires--that would explain the meth--and has been fighting them his entire life, partly by becoming invovled in religion. But that's simple speculation on my part. Exploding Boy 22:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully my final comment - for us to call him gay or bi (or put him in those categories) would be our attempt to "set the record straight" (pardon the pun). That is not our job as editors, in fact it conflicts with our job. Putting him in a category like "Preachers married to women who have had extensive sex with men" would be NPOV, but putting him in the "Gay Preachers" category would be POV. At least based on how things are today. Again, there are alot of opinions gay media that have not been included in the article yet. They are making similar claims about Ted and that viewpoint belongs in the article. Mr Christopher 22:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
can we start that category?--Chalyres 22:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

(except, of course, adding "allegedly." I'm only half-serious, by the way).

Haggard sodomized a man for 3 years while high on drugs, and you guys "have a problem with the gay" category?? ROFL!! umm... sorry but it doesn't get any more homosexual than that. 68.7.67.96 20:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You are entitiled to your opinion. Without a verifiable source, it remains your opinion, and does not belong on Wikipedia. Until and unless Haggard states that he is gay, we don't categorize him as gay. The puppy has spoken; the puppy is done. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
We don't know who sodomized who. Or if they even did that particular act. As far as I know the explicit information about what they did is still under wraps. Wjhonson 23:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
But Mike Jones has a notable point of view on this subject, and the only evidence we have to the contrary is Haggard's, who has contradicted himself several times, and then stepped down due to self professed sexual immorality. And it's not like Haggard is suing Mike Jones for libel.WolfKeeper 00:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Saying "The fact is I am guilty of sexual immorality." is definitely not the same as self-identifying as gay or homosexual. Even if someone published an article that refered to him as gay, all we could do is report "X has refered to him as gay in Y publication". --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 00:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it's pretty obvious that they had a sexual relationship. Like Wolfkeeper said, you don't see Haggard suing Mike Jones or still denying anything. His "sexual immorality" phrasing was textbook deceptive ambiguity. In any case, I think to say he is gay at this point is a bit of a stretch. I remember I took a sociology course where our professor had almost an entire lecture about how sociologists consider homosexuality to be a passionate, romantic, AND sexual attraction to one's own sex. She said that gay sex doesn't make a person gay, at which point our entire class looked hilariously confused. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary says: "of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex". So I think at most, we could call him bisexual, but even that would be a bit much at this point. --Ubiq 22:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, if anyone wants to report something along the lines of "X has referred to him as gay or bi in Y publication", we have Dan Savage calling Haggard "bisexual" and "closeted" in an article published in the New York Times and the Sacramento Bee. — Coelacan | talk 03:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Savage is probably a reliable source for sexual practices and relationship advice. He has a strong POV in matters of who has what sexuality. Between that and other issues, Savage is a not a reliable source for labeling Haggard as gay. JoshuaZ 04:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ is 100% correct. I'll acknowledge Savage as an RS regarding which kind of lube to use in any given situation, and even on some of the more exotic uses for hard-boiled eggs, but in terms of which labels he applies to people (and his reasons for doing so) his credibilty is somewhat diminished. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 05:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed about the Savage source. I don't think we need to be hunting for reliable sources that call him gay just so we can put it in the article either. We have him basically admitting that he had gay sex. The reader of this article can think what they want as to what his sexuality is. His sexuality is something we can't quite know with what information we're given. Even if a credible psychologist were to speak up, saying they think he's gay, it still wouldn't mean we could call him that. We need to wait for something to develop or more information before we start putting labels on peoples' sexuality. --Ubiq 15:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Practice and identity seem to me to be two different matters. If we had a category "hopeless closet cases", which we don't and shouldn't, I'd gladly put him in there (and lock the door). But to call a person, not an act, "gay" involves a matter of identity, and clearly Haggard does not embrace that identity. - Jmabel | Talk 01:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

LMAO! Thanks for expressing that so clearly and amusingly : ) Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 01:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations

This section is well-written and very well referenced, but does anyone else agree that it contains sufficient allegations at this point? What's there now is good, but I think adding any more might be overkill. Just a thought...--Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 21:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hard to say until someone adds something that we feel is redundant :-) Mr Christopher 22:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] theology section

What we have now is

Haggard believes in what is known as the Third Wave of the Holy Spirit and subscribes to the concept referred to as the Five-fold ministry – beliefs often associated with the charismatic movement. He believes that there is one, all-knowing God, and that humans were created to be with him. His beliefs reflect biblical inerrancy and biblical literalism.[9]

The link or the archived one that Matt crypto found, goes to Haggard's website. There is no mention of the "third wave" or "five-fold ministry" on Haggard's website. I googled both terms with Haggards name and I came up with what appears to be very sketchy results at best. I am not familiar with what is considered reliable christian oriented web sites and the ones I did find mentioned these concepts with Haggard's name only briefly. They read more like accusations than evidence. I did not find Haggard claiming either the third wave" or "five-fold ministry" anywhere. If we cannot find reliable sources for these claims I think we might want to remove them. My search skilles are probably not the best so maybe someone else can do a better job of supporting these claims, but again, if we cannot support the claims I think we should remove them until better evidence is found. Mr Christopher 22:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is what I have pieced together, C. Peter Wagner invented the Third Wave of the Holy Spirit concept (wrote a book on the subject). He was or is a member of Haggard's church. Haggard and Wagner co-founded (or perhaps Haggard just helped, that too is fuzzy) the World Prayer Center and from that some in the christian community claim Haggard is a part of this third wave thing (they claim he shares Wagner's theology). Haggard wrote an email saying those claims are untrue. I had to sort through a ton of "liar liar pray for the guy with his pants on fire because he is going to hell" web sites to gleen that little bit of information. This one covers it somewhat [8]. I think it is safe to conclude there is no real evidence that Haggard is a believer in the third wave or five fold ministry. His website makes no mention of it, the church website makes no mention of it. And the "noteabiltiy" of the whole things seems to exist only in fringe christian circles all accusing one another of this or that. Again, I cannot find any evidence that Haggard belives in either of the two assertions being made. Anyone object to me removing them? Third, fourth or fifth wave, I could care less what Haggard believes, I just want the article to rock and this section lacks critical support. If we say Haggrd believes such and such I think we better have some good supporting evidence. Mr Christopher 23:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
According to the World Prayer Center history page[9] it looks like Haggard founded it and a few years later Wagner came on board to expand it. Anyhow...Like I was saying... Mr Christopher 23:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Your tubes must be broken. Haggard is a contributing author in a book called Understanding the fivefold ministry, edited by Matthew Green, ISBN 1591856221. The table of contents says he wrote chapter 21, "The Pastor and the Fivefold Ministry". I'll go look for the "third wave" stuff now. — Coelacan | talk 03:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Perfect, that's why I asking, I knew my search efforts were not the final word. Thanks for your help. I'll look for some reviews of the book. Mr Christopher 04:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
No problem. The third wave thing is harder to pin down beyond doubt. I am finding that pro-third-wavers cite Haggard like the critics do. Here's someone who's praising the three supposed waves and glowing about Haggard (scroll down to "OUR HERITAGE"). Still looking. — Coelacan | talk 04:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's a member of New Life Church who describes Haggard as "mild third wave charismatic". — Coelacan | talk 04:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey that C Peter Wagner wrote a chapter in the Apostle section of the Five Fold book you linked above. So those two may in fact share some similar ideas. At least at first glance. Mr Christopher 04:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Ahh. Good eye. And Wagner's also mentioned in that "OUR HERITAGE" link I gave above. But keep in mind that the evangelical movement is relatively broad. For instance, in that letter from Haggard that you cited, where he says "I do not embrace the modern prophetic movement represented by Dr. C. Peter Wagner," we can probably take him at his word; I can't imagine why he'd lie about his theology (although perhaps I'm just not imaginative enough). This is a very specific distinction, however, and it does not mean that they aren't both "third-wavers", which appears to also be a fairly broad movement. In my opinion, the best third-wave testimony we have as yet is the New Life Church member I linked to who said Haggard was third-wave. In that thread, if you keep reading, the forum members begin discussing third-wave for a good while, and I didn't see any one of them dispute Haggard's inclusion.
I will also say this, though it's not conclusive. The "third wave" thing has been here since the creation of the article in November 2004, and it survived the almost 200 edits that occurred before the scandal. I'm inclined to expect that the creator, One Salient Oversight, and at least a few of those later editors were knowledgable about the subject and decided to leave it. — Coelacan | talk 05:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello ladies and gents. Looks like you were able to fix this issue up quite well. I already knew about the Wagner-Haggard connection but I thought there was some external link there. Good work. I never would've believed the article I created would be about a guy who ended up being front page news. --One Salient Oversight 00:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, One Salient Oversight. You wouldn't happen to have any definitive sources we can use for the third wave connection, would you? We've figured it out but mostly by inference. It would be nice to have some definitive ref to use for the article. Anything that directly links Haggard to the third wave, or indirectly, like linking the third wave with the fivefold ministry (which we've directly established with Haggard)? — coelacan talk — 01:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a different issue with the theology section. This sentence: He believes that there is one, all-knowing God, and that humans were created to be with him. Isn't that just generic Christian boilerplate? Including it makes it sound as though it were distinctive, as though most other Christians don't believe this. — Coelacan | talk 21:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I belive all christians hold similar views. That section needs some help. I have some ideas on the subject and obviously you have been working hard getting some cites and sources. I've been on a tear in the response section and I may not have time to revisit the theology section until later this evening. But..I think we can make some significant improvements to the theology section. One thing I've noted since researching Ted's theology, we haven't even scratched the surface of all warring and battles with Satan (my terms not his). He's a big time sparring with the devil type. Mr Christopher 22:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spinning

Hey Guys, I know you are all into this subject, and although wiki may not be the best place, I was wondering if you could help me out with a bit of research here; as a UC student, I am open to both sides, the pro-Haggard side (i.e. Haggard was a great pastor, but...) and the anti-Haggard side (i.e this is how power corrupts evangelicals...) and also anything in between.

"Identify an exclusive political story/scoop generated by the mainstream media. From there, track the dissemination of that story to other media (television, newspapers, online media and bloggers). Detail how the story is reshaped as it makes its way through the media, and who is doing the spinning."

If this is deemed inappropriate in any way, shape or form by you, honorable wiki users, then I am sorry, and please continiue with the discussion, and ignore this comment.

Thank You,

 - UC student
Hi UC student; this page is not really the place for this. You might wish to ask for general ideas at the Wikipedia:Reference Desk (although you should make clear that you are not asking people to do your homework for you). — Matt Crypto 08:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
What about the "former prostitute" angle :) I think that one could be very interesting. At first I think we heard "self-identified male prostitute", then I think former, or sex worker, hooker, masseuse at some point or other. At any rate, it could make a provocative paper. Wjhonson 16:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
That is a quite fascinating play on words. Thank you Wjhonson. I'll still be accepting comments until tomorrow, then alas, the paper is due.

UC student

[edit] Times article

Link is here: [10] says Haggard had admitted already to the ministers before any of the interviews to "sexual immorality." i think that a rethink of the homosexual allegations should be done, seeing as it seems the ministers are using code to refer to it. little logic: he is said to have had sex with a man at least 36 times (once a month for three years). He admits to sexual immorality. there are no other allegations. therfore, he had sex with a man 36 times. that makes you, at the very least, bisexual. --Chalyres 23:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is the key for me to support categorizing or portraying him as bi or gay - Does he claim to be bisexual? Is he currently romatically involved with both men and women? Until the answer to those questions is yes I'm going to have a hard time categorizing him as bi, in an encyclopedia that is. Based on what I've read, I know he is, you know he is, the reader is going to know he is, but for an encyclopedia to make this claim I think we need him to claim that as an identity or for us to have good evidence that he is currently dating men. It is one thing to report on his bisexual activities (which are pretty well documented), it is another for us to claim what his sexual identity is. Mr Christopher 04:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Mr Christopher here, and with Ubiq earlier on the page, who pointed out that "sociologists consider homosexuality to be a passionate, romantic, AND sexual attraction to one's own sex." We're not qualified to explicitly judge Haggard's classification here; arguably only Haggard is so qualified (until he finishes ex-gay brainwashing, that is). I suggested earlier that we report someone else's judgment on the matter, specifically Dan Savage's, so that it's not WP:OR, but this suggestion was not well received. I think the important thing to keep in mind is that no matter how tempted we might be to explicitly classify Haggard, it's not necessary for the reader. No one with an ounce of sanity is going to read this article and then say "Oh, he's just a straight guy who's been having sex with men. Happens all the time." There's no serious question about interpretation of this story, so ultimately we don't need to point out the obvious. — coelacan talk — 05:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post-scandal activities

In the last part of the section titled "Admission and removal from job" ([11]), counseling might perhaps be pipered to re-education or thought reform... That's what comes to my mind when reading the section. Scoo 10:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

"Brainwashing" is extremely non-NPOV, though, and using euphemisms for it doesn't make it any more neutral. --Psiphiorg 10:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
What does "spiritual restoration" mean then? ;) (source used by the article). I could not care less about this article (already dipped my nose too deep), but I must say the mentioning of counseling and polygraph usage made me think of just that. Scoo 11:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
So far they've all been very vague as to what Haggard's spiritual "restoration" will actually entail, but Dobson suggested on Larry King that it may include reparative therapy. Larry asked him if they would try to change Haggard from gay to straight and Dobson said it was definitely an option, along with other avenues.

Been on the mailing list for New Life Church since the scandal broke. Here's an excerpt that i received today from Ross Parsley. There is no copyright disclaimer on the email, by the way. You can also get on the email list by going to the New Life website.


This week I had the opportunity to visit with Ted and Gayle for a

while. It was a good time of sharing and healing. They've been spending their days talking and praying together, seeing a counselor, and working toward the restoration process. Over the next several weeks and months, they will receive in-depth ministry that will tend to their emotional, physical, and spiritual well-being. Ted remains humbly submitted to the authority of the overseers, and he and Gayle are trusting God for healing and direction. Be assured that the trustees and overseers are making wise decisions to ensure they are taken care of in every way. Ted and Gayle asked me to tell you how much they love and appreciate you and your prayers during this difficult time for them. Please continue to pray for their family.'
--Chalyres 02:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A sermon that moulded perceptions. But what about actions?

It would be interesting to see if anyone could find information on the content of Bill Bright's sermon that Haggard heard at age sixteen when it is said that his views (obviously not his actions) turned to those of fundamental born-again Christianity. Maybe there is a connection to the "sexual immorality" that he's "been warring against" from the time of reaching adulthood and the time when he first espoused those beliefs (although, again, not actions).

Just on a personal note, it seems that those with the most extreme demonising views against any particular thing are almost always those that actually endulge in the very deed themselves, but have never reconciled it. They then compensate the guilt by forcefully crusading against it. People that are just against something but have not themselves ever done it, don't ever seem to radicals about whatever the issue is. Al-Andalus 03:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] categories

Ok, according to the article, our boy Ted is from Indiana. But, wait, he's also from Colorado. And he's also from Baton Rouge (Louisiana). Just how many places can he come from? Do we add him to every geographic area that he's ever lived in? Seems like he should only "be from" (people from ____) one place, the place where he was born, no? Or am I mistaken? Mr Christopher 00:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

HE'S BEEN CLONED MAN! Haven't you figured that out yet. Geez what's wrong with you. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 02:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Mr Christopher. You might be right that the cats are excessive. I'm going to say that he's definitely "from" wherever he grew up (Indiana? I'm not sure, it just says he was born there). And he's definitely "from" wherever he lives now (when he meets people at NAE conferences, he says he's from Colorado, I'm sure, and that's valid). That leaves Baton Rouge. How long did he live there? — coelacan talk — 03:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's find out where he was born and use that category only. Mr Christopher 15:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anal versus oral sex?

(I can't believe that I'm writing this...) An anonymous person from 70.39.4.252 changed the description of Ted Haggard's sex with Mike Jones from anal sex to oral sex. Is there a resource that has what kind of sex Mike Jones allegedly had with Ted Haggard? Chip Unicorn 05:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Until recently, I was very discerning about what edits were getting into this article. I've kind of let it go, and I think a lot of other editors lost interest. I hate to admit it but there have been some really questionable edits and I don't know if they all got reverted. I haven't the time to sift through it all at the moment. Thanks for your question though. In this case, Mike has described Ted as a "bottom" so anal's the word,[12] assuming that the article needs to get specific on that detail at all (I'll leave that decision to someone else at this time). — coelacan talk — 06:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't see how the article is improved by noting lurid details like this. If he were having sex with a woman would we be saying he had vaginal intercourse? I doubt it. It's pretty obvious to the reader what he and whats his name likely indulged in, so I don't see a need to describe it in sensational detail. I also think calling one section "Gay sex and methamphetamine scandal" is POV (again). I'm going to revert it, it goes against the grain and spirit of our previous consensus. If someone objects then let's discuss it here and possibly get an outside opinion. And I have not lost interest in the article, the problem is some of what I want to add to the article is going to take some time to get all the sources in order and I'm currently short on time but long on ideas. Mr Christopher 15:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
That "gay sex and methamphetamine scandal" bit was one of the edits I was referring to. Thanks for your attention to changing it. I know you haven't lost interest here, Mr Christopher. — coelacan talk — 17:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm perfectly fine with not getting into that level of detail... Chip Unicorn 22:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't believe you're writing that! heh. Well now you know the truth that we Wikicabalists are hiding from the public. — coelacan talk — 22:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

i prefer anal. (sorry, that was begging to happen). the allegations are definitely of anal, though i'm sure there was probably some oral sex. we could just make it "sodomy," but unfortunately, that applies to hets as well as homos. i think it's funny someone changed it, though. i really don't care one way or the other. --Chalyres 01:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] twinks and POV

The source says "about six young college guys ranging from 18 to 22 in age". It did not mention twinks (blonds with little hair and swimmers bodies, etc). For us to define what Haggard's fanatasies are is to indulge in POV. Mr Christopher 05:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Common parlance suggests "twinks" can also have brown, black, or red hair. I think the only requirements is that they be thin, young, and annoyingly stupid. Is there a wiki entry for twink yet? --Chalyres 00:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Check the edit history on the article, it used to link to a twink article which I reverted for the reasons above. Question - what makes them annoyingly stupid? Mr Christopher 04:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

twinks are the gay equivalent of dumb easy girls. personally, i tend to call them "matress mops." nevermind. --Chalyres 11:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] can someone revert all the POV and original research pushing being done by 12.41.40.20?

I don't have the pop up thing and don't have the time right now to revert everything he'she is writing Mr Christopher 17:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

hmm. working on it, but it looks like not all of it is pov/original, including the comment about "dark and repulsive" and "forgiving his accuser." This would all be a lot nicer if 12...etc. would just explain 12.'s self instead of adding things willy-nilly. --Chalyres 10:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

nevermind...didn't realise the vandal was erasing the aforementioned "repulsive and dark" comment. how annoying after all this collective work. --Chalyres 11:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Annoying indeed. This article will probably be a victim of hit and run vandals for a while though. Hey did you see yet another man of the cloth in Colorado had admitted to playing "pirate" with other men? Sex scandals amongst priests and ministers (and Republicans I suppose) seems to be all the rage these last couple of years. I need to look up the details on this guy from Colorado and see if we have an article about him yet Mr Christopher 15:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's the article on the other Colorado minister [13] Paul Barnes. Key difference here is this guy fully admits it and was not outed by anyone. What a tragic thing that these guys force themselves to live in a shadow. Mr Christopher 15:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC) I may have been wrong, at least one report says his admission was in response to an anonymous call to the church. Mr Christopher 15:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/e/d/Talk%7ETed_Haggard_d992.html"