Talk:Brian Tamaki

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	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]

It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality. Note: Wikipedia's fair use policy almost never permits the use of "fair use" images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

I dispute the labelling of his church as "conservative". The Destiny Church is nothing like a traditional, staid NZ church, of which there are very few remaining. Destiny is actually fairly typical of modern churches in NZ, but just holds a higher profile in a country where Christianity has very little civil presense.

It is not traditional in the way other NZ churches are, but that does not mean its values are not conservative, it is extremely conservative in relation to gay marriage and gay rights.

Destiny is somewhat of an extremist 'fundementalist pentecostal' persuasion.

The change from 'Controversial' to 'charasmatic' is all you need to say about 210.55.9.65 's changes to this article, he/she is definetly biased Mexaguil 10:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'Controversial' is certainly the better tag. Stombs 12:58, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Right wing"?

I don't think right wing is a suitable description for the DNZ party - in NZ this term is used on an economic basis, not a social one. Changing it to "authoritarian" porges 23:39, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

'A VERY VERY DANGEROUS MAN 'MUST BE WATCHED AND IF NESSARY ... STOPPED!!'

[edit] POV

As per Destiny Church this article is seriously unbalanced. I see it has a link to it's entry at cults.co.nz but has no info on it's similarities to a cult inside the article itself. I hope to ammend this, but in the meantime I am tagging it POV. Glen Stollery ^{(My contribs) (talk)} 21:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

this article is not unbalanced - wikipedia only includes as far as i am aware, articles about well known and/or well established topics. Destiny Church is only worthy of any mention because of its controversial nature. If it were not controversial, it would have no place in wikipedia, just like all the other neo-christian faith groups in the world. It certainly has a strong anti-gay conservative feeling. I can affirm this, coming from New Zealand. I thought the article was rather fair and unbiased, and article i would have written would certainly have erred much more on the anti destiny church side. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by D4rk0 (talk • contribs) .

It's not biased. It's fair. SO I removed POV 203.109.184.252 04:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree this article seems somewhat biased, and overweighted with criticisms. I have amended the article to group criticisms together under a heading. User:A.J.Chesswas 12:03, 7 June 2006 (NZT)

I don't think its fair at all, there is alot of emotive language in this article. Don't get me wrong, I'm gay, I can't stand the party or their church. But this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. I think it needs a little revision, just to remove a few emotive words, provide a balanced article. Its also very focused on gay issues, when there is (I assume) much more to their church than just that? Icemotoboy 07:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I just finished going through it. I really think that whole criticisms section needs some real serious revision. It just smacks of what I would want to write. But thats not what wikipedia is about. I moved a bunch of criticism stuff into the criticism section. I removed some emotive language around elections. I put some citation requests in. Regarding existing sources, I think more are needed as some of the current ones (I have flagged one) links to a site that obviously has a clear POV. If this hasn't been re-written, I'll go through it myself but I will tend to delete as I can't really add much.Icemotoboy 08:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needs serious cleanup

I just went back through again and gave it a spruce up. I removed an irrelevant comment about a musical paraody that was on someones blog. I removed an unreferenced comment that was inflamatory and largely irrelevant to the article. I did a google search and referenced what I could. I think more should be placed here ABOUT Brian Tamaki, and less about criticisms of him. In fifty years time, people will want to know about the man not just what he stood for. What he stood for is already covered in the Destiny Church article.Icemotoboy 04:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)