Talk:Ted Haggard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is not a forum for general discussion of Ted Haggard.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments
This article contains or may have contained one or more non-free photograph or photographs. It is requested that a freely-licensed photograph be included in this article to replace such copyrighted images in order to better comply with our policy for non-free content. Many copyright-free image sources are listed at our public domain image resources, or you could create your own. Alternatively, you may request permission from the copyright holder of the original images to release them under a free license.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ted Haggard article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Archive
Archives
*2005 – 2006



Contents

[edit] protection status

Should this article be protected? There has been rampant vandalism which will surely continue with the recent media coverage and scandal surrounding Ted Haggard. Usea 07:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] update on haggard

Text of an email sent to the new life church mailing list (which is open to the public, which is how i have this):

Dear New Life family and friends,

Tonight we learned that the following email was sent out from Ted and Gayle and made its way into the hands of the media. As you can see, Ted communicated with us (pastors) what happened. We wanted you to be as up to date on this story as we are.

There will be a report to the church from the Overseers within the next two weeks concerning restoration decisions as a well as a full report on the Overseers meetings with our staff members. Thank you for your prayers and patience with this process.

Filled with hope,

Ross Parsley New Life Church

From: Ted Haggard Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 9:21 PM To: Rob Brendle; Lance Coles; Brian Newberg; Ross Parsley


Yesterday I was emptying my e-mails and sent a standard response to several people who had written me. Unfortunately, I just learned that one of them sent my personal and private e-mail to KRDO. I have copied the e-mail to you just in case anyone asks you as a FYI.

Ted Haggard "We are Easter People."

Thank you so much for writing.

Jesus is starting to put me back together. I have spent so much time in repentance, brokenness, hurt and sorrow for the things I've done and the negative impact my actions have had on others. That sadness continues as my family and I, along with so many others, go through the painful consequences of my actions. Jesus and his followers, though, have saved my life. As part of New Life's efforts to help me, they sent Gayle and me to Phoenix for a three week psychological intensive that gave us three years worth of analysis and treatment. We all wanted to know why I developed such incongruity in my life. Thankfully, with the tools we gained there, along with the powerful way God has been illuminating His Word and the Holy Spirit has been convicting and healing me, we now have growing understanding which is giving me some hope for a future.

Gayle and I have decided to move from Colorado Springs to go back to school. We love Colorado Springs so much, and will always regard the believer's at New Life Church as family, but we have to go in order to let the church determine its own course and for us to retrain. We haven't decided where we are moving but so far have been offered two places, one in Iowa and one in Missouri. We are both planning on getting our masters in Psychology so we can work together serving others the rest of our lives. Since we are taking our classes on-line, we can live anywhere that's affordable. Then we'll travel to location for short in-class requirements.

Thank you so much for your love and prayers during this horrific time of transition in our lives. For the last three months, I've not been communicative because I've been paralyzed by shame. But as God and people like you forgive me, the sun is starting to rise in my life, I look forward to communicating with greater ease.

God bless,

Ted Haggard "We are Easter People."

--Chalyres 22:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HEALED !???

This came out today (6 feb 2007). [1]

so glad to hear that Haggard's 3-year long romance was only a "phase." I think i'll go tell my partner of 7 years that this is only a phase, too...

--Chalyres 22:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like denial isn't just a river, huh? dposse 22:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow, a cure for homosexuality! So have they found a cure for heterosexuality? Mr Christopher 16:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
They're working on it. They've gotten partial results by finding a cure for marriage in alimony. Wjhonson 17:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The upside to all this is we don't have to argue over adding him to any Gay categories, here's cured of it! Speaking of which, in today's Dallas Morning News there was a brief article on the subject and the title was something like "Pastor Says He's No Longer Gay" (he actually said nothing of the sort in the article). Mr Christopher 22:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
When someone claims to be gay, everyone believes them. If they claim -not- to be, that ought to be taken on faith too. I for one don't believe most people have any idea what their sexuality is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk)

But if that person were to have a straight relationship for three years...

If that person were to have a straight relationship for three years, and a gay relationship for even longer (and at the same time), he would probably be considered gay or bisexual, correct? I'm no supporter of Haggard--I never have been--but I don't think that he should be branded as gay for the rest of his life because of a three-year encounter. Whether or not homosexuality is 'curable' is uncertain; however, there are many people who have had homosexual tendencies in the past who no longer do. A relative of mine was in a homosexual relationship for years, but does not consider herself to be a lesbian. In fact, she is now happily married to a man (and has been for over twenty years), and has two children.Anglican 04:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


To add to this, the moment you decide to get in a relationship with another man and then after some years you decide that you want to be in a relationship with another woman or if you're a woman who decides to make love to another woman and then after some time you want to be in a relationship with a man, let's face it, there isn't much you can do about the fact that you just happen to be a bisexual person. Besides when you decide to get into a same sex relationship, you're hetero/asexuality is officially gone, just like your virginity. And believe me, there's nothing you can do about it. Ted Haggard needs to get this into that brain of his. It makes no sense for him to be in a relationship with Mike Jones and then after some time when the truth comes out in the open he runs to a treatment centre and after some time in "therapy" he comes out and claims he's completely heterosexual. It just makes no sense whatsoever. If Ted Haggard were completely heterosexual as he now claims, he would not have gotten into a relationship with another male. Yes, from what I heard from some circles, the feeling of moral superiority (over confidence) can lead to one's down fall if he/she does not stand by the principals he/she claims to stand by. In other words and quoting a scripture from the bible "Let he (or she) who thinks he/she is standing beware that he/she does not fall.

Spokenwordsegment (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Money?

Anyone know how much he was paid, does he have to work again? Getting a job again looks like it would be tough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.110.221.182 (talk) 07:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Are you kidding? Like all other influential American christian leaders he made millions and millions of dollars.--Threedots dead 19:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I kinda figured that with his books, do you have any sources?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.110.221.182 (talk)

Nope. And I´m too lazy to go find any as well :p But I have a feeling he will make a comeback after miraculously being cured of his homosexuality, and write a book about it. So no, I doubt he´ll be flipping burgers at McDonald´s anytime soon. --Threedots dead 16:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no way to prove if the following comment left on an article posted on Pensito Review is accurate but it looks more than promising to me:

I just got laid off on February 27, this past Tuesday from NEW LIFE CHURCH. Becaue the church is paying Teds $130,000 Salary for 2007 they have had to lay off quite a few people. If we weren’t paying him all of this money, people who worked there and weren’t the ones lying and deceiving the church would have been able to keep their jobs. But no, we are going to pay TED the one who lied to us all, deceived us all and was the one who did somthing WRONG. As a pastor he never had to pay for his cars or his house (and he has a huge house with a pool and maids) and he got that 130k salary not to mention all the money he made from his books. This is wrong, its all wrong, he has ruined many peoples lives. He has left many people jobless and hurt. I hate New Life church and I am glad that God freed me from that place.

--Cory Kohn 04:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I just found this NPR news release too now. Perhaps all of the following should be added to the article:

The church has already begun searching for a replacement, a process that could take up to a year. In the meantime, they will pay Haggard's $130,000 salary through 2007 — on the condition that he and his family move away from Colorado Springs. A few weeks ago, the man who first made allegations about Haggard's behavior — Mike Jones — showed up at New Life Church on Sunday morning. Gathering material for a book, the former prostitute said he was greeted warmly and was thanked for exposing the pastor. "He revealed a flaw in one of our members," said New Life Church member Landon Arnold. "I believe as a body of believers we are grateful for that because he has made us stronger."

--Cory Kohn 04:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LGBT categories

Well intentioned editors continue to add Haggard to one of the many LGBT categories. Per Biographies of living persons, use of categories,

"Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for the category must be made clear in the article text. The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced. For example, Category:Criminals should only be added when the notable crime has been described in the article and sources given, and the person has either been convicted or has pleaded guilty. Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met: The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life..."

Haggard does not self-identify as a gay, bi or lesbian. As long as he does not self-identify as such we should avoid doing so on his behalf. When Haggard claims he is gay or bi or lesbian (you never know), then and only then we should use the LGBT categories. Mr Christopher 19:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Fair enough. I do personally think it's silly and the guy is gay/bi because he had an affair with another man. But still I can understand the requirments needed for the classification here. Thanks for pointing out the specific rule. Good to know for the future. Spookyadler 09:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
You bet, I actually went to one of the pages for the LGBT project banner and asked for some clarification. That's where I was pointed to the appropriate policies. The LGBT Project banner on this talk page is appropriate because of the subject matter. Mr Christopher 13:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mr Diddy Wa Diddy?

To cite Blind Blake, "Then I got put out of church, cause I talk about Diddy Wa Diddy too much, Mr Diddy Wa Diddy.. I wish someone would tell me what Diddy Wa Diddy means".. Read Haggard was no saint, fellow pastors determine A church board looking into his fall from grace see a pattern of troubling behavior that went unnoticed., By Stephanie Simon, LATimes Staff Writer, March 18, 2007 and you'll see what I mean... dave souza, talk 23:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus camp

I added haggards role in the popular Jesus Camp documentary. His attitudes towards the film are well documented in that article.Dr. Trinidad 06:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


I'm confused as to why this part wasn't added to "Television and Movies" instead of "Teaching on Homosexuality." It seems misplaced. --21:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Runwolf (talk)


[edit] Irrelevant text

Here's some text which I think has questionable notability (in bold):

Questions also surfaced about the tax-exempt group Haggard asked that donations be sent to, on his behalf - Families With a Mission. According to Haggard, the group would use 10% of donations for administrative costs and forward 90% to Haggard. But the group was dissolved in February 2007, according to the Colorado Secretary of State. Paul Huberty, a convicted sex offender, is/was the register agent of Families With a Mission. Huberty gave the former mission's Monument, Colorado mailing address to the state of Hawaii as a forwarding address when he left the state. Huberty was convicted of attempted sexual assault in Hawaii, and also has a military conviction for sodomy of a minor, incest and adultery while serving in the U.S. Air Force. He is not allowed on the property of Kona Christian Academy.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how this Huberty guy and his sex offender status is relevant to an article about Ted Haggard. All that's of any relevance to Haggard is that the group he asked money to be sent to was dissolved, right? -kotra 07:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The text in question appears to have been removed now. -kotra (talk) 09:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 404

First footnote ^ Jeff Sharlet (2005). "Soldiers of Christ: ... is not there. Arakrys 08:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Strange link

I was on the internet today and I came across this strange link, I'm not sure whether this link is from Ted Haggard's camp themselves or not but all I saw was "humbled" across the page. It says right here: http://www.tedhaggard.com/index.html I wonder what does everyone else think of that strange link? Spokenwordsegment (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read 'Keep on Topic' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#How_to_use_article_talk_pages). Thanks. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

i.e. "He reminds one of Paul Lynde." is off topic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.117.84 (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The comment in question has nothing to do with editing the article, hence the 'Keep on Topic' suggestion. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use photographs

Heyo. Replaceable fair use photographs of living people are prohibited by the policy on fair use images, WP:NONFREE. I have removed them from the article. ➪HiDrNick! 05:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have put back the image of Ted Haggard. The Root of all Evil interview is discussed in this article and thus the image is fair use. Please stop removing the image and lowering the quality of the article Vexorg (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The image has again been removed. The non-free content policy (WP:NFCC#1) is non-negotiable. The fact that the interview is discussed in the article does not make that particalar image fair use in this article. The image is a replaceable picture of a living person that cannot be included in the article, and will soon be deleted. ➪HiDrNick! 22:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The fact that the interview is discussed in the article does not make that particalar image fair use in this article. Why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexorg (talk • contribs)
Every article about an Oscar winning actor includes commentary about some of the films that they appeared in. Is it then "fair use" to take a screencap from one of those films and use it in the infobox?➪HiDrNick! 02:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes I think that is fair use? A low resolution screen capture image is hardly going to rip off someone's copyrightand the Wikipedia policy allows low res screen caps for this reason.Vexorg (talk) 08:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Vexorg here. Overly pedantic wiki policing!! 62.136.109.91 (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The onus to provide a fair use rationalle for a given non-free image rests with those who wish to have it included. I am convinced that one doesn't exist here, or I would provide it. ➪HiDrNick! 02:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
You are convinced? Given that Wikipedia isn't controlled by any one person I would invite some comment from other editors here. Personally I think that although you obviously mean well and that is to be respected you are putting Wikipedia policy over common sense and the quality of the article. There is no problem with the screen cap of Ted Haggard and it is fair use under the guidelines of screen caps. I won't put the image back at this time as I'm not going to get dragged into some pedantic edit war over one picture. Hopefully others will comment. Vexorg (talk) 08:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)