Talk:Ted Haggard/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  There's always . — Matt Crypto 18:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you sir! Mr Christopher 18:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Unfair Perspective 

message: 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).<Br>
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)
thread_title: Unattributed comment

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: As well, it should be cited. Rkevins82 19:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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. ErRe 03:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Media appearances 

message: [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)
thread_title: Speaking in tongues

message: 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)
thread_title: Unreferenced material

message: 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)
replies: text: Added that accordingly. In the future feel free to add it yourself, that's how wikipedia works. Arbusto 09:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Recent news 

message: 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)
replies: text: Confirmed. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Views on homosexual sex and prostitution

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Done. Plus I removed another link that didn't seem relevant. Laurence Boyce 21:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate news section for alleged homosexual affair and drug use

message: 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.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bucksburg (talk • contribs) 22:55, 3 November 2006)
: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)
thread_title:  Biography 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Televangelist 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Accusation division 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Methamphetamine(s)? 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title:  New statement from New Life Church 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Jones links

message: 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)
thread_title:  Heaven, Where is it? How do we get there? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Gayle Haggard's letter to New Life Church 

message: 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)
replies: text: Here are two links with samples of the voicemails with transcripts:  and . —Wasabe3543 23:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voice mails 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've fixed it, though you could have done that. Laurence Boyce 17:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Oh yes, sorry, I forgot. Laurence Boyce 18:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ross Parsley might be spelled wrong 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've made the change you suggest. — Matt Crypto 20:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disciplinary Measures Incorrectly Detailed 

message: 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)
replies: text: hm, would it be vandalism to add the article to :Category:LGBT Christians? dab (ᛏ) 17:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: [Haggard is] steady with [his] wife. [He's] faithful to [his] wife. BabuBhatt 22:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even if [he is] getting it on [with males]. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 06:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  The scandal is hilarious 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Reparative Therapy

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out. I've attempted to fix it. — Matt Crypto 20:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Ted's official website he was "dismissed as Senior Pastor of New Life Church". Mr Christopher 21:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction needed in "Haggard's Response" section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Dobson

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  Heh, who knows that it wasn't? ;-) (I think that's a good title.) — Matt Crypto 16:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope not, "Sex, drugs and rock and roll scandal" is gonna sound awfull funny... Mr Christopher 16:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Allegations"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Amen!  Um, I mean, sounds good to me.  :-)  --Psiphiorg 17:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Reorganizing the scandal section

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Expanding Political Section 

message: 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)
thread_title: Response to allegations section

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Dawkins Haggard video transcript

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Also in agreement, strongly. Unless he states that he is gay, it is speculation. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: and who says i haven't?  Doing some "original research?" --Chalyres 22:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: can we start that category?--Chalyres 22:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: LMAO! Thanks for expressing that so clearly and amusingly : ) Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 01:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I really have a problem with the gay categories and here's why

message: 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)
thread_title: Allegations

message: Link is here: 
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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Times article 

message: 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)
thread_title: A sermon that moulded perceptions. But what about actions?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Let's find out where he was born and use that category only. Mr Christopher 15:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: categories

message: (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)
replies: text: 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, 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  I'm perfectly fine with not getting into that level of detail... Chip Unicorn 22:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Anal versus oral sex?

message: 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)
thread_title: twinks and POV

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Here's the article on the other Colorado minister   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)
thread_title: can someone revert all the POV and original research pushing being done by 12.41.40.20?

message: The opening paragraph of a biography should avoid detailed scandal information.  While it's common to start out that way after a scandal breaks, eventually the biography goes back to being more encylopedic.  We have a scandal section under Ted Haggard.  Putting in the same information twice is unnecessary.  Most scandals aren't contained in the opening biography paragraph, although in this case I can understand it.  See Gary Hart or Hugh Grant for examples. 66.75.8.138 16:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you.  In the opening we should mention he resigned due to a scandal and then move/merge all the scandal details to the scandal section.  Mr Christopher 16:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  I apologize for not expressing myself more fully earlier with the changes I was trying to make.  I'm sure we would all like to see the article be as well written as possible.  The more it sounds encylopedic and the less like a tabloid, the more it benefits the reputation of wikipedia in general. 66.75.8.138 18:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: coelacan is right, thanks for bringing us back to earth.  We should add to the lead with informative, non-scandalous material for balance.  Mr Christopher 15:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been noted that Haggard changed the direction of the NAE, or rather, widened its scope of issues (to include a light dusting of environmentalism, for example). This would of course make sense to mention at the NAE's article, but since it was Haggard's initiatve, his article ought to have it too. Of course whatever goes into the intro should go into the body of the article first and then be summarized in the intro. But from what I understand about the man, this has been one of his pretty notable accomplishments (though it will probably be reversed by new NAE leadership). Perhaps that sort of thing would be appropriate balance for the lead. And any accomplishments he's led the NAE toward would make good content. There's probably a lot of other stuff I'm overlooking outside of the NAE, that's just what springs to mind. — coelacan talk — 16:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are on the money.  There is more to the guy than what we have in the article so far and some of it is very noteworthy. I've been working on other stuff and haven't had much time here yet.  Mr Christopher 04:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Changes

message: Substituted at 20:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Substituted at 21:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment