Talk:Ted Haggard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Being judgemental[edit]

Either he did or did not, utter comments on homosexuality while at the same time engaging in the self same.

Mike Jones on Ted Haggard and Hypocrisy [1]

Haggard: 'I am a deceiver and a liar' [2] Viralmeme (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ {{cite truthdig|http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070707_mike_jones_on_ted_haggard_and_hypocrisy/ |title|title=Mike Jones on Ted Haggard and Hypocrisy
  2. ^ {{cite usatoday|http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-11-05-haggard-church-stunned_x.htm%7Ctitle%7Ctitle=Haggard: 'I am a deceiver and a liar'

"Sexual immorality"?[edit]

A few days later Haggard resigned from all of his leadership positions after he admitted sexual immorality and methamphetamine use.

That's a bit judgemental, no? I'm changing the wording. --DearPrudence (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, I believe those are the words that he used to describe himself. 8:18, 23 December 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.208.99 (talk)

Subjective interpretation of the interview?[edit]

At the end of the second paragraph under 'Television and movie appearances,' the section dealing with his appearance on Richard Dawkins' documentary, I disagree with the interpretation that Haggard was suggesting he is not arrogant. "...saying that he himself isn't arrogant because he 'knows so much more'." I watched this about half an hour ago and I believe that Haggard was impersonating Dawkins' at that point, implying his perception of Dawkins' as arrogant. Could the last clause of that sentence merely be removed? Seems to work ok... I'll refrain from doing it myself though, I don't presume that my editing skills are appropriate for a global resource .

"Men who have sex with men"[edit]

I think that this article should bear in mind the points raised by Men who have sex with men article. It is quite obvious from reading this article that this article is edited/guarded by the religiously minded. Editors need to distinguish between the various degrees of sexuality. At the moment, as South Park's Mr Mackey might "It's bad umkay", but that is not examining the issue. "Men who have sex with men" practice a particular form of behaviour but do not associate with any given social name for the act i.e. gay/LBG/bisexual etc. It is worth considering and is an already agreed/consensus discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.134.163 (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"In February 2011, Haggard came out as bisexual."[edit]

The 3rd paragraph in the lead ends with "In February 2011, Haggard came out as bisexual." After looking up GQ's original article, I said "Weeeeeellllllll... not exactly". First of all, though, I would note that the citation is of a CBS News article, which references the GQ article. It is the GQ reporter who talked with Haggard, so I would think it would be best to cite the GQ article, not the CBS News article. As far as I can tell, the CBS article is a tertiary source where the secondary source is available.

Much trickier is the claim "Haggard came out as bisexual." GQ's article quotes him as saying "I think that probably, if I were 21 in this society, I would identify myself as a bisexual." The problem is that the statements don't match up. I'm not sure as to the best way to remedy this, but for the moment I'm going to correct the citation to the GQ article link and a more direct quote. Kdulcimer (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is appropriate. However, it does not justify the use of the "Bisexual people" category, which I have removed per WP:BLPCAT. StAnselm (talk) 02:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarification here, St. Anselm acted correctly. For our purposes on Wikipedia, strictly speaking, we don't care what sexual acts happen to make a person's naughty bits tingly — we care only about whether a person identifies themselves socially and culturally with the LGBT community. Per WP:BLP, it's not our job to tell people that we know who and what they are better than they do; our job is to reflect who and what they say they are, whether we think their actual behaviour implies something different or not.
So we really don't give a hoot what may happen to be acknowledged or revealed about a person's sexual behaviour — we can't categorize a person as being "gay", "lesbian", "bisexual" or "transgender" until they have publicly claimed one of those words as a label for how they understand and formulate their identity, for the community that they see themselves as belonging to. And indeed, saying "I would probably identify as bisexual if my circumstances were different than they are" is not the same thing as saying "I am bisexual". If and when he decides to associate himself socially and culturally with the LGBT community, that will be different — but as it stands right now, he's not "bisexual" in the sense that's relevant and notable for our purposes. Bearcat (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article Reads like a Tabloid[edit]

This article reads like a tabloid. The subject of the article should be treated in a neutral manner. The article lacks neutrality. I agree that some of the content is notable, but outing people and articles about outing people then rubbing their face in it unless I am mistaken is frowned upon by Wikipedia. Did I miss something.

Most of the tabloid style tone and content cleaned up. Dear Mr. Haggard, go and sin no more my son ... 67.182.221.82 (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just reverted your entire list of edits. I'm not sure you understand what "nuetral" means - just because it reflects negatively on Haggard (and truthfully represents his actual actions) doesn't mean it's "non-neutral", "tabloid", or "rubbing his face in it". Considering much of the content you deleted is WELL referenced with print citations, none of which are actually or technically tabloid, I'm not sure what the issue is. This stuff is reality - I'm not sure why it offends you...
Please note that my reasons for reverting your changes has nothing to do with either you or my opinion of the actual page text or even Haggard himself. If you want to bring up specific items that you'd like to change or delete, please discuss it here and the editors can debate it. What you should not do is wholesale changes and then post a Talk notification after-the-fact as you did here w/o giving your fellow editors an opportunity to weigh in. Ckruschke (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
Let me enlighten you. HATE WORDS: Homosexual, sex scandal, etc. This is a BLP, not a tabloid blog. I note you have a userbox claiming "I am a Christian" (I personal think that users who plaster userboxes all over their page says something about narcissism). Unless I am mistaken, we are required to forgive one another and love each other forever. So where in that statement do you consider using hate speech in a biography proper? This is a Bio about a church pastor who served his congregation loyally for 20 years, and had an indiscretion -- big deal. It reminds me of Clinton and Lewinski -- so what that he fooled around -- HIS PRIVATE LIFE -- had nothing to do with his ability to help others. Just because Haggard wanted to romp around with some guy getting his jollies off another man's sewer spout doesn't mean he is a bad pastor - HIS PRIVATE LIFE - HE HAD A RIGHT TO HIS PRIVACY -- kindof like you with your cryptic username there hot shot -- get the picture?. Had he been a CEO of a company, or just a normal working man -- Big deal -- who would care. This article I am certain is being used to stomp all over him and kick him around like a dog to prevent him from ever serving as a pastor again. WP says not allowed. This bio is nothing more than an attack page AFAIAC. It's ironic that Christianity uses the cross, a device of torture, as its symbol. So why should men of good conscience allow a former pastor who has repented to be nailed to one? Are we his followers or the roman soldiers who nailed him up. You choose. You and everyone you have ever known except one person in the entire history of humanity will stand in the presence of the Father of all existence one day, and you will know what terror is on that day -- infinite terror. He might just read this paragraph to you. Go read Mathew 7, 1-7. Best of luck on that day, brother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.221.82 (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that most bible thumping Christians want to burn this guy alive. I find your assessment far from neutral, I will AGF here, but your tone is vitriolic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.221.82 (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is certainly no vitriol in Ckruschke's comments; I suggest you tone down your rhetoric. StAnselm (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Sounds like the mob is coming. That one that screams out "Barrabas, Barrabas" over and over again.  :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.221.82 (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@67.182.221.82: What's this about hate words? I don't see it. "Homosexual" is used in a perfectly straightforward fashion as a counterpoint to "heterosexual", mostly in direct quotations, and several of those by Haggard himself. Haggard is using hate speech against himself? "Sex scandal" does seem a bit headline-y, I'll give you that, but again it's used in the sources to refer to a factual event and I don't see how it's used to throw hate at anybody. You may be able to come up with a succinct alternative. – Wdchk (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Of late, the word "homosexual" has been used a lot in the press (Utah Gay Marriage Filings is one example) as a perjorative, rather than say "Gay Couple" the Mormon Church in its statements and the State of Utah Court pleadings use "Two male homosexuals" for example instead of "Gay Married Couple" -- the word as a descriptive designation of a sexual orientation is ok, but when directed at a person, it's a pejorative as near as I can tell, at least the way its being used in this article and by various Christian Groups. Given that Haggard has identified as "bisexual" it does not belong in this article directed at him. Anyway, I'll get to work on this again. Thanks for the heads up and the advice. 67.182.221.82 (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, Haggard hasn't identified as "bisexual" - see previous section. StAnselm (talk) 05:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I would really appreciate some help from these other editors on this article. How about all of us take a stab at various portions of it. I realize a lot of content is well sourced, but I also want to stress this is about a pastor and not all of the cited content is verifiable or properly weighted. any help would be appreciated. Let's tell the story and let Ted get on with his life and the business of serving others without a string and a bunch of tin cans clanging down the street everywhere he goes. Please. 67.182.221.82 (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yet just a little bit ago you were saying that you didn't want to interact with me... StAnselm (talk) 06:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like trolling to me :) Sorry if I hurt your feelings. I would be glad of your help. 67.182.221.82 (talk) 06:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have again reverted a set of large-scale changes by 67.182.221.82. per WP:DR/WP:BRD, you need to discuss and get some WP:CONSENSUS about how to go forward without simultaneously continuing/redoing editing that apparently at least two others dispute. As was previously suggested, please hash out certain sections and specific issues and come to an agreement on wording. Get others' input (WP:BLPN might be helpful). Definitely do not be the witness, jury, and judge all yourself when others disagree with your ideas. DMacks (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the problem with this approach (I waited several days to see if anyone did engage in discussion -- not a single comment after you reverted, BTW) is that these editors are part of the problem of systemic bias tagged in the article -- the attitude is status quo, albiet I do not question that they or you may in fact have great intentions and are passionate about the current content. That being said, I see no consensus here other than "we like to libel the subjects of articles, wikipedia lets us". American Democracy is not "true" democracy as was practiced in Athens, because the founding fathers recognized that the individual must be vested with immutable rights that cannot be abridged by the "Hive will" to function -- not really true democracy like is practiced on Wikipedia -- But there's nothing sacred or righteous about democracy. Democracy was in fact invented by pedophiles in Greece who wanted to practice pederasty and deny little boys the right not to be molested. So the whole wikipedia concept of hive will and consensus, while it is the truest form of democracy, also ignores all rules and an individual has no rights -- they are simply another hive drone. In a democracy comprised of two wolves and a chicken, all voting on what's for dinner, the outcome is almost assuredly the chicken will be dinner. So while I appreciate your suggestions and I realize they are made with the best of intentions, it doesn't look like they will work here because there is no consensus, nor is there going to be. This leaves poor Mr. Haggard in the position of being libeled and link spammed. The best I can do here is just tag the article and hope that saner minds will prevail. 67.182.221.82 (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point of course being made in the above essay regarding Wikipedia's pure democracy approach is that such forms of interaction eventually fail. Pure democratic societies always fail. Why? Because the majority will inevitably use the police power of the state to oppress any minority viewpoint. They do so by criminalizing behaviors, taking peoples property without due process, and use any means to oppress political opponents which was the case in early European societies and even in Greece. The minority viewpoint must exist or democracy will fail. It fails because the inevitable result of hive tyranny is always revolution. When the minority viewpoint has no redress from the hive will, it simply revolts -- the inevitable result of pure democracy historically has always been revolution. Given this is a website that runs this way and not a true government, it's approach is to bring in "fresh meat" all the time and this no doubt has delayed the inevitable outcome, but all the wikipedia spinoffs demonstrate revolution seems to be a part of its internal society. So the consensus arguments are to me just the rhetoric of this online society and its hive will mentality, not necessarily a bad thing, but a source of systemic bias that permeates every corner of this project. No one is valued long term, any of you can be dumped headfirst in a garbage can if enough hive drones vote away your existence here from my observations of this community. That being said, this project is not one a minority viewpoint can exist. 67.182.221.82 (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anon editor - Although I have enjoyed the discussion on this thread to date, I think I can speak for the rest of the established editors on this page that we await specific items that you have issue with or would like to change. Creating straw men, red herrings, and/or personal attacks on me and/or "the system" are not what we are looking for and isn't going to get your very far (as you have already seen). I'd even volunteer to work with you on the issues you raise (note - Wikipedia:Consensus is a good thing on Wiki - it keeps Lone Wolves from making wholesale/destructive changes w/o recourse from the rest of the group). I'd also suggest you read up on Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, and Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic since you are new to Wikipedia - these will give you guidance for further editting and Talk page discussion going forward. I know some of the stuff on the page isn't pretty, but its all truth backed up by verified references and there is no axe grinding going on. Believe it or not, the tone on the page is MORE neutral than it was about 2 yrs ago. Hope that helps.
Oh and part of the point on my userboxes is its obviously too much navel gazing - thus the userbox that "I love userboxes" - it's all supposed to be a joke (which I guess you missed). Although maybe I am a narcissistic Christian "wanna be" - who knows... Ckruschke (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Ted Haggard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A polygraph?[edit]

Section 2.1 of this article contains a large number of references to a polygraph test. The entire civilised world (Entire? No, one small area of North America still holds out against the science[1]) knows that these are unreliable, and very few countries would employ a polygraph other than as a toy. Should this be mentioned/explicitly stated in reference to the test that Mr Jones decided to take?

Another concern regarding polygraphs is that they allegedly need to be 'tuned' to the individual and need to be operated by a 'trained' operator. These 'operators' cannot explain or apply a standard and/or objective means of reading the machine's output, and it appears that the operator is as important as the machine in 'detecting' falsehoods. In other words, the implication in this article is that a polygraph machine determined 'truth' and 'falsehood' - the reality is much more complicated and bears little relationship the machine. I suggest that this should be clearly stated in the article, or that references to truth, lies and polygraphs be removed entirely as unverifiable. Ambiguosity (talk) 03:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whether polygraphs are or are not accurate is completely immaterial. The fact, as reported by reliable sources, is that polygraphs were administered and the results were reported in the media. What is in this article is what was reported. Your suggested additions are SYNTH. And what on earth does that link to TV Tropes about a comic book have to do with this? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Well, not entirely..."

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Ted Haggard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

If the subject "admitted to [.. participating] in some sexual activity with" two men, doesn't that automatically place him in an LGBT category? --82.21.97.70 (talk) 10:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Breast enhancement surgery?[edit]

Possible vandalization. I don’t see any source of him having breast enhancement surgery, as referenced in the intro. 136.26.68.231 (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ted_Haggard&oldid=1207507700"