[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/Jump to content

Talk:Tim LaHaye

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

Constructive contributions only please

[edit]

constructive contributions only please Kevinalewis 10:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moonies

[edit]

What about his association with the "Moonies"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.1.42.30 (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

I have removed the emotionally charged words "Cash In" in the 1st section.

The term "pseudo-psychological" is a term coined, by religious opponents of the temperament theory, and as such are filled with negative connotation. Typically, I believe (I do not know) that temperament theory is just called that, it doesn't have a generic designation. I have added a link to a common temperament theory MBTI, to help it become a little more neutral.

I don't believe the "end of the world" or "apocalyptic," are the right words. Both terms to the final destruction of the earth (hence, end of the world), and are typically have a strong negative connotation, instead of factual denotation. Anyway, Lahaye's books do not actual cover the destruction of the earth, they cover the end of the current way of life on earth and the beginning of a new heavenly way of life on the same earth. (short version)

I think this article needs to be checked for neutrality, and as I share (most) of his second coming beliefs, I am not the one to do it. Karen 69.168.19.100

Apocalypse is the Greek word for "uncovering" or "revelation". The Left Behind series is about the events of the Book of Revelation, taken literally and dramatized. So, "apocalyptic" is the right word...literature doesn't get more apocalyptic than this. Silarius 22:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Penn and Teller

[edit]

The criticism section makes reference to a 2004 episode of Penn and Teller's Bullshit that addresses the end times. As far as I can tell, Penn and Teller have not done an episode specifically about the apocalypse, although their 2004 season did include a discussion of the Bible in general. If this is the episode being referred to, the article should be clarified as it implies currently that there is an episode entirely devoted to this subject. In either case, someone should also add a reference.

Biased

[edit]

You know the site is biased when articles on people like Tim Lahaye consist of 50% criticism. Itake 03:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A comment to which the reply is, always, and ever shall be, "This is a wiki, sofixit". Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the reply to my deletion of the criticism section? "RVV"?Itake 14:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you delete good content because you don't like what it says, yes. This article needs every section lengthening but criticism. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what about deleting content because it has no references, because it's original research, or because it's not actually explicit criticism? Itake 23:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A good point, but you seem to have only removed the criticism section and ignored the rest. So I have of course finished your started task and removed all information that was not referenced. Which leaves three sentences I originally put in and sourced about his son being gay... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've finished cleaning up the article of any unsourced assertions and redundant links. Looks a bit bare, so if anyone wants to put it back to the version of four days ago (complete with the criticism section), I won't object. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reminding me why I gave up on this site a long time ago. Itake 15:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you spent your time here trying to find ways to justify removing information you don't like, so long to ya. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
course, Itake doesn't leave in the middle of something ;). Itake 16:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you intend to treat Wikipedia as a battleground for your political views, please leave right now. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coming from you, that is quite ironic. Itake 00:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you assume I'm left wing, which of course you erroneously have. I'm not editing this article because I have any particular opinions about Tim Lahaye, I'm editing it because I am seriously unimpressed by people who demand a criticism section should be removed for lack of references and conveniently ignore the rest of the also unreferenced article. AND try to remove the only part of the article that IS referenced, because they don't like it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think the claim about his son being gay has a place in this article. However, in the entry's current state this is given far too much weight. Perhaps, rather than edit warring over a four line biography, more information could be added so the allegation can be seen in a broader sense of LaHaye's works and life. Surely there's more to the man's life than he's conservative, he's married, and his son is gay. Additionally, you might want to post something over at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. There you'll find admins and editors who are little better versed on BLP issues than I am. Finally, you can always file an biographical request for comment. It's another way to get more eyes looking at this article, fleshing it out, and figuring out what should and shouldn't belong. It's clearly going to be more productive than the two of you sniping at each other. Still, I thinking adding more to his bio would be a great start. His birthday isn't even listed. AniMate 07:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe you should check the history of an article before commenting on it. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Told you so. Isn't very hard to understand the rules and regulations of WP:BLP from reading it. Why was the old version restored though? From what I read, there are strict rules on WP:BLP so if the article violates the rules like this one does it should be stubbed and/or deleted.Itake 14:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went back to the last stable version, rather than trying to make heads or tails out of the mess that was left here because of the edit war. Challenging specifics works better than blanketly blanking. Oh, that sounds funny. Kyaa the Catlord 14:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Son

[edit]
Now explain me to how, referenced with WP:BLP, that information is relevant. Because from what I've read of both WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, that information should not be on this page. Maybe if a page is created about the actual son in question, but not on the page that is dedicated to Tim LaHaye. Itake 00:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And as far as "ourtspoken advocate against homosexuality" goes, have any credible sources for that? Itake 00:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Information about family is acceptable in any article about a person, go read any biographical FA. You have clearly accidentally the wrong policies if you think that we cannot put information about his son into his article. Try WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I placed a report on this article on the BLP noticeboard. I believe that labeling his son this way is a violation of BLP and should not be given a place in this article, rather it would be suitable for one on his son (if sources could be found that meet RS and BLP standards, of course, two blogs do not really cut it.) Kyaa the Catlord 09:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:BLP, "Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." Jim David's and Michael Roger's pieces are both blogs; the Raw story asserts its claims based on the Rogers blog. Although presumption of privacy figures in, I think that his son's sexual orientation might be relevant if LeHaye has been an outspoken advocate against homosexuality and particularly if his son is a high-up employee in his organization (I am not familiar with LeHaye :)), but much more solid references are needed for these claims, from publications with "an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." --Moonriddengirl 11:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs are acceptable as reliable soures if written by someone notable. In this case the fact that well known Michael Rogers (activist) has alleged that Tim LaHaye's son is gay I find very relevant. Additionally, the third source acknowledges that the speculation came from a blog, but that's not the point, it's included because it states that the CWA has never rebutted the charges, which Michael Rogers never said. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs are NOT to be used in BLP articles at all unless they are written by the subject of the article and even then they are to be used with great care. Please review the BLP guidelines now linked from the top of this article. Kyaa the Catlord 13:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also point you to WP:REDFLAG. Its rather useful to remember that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Kyaa the Catlord 13:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As Kyaa the Catlord emphasizes, blogs are not to be used in biographies of living persons. The words "should never be used" in the linked policy are very firm. The fact that CWA never rebutted the charge is immaterial. I could write here "Kyaa the Catlord is from Jupiter," and if Kyaa does not rebut it, someone could make the same claim. (Kyaa, I will remove the claim if it offends you. :)) It is one thing to fail to rebut a claim made, say, in a court of law; it's something else to refuse to dignify a blog attack with a response. It does not imply consent. :) --Moonriddengirl 16:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no place for scurrilous rumor and innuendo on Wikipedia. The only blogs which may be cited as reliable sources are those which are published by another reliable source, such as a newspaper, magazine or scholarly journal. The material in question does not belong in an encyclopedia article. FCYTravis 17:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the blog shouldn't be quoted, but Raw Story is a reputable news source and has quoted the blog. Allegations stemming from pieces in blogactive are in fact national news, and Rogers is a respected and influential political blogger. AniMate 19:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Controversy can be notable in itself, but there are several serious issues here. First, I don't see how the Raw story actually is relevant to Tim LaHaye's notability at all. It isn't about Tim LaHaye, but about "Concerned Women for America" and CWA's apparent anti-gay agenda. Lee LaHaye's sexuality may have bearing on the topic because of his connection with CWA, but that doesn't necessarily make it appropriate for inclusion in his father's biography. As BLP indicates, "The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability" (my emphasis added). Also from that document, "An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm"." Even if this were Tim LaHaye's bio, I'm not convinced that RAW is a sufficient source for contentious material by the BLP guideline. Its sole source is a blog that would not pass muster. BLP indicates that "Material about living persons available solely in questionable or dubious sources should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links." Over and over again, we are urged to be cautious. We're told specifically to "avoid repeating gossip" and that "even if true" it doesn't belong unless "relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject." --Moonriddengirl 20:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Raw Story is reputable, but when it merely reports what someone else said, then its own reputability extends only to the assurance that the quoted person actually said it. For an example of Raw Story quoting criticism aimed at someone identified with the left instead of the right, consider this piece about Ann Coulter:

Coulter . . . on various occasions has claimed that Bill Clinton could be a "latent homosexual."

"I think that sort of rampant promiscuity does show some level of latent homosexuality," Coulter said of Clinton on The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch on CNBC.

I trust Raw Story not to fabricate a Coulter quotation just to support its comments about her. Therefore, this passage would be a reputable source for the statement that Coulter made the allegation she did. On the other hand, it would not be a reputable source for the assertion that Clinton actually is gay.
In the same story, Raw Story asserts as a fact, without attribution, that Coulter is a best-selling author. The piece would therefore support our making the same assertion in the Ann Coulter article, because Raw Story is itself standing behind that statement. JamesMLane t c 00:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you're going to insist on looking at things in a logical and well thought out way... Seriously, though, looking at it from what JamesMLane said, there's really no reason to put the allegations back in. AniMate 01:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two different issues here

[edit]

The current quotes on LaHaye's view regarding homosexuality do not appear to be from LaHaye's own books but secondary articles not written by LaHaye. You need to get your quotes from his own words in his own books, not the claims others are saying that he allegedly said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9260:3DB0:242A:95F0:7CDE:8AC2 (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The preceding discussion shows some confusion between: (1) Should our article state as a fact that Lee LaHaye is gay; and (2) Should our article report the allegation that Lee LaHaye is gay (without adopting that allegation).

On the first point, there are issues of relevance and of adequate sourcing. I think relevance is established because of Tim LaHaye's association with the Christian right. For example, if his son were to announce that he's gay, then the fact would be worth including. The actual sourcing, however, is inadequate. One blogger makes the statement; one news report mentions the blogger's statement without endorsing it; and a comedian writing on the Huffington Post also asserts it. I don't see any basis for calling this an "exceptional" claim, so there's no need for "exceptional sources" (whatever those may be); nevertheless, this level of sourcing doesn't cut it even for the fairly unexceptional claim that a prominent conservative has a gay family member (as do Cheney, Gingrich, Keyes, and others).

On the second point, we should report a notable controversy even if our opinion is that one side's evidence is very thin. I think this second point is what Dev920 has in mind in writing, "Blogs are acceptable as reliable soures if written by someone notable." The notability of the blogger goes toward establishing the notability of a particular controversy or opinion, but not to establishing the truth of the blogger's statements. If there were significant public attention being paid to the allegation that LaHaye's son is gay, then the controversy would merit inclusion in this article. If we included it under this rubric, we would report the notable opinions (including Rogers's) without adopting them. The citations to the Rogers blog, to the passing reference on the Raw Story site, and to the Huffington Post are relevant as evidence to show that there is such public attention being paid. If those are the only examples, though, then they don't constitute enough evidence to establish the point. Matters related to the sexual orientation of the Gingrich, Cheney, and Keyes family members have been addressed in multiple media sources, but the LaHaye matter has not been.

On the current state of the evidence, therefore, I'd say we should omit the point from this article. JamesMLane t c 17:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the second. The fact that LeHaye's adult son could potentially be gay does not really have anything to do with the notability of his father who is much better known for his Christian fiction than his conservative political views. LeHaye isn't a Dobson or a Falwell where his social-political views overshadow his writings. Kyaa the Catlord 07:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Besides that this article is about Tim LaHaye, not his son. The son's sexual orientation has very little to do with the father, unless you subscribe to the theory that people become gay because of the way they are brought up. Steve Dufour 10:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale behind including his son's sexuality was that Tim LaHaye was very anti-gay. So far there aren't any reliable references that the son is in fact gay or that LaHaye himself is anit-gay. However, the idea that an offspring's sexuality bears no affect on their own parents' entry is a false one. I don't think Lynn and Dick Cheney made their daughter gay, but she is an out lesbian. Considering his stances on gay rights, surely you wouldn't argue that his daughter's sexuality doesn't belong in Cheney's article, do you Steve? AniMate 11:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It only belongs in Cheney's article since he has made reference to it and that it has become an issue in his career as a politician. LeHaye's notability doesn't come from his political statements, rather it comes from his popular novel series, unlike Dick Cheney who is a politician and these questions are directly part of his notability. Kyaa the Catlord 11:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree with you Kyaa, just arguing against Steve's suggestion above. I guess I'm splitting hairs, but that argument may sort of make sense here, just not in the overall discussion of parents entries including their child's sexuality. AniMate 11:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is legitimate for the article to discuss Tim LaHaye's views on homosexuality, since he has strong views on the matter and homosexuality in society is a hot topic these days which is heavily influenced be religious views. Mentioning the possibility that his son may be gay, or has been mentioned as possibly gay, would be completely appropriate within such a context, if properly cited and not over-emphasized. Regarding Lee LaHaye we have a news story that says "Lee LaHaye, Tim and Beverly's son is openly gay and serves as the CFO for Concerned Women of America."[1] and then the NNDB entry for Beverly LaHaye says "Their son, Lee LeHaye, is widely whispered to be gay,"[2]. Unless someone else turns up something more definitive, I'd suggest not saying Lee is gay, but that it has been said by some that he is. Jacob1207 (talk) 08:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't present rumors as fact. Got a reliable source stating that their son is gay? Not a blog. Not a source saying "it is whispered". Hearsay doesn't cut it, per BLP. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Watch the WP:UNDUE. His views on homosexuality are not related to his notability, as it stands currently. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without doubt, LaHaye is known more for his eschatology and Left Behind than for his views on homosexuality but the later is still notable. Most of the references currently cited in the article mention his views on homosexuals. Especially given how prominent the issue of homosexuality and religion is right now, the article does not give undue weight to those views of his.Jacob1207 (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the references we cite seem to suggest common issues not covered, we should at least mention them by all means. To me it's not much different from an article about Political Candidate X, who is expected to have views on manifold issues. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 22:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning them is not the same as giving them undue weight, as the recent edits have. His views on gays and "conspiracy" theories do not need the amount of space given them to be "mentioned" or the high profile subsections. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV on books

[edit]

A large part of the article is taken up by people's criticisms of the Left Behind series. Yet there is not one word about why people like them. I've not read any myself, but some people must like them since they've sold so many copies. At least one or two positive opinions would be worth mentioning. Steve Dufour 02:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So fix it! I personally don't think the tag is appropriate when there's been no thwarted attempt to right the alleged wrong, and still less when the only basis for the tag is that other volunteer editors haven't volunteered to write up something that you personally consider important. I don't like edit warring, especially over tags, so I'll leave it in place for now, but not forever. You don't need to have read the books yourself. Your own positive opinions wouldn't be notable, anyway. Feel free to find some published praise for his works and report it here. JamesMLane t c 03:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will take the tag off and work on that when I have the time. Steve Dufour 03:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I started by adding a little information on the books' sales. This is from the official website of the series. I hope that will be acceptable for this factual information. I also added it to Left Behind. I don't want to take the criticism out, that is part of what makes the topic interesting. In case you are interested, I am a Christian but don't have a literal, fundamentalist view of Biblical prophecy. Steve Dufour 11:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuit against Cloud Ten Pictures

[edit]

Why is there no mention of his failed lawsuit against Cloud Ten Pictures over the Left Behind movie. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/marchweb-only/3-24-42.0.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.85.42 (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is covered in Left Behind#Film adaptations. HairyWombat (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theocracy

[edit]

Removed reference to Theocracy Watch accusing LaHaye of promoting theocracy. They do no such thing. They accuse him of advocating opposition to secular humanism, which is unsurprising and non-controversial. In this he is no different that many people of faith, and not just evangelicals. So this is not noteworthy. To accuse him of promoting theocracy by citing an article which does not do so is inaccurate; to fix it so it accuses him of promoting opposition to secular humanism makes it irrelevant, so I removed it altogether. PFR 16:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

'pseudo-psychological' temperament theory

[edit]

Removed section which says "he has also been criticized for 'pseudo-psychological' temperament theory". We must attack this practice of making a wild accusation towards a biographical subject and backing it up by citing a website that has no status by which to claim authority. This is not the same as citing a legitimate news source. "He has been criticized" is a meaningless statement. In this particular case, the page cited calls temperament theory "psycho-paganistic" and says it could lure people into practicing the occult. This has no place in a balanced encyclopedic reference. PFR 16:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Babylon Rising -- The Edge of Darkness?

[edit]

There is a wrong link for The Edge of Darkness. The link put up is directing to another book written not by Tim LaHaye, and is an adaption og a 1985 film. The Link is wrong and I have removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zheliel (talk • contribs) 13:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NAACP

[edit]

There should be more detail on why he so strongly opposes the NAACP, which is a generally uncontroversial organization. I don't know of very many people outside white nationalism who have such negative views of it. Is there a source that could possibly shed more light on why he views the anti-racist organization as part of a "world plot to exterminate Christianity"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.29.155.8 (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed section on the Coalition for Religious Freedom and the Unification Church

[edit]

The section and the source referenced contained serious and harmful factual errors about the subject. Rev. Moon did NOT found the Coalition for Religious Freedom and the only connection between LaHaye and the Unification Church is in the Coalition's defense of the church's constitutional freedoms. 67.135.49.42 (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage in wrong place

[edit]

I just wanted to know that LaHaye's marriage in 1947 is discussed in the section entitled "Recent Activities." That strikes me as the wrong place to put it. 216.185.9.34 (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the article I have split this off into a new sub-section, "Personal life". HairyWombat (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Useless - Utterly Freaking Useless -

[edit]

I came to this page to grab some information on a part of one of the things LeHay is really published on (dispensational premillenialism) and there is one brief reference. Nothing more. For crying out loud this article jumps from what passes for a paragraph on his early life to his political activism. Then jumps on everything that can be critized. No freaking wonder everybody on the planet thinks Wikipedia is a joke. You assclowns take the cake. A very special FU to you wannabe scholars. Here's a hint before you delete this - nobody really cares about your opinion of a topic, just give us some basic facts. NPOV my rebel d**k. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.157.205 (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try Dispensational premillennialism (note two 'n's), which redirects to Dispensationalism. This is not the area for which LaHaye is best known. HairyWombat 16:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentalist Christian?

[edit]

Hi everyone,

I see that the article is part of Category:Christian fundamentalism.

This evening, I am moving articles about people out of that category into Category:Christian fundamentalists or Category:Christian evangelicals.

There isn't a mention in the body of the article about Tim LaHaye being a fundamentalist. "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources."(see policy WP:BLPCAT)

Which category should I put this article in to?

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 04:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First note that Category:Christian evangelicals does not exist, so I guess there is a typo in there. The article begins "Timothy F. LaHaye (born April 27, 1926) is an American evangelical Christian minister ..." and also states "In 1979, he helped to establish the Institute for Creation Research ...". You should therefore place the article into both categories. HairyWombat 17:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tim_LaHaye&oldid=1231218101"