This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph of a picture of Mr. LaHaye himself be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
constructive contributions only please Kevinalewis 10:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
What about his association with the "Moonies"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.1.42.30 ( talk) 20:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
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
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.
You know the site is biased when articles on people like Tim Lahaye consist of 50% criticism. Itake 03:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph of a picture of Mr. LaHaye himself be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
constructive contributions only please Kevinalewis 10:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
What about his association with the "Moonies"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.1.42.30 ( talk) 20:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
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
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.
You know the site is biased when articles on people like Tim Lahaye consist of 50% criticism. Itake 03:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)