Talk:John Hagee/Archive 1

Archive 1

Chart of payroll thing

Ok, this same person has put that thing on 2 people's articles so far (or at least 2 that I remember seeing on my watchlist)and as far as I can tell no information is actually inside the article that has been added from it. What is the point? Because if there is none, that link needs to be deleted, is it even proper style for links to lead to notepad documents for download? Homestarmy 22:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

External links

• Open Letter to Pastor Hagee regarding excessive executive compensation

This looks to me like a personal webpage.....but hey, critics have a right to speak too, it's just I dunno if this falls under proper citation categories. Homestarmy 16:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The Latest mass edit

I am hesistant to revert such a large amount of work, so I figured i'd try to discuss it first. I saw waaaaay more quotes than were necessary, including a bunch which just looked like advertising and should probably be removed, that "beliefs" thing looks like it should be condensed, and all the external links were changed, whats up with that? Homestarmy 03:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

answer:

FYI...the "beliefs thing" is from Hagee's website... MOST of the quotes were deleted as I too agree that it was too much. Lastly, ALL the external links were NOT changed...Some were added. 1:13 pm CST June 30, 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.24.104.150 (talk • contribs) .

It's just the spaces in the beliefs part seemed so wide it looked very odd. The edits also deleted a fair amount of sentences, which I thought was suspicious since there were no edit summaries. Homestarmy 18:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure I know what you're talking about...Most of the information was cited & came from biography's from Dr. Hagee. The original biography had A LOT of inaccurate information. If you wish to edit anything, you're more than happy to do it. (Obviously)I'm not quite sure what an "edit summary" is. Also, the beliefs section is word for word from Dr. Hagee...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.24.104.150 (talk • contribs) .

I was watching the stream of edits last night as well, and I was waiting for the inevitable removal of every negative comment. Instead, it looks like you've done a fantastic job of bringing the article into a more balanced state - thank you very much for fixing it up! There are many style issues that can be easily fixed, you may want to read the style guide at WP:MOS when you have some free time. I'll try to fix some of it when I get a moment, and Mr. Homestarmy has all the tricks memorized as well and will assist you.

The edit summary thing he was talking about is in a little box below the big white box where you're making your edits. You would typically put a couple of words in there to summarize what you just did. So for example when you inserted the list of his books, you'd write "created list of works" in the edit summary box. This lets people see what your intent was, instead of trying to guess it from what you did. You may also want to create an account when you get an opportunity - it allows you to set all sorts of preferences - it's easy and you don't have to give out any personal information what-so-ever, not even an e-mail address. Again, thanks for your contributions. Kuru ^talk 22:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, to get things started sorting all this out, I would like to suggest putting "beliefs" under the ministry section, because it says "we believe" which I take to mean Cornerstone church and the ministry rather than Hagee personally. Homestarmy 00:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

hmmm...have to respectfully disagree there...seeing as how Hagee is the founder & CEO of Cornerstone

Probably. I'm still not sure if that's the church's ethos or his, though. I just removed the book list and replaced it with one more to the style used in other articles - the one that was in there was a cut & paste from his site, which is a no-no for non-quotes. I sourced the Amazon hardback publish date for each book as well. Kuru ^talk 01:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Wholesale removal of biography

The recent unsigned mass edit removed the separate biography, including information about Hagee's first marriage, which I have restored. Bregence 16:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a good call on your part. Homestarmy 18:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless you site a reference, I don't think that information about him commiting adultery should be put on there...Where's this letter??? Also, AGAIN you are wrong. Hagee's 1st 2 children (Chris & Tish) are from his first marriage. (Hence why it was cleaned up.)

Well at this point he's commited adultery whether admittedly odd looking unsourced information is in the article or not, remember, "And if he marries again, that man has commited adultery"....but some of the information you removed seemed to have nothing to do with the subject. Homestarmy 04:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"but some of the information you removed seemed to have nothing to do with the subject." Such as??? I think removing the INACCURATE information about which mother his children came from was a darn pretty good call...

Also, Homestarmy, it would be nice if YOU as well included your source...what scripture EXACTLY were you quoting? Is it from the new testament or the old testament? --Laces 04:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This would indeed be the New Testament, you know, that book with the stuff about the new covenant and the thing about the whole "Do not get divorces" bit? I could turn to Malachi 2:16 though, where God says that He hates divorce. Anyway, it's Matthew 19:9, "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."" But really its no big deal, we all sin, is it so horrible that John Hagee is rendered as a man rather than somebody with perfect ethics? Unless of course Hagee getting divorced then really was a matter of marital unfaithfulness, I mean it's certainly not unheard of or anything, but you never seemed to indicate this possibility. As for information you removed, you seemed to of blanked the entire paragraph concerning Hagee founding the Church of Castle Hills, in addition to removing the existance of his other marriage. Fixing where the children came from is no problem, but trying to remove mention of their existance and of the other wife is not. Homestarmy 04:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Back to the point...where is the "proof"? Where is the link to this "open letter" that he submitted to the church? The only pages on the net that I could find about it was from Hagee hate sites. That's why it was left out... I couldn't verify even that he founded the Trinity Church...that information was on wikipedia only... I would rather have a biography that is correct.--Laces 05:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the open letter bit I can understand you deleting, it is indeed quite a scandalous sounding claim and certainly deserves citation if its supposed to be in the article. Does Hagee's ministry have any statement to the effect of "This is the only church Hagee founded" or anything to that effect which would contradict the Castle Hills part? Homestarmy 17:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. I didn't think that it was very relevant & didn't even remember that it was in the original, however if it is true, then that is fine. I made a mistake. --Laces 17:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

At one time I really enjoyed Hagee. The best there was in my opinion. However, over time I noticed a change ( quite sudden ) - he seemed far more interested in tithing $ and extremely interested in all things pro-Israel and the End of the Earth ( Apolycalypse-ish )- he appeared to become overwhelmed with not dying before the End, kissing Israel anywhere they wanted and more and more money. I am surprised to see some of the negative stuff here - his first two kids are a complete surprise to me - after years of adoring the guy and gradually feeling embarrassed by him. Not that I felt uneasy about his change - similar to Christopher Hitchens.

Hmm, I started questioning Mr. Hagee's message in a similar manner, though I did have some help from the internet....ah, I remember that day well, there I was walking about thinking about Christianity, then suddenly, it hits me. Tithing.....there wern't any specific rules on that in the NT, were there? After checking the internet it all started to fall into place... Homestarmy 20:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Uhh... whether it's in the New Testament or not, Jesus confirms many things stated in the Old, and even if he doesn't confirm tithing, he doesn't denounce it either. If you cheap bastards can't give 10% BACK (you're giving BACK, you're not giving out of your own bounty) to God who's given you EVERYTHING you have then you need to take a look at your priorities. 70.104.119.110 (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

is everyone missing the obvious here, where in 1 tim. paul states that one qualification to be a bishop (pastor) is to be the " husband of one wife". regardless of the adultery issue, this fact alone disqualifies him from pastoring ever again and thus God's hand of blessing is NOT on his church nor ever will be!!!!!

Eh, that sounds more like a Pauline church issue rather than a God-will-smite-you issue :). Homestarmy 12:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

two pages: John Hagee and John C. Hagee

Hello,

I was repairing disambiguation links You can help! and noticed there are two pages regarding this individual: John Hagee and John C. Hagee. The former has far more information than the latter, and there is much duplication of info. In fact, the second page is so short that it almost qualifies as a stub. Rather than going thru the whole process of putting merge tags on the two articles, blah blah blah, I'm just gonna manually merge info from the shorter article into the longer one, and change the shorter one into a redirect.

Please note that I am not taking any position regarding the information I am moving here. I am neither for nor againts the subject of this article, and in fact have never heard of him. :-) So.. if you disagree with something I add to this page (taken from the other one), please remove it. I won't argue; I won't be watching the page. Thank you for your patience! --Ling.Nut 22:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Doctor?

Is it proper to refer to him as "Dr Hagee?" He has two honorary doctorates and does not seems to have earned any. --24.12.206.109 20:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The Honorary Doctorate article seems to say that it depends on the person's wishes, though it points out that if the reason for the doctorate wasn't based on a "tangible" enough grounds or something that it just wouldn't be necessary. Homestarmy 22:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

"Earning" a doctorate is an opinion and, as such, is inadequate grounds to question the title. "Dr." refers to those who hold doctorates and makes no distinction regarding whether it was earned, "deserved," etc. Though they often do not carry the same "weight" as an "earned" doctorate, they still reflect substantive work in a field (for the most part). The holder may prefer not to use the title, but it is their decision, no one else's.

My.opera.com

I removed a line that stated that John Hagee had been called a Christofacist by the website community my.opera.com. A community bulletin board with some postings calling someone something isn't quite NPOV. I am sure I can find a community bulletin board that calls John Hagee the third incarnation of Christ, or Satan's Sous Chef. If the classification "Christofacist" is used by say the President of Iran, the P.A., or someother newsworthy person or group, and it is reported in a recognized news medium, then it should be included in this article. rhmoore 02:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

BIBLICAL SUPPORT?

Hagee states the following: "That Christians have a Bible mandate to be supportive of Israel and the Jewish people, to demonstrate to the Jewish people what they have not experienced from Christianity for 2,000 years... the love of God."

Where in the Bible does it say that Christians should support Israel? It is true according to Romans 9 through 11 that God continues to be covenant with Israel. It does not seem to be true though that as a Christian I have a special obligation to support Israel. If it's in the Bible then I will relent but unless found, this article should expressly state that no such biblical evidence exists and Hagee is merely citing his own opinion and not bibilical supported fact.

Yea, Hagee's probably pretty off-base with that comment. But I don't see the need to get all angry about it, I mean if you think about it considering all the anti-semitism there was we probably do owe Israel something, and there's nothing wrong with demonstrating the love of God. Sure, there's no obligation, but I think there'd be a stronger case for showing that Hagee is wrong by citing good sources that say he's wrong, do you happen to have any? Homestarmy 17:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

There are many but here is Genesis 12:3 And G-d said to Abraham: I will bless them who bless thee, And curse them who curse thee It doesn't really matter if you agree with this quote or the Bible in general, but it does say in the Bible on many occasions that the Christian must support Israel and the Jewish people.

That doesn't read like a command to me, just a statement of fact. Homestarmy 14:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Evangelical Christians do not want to be cursed by God. They are not telling YOU to support Israel. I have a problem with the people who try to correct a wikipedia article simply because a statement of facts don't match their particular preferences. It is fair to say in the article that evangelical Christians believe they have an obligation to support the Jews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.18.15 (talk • contribs) (on 3 March 2007).

Whether the Bible supports Hagee's comment is not the point. The point is that Hagee said it. You are engaging in a theological discussion in an article that is intended to present fact. Even if Hagee sais that the sky is purple and that I had a Biblical mandate to believe it, this article would not be the forum to debate the veracity of his claim. On a side note, the Bible can be made to say just about anything. Proving or disproving Hagee's claim is effecively impossible since he bases it on his own interpretation. You can certainly disagree, but disproving an interpretation of a faith document with no grounding in "reality" is a tall order. If you can't "talk" (and by this, I mean somehow record it to be verified by an independent, unbiased third-party) to the author of the Bible (in this case, God), how can you ever appeal to a "correct" interpretation? The Wiki on "John Hagee" is not the place for you to debate this point. TX Ciclista (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a BIOGRAPHY

I'm tired of all you people who seem to think that your presonal views on religion and politics belong on a biographical page. Regardless of your opinion of the man, no one cares about what you've got to say. A biography details a man's life work, good or bad. Factual information belongs on this page.

So, what specifically is wrong? I don't see any unattributed criticism that would be unduly negative or from a Scientific point of view. Homestarmy 06:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It has been up before, and its been taken down. Its up all of the time. Its just taken down. Just for future reference for those who just have one of those cravings to screw up someone's page to be sacreligious.

Oh, that kind of thing happens all the time, if its been taken down, it was probably just reverted quickly for being unsourced, OR, or something like that. Homestarmy 06:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting discussion you guys have got going here, though it's seemed to have gotten off the topic of Hagee quite a bit. As long as this has already been derailed though, I thought I'd toss my two cents in on the "All human beings are God's children by birth" comment one of you made eariler, that a lot of the argument seems to be based on.

Hate to rain on your parade, but are you forgetting John 8:44?

                                                                 75.16.111.139 04:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Kay

Unfortunently, it seems that editor has left :/. Homestarmy 18:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't it seem a bit odd that in the middle of the Biography portion of the article that it says, "Hagee and his wife divorced in September 1975."? Yet, the last quote in the Quotes section, he states, "Christians don't steal or lie, they don't get divorced or have abortions..." It seems a bit contradictory of him. JoeMP 19:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Friday, July 31, 2009 - I just looked at Pastor Hagee's biography here for the first time and cannot believe that it is almost entirely negative. Whether one likes or dislikes him has no bearing in a biographical entry. More information should be on his birth, family and upbringing. What is the history or a chronology of his works so that the negative comments are given a context. I am not advocating for the removal of a negative comment but a total context of the man's life and works in a truthful unbiased manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.198.238 (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of discussion page

The discussion page is to discuss the accuracy of the article, NOT to debate one's personal opinion of the subject of the article.Jlujan69 21:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Perfect Red Heifer

Is this the same John Hagee who is trying to breed a perfect red heifer for the purpose consecrating a new temple in Jerusalem and bringing about Armageddon? Harvestdancer 23:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That was me, I didn't realize I wasn't logged in. Harvestdancer 23:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I heard something about this, but I was fairly certain that his episodes merely mentioned this breeding attempt by some Orthodox Jewish organization or something I think, I believe it has something to do with his frequent trips to Israel and some commentary about it. Something to do with Dispensationalism I think.... Homestarmy 00:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Amazing how some "christians" actually venerate anti-christ. Israel of 1048 is not the kingdom of God. It is no more a fulfillment of prophecy than Bosnia. But, they do allow sodomite parades in the streets of jerusalem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.222.103 (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Note, this person uses quotes to describe christians when the same IP left me this "christian" message telling me to kill myself and was blocked for 31 hours, then blocked for an extra week for continuous hateful messages. So much for this. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The IP is now blocked for one month. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Max Blumenthal and user:DaudSharif's edit

The last edit on 8/13/07 is a matter of opinion and highly subjective. As Max stated in his candid interview in The ForwardForward interview with Max Blumenthal, Aug 10, 2007, Max admits that he selects his interviewees to be the stereotype of what he is seeking to prove, "And on my videos I think that there are some subjects who are unintentionally self-satirical and hilarious, and stupid also, brain-dead even." He also says that part of the reason he makes the videos is to show the intrigue, but "also how funny it can be to hang around these kinds of conferences."

Meaning, that while he indeed captures the people saying what they do, he goes after a targeted group, rather than a random sampling of the 4000 who attended. Max's video is indeed funny, but not an accurate representation of the overall presence at the CUFI convention.

He supports Senator John McCain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.5.69 (talk) 19:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:KEEP. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 19:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Quotes

A good idea would be to start a page for him at Wikiquote because there are too many quotes listed in this article. Link to the Wikiquote page after it is created, like other WP articles. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms

Should all the criticism Hagee has stated against Islam, Catholicism, and his take on Hurricane Katrina be separate sections or should they be under one "Criticism" heading (and how should that be worded)? WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit absurd to list Hagee's assertion that the Qur'an contains a "mandate to kill Christians and Jews" in the Criticism section, when many if not most Christian and secular leaders have said the same thing. Wikipedia editors need to understand the difference between sourcing an event/quote, and sourcing a story about the backlash/critical response to said events or quotes. If an editor finds something offensive, linking to a source of the quote does not justify inclusion in a 'Criticism' section. A subject must have received notable criticism for their action.—DMCer™ 10:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitism allegations / Citing Biblical passages uncited by Hagee

This edit strikes me as a clear violation of the Wikipedia:No original research policy (NOR). The editor has repeatedly reverted my removal of it, however, so I'm raising the matter here in hopes of finding consensus and averting an edit war.

Hagee, in his book, cited certain Biblical passages in support of his opinion concerning the suffering of the Jews. Zsero researched the Bible and found some additional passages that, in Zsero's opinion, also suggest that Jewish suffering was caused by Jewish misdeeds. Zsero rejects my observation that the insertion of this material is original research.

If this insert were permitted, then it would be equally permissible to cite other Biblical passages, or historical texts, or other sources analyzing such events as the destruction of the First Temple, whether they took the same position as Hagee or rebutted him. For that matter, it could go beyond that to the perennial philosophical and theological problems posed by free will. The article about Hagee would turn into a rehash of a debate in which he's only one participant.

It's original research for a Wikipedia editor to hunt up passages that Hagee could have cited, but didn't. If some prominent spokesperson has come to Hagee's defense by citing these passages, then that spokesperson's comment can be considered for inclusion. (Of course, even then we would have to attribute the view to the spokesperson, instead of flatly asserting that the view is correct, to comply with WP:NPOV. That policy allows us to report facts about opinions but not to adopt opinions. Zsero's edit arguably violates that policy as well, but I think the NOR violation is clearer.) JamesMLane t c 20:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Original research is not allowed because it's not verifiable; it's just the editor's own opinion, and this is not the place for it. What I've inserted isn't OR, it's sourced quotes. No, they're not from Hagee or his spokesman; so what? If we report that someone made an accusation against Hagee, we should report facts that are relevant to that accusation, especially facts that show it to be invalid. So long as those facts are verifiable, they belong. We don't usually wait for the subject of the accusations to come up with these facts on his own, if he ever does. Even if the subject never addresses the accusations at all, we usually include relevant facts that constitute a defense; indeed deliberately refusing to do so amounts to POV.

Oh, and I did no research at all, beyond looking up verse numbers. The verses themselves are familiar to anyone who's competent to talk about the subject and need no researching. -- Zsero (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm with JamesMLane: not that Zsero had to go out and "do research," but that what is included needs to be directly relevant to the subject of the article. This is an article about Hagee and his views, not about Jewish thought pertaining to Jewish history, and so how Hagee himself explains himself is the only issue. Also, and very important here, from the perspective of the history of Antisemitism, there is a big difference between Jewish meditation on Jewish suffering and Christian interpretation of Jewish suffering as indicative of Jewish wickedness. Semperegoauditor (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of the passage is supported by a bare majority, or by every editor except Zsero, depending on how you want to look at it. I wish more people had chimed in here. Nevertheless, based on the comments so far, I'm removing the passage. Zsero, I suggest that, if you want to restore it, you should first take it to RfC to see if anyone else agrees with you. JamesMLane t c 17:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Allowing the accusations of antisemitism to stand without this information is wrong. If you delete this then the unfounded accusations should go too. Otherwise the reader is misled into thinking there's something to them. -- Zsero (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We report facts about notable opinions, even the opinions that we think are wrong. Here, we report the accusation against Hagee and we report his response. Some readers will conclude that Hagee is an antisemite; others will conclude that he isn't. One group of readers is drawing an incorrect conclusion from the facts, but that doesn't mean that either is being misled. The NPOV policy means that we don't try to edit the article based on any Wikipedians' personal views about which group is wrong. JamesMLane t c 18:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We do, however, present properly sourced information that is relevant, so long as we stick to what's in the sources. WP:SYN says not to explicitly make the claim that the source refutes the accusation; but it doesn't say to ignore the source altogether, and leave the reader ignorant of it. That would be lying by omission. The only proper course is to cite the source and let the reader judge how it affects the accusation. -- Zsero (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand your position, but I disagree. As long as you're the only person maintaining that the material belongs in the article, it shouldn't be re-inserted, which is why I suggested you go the RfC route if you want to pursue the point. JamesMLane t c 18:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It occurs to me that in the absence of Hagee or others more fully addressing the issue, it might be appropriate to refer to an article like Jennifer Siegel, Evangelical's Endorsement Spurs Debate, according to which Abraham Foxman of the ADL supports Hagee; and those Jewish leaders who do consider him controversial don't even bring up the possibility of antisemitic views. E.g., Joel Meyers of the Conservative Rabbinical assembly: "Hagee has said some things that, as a person of faith who’s Jewish, I kind of cringe, but other fundamentalist leaders have said things I’ve cringed at, too, so I understand that world and that religious milieu." It's imperfect, because it's an argument from silence: prominent Jewish leaders, including Foxman, whose purview is especially antisemitism, don't seem to consider this, don't have any questions about his non-antisemitic bona fides; they only argue about whether, for Foxman, Hagee's pro-Israel stance trumps allegations of anti-Catholic bias. But this goes to show that the charge of antisemitism hasn't resonated much outside the blogosphere? Semperegoauditor (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

IronCrow's solution is to get rid of the Antisemitism allegations section wholesale, calling it original research, too much blockquoting, biased...I have observed above that the charges don't seem to have a great deal of traction or credibility, but is there agreement that the section should be deleted? Semperegoauditor (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I noticed that IronCrow's edits had removed properly encyclopedic information, and that another edit had lost Donohue's paragraphing structure in his quotation, and that someone had introduced the typos like "evengelcials". I just didn't have time to repair the article. You got the typos but the other issues remain to be fixed. The charge of antisemitism is absolutely not original research. It's a report of an opinion that's been voiced. It should be labeled and opinion, not asserted as fact, but it belongs in the article. JamesMLane t c 01:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about John Hagee and his views. We should cite the arguments he produces in favor of those views but we should not go out and devise or find other arguments (that Hagee doesn't make) in order to bolster the case for his positions. Jacob1207 (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, on the basis of what seems like consensus, I've put the section back in. Semperegoauditor (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't even remember taking that out, but thanks for pointing it out. Not a big fan of Hagee myself (friend wanted to look at a Wikipedia article and this was the random page), but I might have taken it out because it did seem OR at the time, almost as if arguements were being created (and asserted as fact). Since I won't touch this article again, you guys figure it out. It's been over a year and I see little progress. Anyways, I'm guessing Jacob1207 was ignored. Devising arguments, for whatever side or reason, isn't a good idea on Wikipedia, but what do I know? ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 06:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Capital Punishment

http://www.jhm.org/ME2/Sites/dirmod.asp?sid=AFFD33FE6E484D178BCE8C3C991EEA26&nm=About+Us&type=faqs&mod=FAQs&mid=F1DC381E34834576AFAE6187F8CBC46F&tier=3&fid=1F12119D80A94E2F83F1F0D3A8098C45

Hagee supports the Death Penalty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.246.36.148 (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Divorce & custody

Anonymous user 72.191.5.154 deleted the following material from the article's biography section:

The divorce has been characterized as "messy" and resulted in a custody battle over the couple's two children, ages 3 and 6.[1] Hagee's ex-wife received custody of the children.[2]

The justification given in the edit summary was: "Source cited does not support the sentacnce typed. At all. there is nothing in the article abt custody." However, the cited article does mention custody: "Hagee ... became divorced, resigned, and married a young woman in the congregation, Diana Castro, with custody of the children going to his ex-wife, Martha." (Internal citations omitted) To make such an oversight less likely, I have added a second source for the claims, which states "Custody of Hagee’s two children by his ex-wife, Martha, went to her." [3] Jacob1207 (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Two of the sources you are referring to [4] [5] (both self-published sources) do not qualify as "reliable sources" per the Wikipedia content guideline. There is also a question of verifiability of these sources particularly with respect to official Wikipedia policy (WP:Biographies of living persons) which states, "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion..." Without some other reliable source that confirms these matters, I think this material qualifies as "poorly sourced contentious material" and it should be removed. The Russell Harris article vaguely refers to "a number of sources" that had reported on the custody details, if that's actually the case and he's not referring to another self-published newsletter perhaps a more in-depth search of local newspaper articles could turn up a citable source. Mike Doughney (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Characterization of the divorce as "messy" could certainly be re-inserted on the basis of Andrew Higgins' article. The wife's winning custody is not mentioned there, however. An online article on Matthew Hagee (the son by Diana) says that "John Hagee and Diana Castro Hagee" have five children--presumably adding 2 + 3 and putting them all in the same family. Not sure what implications there may be for the issue of custody, if any? Semperegoauditor (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Mike,

I think you made my point for me. he unreliable sources are still cited for some reason. I will remove them. Also, pls answer the question as to why the cufi article is not qualified as a "reliable source." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.191.5.154 (talk) 03:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Divorce??? Hey I'd like to know more about his first marrige and his divorce....I mean if he did cheat on his first wife....man could he really be trusted as a "Man of God?" I know God forgives you but I'd like to know more about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.172.5 (talk) 15:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(I moved this quote to the relevant section instead of at the top of the page before the ToC) TX Ciclista (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hagee's press release regarding anti-Catholicism

I have tried to add this quote 4 times now but somehow it always gets deleted. Seems someone is interested in a very one sided bio of Pastor Hagee.

http://www.cufi.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_press_releases#march_26

I'm not sure if this is why, but it seems that you've been adding it under John McCain rather than under the charge of Anti-Catholicism. I've just removed it from the McCain section, and added paraphrase of his press release under the Anti-Catholicism charge. Semperegoauditor (talk) 08:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"Anti-Semitism" vs "Antisemitism"

Believe it or not, there is a difference in the two terms. For now, I would suggest using the term as Hagee uses it: "Anti-Semitism." To alter his quotes to read "antisemitism" suggests that Hagee is aware of (unlikely), or involved in (not the case), the current academic debate regarding the terms. He specifically uses "anti-Semitism" in his books and should be quoted as such. TX Ciclista (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

And would you mind explaining the difference between the two terms to us common "non-academics" the difference? Do you? ^yes...|_{or no} · 02:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Beliefs

I'm not sure who wrote "Fundamentalist-Evangelism" but I think he is more in line with these adjectives:

1) Fundamentalist: tends to focus on a spiritual Gospel, tends to read the Bible primarily literalistically

2) Zionist: tends to focus on the modern nation of Israel as a concern (it should be noted this nation has only been in existence since 1948), non-Zionists would note that Israel was dispersed around AD 70 and there was no Israel for close to two millennia. Focus can range from "interest in economy" to "interest in her defense/military" to "making sure she is not divided among Palestine/Lebanon/etc."

3) First Wave Charismatic: tends to emphasize the personal experience of every believer to experience the baptism of the Holy Spirit. (Second wavers tend to emphasize speaking in tongues; third wavers de-emphasize these, but still emphasize the more spectacular spiritual gifts, and the Toronto Blessing probably comes into this subcategory, Fourth Wavers tend to be more balanced, like Wayne Grudem.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.251.143.194 (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Nazi categories

I've removed two Nazi categories and an "antisemitism" category from this page. They were entirely inappropriate (and the antisemitism category absolute nonsense, considering Hagee's beliefs). Corvus cornix_talk 02:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

When you have someone talking about Hitler carrying out the work of God and Jews being "spiritually dead," I don't know what else that could be (Look at some of the references in the "Judaism" section, I also saw an article somewhere comparing Hagee's beliefs to the way that Henry Ford supposedly didn't hate all Jews, just the "wrong" ones). But I don't feel like getting in an edit war over it. CommanderCool1654 02:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed info

The following was quoted out in order to allow proper sourcing, but put back, so I removed it to talk:

Additionally, Hagee has come under criticism for his comments in which he stated:

Hitler stated when he came to power: 'I am not going to do anything that has not been done by the Roman Church for the last 800 years. I am only going to do it on a greater scale and more efficiently.'... God has said: 'I gave you [the Jews] the time to repent and you did not.'

As stated previously: Who criticized the statements and where? Please provide a link to something other than YouTube, particularly when stating that there has been criticism or accusations of anti-Semitism. 67.181.62.180 (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Picture to illustrate connection to John Mccain better

Saw this picture on the web and thought it would make the section on Connection with John Mccain better.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00673/mccain-hagee-404_673507c.jpg

Unfortunately I don't think it's under GPL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.80.63 (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of minor blogs that are used as sources in this article

I am not a John Hagee fan. In fact I have been offended by things he has said several times, but it seems that a lot of the references on this article go to blogs rather than more substantive sources. I read that there is a policy on wikipedia about reliable sources and it would seem that some of these sources fail the standard of that policy. One example is reference number 22. http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Apr06/Berkowitz18.htm Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

i am looking for movies pastor hagee has mentioned and endorsed on his tv ministry. i can't not think of any of the names. i know one "left behind," but what are some others to share with my family? I am most interested in ones dealing with heaven and hell and revelation. help anyone with the titles!

thank you, priscilla Pmckinnon (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Children

It's a bit confusing as it is, since Christopher and Tish are mentioned twice. I will inquire (I know someone at the church), but I suspect John and Diana either adopted the first two, or informally raised them and think of them as their own kids. But they don't appear to be biological children of Diana. Tish sings at the church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigmac31 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No Tish does not sing @ the church. The only children that sing at the church are Matthew, Sandy & Tina —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.24.104.150 (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

New Orleans statement misisng

The article includes a retraction about what he said about New Orleans, but lacks what he actually said. Where is it? Hmains (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

..."His sermons are often interrupted by applause from his congregation."

This does not belong with the JK Rowling statement...99.142.50.33 (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Sure seems as if ALL the talking is from a mere mortal for someone supposedly speaking "God's Word." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.143.221.27 (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No need to Argue

Christopher1968 added the paragraph:

Others could argue, that while Dr. Hagee does not speak for all Christians, it should be that he is, in that they, and Hagee himself could say, that all Christians should believe what the Bible says about Israel, and not dispute it in order to please man, which many Fundamental Christians say is occuring with some parts of the Christian Church.

to the Controversial views section. To this, 12.159.209.39 responded:

But, the Bible was written centuries prior to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, so ultimately this opinion is a load of crap.

I removed both contributions on the grounds that they were unsourced, speculative, biased,POW, offensive and poorly written. Furthermore, a WP article should not be used as a forum for general discussion of its subject. Leenborg (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:John Hagee/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I'm sick and tired of wikipedia feeling the need to add controversial sections on virtually every christian article.

Last edited at 13:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 15:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)