Talk:Dream City Church

Ted Haggard

Haggard is a key member of this church - therefore, if you are going to delete my references to the fact he is GAY, I'll continue to add them back. Why? I believe it is relevant...this guy was a key evangelical with the largest church in Colorado. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CottageChris (talk • contribs) 02:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if it's true any all wikipedia content especially dealing with someone's or some organization's reputation needs to adhere to WP:V, wikipedias verifiability guideline. Unverified material may be challenged and removed. If you think mentioning Haggard's involvement with this church and his alleged homosexuality is important, provide the verifiable and accurate sources to back up your statements.Ltwin (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Trump Rally

Anyone know if this church is tax exempt, and if so, if it violated federal tax law by conducting a political rally on campus? Thanks. Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 13:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I note an IP has been attempting to removed referenced material on the Trump rally, calling it irrelevant. This would be an appropriate place to discuss. Ifnord (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Dream City is NOT a partner of any political organization. Nor did it "host" or "cohost" the event. The building was rented to the organization to hold their rally.

The section on the Trump Rally is indeed irrelevant. If you wish to have an article about the Dream City Church then write about the Church itself and not some targeted harassment about who they may align politically/morally. This is especially true since the church did not engage in hosting a rally, did not endorse a rally nor were part of a rally; they rented the building out. Get a life and keep Wikipedia pure to what its intent is. ABlessedMan (talk) 02:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah they are technically in violation of the law (altho, can't know 100% since there hasn't been a proper investigation and adjudication), but in real life the IRS has other things to worry about with their finite resources, besides which investigating churches, even if they're breaking the law, is going to be huge political headache. A few nonprofits do get nabbed, but only if its really egregious and in that case they're committing other crimes anyway.

"Dream City is NOT a partner of any political organization" is pretty much not true. Obviously they are. Yeah technically they can pretend to have plausible denial because they only rent to Turning Point (and at least twice so far, apparently). They don't have an actual legal partnership agreement with the Trump organization or the RNC, but c'mon. They like Trump and like helping him, and fine.

Anybody who rents a hall can refuse to rent it on political grounds. I can't go to the Knights of Columbus and rent their hall for my KKK rally. They won't do it. If they knew I was planning a KKK rally and they rented to me anyway, they would very rightly be accessories to the event and calling them out on it would be justified. (If I lied to them and told them it was for a flower club meeting, that might be different. But the Church knew what kind of event Turning Point was going to host. If it was a private for-profit auditorium, that'd be different too.)

Knowing that the church rents its hall for Trump rallies helps the reader get a handle on the entity. Maybe it's great that they do, maybe not so great, that's up to the reader to decide. We just preset the facts. I'm sure the Church does lots of nonpolitical stuff and that should also be presented to the reader. If the Church doesn't like being considered to be in bed with Trump (I don't know why not -- they seem happy enough about it, but whatever), maybe they should stop renting their hall to him. Just saying. Herostratus (talk) 04:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Scare quotes

There is a passage which says

...eleven people outside the church were taken to local hospitals for "precautionary" treatment for heat-related medical incidents.

which I changed to

...eleven people outside the church were taken to local hospitals for treatment of heat-related medical incidents.

in order to get rid of the scare quotes. But an editor (User:HelpMyUnbelief) is wanting to keep the original version, with an edit summary of ""precautionary" is a quote from the original article", so as a contested WP:BRD, we'll discuss it here.

It's not taken from the source, which only has "Keller characterized the responses as precautionary" with no scare quotes, but even if it had been, newspapers have different ways of expressing themselves than we do. What we would want here would be "Keller characterized the responses as precautionary, but ____ said that that was nonsense as some of the victims were convulsing" or whatever (if we had that material). Scare quotes imply that something like that is going on, but we don't imply. Herostratus (talk) 03:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

It is common in many contexts to put quotes around pieces of text taken directly from a source, which was the case here; was not aware that doing so was objectionable. You could have mentioned it first on my talk page, but whatever... — HelpMyUnbelief (talk) 04:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I get it... right. You were intending it as just a quote. OK, I misunderstood. But still, it comes off as scare quotes. That's why single-word quotes are pretty rare I guess. I mean I don't object to your intent, just how it ended up looking.

Naw I put it out here so that other editors could jump in if they wanted. Maybe I'm wrong, who knows. It's all just us collegially trying to make the best articles, no insult intended. Herostratus (talk) 04:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

No problem...what you've brought up here is helpful for me to know! You're right; single-word quotes do tend to come across as scare quotes, especially when the content deals with a loaded subject like a Trump rally. The more that I looked at the change you suggested, the more I could see that it is an improvement. — HelpMyUnbelief (talk) 05:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)