Talk:Tammy Faye Messner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Untitled[edit]

For a November 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Tammy Faye Messner


Place of Death[edit]

Loch Llyod is not an independent village. It is part of Kansas City, Missouri. I know because the country club I belong to's parent company, Five Star LIfestyles, now owns Loch Llyod. It is a golf course, and is located within the boundaries of Kansas City.

Opening Paragraph[edit]

... should be furnished a bit - she was known for more than her husband & makeup. Please mention her strong gay following and groundbreaking period in the 80's when she reached out to AIDS sufferers. 137.140.125.63 20:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this should be rewritten. 95% of this article is based on her experiences on The Surreal Life, which she is definitely NOT most known for. Mike H 06:21, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Why I moved it to "Tammy Faye"[edit]

NBC DOES NOT HAVE A "THE TODAY SHOW" THEY HAVE A SHOW TITLED "TODAY"

  • Wikipedia:Naming_conventions: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.
  • "Tammy Faye" Google search on exact phrase 69,300 hits
  • "Tammy Faye Messner" Google search on exact phrase, 4,790 hits
  • As of 2004 it is the form she uses herself, see http://www.tammyfaye.com ;
  • The form "Tammy Faye Messner" is so unfamiliar that people failed to recognize it as notable, with the result that the article was inappropriate listed on VfD.
[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:52, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Just as a datapoint; CNN broke it as "Messner", unexpanded; I wasn't completely sure that was who they meant, myself. --Baylink 01:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
She is probably best known as "Tammy Faye Bakker", regardless of whether that's her name anymore or not. Mike H 08:15, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
Google search on exact phrase "Tammy Faye Bakker" = 1 - 10 of about 12,500 for "tammy faye bakker"
Google search on exact phrase "Tammy Faye" = Results 1 - 10 of about 69,100 for "tammy faye". (0.34 seconds)
Google search on "Tammy Faye" -Bakker (exact phrase "Tammy Faye" without Bakker) = Results 1 - 10 of about 52,900 for "tammy faye" -bakker. (0.64 seconds)
And Tammy Faye Bakker is currently a redirect to Tammy Faye
So I think it's OK. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:26, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Google searches aren't everything, you know. You also have to consider what people actually verbally call her. Mike H 03:50, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
People actually call her "Tammy Faye." It is the name of her website and the name which she uses throughout her website except once in the biography. It is how she "signs" her note to fans on the main page of www.tammyfaye.org. If you like, it's a stage name, one which happens to be part of her real name. It is also a name which anyone looking for her would search by. To name the article anything else would be like insisting that the main article for a famous Hollywood actor be Marion Morrison, or that the main article for a famous magician should be Ehrich Weiss. Furthermore, if you want some other name to be the main name, you are going to have to decide whether to use Tammy Faye Bakker (presumably legal name during the point of her greatest fame), Tammy Faye Messner, or Tammy Faye Bakker Messner.
I think you've got a point, but I think it's likely that people address her in writing in the same manner as in real life. Also, the fact that google searches written media gives us an additional hint: In writing, if Tammy Faye Bakker or Tammy Faye Messner was as common or used, it would likely be listed _along with_ Tammy Faye (e.g. Tammy Faye aka Tammy Faye Bakker). Just a thought. --ABQCat 08:05, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with a redirect to Tammy Faye, because people know her simply by that, but not for article placement. I mean, "Tammy Faye" is not as prevalent as say, Cher or Madonna. Mike H 08:34, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
I have no opinion on this, but just remember that a Google search for "Tammy Faye" is going to be far inflated, due to irrelevant results that wouldn't be obtained in a search including either last name. Ambi 08:40, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sure, but "Tammy Faye" -christian -singer -eyes returns only 21,900 hits, meaning that more than half of the articles that mention "Tammy Faye" exact phrase also include "singer" or "christian" or "eyes." I can't believe we're really having a debate about this. "Tammy Faye" is the name by which she is best known, the name her fans use, and the name that she uses herself for everything career-related. The only reason for using something else would be if we had a policy of not using stage names or pen names or pseudonyms, which we don't.
I'm certainly not going to engage in a move war if someone thinks it belongs somewhere else, but I'd dearly like to see how one would choose between "Tammy Faye Bakker," "Tammy Fake Messner," or "Tammy Faye Bakker Messner." Oh, and I'd give a nickel for anyone who can find anyone else arguably named "Tammy Faye" who's encyclopedic enough to require disambiguation. Just look at http://www.tammyfaye.org. (I'm tempted to say Jeez, look at http://www.tammyfaye.org, fa crisesake). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
P. S. And wouldn't her "real name" actually be Tammy Faye LaValley Bakker Messner? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:46, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Added source[edit]

I added a source after the fact, but this article needs sources to cover all the facts. Needs to be fact-checked.--FloNight 22:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Missing Critical Information[edit]

In the first section about "PTL Club and Scandal" there is no date or even a year for when Tammy Faye and Jim Bakker got divorced. If I remember, that was a pretty big deal at the time.


Also, the date of the CNN Larry King interview is incorrect. The correct date is July 18, 2007.

Early Life[edit]

this section is incomplete, who the hell is Jim? and why did she get kicked out of bible camp? if when she moved to Minnesota she worked in a department store and its so important what department store was it? terrible, just terrible —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geokaii (talkcontribs) 18:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Please review the following statement found in the early life section:

"A painful divorce spoiled her mother upon other ministers,therefore....."

I am not sure if it means anything. Please correct it or make it more expalnatory, so that it can be easily understood. --Danprem 21:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There is one more line that could make more sense if rephrased:

"...she felt the glow of God's love and wanted to call herself upon the Lord."

--Danprem 21:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


Gay Rights Support[edit]

I think something should be mentioned about Tammy's support of gay rights, which is quite notable, being the only evangelical to support gay rights, even offering support for gay teens, and criticizing the church for not doing the same. McDanger 05:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible Picture Change[edit]

Should we change her main article picture to a more recent pictures that debuted on the May 31 edition of Entertainment Tonight? Btw, those pictures list that Tammy Faye weighs less than 70 Pounds.

Removing date of death[edit]

A LOT OF INFORMATION under the "death" segment has been plaigerized. I'm reading the same sentences from various news articles, so someone has been copying/pasting. anyone notice this???

An IP user has listed today as Tammy Faye's date of death.

I have seen nothing in any news media regarding this, and while it may possibly be breaking news, (1) it's probably bogus, and (2) Wikipedia is the place to collect verified information, not the place to break news. Any with documented evidence of her passing can feel free to edit this article. --Quintote 2:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Said user may have been confused by today's report that she has entered hospice care for terminal cancer (http://ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=533943). Tlesher 02:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
That's sad news but expected. She was receiving hospice care already in her home (See below linked article) so this must represent some change in her status.
I'm sure we'll be updating this page soon. I'll keep an eye out for news. The funny thing is, I used to despise her and think she was an example of everything that was phoney about Tv Evangelists. However, like many others, I have come to admire her as a survivor and a messenger of tolerance. LiPollis 03:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
It is very sad that Tammy is going to die, she was such a magical person and touched a lot of people's hearts, i hope she has a wonder life in heaven. Yoda317 01:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
This is so awful! Andrew Parodi 10:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)



CNN just confirmed that she died

Yes; the newsbreak went out around 2100 Saturday, 21-July. It attributes Larry King. --Baylink 01:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

So the mummy is dead.


Excuse me??? "The mummy is dead"??? What the hell is that??? I guess this is what happens when imbeciles with disregard of the loss of a human life get internet access. Grow up.

I have no sympathy for Evangelicals. But I won't voice any more opinions here.

Unsourced Material[edit]

I am really getting tired of coming on here and removing material that is not important, POV or unsourced. This is supposed to be an encyclopedic article, not a tribute page or a dumping ground for everyones personal agendas in article writing. Come on folks; lets put this thing in its right order and stop letting people run amuck here. I will continue to remove or place tags on everything at this poinnt that is not verified or sourced. Junebug52 16:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a timing policy concerning removing the BoLP noticebox?[edit]

After someone no longer is, that is? --Baylink 01:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

  • As soon as death is confirmed the tag should be updated to "living=no" as I have done. Doing so automatically changes the box from a "BLP" box to a general "Biography" box. 23skidoo 01:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Death[edit]

I see no verifiable source cited. 147.136.249.101 01:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Here you go: Tammy Faye Messner dies—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.86.223.94 (talkcontribs) 21:26, 21 July 2007.

The user above just showed the link I added a few minutes ago to her article under the section about her death.~HJ [talk]@½-01:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The subject is deceased. It is confirmed by her official website and CNN. Miranda 11:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Start classification[edit]

This article has been classified as a start due to its level of detail and organisation. Capitalistroadster 03:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

PTL Club and Scandal[edit]

The way this section currently reads, it sounds as though Jimmy did nothing wrong except have an affair. That is, it reads like an innocent man went to jail. Since that's not likely very accurate, the section needs a bit more work. Rklawton 14:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Jim and Tammy Faye - it's impossible to count the number of gullable people, these two have ripped off (with their PTL ministry). Regrettably, it's near impossible to find 'sources' so as to add this fact, to the article - Tammy's phoney crying and tears, during those PTL days. GoodDay 16:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, isn't there a list of charges upon which he was convicted and not later successfully appealed? Such a list would comprise a neutral statement of fact. Rklawton 17:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I was pointing to a more 'trivial' item, TF's phoney crying spells (when it was time, to raise money for PTL). GoodDay 17:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Tammy Fay in Popular Culture[edit]

I believe there is a reference to Tammy Fay in a Crowded House song: Chocolate Cake. Although, her name is spelled Tammy Fay Baker, with one k.24.82.162.174 17:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Article Name[edit]

This article was moved to its current title during 2004, apparently. All the news coverage of the lady's death suggests that she commonly used her last name. Although her first name has a certain iconic status, I believe her own preference indicates the article belongs at "Tammy Faye Messner", and I am so moving. Xoloz 18:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it should remain as is. What she would've wanted doesn't count. Before 'moving the page' seek a consensus here first. GoodDay 22:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The press is giving her name as Messner in every obituary I've seen. There's not much to seek consensus for. Gazpacho 23:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right. Besides, nobody has reversed the 'move' since (that in itself is a consensus). GoodDay 23:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget to fix the double-redirects next time you move an article.Jauerback 16:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Post-secondary education?[edit]

Here in Minnesota, some of our local news stations are reporting that Tammy Faye went to North Central Bible College in Minneapolis and some are reporting that she attended Northwestern Christian University in Saint Paul. Can anyone find citations either way? (sorry if I posted this incorrectly..I'm new!) Kollegekutie 00:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You posted it fine. :) The two are one in the same, the name had been changed from Bible College to University, or the other way around. I don't remember which. But, I do know they are the same schools. Hope that helps. - Jeeny Talk 06:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Citations needed?[edit]

The WHOLE page needs citations? I placed the tags in the only sections where it indicated cites were needed. And there is NO article of this length in the entirety of Wikipedia that has EVERY fact cited. Nor need there be. If you really mean what you say, then you are an absurdist, by definition. If that's not what you mean, then clarify exactly what needs citation and leave the rest alone. Unschool 06:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you do not start calling someone names to whom you do not know. Second, it is the goal of wikipedia to make sure that all parts of these articles are cited and sources and are valid. So, in conclusion, I would ask you to refrain from anymore bashing of another editor. If you do not have anything nice to say then keep it to yourself! Junebug52 01:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, name calling? What are you talking about? Secondly, while it may be the expressed goal of Wikipedia to have every single fact sourced, everyone reasonable editor understands that that will not only never take place, but that it is not necessary for it to take place. Any article of length with every single fact cited would be rendered unreadable by the footnotes, and it would be absurd to insist upon it. Regardless of the Wikipedia policy de jure, the de facto policy is that citations are called for when there is information with less than widely recognized veracity. To make the point at its most absurd level, if I were to append a footnote onto the article on George W. Bush to document that he is, in fact, the President of the United States, that footnote would be removed before I blinked, because—regardless of "policy"—we do NOT footnote every single thing. As such, I saw that there were several requests for citation on the Tammy Faye article, and I planted the tags near to them (did you notice that the tag reads, "Information in this article or section has not been verified"). My placement was totally appropriate, as someone had questioned the information in only those two sections. Now that is not to say that your placement was inappropriate; indeed, your position was totally reasonable—but so was mine. I am only on a rant right now because of your high and mighty posturing about the necessity of citing every single fact, which is (to intentionally, yet appropriately, overuse the word) simply absurd.Unschool 01:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
As absurd as they may seem on their face, the rules were put there for a reson. I never called you absurd or an "absurdist, by definition" That is taking a pop shot at another editor. It pains me to have to flag this article for facts. I am a historian of fact as well as a personal friend of the Messners. So, I would think that in the future you will take a little more gentile approach to your remarks. Will get a lot further with me. In conclusion, I will not back down from the sourcing on the facts. If they cannot be verified or sourced, then I will have no other choice but to go through and remove unsourced materials to make it more encyclopedic. I have already requested other senior editors to help me to accomplish this goal. Thank you for your input. Junebug52 04:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Sources absolutely need to be cited, or they can be removed. I know she in no longer living, but the article is under-sourced. Any article can have statements/claims removed if they are not sourced properly, especially those in the Biograghy Project. - Jeeny Talk 05:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I am having trouble believing this conversation. I have never once questioned the need for this article's citations to be improved. Not once. Indeed, I supported that belief by placing the tag in places where others more knowledgeable than me had indicated the need for supporting documentation. And Jeeny, of course non-sourced information can be removed from Wikipedia—have I ever said otherwise?

All I have done that has caused such offense to is to question Junebug's statement that the "whole page" needs sourcing. Now, upon reading that, I did not [and still do not] know if Junebug meant that literally. That's why I said "If you really mean what you say, then you are an absurdist." This was not name calling, because a) I literally meant it as a descriptive term, much as others use "inclusionist" and "deletionist", and also because b) I said "IF"! So the question is still out there: Do you, Junebug, literally believe that each and every statement of alleged fact in Wikipedia needs to be sourced? You have never directly answered that. Now in my brief time here (less than two years), I have never met anyone who literally believed that everything needs to be documented (did you follow my George W. Bush example? Did you read anything I said after my first post?). If you do believe that, then yes, I would consider that to be an absurdist position. The impossibility of even attempting to document each statement would be ridiculous, the strain on the servers would be unimaginable, and the sheer awkwardness of trying to read such an encyclopedia would be such that the project would cease to be of any interest to anyone.

All I did—even as I agreed with you on the need for documentation—was to ask you to let those of us who are not very knowledgeable on this subject have some guidance on what is and what is not reliable. As I said earlier, it was not wrong of you to tag the entire article; that's standard procedure around here. But wouldn't it be better to let us know of the specific weaknesses of which you are aware? That's all I was asking for.

Look, one of the shortcomings of communication via the internet is that you cannot see the person's face nor hear their voice; we are thus deprived of some of the important communication cues that we normally rely on. I can see how my words came across as brash, or even worse. While I do generally engage in a very frank form of dialogue, it is rarely (though I cannot say 'never') my intent to rub others the wrong way. It was not my intent here. I must now admit that it was probably not your intent to strike a haughty air with your edit summary reverting my tag placement, though that's how I took it at the time. Perhaps, if this has struck you, as it appears, as a personal loss, then perhaps that has exacerbated the irritation brought on by my comments. In any event, I apologize for unintentionally causing such rancor. I will leave this article alone and trust you and others to make the best of it that you can. Best wishes. Unschool 04:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Unschool, I appreciate you position. I have had to learn sourcing the hard way myself. There are reasons that we have to make sure that these things are sourced the way they are. In the event we are editing an article for a biography of a living person, we have to be very careful because of wiki lawyering. The article subjects can and do at times take actions againsteditors who do not source materials written about them. I have worked on several project already that we have had to completely tear apart and start from scratch due to things not being sourced or unsourcable. I am also sorry if you took my tone as anything but a dedicated editor to this article. Sometimes we become very impassioned about these things. I do not wish to see you leave the article. All I ask is that we work together to find as much sourcing and citing as possible. Thank you for your contribution. As for the tags and what I deemed to be tagable. Well, there are some statements in the beginning as well as unsourced materials all the way through the article. I placed the tag at the top to encourage editors to go through from top to bottom and find sources. I have placed citation tags in various parts of the article but got so tired of doing it I just tagged the whole thing. Seemed easier and more comprehensive. Junebug52 04:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

O&A[edit]

When was the O&A done? I listened on friday and didn't hear anything about this.The Cleveland Browns are awesome! 16:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Larry King Interview[edit]

The date on the Tammy Faye page is incorrect. The date of her final interview is July 18, 2007.

Sources[edit]

Since we have an article in search of sources, I'm collecting a few. I'm noticing several pieces that can be sourced with these three, and, unless somebody beats me to it (feel free, though!), I'll try to work them in shortly. Here they are for now:

Take care,   j    talk   03:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Back in the public eye[edit]

{{editprotected}} Would somebody please correct the second pronoun in the first sentence of the "Back in the public eye" section? "As her second husband was jailed and he was first diagnosed with colon cancer..." SHE was diagnosed, not him. 24.4.253.249 05:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images[edit]

Please read up on WP:FUC. We can not use fair use images willy nilly to illustrate this article. Such images can only be used to illustrate articles or sections about the book, DVD, TV show, etc. Simply mentioning a book in a section does not qualify. Rklawton 13:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

removed paragraph[edit]

Removed this as unencyclopedic, full of charged language, religious pov:

"She made a plea for all people to grant themselves permission to cast off the things that are holding them back, to forgive themselves and others, to be happy with themselves whoever they are, to persevere in the face of opposition, and to show each other unconditional love. Her speech moved the four roommates who were present (Jeremy stayed home) to tears; Bingham later confessed that it had been a life-altering moment for her."

Someone who knows the event in question should rephrase it and put it back. (Check context before and after.) Aratuk 06:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The Surreal Life[edit]

In this section, the article names five people who shared a house with Tammy Faye Messner. Further, that section says "...she forged close bonds with all of the other six house mates ..." -- so who is the other house mate? —Mmathu (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Craptastic[edit]

I didn't make it far into the article because I couldn't find a link for the word "and". Every other word seemed to need a link to another article..

"particularly mascara and false eyelashes—and for her eyebrows, which were tattooed on.[1] "

Holy crap. Does it really need to link off for all of those? This isn't an article about a person this is a Wiki table of contents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.6.18 (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

as in legal documents ...[edit]

For more gender equality, as she is independently notable, should not "Tammy Faye" be referred to as Bakker or Messner (as appropriate), v. "Tammy" when her spouses are cited as Bakker and Messner ? rkmlai (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The Eyes of Tammy Faye[edit]

Is available on Hulu (http://www.hulu.com/watch/232459/the-eyes-of-tammy-faye). Should this be included in the main article? 98.199.232.32 (talk) 09:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


Who hijacked this article?[edit]

This article is missing valuable content that was here years ago. It has shrunk, and specific content has been removed. We need someone to go in here and do the sufficient research, and compile a comprehensive bio on her life and who she was. This article looks like a mess to me right now. I don't know what happened here. Adrade (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced material[edit]

There is a good deal of material on this page without sources - ironically, the entire section on PTL, on which Mrs. Messner became famous. Although she is dead, I suggest the article should still be written similar to BLP, with the care taken with biographies of living persons. There must be some reliable sources for the PTL section. Otherwise, the section should be trimmed or - unfortunately - deleted.Purplethree (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)