Talk:Rick Warren/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Mediation

In the past, a user has requested mediation on this issue. The dispute was resolved by Firestorm ^Talk 16:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC). For more information, see the case page.

Warren, invocation, views on homosexuality

Rick Warren was chosen by US President Barack Obama for his inaugural invocation. This created controversy. Currently, the article mentions the existence of a controversy without describing why. There's a proposed text to be added into the article which will explain that. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC) (via posting script) 03:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Text, a new sub section called Invocation Controversy

Obama's choosing Warren for the inaugural invocation was criticized by prominent liberal groups and gay rights proponents. People for the American Way President Kathryn Kolbert told she was "deeply disappointed" "There is no substantive difference between Rick Warren and James Dobson," Kolbert said. "The only difference is tone. His tone is moderate, but his ideas are radical." In her statement, she said that Warren "has recently compared marriage by loving and committed same-sex couples to incest and pedophilia." , as also noted by others, based on Warren's December 2008 Beliefnet interview . Warren later released a video message to his church that he opposes redefining marriage and does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia. At the same time, Warren's church replaced an article on their website about the Bible and homosexuality that included [gays] "unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted" as members with a message that explained the church's view that Scripture prohibits sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman. Warren also publicly supported California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.", which eliminated the legal right of same-sex couples to marry. Obama's choice was also criticized because of Warren's stance on abortion.

Obama later defended his selection saying that he disagrees with the minister's opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage but that there should be room for "dialogue" on such difficult social issues. On Jan. 20, 2009, Warren, who faced criticism for his anti-gay views in the weeks leading up to the inauguration, delivered an inclusive but deeply religious invocation that celebrated the first African-American US president.

(End of proposed text)

Discussion

See Previous discussion on almost identical proposal: [4]--Lyonscc (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this basically a rehash of the same comments that were earlier deemed non-NPOV and rejected? Manutdglory (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This seems almost identical text to proposition previously rejected. See discussion here:[5] Lots of WP:NOR, WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NPOV issues all around.--Lyonscc (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Briefly explain issues regarding those policies. Throwing policy links isnt enough. For example, all statements are reliably sourced so it seems like you do not understand WP:NOR and WP:V Phoenix of9 (talk) 04:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to rehash every bit of the previous discussion (to which I provided a link, since it seems to have been prematurely archived). First, there is a good deal of inference in the first section, which (as noted) Warren refuted. So, per the entire previous discussion [6], and WP:BLP, this doesn't belong. The length of the section has as many problems as the other proposal above, including (but not limited to) wp:undue weight being given to a non-notable position that Warren is not outspoken about (and, rather, is often criticized by conservative Christians for being "too soft" on). The Saddleback website cite was not a quote from Warren, so it doesn't belong, either, and the following sentence infers that the change to the Saddleback website was in response to the Inaugural invitation, which is a violation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. The Ssempa thing is rather fringe and not notable. In short, the suggested addition is completely a mess, solely for the purpose of advancing an agenda.--Lyonscc (talk) 04:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You contradict yourself in your own paragraph. How can his positions be simultaneously "non-notable" and yet completely apparent to you to the extent that you can actually comment on the finer points ('criticized by conservative Christians for being "too soft" on'). You are pointing out that his positions are sufficiently notable to be publicly criticized. Do you not see how that deflates the very basis of your own arguments? I'm getting so fed up with having to fight these uphill battles with you over and over, especially when you ironically accuse people of SOAPBOX during the very same paragraph in which you defend your apologist stance. Teledildonix314 ^talk 06:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Creating a new section to continue an issue already being discussed/decided on is, as stated, a rehash. Warren's stance on homosexuality is controversial only in the sense that nobody can seem to agree where exactly he is. Without solid full text of interviews or actual attributable statements any items included on this page should be considered POV and undue criticism.Chrishpaytas (talk) 08:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)ChrishpaytasChrishpaytas (talk) 08:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

— Chrishpaytas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dayewalker (talk) 08:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

My reply to this discussion also addresses the other discussions above, in general:

This encyclopedia article about Rick Warren, although seemingly inflated to give undue weight to his supposed professional notability (which might cause me to think it's puffery) has told us one consistent fact:

• • • Rick Warren has made a career from presenting his viewpoints and selling his ideas. He sells books and fills a megachurch on the premise that his viewpoints and ideas and preaching are somehow worth buying. And yet, each time an editor of this article has attempted to mention the citations which explain *WHY* his viewpoints earn infamy and *WHY* the name of his church is ridiculed due to the notoriety of Warren's viewpoints on some topics, these editors are thwarted.

So, what gives? Why can't we have an article which explains why so many mainstream media outlets and news reporting agencies see fit to devote airtime and column inches to the controversies about Warren's viewpoints and about Warren's career of selling his viewpoints? This seems like a fair thing to expect in an encyclopedia article about this type of person, so i would like to know why it's being 'sanitized' so thoroughly? Why can't we show the readers why he is notable for something like 'saddlebacking' or 'equating abortion with the holocaust' etc etc? Why can't we show the readers the explanations for all of the media attention and all of the notable controversy which stems directly from Warren's 'profession' as a peddler of his ideas and viewpoints? Could we answer this objectively, for the sake of writing a *real* article instead of just a puff-piece or a harsh hatchet-job? Honestly, it doesn't seem like it should engender so much contention when you think of how to summarize these topics. And i'm starting to feel like anything i try to do further is just going to look like trying to 'own the article', so i am hoping somebody else will alleviate my frustration here by giving some simple honest objective suggestions for how to outline the issue of Warren's biography without promoting a personal viewpoint? Teledildonix314 ^talk 10:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose POV. Use of weasel words galore "He claims ... However" as a construct is a splendid example of construction meant to imply facts which ain't facts. Warren's position on thses issues is totally unremarkable, and not valid for a BLP. Some of the sources are intrinsically biased, which means they should be assigned weight only if their biases are noted. And we have already discussed this in the recent past, making the iteration of the same stuff non-utile. Collect (talk) 11:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment You are only right about "however", which I removed. The rest are what the reliable sources say. I put "claim" to be NPOV. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Any suggestion that has been made in regards to Warren and his statements on Homosexuality is conjecture and assumption at best. At worst it is intentionally malicious. I would be amenable to full quotes, not proof texted and from reputable sources. Blogs, Opinion pieces, and editorials are subjective and carry no weight in regards to validity. 'Saddlebacking' should not be included for any reason into this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishpaytas (talk • contribs) 11:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

— Chrishpaytas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dayewalker (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I totally agree with Lyonscc, Collect Chrishpaytas. Also, for the record, there is no verifiable citation linking Warren to Ssempa. Again, his actions are his actions, not Warrens and trying to link the two is simply malicious. CarverM (talk) 12:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, before you hang yourself, you might want to go google "Ssempa Rick Warren" and see what comes up. Spotfixer (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have. All the articles make inference and try and connect Warren to Ssempa's actions. There is simply nothing there except for some attempting to link Ssempa and Warren speaking together at an HIV/AIDS conference and him knowing Warren to Warren directing or supporting Ssempa's actions. This is simply not verifiable. All sources are essentially blogs and opinion pieces written with obvious negative intent. CarverM (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I see a lot of people who don't want Warren's views mentioned, but no credible basis for this. This is not a violation of any of the many acronyms being thrown around here. If we need an RfC to fix this, so be it. Spotfixer (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support this a major omission - all reliable sources have mentioned this, thiis is the notable controversy around Warren - an all sources in the edit are reliable sources. I do not not understand the opposition to inclusion from any policy-based point of view. Verifiability not truth. That said, --Cerejota (talk) 07:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support I think the text is now NPOV and I agree that this is notable. Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - even after changes - As a frequent editor of pages on religious figures, two primary tests for notability for inclusion are a) theological/social positions that deviate from the norm of their theological tradition/denomination; and b) overt outspokenness on a specific topic. In this particular case, Warren's position on abortion and homosexuality are a) Not in deviation from the states position of the Southern Baptist Convention, to which his church belongs; and b) he, for years, has been heavily criticized in conservative Christian circles for NOT being outspoken on abortion and homosexuality, and for only belatedly (and only in an announcement aimed at his church, not a press release) endorsing Prop 8 [7]-

When other conservative Christians held stadium rallies and raised tens of millions of dollars for the ballot effort, there was no sign of Warren. Neither he nor his wife, Kay, donated any of their considerable fortune to the campaign, according to public records and the Warrens' spokesman.

In fact, his endorsement seemed calculated for minimal impact. It was announced late on a Friday, just 10 days before Election Day, on a Web site geared for members of his Saddleback Community Church, not the general public.

. Answering questions from reporters on a subject does not make one "outspoken", and Warren is anything but outspoken on this issue. This directly contradicts the first sentence of the proposed addition, and renders the further discussion on his support (or his church's website positions in support) of pro-life and pro-family causes moot, per WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, and WP:V. Additionally, it's pretty obvious that the addition of this paragraph is an attempt to coatrack a topic beyond that of the nominal subject of the article. Besides this, see the recently archived discussion on the proof-texted comment that supposedly equates gay marriage with pedophilia, etc. In order to get the full context and avoid violating WP:NPOV, much more of the interview would need to be included. Additionally, having a "one group though X said Y, but Y says that he didn't" inserted into this (or any biography) is classic coatracking and insertion of a straw man fallacy (in addition to being a violation of WP:NOR). As for WP:V, a number of the linked sources are from blogs/self-published media, which are completely inappropriate for a BLP. From WP:BLP:

Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP)

In this case, the primary source of every cited article is the Rick Warren beliefnet interview, and - as proven by the context of the interview as a whole, and more importantly, by Warren't post-interview clarification - the chosen interpretation above would be a "conjectural interpretation" of the original source. This section doesn't belong in this article in the same way that a hyper-Calvinist's rant that Warren isn't a 5-point Calvinist doesn't belong (SBC is Calvinist, but not hyper-, Warren isn't outspoken on Calvinism).--Lyonscc (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This is long-winded, repetitive and deeply unpersuasive. You addressed none of the issues raised and instead showed that you were seeing things from such a deeply partisan POV that you can't even recognize the fact that his statements have been controversial to people who are not as religiously conservative as yourself. Essentially, this boils down to nothing more than "I don't want him to look bad, so let's censor the article". No. Spotfixer (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"conjectural interpretation of a source". Can you not read? We are saying what New York Times, ABC News and the San Francisco Chronicle say. And primary sources? "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources". First paragraph of your response is completely irrelevant, "As a frequent editor of pages on religious figures", your views are completely irrelevant, what is relevant is Wiki policies. There is no such wiki policy for "two primary tests for notability for inclusion are a) theological/social positions that deviate from the norm of their theological tradition/denomination; and b) overt outspokenness on a specific topic." Do not make up policies. Wikipedia is not your soapbox. What you think about Warrens outspokenness is also irrelevant. I think he is very outspoken and I dont care what even more fundy xtians think. But my view is also irrelevant. What is relevant is what the reliable source say. Your personal opinions can not invalidate sources. Oh and Warrens denomination is Evangelical which may mean Lutheran (Evangelical's page) and Lutheran's in nordic countries are light years different from likes of Warren. Again, Wikipedia is not your soapbox! You are making it very hard for some of us to assume good faith. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a brief lesson in religion - "Evangelical" is not a denomination, but a very broad classification, under which there are a number of denominations. If you read the Saddleback Church wiki page, you will note that Saddleback is Southern Baptist Convention - a VAST difference from Lutheran, Methodist, and other "Evangelical" denominations. Warren's denomination would expel him if he was pro-abortion or taught that homosexual practice (or cheating on your taxes or cheating on your wife) was not a sin. Thus it is entirely not notable that his church's website states pro-life and pro-heterosexual religious positions. I agree that wikipedia is not my soapbox, but perhaps you ought to look in the mirror and look at your edit histories (Ex, Spotfixer reverting formatting changes and removal of dead links on the Emerging Church page because they were recently edited by me, charging that it was "whitewashing", when I'm pretty sure he hasn't clue #1 about the emerging/emergent church, since a number of emergent churches are considered to be "gay-friendly"...)

As the source in my previous note pointed out[8], the only real notability about Warren's stance on Prop 8, abortion and homosexual practice is that he is criticized for NOT being outspoken on these topics. Documented by a WP:Verifiable source. If you had followed this page for the last several years, you would note that many/most of Warren's critics are upset that he's not a pro-life or anti-homosexual activist, and that he doesn't support the Republican party, and that he has chosen to focus on fighting AIDS/HIV, and has partnered with non-Christians to combat this disease, poverty, illiteracy, etc., and that he's concerned about Anthropomorphic Global Warming, etc., etc. As a rule, I would also note, Lutherans are also considered to be Reformed churches, and would not claim Warren in 100 years, because his theology (in their book) is all wrong. He's Southern Baptist, not Lutheran.

Again, I would note that the sources provided are ANALYSIS and CHARACTERIZATION of the same Warren quote from the beliefnet interview. All of them. Warren has stated that these are mischaracterizations and were taken out of context. He provided the correct context, which the transcript bears out. Therefore, these are questionable sources, because they are providing opinion, not fact. We have the quote. We know what he said. He didn't say "homosexuality is equivalent to incest, polygamy and pedophilia". So no matter how many reporters you find who say that he believes this, the quote proves them wrong, and the follow-up proves that they are engaged in conjecture, not hard news.

Also, I would note that I am not trying to double-vote here (since this really isn't "voting" per-se"), but rather responding to the various changes that have been suggested since my initial opposition. Let's drop the threats on my talk page, OK?--Lyonscc (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's your personal irrelevant opinion that those are questionable sources. And he said "yes I do" to the question, "do you think those are equivalent". He could have said No, I dont and then explained it better. And even then he had the chance to do revisions. There are lots of Warren's revisions in the interview but he didnt clarify the comparison comments until after the invocation announcement. So he did make a certain comparison as verified by reliable sources.

But I'm wondering if there's any point in discussing with you since you wont even accept that this whole thing is notable despite many news sources, some of them in german (ie: international attention). To claim that the invocation controversy is not notable is simply delusional. And to claim that the current wording of the article accurately explains that controversy is highly POV. And as I said, if you believe that the wording is not from NPOV, you can make certain additions like "he is criticized for NOT being outspoken on these topics". Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Although i don't feel this wording is actually sufficiently neutral (it's unfairly generous toward Warren) because it does far too much pussyfooting around the contentious points DESPITE a plethora of reliable sources from which to draw quotations and summaries.... nevertheless, this wording is far less objectionable than the puffery which dominates the rest of the article, so i feel at the very least we should Support this block of text, and i would hope the other sections of the article can also be modified in the future to more accurately fit the criteria of an encyclopedia rather than a feel-good bit of fluff which only served to laud Warren and tried make him sound fabulous. The NPOV is almost completely lacking from the other sections of his biography, and i feel that the proposed wording of this section should be Supported, and i hope we can alter the other sections in the future so they more appropriately reflect this type of editing. Teledildonix314 ^talk 23:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose There is not a plethora of reliable sources as you say. There are many opinions and one article. Again I would not oppose if full quotes, completely sourced articles, and non POV pieces were used. What has been characterized as 'pussyfooting' and 'puff' is actually a call for scholarship and objectivity which is Wiki standard for bio's. Not certain why all the push to add/scrub info that is factual? Chrishpaytas —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC).
• Oppose The wording is not nuetral. Rick Warren was picked by Obama for unifying reasons. The proposed wording seems to be intended to make controversey. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per Lyonscc. To those on the far left, Warren is indistinguishable from Jerry Fallwell. Except for being dead, that is. The proposed text, as it reads now, could probably be equally applied to any other reasonably conservative/evangelical Christian leader. There's probably something additional that can be said on the matter, but this doesn't look like it--this looks WP:UNDUE to me. Jclemens (talk) 04:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Currently there are 7 opposing (including an administrator and not including myself) and 4 supporting the changes. Once again, attempts to make non-NPOV, whole-scale changes to the article have completely failed, with the opposing side yet to even register a simple majority in consensus. I hope those with an agenda against Warren who wish to radically alter the article now realize that it has become obvious that truly objective and moderate editors have flocked to the article in the last week and are now watching and protecting it and will no longer allow those with an agenda to make this article non-NPOV. Manutdglory (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• meta-comment - I have no opinion as to this dispute or whether consensus exists, but just wanted to remind everyone (in reaction to Manutdglory's comment above and elsewhere) that consensus is not a vote, and that the opinions of an administrator in a content dispute doesn't have any more strength or value compared to non-admins. Please keep these points in mind. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'd really like this article to be truly objective actually. Thats why I've opened a RFC and posted this in NPOV Noticeboard. Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"Truly objective" - sure. Manutdglory (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Your conflict of interest regarding this article has been noted. Since you seem to enjoy throwing rocks around in that glass house of yours, I'll note it again. Mike Doughney (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

For one, I'm not trying to change the article and didn't even count my opposition to the proposal. Secondly, and most importantly, I've never let my bias affect my edits nor have I made a single non-NPOV or inappropriately-sourced edit to this article, unlike others have done. There's obviously a massive difference. Manutdglory (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per Lyonscc. The proposed text refers to Warren as being "outspoken" on the issue of homosexuality. That isn't accurate. He's given his opinion on the topic when asked, but he has not been an anti-gay crusader by any stretch of the imagination. The fact that the left has found his adherence to the traditional Christian position on homosexuality controversial may be noteworthy and warrant inclusion in the article, but there is nothing about Warren's career, considered on its own terms, that renders his opinions about homosexuality particularly noteworthy. Adam_sk (talk)

When you say he has not been an anti-gay crusader by any stretch of the imagination, should i use the part of my imagination where i fantasized about Warren working so hard to pass Prop 8? Or should i keep imagining the situation where Warren equated marriage equality with incest and pedophilia? Or should i just daydream about all the wonderful things Warren accomplished for the benefit and safety of gay people who were outed and harassed by Warren's religious friends and "professional colleagues" in Africa? Maybe i should just imagine all the great things Warren has done to help encourage the acceleration of the HIV infection rate in Africa with his unscientific fantasy-based religious Abstinence emphasis, because that certainly wouldn't be any kind of anti-gay crusade? Yeah, that last part, that's the part where i strrrrretch my imagination to pretend Rick Warren is helping gay people everywhere. Unfortunately, that's also the part where i am reminded of the Notable and Reliably Sourced aspects of this discussion which mentioned Saddlebacking, but apologists don't want us to mention that anywhere in this article, either.

But this is all irrelevant. The question isn't whether Warren is an anti-gay crusader or some kind of hyperbole like that. The question is whether we can include relevant and notable facts in this article which have been cited from reliable sources. When you summarily declare the left [sic] has found his adherence to the traditional Christian position on homosexuality controversial this presents three problems. First, this kind of overgeneralization is not at all what is being proposed in the text above. Second, if you think there is a single unchanging traditional Christian position on homosexuality, you've either been sadly misinformed or deliberately lied to, or your education might have been successfully whitewashed by heterosexist propagandists, which amounts to the same thing... but that's entirely off-topic. Third, and really the only important problem here, is: does your vote reflect an opinion that the proposed wording might simply sound critical of Warren and cause his biography to be less than totally flattering? Or does your vote reflect an opinion that the wording is non-neutral? Because if the answer is "simply sounds critical" then that's not a fair basis for determining inclusion; but if your answer is "the wording is non-neutral", then the solution is to offer us some alternative wordings. Please, if you have the time and inclination, do give us your version of a better Neutral wording, and i'm sure many editors would be happy to support it, if it's truly Neutral. That's all we really need here, right? Thanks. Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _{contributions} 20:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

When you say should i use the part of my imagination where i fantasized about Warren working so hard to pass Prop 8, my answer would be "yes", because you must have fantasized this. In the months leading up to the election, he was being criticized by a number of conservative and church groups for not publicly backing Prop 8. His only "working so hard" was a simple statement posted on his church's web-page, directed at Saddleback Members - not a press release. And yes, apparently you do keep imagining that he equated gay marriage with incest and pedophilia. He did no such thing, and the full quote bears this out - he equated changing marriage to mean somthing else than "1 man-1 woman" would open the gates to further redefining marriage. Additionally, I would note that stressing Abstinence is not the equivalent of pushing an anti-gay agenda. There is a "traditional Christian position on homosexuality", with only recent developments of a handful of denominations veering from this. Writings of the early church fathers [9] go even further in ruling against the incompatibility of a homosexual lifestyle and Christianity. Additionally, the Southern Baptist Convention, Warren's denomination, supports the view that homosexual practice is sinful, and his position is completely unremarkable (aside from his being LESS strident than most) within his faith. How about just letting the guy vote?--Lyonscc (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Teledildonix314: Look, this is obviously a topic you care passionately about. I don't really care that much: I was just responding to a Request for Comment. But that said, I stand by my comment. I'm not a Rick Warren expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I don't think Teledildonix314 or any of the other posters on this topic have shown that Warren is "outspoken" against gay marriage. If you have evidence of that, please present it. I'm just basing my opinion on the cited Beliefnet article, and from that, it looks to me like this wasn't a topic that Warren brought up or was particularly eager to talk about and that, when pressed, he presented the historic Christian position on homosexuality in about as PC a way as you can without denying the historic Christian position on homosexuality.

As for Teledildonix314's comment: "if you think there is a single unchanging traditional Christian position on homosexuality, you've either been sadly misinformed or deliberately lied to, or your education might have been successfully whitewashed by heterosexist propagandists, which amounts to the same thing": Well, I'm happy to happy to swap credentials on this topic: I was an undergrad history major and then did three years in grad school in History at Brown University, an institution which I don't think one can credibly claim is filled with "heterosexist [sic] propagandists". I specialized in the period 1500-1800, but I consider myself broadly familiar with the major general works of both Christian history and of queer history. Beyond which, I have several gay friends who are professional historians. And given that background, yes, I feel totally confident in saying that there is a single, unchanging "traditional Christian position on homosexuality". I've never seen a work by a reputable scholar that asserts otherwise.

To Teledildonix314's question: "does your vote reflect an opinion that the proposed wording might simply sound critical of Warren and cause his biography to be less than totally flattering? Or does your vote reflect an opinion that the wording is non-neutral?" The answer is neither. I think that, based on what I've seen, the proposed wording is 1) inaccurate (or at least not adequately sourced); and 2) includes information that is not noteworthy (an SBC pastor doesn't approve of homosexuality? yeah, none of them do - that's not notable or newsworthy in any way). I'm going to decline Teledildonix314's invitation to provide language for the article because, as I said, I'm not an expert on Warren and I don't really think that's my place - I'm just responding to an RFC. Though, as I mentioned previously, I do think the fact that the left (or, to avoid a "[sic]" from Teledidonix314, it's probably more proper to say the gay rights movement) took particular offense to Warren's adherence to traditional Christianity is notable. That definitely happened, it was in the news, so it should be included in the article.

Adam_sk (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Why did you use [sic] after heterosexist? There is such a term, see: Heterosexism. I do not understand your claim about inadequate sources, there are other sources than belifnet article, can you not see? As for Warren being outspoken or not, noone has to show anything. The only thing that matters is that there should be a reliable source which says so, and there is. Make yourself familiar with wiki policies.

And while there may be a "traditional Christian position on homosexuality", the difference is, in most modern Western countries, people like Warren would prolly not be invited to such high profile government events. That is what is noteworthy. Plus most Wiki users would be unfamiliar with SBC or whatever local US denomination. Phoenix of9 (talk) 06:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"Why did you use [sic] after heterosexist?" I actually was thinking that the proper term was "hetrosexual" and "hetrosexist". Guess I should have looked that up - my bad.

As for what what happens "in most modern Western countries" - who cares?? This is an article about an American clearly within the American mainstream. Not Noteworthy, but for the left and the gay rights movement making a stink about him: which is something I think the article ought to include, it just shouldn't misrepresent Warren as being "outspoken" on an issue when he clearly isn't.

Adam_sk (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This isnt Wikipedia American or Wikipedia US. Criticism of Warren saw international news coverage. The article on Robert Mugabe also has international sources and certain things arent ommitted there just because Robert Mugabe is a Zimbabwean clearly within the Zimbabwean mainstream. Please make arguments/statements that make sense. Phoenix of9 (talk) 06:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

support proposed paragraph with any changes to sources to make sure they meet wiki policy. any person outside of california looking up warren would most likely be searching for him precisely because of the controversy caused by his selection to give the invocation at obama's inauguration ceremony. as the article stands now, both the lead and the article mention the existence of a controversy without describing what was controversial about it. this is important information. untwirl (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I have changed the proposed text. Now, the argument that what Warren has said is not notable because it doesnt deviate from his denomination is N/A. The proposed text now explains the invocation controversy, a highly notable event with large media covarage. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: This is just more of the same undue weight issue previously discussed over and over and over and over again. Warren's been notable for year, and the invocation was a blip on the radar that's already well-enough covered in the article. Adding a section like this creates both undue weight and a coatracking issue. Who cares what ultra-leftist figures and groups (like PAW, etc.) have to say on the issue? This is a BLP, not an article on the Inauguration of Obama. If you want to put this somewhere, try to shoehorn it in there and see if the editors of that page deem it relevant and notable. It's certainly no more notable than the space already used up describing it. Additionally, it uses wording on the Prop 8 issue that's already been shot down. It also brings back in WP:NOR/WP:NPOV allegations mischaracterizing the belifnet interview that was repeatedly rejected before the first locking of this article. This is a WP:BLP, and the proposed paragraph is tangential and slanted, at best.--Lyonscc (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Theres no undue weight issue since many people learned about Warren during the invocation controversy. It was a highly notable event, as seen by the sheer number of news articles [10]. Dont cite policies such as WP:COAT, WP:NOR/WP:NPOV, which you do not understand. PAW is notable cause their criticism was in the CNN article, a RS. Again, dont clog these discussion pages with your irrelevant opinions (eg: 'Who cares what ultra-leftist figures and groups (like PAW, etc.) have to say on the issue') Stick to content and relevant wiki policies. Phoenix of9 (talk) 04:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Failure to include mention of the most notable events in Warren's entire career to date are seen (by me) as whitewashing at best, and disturbingly censored at worst. There's no CoatRack here by virtue of the simple fact that the Civil Forum on the Presidency and the Presidential Inauguration were the most highly publicized official events in Warren's career as a professional superstition-monger, and the protests against Warren's involvement in Californian and American politics were the most highly publicized unofficial events in Warren's career as a pedagogue. Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 04:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least admitting you've got an axe to grind makes things easier to discern, though I wonder why you take issue with Warren being a teacher (Pedagogue NOUN: 1. A schoolteacher; an educator; 2. One who instructs in a pedantic or dogmatic manner.) Actually, Warren has received far more notability around The Purpose Driven Life and his work in Africa, even if the first time you heard of him was when he happened to fall athwart a radical gay agenda. Quoting PAW and other moonbats, even if mentioned in a RS, doesn't make them - or their half-baked opinions - notable.--Lyonscc (talk) 04:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Each time you comment on me (editor) rather than edits, you are being inappropriate. I don't even know what PAW is, i had to look it up. And each time you mention "radical gay agenda", you are actually treading on thin ice with regards to wikietiquette. Personally i consider whitewashing and censorship to be a radical ultra-conformist agenda, but i am not going to sit here and comment on you, the person and editor, i'm going to look at your specific edits and examine them for neutrality. Can i ask for the same in return, please? That would be far more polite than having to endure rude accusations of a "radical agenda". Thanks Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 05:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

My apologies if you thought "radical gay agenda" was referring to you - the sources cited in many of the revisions and suggestions were mischaracterizations from publications and/or authors with a radical gay agenda. Whether that is your agena or not is not the object, but rather the sources which seemed to have bring the "spin" you've been pushing have that as their background. As the same time, you do make your own agenda clear when you refer to the subject of the article as a "professional superstition-monger" and "pedagogue" (the meaning of which I think you were hoping for was not the actual meaning).--Lyonscc (talk) 05:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Which publications and/or authors? Phoenix of9 (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Umm, if you please, Lyonscc, do note that i avoided using profanities to refer to the superstition-monger. I use terms such as "superstition-monger" and supernaturalism and superstition and so forth because they are objective terms which help me to avoid using more abusive language. They are intended to illuminate the thing which you seem to wish were glossed over, the fact that Warren's career is predicated on gobbledygook (look it up in the dictionary) and charlatanism (look that up too) and reference to nonsensical non-existent things such as heaven, hell, deity, etc. Due to the general concensus that such viewpoints are nevertheless notable despite their disconnection from reality, the wikipedia is full of articles about people such as Warren and their various flavors of fantasy, scapegoating, and other aspects of their cult nonsense. As much as i dislike such craziness, i don't try to censor it, and i don't waste time accusing the editors of having a radical agenda of one sort or another (although i could quite reasonably argue that insistence upon respect for ideas which are blatantly nonsensical and unscientific and superstitious is a very very radical kind of agenda!) Thanks Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 05:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of California Proposition 8

A brief explanation of California Proposition 8 appears in the final paragraph of the article before the Bibliography. When I first encountered the reference, it said that Prop 8 "amended the state constitution to ban same-sex marriages," which omits an essential fact. Thirty states ban same-sex marriage; Prop 8 is unique for having rescinded it. Readers aware of that fact may better understand why Warren's support for Prop 8 was the subject of protests, and why Obama's choice of Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation was controversial.

I edited the reference to say that Prop 8 "amended the state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry," thereby supplying the missing fact while implicitly making the former point that Prop 8 bans same-sex marriages. I chose that specific language because it conforms to the official ballot title of Prop 8 ("Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry"), as I noted for the history page when I made the edit. Subsequently, user CarverM overwrote my edit with the explanation "changed Proposition 8 reference to NPOV."

CarverM changed the line to say that Prop 8 "amended the state constitution to read, 'Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.'" Though this statement is true, it seems more obtuse -- and not substantively more informative -- than the succinct "amended the state constitution to ban same-sex marriages," which was the description prior to my edit. More importantly, it does not use more neutral language to indicate that Prop 8 eliminated a right; instead, it expunges the fact altogether.

I believe readers would be better served if we include the (verifiable) fact that Prop 8 eliminated, rescinded, revoked (whatever) a right. I propose that we undo CarverM's edit and restore the explanation that Prop 8 "amended the state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry."

CarverM, I'd be glad to have your support for this, or a fuller explanation of why you think my wording is biased and why the fact itself should be excluded.

Other users, I hope to know whether you believe my wording is NPOV and whether you believe the fact is relevant to the article. Thanks. Benccc (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that you are truly unbiased and have no agenda. The very fact that you actually took the time to make a proposal over such a trivial matter makes your motives questionable. What I mean is that someone who is truly moderate and unbiased would have absolutely no problem with the current wording. Your statement that the proposition rescinded "the right" to marry in California is already highly non-NPOV, when what actually occurred was that California voters had already overwhelmingly opposed gay marriage in 2004, only to have the voice of the people struck-down by the radical-leftist California Supreme Court. Prop 8 merely restored the voice of the majority, which is what is supposed to happen in a democracy. Manutdglory (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Proposition 8 "eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry" is not POV; it was a finding both of the Attorney General of California and the state Supreme Court, that's why it was the ballot title of the measure. Wingnutglory's Manutdglory's admitted conflict of interest with respect to the subject of this article is again noted. Mike Doughney (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Careful Mike, that could be interpreted as the dreaded offense you refer to as "name-calling." Manutdglory (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Trotting a known falsehood out here to smear someone attempting to contribute to this article just might be indicative of your admitted "conflict of interest" with respect to the thuggish slimy weasel that's the subject of this article. Mike Doughney (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Mike & Manut, please refrain from personal attacks. And Manut, your analysis above regarding something being "struck-down by the radical-leftist California Supreme Court" betrays a bias in this content dispute. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but this is not a mere matter of Manutdglory's bias. If this were about his clear dislike or resentment of California Supreme Court decisions, that would be bias. This instead appears to me that he is insisting that a number of verifiable, well-documented facts - here, the Prop 8 ballot title wording, the history of how that title came to be, and the history of the law that established the right to marry in California - must be excluded from the article or even from discussion here. That is not bias, it is something more than bias. I'd call it a phobia. Mike Doughney (talk) 06:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

(OD)Manu already has both an admitted bias and a clear conflict of interest in this matter, and yet persists in trying to smear other editors as the ones who are trying to use their own POV in the article. Dayewalker (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that's because they clearly are. The ball swings both ways. And I'm not the one who is attempting to change the article. Manutdglory (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

As one of the editors that worked on the previous wording of the Prop 8 reference, the current wording was decided upon, as it was taken directly from the language on the ballot proposition, and (for those wanting further information) wikilinked to the Prop 8 page. This is about as NPOV as you can get. To go further in explaining it ventures into coatracking territory (since this is an article about Rick Warren, not Prop 8) and (if taken too much farther) WP:NOR, and the quoted text from the proposition provides the political context of the ballot proposition, which is all that is needed for an article on Rick Warren. As for Manutdglory's alleged COI, I would think that anyone directly impacted by Prop 8 would also have a COI, as well. Acknowledging one's bias is not equivalent to invalidating their opinion (and yes, this swings both directions). And FWIW, I've never been to Saddleback, never heard Rick Warren speak (other than on News/YouTube), and I don't belong to his religious denomination, nor do I have a vested interest in Prop 8 (or similar propositions) passing/failing in other states.--Lyonscc (talk) 08:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, Benccc, what you have said makes perfect sense. It is more NPOV and encyclopedic to summarize Prop 8 within this article like that, given that it is different from other similar prop's in other US states in an important way. However, I dont think Manutdglory et al (Lyonscc, Collect, Carver) would ever agree to that so please do stick around for the future mediation. Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Since Phoenix of9 already assumes to know my thinking I'll not disappoint him. Again, this article is not the place to discuss Prop 8. The only thing barely notable, if at all, is that Warren advised the people at his church to support it and that his views on homosexuality are quite centric to that of the Christian community in North America. If it was to be mentioned at all, it is sufficient to simply use the language of the ballot issue itself as I have already suggested. As to the WP:COI assertions of some, we all have our world view, just accept it. It is quite obvious that the only reason some of the editors who champion LGBT issues have worked on this article is to denigrate, certainly WP:NPOV and WP:COAT issues if not in and of itself a COI issue. No matter, as stated by many, motives are irrelevant. Let's stick to the facts and Wikipedia Policy. CarverM (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

If you stick to the facts and Wikipedia Policy then you would reprimand the editor whose COI has been exposed, rather than champion their biased edits. Otherwise, you risk the appearance of being in their same COI boat. Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _{contributions} 21:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I sincerely and humbly suggest that you exhibit similar COI and biased behavior. I am trying to stick to the facts and I will continue to let others have their opinion, whether I agree with them or not. No reprimand is necessary. CarverM (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This smells like Lyonscc is phoning in another one of his canned cut-and-paste objections to an addition to this article, full of unsubstantiated babbling about "NPOV" and "NOR" and "coatracking." Here are the quite well documented facts about how Proposition 8 is described, and the options as to how it should be described here:

• The way its proponents describe it. Since this for them is largely a matter of posturing and semantics - because their own people are completely unaffected by the results of the measure - their interest in the subject pretty much ends with the passage of the measure. They can say marriage is only "x" because their own people are prohibited from ever expressing something other than "x," the demonstrated behavior of Ted Haggard and many if not most of their own people notwithstanding. It for them is largely a demonstration of power and status, of ostensibly being able to call the shots by social and political means, by calling for purification of society as they in their fantasies imagine it should be, no matter whose bodies happen to be in the way. (Gives a whole new meaning to the Pentecostal chant/song about "under my feet.")

• The way the people who will have to deal with the aftermath of the measure's passage describe it. Since the Attorney General has to enforce the law once passed, the Attorney General titled the measure so that what happens after the election is quite clear: certain people's rights that existed before the election were eliminated. Since the people proposing the measure aren't ever going to be in that class, or so they believe, they don't care about this, or even care enough to allow the suggestion to pass that the lives of people will be affected. That goes for editors here who are proponents of the measure, who are fighting against any mention of Proposition 8 in a way that might actually hint that individual people are going to be affected by having their rights eliminated. (Yeah, they don't care about people outside their churches except as potential converts, as notches on their bedposts, to be manipulated at will, against their consent, unless and until they get their butt in church. They call this "love," of course, in case you were wondering what they think that word means.)

• Describing it both ways, which would be the equitable way of dealing with the situation as documented.

• Describing it in neither way, simply linking Proposition 8 to the article about it.

After two months of having to restore the ballot title "eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry" to the Proposition 8 article in the runup to the election, and having sat through one of the satellite simulcasts promoting the measure, clearly this is how its proponents think. They seem to live in a people-free universe, that nobody will be affected by it, and demand that any description of the measure that actually mentions people's rights must be scrubbed. That is what certain editors want to continue doing here. Justifying this scrubbing and elimination of the mention of real-world consequences of the measure is not "NPOV." It's attempted scrubbing of dissenting views, to which I object in the strongest possible terms. As for COI, your insinuation that anyone objecting to Prop 8 here is a directly-affected, by the common standards of the proponents' evangelical community, dirty diseased queer whose edits must be blocked or questioned on the basis of a COI just shows exactly where your prejudices lie. Mike Doughney (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Mike Doughney's admitted conflict of interest with respect to the subject of this article is again noted. Manutdglory (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Mike, I understand your desire to further explain Prop 8, but (again) this seems to be information suited to the Prop 8 page (which is helpfully wikilinked). Anything other than the actual ballot language, though, has all appearances of coatracking and non-neutrality, because it ceases to be about the nominal subject of the article (Warren) and shifts to characterizing and discussing Prop 8, which is not the nominal subject of the article. The question of whether or not Prop 8 eliminated "rights", etc. is a subject for that article, not one about Rick Warren, who barely weighed in on the issue - and even then, only in a brief web-statement to his own church members. As previously noted, he did not issue a press release, nor did he campaign for Prop 8's passage, nor did he use his considerable monetary wealth to press for its passage.[11] In such light, it boggles the mind why his personal biography page should be a "hill to die on" for discussion of Prop 8... I'd say to either leave it in its present form, or strip any descriptive language, altogether.--Lyonscc (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I put forward four bullet points above. While I believe that mention of Proposition 8 should be accompanied by both explanations in as brief a form as possible, I would agree that it would be equitable, though not optimal, to simply remove any further description of Prop 8 from this article as I mentioned in my fourth point. The current description is not impartial to differing views on the measure. Mike Doughney (talk) 06:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, there are some passions here, but let's try to successfully collaborate. I *think* we all agree that:

1. Prop 8 warrants a minor mention in the Rick Warren article;

2. The reason we mention it is to help readers understand why Obama's choice of Warren sparked controversy, and why Saddleback Church has been the target of protests;

3. The Rick Warren article is NOT the place for an in-depth discussion of Prop 8;

4. Readers will be best-served by a mention of Prop 8 that is relevant, accurate and neutral;

5. Prop 8 amended the California consitution to ban same-sex marriages/restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples;

6. Between June 2008 and November 2008, same-sex couples could legally marry in California, and Prop 8 changed that; and

7. Our personal opinions about the California Supreme Court or gay rights or Rick warren are not relevant to the editing issue at hand.

So far so good?

I *think* there are three points of disagreement:

1. Whether it's factual and neutral to say that same-sex couples had the "right" to marry in California prior to the passage of Prop 8;

2. Whether the fact that same sex couples had the [word TBD] to marry until the passage of Prop 8 is relevant; and

3. Whether a word other than "right" may better serve the reader.

Regarding the first question, the California Supreme Court referred to marriage as a "fundamental constitutional right" several times in its May 2008 decision (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF) ending the ban on same-sex marriage in the state, and its finding that marriage is a right was arguably central to its decision; certainly it was central to news reports of the decision. The Court used the word "right" as a legal term. As long as we use the word in the legal sense rather than in the sense of right versus wrong, we can stay within bounds of factuality and NPOV.

Regarding the second question, the most controversial and prominent aspect of Prop 8 was that it eliminated the [word TBD] of same-sex couples to marry in California. On 29 other occasions a state's legal code or constitution has been changed to explicitly ban same-sex marriage, but never before has this occurred in a state in which same-sex couples could legally marry. Therefore I *think* we're more likely to agree that inclusion rather than exclusion of this point will help readers understand why Obama's choice of Warren sparked controversy, and why Saddleback Church was targeted by protests.

I'd like to offer another point about inclusion versus exclusion: as editors, when we have a choice to offer readers more versus less information about a topic, it seems that our common goal to "augment the knowledge held by the Wikipedia encyclopedia" would lead us to provide "more comprehensive" information rather than less (to quote Wikipedia:About).

Regarding the third question, we probably can't find a shorter word than "right" to make the point. We may not even be able to find a word more NPOV, insofar as that's the term applied by the California Supreme Court in deciding this case, and substitution of another word might be seen as editorializing for or against that decision. It's true that the decision angered many good people who disagreed with it, and delighted many good people who agreed with it, and meant little to many good people who have no strong feelings either way. We probably have no hope of finding another word that satisfies both critics and supporters of the decision, but thanks to the language of the decision itself, we can safely use the word "right" without favoring or disfavoring anyone's opinions.

The three variations I'm aware of for our explanation of Prop 8 are that it:

"amended the state constitution to ban same-sex marriages"

"amended the state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry"

"amended the state constitution to read, 'Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California'"

The first variation is less than half the length of the third, makes essentially the same point (let me know whether I'm missing anything), and makes it more plainly. Keeping our service to the reader in mind, I believe the first variation is better than the third, assuming we wish to choose between them rather than use both. I understand that some of you favor the third over the first, and I'm curious to learn more about why (I know the third includes the legal language of the proposition, but not why this would serve the reader better than the briefer, more direct language of the first).

Because both the first and the third variations omit the relevant point that Prop 8 ended an existing [word TBD], I believe the second variation is more helpful to the reader. It's economical in that it makes the point with 13 words, which is so short (shorter than the third variation, for example) that I think we'd easily be able to defend ourselves against an accusation of coatracking. (I'll be surprised if anyone does accuse us of coatracking based on a single mention of Prop 8, as it's relevant to points made elsewhere in the article and was prominent in the recent spike in news reports about Warren. But I suspect that such an accusation would find little support among editors and would not present us with a problem.)

I hope my comments are useful as we work through what makes sense. 70.21.121.217 (talk) 06:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry folks; I forgot to sign in -- the post above is by me. Benccc (talk) 07:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ben for your thoughtful post here. It's most helpful I think in moving forward. Kevin (talk) 07:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This intelligent summary from Benccc is something i can support, and i would be happy to use a term such as "legal right" in order to stick strictly to the language used in the offical Proposition and avoid infusing my point of view. As long as we use concision and adhere to the language presented by the original citations and news reports, and avoid extensive elaboration (which i admit was happening in my old version of this whole rigmarole, being toooo wordy) nobody will be able to accuse the edit of being a Coatrack, especially if it is solely presenting the most brief summary of the very widespread mainstream media coverage. Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 19:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I had assumed readers would understand we were referring to a legal right, but I agree that Teledildonix314's revision would clarify that: "amended the state constitution to eliminate the legal right of same-sex couples to marry." CarverM, Manutdglory, Mike Doughney, Collect, ZimZalaBim, Dayewalker, Lyonscc, and Phoenix of9, does that work or do you think we can improve? Thanks. Benccc (talk) 07:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I still think that, probably, the most WP:NPOV way to handle the Prop 8 explanation is the simple wikilinking of the article on Prop 8. The next best would be its current wording, which simply restates the text of the proposition, without trying to go into explaining its affects (which is where the disagreement lies).--Lyonscc (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Lyonscc, let the discussion of what Proposition 8 did or did not do be undertaken in that article. Using the text of the proposition and linking to the Wikipedia article is sufficient. CarverM (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Lyonscc and CarverM for responding. It looks like you're saying that it would better serve the reader to provide no explanation of Prop 8 than to provide a short explanation such as the one you propose. But *how* would that better serve the reader? Also, if we do decide to offer an explanation, how it would better serve the reader to exclude the point that Prop 8 eliminated the [word TBD] of same-sex couples to marry? Finally if we *do* decide to include that point, is there a word other than "right" that you'd regard as more NPOV?

I visited the Prop 8 article (I wish I'd done so previously) to see how editors handled the explanation there, and here's what they came up with in the article's lead: "it changed the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples and eliminated same-sex couples' right to marry, thereby overriding portions of the ruling of In re Marriage Cases." I think we'd all agree that's too long for the Rick Warren article, but I mention it because they found it useful to make both points. I invited editors who worked on that lead to join our discussion (who knows whether they will, but it might help). I'm hoping all editors who have participated in our discussion thus far will post again using the framework I drafted of points of agreement/disagreement, so we can work our way to consensus. Lastly, if anyone can think of a better framework we can use to reach consensus, please speak up! Thanks all.... Benccc (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Obvious compromise here would be to include 2 versions:

"amended the state constitution to read, 'Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California', which eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry." Just giving a link to Prop 8 is silly, as Spotfixer said, Wiki articles arent collections of links. Benccc, stick around for the cabal mediation and if that doesnt work, offical mediation and arbitration. Feel free to comment on other issues as well. Phoenix of9 (talk) 06:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

In response to a request by Benccc - Ahh, the challenge of compromise - it's impossible to say yes to everyone (that's why we hate politicians, right?!). There are some great suggestions here, and following any of them would be appropriate. In my opinion, either include a description by paraphrasing (word-for-word) the Prop 8 article, or leave it out and only have a link. I prefer the latter, though I agree that Wikipedia is not a collection of links. However, I don't think one link violates MOS guidelines, and the link (without a description) places the burden of proof with the Prop 8 article (and avoids misquoting if the Prop 8 article should change). And if people really care and want to learn, they can click the link, read the article on Prop 8, and draw their own conclusion (of Pres. Obama's Inauguration and Rick Warren, etc.). Assert the facts, then let the facts speak for themselves. Additionally, due to the pending lawsuits to overturn Proposition 8, we're all just waiting for an outcome anyway. And since there's no deadline, why not just let it remain a link until after the Supreme Court makes a decision (hopefully in March sometime...)? MrBell ^(talk) 17:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Phoenix of9 and MrBell for keeping the conversation going. Let's not throw in the towel just yet. Phoenix of9, I'm all for mediation but I don't think we've reached an impasse; we're still figuring out what our areas of agreement and disagreement are. MrBell, a few editors have suggested (as you did) that we forego a description of Prop 8 altogether, but if we agree that it's appropriate to mention Prop 8 in the Rick Warren article, that would seem to be a cop-out. Isn't the reader better served if we work out an appropriate description? Also keep in mind that we're talking about something that happened in 2008 -- while it's true that Prop 8 is currently being contested, the outcome of that contest is unrelated to our description of past events.

If we frame our recommendations in the context of service to the reader, I think we'll make faster progress to a solution. I'll clarify what I mean by service to the reader:

Elsewhere in the article we describe Saddleback Church as "an evangelical megachurch located in Lake Forest, California, currently the eighth-largest church in the United States (this ranking includes multi-site churches)." We describe the book The Purpose Driven Church as Warren's "guide to church ministry and evangelism." We describe the P.E.A.C.E. Plan as "Warren's five-point plan for global action." Like Prop 8, all of those things have their own Wikipedia articles, but also like Prop 8, they may not be familiar to many readers, and in service to the reader we offer a brief explanation. The explanation helps the reader understand the thing in context, without having to interrupt his/her focus by clicking through to another page.

I think our work on the explanation of Prop 8 has been affected by personal beliefs about Warren, or gay people, or marriage, or all three. That's perfectly understandable, but I think that can distract us from our focus on the reader. We are, I believe, helping the reader understand recent controversy associated with Warren. We appear to be in agreement that it's appropriate to mention the controversy in the article. We have the opportunity to describe Prop 8 in a way that will illuminate the controversy for the reader. I think what we're discussing is *how* we can do so in a way that's verifiable, neutral, and (most important) helpful to the reader.

As for the proposed language, some of us want to make the point that Prop 8 says that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California, and some of us want to make the point that Prop 8 eliminated the legal right of same-sex couples to marry. Both are true and verifiable, and can be stated in neutral language. Both were controversial, and both were vitally important to supporters and opponents. And as I've suggested before, the second point was unique to Prop 8 and was the primary reason Prop 8 was so much more controversial than the 29 other state laws banning same-sex marriage (which is why it seems so evident to me that it will help the reader understand our point that Warren's support of Prop 8 was controversial). The only proposal I've seen that explicitly includes both elements is this one:

"He also publicly supported California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to read, 'Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California', which eliminated the legal right of same-sex couples to marry."

As an editor I find that sentence hard to love (it seems unnecessarily long), but I think it's our best shot at agreement.

So here's my request: if you accept the proposed wording above, bless you and please say so! If you really truly can't accept it, please try to help your fellow editors understand the reasons. And if you think we can better serve the reader by excluding the point that Prop 8 eliminated the legal right of same-sex couples to marry, please explain *how* this would better serve the reader. This is how we can reach consensus. We can do this! Benccc (talk) 06:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

As a reader it does seem like a bit of a mouthful. How about

"He also publicly supported California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution with regard to same sex marriages"

I think it is more descriptive than a plain link, in that it gives a reader unfamiliar with Prop 8 some idea of what it is, without having to quote the actual amended wording and the consequence of the amendment. Kevin (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur (with Kevin's wording above). This is about the most 'spin-less' version I've seen that included text about Prop 8 w/o delving into its content.--Lyonscc (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll concur with the above, with the clarification that California Proposition 8 and same-sex marriage (with hyphen) shall be links to the named articles. Mike Doughney (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Benccc CarverM (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL, concur, eh? Are you guys all doctors? :P I agree with Ben. Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we're all from the medical cabal. Kevin (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I watch Scrubs religiously. CarverM (talk) 07:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Kevin (although "publicly" does seem an eeensy bit obvious, no?). It is succinct, accurate, and succinct (OK, I do like succinct <g>). Collect (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I missed the word "publicly", and did intend to remove it, as it then removes any connotations about the method or level of his support. Kevin (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Benccc, note that I added your version inside the proposed text above. I will disagree with Kevin's version, its unnecessarily vague, especially when we have a source as solid as this:Ballot Label (Proposition 8) by California Secretary of State Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, let's take a step back here -- a notable event in Rick Warren's life is that he was invited by Barack Obama to give the invocation at Obama's inauguration, and I think we all agree about that. Many people who hadn't previously heard of Warren became aware of him at that time. In 2007 media coverage of Warren was low, and though it picked up in 2008 due to the presidential forum he hosted, BOOM! it skyrocketed when Obama selected him for the invocation: Warren's appearance in news stories in 2008 was up 740% following the announcement. 84% of the Warren stories following that announcement also mentioned his stance on marriage, and 71% mentioned the controversy associated with the selection (I ran a few Factiva searches; any of you who subscribe to similar services will presumably get similar results). Presumably this part of his life warrants inclusion in the article; it's arguably as notable as his mother's occupation, his brother-in-law's name, his publishing agreement with Reader's Digest, etc.

We agree on identifying the stance central to the controversy (Warren's endorsement of Prop 8) and we're working out a way to briefly state the point of Prop 8. At this point I'd venture to say that the core disagreement among editors is that some of us do not want to say that it stopped same-sex marriages, which I thought was the point of Prop 8. As you know by now, I'm doubtful that we best serve the reader by excluding that information. I was unaware of the "zero-revert rule" until Firestorm suggested it, but the principle seems to be that we revert obvious vandalism, and otherwise favor inclusion of information. I think the bar is set so high in favor of *not* excluding this information about Prop 8 that our current task is to collaborate on how to do so accurately and neutrally.

The latest language we've come up with that *includes* the information is this:

"He also publicly supported California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to read, 'Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California', which eliminated the legal right of same-sex couples to marry."

Collect and Kevin questioned the word "publicly," so how about we change it to the more economical:

"He endorsed California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to read, 'Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California', which eliminated the legal right of same-sex couples to marry."

By doing that, we can assert the facts without any commentary or approval/disapproval. We can link to http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/blogs/newsandviews/index.html?contentid=1502, http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf#prop8, and http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/title-sum/prop8-title-sum.htm for verification of Warren's endorsement, the language of the proposition, and the elimination of marriage rights. Because the word "right" was a sticking point for Manutdglory, we could source http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF for good measure. I would think after that we'd have an airtight defense of our NPOV!

Lyoncc, it sounds like you might see "spin" in the proposed sentence. Is that still true? If so, please clarify which word(s) in particular seem spin-ish to you, and what word(s) would you recommend as substitutes?

ThanksBenccc (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you conclude two clauses which 'spin' in opposite directions, is the solution to assume they completely counterbalance, or to eliminate both, for the sake of brevity (since this is a BLP about Warren, not an article on Prop 8)? I'd go with the latter and run with Kevin's earlier wording: He also publicly supported California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution with regard to same-sex marriages. It's a) shorter (by nearly half); b) still conveying the subject matter of Prop 8; and c) applying absolutely no colorizing of Prop 8; and d) I would assume it would wikilink to Prop 8 for those who want more information on the subject. (belatedly signed, my apologies for missing the sig the first time)--Lyonscc (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Lyonscc, I agree with you that we should avoid spin, and I really want to work with you on this, and I keep asking which specific word(s) you think contains spin, and which specific word(s) could be substituted to avoid spin, but I keep failing to get you to answer (why?). I understand which version you prefer and I understand you think the proposed version is too long and that the Prop 8 info is coatracky, but for the moment I'm just seeking *specifics* about the spin/colorizing word(s) you see in the version above, please. Benccc (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Benccc, both of the key phrases were at issue in the whole California Prop 8 campaign, although it is the word "marriage", itself, which contains most of the "spin", since its definition is narrow in the first phrase and broad in the second (since the amendment did not eliminate the right to create civil unions, for example). The phrase using the actual language of the amendment 'Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California' is completely true, and could be included by itself. However, those who are opposed to Prop 8 do not see it as such. The second phrase uses "marry" in a broader definition, and also uses 'right', which (despite the argument above) is arguable since a) no state-wide legislation had been passed, and b) the legal case hadn't wound its way all the way through the court system. So, the proposed wording by Kevin side-steps having multiple definitions of "marry" (choosing the broader one, preferred by the Prop 8 opponents), and removes the debatable position that an enumerated "right" was eliminated.--Lyonscc (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Lyonscc, I don't totally follow you yet, but I appreciate the post. I was not aware that those phrases were disputed other than that it was controversial that the title of the initiative in the voter guide was the "eliminates (etc)" language.... As for the language of the amendment itself, it seems clear and straightforward, and since Prop 8 passed it is also true. What do people think is spin-ish about it? Some people didn't like the language but that doesn't make it spin. The language of the amendment is simply a fact: Prop 8 said X. I mean, Prop 8 could have said broccoli shall be declared evil, and regardless of who agrees/disagrees, it would be factual to say "Prop 8 said 'broccoli shall be declared evil.'" What am I missing?

As for the "eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry," I'm not sure what you mean about civil unions -- I agree that Prop 8 had no effect on them, so why do you mention them? Re the word "right," what do you mean about legislation? And what legal case hadn't wound completely through the courts? All I was looking at was the "In re Marriage Cases" decision, in which the court called marriage a "right." Again, whether we agree or disagree with the Court, its finding is just a fact: the Court found X. As a result, same-sex couples married, and Prop 8 put a stop to that. This, as you know, is the particular info I believe is notable -- it's the thing that made Prop 8 unique among the many state laws/amendments that ban same-sex marriage. I'm pretty sure it's the reason it was so important to both supporters and opponents, and the reason it was so controversial, which is why it illuminates the point we make about the brouhaha involving Rick Warren.

I'd be grateful for some of these clarifications, and also -- most importantly -- you haven't yet suggested alternate language regarding "it eliminated the [X] of same-sex couples to marry." If as a result of mediation that info is included in the article, how do you think it should be phrased? That's what I'm asking. Benccc (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Benccc, let me try break this into a few of pieces - 1) The language in the Prop 8 was chosen by its supporters (which makes sense), and it could be included in the article all by itself and be technically "neutral" (as you note, above). However, I'm willing to concede that ONLY including this language only gives the POV of the Prop 8 supporters in characterizing it; 2) The second clause (it eliminated the [x] of same sex couples to marry) has a number of issues associated with it. If [x] = "right", it's not really true, as something is not truly a "right" until a court rules it so AND all appeals on that court ruling have been exhausted. In this particular case, had Prop 8 failed, it was already on track to the Federal Appeals Court, and (eventually, no matter how the appellate court ruled) the US Supreme Court - in other words, not all appeals on that court ruling had been exhausted. By denying a stay on its May 2008 ruling, the California Supreme Court put any SSM's performed under its preliminary ruling in jeopardy of becoming null and void, because no such right was yet ensured until all appeals were exhausted. Thus, no "right" existed yet, and Prop 8 could not have "eliminated" it. So, to be factually correct, [x] would have to be "tentative right" (at best); 3) SSM has a number of shades to it, including Civil Unions - which are still legal in CA.

SO - with the complexity around the issue (which, even your wording, over-simplifies Prop 8 and the issues around it), it seems like the best option would be to just note the subject matter covered by Prop 8 (same-sex marriage) and to wikilink it without attempting to shade it one way or the other (or both).--Lyonscc (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

My take on the matter is this: On the ballot, the title of the proposition was "Eliminates the right of same sex couples to marry". Therefore, its perfectly reasonable to say that it did, indeed, eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. To suggest that it was never a right to begin with is just being obtuse, in my opinion. Firestorm ^Talk 05:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"Obtuse" is being much too nice. I have refrained from commenting this evening on this repetition of Lyonscc's... I'll just leave a space here and you can use your imagination to fill it in... and just refer to my previous comments on this matter above. You can search for "another one of his canned cut-and-paste objections" to find them. While I'm at it, I'll be going back up there and striking my subsequent comments that suggest that omitting any description of Prop 8 would be acceptable. It is not. No compromise, I'm assuming bad faith after two COI episodes and false charges leveled against me, and all that. Mike Doughney (talk) 05:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

To my point - why is a biography on Rick Warren a place to be hashing out how to color an extended description of a state ballot initiative, when no such coloration and extension is necessary? I consider this in the same vein as removing the text about Saddleback, P.E.A.C.E., etc. that already have wiki articles of their own.--Lyonscc (talk) 05:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

How 'bout you stop attacking other editors by deliberately mischaracterizing the proposed description of Proposition 8, repetitively defying common sense? When are you going to acknowledge that what is being proposed is simply the state's ballot language? Using that word-for-word language is not "coloring" the description. You are attacking other editors by falsely claiming that they are "coloring" the issue by simply using accepted language. Mike Doughney (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Lyonscc, OK this helps me understand your objection. I hadn't heard about the appeal issue. Do federal courts have jurisdiction over the California constitution? Same-sex marriage has been happening in Massachusetts since '04, and federal courts have declined to intervene there -- why would they have treated SSM in California differently?

And what would have been the federal issue in question? Would the plaintiffs have had a probability of success? I think the U.S. Supreme Court has only ruled twice on gay rights in the past 15 years or so (Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas), and both times in favor. *Also* don't you think that the Supreme Court justices who would be most likely to disagree with the In re Marriage Cases ruling would be the most likely to decline to review it, due to their support for federalism? Benccc (talk) 08:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

On re-reading my post above I realize I may be bogging down in difficult legal questions. Last night when I tried to educate myself about a possible federal case against the In re Marriage Cases decision, I couldn't find info about it either on Wikipedia or Google, but I did see info that made me doubt the prospects of such a case, which is what led to my questions above. Lyonscc, I do want to learn more and I'll appreciate whatever further info you can provide. But isn't it fair to say your argument against the word "right" is more political in nature than NPOV-related? Benccc (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Benccc, I would say that the difference over "right" is both political (to which I am sympathetic) and NPOV related, though the primary driver for shortening this tangential course comes back to WP:undue and WP:coat, since this is a WP:BLP on Rick Warren, not an article on California Prop 8. Considering that Warren's "support" for Prop 8 was a single statement to his congregation (not a press release) that came 10 days before the election (rather than months before, as most "pro-Prop 8" campaigns ran), and that he was being roundly criticized by fundamentalist organizations and a number of evangelical ones for not lending early support or spending any of his money for passage of Prop 8, to spend much ink at all on the topic of Prop 8 in his wp:blp gives WP:undue weight to his involvement w/ Prop 8 and to its relevance to him.--Lyonscc (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

OK understood. The strength of Warren's stance may have been misunderstood, and polls show that his stance (opposed to same-sex marriage, in favor of Prop 8) was shared by most people. As noted in the article, his stance was associated (whether fairly or no) with protests against Saddleback and the controversy over Obama's choice of Warren for the invocation, which merit mention because the resulting media coverage was so extensive. My concern has been to help the reader understand that episode in Warren's life by providing a concise explanation of Prop 8. I think it's good that you've been reminding us about WP:undue. I tend to lean toward offering readers more info rather than less (whatever the subject) so I may be closer to the WP:undue edge, but I trust that our process will result in something that strikes a reasonable balance. As for "right" vs "tentative right" I lean toward "right" because we can point to the court decision and ballot title, whereas "tentative right" seems political to me. What do other editors think? Benccc (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I would choose "right" over "tentative right", because the 2nd seems to offer an unsourced interpretation of the consequences of Prop 8. Perhaps we should ask why a readers needs to know more detail about Prop 8 in this article, and that will help answer what to include. From my outside the US perspective, a plain Prop 8 link doesn't tell me enough to know why it was controversial, and I want to know why it is relevant without going to another article. For someone not in the US who hasn't spent 2 months reading this page, Prop 8 on it's own could refer to anything. Kevin (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Kevin - I agree that a plain Prop 8 link is probably not enough, which is why I supported a version of your suggested wording: He also supported California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution with regard to same-sex marriages. This a) notes Warren's support of Prop 8 w/o characterizing it; and b) lets the reader know that Prop 8 dealt with SSM. What additional relevant detail is added with the additional phrases which are summed up with much more succinct which amended the state constitution with regard to same-sex marriages?--Lyonscc (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no preference for my version or the longer version. My question here was designed to stimulate discussion only. Kevin (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, shorter is generally preferable in WP articles, and simple language is preferable to usages which require access to the OED. Is it possible that "right" might be clarified as "right determined in XXX v YYYY (California Supreme Court)" ? (presuming that it was a specific court decision involved). "Tentative" is iffy wrt POV, but naming the case would enable readers to determine how they feel about it with no POV injected at all. Collect (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Shorter and simpler language does not seem consistent with adding detail about a particular California Supreme Court case. Kevin (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I suspect it is about the shortest and simplest language which is clear, and would not (or should not) be a problem for anyone. Can you give another means of answering every person's concerns on this? Collect (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"Tentative right" is nothing more than evangelical revisionist avoidance of reality and settled law. The right to marry in California is established by law. See the History of marriage in California article for the specific language. I spent long hours on this "right to marry" language in the first section of that article (then in the Prop 8 article itself) restoring it after numerous removals by Prop 8 supporters and common vandals with similar views who'd rather it just didn't exist. No sense wasting time reinventing the wheel or humoring such uncivilized impulses. Mike Doughney (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether it was "reality and settled law" is moot in my opinion. I'm in agreement that this article needs a reference to PROP 8 but not in any way characterize Warren as a staunch, outspoken, opponent of gay marriage. UNLESS there are verifiable, reputable, full quotes stating such. Otherwise this article should only include hyperlinks to stub articles. I'm not certain why we continue to go around the bush on this one? Put in the Prop 8 legal language and that Warren supported should be enough. No need to color the facts with hyperbole, coded language, or assumption. Addtionally I wanted to ONCE AGAIN say that the beliefnet article should not be included UNLESS we stub it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishpaytas (talk • contribs) 13:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC) — Chrishpaytas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at Phoenix of9 (talk)] (UTC)..

Lead Section and Other Issues

Lets not get sidetracked with personal comments Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Amend sentence in lede

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

{{editprotected}}

 Not done Please reach a consensus before requesting edits. Kevin (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Please amend the last sentence in the lede from: Then President-elect Obama later sparked controversy when he asked Warren to give the invocation at the presidential inauguration, which took place on January 20, 2009.

To: Obama later sparked controversy when he chose Warren to deliver the invocation for the 2009 presidential inauguration which took place in January. -- Banjeboi 13:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Current sentence is correct, no need to alter. Collect (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: What is the rationale for the change? It does seem a bit superficial, but innocuous.--Lyonscc (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Wow, I can't believe this was opposed. "Then President-elect Obama" or Then-anything is deprecated, this should be replaced with more clear syntax. Obama chose Warren rather than asked - is this terribly controversial? the presidential inauguration, which took place on January 20, 2009 is needlessly wordy, the 2009 presidential inauguration which took place in January is more concise and correct, also listing the actual date, the 20th, is generally frowned upon as it has little bearing to this article. -- Banjeboi 01:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• • • I didn't oppose it - I just wondered the rationale. If it's simply wordiness, I don't have a problem with re-wording it. I just looked at the past edits (and wrangling over how to title Obama), and wondered why we were changing it...--Lyonscc (talk) 08:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"Chose" is different form "asked"? I thought you mainly did not like the accurate statement as to Obama's status at the time. I would think "asked" is correct, as one does not specifically "choose" someone to do something when one has no authority to make such a choice. Collect (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

To Lyonscc, sorry, you are lumped together with Collect who also expressed disagreement with this edit. I'm unclear what past edits had any bearing on this but I'm open to better wording. Chose as opposed to asked, really? This is the big controversy worthy opposing this change, really? Really? If the most powerful person in the entire world asks you to do something do you really quibble if they chose you or if they asked you? Reliable sources state Obama chose Warren. Perhaps they chose to ask him? In any case this seems more like a reason to argue than an actual content dispute. Can we consider this resolved and approved now? -- Banjeboi 15:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Since you do not have a consensus, why are you asserting one? Collect (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) How about this, then:

Obama later sparked controversy when he invited Warren to deliver the invocation for the 2009 presidential inauguration which took place in January.

That seems less wordy than the current lede, and is accurate in its active verb (invited).--Lyonscc (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If the point is to reduce wordiness, there is no need to state "which took place in January". Clicking the link gives you all the details you need. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Very true, I concur.--Lyonscc (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Today i reverted an anonymous edit in the opening paragraphs of the article because the wording was changed to something milquetoast ("caused some to be upset") when the actual reference from CNN had a headline of "choice sparks outrage". I find it somewhat irritating that this type of editing has to be done, because it's a clear example of whitewashing when the actual verifiable reliable sources were using much stronger language. Now i fully expect to be attacked for making this edit, because Warren's apologists cringe whenever anything sounds faintly negative on his article. Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 22:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there some way you can communicate what you have done without referring to other editors as "Warren's apologists"? The tone of your post does not help to promote a good editing atmosphere. Kevin (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This may shock you, but actually, I believe I'm the one who wrote the original sentence about sparking controversy. But let me guess, I'm still an "apologist" right? Manutdglory (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "sparked controversy" is neutral and appears to be the consensus version. Some people were indeed "outraged", as quoted in CNN (and other mainstream press), but "controversy" is probably less likely to spark controversy here. I endorse the reversion. — Becksguy (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I didn't see the additional comments above when I posted my last, but lets assume good faith that Kevin Teledildonix314 did not mean to refer to any other editors here by the term "apologists". — Becksguy (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC) —— [PS: My bad, corrected user name with strikeout] — Becksguy (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting that Kevin would assume i was referring to other editors as "Warren's apologists"... do you suppose Kevin arrived at this presumption because The Shoe Fits? And no, Manutdglory, i am not shocked by your choice of text, because as you've probably already realized in the worlds of Show Business and Professional Charlatanism (which are mostly the same, right?) there is no such thing as "bad publicity" as long as they spell all the names correctly. Garnering attention from controversial pronouncements is one of Warren's professional skills, so really i'm the rube if i play into that sort of situation by giving further mention to this type of mountebank. It's too bad we can't have a neutral and educational article about Warren; but then again: we don't have neutral and educational articles about most of the subjects involving supernaturalism, superstition, and charlatanism on the Wikipedia, so why expect differently in this case?

Careful Teledildonix - Kevin's an administrator, so it's probably not a good idea to tick him off. Becksguy, it's clearly obvious that Teledildonix is indeed referring to other editors here, including myself and Kevin (he admitted this in his above comments), and he's done it repeatedly, despite the warnings of a slew of administrators to stop personal attacks. Manutdglory (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Your erroneous (and, one wonders, intentionally false?) declaration of something i've not admitted is impertinent. I really don't care whether Kevin is an administrator or a Jimbo, the validity of my comments stands. And you could find humor in some of your own action: you are admonishing me about administrative warnings when you have actually been exposed for your own personal Conflict Of Interest in these two articles. If you can find neither humor nor dismay in such a situation then you're exposing your own lack of self-awareness. I find it surprising that Kevin and other administrators haven't asked you to stop editing this page after you inadvertantly outed yourself and exposed your intentions with comments such as "the way 90 percent of Americans view Warren as somebody wonderful" blah blah blah.... really, it's a rather glaring (some might say shocking) example of administrators failing to uphold policy when there is no ambiguity. What more are they waiting for beyond your own admission of Conflict? It saddens me to think this has to be escalated to a level which wastes more peoples' time when it could have been nipped in the bud months ago with a simple enforcement of the rules regarding COI. Does this 'tick off' anybody? Does this count as a personal attack? Because really i can't think of a personal reason to attack you, but i can think of several Wikipedia policy reasons to assault your privileges of editing this article and any related to it! Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 01:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious that the two of you (Manutdglory and Teledildonix314) are now more interested in a verbal slanging match than in actually improving the content of this article. If this behavior does not cease immediately I will impose blocks and/or topic bans on both of you. I know you are both intelligent enough not to need it spelled out, but to make it clear I am talking about: comments regarding COI, calling other liars, baiting, personal attacks, general incivility and rudeness, matyrdom etc. I have had enough, as I'm sure many others have also. Kevin (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a note - please take any discussion regarding this to my talk page. Kevin (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

What is a topic ban, and why on earth does it apply to me? The only reason i am having a "verbal slanging match" is because i don't have your administrator privileges to ban Manutdglory for violating the COI policy. Did you not read the whole discussion which was on the Administrative Noticeboards about how Manutdglory accidentally outed themselves and then tried to cry about invasion of privacy, and was told (by multiple adminstrators on the Noticeboards) their admission of being a paid member of Warren's church was reason to cast suspicion on their edits? Do i have to go searching through all of my old edits to find this deplorable car crash of COI and dredge it back up here for everybody to fuss over again? Please, Kevin, if you have administrator privileges, don't use them to threaten me when i've done nothing wrong, while not using them where you should be applying them: to the overt and continuous COI. I'm tired of having this sort of discussion, so i guess my next step is to elevate it over your head. Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 02:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should reread your recent posts and strike out the material which does not actually seek to get the article improved, but which might well appear to be intemperate wording not aimed at getting others to agree with you? Collect (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WSJ Interview

We've got a mini-edit war going on right now with Phoenix of9 making reversions which make no sense. The section in question:

“ In an interview in The Wall Street Journal, the interviewer wondered why "most of the press [was] under the impression that Rick Warren, a Southern Baptist, is so different from, say, Focus on the Family president James Dobson?" Warren said that "it's a matter of tone" and, according to the interviewer, seemed "unable to name any particular theological issues on which he and Mr. Dobson disagreed." ”

It should be

“ Asked about the theological differences between himself and Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, Warren said that "it's a matter of tone" and, in the opinion of The Wall Street Journal interviewer, seemed "unable to name any particular theological issues on which he and Mr. Dobson disagreed." ”

The quote (see italics) speaks SPECIFICALLY of Warren's agreement with Dobson on theological issues, and then inserts the author's opinion into the interview that Warren seemed unable to name any particular theological issues on which he disagreed with Dobson. The only reason this bit of information was put into this article was to make an ad homenim tie between Dobson and Warren, when the issues much of the left has with Dobson are his social policies. The paragraph before this one in the wiki article already shows one example of where Warren has split from Dobson on social policy (the environment).

If we're going to keep this quote about Dobson in the article, it needs to be clearly constrained to the field of theology, and not expanded to social policy, since Warren and Dobson clearly disagree on social policy in a number of areas, even though they are theologically similar.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

How do you know that?? This is what the article says:

"So why is most of the press under the impression that Rick Warren, a Southern Baptist, is so different from, say, Focus on the Family president James Dobson? "It's a matter of tone," says an amused Mr. Warren, who seems unable to name any particular theological issues on which he and Mr. Dobson disagree."

So:

1) "So why is most of the press under the impression that Rick Warren, a Southern Baptist, is so different from, say, Focus on the Family president James Dobson? "It's a matter of tone," says an amused Mr. Warren"

2) "who seems unable to name any particular theological issues on which he and Mr. Dobson disagree."

How do you know that they are just talking about theological issues in the first part. It may be that Warren doesnt differ from Dobson except tone in all issues. And then the interviewer gives extra info about theological issues in second part. The interviewer didnt specify. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)IOW if we allowed plain language we would have (more or less) "Warren has no theologogical disagreements with Dobson, who is part of the same religious denomination, according to WSJ interview, though his social views are different." Is that about what the actual facts are? In which case the issue stated above is how relevant generally held theological views are to a BLP in the first place. Collect (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The second part of the quote makes the first part of the quote clear (and I would note that it is analysis/synthesis of the interviewer, and not a direct quote from Warren). The second part of the interviewer's quote says that Warren and Dobson agree on theological issues. However, placement of this quote in a section on social and political policy - which are both areas where Warren and Dobson have publicly disagreed - is already misleading. This whole paragraph is a mishmash - using an interviewer's opinion, not Warren's, words (other than "it's a matter of tone") and constraining it to theology - not explicitly social policy or politics.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Again these are your irrelevant opinions and interpretations. I think 1st part can be stand alone and isnt necessarily conditional on 2nd part. We disagree. But it doesnt matter. I made a direct quote from a reliable source. Messing with it is WP:OR Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Collect also makes a good point. Why is a comparison of Dobson & Warren's theology even in the article, since they both belong to the SBC? We've already noted (on environmental policy) a prominent break in their social policy views, and Dobson's role as a "kingmaker" for the GOP is about as far from Warren's non-participation in political endorsement as can be.--Lyonscc (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Cause the WSJ article is about Warren. Read WP:Verifiability. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It need not even be in the article. This is an encyclopedia, not a compendium. The quotation was about his theological positions, not social policy.--Lyonscc (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

IOW Dobson is relevant in a BLP on Warren because a WSJ reporter referred to him? Seems a reach there. If a WSJ reporter asked about Juan Peron in an interview with Warren, would that make Juan Peron therefore relevant to the BLP? Collect (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if its a reliable source. You've been here since 20:58, 24 January 2006 and you dont know core Wiki policies? Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Just because something has a reliable source doesn't make it a relevant topic. That was Collect's point, and is why WP:COAT was written.--Lyonscc (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It's an article on Rick Warren on WSJ. Thats not a relevant topic to Wiki Rick Warren article? Absurd. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It is actually an interview/opinion piece, not a "hard news" piece, so the interviewer's synthesis need not be included, and it was the interviewer making the synthesis about Dobson, not Warren. Thus, Dobson is a coatrack, not the nominal subject.--Lyonscc (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

WSJ is a reliable source. And we said 'according to the interviewer' in the article. Dont link to policies you havent read. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

But the quote specifies that Warren's differences with Dobson are not ones of theology - the section is about social policy. Those are two completely different animals, and the way it is currently worded clouds the issue and brings no clarity. Dobson is simply a coatrack at this point, since we're no longer even discussing social policy.--Lyonscc (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That is -- Dobson is an entirely tangential subject in the article? I would tend to think that tangential subjects do not belong in the BLP in that case. Collect (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Tangential how? Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

All right, as usual, I can not communicate with Collect et al eventho we speak the same language. This is now part of the mediation. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Tangential in that a) this section is about social/political policy, but the quote is about theology; b) why is it notable that Dobson & Warren (who are both from the SBC) have similar theology?; c) The reason this seems to have been included it to try and tie Warren to Dobson's social policy, when no such tie exists. It is inferred by this paragraph's inclusion, even though it is contracted immediately above.--Lyonscc (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

a) Overlaps. b) "It's an article on Rick Warren on WSJ. Thats not a relevant topic to Wiki Rick Warren article? Absurd." c)According to you. Now I'd include that into the article if u were a reliable source. I'd add, "According to Lyonscc...." Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

a) There is no statement in the first part of the quote that it is dealing with social/political policy, so the assumption of "overlap" is synthesis on your part and WP:OR.; b) Just because something is written about someone in a publication - even the WSJ, doesn't make it notable. See WP:COAT and WP:BLP for numerous examples of this; c) It's not my opinion - it's already documented in the article RIGHT ABOVE THE PARAGRAPH IN QUESTION! There's no need to provide additional sources that say that Warren differs from Dobson on social policy, because there are no verifiable sources which explicitly show that they are in lock-step on social policy. This is an article on Rick Warren, not James Dobson!--Lyonscc (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The only piece attributable to Warren is "It's a matter of tone", while the rest is the opinions/synthesis of the interviewer, as is stated above. We cannot presume to know exactly what Warren was responding to with this statement, so any context we add is either our own opinion, or that of the interviewer. I cannot see how either of those (the opinions) are relevant to the article. Kevin (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. But whatever, I found another source: "Rev. Warren cannot name a single theological issue that he and vehemently, anti-gay theologian James Dobson disagree on," Solmonese says" So we can say:

"According to Solmonese, 'Rev. Warren cannot name a single theological issue that he and vehemently, anti-gay theologian James Dobson disagree on," Solmonese says' [12]. Thats a relevant criticism of Warren and hence relevant to the article. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really. A blog is not an appropriate source for a bio. In my opinion. Kevin (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you not see the links to actual articles there??? But here: [13] [14] Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Not. And adding the POV "vehemently anti-gay" bit is clearly quite over the top here. BLPs are supposed to be biographies, not tracts. IMHO, everthing about Dobson and Warren and theology is irrelevant - and I placed an irrel tag on it. Might we stick to BLP real issues? And the fact that something is in a RS in the nature of an editorial opinion does not make it anything more than opinion, and BLPs are not supposed to be full of such without clear balance. Lastly, commenting on the other editors is unlikely to actually make a consensus more likely. Collect (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

"Lastly, commenting on the other editors is unlikely to actually make a consensus more likely." Indeed. As for WP:BLP, I do not understand why u still claim irrelevancy. We have lots of news articles about Obama and Warren being criticised and we have to explain why with DUE weight. Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant material to a BLP remains irrelevant. Assertions that somehow the theology of Warren is relevant when it is no different from any other pastor of his denomination do not make the theology important to the BLP. Collect (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Not every pastor is as famous as Warren. Not every pastor has the same amount of media coverage. Not every pastor has the same amount of media coverage with respect to their views on homosexuality. Make logical arguments. Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Per comment to mediator, I feel the theology of any denomination should be discussed in the article on the denomination, not in every article on its pastors. Your position is that it should be discussed for each pastor. There the positions differ, so let's see which one is found more valid, ok? Collect (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

My position or what you feel is irrelevant. Are there any wiki policies that say these issues should be discussed in the article on the denomination? Maybe you should take this to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm writing here not to repeat all the arguments presented above but just to weigh in on the differences between Dobson and Warren, having followed the writings of both and hearing each speak on several occasions: Warren and Dobson have similar, but not identical theological views. Both are Evangelical, Warren from the Southern Baptist denomination and Dobson from the Nazarene denomination. However, they express themselves on social views in a very different manner. Frankly, they differ significantly in their social views and how they present themselves and their ideas to the public.

I concur with several statements above that conclude that the only reason the Dobson quote is included in this article is in an attempt to tie Warren to Dobson's social views and actions. Such an attempt is in error as it is in this arena that they greatly disagree in substance and tone. In the expression of mainly theological issues, they differ primarily in tone. That is, in my opinion, the context of Warren's response in the WSJ article. CarverM (talk) 01:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

To sum it up a bit differently: mentioning Dobson to somehow explain any view of Warren's tends to bring forward an association (or not) rather than a description. I think there's a clear legitimate need to further describe Warren's views, using references that describe what those views are, whether or not those views are commonly held among evangelicals. This reference only attempts to describe Warren's views relative to Dobson's, which is both unclear and drags another person into the article without a good reason to do so. Mike Doughney (talk) 02:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well said. I'll see what I can do to dig up some verifiable quotes on his social views. I don't think his theological views are particularly noteworthy as they are quite centric with current Evangelical thought. CarverM (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I reverted to my version. It should be either that or this:

'Asked about the difference between himself and Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, Warren said that "it's a matter of tone"'

Because there is no indication that this solely refers to theological positions, for the resons explained above. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope. And the SYN engaged in by the writer should , if used at all, be ascribed to that writer. Collect (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The article currently reads "Asked about the theological differences", which is not what the article reads. The article paragraph reads "So why is most of the press under the impression that Rick Warren, a Southern Baptist, is so different from, say, Focus on the Family president James Dobson? "It's a matter of tone," says an amused Mr. Warren, who seems unable to name any particular theological issues on which he and Mr. Dobson disagree". There is nothing to indicate which differences the interviewer is referring to, so stating "theological differences" is just as unnaceptable as "social differences" or "political differences". The most that can be drawn from the article is "differences",, and if we are left with that there is no reason really to retain the comparison at all. Kevin (talk) 01:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

To those of us who are not specialists in the fields of superstition, charlatanism, supernaturalism, etc, we don't really know enough about the various flavors of fantasy-based nonsense (denominations of religions, distinctions of fantasies which vary from one cult to the next) but what we do find very informative is when a WSJ interviewer asks Warren about Dobson, because that is a famous figure to whom we can relate their attempted comparison. Warren's response to the interviewer ("matter of tone") is so illuminating to those of us who only know about Dobson's attacks on personal liberty and freedom of thought; and to those of us who don't care about the specifics of those men's fantasy lives, the very fact that the interviewer felt the urge to pose the question, and the fact that Warren knew of Dobson well enough to respond, is very informative. When readers don't spend their lives involved in the indoctrination of fantasy, they are less likely to understand references to things such as "Southern Baptist" this and "Emerging Christian" that, and more likely to understand references to figures in the mainstream media. Does that help to show why PhoenixOf9's edit is so very useful and concise? I love the concision and amount of information conveyed in such a short paragraph.

It's just like when people blocked us from including the reference to Saddlebacking... you see, it's such a concise and convenient way to illuminate the major points of an entire discussion, without requiring any specialist knowledge of Warren's particular preferred version of fantasy-based nonsense such as scapegoating, sin, heaven and hell, and other things which also do not exist. It gives us an insight into Warren's views and relationships with topics which are based in reality rather than fantasy. That is educational, and thus is very important to include in an encyclopedia. Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 04:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Rick Warren saying 'its a matter of tone' is an important piece of information which should be in the article. I'm open to suggestions but my version is the most accurate one since it preserves the way article put it. Phoenix of9 (talk) 04:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S.-- that's why i reverted to PhoenixOf9's version, because it is the most concise way to express the most information while sticking as closely as possible to the original source in the paraphrasing, avoiding synthesis. Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 04:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting the removal of the irrelevant section on Dobson (and "matter of tone") as being an association fallacy, specifically guilt by association. As is noted in WP:BLP, Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. Warren's comment on "matter of tone" is basically a criticism of Dobson's policies, and your stated intent (and that of the gay blog-sources posted to this point) is to paint Warren as just another Dobson. It doesn't wash, and it is counter to WP:BLP. This entire paragraph should be stricken. Additionally, you're not going to gain any credibility in editing articles on religious figures if you characterize them as "specialists in the fields of superstition, charlatanism, supernaturalism, etc," and their beliefs as "fantasy". Perhaps you ought to edit articles in which you have even the basest of expertise, rather than a political agenda, as self-acknowledged above.--Lyonscc (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I object to such a recommendation. Education and objectivity and reality-based, evidence-based, science-based articles are appropriate, and may be edited by anybody regardless of their specialist expertise or lack thereof. Furthermore, to accuse me of a political agenda is nonsense, when my edit was to restore the more direct quotation, and your edit has paraphrased in a way which introduces Synthesis quite blatantly. I am trying really hard to comment on the edits, not the editors, and when you accuse me of a political agenda, you better have something to back that up, otherwise you are violating the "no personal attacks" wikietiquette. Also, I don't need your validation of my "credibility", and the very fact that you challenge my objective terminology (such as "supernaturalism", "superstition", "charlatanism") indicates your political agenda in the edit you just made. I will now revert what you just did, thanks. Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 04:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The form of an association fallacy

Again, you do not understand the policy. We arent saying Warren is X because Dobson is X. We are saying what the article says, question of the interviewer and Warren's answer. Phoenix of9 (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

As noted by Kevin, above, synthesis - whether by the interviewer of the wikipedia editor is still WP:OR. The article does not state what questions were asked of Warren in the interview, whether they were about theology, social policy or politics. The only hint given by the interviewer is that "matter of tone" was related to theology. As you've noted above, the only reason to bring Dobson into the discussion was to try to tie his politics and social policies to Warren's - even though "matter of tone" in the context of the interview means exactly the opposite of what you wish it to mean.--Lyonscc (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Good grief! How do you know what somebody "wishes it to mean"?? When they quote directly they don't have to wish anything, they can just report. I think if you wish it to mean something, that's your synthesis, and should be left out. Stick with a citation which goes as closely as possible to the exact words of the interview in the WSJ please, because that is the only way to be neutral and reliable. Thanks Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 05:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It is actually even less useful, because the question asked why the press feels that Warren is different from Dobson. Warrens opinion on why an unspecified media outlet reported something seems highly irrelevant to me. Kevin (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion on relevance. However, the basic principles of Neutral, Reliably Sourced information are being used here, and when they are obstructed that is a form of whitewashing, and your opinion of the relevance is only an opinion, whereas the policies of Notable and Reliable and Neutral are, well, policies. Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 05:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, in regards to the above comment about "guilt by association", the editors of this wikipedia article did not ask Warren the question. The WSJ interviewer asked Warren the question, therefore it must be of interest to somebody other than us editors. We don't need to make the association: the WSJ already did it for us. The very fact that somebody is thinking along the lines of "guilt" is illuminating, yes? Why can't it just be an association which is made in a Notable and Reliable source? The direct quote gives us Warren's own personal response to such association, and thus gives more information than anything anybody can achieve by synthesizing some other spin! Thanks Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 05:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The interviewer does not state what his question(s) were in the article, and Warren's responses - apart from "matter of tone" are only characterized - a classic example of poor sourcing for a WP:BLP and WP:OR and WP:NPOV. You obviously have no understanding of WP:BLP and the difference between something being mentioned in a publication and that mention being notable. As has been stated by a host of editors in the past couple of months - just because something is mentioned in a publication doesn't make it notable.--Lyonscc (talk) 05:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The interviewer does mention his question: "So why is most of the press under the impression that Rick Warren, a Southern Baptist, is so different from, say, Focus on the Family president James Dobson?" Phoenix of9 (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

O my goodness, i'm laughing so hard, when Lyonscc said, "just because something is mentioned in a publication doesn't make it notable." The title of the interview is: "What Saddleback's Pastor Really Thinks About Politics". The Wall Street Journal. August 23, 2008. Ha hahahahaha oh thanks, that was such a great laugh, i appreciate your inadvertent humor! Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 05:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

And now Lyonscc is skating close to the 3RR by undoing my edits twice despite a lack of consensus to their whitewashing. If the citation is directly taken from the interview, and it's notable, reliable, and not paraphrased into some kind of spin, then it can be as close to neutral as possible. When you change the language in the quotation, you are introducing your own point of view, and that is an improper edit. Please undo your mistaken insertion of personal viewpoint and return the article to its state in which the quotation is paraphrased more directly (PhoenixOf9's version, i mean). Thanks! Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 05:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Early on I saw no reason to include any comparison between Dobson and Warren, it simply adds nothing to the article. However, I was willing to go along with its inclusion as long as it was stated in neutral terms. It is clear that Teledildonix314 and Phoenix of 9 are continuing with their fallacious edits. I do not support this and will, sadly, enter into the fray and ask that this be mediated. Teledildonix314, as much as I am hoping to keep this Talk page civil, your continued characterizations of those with whom you disagree is not only tiring, it is simply not appropriate to the spirit of Wikipedia. CarverM (talk) 07:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Which characterizations? The ones where i point out Warren's superstition-mongering, or the ones where i point out the fantasy-based career of charlatanism and scapegoating? Or perhaps the characterizations where i point out how Warren is a heterosexual supremacist (along the lines of an ethnic supremacist or a jingoistic supremacist etc etc)? Because you may find them tiresome, but that's probably because the reality is so very tiresome. It's tiresome to find there are still so many professional bigots in this day and age, and even more tiresome to find they have so many cheerleaders and accomplices. And to the administrator who asked that i not use the term "superstition monger", i am demanding to know why i should not use that term, because it is the most precise and accurate description of Warren professionally and personally. I would prefer to use obscenities, but i won't; and i almost used the term "hogwash purveyor" but i felt that wasn't precise enough, so i went to my dictionary and verified that "superstition" and "monger" were absolutely the correct (and non-obscene) words to use in this case. Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 09:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S.-- for your edification:

superstition : noun = excessively credulous belief in and reverence for supernatural beings; a widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation leading to certain consequences of an action or event, or a practice based on such a belief.

-monger : combining form = denoting a dealer or trader in a specified commodity : fishmonger, cheesemonger; a person who promotes a specified activity, situation, or feeling, esp. one that is undesirable or discreditable : rumormonger, warmonger.

http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/nq/2009/nq090111.gif

Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 10:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Mediator

Hello, I'm from the Mediation Cabal and we have been asked to review this issue. I've read all the discussion here, and I think I have come to several conclusions about the nature of this case:

• Most of the editors taking part in this discussion are either staunchly pro-gay-rights, or staunchly against.
• The primary issue is whether or not to include a mention of Rick Warren's stance on gay marriage.
• The proposed text above has been fiercely contested.
• A secondary issue is whether or not to include a mention of his stance on California Proposition 8, and if so, how to word the summary of what Proposition 8 is.
• Several different wordings have been proposed, none of which has a consensus as yet.
• We have already has intervention by an administrator (Kevin).
• ADDENDUM: There is also the question of how relevant his personal and theological views are on a BLP, because most pastors from his group probably share the same views.

Please let me know if I got any of the facts of this case wrong. From there, I can try and help you guys decide how to move forward. Please keep in mind that i'm from the Mediation Cabal, not the Mediation Committee or Arbitration Committee, so I do not have the ability to impose sanctions on anyone. I'm merely here to try and help you reach a consensus and get on with building an Encyclopaedia. Firestorm ^Talk 16:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I can assert that I hold no positions on gay rights which affect my editing positions here. I think you should also consider the issue as to what extent his theological positions (insofar as they are typical of his entire denomination) are properly part of a BLP here. To the extent that the material would be in common for all pastors of his group, ought the discussion be iterated in each and every BLP? 16:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Collect (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

right, i've appended that to my stating of facts. Firestorm ^Talk 17:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I think this is incorrect. The primary issue is NOT whether or not to include a mention of Rick Warren's stance on gay marriage. The primary issue is to whether or not to include more details about the invocation controversy. And the conroversy was due to more than his stance on gay marriage but also about the comparisons he had made and his previous statements and positions. Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Firestorm, I can only comment on our discussion of how to describe California Proposition 8, and in that discussion I have seen very few comments favoring or opposing gay rights or Prop 8 or Rick Warren. It has been a pretty civil discussion. It's hard work, and mediation is tempting, but I have faith that we're making progress toward agreement. For that discussion, mediation may be premature. Benccc (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It may be true that you are working towards a consensus, and I do see an indication of that. A notice was posted at WP:MEDCAB, so I came over here to help you guys form that consensus. However, if people do not want assistance mediating this dispute, then just let me know and i'll mark the case as closed. Otherwise, i'm still here to help. Firestorm ^Talk 18:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

More eyes = more dispassionate views on a topic. Heck, another dozen new sets of eyes would not hurt one whit. Collect (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No, this has been going on for months. We do require assistance, Firestorm. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, then i'll stay. Which of the several issues would you like me to help you guys tackle first? i.e. which is the most important part of the disagreement over his views and their inclusion? There has been discussion about this all over the place, so I think we should consolidate the mediation in this section of the talk page. Firestorm ^Talk 06:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

We need help with everything within this Mediation section. It would be more efficient if we can discuss all of them stimultaneously. Phoenix of9 (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Okay, the biggest and most broad issue that seems to be popping up right now seems to be the relevance of Warren's views on various political/religious issues (including gay marriage), and the importance (or lack thereof) of them to his article. Now, gay marriage is a very controversial issue, and if a mention of his views on it is put into the article, it would have to be VERY well sourced. I'm not against its inclusion in general, but we have to keep in mind the policies of WP:BLP, especially WP:COATRACK and WP:GRAPEVINE. Therefore, anything even a little bit controversial has to be very well sourced, and we need to be careful about what we use as a source. Also, mentions of his views can't overload the article in a violation of WP:COATRACK and WP:UNDUE. WP:NPOV is also an important consideration for anything included, and I suggest that for anything we decide, the wording be hashed out on the talk page before inclusion. Therefore, I'm going to request full protection for this article until a consensus can be reached. Firestorm ^Talk 06:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, lets reach it. What do you think of the proposed text above and its 16 sources? Phoenix of9 (talk) 07:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say first let's tackle the easier issue of linkage to James Dobson via misuse of the WSJ article. The entire sentence should really be stricken, since (as noted above by those supporting it) the purpose is to tie Warren to Dobson by Warren's comment that the differences between them are a "matter of tone". This "matter of tone" is not expanded upon by additional Warren quotes, but via synthesis from the interviewer that only deals with theological differences. Warren has broken with Dobson on a number of prominent issues (global warming, support of politicians/parties, relief for AIDS in Africa, etc.) - which are not "theological issues", but rather ones of "tone" (i.e. political/social programs & tactics). The article, as it is, gives a false impression of Warren's position (by trying to paint it as "Dobson lite") and is tenuously sourced, at best, as noted by admin Kevin.--Lyonscc (talk) 07:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Invocation controversy

For the record, here is the text that has been proposed:

Obama's choosing Warren for the inaugural invocation was criticized by prominent liberal groups and gay rights proponents. People for the American Way President Kathryn Kolbert told she was "deeply disappointed" "There is no substantive difference between Rick Warren and James Dobson," Kolbert said. "The only difference is tone. His tone is moderate, but his ideas are radical." In her statement, she said that Warren "has recently compared marriage by loving and committed same-sex couples to incest and pedophilia." , as also noted by others, based on Warren's December 2008 Beliefnet interview . Warren later released a video message to his church that he opposes redefining marriage and does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia. At the same time, Warren's church replaced an article on their website about the Bible and homosexuality that included [gays] "unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted" as members with a message that explained the church's view that Scripture prohibits sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman. Warren also publicly supported California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.", which eliminated the legal right of same-sex couples to marry. Obama's choice was also criticized because of Warren's stance on abortion.

Obama later defended his selection saying that he disagrees with the minister's opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage but that there should be room for "dialogue" on such difficult social issues. On Jan. 20, 2009, Warren, who faced criticism for his anti-gay views in the weeks leading up to the inauguration, delivered an inclusive but deeply religious invocation that celebrated the first African-American US president.

(End of proposed text)

I think that this section goes into too much detail, and needs to be trimmed to avoid WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. I think the text should express more or less the following:

(chosen by Obama)(criticized by liberal and gay rights groups because of his policies)(sources say he equated SSM to incest and paedo)(he released a statement saying he doesn't equate SSM with incest and paedo)(supported prop 8)(1-sentence explanation, wording that has been agreed upon)(new paragraph)(criticized because of abortion)(obama defended abortion)(delivered invocation)

I think that this trims it down enough to avoid WP:UNDUE as well as taking off some of the coats. It accurately tells what happened, without bogging the article down with excessive discussion about same sex marriage and his positions on it. Basically it is “He was criticized. Source A said he believes X, he released a statement saying he doesn't believe X. He also supported Prop 8, which did Y. He was also criticized for Z. Obama defended his selection for the invocation. He gave the invocation.” See what I'm trying to do there? I'm just saying what the sources say happened, without going into so much detail as to overwhelm the article and give it undue weight. I'm also not passing judgment on what happened, or whitewashing it. Of course, it will have to be worded much more eloquently than that, but its 3:30 AM here, and I'll tackle that in the morning. If anyone has any comments on the way i've described my proposed wording, feel free to comment. Firestorm ^Talk 08:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that it should be more along the lines of:

(chosen by Obama)(criticized by liberal and gay rights groups because of his policies)("He also publicly supported California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution with regard to same sex marriages")(new paragraph)(criticized because of abortion)(obama defended abortion)(delivered invocation)

There's no need to drag PAW into the article, as a) there's no need to note every fringe critic into a BLP; and b) their objection was based on an out-of-context quote from a much longer interview, in which Warren was saying that divorce was a much bigger problem than SSM. Additionally, the wording (regarding Prop 8) suggested by Kevin has been included above, since it has no spin, whatsoever, on Prop 8. Leave the fight over characterization of Prop 8 for the wiki article on that subject.--Lyonscc (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I can live without the mention of comparisons to incest and paedophilia in a BLP. If wording for prop 8 has already been agreed upon, then there's no need for me to revisit that consensus either. Does anybody have an issue with the suggestion of Lyonscc? Firestorm ^Talk 16:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You say "Okay, I can live without the mention of comparisons to incest and paedophilia in a BLP." But the mention of those comparisons was covered by the Wall Street Journal, BeliefNet, Pacifica with Amy Goodman and Max Blumenthal, MSNBC with Rachel Maddow, The Economist regarding The Stranger with Dan Savage, and other Reliable Sources. So why should we leave it out? It's definitely not poorly-sourced, and it has no way of being libelous because we fortunately have the actual video footage of the interview and Rick Warren's response to the questions on camera in front of microphones. What more can you ask for the Notable and Verifiable content in a BLP? Seriously, i don't understand this contention, thank you very kindly for explaining your reasons, and for showing how it is not a case of whitewashing? Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 16:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I would absolutely not describe the state of the "incest and paedophilia" matter as a "consensus." It is more of a stalemate, with certain editors repetitively raising unfounded objections in a systematic effort, gaming the system to omit any new, verifiable and essential additions to the article that might show Warren in an even more negative light. Mike Doughney (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You're both right, it seems. Perhaps I shouldn't edit wikipedia before my morning coffee. I've changed my originally proposeed paragraph to reflect what I think it should now be. The statements are well-sourced and notable, and deserve a mention. Firestorm ^Talk 17:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, i am trying my very hardest to use the most politically correct language i could muster. When you propose the text "(liberal and gay rights groups)" i wish to dispute this specification. I have previously shown (here, and in the Saddlebacking talkpage) that criticisms came not only from the "liberal" and "gay" protesters, but also from extremely reputable and somewhat conservative agencies such as the United Nations re: Warren's association with various ministers and AIDS-outreach groups and anti-gay hate attacks in Africa, as well as the various groups in this country who voiced quite strong opposition to Warren's involvement with Prop8 and the Civil Forum on the Presidency and the Inauguration.... many of those groups are not at all liberal, quite verifiably conservative, centrist, or otherwise. When you frame it as protests from "(liberal and gay rights groups)" i think it sounds like you are introducing a specificity when a generalization would be more appropriate. Does that sound sensible? Thank you Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 17:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I just used that phrasing because it was in the original proposed text. I think it would be well within policy to phrase it as "Several prominent organizations, such as X, Y and Z,..." I'm not really attached to any of the phrasing I used in my suggestion, and phrasing it like this might actually hold to NPOV better. Any other suggestions? Firestorm ^Talk 18:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The text is way too long for the six-days-wonder of the protests. And the Saddlebacking article is not precisely relevant for a BLP is it? Collect (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, the controversy is notable and should be covered in an efficient manner. The flow of text as we're discussing it should go into sufficient detail to inform readers about the controversy, without overwhelming the article and giving it undue weight. Also, we're not discussing Saddlebacking here, which is a not-terribly-notable neologism in and of itself, and does not even have its own article. All it has is a brief mention in the article about Dan Savage. This is not the appropriate place to discuss Saddlebacking, this is the appropriate place to discuss the invocation controversy. If you want me to address Saddlebacking elsewhere, then make a subsection underneath the WSJ article subsection and i'll get to it when I can. Firestorm ^Talk 18:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• The Saddlebacking article was opposed by the editor/SaddleBack churchmember with the clearly established COI; and as a result of the edit-warring we compromised by leaving it as a subsection of the Dan Savage page. Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 19:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Here are the two talkpages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Saddleback_Church#.22Saddlebacking.22

Talk:Saddlebacking

The issue with the supposed "comparison" of SSM to pedophilia and incest is that it's not what Warren said. To say that he "made a comparison" of one to the other, or that the "equated" one with the other is synthesis and an example of contextomy, where the full context of the interview (past the "I do." cited) makes it clear that Warren is talking about the preservation of 'marriage' to mean an unrelated man and woman. To unravel the brief left-wing smear campaign around this particular quote in a truly WP:NPOV manner would require an article of its own to avoid giving undue weight to this tempest in a teapot. Basically, it's an issue of synthesis, coatracking, and undue weight over a brief media brouhaha orchestrated by left-wing groups who didn't want a non-supporter of SSM to speak at the Inauguration. If it belongs anywhere, it should go on the page for Obama's inauguration, not in a biography in which it is barely a notable event in the guy's life.--Lyonscc (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

A remarkable confirmation of my point (below [15]). In earlier discussions of this matter, I never at any point have said that Warren made a "'comparison' of SSM to pedophilia and incest," nor have I said that that should be placed in the article. I repeated many times over (in discussions long since archived) that what he said was that he equated the legalization of same-sex marriage with the legalization of pedophilia and incest, and it is that clear, and clearly offensive, equation of different kinds of legalization or government recognition that is the issue that should be accurately reflected in the article. While perhaps the currently proposed text is not clearly reflective of this difference, it seems to make no difference in what manner a description of this matter is worded. You keep bringing up this straw man every time anyone attempts to describe what Warren said, even when it's accurately limited to comparison of the acts of legalization, putting words in my and in others' mouths. Administrators insist upon getting all upset about personal attacks here, I tell you what. I consider this lying, blanket mischaracterization of others' clearly stated views on this matter, with respect to me, to be a personal attack, and if you do it again I'm going to take it to where it and you will be dealt with. Enough. Mike Doughney (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Rather than explode in flames, i'm going to give you the actual videos and allow people to make up their own minds:

The first is a quick excerpt: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc_gl2pPdlY

The second is from Rachel Maddow on MSNBC http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/28372831#28372831

Especially after 3 minutes or so into that second video you get the footage of Warren himself, as excerpted in the first video above.

The third is from Democracy Now on the Pacifica network as presented by award-winning journalist Max Blumenthal and hosted by internationally renowned journalist Amy Goodman: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/12/23/max_blumenthal_on_rick_warrens_double

The controversial excerpt was taken from the slightly longer piece, which gives you even more emphasis and context: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nXq0wO5-n0

Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 19:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S.-- i tried to insert links to those videos among the citations i already tried to insert in some of my previous versions of the main article, but my attempts were thwarted by complaints that these were not sufficiently Reliable and Verifiable for a BLP. That caused me to dig further on The Economist.com and in the blogs of Dan Savage as well as in the reports from the Atlanta Journal Constitution and the Wall Street Journal. If you can elucidate why that would not be considered sufficiently Reliable (WSJ and Pacifica and MSNBC etc), or sufficiently Notable and Verifiable (economist.com, thestranger.com the largest weekly newspaper in Seattle whose editor-in-chief is Dan Savage, and the AJC which reported on the controversies of Warren's speech on Martin Luther King Day January 19th followed by the controversies around his Invocation at the Inauguration on January 20th) then i would understand why they are not appropriate for BLP. But i am going to try to argue here that they are legitimate and appropriate, unless somebody can point out reasons why not? Thank you kindly Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 19:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no violation of WP:SYNTH in saying that sources claimed that he equated legalizing SSM with legitimizing incest and paedophilia. The San Francisco Chronicle said "He also has equated same-sex marriage to incest, polygamy and pedophilia and has said that gays and lesbians should resist the urge to act on their sexuality." USA Today said "But later in the interview, he compared the "redefinition of marriage" to include gay marriage to legitimizing incest, child abuse and polygamy." That's not OR and its not Synthesis. Its judst saying that the sources said what he said.

Also, it would not be better off in an article about the inauguration. This is about his stated views, not the official policies of the inauguration itself. I'm trying to keep the mention brief to avoid undue weight and keep it NPOV. NPOV comes in where he makes a statement saying he doesn't equate the issues. Firestorm ^Talk 19:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Wording 2.0

I'm now proposing a new version of the relevant text, one which I hope addresses peoples' concerns and clarifies that he was said to have equated legalization of SSM to the legitimization of those things, not the act itself:

Obama's choosing Warren for the inaugural invocation was criticized by several prominent organizations. They contend that Warren had previously compared the legalization of same-sex marriage to the legitimization of polygamy, incest and pedophilia, based on Warren's December 2008 Beliefnet interview . Warren later released a video message to his church that said that he does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia, but instead opposes the redefinition of marriage. At the same time, Warren's church replaced an article on their website about the Bible and homosexuality that included [gays] "unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted" as members with a message that explained the church's view that Scripture prohibits sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman. Warren also publicly supported California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.", which eliminated the legal right of same-sex couples to marry.

President-elect Obama's choice was also criticized because of Warren's stance on abortion. Obama later defended his selection saying that he disagrees with the minister's opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage but that there should be room for "dialogue" on such difficult social issues. On Jan. 20, 2009, Warren, who faced criticism for his anti-gay views in the weeks leading up to the inauguration, delivered an inclusive but deeply religious invocation that celebrated the first African-American US president.

(End of proposed text)

I hope this addresses everyone's concerns adequately and holds to wikipolicy. Firestorm ^Talk 20:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this very nicely fills the current obvious gaping hole in the article. This proposal accurately and clearly covers all the outstanding issues. Mike Doughney (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

IMO, SSM-pedo-incest comparison is even more important than mentioning California Prop 8 so that non-Americans, reading this article, can see that even in 2009 extremist Xtians have a say in US politics. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Such a political agenda is unwelcome here on Wikipedia. Reliable Sources say that he equated legalization of one to legitimization of the other, so that is what the proposed text has to make clear. Firestorm ^Talk 20:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

A political agenda? That was simply my interpretation of the facts. But that comment was redundant as I wrote it before seeing your proposal (there was an edit conflict). Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I fully support your newly proposed wording 2.0 thank you. Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 20:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support per Mike Doughney Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Still contains way too much on a minor item, stresses "prominent organizations" without a basis other than SYN for declaring them "prominent," "instead" is not needed, places information formerly on a web site maintained by a church as though it were Warren's direct opinion (which is also SYN by definition), "eliminated legal right" is opinion -- it basically established in the state Constitution that such a right does not exist. Description of the invocation is either SYN or OR depending on how you view it. And still two long by several fathoms. Collect (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Copy and paste from Benccc: "In 2007 media coverage of Warren was low, and though it picked up in 2008 due to the presidential forum he hosted, BOOM! it skyrocketed when Obama selected him for the invocation: Warren's appearance in news stories in 2008 was up 740% following the announcement. 84% of the Warren stories following that announcement also mentioned his stance on marriage, and 71% mentioned the controversy associated with the selection (I ran a few Factiva searches; any of you who subscribe to similar services will presumably get similar results)."

So the section isnt too long. Prominent is what CNN says, read the source. His church's actions are attributed to the church, not to Warren so theres no OR. "Eliminated" is not an opinion, it is what Dept of California Secretary of State says Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is way too large a section and gives undue weight to a tempest in a teapot and has a number of issues with it. The sentences about the changes to the Saddleback site are irrelevant to a WP:BLP, and the Prop 8 language is no longer what was agreed to ("He also publicly supported California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution with regard to same sex marriages" - this leaves ALL posturing and characterization of Prop 8 to the article on Prop 8 and not an article on Rick Warren, instead of creating a coatrack out of the issue). Contrary to Mike Doughney's belief, Warren did not "equate the legalization of same-sex marriage with the legalization of pedophilia and incest" - he stated that all of these (marriage to the same sex, marriage to a minor, marriage to a family member) would be contrary to the historic definition of 'marriage'. It had nothing to do with equating one to the other. It's like saying "pickpocketing is a crime and murder is a crime." Certainly both are breaking the law, but the statement does not equate pickpocketing with murder. Just because a RS makes an erroneous characterization doesn't make that characterization notable, true or verifiable. Additionally, Warren HAS made a statement that he didn't equate these things. So, why is there any need to say "Some people say Warren believes X. Warren issued a statement saying he didn't believe X."? If that's not contrary to the spirit of WP:BLP, then we might as well no longer call them "Biographies of Living Persons", but rather "Gossip about Living Persons" and just be honest. [Side note- I'm outta here until Monday.]--Lyonscc (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this means Cabal failed and I should proceed to Official Mediation? Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No -- it means you should try to accomodate the objections made by others. "Official Mediation" is not much different from what is being done here now. Collect (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing in the objection by Lyonscc that can be addressed or accomodated. He is deliberately mischaracterizing the documented facts in a concerted effort to keep any mention of this matter out of the article. It would be nice if he'd offered some constructive suggestions, but since the point is deliberate exclusion of this material, further negotiation with this cut-and-paste reflexive objector is rather pointless and escalation to the next step is the only way out, though that will probably also be rather fruitless.

All this just goes to prove that Wikipedia is nothing more than a rather fabulous broken toy when its systems are gamed to make sure that certain institutions' sacred cows, like this thuggish slimy weasel, are left untouched. Mike Doughney (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the result of our accomodation. We've been discussing this for 2 months and have proposed lots of different texts while you 4 (Lyonscc, Collect, Carver, Manutdglory) have been saying no with the same arguments. This is it. Everythings properly sourced and worded. And we cant agree. Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's be real clear. They have not brought forward any changes they'd like to see in any proposed texts. They have simply said "no" to any and all proposals. They lie, fabricate and mischaracterize the facts that have been verified by reliable sources over and over again in an effort to game the system, using Wikipedia's policies against itself with their fabrications. The point is deliberate exclusion of any of this material. I'm assuming bad faith on the part of these characters (one less than what we started with, funny about that) from here on out. Mike Doughney (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That's it -- complain about "THEM." And Forget AGF. Somehow I do not think that is how to impress a mediator. Collect (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You are saying we shouldnt add properly sourced relevant material. There is no way to accommodate that. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No. I am saying that editing is an excercise in consensus. Holding one;s breath to get something in does not work as well as looking for compromise. And the word is "relevant" -- there is a huge amount here which is not relevant to a biography. This is not a political essay. It is not a theological essay. It is not a compenium of every factoid findable on Foogle. It is supposed to make reasonable editing choices to provide a readable encyclopedia article. Collect (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Make a new section called "Proposed Wording 3.0" and state your proposal then. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

All of it is relevant. All of it is sourced to major mainstream publications all the way up to the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. Like I was saying... Mike Doughney (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - No matter how much other editors try and bring in blog sources, opinions, misconstrued inferences, etc. the facts are:

• Warren did support Prop 8, as did the majority of Californians who voted. (Again, leave the language describing Prop 8 to the language of the bill itself and let discussion of what the proposition did or did not do in the Prop 8 article itself.)
• Note that Obama himself holds the same stated position of marriage is between a man and a women.
• Warren did not equate same-sex marriage to polygamy, incest or pedophilia and no matter what people try and assert it is not his belief, he states this clearly, and therefore does not belong in an BLP article.
• Warren's church did not replace an article on their website, they changed a text version for an audio version. The article, as written, assert the church was trying to hide something and this assertion is false.

As Lyonscc has stated, this is a "tempest in a teapot" and is full of coatrack attempts instead of simple facts that should be included in a reasonable BLP. I trust that Administrators involved in mediating this article on this particular issue will keep to the facts and allow only a brief citation instead of the essay presented by some. The editors who have said "no" do so because you, Phoenix of9, and others continue in your attempts to divert the article away from good BLP practice and NPOV. CarverM (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I also do think the same thing about you, that you arent being NPOV and ignore WP:Verifiability. Thats why we need a 3rd party to arbitrate. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Comment. What I see here is that the people who support this proposal are attempting to compromise and reason with the opposing editors, and the opposing editors are basically sticking their fingers into their ears and shouting "I can't hear you!" This is not the way to build an encyclopedia. There is also a lack of good-faith assumptions on both sides. If people want to oppose this proposed wording, then I respectfully request that they come up with an alternate proposal. Saying no to every proposal that is made and throwing an alphabet soup of policies at the page without saying what part violated that policy and what can be done to improve it. Whether you like it or not, the vast majority of Rick Warren's press coverage is due to the inauguration controversy. It will be going into the article, in some form. I hope it is a form that we can all agree upon. Firestorm ^Talk 22:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you completely, however, since you've made it clear that it "will be going into the article, in some form" I can guarantee you that the fingers-in-the-ears chorus will continue indefinitely. That's just the way it works. Sorry if my non-assumption of good faith offends, but I come to that because of exactly this, this gaming of the system by throwing around what looks like policy but what's really only a means of keeping essential information out of an article. Mike Doughney (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The way I see it, there's no logical reason to keep it out. If the inauguration controversy never happened, I have serious doubts as to whether or not this article would pass WP:N, or if it could, that it could justify itself as anything more than C-class and low-importance. With the coverage that the controversy has given to him, there's enough material for a GA or even FA down the road. If you asked a random person on the street who Rick Warren was, most probably would have no idea. Of the ones that do, however, the vast majority would know him as the guy who gave the invocation for Obama's inauguration. I'm baffled as to what justification they have for trying to keep out the one reason that many people know his name. Nonetheless, i'm going to keep trying to hash out a consensus here. Firestorm ^Talk 22:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)try: Obama chose Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation. Several organizations criticized Omama as a result, contending that Warren had compared legalized same-sex marriages to the legalization of polygamy, incest and pedophilia. [1][17][3][18][19][20][21][22][23] based on Warren's December 2008 Beliefnet interview [24]. Warren sent a video message to his church that said that he does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia, but does oppose the redefining of marriage.[11] Warren publicly supported California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.",[26] eliminating the legal right of same-sex couples to marry.[27] (then very short abortion paragraph which seems really monor in news coverage)

Removing bit about church, tightening language ("later" etc.) and descrioption of invocation as being not especially important. Others may have other suggestions, wording etc. I am sure.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs) 22:47, February 26, 2009 (UTC)

I can't see anything substantially wrong with this. Does anybody else see anything? Firestorm ^Talk 22:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No. This is what the source says: "On Tuesday, Warren's church replaced a brief article on the Bible and homosexuality with an audio message on Saddlebackfamily.com to better explain the church's view that Scripture prohibits sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman, according to Larry Ross, a Warren spokesman.

Anyone can attend Saddleback worship services. But the church article had said that gays "unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted" as members. " [16]. Title:Rick Warren Insists He's Not Anti-Gay. Article about Rick Warren. So this "At the same time, Warren's church replaced an article on their website about the Bible and homosexuality that included [gays] "unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted" as members with a message that explained the church's view that Scripture prohibits sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman.[11][25]" is relevant. I do not understand what your reasoning is for the removal of: "President-elect Obama's choice was also criticized because of Warren's stance on abortion. [3]Obama later defended his selection saying that he disagrees with the minister's opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage but that there should be room for "dialogue" on such difficult social issues. [28] On Jan. 20, 2009, Warren, who faced criticism for his anti-gay views in the weeks leading up to the inauguration, delivered an inclusive but deeply religious invocation that celebrated the first African-American US president. [29]" Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

IOW you would veto any version which does not list the church's former article, which is not ascribed to Warren? And I noted that the abortion para was not removed -- though iterating "President-elect" seems unneeded, and the description of the invocation is fluff at best. Collect (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not attributed to Warren in any of the proposed texts. However, it is in the article because it is relevant. And I guess you had meant that the description of invocation wasnt especially important to you instead of we should describe it as not being important in the article. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that losing the part about replacing the article is acceptable in the name of compromise. Once we get a version hammered out and in the article, then we can work on expanding and improving the article as a whole. In order to avoid WP:UNDUE weight, I'm willing to accept a version without the article-replacing claim, even if it is true and sourced, if it means that we can move forward with this. Firestorm ^Talk 23:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not acceptable to me. Are you saying we should drop each mention of that church in this article:

"He is the founder and senior pastor of Saddleback Church, an evangelical megachurch located in Lake Forest, California, currently the eighth-largest church in the United States (this ranking includes multi-site churches).[4]"

"His sister Chaundel is married to Saddleback pastor Tom Holladay."

Look how long this is: "In April 1980 Warren held Saddleback Church's first public service on Easter Sunday at the Laguna Hills High School Theater with 200 people in attendance. Warren's church growth methods led to rapid expansion with the church using nearly 80 different facilities in its 28-year history. Saddleback did not build its first permanent building until it had 10,000 weekly attenders. When the current Lake Forest campus was purchased in the early 1990s, a 2,300-seat plastic tent was used for worship services for several years, with four services each weekend. In 1995, the current Worship Center was completed with a seating capacity of 3,500. A multi-million dollar children's ministry building and a staff office building were completed over the next few years. In June 2008, a $20 million student ministry facility called the "Refinery", was completed housing the "Wildside" middle school and "HSM" high school ministries, consisting of 1,500 students. Saddleback Church averages nearly 20,000 people in attendance each week and is currently the eighth-largest church in the United States.[12]"

"In August 2008, Warren drew greater national attention by hosting the Civil Forum on the Presidency that featured senators John McCain and Barack Obama at Saddleback Church. Warren said the goal of the forum was to “restore civility in our civil discourse.”[15] "

"The P E A C E Plan is an initiative begun by Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California. Senior pastor Rick Warren's stated intention in launching the P E A C E (or PEACE) Plan is to involve every Christian and every church in every nation in the task of serving people in the areas of the greatest global needs."

"After the measure passed, Warren's Saddleback Church was targeted by protesters.[28]"

This has taken too long. I do not want to spend the same amount of time again when we are expanding the article. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No, that's clearly not what i'm saying. I'm saying let's get something we can compromise on as a base, then expand it from there. If we can carrow it down to what absolutely has to be in the article, then we can get consensus for other things later. I'd rather have an article that has half the information that should be there while we work on the rest, than have a version with none of it until we can form a consensus on everything. By breaking down the problem, we can solve it one step at a time. Firestorm ^Talk 00:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Point of information To clarify what's now being discussed here, this is a diff of wording 2.0 versus Collect's version (Collect's in italics). References and stuff have been omitted.

• Obama's choosing Warren for the inaugural invocation was criticized by several prominent organizations.

Obama chose Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation.

• They contend that Warren had previously compared the legalization of same-sex marriage to the legitimization of polygamy, incest and pedophilia, based on Warren's December 2008 Beliefnet interview.

Several organizations criticized Obama as a result, contending that Warren had compared legalized same-sex marriages to the legalization of polygamy, incest and pedophilia, based on Warren's December 2008 Beliefnet interview.

• Warren later released a video message to his church that said that he does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia, but instead opposes the redefinition of marriage.

Warren sent a video message to his church that said that he does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia, but does oppose the redefining of marriage.

• At the same time, Warren's church replaced an article on their website about the Bible and homosexuality that included [gays] "unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted" as members with a message that explained the church's view that Scripture prohibits sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman.

(deleted, no substitute)

• Warren also publicly supported California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," which eliminated the legal right of same-sex couples to marry.

Warren publicly supported California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.", eliminating the legal right of same-sex couples to marry.

I don't think deletion of the sentence at point 4 is appropriate; it indicates that the church and by extension Warren were actively trying to react to events of the time, and it's sourced to 2 outlets. The original version of point 3 includes 'later' which I think is essential to establish the sequence of events. No preference on the rest. Mike Doughney (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

On points 2 and 3, it really doesn't matter what people "contend", rather it matters what he believes. This is an article about him, not them. They got it wrong so why should it be included? Point 1 could simply be expanded to say these organizations were upset because he took a stance opposing same-sex marriage. On point 4, the issue is what is the stated position of the church that Warren leads regardless of the communication format. His church takes the position of no membership for unrepentant gays. However, this is not notable as it is a position of thousands of churches. All of this comes down to his unremarkable position on homosexuality that seemed to be a surprise to the gay community. The only notability of the issue is that he happens to be famous and spoke at the inauguration. The real issue is that the gay community is upset that Obama asked a pastor with these views to pray at the inauguration. That there was controversy is notable. The rest is simply trying to put a point of view into an BLP and it is not warranted. While not in total agreement, I could live with the rest of the points. CarverM (talk) 02:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

So, you dont agree with Collect's version, either? Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

For the thousandth time: nobody got anything "wrong." It is clear from the primary source that Warren agreed with the interviewer, when he was questioned to clarify, that he was in fact likening the legalization of gay marriage to the legalization of incest, etc. This is, again, supported by a number of secondary sources who simply reported on the obvious. Your disagreement with the obvious is simply that, since the existence of primary and secondary sources is sufficient to support inclusion in the article. As for point 4, the issue of notability is not negated simply because "thousands of churches" agree. It is notable because it was the cause of a notable controversy, which is what is being reported on and must be included in the article about the person who caused all the controversy. Again, you are falsely raising spurious issues to obstruct the inclusion of factual information that shows Warren in a negative light. I'm sure Lyonscc will be along in a moment to repeat both himself and what you just wrote, in the reflexive, never-ending quest by certain dead-enders to polish Warren's reputation; don't waste your time claiming that you're not in Warren's denomination because the reflexes you're demonstrating are simply those that are common across much of Christian culture when a figurehead of that culture does something indefensible. Looked at through a rather twisted prism, you seem to be claiming, incredibly, that Warren has no views of his own, all that we are discussing are disconnected interpretations and projections made by others, and those interpretations that you merely disagree with are inadmissable. This is clearly not the case. Mike Doughney (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Please, CarverM, and any who insist the "position of no membership for unrepentant gays" is "his unremarkable position", why do you think CNN reported "Choice Sparks Outrage" and MSNBC reported "Warren faces protests"?! This is precisely the sort of salient information we are trying to elucidate, and you are telling us to keep it out because it is not sufficiently flattering for the BLP despite the fact we have found easily Verifiable sources. Why do you think there are controversies about Rick Warren? Why do you think Rick Warren writes on his webpage about controversies, but completely scrubs away any mention of why people protested? http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/blogs/newsandviews/index.html

I looked in my dictionary, and it says the definition of Apologist is "a person who defends the controversial stance of another". If the Apologist stance has some kind of Verifiable citation from a Reliable Source, than it can be included in the BLP along with the Polemicist stance.... but as we see here, so far, there are only Apologists with no rationalizations, only refusals and forbidden barricades. Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 03:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Firestorm, you do not understand. Already, so much has come off: Lamebth conference issue, 'but later clarified that civil union is not a civil right', [17], "However, he questioned if homosexuality was natural", "he considers same-sex relationships immoral", "Warren was claimed to be having a tight connection to a Ugandan pastor named Martin Ssempa. Ssempa has been linked with crusading against homosexuals in Uganda and lobbying against condom use in the promotion of a safe-sex message there." [18]. So the text you had suggested is my limit, ie: what absolutely has to be in the article / base. And I do not accept the WP:UNDUE argument, it is ridiculuos that we cant mention the 4th point above when the article already mentions plastic tents of Saddleback church and how much was spent on the 'Refinery'. After 2 months and many attempts, the text you had suggested was the compromise. Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

When listing sequences of events, sticking in "later" is pointless. And I wonder why it is a concern about using sentences to hold a cohesive thought within them, instead of the weird construction used before? The only significant change proffered is removing the part about what his church may or may not "believe" but which is not sourced at all to Warren. As such it is irrelevant to a biography. Collect (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I'm open to rewording, so we can drop "later". About your latter point, you are repeating yourself, I had answered that before. Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The use of "later" is very important because the timeline of events is not something you can dispute when we find it in the easily Verifiable and Reliable Sources. You don't like the way that timeline causes Warren to appear? Or you don't think that timeline is Verified from an RS? It is verified, so your discomfort with the way it causes Warren to appear is probably a result of the realization that many other readers could potentially infer the same ideas that might be suggested to you? Ideas which sound unflattering of Warren and demonstrate why there was outrage and controversy? I'm trying to see why you are denying this type of Verifiable information is needed? We can't argue about spin and undue weight when we are quoting the clock and calendar. The clock and calendar don't have opinions.

Also i agree the deletion of point 4 is not really a good idea, because it is very Verifiable from multiple Reliable Sources (e.g., Rachel Maddow first and most easily); and because it is not "undue weight or a SYNthesis which conflates the church's website's contents with the views of Rick Warren" for the following reasons: 1= Rick Warren is the owner/ pastor/ pontiff/ person in charge of the church, 2= Rick Warren was given the opportunity to retract or address the statement, but instead of mentioning the "under construction" situation with that particular exclusionary Heterosexual Supremacist material on the website he instead (as shown in Maddow's reports) chose to do the 22 minute video chat on his website about Christophobes and Pastor Rickophobes, continued to keep the Heterosexual Supremacist material unchallenged as much as five weeks after the Inauguration (i'm going back to his webpage today to see if this is still true), and 3= instead of addressing the Heterosexual Supremacist material, he did a terribly staged publicity stunt (as reported by Maddow et al) at a West Hollywood AIDS service organization (in Los Angeles' largest gay ghetto) but did not offer to retract the controversial statements on the issue of HIS church's acceptance of gays and HIS church's official policies towards the Human Rights of gays and of People With AIDS. This is what is known as tacit approval, and when Rick Warren is questioned and challenged repeatedly on the topic but he refuses to move away from his apologist defense of Scapegoating, that's what is known as active approval.

The rest of the latest proposed version all sounds quite fine to me because it is rigorously (and easily) Verifiable, coming from Reliable Sources, and provides only Notable information which pertains to the specific subcategories of Rick Warren's BLP (social views, political activities, public controversies, Warren's heavily publicized statements in response to the controversies, and on and on.) Thanks! We have some progress! Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 02:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Refusals to compromise I take it are fine by you? Especially when there is a real and substantive BLP issue? Collect (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Umm, do you not read all comments? We did compromise: "Already, so much has come off: Lamebth conference issue, 'but later clarified that civil union is not a civil right', [15], "However, he questioned if homosexuality was natural", "he considers same-sex relationships immoral", "Warren was claimed to be having a tight connection to a Ugandan pastor named Martin Ssempa. Ssempa has been linked with crusading against homosexuals in Uganda and lobbying against condom use in the promotion of a safe-sex message there." [16]" Phoenix of9 (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Collect, you just wrote: "Refusals to compromise I take it are fine by you?" This is not a way to Assume Good Faith, and you have done this to me enough times for me to suggest it is a Personal Attack. I am starting to learn how to play your game, now it's time to peer ever so carefully from within Our Glass Houses as our hands grasp hold of those stones. Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 03:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

See below. And the fact is that I suggested removing one irrelevant (to a BLP) sentence and was met with a chorus of "noes" except from the mediator. To me that does suggest a possible unwillingness to consider that the sentence might not be proper here. Can you offer a different explanation? Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

See what below? An apology? Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 03:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no BLP issue. It is clear (again, here I am repeating the obvious) that Warren happens to run a church of which he is CEO. The public actions of his church, particularly with respect to high-profile controversies he's involved in, may certainly be assumed to be happening with Warren's awareness and under his direction unless later retracted. The proposed language is quite clear that it is the church that he runs that is taking the action. Mike Doughney (talk) 03:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said, its from an article whose title is: Rick Warren Insists He's Not Anti-Gay. Its relevant. RS'ed. Phoenix of9 (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Continuing my promise to personally verify and illuminate the Saddleback webpages of Rick Warren's church which are part of the controversies, i have some URIs which might help. The transcript of Warren's Inauguration Invocation is here: http://www.purposedriven.com/article.do?method=articlePage&contentId=118603

Regarding the primary reasons for heavily publicized notable controversies surrounding Warren's infamous statements, i said i would go back and check the websites of Rick Warren and all associated SaddleBack Ministries. I have now done so, and as today, four months after Warren's publicized endorsement of Prop8 and the election, five weeks after the MLK and Inauguration Day debacles, there are still no changes to those contents which were the source of controversy. You can see for yourself, they have now totally eliminated all mention of gay or homosexual or non- Heterosexual Supremacist people from their webpages, except for the one page where they explicitly endorse the Scapegoating of Gays by using biblical gobbledygook to vilify homosexual activity (section 21 in the following URI)

http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/home/bibleqanda/index.html

That is where i see the glaring hypocrisy, superstition-mongering, hatemongering, and slander. Follow that up with the incredible hypocrisy in this gobbledygook prayer which is offensive to atheists:

http://www.purposedriven.com/article.do?method=articlePage&contentId=115110

And finally, if that wasn't all creepy enough, despite being unable to find clarification of the Saddleback positions and Rick Warren's approval or disapproval as Pastor and Founder and Owner of HIS church on the topics of homosexuality, marriage equality, and Heterosexual Supremacist behavior, we find only the part of the webpages which try to indoctrinate teenagers by conflating "sex, drugs, and pornography" with "eating disorders, drinking, cutting, depression, living with troubled family dynamics, etc."

http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/home/careprayerhelp/fullstory.asp?id=7479

Does this help you to understand why there was outrage (reported on CNN) and controversy (reported on MSNBC) and widespread loathing of such odious slander in not only America but the international community as well? See, i'm trying my best to give you all the information i can find pertaining to the relevant BLP topics, and i'm trying not to use any obscenities or personal attacks when i discuss the edits and sources and verifiability. I'm exposing my own personal biases as much as possible here, within the limits of my human capabilities for tact, and i am doing this because that will help you to make sure i don't impose them on the actual article space, so you can verify the Neutrality of the edits to the BLP. Do you see how i am doing this in Good Faith? Do you see how i have gone to great lengths to inform rather than attack you? Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 04:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

So, Collect, are you still against the inclusion of church quote and CarverM, are you against Collect's offer? Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

With all the gobbledygook above and Teledildonix314 attacks on Christian belief I've lost site of any offer. Specifically, what is it? CarverM (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I explicitly note that you're feigning disinterest over "gobbledygook," and an editor's justifiable anger, when a substantive counter-proposal has been actually introduced by Collect. It's now time to do something other than raise a reflexive cut-and-paste objection, and you make excuses. My clarification of what the counter-proposal is was quite clear and just a few lines above. Pardon me while I continue to assume bad faith. Mike Doughney (talk) 04:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it is an honest response. And, I note again your incivility against any editor with a viewpoint not your own. As to "justifiably anger" that works both ways. There is no reason to attack the honest beliefs of others. I could write pages and pages, offer hundreds of books that would directly refute Teledildonix314's own illogic and beliefs. I refrain because it's not appropriate here and not germane to the discussion and resolution to consensus on this article. I would respectfully suggest you refrain as well, it's not helping. CarverM (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

My proposal is what it is. Within the context of what is supposed to be a BLP, I am still concerned that the entire contretemps dans une tasse is being given undue weight from the start. Within this suggestion, I feel that the actions of the church are unrelated to a biography at all. I also feel that to the extent that Warren's beliefs are those of his denomination, that they are unremarkable and do not belong in the BLP. Collect (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I am still concerned that we are cutting out portions of well-sourced, verifiable and notable material, but I am willing to compromise if it means we can stabilize the article. Later, we can worry about adding things. If we can get a stable version of the article in that everyone can consent to, then I would be satisfied with that for now. Firestorm ^Talk 18:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Firestorm, if we cant agree to this now: "At the same time, Warren's church replaced an article on their website about the Bible and homosexuality that included [gays] "unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted" as members with a message that explained the church's view that Scripture prohibits sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman.[11][25]"

How are we gonna agree later? Whats going to change? Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

We are not going to agree to that wording. We offered a compromise, and you appear to accept absolutely none of it. Collect (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Firestorm's version was already a compromise for me. I've been compromising for 2 months and have offered many different versions. Firestorm, I really appreciate your efforts here and you do seem fair but I dont want to agree to deletion of RS'ed, notable and relevant material especially when there are already stuff like "plastic tent" of Saddleback church in the article which noone had objected. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Your position is sufficiently clear. The arrival of a mediator meant that you would negotiate on absolutely nothing because you had already gone as far as you are willing to go. Seems a bit of a waste having him even drop in with that editorial position. Interesting concept of mediation. Collect (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. Read: Talk:Rick_Warren#Warren.2C_invocation.2C_views_on_homosexuality, which was my final proposal which is different than Firestorm's version. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Response to Collect and CarverM regarding opposition above, where comments are made about: "the actions of the church are unrelated to a biography", "Warren's beliefs are those of his denomination, that they are unremarkable and do not belong in the BLP", et cetera. I am so fed up with this type of apologist attitude, i have taken the time today to use the Internet Wayback Machine on Archive.org to dig up the relevant webpages and show them to you directly so you can no longer use this type of apologist argument.

Look very carefully on the following Archived webpages and notice how many times you see Rick Warren's smiling photograph plastered all over that website and its subpages and its sections regarding SaddleBackFamily.com and consider that when Rick Warren approved of the usage of his photo and likeness on each of those webpages OWNED by HIS church, he is giving ACTIVE endorsement (rather than just accidental tacit approval) of the contents of those webpages.

I present for you these Archived webpages: http://web.archive.org/web/20070430011122/www.saddlebackfamily.com/membership/group_finder/faqs_smallgroup.asp?id=7509#q_04 http://web.archive.org/web/20070430011122/http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/membership/group_finder/faqs_smallgroup.asp?id=7509#q_04 http://web.archive.org/web/20070503083431/www.saddleback.com/flash/default.htm

And i quote for you their contents directly: Because membership in a church is an outgrowth of accepting the Lordship and leadership of Jesus in one’s life, someone unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted at a member at Saddleback Church. That does not mean they cannot attend church – we hope they do! God’s Word has the power to change our lives. In equal desire to follow Jesus, we also would not accept a couple into membership at Saddleback who were not willing to repent of the sexual sin of living together before marriage. That does not mean this couple cannot attend church – we hope they do! God’s Word has the power to change our lives.

Those pages were the version available online during the first part of 2007, and if you go visit them now, you will see they have totally scrubbed away (deleted and altered) the controversial sections about homosexuality. They have NOT removed Rick Warren's photograph and signature from those webpages and subcategories. They have removed nearly everything on their website regarding homosexuality except for the tiny little quote i found previously in which Warren is sermonizing about the sinfulness of homosexuality and the damnation of homosexuals; they have apparently done this removal precisely because of the OUTRAGE and controversies of the last half year.

Are you still going to claim that Warren's beliefs are those of his denomination, that they are unremarkable and do not belong in the BLP?

Are you still going to claim that this is a tempest in a teapot or a contretemps dans une tasse, now that people have taken the time to offer you the explicit evidence and a chance to compare the before-and-after for yourself?

Please go back to the portions of the above discussion where you voiced your objections along the lines of the actions of the church are unrelated to a biography and please make careful note of how those actions are explicitly demonstrated to be Rick Warren's, and therefore can not be simply deleted from his biography without giving them consideration for Due Weight. Thank you. Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 00:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Kindly redact attacks. And since your big news is that a pastor's picture is on a church website, that is not important anywhere I can think of in determining what is or is not biographical information fopr a BLP. Collect (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, i just love that. I present you the evidence to prove your conjectures were wrong, and instead of acknowledging the proof, you claim "attacks". "Attacks"?! Please, show where there are attacks. That's rich. Also, please examine carefully the literal meaning of what you just wrote: a pastor's picture is on a church website, that is not important anywhere I can think of in determining what is or is not biographical information. The main thrust of several arguments you made repeatedly in your objections to portions of the compromises presented above by multiple editors was along the lines of Warren's beliefs are those of his denomination, that they are unremarkable and do not belong in the BLP, so i have explicitly presented you the evidence which contradicts this type of objection. Please show where this is an "attack", and please explain why this is not sufficient rebuttal to negate your objections? It's very difficult to move forward with the proposed versions of the article if you tendentiously block with objections which have been disproven, and it's very difficult to find a way to compromisingly incorporate objections into the material if those blockages are purely apologist in nature and do not actually offer any evidence or citations to disprove all of the dozens of references which have been established as Verifiable.

Why is it so important to deny that Rick Warren is responsible for the contents of his own website and his own church's webpages? Why is it so important to block any citation or inclusion of material which could be seen as unflattering to Warren and to his church? Is there some sort of cognitive dissonance taking place which is so brittle it may actually cause psychological and emotional discomfort when the contradictions are exposed? Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 02:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Now i stand accused of making personal attacks on CarverM, so i'm forced to defend myself with denials of such. This is probably going to incite some seriously upset feelings if i don't say this correctly, so i will now (again) attempt the utmost in politically correct speech which avoids attacking anybody personally. However, i am going to point to a couple diffs from CarverM on my TalkPage, so this might risk looking like a "comment on an editor" rather than a "comment on an edit", but please watch carefully to make sure i do not "attack" anybody's person, and please observe how i considered the following to be an extreme example of how i have been trying to Assume Good Faith in my exchanges with some editors, particularly editors who make diffs such as these two TalkPage Messages i will describe from CarverM:

diff1 = specifically prayed for you and diff2 = It is evident to me, as a Christian, that many people who disregard the evidence of our Creator

Because i was willing to AGF and look at the parts of any peaceful and friendly approach, because i was willing to take at face value any very kind wishes to "find joy and peace and hope", i chose not to respond to CarverM with a vicious retort. That would have accomplished absolutely nothing. But in this specific instance, they explicitly said they were actively including me in the fantasies of their christian lifestyle (prayer). So i must point out a hypothetical situational reversal. If i went to the TalkPage for CarverM and told her or him explicitly that i was actively including them in the fantasies of my gay sex life, can you imagine what a serious breach of etiquette that would be? Can you imagine what sort of backlash would result if i made any such declaration even remotely resembling such a fantasy-based proposal?

So i want to make it perfectly clear, for the sake of repeatedly having to deal with this sort of point over and over on this Article, and on any other related articles, everybody has their own standards of what is considered friendly and acceptable versus what is considered intellectually repugnant and ethically vomitous. The very things which one editor might consider to be kindly and sweet could be the very things which another editor considers distasteful and demeaning. So for the sake of not hurting people's feelings unnecessarily, and for the sake of not sidetracking TalkPages about editing articles because of some personal sense of having one's pet fantasies attacked, i would like to politely ask that when somebody feels as though they are being made to endure "attacks on spiritual beliefs" perhaps it should be noted that a lack of deference to their fantasies is not a personal attack. I am not asking any editors-- christian or otherwise-- to listen to my personal fantasies nor to accept my placement of those editors into my gay sex fantasies; and i would understand if any editors were offended if i were to do something so socially unacceptable. In return, i'm asking any editors-- christian evangelists or otherwise-- to please not presume that people will be flattered by being actively included in those religious fantasy lives, no matter how socially acceptable that may be considered in some religious circles.

So, not only with respect to CarverM, but concerning anybody who wants to claim "personal attacks" are being made: please think about how all of these interactions actually work in both directions, and how the fantasy-based claims distract from the core purpose of amassing and editing as much useful information as possible. Applying religious beliefs (or any kind of orthodoxy) is the most certain way to undermine anything educational; relying on faith is an explicit choice to suspend intelligent analysis; inserting one's personal fantasies is no way to assist in the production of an encyclopedia whose purpose is to inform people about reality; and clinging religiously to superstition is no way to amass useful and demonstrable citations and verifiable sources of information for encyclopedia articles. If i come to somebody with a "personal attack", i hope there are lots of administrators standing by who will suspend my privileges and revoke my editing abilities for the sake of preventing such behavior. We're using a system which involves a great deal of application of the Golden Rule, so please consider giving some consideration to the possibility that other people might not appreciate having a fantasy-based value system applied to a reality-based encyclopedia with ethically-based codes of conduct. In other words, think long and hard before rushing to cry wolf about "personal attacks", when you consider how your own actions can be interpreted quite differently from the way you might have intended, no matter how much genuine "joy and peace and hope" you think you might be evangelically spreading. Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 11:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. You are correct, my reaching out to you on a personal basis was an unwanted intrusion. I will limit my comments to the specifics of improving this article. CarverM (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I note a long apologia for posts, but this is a place to discuss improvements to the article. It is. moreover, clear that the above does not meet that aim. Collect (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

So you're pointing out how an editor's comments should be strictly constructive and in line with that aim of improvement? Okay, that makes sense. Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 13:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Making it clear that this is a BLP is quite in line with seeking improvements and compromises to make this article better. Thanks for the nice short example. Collect (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It is unreasonable to ask editors to give deference to the gospels (fantasies) of a blood sacrifice cult-- no matter how popular such veneration of cult(s) might be in some places. Sycophantic deference has no place in an encyclopedia nor in any other venue where the aim is to develop the academic presentation of information from verifiable reliable sources (realities). On the contrary, one of the most effective ways to amass knowledge and to enable comprehension is with an approach utilizing a persistent pattern of challenging fantasy-based information (e.g., cult doctrines) by finding evidence-based information instead. This is how we eliminate the incorporation of superstition into our encyclopedias, no matter how badly anybody may insist they require those superstitions as a vital part of their fantasy-based personal value systems (conflict of interest). Our goal is to collaborate on reference work, not to coddle the dogma which has no relevance to our aims of neutrality and objective analysis. In fact, history shows us that coddling dogma does not really achieve the sort of results we desire if we value an encyclopedia, libraries, museums, and other repositories of collaborative learning. We can not censor notable information about cults and the pronouncements of their charlatans, much as we can't censor mention of Harry Potter and Star Wars; but we do not need to accept a slavish devotion to orthodoxy at the expense of our aim to improve the sharing of knowledge.

It was wrong for Manutdglory to call me a vandal; it was wrong for Lyonscc to spuriously declare "publications and/or authors with a radical gay agenda" in reference to "professional superstition-monger"; and i hope it's clear how extremely repugnant it was to call me religious and to approach me with literal evangelism after i clearly identified how such activity would be an uncivil response to the ethical concerns i raised. I'm beginning to see how these tools of civility, neutrality, verifiability, undue weight, and extraordinary concern for sensitivity in the biographies of living people can be used by some editors like toys, albeit toys resembling brick walls or sledgehammers. I haven't even begun to touch on the opportunities available simply by being bold and following the general guidelines for notability and reliable sources. If there is truly an aim to improve this article or any other portion of Wikipedia, it must to some extent follow the campsite rule and leave the material in better shape than it was found, including no religious obstruction of reliable sources with claims of "radical gay agenda", no deletion of bold edits with cries of "vandalism!", no false accusations of "personal attack" when anybody fails to grovel before your fantasy life, and no disruptive blocking of the insertion of verifiable information for nine weeks simply because it's too upsetting to one's personal relationship with blood sacrifice cults and/or their ministers and evangelists. Thank you for helping with so much education and aiming for so much improvement. Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 17:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I know that it is probably bad form as a mediator to do this, but I feel I have no choice but to drift away from the middle and agree with your point of view in principle. Quite a few people have attempted to improve the article by adding well-sourced material that is relevant to Rick Warren's life. In return, other people have consistently tried to block material that reflects negatively on the subject. Edit wars have happened, and attempts to mediate are running face first into a brick wall. I'm really not sure how much more I can do for you guys, because people seem unwilling to budge from their positions and come together for the sake of the Encyclopaedia.

That said, Teledildonix, you need to reread WP:CIVIL. I know it is difficult after so long, but you really must try and treat everyone with civility and kindness. Firestorm ^Talk 17:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow. seeing the edit summary of "spurious blockage of edits despite W:V W:RS W:GNG due to religious conflict of interest and nine weeks of compromise leading to mediation)" did not prepare me. I would again suggest you redact any intemperate language above. Collect (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I emphatically and with civility stand by my statements of improvements being attempted and the kinds of tactics used to prevent them. There is nothing intemperate about the language-- on the contrary, i spent quite a while constructing the most tactful and diplomatic ways of expressing my viewpoint without resorting to obscenities and personal attacks. I know it is hard to understand that people could have such a different viewpoint from yours, but it requires some flexibility on everybody's part to accomodate all of the input in this Discussion for the sake of refining what actually ends up in the Article. If i went to you and said, "Collect, i want to tell you this in a friendly fashion: i'm inserting you into my gay lifestyle's sexual fantasies because i care about you so much, regardless of the fact that you seem to find that incredibly distasteful," then i imagine you would take some offense and claim lack of civility. But when an editor came to me and said they wanted to let me know in a friendly fashion: they're inserting me into their evangelist lifestyle's blood sacrifice cult fantasies because they care about me so much, regardless of the fact that i made it unmistakably clear that i found that incredibly distasteful, you might imagine i could take some offense and claim lack of civility. It would be purely because of my sensitivities and my personal viewpoint, and thus i would like to expect the same standard of consideration that is being so doggedly demanded of my participation in the editing process. I think it's amusing to see the reactions when "the shoe is on the other foot". To paraphrase from the literature of The Human Evasion: If you stand up to the religious you lose something called their "goodwill"; if you kowtow to them you gain... their permission to continue kowtowing. Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 18:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I completely agree with you here and your earlier comment above. It is very difficult to talk about civility when the underlying agenda of those who are using the system against itself to keep factual information out of this article is by definition uncivil if not just plain barbaric. Mike Doughney (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi everyone... I didn't realize the conversation about the sentence describing Prop 8 had picked up down here, so I'm just catching up now. It seems we're spending time concerning ourselves with how certain lines might make Warren "appear," when surely that's not an appropriate task for us as editors, and would be futile because Wikipedia users have divergent opinions. Take Prop 8 for example -- some folks appreciate Warren's endorsement, some disapprove, some think the controversy is a tempest in a teapot, and some find it significant. None are objectively right or wrong. Surely our responsibility is to serve readers without regard to their preferences or our own. Users skip over info that doesn't interest them even if it's pertinent to the subject of the article, so we'd be remiss to exclude such info based on whether it interests/bores/pleases/displeases us. If we can't agree on that, I worry that we'll fail.

I also fear that name-calling and offensive statements on this page might drive editors away or cause positions to become entrenched; i.e. a proposed edit might be opposed based not on the merits of the proposal but rather on the basis of who made it.

In the discussion of "Proposed Wording 2.0" I was frustrated to read Lyonscc's statement that we had agreed to an explanation of Prop 8 that excludes the information that it eliminated the legal right of same-sex couples to marry, because we did not reach an agreement about that, and because it seemed we were close to agreeing on language that included it, and because as you know I have practically begged editors who feel the wording is biased to clarify what word(s) seem biased and what word(s) might be better.

While many of the editors posting here have demonstrated keen awareness of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and asserted that we should be civil in our discussions, all of which gladdens me, I've felt somewhat ignored in my efforts to elicit clear and specific feedback from editors who say they think the language I proposed is not NPOV. Shouldn't we be committed not only to guidelines and civility but also to work earnestly with editors who make good-faith efforts to collaborate, especially if their edits have been undone? I first posted on this page by inviting CarverM to help me understand why he undid an edit I made (to add that Prop 8 eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry). While CarverM did not directly reply to me, he eventually concurred with the language I proposed (thank you), but other editors who said they saw bias in the language I proposed have not helped me understand what word(s) fell short of NPOV. In particular if Lyonscc, Collect, and Manutdglory will please help with that, we may be able to settle that one sentence.

I'm not eager to join discussions of other sentences *but* I notice there's been much disagreement about how to characterize Rick Warren's Beliefnet interview. Could you resolve that by using quotes rather than trying to interpret them? For example you could say something like:

In an interview with Beliefnet chief editor Steven Waldman, Warren said he opposed marriage between siblings, adults and minors, and multiple partners, and when asked by Waldman whether he thinks "those are equivalent to gays getting married," responded "I do." This statement angered [yadda yadda or whatever comes next]. Warren subsequently sent a video message to his church that said he does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia, but does oppose "the redefining of marriage."

Does that work?

Also, Firestorm, thank you for the help you've given us and thanks for urging us to come together. But if we don't succeed, and you feel like you're running into a wall in your effort to help us further, what options do we have moving forward? Benccc (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The next step if this informal mediation does not succeed is formal mediation. Other options are detailed at WP:DR. Kevin (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

WSJ article

I'll get to this next. Firestorm ^Talk 08:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this one should be much simpler than the one above.--Lyonscc (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it will, but if I can get you guys to agree on the biggest issue first, then the little ones will fall into place easily. Firestorm ^Talk 16:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)