Talk:Rick Warren/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Conflict of interest, one more time

Resolved

 – User:CarverM is topic banned for 3 months Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note - I have further commented in relation to Collect's incorrect assumption of there being an Outing here and I leave this message so as to keep the thread links related for future reference.--VS ^talk 21:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

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

This article has been held up for over two months now, even with several administrators and a mediator, and one might wonder why? Could it be that there are underlying reasons due to Conflict of Interest of an extremely shocking nature given the claims of apologist stances? Or could it be there is a systematic effort on the part of the authors of this comment disseminating SaddleBack Church insider information? How do we approach this situation with Good Faith? Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 19:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Finally -- a specific case of WP:OUTING here. "If you see an editor post personal information about another person, do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information as this would give the person posting the information – and anyone else who saw the page – feedback on the accuracy of the material. Do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently to correct attempts for the same reason. When reporting an attempted outing take care not to comment on the accuracy of the information. Outing should usually be described as "an attempted outing" or similar, to make it clear that the information may or may not be true, and it should be made clear to the users blocked for outing that the block log and notice does not confirm the information. Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block." Collect (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. It's all public record. It's all available through the Google search. Meanwhile, over at VS's page where I raised this matter, CarverM says, "I have never hidden my affiliations nor brought them up." There is nothing hidden here, I'm just bringing up something that was obvious if anyone went to look for it (it all started with two words thrown into Google, "carver" and "saddleback"). Mike Doughney (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

My primary reason for participating in this article was as defense towards material being inserted that I felt was either totally inaccurate, a coatrack or that does not belong in a BLP. If it will help move things along I will refrain from any editing (I haven't done any in quite some time) but I will not refrain from pointing out issues I deem unfair or unwarranted to the subject. CarverM (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Considering the COI issues that were raised with respect to a previous now-removed editor (removed in part for unwillingness to honestly deal with their own COI), you really have no excuse for even opening your mouth here (clarify: without full disclosure of your relationship with Warren), much less engage in a systematic campaign to keep everything and anything out of the article that might show Warren in anything other than a positive light. Further, I direct other editors to this mock-up of a Saddleback Church article on your personal sandbox page as an indicator of how you'd like articles about the subjects with which you've been professionally involved to look. It's a bit of a stretch for you to now insist that that kind of sanitization and promotion is not what you're setting out to do here. To further clarify who you are, here is your bio as it appeared on the Purpose Driven Media website two years ago:

Mark Carver Executive Director, Purpose Driven Church

As executive director for Purpose Driven Church, Mark Carver oversees the ministry of Purpose Driven in every region of the world except North America. His vision is to see a worldwide community of healthy churches working together to fulfill the Great Commission. Toward that end, Carver and his team are developing tools to train pastors worldwide and creating curriculum to support the spiritual health of individual church members.

- Mike Doughney (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You seem to see some nefarious intent in the mockup. The article, when I first looked at it, was not well done and I was simply experimenting with some of the information that could also be inserted. To be clear, that is information I mostly copied to my Sandbox from the article to experiment with editing until I was ready to make any changes. What's your point? CarverM (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Given your obvious unaddressed COI, I am bringing forward the contents of your sandbox and letting others decide what your intent was. Mike Doughney (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

To specifically address your participation here. Given who you are and your professional relationship with the subject, you should have first of all disclosed that to other editors, whether you simply worked for one of Warren's entities or were in fact detailed with the task of dealing with Wikipedia articles on Warren's behalf. Then, you should have raised your objections. Then, other editors who are unrelated to the article's subject could then evaluate your objections. I have no general, blanket objection to editors who have a direct relationship with the subject of articles participating in the process (that in fact applies to me with respect to three articles here where I'm clearly named, editing under my own name there's no issue of disclosure), but that should occur with the knowledge of and with ongoing review by other editors. None of that applies to your behavior here for the past month since you signed up for an account here.

Meanwhile, over at VS's talk page you wrote, "If you choose to try and disqualify my edits then I suppose you should also do so for any editor who identifies themselves as gay." This is another completely absurd, obfuscating straw man, one of a series I expect you will be raising in lieu of dealing honestly and openly with your COI. No one has likewise suggested that all Christians should be disqualified from editing this article or articles like these! Your clear professional relationship with Warren and/or his organizations is really completely unlike that of any other editor here. I suggest you stick to the subject at hand and not blow more smoke like this. Mike Doughney (talk) 21:13, 1 March 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.

Nonbinding Straw Polls

Ok, I though I would put up a few polls on the various proposals that have made recently. Please cast your !vote for all of them that you have an opinion on. If you support all three of then, then you can !vote Support on all 3. Same if you oppose, or have mixed opinions. Basically what i'm saying is, give your opinion on all of them, please. Keep in mind that this is not a direct vote, and the result is nonbinding. Firestorm ^Talk 05:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 1

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)

• Support. This proposal gets the job done. However, we do need to watch out to make sure we stay away from WP:COATRACK with this one. Firestorm ^Talk 05:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I changed it, using Benccc's suggestion. I think we should stick to the wording of the sources as much as possible. Its below, proposal 4.Phoenix of9 (talk) 06:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Too long. Too much POV (multiple criticisms , only a short part about his rebuttal), hence WP:WEIGHT applies. Retains the church website material which I find not relevant to a BLP, as it is not ascribable to Warren directly. Includes irrelevant description of the invocation. Contaoins non-English reference which is to be avoided per WP guidelines where English references are available. Collect (talk) 11:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

*Comment Can someone explain how the CBS News article Rick Warren Insists He's Not Anti-Gay and Rachel Zoll's piece Rick Warren: Not Anti-Gay to Oppose Gay Marriage fully supports the section

"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"?

Both articles have the same text, relating to replacing text about "the Bible and homosexuality" with an audio message to "better explain the church's view". There's not mention of exactly what was replaced, so I think at the least the part "that included [gays] "unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted" as members" needs to be removed. Or some other source needs to be added. This applies to all proposals here. Kevin (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ummmm:

"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. " [4] Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I see now that my concern was groundless. I don't know how I missed it, except to say that my iPhone has a really tiny screen. Now stricken. Kevin (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Too long, giving WP:undue weight to the issue as a whole, including a good deal of unnecessary/weak material, including 1) the Saddleback website changes (from text to audio), which includes descriptive text not supported by the cited references; 2) The whole PAW section needs to go, it's irrelevant, a coatrack, and too long; 3) The Prop 8 section should be changed to the "spinless" version suggested by Kevin He also supported California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution with regard to same-sex marriages.
• Oppose See Proposal 4 Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Mixed opinion I definitely support inclusion of the info that Prop 8 eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry (which is the conversation I've been most involved in). FYI in the tail end of the "Explanation of California Proposition 8" section above, Lyonscc and I have been having more discussion about that. As for the other sentences in this proposal, I haven't followed the dauntingly extensive conversations that editors have had about most of them, so I'm reluctant to offer an opinion of them. BUT I reiterate my previous suggestion (which appears near the bottom of the "Proposed Wording 2.0" section) regarding the language about the Beliefnet interview: rather than talk about who contends what, we can simply and briefly excerpt the interview itself (Phoenix of9 used this solution in Proposal 4 below). Benccc (talk) 03:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Firestorm

Obama's choosing Warren for the inaugural invocation was criticized by several prominentnotable 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 insteadrather 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.delivered the invocation at the Inauguration of Barack Obama

(End of proposed text)

• Support. I think this version adequately addresses the issues presented by WP:COATRACK. Firestorm ^Talk 05:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I changed my proposal, using Benccc's suggestion. I think we should stick to the wording of the sources as much as possible. Firestorm, check out my proposal again. Phoenix of9 (talk) 06:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose "Prominent" is a matter of opinion, and is not needed. Use of "instead" is also unneeded. Retains foreign language cite which is unneeded and against WP guidelines. Retains the one bit I am strong on -- it is not proper to use the church website as though it were relevant to Warren's BLP. And the puff about the invocation is still unneeded. The aim is to produce an article which will be read twenty years from now, and not to have WP be a news organization. Collect (talk) 11:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose For same reasons as Collect, in addition to some carryover of concerns listed for Option 1 - particularly the inclusion of the church website change and the Prop 8 language. The continued inclusion of the misconstrued slant on Warren's beliefnet interview is not WP:BLP material. Otherwise, every bit of gossip about living persons is fair game of "So-and-so says X believes Y, but Y has denied it", and BLP's become little more than mini-tabloids.--Lyonscc (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• CommentIn order to address concerns, I replaced "prominent" with "notable" (the sources meet Wikipedia's Notability policies, so we can say they're notable without a source). I also replaced "instead" with "rather", though I don't see why that's a big issue. The inclusion of the material on the church website is relevant because he runs the church, and is directly responsible for its policy. Therefore, it is relevant to a BLP. Could you state exactly which "puff about the invocation" is unnecessary?. Also, to Lyonscc, the reaction to the Beliefnet interview is extremely notable. If something has been covered in such major publications as the New York Times, LA Times, and USA Today, among many others, then it is notable. Showing how the world reacts to Warren is relevant to his article. Such notable sources aren't quite "mini-tabloids". Firestorm ^Talk 17:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"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. " is not precisely on topic for the BLP. "Warren delivered the invocation on January 20, 2009" is quite sufficient. We all know who the president is, and whether or not it was "deeply religious" etc. is rather puffing at that point. Now all that is needed is for you to accept that the church website is not viewed by everyone as precisely relevant to a biography, though it would be relevant in an article on the church, presumably. By the way, 25 refs are not really any better than one properly chosen one. Collect (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, that piece about the inauguration is not necessary. I have struck it through, and replaced it with the italicized portion. I do, however, think that you should concede the point about the church website, as I have conceded many others since the mediation began. However, its fine if you don't, we're still moving forwaqrd with an attempt to form consensus. I will request that authors of the other proposals make the changes I have made with regards to wording, so that (most of) your concerns are taken care of. Firestorm ^Talk 17:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Noting Kevin's observation, above, we do not know exactly what was 'replaced' on the website, and if the audio is different from the text, and how changing the format of the message on the website is relevant escapes me. The only reason it would be relevant would be if the policy had somehow changed (which it did not).--Lyonscc (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I note that Kevin has since redacted his comment above re Proposal 1 to which I think you are referring. The characterization of the previous wording of the website is in fact a direct quote in the AP article. So we do know that the quoted text was eliminated from the site. The relevance of the change, as I know I've already pointed out here somewhere, is that the characterization of church policy was changed, from a direct "gays are not accepted as members" to an indirect repetition of a scriptural reference. This indirection provides deniability, something to the effect of, "it's not our policy, it's God's policy," or even, "God's law, not man's law." This is relevant in documenting what Warren, his PR professional, and his church were doing to deal with the situation as it developed in the press and in the public eye. Mike Doughney (talk) 05:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Can we somehow integrate this: '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."' into this proposal? Its the version which is most true to the source and to what warren was asked and to what warren had replied to. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support Again, I support the inclusion of info that Prop 8 eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry, and I'm reluctant to evaluate other info without knowing all the discussions. But I give this one an extra point because it's by the mediator, who I assume is adept at working these things out. Also, I assume we'd all prefer to use the excerpt of the Beliefnet interview (as appears in Proposal 4) rather than what people "contend" about it. Benccc (talk) 03:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 3: Collect

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 minor in news coverage)

• weak oppose. This version is, in my opinion, too short. there's no chance of too many COATs here, but that's because there's a lot of material that has been omitted. Firestorm ^Talk 05:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support Covers the ground in a manner which will still be relevant in twenty years. Note that the abortion language would be substantially the same as the prior proposals other than the bot about the nature of the invocation (my version was given primarily wrt the first paragraph). The main omitted part is the material about the church website which would be proper in an article on the church, but which I find quite marginal in a BLP. Collect (talk) 11:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• weak support This is the least bad of the first 4 versions proposed.--Lyonscc (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: Omits reliably sourced relevant material. Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: Omits reliably sourced relevant material. Mike Doughney (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Suppose "At about the same time, the Saddleback Church website removed an article on the Bible and homsexuality, and replaced it with an audio message explaining the church's position opposing same-sex marriage." Avoids undue weight on a sentence in the article which was not directly attributable to Warren. CBSNews cite should cover it. Collect (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Still omits relevant information. Why do you want to omit information? And theres no WP:UNDUE issue, look at the article:

"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]" Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I find that omitting material which I find not to be relevant to an article (especially a biography) is the precisely proper course of action. We are producing an encyclopedia, not a series of books. As the material you are so anxious to have on WP would fit in the church article (may already be there, I suppose), clearly there is no overriding reason to insist on it being in the biography of the pastor. Collect (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

So then, you would clearly be in support of removing the above text entirely, yes? If you're okay with letting that go, i'm okay with letting the contentious sentence go too. Firestorm ^Talk 19:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)::::Well -- the church does have to be mentioned at least <g> ... but the vast bulk is not important to the biography. Would two or three short sentences be enough? <g> I am not a believer in long sections where links and references are clear. I suppose we could call this "Separation of Church and Pastor"? Collect (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

1) It is in a news article about Warren and invocation controversy. Therefore it is relevant. And:

2) From the article:

"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. " [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix of9 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Is that inrended to help find a compromise? I rather think that point has been belabored enough - and it looks like we may have an agreement without requiring mediation. Collect (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Firestorm, that wasnt the whole list. Here:

"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."

"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]" Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry -- long iterations of material already on a page or easily accessible do not aid in getting a compromise. Especially since the main paragraph is only a few line higher on this page. And the section Firestorm gave is the part which we agree is about the church and not Warren.

saying where he works is a normal part of a biography. I suppose we could delete his sister as you find it more related to the church than to Warren. Listing the venue of the discussion forum seems not to be too much a problem, but I would have no issue with deleting it if that is how you view it. And the PEACE bit is clearly tied to Warren personally, but again if you wish to delete the church, that would be ok. And of course the protestor bit you are correct is more about the church than about Warren. I am surprised you offer this in compromise. How does Friestorm feel about this offer? Collect (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Offered what in compromise? Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The offer is that if he feels that the contentious sentence is more fitting in an article about the church than Warren, we'll also remove other things that are more about the church and positive. Before, it was hypocritical to say that this on sentence couldn't go in when there were several paragraphs about the church and not about Warren. Now, it will at least be consistent. Anything removed from this article can be put in the Saddleback Church article. Firestorm ^Talk 20:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Firestorm, lets not violate Wikipedia policies just to compromise. See my edit: [6] If Warrens spokeperson is responding to it, it is relevant to this article. Other stuff I cited are also relevant. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The aim here is to compromise. WP, in fact, encourages compromise. That is what mediation is intended for. I agree with Firestorm -- let's pull the church stuff and do the deal. Otherwise we might as well go back to mediation and forget earnest attempts at compromising. I actually though we were an inch away from being done. Collect (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to echo Phoenix of9 here and again object to the removal of sourced, verified material. The fact that Warren trotted out no less than (professional spokesperson) A. Larry Ross to announce the church website's change shows this was an effort at damage control - specifically, to indirect the church's anti-gay policy from a church policy to God's will. That the church is doing damage control because of Warren's words is relevant to an article about Warren, not about the church. Mike Doughney (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

We are near a compromise, and using point of view statements does not get compromises done. This is a process which WP endorses strongly. No material is going to the bit bucket in the sky. Church material goes to the church article. Biography material goes in the biography article. Collect (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Mixed opinion Similar to the pros/cons in my "votes" on Proposals 1 and 2. Benccc (talk) 03:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 4

Obama choosing chosed Warren for the inaugural invocation, which was criticized by several prominent notable organizations and Warren faced criticism for his anti-gay views. 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.", which was criticized. 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. delivered the invocation at the Inauguration of Barack Obama.

(End of proposed text)

• Support Phoenix of9 (talk) 06:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support KenMcPherson (talk) 07:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC) However I offer the following for the sake of word flow:

Obama's choice of Warren for the inaugural invocation was criticized by prominent liberal groups and gay rights proponents [1][2][3] because of a previous interview with Beliefnet chief editor Steven Waldman, in which Warren said he opposed marriage between siblings, adults and minors, and multiple partners. When asked by Waldman whether he thought "those are equivalent to gays getting married," Warren ignited a controversy by responding "I do". [4][5][6][7][8][9][10] etc... KenMcPherson (talk) 07:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC) — KenMcPherson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at Phoenix of9 (talk) (UTC).

Is there really a direct causal relationship between the Beliefnet interview and the criticism of Warren? While it plays a part, it's part of a bigger picture. If the 1st sentence says Obama was criticized for his choice, then we ought to have the next bit say something like: Groups X & Y were the most prominent/vocal/important critics, who said that (specifics of the criticism). Just a though. Kevin (talk) 08:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree; though IMO the evidence suggests the BeliefNet quote was THE major catalyst in the controversy, my connection was too direct. At the same time, I am sympathetic to those that are concerned that quoting the critics directly borders on WP:COATRACK issues that have already been addressed with the provided links. How about:

Obama's choice of Warren for the inaugural invocation was criticized by prominent liberal groups and gay rights proponents [1][2][3] in large part because of a interview just weeks earlier with Beliefnet chief editor Steven Waldman, in which Warren said he opposed marriage between siblings, adults and minors, and multiple partners. When asked by Waldman whether he thought "those are equivalent to gays getting married," Warren ignited a controversy by responding "I do". [4][5][6][7][8][9][10] etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by KenMcPherson (talk • contribs) 09:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC) — KenMcPherson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at Phoenix of9 (talk) (UTC).

Kevin, I wanna improve the word flow but I dont want to WP:SYN, so I'm open to suggestions that doesnt omit info. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose retains "prominent" sans cite. Contains church website which I find not relevant in a BLP. Retains unneeded description of invocation. And "source in german" is still unneeded as there are plenty of English refs per WP guidelines. BTW, using 6 cites for one claim is overkill at best, POV at worst. I would consider three cites to be as much as is proper -- the purpose is to show the claim is supported, not to introduce every article on a topic into a BLP. Collect (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, just to double-check your list here... "prominent" has been struck. Unneeded description of invocation, struck. I suppose six cites are there because this is the single most contentious element of all the proposals and maybe that can be reduced. The church website matter is relevant as I've again pointed out above. [7] Do I understand correctly that your only remaining problem with the proposal is the single sentence involving the church website change? Mike Doughney (talk) 06:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose for same reasons as #1 and #2.--Lyonscc (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Request. I would like to request that you make the same amendments that I made at Proposal 2, to assuage (most of) Collect's and Lyonscc's concerns. Firestorm ^Talk 17:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi-done. Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Support Mike Doughney (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support I think the first sentence is stylistically clunky, but I think KenMcPherson offers an excellent solution (welcome to the discussion). This proposal has the most neutral & factual way of reporting the Beliefnet info. And of course I support the inclusion of info that Prop 8 eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry. As for the other issues, as I mentioned I'm not up to speed on all of them, but reading through the comments I see that this version has been modified in response to some of the concerns of opponents, which is one reason I'm comfortable supporting this one. Benccc (talk) 03:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Suggest that the phrase "After the national focus on his statements," from Proposal 6, be incorporated into this at the beginning of the third sentence, clarifying timeline of release of Warren's video. Mike Doughney (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Mike, that isnt supported by either source: [8] [9] Phoenix of9 (talk) 05:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Conceded and struck. Lost my mind there for a moment. Mike Doughney (talk) 06:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 5 (lyonscc)

Obama's choosing choice of Warren for the inaugural invocation was criticized by a number of left-leaning notable organizations based on his remarks in opposition to same-sex marriage during a December 2008 Beliefnet interview, which Warren later clarified. Warren also issued a statement to his church that supported California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution with regard to same-sex marriages. 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, delivered the invocation at the Inauguration of Barack Obama.

• Support - This version includes the major items without coloring/spinning them in any direction, and provides the adequate links/references to news and wiki articles relevant to the issues. This removes WP:COAT, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:V and especially WP:UNDUE issues, while still retaining almost all of the desired references (with the primary removal being the German one).--Lyonscc (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Lyonscc, you've basically said the same thing you had said 2 months ago. You are the only person who hasnt agreed to mediation. Go to: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rick Warren Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: Unnecessarily Vague. Doesnt explain. What are those remarks which created controversy? This is Warren's article. There is no other article in Wiki which explains. Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support with minor changes "Left-leaning" may be considered POV, "liberal and gay" or the like may be less POV. Still feel German ref is unneeded and contrary to WP guidelines where other English refs are plentiful. "'s choosing" might be "'s choice of" as being more common usage. Footnotes can contain the additional material from each source some appear to insist on. Collect (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The German article isn't ref'd in my Proposal, but it's still showing up in the reflist (probably b/c of earlier mention on this discussion page). I agree your minor change may be less POV.--Lyonscc (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. (edit conflict)This one goes too far in the opposite direction, not explaining what happened in enough detail. This version also has serious NPOV issues, such as "left-leaning" etc. Furthermore, I deny that the other ones have issues with WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. Firestorm ^Talk 17:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment 1) Removed "left-leaning" for more NPOV wording "notable"; 2) (per Collect) trimmed the refs further to remove blog posts and press releases.; 3) Cleaned up wording/grammar issues.; 4 Removed the "reflist", since it seems to be inconsistent with refs cited.--Lyonscc (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose per Phoenix of9 and Firestorm. Mike Doughney (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose This omits the info that Prop 8 eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry, which has been my top concern about this article. I'm working with Lyonscc (see the tail end of the "Explanation of California Proposition 8" section above) to learn more about why he wants to exclude that info, so maybe something will come of that. Re the other elements of this proposal, I'm not up to speed on all the issues, but this proposal seems to jettison too much of the collaboration I believe is reflected in the other proposals. Benccc (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Folks, Lyonscc and I have had some further discussion in the tail end of the "Explanation of California Proposition 8" section above -- please add your thoughts there if interested. What are our next steps? Benccc (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 6

Obama's choice of Warren for the inaugural invocation brought national attention to Warren and sparked criticism from liberal and LGBT organizations because of Warren's publicized positions regarding abortion and same-sex marriage. Media outlets noted Warren compared the legitimization of same-sex marriage to the legalization of "incest, polygamy or 'an older guy marrying a child'" in a Beliefnet interview. He also equated abortion with the Holocaust. After the national focus on his statements, Warren released a video message to his church that he opposes redefining marriage but does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia. At the same time, his church replaced an article on the 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 supported California Proposition 8, which amended the constitution to eliminate same-sex couples from the rights of marriage. Obama defended using Warren in the inaugural stating he disagreed with the opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage but there should be room for discussion on social issues. Warren delivered the invocation at Obama's inauguration.

(End of proposed text)

• Support as nominator. -- Banjeboi 04:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The second sentence is incorrect as proposed; one wording to correct it would be "Media outlets noted Warren compared, in a Beliefnet interview, the legitimization of same-sex marriage to the legalization of "incest, polygamy or 'an older guy marrying a child'" (adding the six words in italics). Mike Doughney (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Changed. I'll also note that many, most?, did not make these distinctions and arguable Warren didn't either. -- Banjeboi 05:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose For most of the previously stated reasons above, including the text from the Saddleback website, characterization of Prop 8, etc. This is a complete non-starter.--Lyonscc (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I share the opinion expressed previously that this material will all be introduced into the article. A good article would certainly discuss the events and highlights that brought this subject to national attention and controversy in the worlds most watched and talked about campaign. Warren's church's website which is certainly under his control is relevant as noted by national news outlets and Proposition 8 was the most contested proposition in US history. Many news outlets also connected Warren's support and criticism of his being chosen for the invocation. Do you have some other reason these issues of national news are less than worthy of inclusion in an article on Warren? We don't need to include protests against the church and various fluffing of other sources showing Warren's views - but we could if you insist. -- Banjeboi 05:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. This one seems to be several steps backwards from the other proposals. Firestorm ^Talk 05:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • In what ways exactly is this proposal unacceptable? -- Banjeboi 05:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Weak oppose but see my comment under Proposal 4 suggesting incorporation of a few words of this proposal there. Mike Doughney (talk) 05:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I've checked out that, and all the other proposals and tried to incorporate the feedback already. Could you elaborate specific concerns with this proposal? -- Banjeboi 05:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Primarily for two reasons: one, abortion is already mentioned in the article right now, in the "political and social views" section, and bringing it up here I think dilutes the description of the pre-inaugural controversy and distracts from the essential reasons for it. Two, the abbreviated description of Prop 8 is not going to fly. Prop 8, as I wrote in a lengthy comment above [10], is defined differently by its proponents who are unaffected by it versus how it's defined by the people affected by it and who have to implement it. There's just no way around this problem other than, as has been argued at length, eliminating any description at all, which I do not favor. Mike Doughney (talk) 05:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
      • His choice was criticism though not just for his statements regarding same-sex marriage but also abortion. One simply got more traction as a news item but both were a part of this chapter of Warren's life. Current mentions regarding abortion can be reconciled just as if/when the article is reworked and all his statements regarding LGBT are bundled. I'm open to better wording regarding Prop 8 - what needs to change? -- Banjeboi 05:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: 1) Not the best way to address Warren's comparison, Prop 4 is more factual, with direct quotes. 2) Omits "anti-gay" 3)"national attention" not supported by sources 4)About Prop 8, per Mike Phoenix of9 (talk) 05:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Sorry, this feels like you oppose because it's not your version (proposed version 4). Direct quotes are nice but not always the best way to go, it can make for more clunky writing. National attention? This is certainly supported by sources, you're kidding right? How many national media outlets need to be cited to support that? Prop 8 verbiage can be tweaked as needed and agreed upon. -- Banjeboi 06:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

'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 was proposed by Benccc, it wasnt mine and I think its a better way to address the issue since newspaper sources put it in different ways, as you had noted. And I'm not kidding. The newspaper sources are talking about liberal organisations, gay activists, etc, not about a national reaction, unfortunately. Also note my second point above. Phoenix of9 (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• No Opinion I'm coming to this one late and I see it doesn't have much support so I'm not going to study it carefully (with apologies to Benjiboi -- thank you anyway for your work). Benccc (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • No worries, based on prior discussions here I didn't expect this to go through at all but did want to see how entrenched people were. I'm rather stunned at the lack of progress but I think the past RFCs have been malformed to be effective. Those opposing the content are mistaken they can roadblock this information but at least we have on record who is doing what and how. -- Banjeboi 17:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)