Jump to content

Talk:Rick Warren/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

I've added the {{advert}} tag at the top. The tone of this article is entirely off. And given that a large part is taken directly from his website, which properly advertises him and his organization, it is inarguably advertising. And that is improper on Wikipedia. Please do not remove the advert tag until the article meets Wikipedia standards. — Kbh3rdtalk 02:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll respect your wishes for the moment. But let me quote the second paragraph of the current article: At the same time though, Warren has been criticized by many leading Christian pastors and teachers for what they consider to be questionable teachings and practices, such as various tactics for increasing church attendance. Is that really your idea of advertising?
That sentence ("At the same time though...") was added AFTER the {{advert}} tag was put in place. In other words, it was an incremental attempt to make the article sound less like a blatant advertisement.
Please sign your posts on talk pages even if not logged in.
It could also be an attempt to address the issues. Has it done so, do you think? If so, let's remove the notice. If not, what more needs to be done? Andrewa 19:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that these edits have helped, but that more work needs to be done-- especially with regard to the "PEACE Plan" section. 207.166.216.49
Can you be more specific? I appreciate that sometimes it's hard to know exactly how to improve an article, while still being quite sure it needs improvement. So let's put our heads together. What is it about this section that you don't like? Andrewa 11:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
(There is a problem with quoting many leading Christian pastors and teachers like this in that it's hearsay, and again we should be more specific. But let's deal with the POV and copyvio allegations first.)
You have a point there. The various external links do corroborate the fact that many leading pastors and teachers object to Warren's teachings, though.
So, how should it read? Andrewa 19:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it would also be true that many pastors, leading and otherwise, support his teachings. The many churches participating in the Purpose Driven programs worldwide support this view, which is not incompatible with the other. It just means he's controversial. I think that is agreed! Andrewa 00:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think it's agreed. However, since the article emphasizes that Warren is popular, that thousands of churches follow his lead, and that he commands a huge "Purpose Driven Network," I think it would be redundant to say that many pastors support Rick Warren's views. Since the article stresses both his popularity and the controversy of his teachings, I think it's on its way to becoming fairly well-balanced.
I do agree that the external links are sufficient to corroborate the criticisms against Warren, but if someone can phrase that more elegantly, that might be nice, too. 207.166.216.49
So, what else needs to happen before you'd be happy to remove the notice? Andrewa 20:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Please, as with your copyvio allegations above, you need to be more specific. Otherwise, I think the notice should be removed. It's just your opinion, and as such it doesn't belong in the article namespace, any more than any other POV does. Andrewa 17:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I intend to remove the notice as part of a larger refactor. To have it on an article that consists largely of links to the subject's critics is quite bizarre, and holds Wikipedia up to ridicule. All it proves is that some people don't like Rick Warren. I think we knew that! Andrewa 23:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

http://www.time.com/time/subscriber/2005/time100/scientists/100warren.html only works for Time subscribers, so I've removed it from the image caption. Ackowlwdgements etc should be on the image page in any case, not in the caption. Andrewa 20:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposals

There are currently at least two, from P.E.A.C.E. Plan and Purpose Driven. However this article is already two long, and no reasons seem to have been given for the merges. Unless some are forthcoming, I propose to remove both notices. See the talk pages for the affected articles. Andrewa 23:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Refactor

If you want to help, a little research into his biography would seem to be long overdue! Andrewa 06:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The biography is still a stub. Most of the rest is done. The copyvios, always borderline IMO, are attended to. The claim it read like an advertisement was already a little bizarre, when more than half of the article was criticism!

I have left most of the criticism in place. The section on criticism still needs a complete rewrite, but at least it's all collected together now. Warren is notable, and does have his critics, but it's not appropriate to give them equal (or better) time in the introduction to an article on Warren.

The extensive external links to Warren's critics have been moved to a more appropriate place. Most of them should probably go in the long term, but I feel disinclined to remove any criticism myself, as I'm confident that whoever does so will be accused of being POV towards Warren. Safer to leave it there and let readers make up their own minds, at least until the dust clears a bit. Then delete all the unencyclopedic stuff, without mercy, including the blatant plug for the anti-Warren book just published, unless it sells particularly well. Andrewa 12:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

(And that was my intention. But then I became aware of an AfD discussion of similar material, see below. Andrewa 06:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC))

Critiques

Assuming the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critiques of The Purpose Driven Life is to delete that list of links to anti-Warren material, I will then also delete the similar material from this article. Andrewa 00:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. The result was delete, a strong consensus and no suggestion of a merge. This is a clear indication IMO that this material is not considered encyclopedic.
I believe it would be appropriate to add a few links to the most notable critics and criticisms. Comments welcome as to which ones these are. Andrewa 05:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Here are the critiques that were on the front page. There has to be SOMETHING worthwhile in this pile of hypertext. JDoorjam Talk 13:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Audio resources

Rick Warren's "Purpose Driven" philosophy was examined from several angles.
A local church often takes on the Purpose Driven mold after a pastor expresses his "vision" (not God's vision) for the church, gains the support of leaders in the church, and finally announces it to the congregation, with the expectation that all will embrace the "vision". Those who do not agree with the changes, are characterized as opposing God's vision, and asked to leave.
In a way each church becomes a franchise, (like McDonalds), where standardized methods, preaching, etc. are introduced, and only those who agree can stay. But, like McDonalds, the menu is pared down to a few attractive messages, while hard biblical truths are ignored.

Articles and Essays

A Berean's Discernment Tool for The Purpose Driven Life

A Critique of Rick Warren's P.E.A.C.E. Plan & UN Goals

Pyromarketing

In 2005, Zondervan senior marketing editor Greg Stielstra published Pyromarketing, which in part described how The Purpose Driven Life was marketed. This led to a dispute with Rick Warren, who felt that it was inappropriate to associate the success of his book with marketing, rather than with spiritual explanations.

Books

Excerpt: Jesus said, "If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you" (John 15:19). Not even the greatest marketing genius can change this without redefining the church. Seeking the approval of the world is precisely what the Purpose Driven movement is all about.

Weasel Words

A tag claiming that the article contains weasel words was added more than twelve hours ago, with no details yet given. I have removed it pending these details being provided. See also User talk:64.228.93.146. Andrewa 18:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

AHA! Found one, and I have removed it (as anyone else could have). The status of this claim has been discussed at length above. It is readily verifiable. I'd also question whether the word purportedly belongs in a Wikipedia article at all (unless in a quotation, say). It sounds inherently POV to me. Andrewa 23:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


Clean Up

I added a clean up tag due to the overall untidy first impression the article gives. The first list does not do well for delivering relevant information clearly nor aesthetically. It should either be reformatted or replaced elsewhere within the article. Also (unrelated to clean up concerns) an updated photograph of Warren would probably do the article justice as well. I barely recognized the old goatee look. --Davidkazuhiro 10:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure just which quality standard you think this violates. The article seems to satisfy Wikipedia:Lead section as is. Can you be more specific?
Is it perhaps just that you don't like bulleted lists? These are very hard to format in such a way that they look tidy on all platforms, especially when an image is also involved. Andrewa 06:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
It looks a lot better now. It was the fact that the first "paragraph" started off with a bullet list. For one it didn't really fit the wikipedia guidelines for biographies and two it didn't look very pretty at all. It's looking better now though. Thanks guys. Davidkazuhiro 17:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Agree that it looks prettier now. To me the unexplained cleanup tag was far ugglier than the bulleted list. Maybe a matter of taste.
Anyone have a better image of Warren? Tnis attracted some comment before. To me this is still the uggliest thing about the article! Perhaps the guidelines for biographies don't do into this sort of detail, but surely we can get a more encyclopedia-style photo than that! I'd keep the one we have as well, it's informative IMO but is hardly a conventional portrait. Andrewa 19:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

A link in the critique section does not relate to the narrative. The link [1] is supposed to relate to Azusa Street Revivals, but the only mention of Warren was a comment he made regarding the Schiavo situation. It seems to me the narrative critque should be removed if it cannot be supported with a link. The link should be removed unless it relates to the narrative. RonCram 08:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the link (I think). Though to be honest, I'm not if the Azusa Street centenary is worth mentioning at all. Better to have the more general criticism: that he has been criticised for appearing to endorse preachers of (allegedly) questionable doctrine. Rocksong 07:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if there has ever been a preacher who was not criticised by anyone for questionable doctrine? Jesus himself was often the subject of such criticism. As an occasional preacher myself, I suspect that the only effective defence against such charges is not to say anything anyone cares about. But I haven't been tempted to try this and find out!
Perhaps we need to be explicit in WP:NOT that denigrating someone is actually promotion of this negative viewpoint in terms of Wikipedia policy. But IMO it will not help if we are. No matter how explicit we are, some of those with strong POVs will always regard WP:NPOV as something that shouldn't be allowed to hinder their own particular cause.
Yes, I'm a fan of Warren. I found his Forty Days of Purpose very helpful. I hope I don't let this POV affect my edits to this article. But NPOV is often a struggle when the subject is one you care about, and we don't want to prohibit people from editing in their areas of interest. Andrewa 18:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the point which deserves mention is that Warren has been more inclusive than most, and that has attracted some criticism. It seems he has been happy to share the podium with ecumenicals, as well as the more extreme Pentecostals, when traditionally Protestants usually have not. Regarding NPOV: Wikipedia's job is not to criticise, but to note criticism, where it comes from significant groups. That said, on the internet it is sometimes hard to tell what a significant group is. e.g. the group cited which criticised him over his appearance at Azusa Street, was that a significant ministry or a web page run from some guy's garage? I honestly don't know. Rocksong 00:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Conservative?

I'm removing Warren from Category:Conservatives_who_believe_Global_warming_is_caused_by_humans. While he is certainly theologically conservative, and a conservative on "moral" issues such as a abortion, I don't think he qualifies as "conservative" as the word is normally, used, i.e. a political conservative; and not a "conservative" in the context of attitudes to global warming. The "Bible Q&A" at http://www.saddlebackfamily.com says 64: What is Saddleback's position on Political and Foreign Policies? Answer: We have many different opinions at Saddleback. Because these issues are not in the Bible, they are not preached on. We do talk about moral issues. Rocksong 05:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Somebody put it back. IMO, we should remove it from now, and discuss here. Altought I agree with Rocksong that Rick is not exactly a conservative, I see no problem in labelling him as it. Labels are never accurate, and I think "conservative" fits Rick better than "liberal". --FernandoAires 19:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Well he's conservative on some but apparently non-committal on others. When I think of American conservatives I don't only think of abortion and homosexual marriage (which Warren opposes) but also gun rights, big military spending and tax cuts, issues on which Warren hasn't stated a public opinion, as far as I know. The context for the Category is attitudes to global warming, and on that Warren's attitude is (IMO) unsurprising and not worthy of note. Rocksong 00:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking, and I'm starting to understand your point. I keep thinking conservative fits him better, but people will look at it and understand more than "oh, he looks like more 'conservative' than 'liberal'". And, actually, I don't see the point of having such a specific category. But that's another issue, and should not be discussed here (AFAI understand the WP culture).
Maybe this controversy about his label should be cited somewhere in the article. --FernandoAires 05:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rick_Warren/Archive_2&oldid=1137157859"