Talk:Rick Warren/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

solutions for contention/ apology

Please let me offer my sincere apology for causing difficulties and disputes in this Article. I am sorry to make trouble, i wanted to contribute, but when people called me a 'vandal' and accused me of being an 'idiot-savant' i just reacted with anger and hostility and i didn't do the intelligent thing, which would have been to walk away and just stop perpetuating the conflict. I'm really sorry for causing anybody to feel like they were in conflict here, and i want the encyclopedia to be of better quality.

Realizing now that the quality of Wikipedia depends upon editors reaching a civilized consensus, i understand that i should avoid any article where my personal feelings may cause me to get into conflict. Please forgive my behavior: i was so absolutely convinced that my contributions and citations were simple matters of fact, i just couldn't understand why people would tell me i wasn't being neutral, and it felt terribly inflammatory to have people calling me a 'vandal' when i thought i was doing the proper thing by bringing citations and quotations.

Unfortunately, i can see how some editors are going to look at my contributions here and they will say, "You are SUMMARIZING in a way which is not sufficiently neutral, and this is a lot like doing Original Research which is also not neutral." Although i don't personally feel like my contributions were improper on Wikipedia, i can understand that other editors did not welcome my work, and i am willing to accept this without continuing some kind of fight. It feels unfair to have my phrases and sentences dismissed, while other editors appear to be allowed to write all sorts of biased and non-Neutral content, but i know there is nothing 'fair' about Wikipedia and the editing process. Since i do not have the debating skills to persuade people of the objectivity nor Good Faith of my attempted contributions here, i will stop editing this article. I feel like this article on Rick Warren is biased, unfair, filled with puffery, and completely wrong to be included "As-Is" in this encyclopedia. But those are my own personal opinions, and it would be stupid for me to keep editing here because my opinions aren't going affect the way other editors choose to flatter people such as Rick Warren. I feel too much revulsion and disgust to be an un-biased editor, and i see how i was so mistaken to allow my disgust to motivate me to try to alter the article about Rick Warren to reflect what i thought were the important facts and details.

Will any other editors acknowledge _their_ bias and consider how their motivations are affecting the quality of the contents of this article?

I'm sorry to have taken up the time of administrators who have better things to do than to referee these stupid edit-wars. I'm sorry i didn't immediately cease my contentions, and in the future i will avoid repeating any of these mistakes. It is very difficult to just Shut Up and move away when i feel like monsters and their crimes are being glossed over by the media in our society (media which includes Wikipedia) but i can see that no amount of contributions i make here will fix the situation nor bring any other editors to sympathize with my efforts. My attempts to add information here are futile, and i will just have to accept that the readers of Wikipedia are going to be misinformed about many things, such as criminals like Rick Warren. (I say "criminal" because when you accuse millions of innocent people of being incestuous pedophiles, that is a clear-cut case of Slander, a criminal activity, and there isn't any wiggle-room here to deny this. But i'm sure Rick Warren is only one of the many criminals who enjoy the convenience of having Wikipedia publish their puff-pieces to be read by an unsuspecting public. Future generations will judge these activities and these disgustingly unethical situations, but that won't do me any good HERE TODAY, so i give up.)

Part of the problem is that we all want so badly to edit and 'fix' any of the articles which strike us as inaccurate and unfair, and it's hard to surrender that urge to 'improve' something as long as we feel that it is broken (and could even be perpetuating harm by perpetuating mis-information.) But now i see that my motivations are not helping the situation, no matter how much i convince myself that my desires are based entirely on good intentions, i will admit i am going about this all wrong, and i can see where i have made big mistakes by trying to argue and 'correct' the situation. Please accept my apology for anything which felt disruptive, i didn't mean to disrupt, i'm sorry for directing my anger and frustration toward editors and administrators who were just trying to help. I am not an 'idiot', and when people impugned my thoughts and contributions, i felt all offended and hyper-defensive. I'm sorry if i reacted by lashing back, it was the wrong way for me to respond. From now on i will just stay away from editing any articles where i have strong feelings, and stick strictly to topics where the information and citations will not cause serious contention. Thank you for trying to help me improve as an editor and for trying to help people understand the expectations around here. Thank you for not referring to me as an 'idiot' or as a 'vandal' in the future, if you please.

It's too bad we don't have any more convenient ways of testing the objectivity and confirming the neutrality of information given. I had assumed the links to interviews, broadcasts, newspaper transcripts, and other such materials would all strengthen my positions, and it seemed strange that anybody would dispute the inclusion of such links in an article, but now i see i was wrong. Apparently no amount of evidence-based writing nor reporting of facts can overcome the wishes of a few editors and administrators who are determined to mould Wikipedia into the sort of resource of which they strictly approve. It would be nice if the Wikipedia could more democratically treat all editors in an egalitarian fashion, but there is no such thing as Justice or Egalitarianism on Wikipedia. And i was crazy to think i could fight against that situation, all i achieved was to stir up further contention rather than bring any peaceful consensus. I see how i have made several big mistakes like that, especially when i kept trying to assume the conflicting edits came from people in Good Faith. Many people around here will talk about Good Faith, but they don't actually practise it, and they are very quick to accuse the rest of us of failing to operate in Good Faith even when there is no evidence of such. This is probably an inevitable result of so many people with different biases trying to collaborate on the same articles. Since people are so quick to dismiss the possibility of my contributions being in Good Faith, i can't see how i can participate in much of a meaningful way on anything the slightest bit controversial, so i will just not bother. I hope that will allow other people to work around here in peace, even if their work is biased and inaccurate, and in direct denial of facts and objective reality. At least then i won't have a bunch of editors calling me a 'vandal' or an 'idiot-savant' when i try to cite the Reliable Sources of information who expose criminals and mountebanks and scapegoating hatemongers for who they really are.

Congratulations to Rick Warren and all you other evil hatemongers and scapegoaters and fantasy-based superstitious barbarians people. You win again. No amount of facts and reporting and journalism and citations will apparently be sufficient to overcome the dedicated work of your fantasy-based supporters (i.e., people who behave religiously) who are comfortable with your messages of hate intolerance disguised as pablum for the unthinking. Even in a supposedly 'open and accessible' place like Wikipedia, the scapegoaters and hatemonger-supporters outnumber people who are more fond of facts and objective reality, as in most all other public venues, and so i am not surprised to see the hegemony perpetuated quite ordinarily here on Wikipedia just like in all other communities.

Teledildonix314 (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

blogs

As a general rule, blogs do not meet WP:RS standards. This article relies on them for a great deal of material, and, absent new reliable sources, such claims should be removed. Also use of cites for claims which are not actually supported by the cites is not "good." If you wish to keep in the blog claims, find geneuine reliable sources. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Birth Date

Why doesn't Warren's birth date register in the "births" section under the year 1947? How do people get into the by date list under that year? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob Bolin (talk • contribs) 16:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This might have something to do with Warren having been born in 1954. Mike Doughney (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: CW's request for sources on last revert

CalendarWatcher asked for the edits to be backed up with reliable sources, so here they are:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/international/africa/30aids.html http://www.avert.org/aidsuganda.htm http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-01-07/the-truth-about-rick-warren-in-africa/full/

Those are the sources which were clearly linked from the reference material in the footnotes before CW's last revert. Please check the sources yourself when they are so copiously available, rather than simply deleting other people's contributions while simultaneously insisting such sources are insufficient.

They're educational.

Teledildonix314 ^talk 02:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Teledildonix314 - I removed the section you inserted here because while Warren is peripherally related, there is no citable evidence that an "alliance" is in effect or that Warren has been active in the issues raised. According to the reports Warren has had Ssempas speak in an HIV/AIDS forum but that is not the same as a working alliance. I suspect that Warren does not support the specific activities and it is not correct to attribute the activities to him. Simply because people are known to each other does not make them partners. Therefore, unless you can provide specific evidence that Warren has specifically been a part of the support and implementation of those activities, it does not belong in this article. If you want to write an article on the views of some clergy in Africa towards the gay community, it would be more appropriate there. CarverM (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

In response to CarverM, from the article which you failed to read --

Warren’s man in Uganda is a charismatic pastor named Martin Ssempa. The head of the Makerere Community Church, a rapidly growing congregation, Ssempe enjoys close ties to his country’s First Lady, Janet Museveni, and is a favorite of the Bush White House. In the capitol of Kampala, Ssempa is known for his boisterous crusading. Ssempa’s stunts have included burning condoms in the name of Jesus and arranging the publication of names of homosexuals in cooperative local newspapers while lobbying for criminal penalties to imprison them.

When Warren unveiled his global AIDS initiative at a 2005 conference at his Saddleback Church, he cast Ssempa as his indispensable sidekick, assigning him to lead a breakout session on abstinence-only education as well as a seminar on AIDS prevention. Later, Ssempa delivered a keynote address, a speech so stirring it “had the audience on the edge of its seats,” according to Warren’s public relations agency. A year later, Ssempa returned to Saddleback Church to lead another seminar on AIDS. By this time, his bond with the Warrens had grown almost familial. “You are my brother, Martin, and I love you,” Rick Warren’s wife, Kay, said to Ssempa from the stage. Her voice trembled with emotion as she spoke and tears ran down her cheeks.

There are many more elaborations in the article, but if you don't read it, you won't see the "citable evidence that an 'alliance' is in effect or that Warren has been active in the issues raised." It's impossible to read the article without seeing the alliance and the description of the evidence. Thus i'm accusing you (CarverM) of not reading it. No 'synthesis' nor 'original research' is necessary when the evidence is spelled out in those conveniently linked references.

Teledildonix314 ^talk 03:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I did read the article cited and many of the comments following the DailyBeast blog. I was especially interested in the lone Ugandan's comments. Please, let's not get into an edit war; that's not my intent nor do we need an uncivil discourse. In the quote above there is no citation that would say Warren is involved in the actions of which Ssempas is taking. 1) there is no citation other than the author's opinion that Ssempa is "Warren's man." That is simply an opinion with no citable facts. 2) the "stunts" are Ssempa's, not Warrens. The tone of the article(s) try to suggest that Ssempa's actions are in tune with Warren but, again, there is no factual basis for stating such. The article(s) simply contain innuendo and therefore do not belong in an encyclopedia article. Inference is not fact. So, again, kindly, unless you can cite specific evidence that Ssempas has any tie to Warren other than speaking at a conference, this accusation of Warren should not be included. CarverM (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(duplication delete by editor) Edgepedia (talk) 09:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Conservative views section

{{editprotected}}

Converted the refs in this section to templates, just before it was protected! (Technical edit only)

In a conversation with atheist author Sam Harris in Newsweek magazine, Warren spoke out against evolution and in favor of creationism, and stated that brutal dictators such as Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot were all atheists, when questioned on whether religion is beneficial to society. Asked about the difference between himself and Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, Warren claimed that "it's a matter of tone," meaning they hold essentially the same beliefs but simply have differing ways of expressing them. In 2005, during the Terri Schiavo controversy, Warren stated that withholding feeding to Schiavo, a woman in a persistent vegetative state, was "not a right to die issue." He then called Michael Schiavo's decision to remove her feeding tube, "an atrocity worthy of Nazism," and while speculating about Michael's motives, put forward the idea that Michael wanted Terri to die because, if she regained consciousness, she might have "something to say that he didn‘t want said." Edgepedia (talk) 09:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Also The purpose driven life had over 30 million copies in print by 2006. Edgepedia (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ref work in that section done. For your second item, is this a request to change the lead? Pagrashtak 15:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes please, can we change has sold over 20 million copies to had sold over 30 million copies by 2006,

which brings it up to and includes the ref Edgepedia (talk) 13:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Done with a slight modification. Since the ref says 30 million "in print", I've used the same phrase in the article instead of "sold". Since the previous version was unreferenced, this is a step up in any event. If someone has hard sales numbers that might be a further improvement. Pagrashtak 15:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Edgepedia (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Article protected due to edit war

That should be rather obvious by now. Got really quiet all of a sudden, didn't it?

As for the attempted edit that set this block in motion, there is no way that thedailybeast.com qualifies as a reliable source. If you have a problem with that, then take it up at an appropriate place such as the reliable sources noticeboard.

Repetitively posting links to articles on the talk page that make no mention of the subject of this article doesn't change that fact. If reference to Blumenthal's work is to go into the article, he will have to be supported by reference in some reliable source like a major newspaper to qualify such an inclusion. It will have to be an article that is clearly reporting on Blumenthal's reporting about Warren, and that clearly supports the allegations Blumenthal attempts to make about Warren. A search on Google News on "max blumenthal" "rick warren" turns up numerous hits in blogs and other sources that cannot be considered reliable, and nothing in a major newspaper that could be referenced here. Mike Doughney (talk) 04:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You can lead a horse to water, but you can not make it drink. If you don't want to believe that an article is correct, nor do you wish to accept a plethora of reports as a sign of support for the reliability of a source, then the burden is on YOU to find some other article or some other reliable source who offers a contrary point of view. You can't just revert and delete the references and citations without offering us some compelling reason here to dispute their accuracy. If you don't agree with the award-winning journalism of Max Blumenthal, then maybe you should take that up with HIM and with his editors, rather than deleting links to his reports on Mr Warren and on Mr Warren's church's activities.

Anything else just makes you look like an apologist for Warren and for his type of 'christian ministry' or 'religious organization' in general. In fact, as you repeatedly delete anything which might reflect poorly on Warren, sanitizing his biography and making it look like a puff-piece, you cause us to wonder whether you are truly a disinterested editor, or whether you are perhaps somebody who works for Warren's public relations staff, or perhaps are somebody who donates/ gives support to/ aids and abets Warren's church or its affiliates.

As for your claim of "nothing in a major newspaper", you seem to be forgetting that Max Blumenthal and his co-worker Amy Goodman are award-winning international journalists whose stories on the Pacifica network and coverage of events in several countries have been lauded as examples of the fifth estate at its best. When you try to dismiss Blumenthal's reports of Warren's activities, while failing to offer a single article or piece of evidence to support your contrarian stance, this causes your actions to appear suspicious and biased.

From Blumenthal's personal description: "Max Blumenthal is an award-winning American investigative journalist and documentary filmmaker. He or his work has appeared on NPR, MSNBC, in The Nation, the Washington Monthly, The American Prospect, The Huffington Post, Salon, and Media Matters."

If you can't give us a counterpoint article from a source as reliable as NPR, MSNBC, The Nation, Democracy Now, Pacifica, or some other reporters with an established reputation, then why should we let you delete the references and citations from Warren's biography which give critical insight to his actions and their outcomes? Please, give us some evidence, before you delete anything else from Warren's bio which might not flatter him!

Teledildonix314 ^talk 06:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Um... hello? Why the diatribe? I am discussing this edit and only that one, the beginning of the present edit war, in which you added content that makes only one reference to the writing of Max Blumenthal in only one place, thedailybeast.com.

thedailybeast.com does not qualify as a reliable source, particularly if it is the only source named for this particular allegation. That is all the justification needed to pull the allegation and reference from the article, particularly when the article is a biography of a living person. There is no requirement that whoever pulls that unqualified material from the article replace it with something else. The lack of a referenced reliable source supporting the allegation is all that is needed to dispute the accuracy of the material you're trying to add. Hero worship of Mr. Blumenthal, things he may have at some time published elsewhere, his father, or awards he may have received are quite irrelevant. I'm talking about this specific allegation from this specific article, and your subsequent edit referencing same, nothing else.

Since it is not clear to me that you and other editors are actually reading the applicable Wikipedia policies when it comes to matters like this, I'll include a portion of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons article here for your reference:

Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially: Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability No original research We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

From the title of the linked reference in the above: "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information."

As for your personal attack, charging me personally with being "an apologist for Warren and for his type of 'christian ministry' or 'religious organization' in general," you really must not be paying attention. While that might apply to some other editor(s) here, I have a rather long and easy-to-find paper trail on the 'net doing quite the opposite, let alone my stated personal assessment of Warren that appears elsewhere on this page. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." Or the remover of questionable content, if that is the case.

You conclude with an exactly backwards assessement of the situation, particularly with this article being a biography of a living person. Again you must support whatever you add to Wikipedia with a reliable source; absent that, other editors need not have any further justification for removing what you attempt to add. Mike Doughney (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Big mistake

{{editprotect}} This should be included: Many news sources have called his choice to speak at the inauguration a big mistake. Madhava 1947 (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually you mean "noted LGBT groups" etc. -- but the controversy is already in the article. "President-elect Obama later sparked controversy when he asked Warren to give the invocation at his Presidential inauguration, which is scheduled to take place on January 20, 2009.[3]". Your language is inapt and does not add to the article as it stands. Collect (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be wonderfully helpful if somebody with a NPOV could update the article in the near future when current events have been summarized in Reliable Sources. I would volunteer to edit but i don't want to give any of the content my taint of bias. I can offer to proofread for spelling and grammar, but i don't wish to insert any of my own words here. Could somebody (neutral) please pretty please give this article a nice freshen-up and polishing? Thanks so much for any volunteers. Cheers. Teledildonix314 ^talk 11:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Be sure to include the heated controversy over "trespasses" vs. "debts", and the subliminal connection to the 700 billion dollar bailout. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Your constructive suggestions are well noted. Would you care to give an example? Thanks for being so helpful. Teledildonix314 ^talk 04:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Not done: No consensus for this change.--Aervanath (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This article needs lots of work

Its been protected since Jan 10. When will be able to edit again? The article is too short, there is room for subsections on his views on abortion and homosexuality. All that has been summarized by "This decision angered pro-choice and gay-marriage advocates and led to criticism of both Obama and Warren.[11]" Theres so much room for more detail.

And theres room for subsections on his charity work, etc, the article shouldnt just be about criticism. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the article is now unprotected, hopefully there wont be any edit warring. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no need for additional detail on the section on Warren's view of abortion and homosexuality. Any more gives it undue weight, as it is not the primary source of his notability, but a single event. Additionally, the change to the church's website FAQ was not in response to Obama's invitation, but because they changed to an audio FAQ format (see http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/home/bibleqanda/index.html - which still has a section on homosexuality). I would also note that the Advocate probably doesn't qualify as a verifiable, unbiased source. How about proposing something on the discussion page before trying to add it to the main page?--Lyonscc (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thats why I put the NPOV tag. I was gonna add his PEACE Plan and Global Warming stance to his political and social views, I was working on that now actually. Please assume good faith.

The advocate is a reliable source, it is a newsmagazine of more than 100,000 bi weekly circulation. Sources dont have to be entirely unbiased, the articles should be neutral tho. Newspaper sources will be somewhat biased, given the political leaning of some organizations (eg: Fox news vs NY Times). See: Wikipedia:Verifiability

I'm gonna revert and add PEACE Plan and Global Warming now. Give me some time before reverting back. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

How about proposing edits here before the main page? There's been a good deal of work on the page to date, with lots of negotiation on wording, and there's no real need to scrap all of it w/o discussion.--Lyonscc (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Phoenix of9, please take note of the history of this article, especially related to the behavior of User:Teledildonix314, who was repeatedly warned by fellow editors and administrators and eventually caused the article to be protected for weeks. He agreed to stay away from this article. As someone who clearly has a similar bias (noted from your user page), I would encourage you to follow his lead and abstain from editing this article before you start another edit-war. Thanks. Manutdglory (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant, Manutdglory. Comment on content, not users. See, Wikipedia:Civility. Looking at your talk page now, I see that you were warned about this by User:Mike Doughney. Stop.

Lyonscc, see this link for what I was planning to do, its not complete yet tho. [1] Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, don't do anything that would make me need to comment on you further. It wasn't me who came barnstorming into an article that had just been protected for weeks and began making wholesale changes without any consensus on the talk page and began edit-warring with another editor - that was you. I can bring in an administrator if you'd like. Manutdglory (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead. Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Phoenix of9, I would suggest that the proposed edits still put undue weight on Warren's views on homosexual practice, and that any additional commentary from the invitation to the inauguration likely belongs here: [2] and not in a personal biography page. Unlike James Dobson and others, Warren does not emphasize his church's stance on homosexual practice above other social issues (AIDS, human trafficking, etc.), and that the comments made on the subject were in response to direct questions, not his own agenda. Therefore, it is not something that is all that notable, unless you want to give a laundry list of other social issues he devotes more discussion to (like divorce). He was already quite notable and famous apart from being invited to pray by Obama, and he'll likely continue to be, and not for his positions on abortion and homosexual practice, which are unremarkably standard biblical positions for any Christian pastor.--Lyonscc (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Then why dont you put those issues (AIDS, human trafficking, etc.) on the article, with their subsections instead of deleting what he has said about LGBT issues? If you look at Pope John Paul II, another famous xtian figure, his views on homosexuals are there along with his other views. Thats what I said at the beginning: "Theres so much room for more detail. And theres room for subsections on his charity work, etc, the article shouldnt just be about criticism."

So again, dont delete the details about his views on non-heterosexual people but add more details. Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Because biographies in Wikipedia are to be Encyclopedic, not exhaustive. There is no need to list every theological position of every religious figure. The Pope is the head of the entire Catholic church (whose adherents believe his ex cathedra rulings are inerrant), and had numerous rulings and emphases, which would be relevant to cover, as they were considered 'law' withing the entirety of that faith. Warren, on the other hand, is the pastor of a single Evangelical church, and is not considered to speak on behalf of God.

The amount of weight given to the question of Warren's position on homosexual practice in the current article is already more than appropriate, given the balance of things Warren teaches and emphasizes. He does not go out of his way to treat homosexual practice as a sin more grievous than divorce or other sexual sins. In fact, he's been criticized w/in fundamentalist circles for being "too soft" on the issue, because he doesn't speak out on it, other than when asked very direct questions about it. His position on the issue is no different from the norm in his denomination, so it does not raise to the level of notability, and an extended section on the topic gives it undue weight. Part of something being notable is that it is different than the norm. In this case (and many others), his position is no different from the norm. If this type of standard were not followed, Wikipedia would be an unwieldy mess. There are folks on the right who want to label every pastor based on systematic theology (Calvinism, Arminianism, etc., etc.), eschatology (futurist, preterist, partial-preterist, dispensationalist, covenant, etc.) and any/every other label under the sun. By this same reasoning (deviation from the norm, outspokenness on an issue), these things are also not notable. Extended commenting on his position on GLBT issues is no different. He's not outspoken on the issue, and his position is not abnormal. Thus, it is not notable.--Lyonscc (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It is your personal opinion that Warren's opinions is different than the norm. I dont think a man like Warren would be invited to presidential/prime ministerial/royal ceremonies in Canada or Germany. The article I'm proposing is more than 2000 words. While the LGBT section is less than 250. And theres more room for improvement. It may be the norm that abuse is not a good reason for divorce in Warren's christianity but it is not the norm in modern societies. And if you find reliable sources, you may add that Warren's positions are no different than the norm into the article. Currently it is your personal opinion.

Again the LGBT issues will be less than 13% of the article. I dont see anything against that in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. But I do not see you changing your opinion so a RFC may help. Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the article is currently not from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view since it simply says "This decision angered pro-choice and gay-marriage advocates and led to criticism of both Obama and Warren.[11]". This is only partially true since some (or maybe most) of the criticism was due to Warren comparing gay relationship with pedophiles and incest AND his other previous remarks. Reaction against Warren was not only due to his opposition to gay marriage. The article lacks that. Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Phoenix of9, you clearly do not have consensus to make your proposed edits and now that Warren's invocation at Obama's inauguration is in the past, you will have trouble finding editors who agree with you in attacking Warren (that's why it was protected prior to the inauguration). You already have had two other veteran editors of this article say that your edits were inappropriate (again, we just dealt with another editor similar to you) and I guarantee that at least two more editors would join us if you attempt to post them again. You also have absolutely zero credibility because of your admitted bias against Warren, so attempting to "out-argue" us is ridiculous. If you continue, all you will accomplish is getting this article protected again. You're not going to "win" this - walk away from the article. Manutdglory (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Phoenix of9, you will find that some editors are strongly Apologist and Protectionist toward any article which might not show their favorite pro-christianist characters in a favorable light-- thus the edit-warring and subsequent blocking of further edits on the article. You won't be able to win any kind of logical debate or argument with Apologists, and they will easily employ canvassing tactics to lend strength-in-numbers to their pro-Christianist viewpoints, all the while decrying other editors' "lack of neutrality". So i would suggest that if you want to see this embarassment of an article come to some improvement, you will need to offer a good working draft here (or on one of your subpages) and then eventually (hopefully) a large enough number of non-biased editors will review your draft and express their support, if it is truly "neutral". But don't hold your breath! Teledildonix314 ^talk 22:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Look who's back. Manutdglory (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on content, not editors, Teledildonix314. Theres a section below, feel free to express your opinions on the content of the article there. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)