Jump to content

Talk:Rick Warren/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

sermoncentral.com?

This site is for some reason being used to support Saddleback Church attendance figures. I do not believe it qualifies as a reliable source. There are certainly a number of figures published in reliable sources that were previously used to support the "largest church in California" claim, which should be sufficient to establish its relative size. Self-reported attendance figures are inherently unreliable and should not be referenced here. Mike Doughney (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh....Mike, Mike, Mike, if you had actually clicked on the link, you would have seen that the actual ranking is from an annual study conducted by Outreach Magazine, which is the primary church-ranking study in the US. Manutdglory (talk) 06:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
So it is. I still think some discussion is warranted. If a Time Magazine (as a for instance) clearly-reliable reference can be used versus a trade mag nobody's ever heard of or knows much about, the clearly RS source is preferable. I really don't know why you'd replace "the largest church in California," sourced to major secular news organizations with something else that's arguably obscure and only known in Christian pastoral circles. Mike Doughney (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters as to actually size, attendance numbers change and are hard to verify from independent sources. Warren is the pastor of one of the largest and most influential churches in America. That is all that is really notable for a biography. Let's leave it at that, it's not a competition! CarverM (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If the underlying source is reliable then it is likely fine. It would be better to cite the reliable source directly, however, if that is not possible then utilize the source you have and specify what the original source is. Also the statement needs to be dated - "as of 2006" or "as of December 2007", etc. - so those reading know what data we we using and comparing, etc. -- Banjeboi 21:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

PD Connection Magazine

In conjunction with the Reader's Digest organization, Warren has launched a new magazine called, "The Purpose Driven Connection" [1] . I propose a short statement be included about this as it is notable and add the magazine link www.purposedriven.com. I'd simply use the first sentence of the article, The Reader's Digest Association has officially launched the first issue of The Purpose Driven Connection, a glossy quarterly magazine built around the teachings of Pastor Rick Warren. CarverM (talk) 11:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I dont think such issues are contested by anyone. Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

conservatine views

The cite given for the lede supports (possibly) a claim of conservative theological views (depending on who is defining the views -- the Catholic church does not view them as "conservative" for example) but offers zero support fot the claim that he has "conservative political views." In fact, it is hte fact that his views run the gamut that makes him quite an interesting character -- and one who does not fit into a tight political mold. Collect (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you genuinely doubt that Warren is conservative in both senses, or that it would be anything but trivial to find reliable sources to this effect? In fact, here's three I found without even trying. [2] [3] [4] Spotfixer (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I dispute that a cite used for a claim which does not support the claim should be used to support what it does not support. Amd I dispute that Warren is labelable as "politically conservative," as many of his positions do not fit into neat pigeonholes, and WP's purpose is ill-served by assigning pigeonholes. From your first cite: "A registered independent who does not endorse candidates, he has called old guard evangelical activists too partisan and overly focused on gay marriage and abortion." Which does not support your claim. Nor does the SFGate artivcle speak of him specifically having "conservative political views." (even with its barb that Warren "equat(ed) gay marriage to pedophilia" which was discreditied here.) The CBS cite says "He is known as a "new evangelical" who stresses issues like poverty and climate change alongside other traditional conservative Christian issues." In short, none of your scites the painting of Warren has having "conservative political views" at all. When zero of the sources you find without trying support your position, it is likely that you are trying to show something that just ain't so (see Josh Billings ). Collect (talk) 11:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Dan Savage saddlebacking

When Dan Savage coins a term in your honor, it is apparently quite notable. Consider Santorum_(sexual_neologism) as a precedent. Spotfixer (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputing the earlier edit summary, this is not a WP:BLP violation by any means. It's not clear to me what level of notability this carries, but there's an article in progress at Saddlebacking. Mike Doughney (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
the Saddlebacking has been tagged for deletion, as well. This is definitely not wp:notable by a long shot. At least I think it's pretty obvious that a pattern of tendentious editing is emerging.--Lyonscc (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, someone is trying to delete it, but it's clear now that they will not succeed. If they do, then by all means remove the mention made here. Until then, it stays. Thank you for understanding. Spotfixer (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
It is not a recognized neologism in the English language, it is just an attempt to be offensive. It's not notable. There is no "whitewash" here, but there's certainly a smear effort going on.--Lyonscc (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You have failed to address any of the arguments above. Please do so, or your claim will be ignored. Spotfixer (talk) 04:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The neologism is described in the lead paragraph in an article in The Economist: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/01/22/yes_we_can_saddelbacking_make This is on par with such things as Santorum and Truthiness, so it is most certainly not something that can be easily WhiteWashed. Teledildonix314 talk 04:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The article in the economist notes that no definition was even created yet at the time of publication. This doesn't rise even close to a level of notability required for a wiki article, let alone a WP:BLP. I would also note that Santorum is still not widely recognized as a legitimate neologism, and Truthiness not patently offensive, nor aimed at mocking certain individuals, and it was recognized widely, over time, as being noteworthy. The word you're trying to insert is specifically for the purpose of shock and mocking, and doesn't come close to the level of material that can be used in a legitimate WP:BLP.--Lyonscc (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Please describe this "level of material that can be used in a legitimate WP:BLP," thanks. You seem to be trying to impose a personal taste decision when there are citations from reliable sources to contradict your wish, and this causes an appearance of using WP:BLP as a sort of Cloaking Device for anything you want to WhiteWash. Teledildonix314 talk 04:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
From WP:BLP
In this case, the term is - at best - obscure, not ubiquitous (like truthiness), and the one news source cited (the economist) doesn't even have a definition for the word - because one didn't exist yet.
Also in WP:BLP
Rather clearly, this does not meet the hurdle of WP:V, notability, and it is specifically being included as malicious content.--Lyonscc (talk) 04:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
It's a huge quote (so huge that I put it behind an expanding template), and yet there is nothing applicable here. Saddlebacking is notable and no more malicious than Santorum_(sexual_neologism). The article has ONE sentence with THREE citations. One SHORT sentence. How much more verification can you demand? Spotfixer (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Two articles were written before it had a definition, two articles are opinion pieces, and the most recent one is calling on readers to try and make this a common term. None of these make it notable, relevant or fit with the level of verifiability required for a WP:BLP.--Lyonscc (talk) 05:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Lyonscc wrote "no definition was even created yet at the time of publication" but this is patently false. The article clearly states several definitions were created; and you can easily find which one became the common neologism. You are making a false declaration.
Lyonscc insists we have "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons" but this material is sourced from The Economist so it can't be described as 'poorly sourced'. It might be contentious if you are prudish and wish to impose your personal taste, but it is most certainly not unsourced.
Lyonscc reminds us of "The possibility of harm to living subjects" but there is no such harm taking place here. If you are an Apologist for Warren and you don't like it when he is criticized or ridiculed in the mainstream media, that is your personal viewpoint, and you can't impose it on the article. Warren is not "harmed" by having an encyclopedia mention the reasons for *why* he is so frequently mentioned in mainstream media!
Lyonscc is attempting to force 3 Reverts and an ongoing Edit War. This does not improve the article. I would politely request that Lyonscc desist from deleting citations to material without hearing consensus from other editors. Thanks. Teledildonix314 talk 05:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

The term "saddlebacking" doesn't directly relate to Warren, regardless. Additionally, a neologism doesn't become "common" overnight. What is the pain in waiting for consensus on the addition of this term? Additionally, to suggest that consensus has been reached on this in a couple of hours is ludicrous.--Lyonscc (talk) 05:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

According to Dan Savage, you're wrong. It does refer to Rick Warren, so it's entirely relevant to both this article and Saddleback Church. As usual, your arguments fall apart when carefully inspected. Spotfixer (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. If saddlebacking survives AfD, which I don't think it will presently, then add it as a see also link until consensus is reached on NPOV way of reporting this. It seems quite apparent that the neologism was in direct response to Obama's choice of Warren for the invocation so that's the likely area this would be added ... eventually. If saddlebacking does not survive AfD then it may be wisest to sit on this bit due to WP:Recentism to see if the term gains notability like Santorum did. Also note that Santorum himself didn't have, arguably, a worldwide following who will likely wage an online battle to prevent the same developments that happened with Santorum neologism. It simply may be too soon to tell. -- Banjeboi 11:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • WP expresses bars neologisms in the first place, and material which is not properly relevant to a BLP does not belong in a BLP. WP:NEO applies ab initio. Collect (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Not quite. We have many articles on neologisms and many neologisms become regular words in various English languages. This neologism is in direct relation to Warren but, as I state above, I think it is too soon to gauge any cultural impact. We aren't in a rush here so the content can wait. -- Banjeboi 11:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Tonight's edit war has been brought to you by...

Actually, it's now the subject of the following reports:

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Have a wonderful evening... Mike Doughney (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Of these, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is the centralized place to seek further admin involvement. -- Banjeboi 11:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

More details in the article including his position on homosexuality?

Should we include Warren's views on homosexuality in the article? Warren compared gay relationships with pedophile and incest relationships AND there are his other previous remarks which had big media coverage. Some editors think these are not notable and/or were taken out of context and/or including these would give undue weight —Phoenix_of9 (via posting script) 19:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the primary issue. He did not compare gay relationships with pedophile/incest relationships - he made a comparison of the historically recognized definition of "marriage" (as between a man and a woman from different families) and expanding this "5,000-year-old" definition to mean something different. He later clarified that he was not making a statement of moral equivalency. Including the political opinion/commentary and all of the particulars of the debate do give undue weight to the article (which I would note is already rather balanced in both positive and negative views of Warren).--Lyonscc (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Btw, this is the proposed version (although not complete): User_talk:Phoenix_of9/warren Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Warren's position isn't notable, because it is no different from the norm for American Evangelical churches, particularly those of Baptist origin (of which Warren's church, Saddleback, is one). The norm can be defined by the Southern Baptist Convention, of which Saddleback is a member. Here is their position on homosexuality: http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/pssexuality.asp - "We affirm God's plan for marriage and sexual intimacy—one man and one woman, for life. Homosexuality is not a valid alternative lifestyle." Warren's position is identical to that of his denomination, which has 16 million members in America, across 42,000 churches. Thus, this is not my opinion, it is supported by the facts of Warren's denomination. If we're going to add GBLT issues, then we might as well add every minor social issue, from public funding of stem-cell research to the Endangered Species Act. Additionally, we might as well categorize every religious biography with every possibly doctrinal distinctive, including systematic theologies supported, hermeneutical principles supported, ecclesiology and eschatology. In short, what you're proposing is giving undue weight to fringe issues and leads to unwieldy articles.
This is, at best, a coatrack issue for the discussion of doctrine toward homosexual practice within the church. As noted in the previous flamewar that led to the article being locked, Warren did not compare gay relationships with pedophiles and incest. This is inferred commentary from the interview and was not explicitly stated.--Lyonscc (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
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.
As for if Warren did or did not compare gay relationships with pedophiles and incest, many people thought he did and there are many reliable sources for this. But I propose to include a direct quote from him in the article. See User_talk:Phoenix_of9/warren#LGBT_issues Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
And Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, just because something may or may not be the norm in a US Christian denomination does not mean that it isnt notable. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The article IS from a WP:NPOV with the current wording. I would note that (even in your update) Warren later clarified that he was not equating homosexual practice with pedophelia and incest, so adding the interpretation that this is what he was doing is inconsistent with what he said he meant in the interview. Therefore, adding this to the article would be inconsistent with WP:BLP. Additionally, the difference between an encyclopedia and a comprehensive work is that encyclopedic knowledge, by definition, covers only notable breaks from the norm (i.e. what makes something special or significant), and not an exhaustive description about all aspects of a subject. In this case, Rick Warren is in agreement with his denomination (the SBC) and every other SBC church (which has disbarred churches from its membership in the past for trying to justify homosexual practice as compatible with orthodox Christian practice). He does not emphasize it over other sins, and only comments on the topic when asked by media outlets or in the context of all other sexual sins. Thus, he does not break from the norm in his church's doctrine, nor is he outspoken on this point of doctrine. Thus, devoting 10% of an article is granting undue weight to an issue, and in this case is also contra to WP:BLP.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Warren also claimed he wasnt a homophobe. That doesnt make it true. His views on homosexuality is notable because there was lots of attention on it and this can be verified by reliable sources (ie something special or significant). As for Wikipedia:BLP: "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources..." Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I fear you are using "homophobe" to mean "anyone who disapproves of homosexual behaviour at all." Thus making a vast majority of Americans "homophobes." If one uses it to mean express disapproval of gays as people, the rate is reduced. Use of judgemental words ought to be avoided. Collect (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Your fear is irrelevant. Vast majority of Americans are irrelevant. What I think of Warren is irrelevant. What is relevant is this. Are there any reliable sources which think Warren is a homophobe? I'm just saying that just because Warren claims he isnt a homophobe does not mean he isnt. Most racist people also say they arent racist. Why are you 2 so against a direct quote?

In an interview with Beliefnet.com, Rick Warren said:

[Warren:]...I’m opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

[Beliefnet:]Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?

[Warren:]Oh , I do.

Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

See the previous comment by Carver M:

As long as everyone seems to be interpreting what Warren meant let me offer another suggestion. The context of the question was the "definition of marriage." So, when asked the equivalence question might he have simply meant that these other definitions were just as unacceptable a definition as gay marriage? (The slippery slope argument.) I do not think he was comparing gay behavior to incest or pedophilia, rather he was using all of these examples as unacceptable definitions of marriage. My opinion is, therefore, that if this section is left in, that the "interpretation" be less sensational as the liberal press and blogs have tried to make it out to be. I think that the press is trying to stretch the point and a Wikipedia article should support not that effort. CarverM (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This is also what Warren explained his answer to mean. Again - trying to insert a subject's words in a way that is contradictory to the subject's intent is a direct violation of WP:BLP. As for the claim that Warren is a homophobe, there is no documented evidence of this. Again - this doesn't rise to the level of notability, and puts undue weight on a normal (as defined by his church denomination) position held by Warren.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
What makes you think that CarverM's opinion about how Warren intended his words is relevant? If there is such an interpretation (by reliable sources), put that into the article. I suggest you to read: Wikipedia:Verifiability Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
As Ged UK rightly points out, you're making an argument from synthesis (which is a violation of WP:NOR), not from Warren's actual statement. My quotation of Carver M was simply to note that there can be multiple interpretations of this singular quote, and that the one you're fostering has been contradicted by Warren, himself.--Lyonscc (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Theres no synthesis on the proposed version: User_talk:Phoenix_of9/warren#LGBT_issues. I suggest you to read it before commenting on it. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Of course there is - twofold. First, by including only the specific quote, you miss the overall topic being discussed (which was on whether homosexuality or divorce is a bigger problem for the church - and to which Warren specified that divorce was the bigger issue) and give the impression that the interview was about homosexuality. Secondly, you follow up the quote with "Warren later denied equating gay relationships with incest or pedophilia.", which infers a contradiction between the interview and the later statement. Additionally, this doesn't address the complete lack of notability in Warren's position on homosexuality and his lack of over-emphasis on the issue - both of which suggest that extending the coverage of GLBT issue would be giving it WP:UNDUE weight. It's obvious you've got an axe to grind, and this isn't the place to do it.--Lyonscc (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
His opinions about divorce is in the article. If I'm giving the wrong impression, you are free to try to clarify instead of deleting the whole thing.
Yes, there's a contradiction. Thats why both statements are there. To give both sides of the issue. Make relevant arguments, please.
Comment on content. Dozens of reliable news article links disagrees with your personal opinion that this isnt notable. As I said before, your personal opinions are irrelevant. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
This is not about my personal opinion. It is about adding original research into an existing article, and expanding on a topic that needs no expansion (as it is tangential to a subject's notability). I've given you avenues in which to grind your axe - particularly with the Obama Inauguration article. The quotation, as it exists, gives wp:undue weight to the topic of his position on homosexual practice, as it is being used to infer something contradictory to the intent of the person who spoke it (by his own follow-up commentary). Why does it grant wp:undue weight? Because in full context, it was an interview about divorce, not homosexual practice. There is no need to expound on the topic. It's already covered in the article.--Lyonscc (talk) 23:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
You are repeating yourself. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
And you're not? I was making clear why the proof-texted Warren quote would not fit WP:NPOV as you've used it.--Lyonscc (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflcit) All that quote does, though, is make clear his position on gay marriage. Beyond that, anything else is synthesis as far as I can see. --Ged UK (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
So what do you think of the proposed version: User_talk:Phoenix_of9/warren compared to the current one? Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Warren has not stated any views "against LGBT people", but rather has stated a position against a particular set of practices. The controversy about his invitation is already noted in the article, and if more discussion on the invitation is warranted, it would be in the Inauguration article (as noted above) and not Warren's bio page. His support of Prop 8 is also noted in the current version of the article, as well. What is opposed is adding additional commentary which gives wp:undue weight to his church's position on LGBT practice. It's already noted in the article, as it stands.--Lyonscc (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
'Warren has not stated any views "against LGBT people"' That is your personal interpretation of the issue and as I said many times before it is and has been irrelevant. Wikipedia is not your soapbox. In the proposed version, there are many reliable sources which claim otherwise. And thats what is important. Reliable sources. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
It is not my interpretation of the issue. It is Warren's interpretation of the issue. He's said many times that he has no issue with LGBT people. He just believes that there are certain behaviors that are sinful, and that a person's sins do not define who they are. Thus, giving a different characterization of the "interpretation" of and issue, than the subject of a WP:blp would give would create a straw man argument, and be in violation of WP:blp, wp:nor and wp:npov. It seems that I'm not the one making Wikipedia a soapbox with this particular issue...--Lyonscc (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Bill Clinton also said he did not have sexual relations with Lewinsky. Yet Lewinski scandal is covered in that article. Sometimes what people say about themselves is not true. This is a very basic point. Why are we even discussing this? Warren may claim otherwise but that is not how his intentions are interpreted by certain people, especially given his actions and other stuff he has said (eg: "Warren said that homosexuality is not a natural way of life and thus not a human right. "We shall not tolerate this aspect at all," Dr Warren said. [23]").
So if you ignore these other interpretations (which have reliable sources) solely based on what Warren claims, you arent being neutral and you are giving undue weight to Warren and not enough towards criticism. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Clinton was talking about verifiable (and later acknowledged) facts and circumstances, not opinions. With biographies of living persons, there are additional considerations that need to be taken into account, and misrepresentation of beliefs/opinions is one of them, as these can lead to charges of libel/slander. I would note that your "reliable sources" do not have direct quotes and interviews which support them, but rather the opinions of the 'reporters' (noting that allAfrica.com may not be all that verifiable, and that "Warren said that homosexuality is not a natural way of life and thus not a human right" is an opinion of the writer, and not verifiable fact. Who knows what he said that was slanted to this representation? Again - Warren was asked about the specific quote you've cited, and he gave an interpretation of what he was saying that contradicts your assertion. Thus, you've created a straw man argument.--Lyonscc (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I proposed adding a direct quote from an interview, you rejected. Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok Phoenix of9, now you are arguing with 3 veteran editors of this article who do not approve of your edits, User:Lyonscc, User:Collect, and myself, who for months have managed to maintain a neutral, unbiased article. And regarding your above comment to Lyonscc, "Wikipedia is not your soapbox" - dude, are you serious? Take your own advise! It's nice to see that you've managed to bring in a couple other editors to your cause who have absolutely no history with the article - however, from their user pages it's clear that they are also biased, gay-rights activists like yourself (one who's banned and another who isn't even American). No one here is gay-bashing or questioning your rights as gay people - only that you shouldn't be editing this article because of your obvious and blatant bias (and in some cases, hatred) against Warren. Any logical, neutral person can clearly see that the article is currently unbiased and that your proposed changes would obviously give it a highly-biased slant. That is what we are opposed to. And your argument that the main reason that gay people hate Warren so much is because of his comment about pedophiles (which after hearing the entire interview, was clearly taken out of context) and not about Obama selecting him to give the invocation at his inauguration, is completely false. Within an hour after the announcement was made, this article had been repeatedly vandalized a dozen times by gay-rights activists (which caused it to be protected) - days before Warren made the comment about pedophiles. Check the article's history if you don't believe me - FACTS can be tricky things. Manutdglory (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Manutdglory, please knock it off. Accusing other editors of anything is unhelpful and breaches our policies on civility. BLPs often contain information that the subject themself may find embarrassing but we remain NPOV here. There are numerous ways to incorporate this content which is well within policy. Instead of focusing on editors please focus on the content. I have no idea if this talkpage has been a pile of enmity before, but regardless of our personal bias', we all need to remain civil and constructive. If this article becomes a battleground then admin intervention may be required. Let's all work to simply remain calm and find the best possible wording that is fair to both the subject of the article and the content. -- Banjeboi 01:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
This from a banned user. Excuse me, but are you serious? Why would a banned user have any say on the objectivity of an article? This has become a complete joke. Manutdglory (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
So please tell us, Manutdglory: how long have you been an employee of Saddleback Church? How much money have you donated to Rick Warren? How much have you donated to other Apologists who support Warren? Because this sort of information would be appropriately mentioned when you go around accusing other editors of bias, lack of objectivity, or personal agendas and soapboxes. Teledildonix314 talk 02:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, let's see. I've never been employed by Saddleback and I haven't given a cent to Warren or other "apologists." Does that answer your questions? The point is, obviously everyone has biases. However, I'm not an activist and don't go around editing article's of people I disagree with like you and those like you insist on doing. There's a clear double-standard. Unlike some editors, I don't allow my bias to affect my edits - I simply list verifiable facts from a neutral perspective, which is what Wikipedia editors are supposed to do. Manutdglory (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I rejected adding in the quote because it is taken out of context from the interview, itself, and actually conveys a message different than the interview, as a whole. Again, it adds nothing additional of value to the article apart from what is already there. We already know, from the existing article, that Warren is opposed to gay marriage, that he holds the orthodox position on homosexual practice, and that Obama's invitation to speak caused an outcry. This comprises 5% of the article, which is probably already more weight than the issue is due, as pertaining to Warren's notability.--Lyonscc (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
There are many reliable sources which think it wasnt taken out of context. Again, you are repeating yourself. Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I was just answering your question with something that hasn't been refuted. I would note that the sources that have been linked, to this point, all had a particular agenda to put forth in their categorization of the quote. At one point, I had a link to the raw video of the entire interview, but that was removed (because of the war around categorizing it, and because the "offending" proof-texted quote occurs midway and does not have the desired affect when viewed within the whole). Again, you've not justified why the treatment of this subject is deserving of the wp:undue weight you wish to give it.--Lyonscc (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
As I said several times before, you are repeating yourself so it seems theres no point in me discussing this with you any further at this time. I'll let the RFC run its course and maybe we can find a solution, if not we can take this to mediation. Phoenix of9 (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I would just also note that this appears to be a classic example of Tendentious editing in trying to make accusations against a subject for something he's already disavowed, and is clearly unfit for a WP:BLP--Lyonscc (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
He also said a civil union is not a civil right [5] and questioned if homosexuality was natural [6]. I think you are trying to use Wikipedia as your soapbox and try to show Rick Warren in a better light, ignoring the criticism. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Eh? In most states, "civil unions" are not a "civil right." Seems to me that this is not something which belongs here unless you add that info to Obama as well, inter alia. Collect (talk) 09:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rick_Warren/Archive_7&oldid=1137157870"