Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Rick Warren/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Finalizing reference to Prop 8

Points of Agreement:

  • It is agreed to mention Prop 8 in the article
  • It is agreed to note that Prop 8 passed
  • It is agreed to note that Warren gave a message in support of Prop 8 to his church
  • "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" may be included if "Eliminates Right Of Same-Sex Couples To Marry" is included

Points of dispute:

  • It is not agreed that same-sex marriage can be referred to as a "right" [unless with the caveat (from Lyonscc and Collect(?)) that this "right" be framed by the CASC ruling against Prop 22 and the refusal of the CASC to grant a stay to its ruling pending the passage of Prop 8]
  • it is not agreed that the ballot title, altered after the CASC Prop 22 ruling, "Eliminates Right Of Same-Sex Couples To Marry" be included [unless the chronology is included].
  • It is not agreed that it is appropriate to mention the wording of Prop 8 ("Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California")
  • It is not agreed that the dissenting opinion of the CASC ("judicial fiat") may be mentioned, since it is the position taken by Warren.
  • It is not agreed that discussion of Civil Unions be added to the Prop 8 section
  • It is not agreed that inclusion of Warren's statement about "appease 2% of the population" be added to this section

Suggestions

4.1

Warren 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 right of same-sex couples to marry. Warren said that "the courts threw out the will of the people [when] four people voted to change a definition of marriage that has been going for five thousand years" (in reference to the State Supreme Court's decision in May to overturn Proposition 22) and also because "There is no reason to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2% of our population.". Warren stated that while "no American should ever be discriminated against", nowhere in the constitution there is "the “right” to claim that any loving relationship [is] identical to marriage", adding "a civil union is not a civil right" Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

4.2

Warren issued a statement to his congregation, supporting 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 right of same-sex couples to marry. Warren said that "the courts threw out the will of the people" (in reference to the State Supreme Court's decision in May to overturn Proposition 22) and "There is no reason to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2% of our population." Warren stated that while "no American should ever be discriminated against", nowhere in the constitution there is "the “right” to claim that any loving relationship [is] identical to marriage", adding "a civil union is not a civil right" Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

I think this sums up the discussion to this point, as to what is and is not agreed.--Lyonscc (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

See above: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Rick_Warren#Summary Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
My position:
1) "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" is contingent on "Eliminates Right Of Same-Sex Couples To Marry"
2) "Eliminates Right Of Same-Sex Couples To Marry" IS NOT contingent on chronology since it is the official ballot title
3) CASC ("judicial fiat"), chronology is contingent on "appease 2% of the population" and civil unions for reasons explained in Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Rick_Warren#Summary.
4) Simply giving a link for Prop 8 is also not acceptable since Wiki articles are not collections of links. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
5) Clarification: civil unions is also a stand alone point (ie: I wont support its removal even with the removal of CASC ("judicial fiat"), chronology). This is Rick Warrens article and I see no reason not to include Warren's words. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Altering strike-out and move stricken items to "disputed" (to keep this section cleaned up).--Lyonscc (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
If we keep the chronology but dump "judicial fiat"/dissenting opinion, can we get agree to drop "appease 2%..."? As for Civil Unions, those aren't included in this RfM.--Lyonscc (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia article Rick Warren is under mediation. Hence all issues in that article are included. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying then that unless all issues are simultaneously dealt with that this does not fit your interpretation of mediation? Collect (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
No. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Succinct to be sure. What then did you eman by "all issues in that article are included"? Are you saying that we are not limited to or should not be limited to the issues stated in the RfM? Collect (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes. And besides, it is covered. Civil unions is related to Prop 8 (per source) which is related to invocation controversy. And I did say "1st issue is to agree on a text which describes and explains this controversy." Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(Out) At the time this RfM was agreed to, there was no mention of "civil unions" as an issue, nor does it appear to directly pertain to Proposition 8 which does not address civil unions. It might appear that you are adding material to the mediation which will lengthen the process considerably. Collect (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It is relevant to Prop 8 per source:


[removed off-topic comments by Phoenix and Collect]. Sunray (talk) 08:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The most persistent dispute I've seen regarding Prop 8 is over whether we would conflict with Wikipedia policy or guidelines by stating:

  • Proposition 8 eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.

The word "right" has been the disputed element; we agree that the remainder of the statement is accurate. Lyonscc has identified several policies and guidelines that he believes prohibit, or at least urge against, use of the word "right." Let's resolve that question before working through others related to Prop 8. Lyonscc, would you please cite those policies and guidelines, and summarize your beliefs about why the word "right" conflicts with them? Benccc (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Benccc, he agreed to the usage of word "right". See above. Phoenix of9 (talk) 05:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Lyonscc is referring to the Prop 8 ballot title -- we all agree what that was. He's concerned that we would run afoul of policies/guidelines if we were to use the word "right" in the statement above ("Proposition 8 eliminated" etc). Lyonscc, please put those concerns in your own words. Benccc (talk) 06:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
My take on WP policy is that we can certainly quote a state authority that refers to a "right." Thus, quoting the ballot title would be bombproof. It would be a good idea to do this, and to quote an opposing statement. It needs to be brief so as to give the reader a clear picture of what was at issue without overly weighting this matter. I thought that this had been agreed to, above. Sunray (talk) 08:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I agreed to the usage of the word "right", so long as it is understood in context of the chronology. So - let's include the ballot title and the short chronology of overturning Prop 22, refusing a stay prior to Prop 8, and the retitling of the ballot. The context is needed, because the thesis put forward by some elements is that Warren's intention was to eliminate "rights", when his stated intention was to follow the will of the people (i.e. Prop 22).--Lyonscc (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
True. That was one of his reasons. Another reason was that he wanted to uphold the definition of marriage according to him. And another was that he saw no reason to "appease 2% of the population". All should be in the article. Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, check out 4.1 above. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk about adding POV! First, using multiple quotes out of context rarely gives a balanced view of anyone's opinions. Second, I had thought it was agreed that the support in a message to his congregation was to be so indicated. Third, the Court decision threw out a law which had been the law in California for 8 years, and that did not reference "thousands of years." Fourth, I dispute that "civil union" is properly before this mediation as it was added weeks later to the RfM page. Now can we get to actually working on compromises? Collect (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Lets try to keep the layout efficient. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I prefer to have comments in the same township as what I am commenting on. Had I wanted you to move them I would have done it myself. I request that you place them proximally to what they are comments on, please. Collect (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I addressed 2nd and 3rd points. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm talking about something else here, which remains unresolved. This confusion about what I'm asking is one of the reasons, I believe, we have had such a hard time making progress, and why I have been urging that we break clusters of disputes down into single disputes, and deal with the policy disputes first. Let me clarify what I am seeking to resolve. My understanding is that Lyonscc believes that the following sentence, on its own, as written, setting other sentences and negotiations aside, violates Wikipedia policy:

  • Passage of California Proposition 8 eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry in the State of California.

I ask only that we resolve whether that sentence violates Wikipedia policy.

By "only" I mean I'm not asking whether any of you think such a line would be helpful to readers of the Warren article, nor whether it should be used in the Warren article at all, nor whether you agree with the decision of the California Supreme Court, nor whether you're interested in telling readers about the Prop 8 ballot title etc.

If the sentence above does not violate Wikipedia policy, we may be free to consider including it -- or not -- in the Warren article. If it does violate Wikipedia policy, we may not consider using it in the Warren article, and we'll have identified a problem with several other Wikipedia articles. This will be useful to know.

At various times prior to mediation three admins (Kevin, Firestorm, and VirtualSteve) have said that the line does not violate policy, but Lyonscc has not agreed with their assessments, and we have moved on without ever resolving the question. May we now please take a moment to resolve it? Surely we can review verifiable and authoritative citations that will lead us to the answer. Benccc (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, Lyonscc and I have disagreed whether the word "right" in that sentence violates Wikipedia policy, so let's start there. Lyonscc, please describe your view on that. Benccc (talk) 06:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
One problem is that, sans any other material, "eliminating the right" is technically correct, but not helpful to understanding Warren's position. The most important part of any BLP is "getting it right" and using technically correct verbiage when it misleads the reader as to what Warren felt his own position was does not particularly help the reader. I know it feels like "scoring" for some to get such material into a BLP, but it is not what a BLP is intended to do. Is there a reason why the short-lived nature of the right ought not be mentionable in the article, so that people do not think Warren was opposing something of long standing? And the fact that while he supported the apparently successful side, that he did not campaign for it is surely noteworthy? As is the fact that the side he supported was apparently supported by his denomination? Under no reasonable circumastance should a BLP mislead the reader as to intent of the subject. Collect (talk) 11:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
"I know it feels like "scoring" for some to get such material into a BLP" Such claims arent helping the mediation. The reasoning of "eliminating the right" was explained to you. Why are you repeating your arguments? Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that Collect is making a valid point, though. We need to present Warren's meaning as accurately as possible. The intent of WP:BLP is to give a neutral and balanced view of the subject. That means both being faithful to his meaning and, on the other hand, ensuring that the reader is not misled (for e.g., about what a "human right" means in law). Good articles inform the reader about the subject by presenting his views and any notable criticism, in a neutral manner. If we all agree with this, perhaps we will be able to move on to writing how we would like it to appear in this article. There should be no need for repetition. Sunray (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, lets do that. Will you comment on other stuff? Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
You bet. The main reason I've been slow to comment related to the fact that folks were into disagreeing rather than collaborating. I now sense that the energy for disagreement is not so intense, or to word that positively, participants may be ready to start working together to resolve these issues. If that is, indeed, the case, we should be able to make some progress. Sunray (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm keenly interested in making progress.
Collect, I don't think I deserve your suggestion that I've sought to "score" anything for myself or my personal opinions, or to mislead readers. At no time have I suggested that we tell readers that Warren knew, or intended, that Prop 8 would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. If he did not, that's something we could show readers. I am absolutely committed to providing readers with accurate information. The matter of what Warren knew or intended is not what I'm seeking to resolve here. I'm seeking only, only to resolve whether the word "right" in this sentence would violate WP policy and guidelines (and not whether anyone wants the sentence in the Warren article):
  • Passage of California Proposition 8 eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry in the State of California.
To evaluate whether the word would violate policy or guidelines, we could look at the California Supreme Court's finding that the right existed,[1], the New York Times' reporting that the right existed,[2] the California Voter Guide's language that Proposition 8 would eliminate that right,[3] and the Washington Times' report that Proposition 8 eliminated that right[4]. These sources could help us resolve whether we can, among whatever information we actually end up putting in the Warren article, mention that Prop 8 eliminated a "right" without violating policy.
Ultimately Sunray can provide guidance regarding that single policy question. If not for my respect for Lyonscc's concerns, which I've demonstrated for many weeks, I would not first invite Lyonscc to summarize his concern that "right" does conflict with policy. Lyonscc, please do so, so we may move on. Benccc (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I would concur that Collect and Sunray have done a good job summing up my issue with the word "right" as it relates to Warren's WP:blp, and that it is WP:blp and (in context to the subject of the biography) WP:NPOV which are at issue - We need to present Warren's meaning as accurately as possible. The intent of WP:BLP is to give a neutral and balanced view of the subject. In this light, including "right" without understanding it in context gives the reader a false impression as to Warren's intent. I have added option 6.2 above - striking 'judicial fiat' so that we can also avoid cluttering it with additional Warren quotes about "2% of the population. As previously noted, whether or not to include Civil Unions is a separate discussion from Prop 8, which can be discussed in due time (just not right now).--Lyonscc (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Lyonscc, you've given reasons for your opposition to the word "right" that had nothing to do with Rick Warren, and which Sunray and Collect did not address; you wrote that the "alleged" right did not exist because the In re Marriage Cases decision could have been overturned by a federal court, and because no state-wide legislation had passed supporting the right of same-sex couples to marry, with the result that the "right" was "nowhere near settled law." I disagreed; a state supreme court's judgments are enforceable, and the In re Marriage Cases decision is outside federal jurisdiction; you and I did not succeed in finding a source that indicated that the decision could have been appealed to a federal court.
If you're correct that same-sex couples did not in fact have the right to marry in California, it would of course violate WP policy for us to state in the Rick Warren article that Prop 8 eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry in California, no matter how clear we made Warren's own views. In fact, several WP pages that currently contain that statement would need correction.
I fear that if we don't resolve the matter now, it will continue to dog us. Setting aside any consideration of Rick Warren for this moment, did passage of Proposition 8 eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in the state of California? It's a yes or no question, from which we may proceed in accord with WP policy. Surely we can achieve an answer to this question! Benccc (talk) 03:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Benccc, I think it'd be more effective if you make your own suggestion above. It's clear they dont want to address it. So write a text above.
It was addressed by Collect, affirmed by Sunray, and endorsed by me above. I don't see that the issue is not resolved. We cannot set aside the consideration of Rick Warren - this is HIS biography page! My original proposition was just to wikilink Prop 8 (which would solve all of this), but because some think that Prop 8 must be defined on this biography, it must be defined in such a way that it will not distort its applicability to Rick Warren. I don't see anything "dogging" us with this issue. If we include the context of the "right" (so that Warren's - the subject of this article - support is not distorted), there is no issue.--Lyonscc (talk) 04:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Lyonscc, whats the rationale for ommitting 2% issue? You've included one of Warren's reasons (one man and woman). You've implied another reason with chronology (will of people). Why are you ignoring the other reason? Phoenix of9 (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
You take issue with "judicial fiat", and the 2% issue is wrapped up in judicial fiat - so I dropped judicial fiat. The 2% issue is also already covered in "redefining the definition of marriage as one man and one woman". If it is included, then we get into the debate of whether it is REALLY 2%, etc., and this becomes far more of a coatrack than it already is. An article is to be enclycopedic, not exhaustive. His most used arguments are included in the article, which is encyclopedic.--Lyonscc (talk) 04:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Next Iteration

I'm afraid I get lost in the discussions of 2%, judicial fiat and coatrack. Would participants be willing to move one or two of the versions down where we can work on them. We need to finalize this now. Pick the best version so far. Sunray (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Done, below, with 6.2 (which incorporates a number of suggestions, and also is absent of 2%, judicial fiat, and the accompanying coatrack issues.--Lyonscc (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Lyonscc, I believe Sunray is prepared to provide guidance to us on this question, but is giving us the opportunity to show that we can address it together, as I'm trying to do. You're the only party to this mediation who has argued that a right did not exist. As you know in January, after I updated the Prop 8 description in the Warren article to help readers understand why it caused controversy (it "eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry"), an editor undid my edit with the explanation that it was POV. I engaged him in discussion on the talk page and learned that he believed a "right" had not actually existed. After he turned out to be Rick Warren's adviser and was banned from the page for COI, I did not revert, because I saw that you, Lyonscc, agreed with him that my edit violated policy. Though other editors, admins, and I have opined that a right did exist, you have maintained that it did not. I'm sure you'll agree that I've taken all your concerns seriously and addressed them promptly and directly, with -- to date -- a considerable investment of time and effort (it's how I ended up party to this mediation). Will you not do me the courtesy of now addressing my question directly? Of course I'm not suggesting we compose language for the Rick Warren page without taking Warren into consideration. But any language we consider for the Warren article must not contain false information; otherwise it would, as you have argued, violate policy. Is it true or false, in your view, that same-sex couples had the right to marry in the State of California prior to the passage of Prop 8? Benccc (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe it is incomplete information (and thus WP:POV) to say that same-sex couples had the right to marry in the State of California prior to November 4. This does not reflect that the legal course was not yet exhausted (both sides had federal cases being prepared - the pro-marriage folks in challenging the CASC ruling, and the pro-gay folks in challenging the federal DOMA), and the refusal of the court to grant a 6-month stay to its May ruling made the "right" temporary, since the legal alterations from Prop 8 were already known to invalidate their ruling. Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought I'd been consistent on this point. It is not about whether the inclusion of SSM as a "right" is POV - it is about whether the SOLE inclusion of SSM as a "right" is POV. At the time (and even now), I think that the amount of ink given to this issue is WP:UNDUE, but if we're going to include "right", it must be done so in a way that maintains WP:NPOV, particularly since this is a WP:BLP in which Prop 8 is a tangential side-show, at best. --Lyonscc (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Lyonscc, you have yet to furnish a source to verify your exceptional claim that the In re Marriage Cases decision could have been found to violate a federal law. Absent such verification, we cannot use your claim as a basis for excluding from an article a fact that is verified by reputable sources.[5] [6] [7] [8] Do you have any sources to verify that? Benccc (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand Lyonscc's objection. We have documentation that SSM was considered by the court to be a right. Unless that decision were to be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, it stands. Thus we can refer to the CASC's ruling as fact. If, in the future, a ruling by the higher court were to overturn the CASC's ruling we would have to modify our wording. But for now, I cannot see a problem with it. Lyonscc, what more do you need to be able to move on? Sunray (talk) 06:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
We have the ruling establishing the right, it is clear that it was not a right until the court ruling. We can refer to a court ruling as a court ruling, which is likely more NPOV than any other choice, and is clearly a more non-controversial way of referring to it. Many rulings establishing or restricting rights get superceded by constitutional changes without having the SCOTUS overturning the rulings. Collect (talk) 10:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Exactly (and said better, I would not, than I have stated it). When the court refused to grant the stay on their ruling - knowing full well that Prop 8 was already on the ballot and would overturn their ruling if it passed - any "rights" they conferred were tentative in nature, pending the outcome of Prop 8 (which they acknowledged in the majority opinion dismissing the request of stay). The most NPOV way of describing this would be via describing the court rulings, rather than trying to characterize the rulings w/o any context.--Lyonscc (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it is NPOV to describe the rulings rather than attempt to characterize them. Sunray (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Sunray, the question is whether it is POV to say that a right existed prior to the passage of Prop 8. We have numerous reliable sources affirming that a right did, in fact, exist prior to the passage of Prop 8. We have not yet identified a single reliable source stating that a right did not exist. The In re Marriage Cases decision, which found the right under the California Constitution, could not in fact have been overturned by a federal court, and we have not yet identified a single reliable source stating that any federal court could have considered an appeal of the In re Marriage Cases decision. Clearly -- as evidenced by the success of Prop 8 -- the In re Marriage Cases decision angered many people, and many of them may have refused to accept that the right of same-sex couples to marry was valid. That is a POV, and absent verification, it cannot be the basis for deletion from WP of references to that right. It was deleted from the Rick Warren page by someone who claimed that it violated WP policy, which is how I ended up in this mediation. Other efforts to delete references to this right from Wikipedia have failed, as evidenced by the numerous WP pages that refer to that specific right. As the Rick Warren page pertains to a man who disagreed with the In re Marriage Cases decision -- a man who is an inspiration to many other people who disagreed with the In re Marriage Cases decision -- it is not surprising that a reference to that right would be contested by editors of that page. Although many disagree with the In re Marriage Cases decision, the finding of the California Supreme Court was in fact valid according to the laws of the state, and was an enforceable judgment: marriage licenses were issued to same-sex couples. We may not, of course, attempt to characterize that right as good or bad. I have not sought to characterize the right as good or bad. To state that the right existed is no more a characterization than to state that the California Supreme Court existed. They existed independent of our wishes or our characterizations. Before us now is a question not of whether a reference to the existence of that right pleases editors, but rather whether it violates WP policy, as asserted by Lyonscc. That is a question we have been unable to resolve, and for which your judgment would be helpful. Benccc (talk) 06:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

6.2

In May 2008, the California Supreme Court invalidated Proposition 22, "The Defense of Marriage Act", which had been law in California for eight years, ruling that same sex marriage was a legal right in California, and in June, refused to issue a stay on its ruling, pending the outcome of Proposition 8 in November, which would amend the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." On October 24, 2008, two weeks before the election, Warren issued a statement to his congregation stating that marriage was "a contract between men and women" and supporting Proposition 8.[1][2] On November 4, 2008, Proposition 8, which had it's ballot title changed to "Eliminates Right Of Same-Sex Couples To Marry" after the CASC ruling, passed.

Accurate as far as I can tell, though the case name might be of interest to some. I think perhaps the official position of the Southern Baptists regarding same sex marriage, as a theological issue, might be mentioned as Warren is a Southern Baptist. [1] and [2] do not appear to contrast at all with Warren's stated position, and as a theological position, for a pastor not to contradict his denomination is of how much importance? In which case ought we not say "affirming the position of the Southern Baptist Convention, of which his church is a member" just to be accurate? Collect (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

6.3

On October 24, 2008, two weeks before the election, Warren issued a statement to his congregation stating that marriage was "a contract between men and women" (consistent with the position of his church denomination), and supporting Proposition 8, which would amend the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."[1][2] Previously, in May 2008, the California Supreme Court invalidated Proposition 22, "The Defense of Marriage Act", which had been law in California for eight years, ruling that same sex marriage was a legal right in California, and in June, it refused to issue a stay on its ruling, pending the outcome of Proposition 8 in November. On November 4, 2008, Proposition 8, which had it's ballot title changed to "Eliminates Right Of Same-Sex Couples To Marry" after the CASC ruling, passed.

Notes (for 6.2 & 6.3)
  1. Reuters (October 24, 2008). "Nationally Acclaimed Pastor Rick Warren Announces Support for Proposition 8" Source: ProtectMarriage.com
  2. Warren, R. (October 23, 2008). News & Views (Prop 8) Video posted to "Pastor Rick's News and Views."
Comments (for 6.2 & 6.3)

I wouldn't have picked this one myself as it de-emphasizes Warren and his views. I think that the lead sentence needs to say why this is included in Warren's bio. Perhaps you could start the paragraph with: "On October 24, 2008, two weeks before the election, Warren issued a statement..." Then provide the historical background. That is just my initial reaction. Sunray (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've now included 6.3 to match up with Sunray's suggestion--Lyonscc (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Close, though as above I suggest we note that (surprise) Warren's position is essentially the same as that of his denomination as stated officially. Collect (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Does inserting this consistency in the first sentence address your point?--Lyonscc (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
It would. Collect (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I would, moreover, make "Southern Baptist" clear, and that it is an official position therof. Collect (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

7.0

On October 24, 2008, two weeks before the election (new), Warren issued a statement to his congregation, supporting 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 right of same-sex couples to marry. Warren stated that marriage was "a contract between men and women" (consistent with the position of his church denomination) and there was no need to change this definition "to appease 2% of our population." Warren also said that "the courts threw out the will of the people" (in reference to the State Supreme Court's decision in May to overturn Proposition 22). Warren stated that while "no American should ever be discriminated against", nowhere in the constitution there is "the “right” to claim that any loving relationship [is] identical to marriage", also adding "a civil union is not a civil right" Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments for 7.0

Note that the focus here is about Warren's views. Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the statement was near the end of October is relevant. The fact that no campaigning by him was done is relevant. The comment on the Southern Baptists would be more accurately stated as "Warren, near the end of October 2008, affirmed his agreement with the official Southern Baptist theological position against same sex marriage." And again I demur on bringing in "civil unions" into this section at all. The ideal is to get the BLP right, and sometimes that means neutral language must be used. Collect (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Mod'ed. Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I thought, per Sunray, we were dropping the 2% & civil union coatracks?--Lyonscc (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I think he meant he wanted to see suggestions. Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I definitely wanted to see suggestions. I think that this is a good way to go. By looking at the text and adapting to concerns raised, it seems a great deal more collaborative. Versions 6.3 and 7 seem to me to be progress. Let's discuss their respective merits.Sunray (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Aside from the issues with inclusion of 2% and CU's, I still prefer 6.3, as the context of Warren's support is clearer, due to the better clarity of the chronology.--Lyonscc (talk) 04:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Sunray, I think Lyonscc and I might not be able to resolve our disagreement over WP policy without your help. Would you please assist us? Our latest posts on the subject appear at the end of the #Next_Iteration section. Benccc (talk) 06:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess I don't see any disagreement, though Collect did a much better job, probably, than I have in stating my position on the usage of the term "right" by itself, rather than in context.--Lyonscc (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have remaining concerns about Version 6.3 as it now stands? Sunray (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Omission of these: "to appease 2% of our population." Warren also said that "the courts threw out the will of the people" (in reference to the State Supreme Court's decision in May to overturn Proposition 22). Warren stated that while "no American should ever be discriminated against", nowhere in the constitution there is "the “right” to claim that any loving relationship [is] identical to marriage", also adding "a civil union is not a civil right" Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I can't see any way to avoid going over some of the same ground covered already, because, while participants have argued the merits of including or not including these statements, the volume of text is such that I cannot pick out a succinct version of the arguments. Would each of the proponents be able to summarize briefly the reasons for inclusion or exclusion of these statements? Please refer to policy and guidelines only (no essays) in your justification. Phoenix, would you be willing to go first? Sunray (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I can see a way to avoid going over some of the same ground covered already. It is to isolate specific points of dispute, focus on them together, resolve them together, and move on. We will accumulate a collection of resolved disputes, from which we may assemble final copy. Are my fellow editors willing to try this yet? Benccc (talk) 06:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that this would be a very good way to go. Would you be willing to work on identifying the points participants need to address? Sunray (talk) 06:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Objective: 1) Warren supported Prop 8. 2) Why he supported Prop 8? 3) What is prop 8 (briefly)? This makes sense WP:BLP-wise

1) Agreed: "On October 24, 2008, two weeks before the election (new), Warren issued a statement to his congregation, supporting California Proposition 8,"

2) Per this source [3], 3 reasons: 1) "Warren stated that marriage was "a contract between men and women" (consistent with the position of his church denomination)" 2) "and there was no need to change this definition "to appease 2% of our population."" 3) "Warren also said that "the courts threw out the will of the people" (in reference to the State Supreme Court's decision in May to overturn Proposition 22)." This is NPOV since all reasons are included, none omitted. Also per WP:V.

UNDUE issue? No. Since this is Warren's article, Warren's views are the "majority".

3) "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 right of same-sex couples to marry."

Now, some people like Warren doesnt consider this a right. Hence:
Warren stated that while "no American should ever be discriminated against", nowhere in the constitution there is "the “right” to claim that any loving relationship [is] identical to marriage", also adding "a civil union is not a civil right" Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
At this point, I would suggest that the consensus is not to have the "civil union" bit in. And it is not up to us to judge Warren in the mediation, but rather to decide what belongs, or does not belong, in his biography. Collect (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Two questions, Collect. Why should we not include the statement about civil unions? Could you live with the rest of the statement if the "civil union" bit was omitted? Sunray (talk) 06:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Civil Unions are not part of this mediation, to begin with. Secondly, Prop 8 has nothing to do with Civil Unions. I recommend tabling this one and (if all are agreeable) tackling whether or not Warren's position on CU's is notable enough for inclusion later on. As for whether or not to include all of the quotes, I still say 'no' to the 2% inclusion (it's too vague, and adds nothing that #3 doesn't already add). If you include it, then you've got to give definition of what "2%" references, which then begs whether it is 2%, 5% or 10%, etc., etc.--Lyonscc (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

6.4

On October 24, 2008, two weeks before the election, Warren issued a statement to his congregation stating that "the courts threw out the will of the people" and that marriage was "a contract between men and women" (consistent with the position of his church denomination, the SBC), and supporting Proposition 8, which would amend the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."[1][2] Previously, in May 2008, the California Supreme Court invalidated Proposition 22, "The Defense of Marriage Act", which had been law in California for eight years, ruling that same sex marriage was a legal right in California, and in June, it refused to issue a stay on its ruling, pending the outcome of Proposition 8. Prop 8, which was named "Eliminates the Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry" after the CASC ruling, passed in the November 2008 election.

Notes (for 6.4)
  1. Reuters (October 24, 2008). "Nationally Acclaimed Pastor Rick Warren Announces Support for Proposition 8" Source: ProtectMarriage.com
  2. Warren, R. (October 23, 2008). News & Views (Prop 8) Video posted to "Pastor Rick's News and Views."
Comments (for 6.4)

Incorporated additional quote from 7.0 and comment from Collect re: the SBC.--Lyonscc (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems proper -- though I would suggest that to meet the sensibilities of others we simply say in the last sentence "Proposition 8, which was named "Eliminates the Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry" after the CASC ruling, passed in the November 2008 election." Collect (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Nope, for above reasons. Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
What above reasons? The only things absent from your suggestion is the "2%", which we have not agreed should be included, and Civil Unions, which are not part of the current scope of discussion.--Lyonscc (talk) 01:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Updated to include Collect's suggested wording, which is more in line with others' sensibilities.--Lyonscc (talk) 01:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be good to hear more views on Version 6.4 (above). It seems to be a fair and neutral statement. Phoenix is concerned that it doesn't mention Warren's comments about the 2% and his comment that SSM is "not a civil right." I am interested in hearing more about why (or why not) to include these statements. I am also interested on hearing from anyone who hasn't spoken about this version. In commenting please suggest changes that would improve the text. Sunray (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

General comment

Have you guys not yet figured out that this continual cycle of propose-criticize-repeat is not really achieving anything. Why don't you step back and ask "what is the purpose of the paragraph?". Start on a broad purpose, and then drill down to specifics. If you can agree on that then there is something specific to compare proposals against. Everyone seems to be trying very hard, and if that effort were focused on first defining a path to a common goal, and then (and only then) navigating that path until the goal is reached, I think success would come quicker. Kevin (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

See my earliest comments on this page. The decision, however, was made to pursue this course. Collect (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
As I said earlier, I really dont care about the process.Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I've never been involved w/ a mediation before. I'm only trying to follow what is on the page to reach a common version. It seems that not all parties are willing to compromise and negotiate a common conclusion, though.--Lyonscc (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Kevin, that's a good point. Prior to beginning mediation, we were wrestling with what information to add here:
In December 2008, President-elect Obama chose Warren to deliver the Invocation at his Inauguration. [ADD INFO HERE]. On Jan. 20, 2009, Warren delivered the Invocation.
Obama's invitation to Warren is mentioned in the article because it was a notable event in Warren's life; Warren probably received more mainstream media coverage over his role in the inauguration than he has received for any other event in his life. Most of that coverage mentioned that the invitation was controversial; and this seemed to be the main reason for the volume of the coverage (by comparison, media coverage was much smaller for other inaugural participants such as Aretha Franklin, Jane Alexander, and Dr. Joseph Lowery). Obama was criticized for his choice, largely because his supporters believed that Warren's statements on same-sex marriage and his stance on abortion clashed with Obama's views and their own. Our difficult task has been to figure out how to present this information to readers. Benccc (talk) 06:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Sunray, please see my post to you just prior to the start of section 6.2 above -- I'd appreciate your input. Also, re your first post of 2 April ("Would you be willing to work on identifying the points participants need to address?") yes I will try to suggest some of the very bite-size points we might focus on. It's useful that we're first taking a moment to see if we're on the same page regarding the function of the paragraph(s). Benccc (talk) 06:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I must have missed your question to me, as the discussion continued elsewhere. My conclusion was, and is, that a right did exist in the State of California prior to Prop 8. From the discussion, I had gathered that participants generally accepted that as a fact. If someone continues to have doubts, we should resolve that now. Sunray (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Benccc has given a pretty good statement of the goal of this mediation. As several people have indicated, we need to focus in on the particular issues. Once we do that things should get clearer. The key will be finding common interests and working together to address the issues. Sunray (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There haven't been any posts on this page for four days. Would participants please comment on what they would like to do with this mediation? Sunray (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I've been working on other articles which aren't so contentious, sorry to neglect this one. I would like to go forward with the proposed text from Phoenix of9 as long as it is approved by a majority of all of us. If i have any objections, but i find myself a minority_of_one, i will stand aside and accept that my wishes do not fit the consensus. In the same way, i believe that we could attempt to proceed with polishing a final proposed text, and if there is any other editor who finds themselves in the position of being a minority_of_one then we might have to ask them to accept the consensus despite their wishes to the contrary. I honestly don't mind if you completely dismiss my ProposedTextVersion7, but i feel there are portions of it which can be incorporated into any final TextVersion because the portions have reliable sources and easy verification. After re-reading the Items To Be Mediated, and rereading the current (frozen disputed) state of Warren's mainspace article, i feel like we are so close to a final product, and i will gladly agree to NOT include anything which is too hotly contested, if it doesn't stand up to the strongest WP:BLP WP:RS WP:V criteria. But we must include a brief mention of Warren's most famous controversy, and a brief explanation of why it was a big controversy, by simply using the good Sources which Phoenixof9 and Benccc have given us. The rest is all less important to me. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 04:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I stopped paying attention to this mediation a while back, because I was always more of a mediator than an editor with a strong opinion on this, and the mediation was causing me m:Wikistress. Things seem to have calmed down now, so i'm willing to come back to the table. Firestorm Talk 05:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I've been out for several days (it being Spring Break/Easter Week). I think we're almost there with 6.4 - particularly if we put to bed the 2% issue, and if we make it clear that Civil Unions are not part of the Prop 8 discussion, but a separate topic to be dealt with. Those appear to be the only two outstanding issues with this part (Prop 8) of the mediation.--Lyonscc (talk) 09:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Firestorm and Teledildonix314, welcome back to the discussion.
On the Case Page, the first of the "issues to be mediated" is to agree on a text that describes and explains the inaugural invocation controversy. I think we agree that the controversy was attributed largely to Warren's statements on same-sex marriage and his stance on abortion, and that an explanation will be helpful to readers. The abortion-related copy we've come up with (i.e. the second paragraph of what I used to call our "working version") seems to be acceptable to all. As for Warren's statements on same-sex marriage, I think we've agreed that the media focused primarily on his Prop 8 endorsement and his Beliefnet interview, and we've disagreed over what to say about those two things.
I think we've resolved that we can say that same-sex couples had the right to marry prior to the passage of Prop 8 -- at least, Sunray has affirmed that this would not conflict with WP policies or guidelines, and the other admins who have weighed in on the question have shared that assessment. This will help us explain what was controversial about Prop 8.
As for the Beliefnet interview, my recollection is that Lyonscc was concerned that the following draft copy distorted Warren's meaning:
...and also because of a recent interview of Warren by 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."[9] Warren later released a video message saying he does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia, but rather opposes the redefinition of marriage.[10]
Lyonscc believed that if we used that copy, we could avoid distorting Warren's meaning only by adding what he said after "I do," like so:
...and also because of a recent interview of Warren by 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. I just think for 5,000 years, marriage has been defined by every single culture and every single religion –- this is not a Christian issue. Buddhist, Muslims, Jews -– historically, marriage is a man and a woman. And, so I'm opposed to that, and the reason I supported Prop 8, really was a free speech issue. Because first the court overrode the will of the people, but second there were all kinds of threats that if that did not pass then any pastor could be considered, doing hate speech if he shared his views that he didn’t think homosexuality was the most natural way for relationships, and that would be hate speech. Well, we should have freedom of speech, ok? And you should be able to have freedom of speech to make your position and I should be able to have freedom of speech to make my position, and can’t we do this in a civil way? Most people know I have many gay friends. I’ve eaten dinner in gay homes. No church has probably done more for people with AIDS than Saddleback Church. Kay and I have given millions of dollars out of Purpose Driven Life helping people who got AIDS through gay relationships. So they can’t accuse me of homophobia. I just don’t believe in the redefinition of marriage."[11] Warren later released a video message saying he does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia, but rather opposes the redefinition of marriage.[12]
Lyonscc, will you please summarize why you believe that? Benccc (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
What if we put in "'I do,' followed by a defense of his position" and link to the interview? Would that be sufficient to not distort what he said, but also not make the section more bloated than it has to be? Firestorm Talk 17:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know. I'm struggling with why it was so gosh-darn important to explain Prop 8 in Rick Warren's biography, rather than just link to the Wikipedia article on Prop 8, yet it's perfectly acceptable to proof-text Warren's words and just externally link to the full answer, rather than allow his complete answer to a question. Still, I'd rather not delve into this one until we've put Prop 8 to bed. Unless we're saying that 6.4 is good enough and we're moving to the next topic.--Lyonscc (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
We're offering readers an explanation of Prop 8 because when we tell them that Warren's endorsement of it resulted in controversy, many of them won't know why. Readers who are familiar with Prop 8 can just skip over the explanation. As for Warren's response to Steven Waldman's question in the Beliefnet interview, his statement "I do" caused controversy; but the other things he said did not cause controversy, which is why it doesn't seem useful to include them. Lyonscc, it seems to me that you believe the public was mistaken in thinking that Warren's "I do" was a confirmation that he equates same-sex marriage with pedophilia, incest, and polygamy. I think we've respected that by not making any editorial comments about what Warren did or did not mean, and by linking to the interview video, and by informing readers that Warren subsequently issued a statement that he does not think SSM is like pedophilia or incest (his "video message"). Benccc (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll comment further once we settle Prop 8.--Lyonscc (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Good to see Teledildonix314 and Firestorm back. T., I appreciate your expression of support for this mediation and willingness to try to make consensus work. I've looked over the discussions and it strikes me that once we achieved a more collaborative way of working, good progress has been made. I do think that the wording of the section on Prop 8 is nearly complete, but that's no reason for not picking other topics to discuss as well. We should do this in an orderly way and stick to, at most, one or two topics at once.

Does anyone think we need to be clearer on our goal? Sunray (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I urge my fellow editors to focus on one point at a time, as we haven't been successful at resolving things when our focus is divided among multiple issues. We still have some points of dispute over WP policies and guidelines, and I think if we can work through those, it'll be easier for us to put our final paragraph together. Sunray, you mention a "section" on Prop 8, but I don't think we all feel that Prop 8 needs a section, or even its own sentence. For example, before we entered mediation, several of us were supportive of a paragraph in which the only Prop 8 mention was as part of this sentence:
  • Obama's choice was criticized by several notable organizations in part because Warren had endorsed California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," which eliminated the legal right of same-sex couples to marry; and also because of a recent interview of Warren by Beliefnet chief editor Steven Waldman in which Warren said he opposed marriage between siblings, adults and minors, and multiple partners.
In fact, I think we could make the Prop 8 reference even shorter than that without sacrificing reader comprehension:
  • Obama's choice was criticized by several notable organizations in part because Warren had endorsed California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry; and also because of a recent interview of Warren by Beliefnet chief editor Steven Waldman in which Warren said he opposed marriage between siblings, adults and minors, and multiple partners.
If our overall goal is to explain the Obama inaugural invocation controversy, it's not clear to me that all this material belongs there. Upon reading the sentence above, I think readers would grasp the essential point about Prop 8; telling them about recent history in California marriage law prior to the passage of Prop 8 might be tangential or excessive. Similarly, telling readers about Warren's statement to his congregation, or about Warren's denomination's view on marriage, would not likely improve reader comprehension of why the endorsement was controversial. Lyonscc, could you offer that info to readers in another part of the article -- perhaps even an adjacent part? If so, that could be done outside this mediation, and we could focus instead on a policy dispute. Benccc (talk) 04:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I am somewhat surprised that you were not more active in the discussions of versions 6.4 and 7. Nevertheless, I do appreciate your clear statement, above. Your stripped down version reads well. However, one may be left wondering what all the fuss over Warren being chosen to give the invocation was about. How could we give the reader a better understanding of the controversy while writing a neutral and balanced statement. Sunray (talk) 07:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I concur with Benccc, let's simplify, not be excessive; his shorter sentence is excellent and concise. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 08:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with simplification - which is why I still think the best option of all is to just wikilink Prop 8 and not characterize it, at all. Additionally, Warren's endorsement was to his congregation, not in a press release, so that needs to be clear, as well. However, I would endorse Benccc's summation of the Beliefnet flap, which avoids a number of issues brought forth previously.
  • Obama's choice was criticized by several notable organizations in part because Warren had endorsed California Proposition 8 to his congregation, and because of a recent interview of Warren by Beliefnet chief editor Steven Waldman, in which Warren said he opposed marriage between siblings, adults and minors, and multiple partners.
However, if we're going to drag defining Prop 8 into it - particularly describing it as a "right" - then we need to provide the context by citing the court rulings and basic chronology, as I thought we previously agreed.
  • Obama's choice was criticized by several notable organizations in part because Warren had endorsed California Proposition 8 to his congregation, and because of a recent interview of Warren by Beliefnet chief editor Steven Waldman, in which Warren said he opposed marriage between siblings, adults and minors, and multiple partners. Previously, in May 2008, the California Supreme Court invalidated Proposition 22, "The Defense of Marriage Act", which had been law in California for eight years, ruling that same sex marriage was a legal right in California, and in June, it refused to issue a stay on its ruling, pending the outcome of Proposition 8. Proposition 8, which would amend the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."and which was named "Eliminates the Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry" after the CASC ruling, passed in the November 2008 election.
While this is not as streamlined, it is more streamlined than 6.4 in that it also includes the Beliefnet controversy and sidesteps debate on which of Warren's supporting statements should be used (particularly the "2%" and the later clarification which mentioned civil unions).--Lyonscc (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) In regards to noting that Warren's "endorsement" was to his church, and not a press release, from the transcript of Larry King Live [4] on April 6 (3 days ago), in Warren's first interview this year:

KING: How did you handle all the controversy that resulted about the president selecting you?
WARREN: Yes, you know, Larry, there was a story within a story that never got told. In the first place, I am not an anti-gay or anti-gay marriage activist. I never have been, never will be.
During the whole Proposition 8 thing, I never once went to a meeting, never once issued a statement, never -- never once even gave an endorsement in the two years Prop 8 was going.
The week before the -- the vote, somebody in my church said, Pastor Rick, what -- what do you think about this?
And I sent a note to my own members that said, I actually believe that marriage is -- really should be defined, that that definition should be -- say between a man and a woman.
And then all of a sudden out of it, they made me, you know, something that I really wasn't. And I actually -- there were a number of things that were put out. I wrote to all my gay friends -- the leaders that I knew -- and actually apologized to them. That never got out.
There were some things said that -- you know, everybody should have 10 percent grace when they say public statements. And I was asked a question that made it sound like I equated gay marriage with pedophilia or incest, which I absolutely do not believe. And I actually announced that.
All of the criticism came from people that didn't know me.
KING: Well...
WARREN: Not a single criticism came from any gay leader who knows me and knows that for years, we've been working together on AIDS issues and all these other things. [...]
KING: One other thing in the gay issue, while you said you were not an activist at all...
WARREN: Yes.
KING: Did you not encourage your flock to vote yes on Proposition 8?
WARREN: Oh, yes. You know, I don't think that the definition of marriage should be changed.
KING: So you did ask your people who worship with you to vote that way?
WARREN: Yes. I just never campaigned...
KING: ...because that's an active issue.
WARREN: I never campaigned for it. I never -- I'm not an anti-gay activist -- never have been. Never participated in a single event. I just simply made a note in a newsletter. And, of course, everything I write it's -- it's (INAUDIBLE).
KING: It's not high on your road of issues?
WARREN: No, no, it's very low. In fact, I am working with a number of gay organizations on issues that we care about, in saving lives.

So, with this in mind, I think that trying to take a statement made to his congregation and trying to expand this to paint Warren as an anti-gay activist is something that we should take care to avoid.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you quoted this b4 me, sorry didnt see that. Phoenix of9 (talk) 13:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sunray mentioned surprise that I was not more active in the discussions of versions 6.4 and 7. I wish I could be more active in general but I've had less time recently. Sunray also said my stripped down version reads well -- but I didn't mean that to be a version, I was just using an excerpt from a version we looked at previously to show how brief I thought the Prop 8 reference could be. Benccc (talk) 09:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Goal statement

It strikes me that that last sentence, above, seems to be getting close to our goal. Let me try to state it:

Our goal is to agree on wording that will provide the reader with insight into the controversy about Warren giving the invocation at the presidential inauguration. In so doing, we must meet the requirements of Wikipedia policy for a balanced and neutral biography that is "written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article, or appear to take sides."
In particular, we must keep in mind the following requirement for well-known public figures:
"If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."
Would participants be able to agree with this as a goal statement? Sunray (talk) 07:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I would agree with that statement. Firestorm Talk 07:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I also agree with that goal statement. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 08:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I would agree to complying with all of WP:BLP as a goal, rather than just one section.--Lyonscc (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
We are obliged to apply WP:BLP. That is the reason for the link to the policy in the first paragraph. Sunray (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if I was unclear - WP:WELLKNOWN is a section of WP:BLP, so I don't know why we would call that one out over the other parts of WP:BLP.--Lyonscc (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I've tried to pull out sections of the policy that apply specifically to this mediation. My assumption was/is that we are responsible for applying the policy in its entirety. Would you be able to accept the goal statement with that clarification? Sunray (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes.--Lyonscc (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Basically that we are to adhere to all applicable WP policies? Sure. Collect (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

What the goal statement does is identify aspects of the policies that apply specifically to this case. Sunray (talk) 08:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the goal statement too. Benccc (talk) 09:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

2 new things (Sorry about length)

New interview in Larry King


CNN

Waldmann (interviewer)'s opinions


Beliefnet

IMO, both needs to be in the article somehow, concisely of course. Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Another [5] Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


I disagree. A BLP is not a repository for every word the person says in interviews. Were we to add suchj, we could find a few dozen others to also add, making this potentially a 400K long article. WP does not say to include everything findable, the object is to produce the right article for the person. And, of course, it is not up to us to say anything about any "modicum of responsibility" but rather for us to look at material dispassionately and with as little bias as possible. Were we to make such a statement in any article, the article would run afoul of several policies from the start. Collect (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
It is not clear to me why you are quoting these long passages here, Phoenix. It is preferable for participants to make a point in a concise way and link to relevant quotes. What do these add to what we already have about the invocation incident? Sunray (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm gonna propose to introduce them into the text we are debating. Anyone whos gonna argue for/against its inclusion have to read it first. That was the point. Phoenix of9 (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that as we go on, there will likely be additional sources that can be cited (like this interview published yesterday [6] ), but I think that, unless something significantly new is introduced, we should not go back to square one each time a new article is published.--Lyonscc (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, agreed. Sunray (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolving Prop 8

Let's see if we can find a way to move the discussion about Prop 8 to a conclusion so we can finalize the text. I believe we have four alternatives. Two of these (Options 6.4 and 7), have been the subject of considerable discussion and fine tuning. The third is a shortened form proposed by Benccc. The fourth is an alternative proposed by Lyonscc.

7.0

  • On October 24, 2008, two weeks before the election (new), Warren issued a statement to his congregation, supporting 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 right of same-sex couples to marry. Warren stated that marriage was "a contract between men and women" (consistent with the position of his church denomination) and there was no need to change this definition "to appease 2% of our population." Warren also said that "the courts threw out the will of the people" (in reference to the State Supreme Court's decision in May to overturn Proposition 22). Warren stated that while "no American should ever be discriminated against", nowhere in the constitution there is "the “right” to claim that any loving relationship [is] identical to marriage", also adding "a civil union is not a civil right" Phoenix of9

6.4

  • On October 24, 2008, two weeks before the election, Warren issued a statement to his congregation stating that "the courts threw out the will of the people" and that marriage was "a contract between men and women" (consistent with the position of his church denomination, the SBC), and supporting Proposition 8, which would amend the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."[1][2] Previously, in May 2008, the California Supreme Court invalidated Proposition 22, "The Defense of Marriage Act", which had been law in California for eight years, ruling that same sex marriage was a legal right in California, and in June, it refused to issue a stay on its ruling, pending the outcome of Proposition 8. Prop 8, which was named "Eliminates the Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry" after the CASC ruling, passed in the November 2008 election.
Notes (for 6.4)
  1. Reuters (October 24, 2008). "Nationally Acclaimed Pastor Rick Warren Announces Support for Proposition 8" Source: ProtectMarriage.com
  2. Warren, R. (October 23, 2008). News & Views (Prop 8) Video posted to "Pastor Rick's News and Views."

Benccc's abridged version

  • Obama's choice was criticized by several notable organizations in part because Warren had endorsed California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry; and also because of a recent interview of Warren by Beliefnet chief editor Steven Waldman in which Warren said he opposed marriage between siblings, adults and minors, and multiple partners.

Lyonscc's alternate version

  • Obama's choice was criticized by several notable organizations in part because Warren had endorsed California Proposition 8 to his congregation, and because of a recent interview of Warren by Beliefnet chief editor Steven Waldman, in which Warren said he opposed marriage between siblings, adults and minors, and multiple partners. Previously, in May 2008, the California Supreme Court invalidated Proposition 22, "The Defense of Marriage Act", which had been law in California for eight years, ruling that same sex marriage was a legal right in California, and in June, it refused to issue a stay on its ruling, pending the outcome of Proposition 8. Proposition 8, which would amend the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."and which was named "Eliminates the Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry" after the CASC ruling, passed in the November 2008 election.

Resolving Prop 8 New Comments

My purpose in proposing a goal statement (thanks to Kevin for the suggestion) was to try to give us a litmus test to apply to our product. These statements are all relatively NPOV. The question is: which statement, or combination of statements, best meets the goal and makes consensus possible? Thoughts? Sunray (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Bencc's version covers the salient issues in a nice, brief and to-the-point manner. 6.4 also does the job, but with a bit more baggage to it. Neither includes material other than what was contemplated in the original RfM. Collect (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The readers coming to the wikipedia entry about Rick Warren might know nothing about these surrounding topics, so we would need some wikilinks at the very least; but we must try to present some kind of rudimentary info. Benccc's version is rudimentary, but accurate and somewhat incontrovertible. Perhaps we could try to start with that, albeit the very shortest version, and then continue looking at each of the additional points in the RfM to see what else must be added. I feel like the only "non-neutral" issue with this shortest version from Benccc is that it simply doesn't give much info and perhaps it's omitting too much, and readers will need more than this to help them understand; but at least it's a great start, because i don't think anybody disagress with what it says. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 01:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd take 6.4 (second pref) or the Lyonscc alternate (first pref). Benccc's is missing the text of Prop 8 and the context required for the "right". This assumes topics are wikilinked, as well. The Lyonscc Alternate includes the items missing from Benccc's version, and includes the characterization of the Beliefnet interview from Benccc's version, which is good.--Lyonscc (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
You put the "right" in scare quotes. I dislike strongly (and struggled to contain my burning ire for a few minutes), especially after the patience exhibited by this. Accordingly, i object strongly to the notion that the "right" must have "the context required". My objection is based on the fact that our most Reliable sources refute any such need, e.g. the title of the ballot measure. Your wish for such contextualizing is purely your individual religious POV, albeit shared by people such as Rick Warren, and thus should not obstruct our writing of a neutral article. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 07:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hold yer horses, the version attributed to me above is not a proposal -- I was just using an excerpt from a version we worked on previously to show how brief I thought the Prop 8 reference could be. The sentence makes more sense in the context of the full two paragraphs we looked at. By the way, compared to the versions proposed recently, I think those two paragraphs more clearly convey the story (i.e. why the Obama invitation was controversial). Here's a fresh look at them as a single paragraph, with a few modifications based on recent discussions, minus the citations (no time to add 'em at the moment, though we have a good number of 'em):

In December 2008, President-elect Obama chose Warren to deliver the Invocation at his Inauguration. Obama's choice was seen as evidence that evangelicals are welcome in his "big tent," but came under fire in part because many liberals felt it conflicted with the principles on which he'd campaigned. Warren had endorsed California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry, and in a recent interview had answered "I do" when asked whether same-sex marriages are equivalent to marriages between siblings, adults and minors, and multiple partners (Warren later released a video message saying he does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia, but rather opposes the redefinition of marriage). Obama's choice was also criticized because of Warren's opposition to abortion rights. 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, which was generally praised for its positive message.

I found a good link for that last part here: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/warren-invocation-gay-2286573-church-first Benccc (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is a complete non-starter, and sends us back to square one. Absolutely no support for it here.--Lyonscc (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
How about we just discuss the four Sunray has pulled out, rather than adding more proposals?--Lyonscc (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Tele - I'm not using 'scare quotes' - I'm denoting the specific word being used. The context IS needed, because this is Warren's bio page, and to use "right" w/o any context conveys the impression of someone trying to deny someone civil rights, which is not WP:NPOV. It has nothing to do with a religious POV, and everything to do with complying with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. I cannot, in good conscience accept any version that refers to "rights" being eliminated w/o reference to the court rulings and timeline associated with those "rights" - as Sunray and others noted, the most WP:NPOV means by which to characterize effects of court rulings is to reference the rulings, themselves.--Lyonscc (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Warren and the likes do not consider this a right. My version addresses that point of view. 'Warren stated that while "no American should ever be discriminated against", nowhere in the constitution there is "the “right” to claim that any loving relationship [is] identical to marriage", also adding "a civil union is not a civil right"' as well as timeline '"the courts threw out the will of the people" (in reference to the State Supreme Court's decision in May to overturn Proposition 22)' Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
But it does not reference the court rulings & chronology, which provide the required WP:NPOV clarity. And it also brings in Civil Unions, for which we have no agreement whatsoever that it even belongs in the article.--Lyonscc (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
"which eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry" is the official ballot title and isnt contingent on anything. Wiki isnt an outlet for Christian cognitive dissonance. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

[Removed disputatious commentary and personal attacks by Lyonscc] Sunray (talk) 06:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

What is Prop 8? The shortest answer is that it "eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry". I also included "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." in my version. To me, thats a NPOV short description. I will also include he said he wasnt an "anti gay marriage activist" among other (per the latest King interview) stuff when (and if) we move to beliefnet interview discussions. "eliminates the right" is not my agenda, thats just what happened. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

[Removed further unhelpful comments by Lyonscc and Phoenix] Sunray (talk) 06:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Both of you, knock it off. Go reread WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF. When you have done that, please return to discussion about the article, and not about each other's attempts to "add in the propaganda." I am not the mediator currently, but I would like to request that you both strike through your own attacks. they aren't helping to add to the discussion. Firestorm Talk 20:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

[Removed personal attacks and invective from Teledildonix314] 06:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Lyonscc, after four admins including Sunray have affirmed that it's accurate that Prop 8 eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry, it doesn't make sense to me that you maintain that it would violate WP policy to include that fact in the Warren article unless the word "right" appears in quotes, or the reference is accompanied by additional information about the recent history of California marriage law. I'm frustrated that you believe I added that info to the article to push an agenda rather than to improve the article. What was controversial about Prop 8 (right or wrong, good or bad, agree or disagree) was that it eliminated a right -- an honest-to-gosh enforceable constitutional right -- and in the U.S. that made it a big news story and a notable event in Warren's life, and we're trying to settle on how to report this to readers. Some of the disputes in this discussion seem to revolve around whether information will make Warren look good or bad or anti-gay, and that's just not our job, and we have no control over whether readers will approve or disapprove of things in Warren's life. I have no idea whether Warren knew that Prop 8 would eliminate a right, or whether he accepted that a right even existed, and I do not propose we make any claims about that. Benccc (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Lyonscc, you wrote that you absolutely do not support the version below, but I have the impression that you oppose only one of its six sentences (which I've bolded). Do you oppose any of the other five?
  • In December 2008, President-elect Obama chose Warren to deliver the Invocation at his Inauguration. Obama's choice was seen as evidence that evangelicals are welcome in his "big tent," but came under fire in part because many liberals felt it conflicted with the principles on which he'd campaigned. Warren had endorsed California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry, and in a recent interview had answered "I do" when asked whether same-sex marriages are equivalent to marriages between siblings, adults and minors, and multiple partners (Warren later released a video message saying he does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia, but rather opposes the redefinition of marriage). Obama's choice was also criticized because of Warren's opposition to abortion rights. 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, which was generally praised for its positive message. Benccc (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Benccc it's also been confirmed that it is accurate to say that Prop 8 amended the California constitution to read "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." That is just as controversial as "eliminated the right", but it is more in line with Warren's (you know, the SUBJECT of this BLP) stated support. There is no justification for choosing "eliminated the right" to the exclusion of the actual action of Prop 8 and the proper context of the "right" in question. None. My position on this is not driven by religion, but by neutrality to the subject of the article. "Eliminated the right" does absolutely NOTHING to improve the article. NOTHING. The subject matter of Prop 8 was the subject of the controversy, not whether it "eliminiated a 'right'". Regardless of whether the CASC had granted the stay (creating the temporary "right") or not, support of Prop 8 would have drawn equal ire - one need only look to Prop 22 in 2000.
The "eliminated the right" was the altered ballot title added as part of the marketing war around Prop 8. If we're going to be encyclopedic, then it is WARREN'S position as he put forth - not propagandist spin - that should be used to characterize WARREN'S biography. That IS the point of a biography. As for the proposed wording, I have expanded the bold section to include what I disagree with. There is no chance, whatsoever, that I will agree that inclusion of "eliminates the right" is wp:npov without the inclusion of the context of the court rulings and chronology of that "right" (I'm not sure why you think I insist "right" be included in quotes - I don't. I've only put it in quotes as part of this discussion). My lack of agreement has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the neutrality of the article and fairness to its subject.
Benccc, I was not including you in my characterization, as to this point I do not remember you objecting to inclusion of the court rulings and chronology if "eliminates the right" is included. Phoenix & Tele have frequently made their agenda known (not a "gay agenda", just a political agenda), in that they need Warren to be portrayed as a homophobic bigot, set on stripping people of their rights. I'm not playing that game, because it is completely contrary to WP policy and WP's credibility. We can certainly reason with each other, but at some point wp:npov applies, and if you're going to include the propagandistic "eliminates the right" language, then you have to give enough context to dispel the point of the propaganda. The whole fight to change the name of the ballot was a piece of propaganda by the anti-Prop 8 crowd, because Prop 8 existed long before the CASC ruling, and its original language had already been shown to elicit favor in focus groups, whereas "eliminates the right" flipped focus groups in the opposite direction. Benccc, I'm not suggesting that you are trying to propagandize the article - I'm saying that, as you have it, the article is not WP:NPOV because it contains propaganda w/o the context require to understand the full context to maintain neutrality.
I do have a concern that the way in which we record the facts of the situation will be done in such a way as to persuade the reader to come to a conclusion, rather than form their own conclusion - which is the heart of WP:NPOV. We should report facts in such a way that the reader's own opinions and biases inform whatever conclusions they come to about the subject. In this particular case, the controversy about Prop 8 was NOT that it eliminated a right, but that it would prevent same-sex marriages (whether it was a "right" previously or not). Prop 8 was already a huge controversy long before the CASC ruling in May 2008, so to argue that "eliminating a right" was the source of controversy just doesn't fly.--Lyonscc (talk) 04:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
With this in mind, I would take your suggestion and alter it to include your earlier Beliefnet wording and eliminate the explanation of Prop 8, since the wikilink and the last sentence (which identifies SSM) provide all of the context needed for Prop 8:
  • In December 2008, President-elect Obama chose Warren to deliver the Invocation at his Inauguration. Obama's choice was criticized by several notable organizations in part because Warren had privately endorsed California Proposition 8, and also because of a recent interview of Warren by Beliefnet chief editor Steven Waldman in which Warren said he opposed marriage between siblings, adults and minors, and multiple partners. Additionally, Warren was criticized because of his opposition to abortion rights. Obama later defended his selection, saying that he disagreed 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, which was generally praised for its positive message.
If your desire is truly for neutrality and simplicity which conveys the key information needed to understand the controversy, while avoiding undue weight, then this should suffice.--Lyonscc (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Or, having thought about how to minimize the needed context, would this suffice?
  • In December 2008, President-elect Obama chose Warren to deliver the Invocation at his Inauguration. Obama's choice was criticized by several notable organizations in part because Warren had privately endorsed California Proposition 8, and also because of a recent interview of Warren by Beliefnet chief editor Steven Waldman in which Warren said he opposed marriage between siblings, adults and minors, and multiple partners. Proposition 8 amended the California constitution to read "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," and, in light of the California Superme Court's May 2008 invalidation of Proposition 22 ("The Defense of Marriage Act"), eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Additionally, Warren was criticized because of his opposition to abortion rights. Obama later defended his selection, saying that he disagreed 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, which was generally praised for its positive message.
While it doesn't include as much context as I think would be most appropriate, it includes enough to prompt the reader to read the Prop 8 article for more information about the chronology.
Lyonscc, over the course of our work together, four admins have affirmed that it's fact, not propaganda, that Prop 8 eliminated the right to marry for same-sex couples in California. You frequently cite our responsibility to be NPOV, but then you assert your personal view that it's propagandistic to say that same-sex couples had the right to marry in California. Numerous reliable authorities affirm that it's just a fact, and we've seen no citations to the contrary. When do we reach the point at which it's tendentious to argue otherwise?
I don't propose to tell readers about the Prop 8 ballot title -- why would they care about the ballot title? Our task is to tell them why Warren's endorsement of Prop 8 was controversial. We could certainly tell them about the ballot language limiting marriage to a man and a woman, but as you know most U.S. states already have amendments limiting marriage to a man and a woman;[7] Prop 8 was the first time Americans have ever voted to eliminate a right! [8] Did you not notice how controversial that was?! Prop 8 was the most expensive campaign over a social issue in U.S. history,[9] and the second most-expensive race of 2008, surpassed only by the presidential election![10] Benccc (talk) 07:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Lyonscc, you wrote that you disagree with this sentence: "Obama's choice was seen as evidence that evangelicals are welcome in his 'big tent,' but came under fire in part because many liberals felt it conflicted with the principles on which he'd campaigned." Which part? What would you change? Benccc (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Benccc - It IS a technically a fact that Prop 8 eliminated the "right" to marry for same-sex couples in California. I do not disagree. However, just because something is a fact does not mean that it is wp:npov to include it by itself without any context. Facts can lead to false impressions when given no context. Thus, in this particular case, when you include this fact (that Prop 8 eliminated the "right" to marry for same-sex couples in California) with no supporting context to Warren's private endorsement of Prop 8, you create (unintentionally or otherwise) the impression that Warren was trying to eliminate peoples' rights. It is also a fact that Proposition 8 amended the California constitution to read "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." This was a HUGE controversy and millions had been spent on it long before the CASC ruling. It is also a fact that California Supreme Court's May 2008 invalidation of Proposition 22 ("The Defense of Marriage Act") is what made SSM, temporarily, a "right". Why not include ALL the relevant facts - and thus, avoid false impressions, - instead of just one that DOES convey a false impression of the subject of the article?--Lyonscc (talk) 11:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

(out) We are hitting the point of using a thousand words when a short section conveys as much actual information. By the way, Americans have many times "eliminated rights" -- the right to buy opiates over the counter, the right to unrestricted purchase of alcohol, the right to smoke in public places, the right to unrestricted ownershp of firearms, the right to own slaves, and a few hundred more. Overstatements found in articles do not make the overstatements accurate. Hyperbole ill-suits a biography. I iterate Franklin's advice that we all doubt a little bit of our own infalliblilty here. Put your concerns into the Prop 8 article, but it does not belong in this article. Warren's "endorsement" was of about the lowest level found in any SBC congregation. It was in line with the official theological position of his denomination. We might as well attack him for believing in the Nicene Creed. Collect (talk) 11:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, the accusation of a Slippery Slope of attack is unfounded. The most neutral way to state the controversy is to simply say what its elements are. The ballot title gives us the most concise description of what it is, while giving information to unsurmising audiences about why it is distinguished from other political and religious controversies. Just what the heck is hyperbolic about "Proposition 8 eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry"? Nobody is claiming infallibility; such assertions of non-existent claims are merely a pot-stirring symptom of conflict addiction. If you have a way of measuring Warren's endorsement, describing it as a low or high or medium level found in religious congregations, please cite your sources. Who said this? Which places verify this "lowest level found" in Warren's endorsement? Is that even the point of this article? This article is about why Warren is a prominent public figure, so we can say what caused him to become extremely famous last autumn. There is no hyperbole in that. Enough games, enough tendentious whitewash, let's write a neutral biography. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 13:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The purpose of mediation is to seek compromise. Not to make charges about editors. Collect (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed) I notice you didn't answer my questions, asking what sources you have to show us Warren's endorsement of Prop8, and asking the point of mentioning Prop8 in this article. I ask these because i am focussing on the Items To Mediate as enumerated on the Project Page. Several editors including myself have offered dozens of references where we may attribute the possible answers, so if you would like to give your summary, and/or provide further references, i welcome your constructive input. Who are your sources who describe Warren's endorsement as the "lowest level found"?, please, thanks, that's why we're here. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 14:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Warren spoke to his congregation. Period. No ads. No commercials. No big speeches. The SBC as a theological issue opposes same-sex marriage. Warren thus did not make any big issue of anything which was not a specific theological matter for his denomination. His position is simply consistent with his denomination. He also believes in the Nicene Creed -- ought we examine that as well in the BLP? Collect (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I've no idea what a Nicene Creed is, so i have no answer to that question, nor do i know if it's relevant to this mediation. However, you are incorrect when you say "Warren spoke to his congregation. Period. No ads. No commercials. No big speeches." That's patently untrue because his speech to his congregation was plastered all over the internet and excerpted on cable TV news shows as we mentioned to you in our links to YouTube, BeliefNet, DemocracyNow, Rachel Maddow, et al. So not only have you still failed to answer my question ("who are your sources who tell you Warren's endorsement was the 'lowest level found'?"), (Personal attack removed) Might you have some way to show me the wikipedia precedents for dealing with this? Thank you, ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 16:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

(out) His sermons are available -- but that is hardly equivalent in any way to making an ad or commercial, nor can I find any cite at all saying he made any ad or commercial. It is, moreover, not helpful to mediation to accuse anyone of a "falsehood which undermines the very core" of anything at all. You will find that WP:AGF has some useful advice. And again calling me names does not help you one whit here. I have now over 27 years of online experience, and can affirm this to be a general truth. And I would suggest you do as I did -- reading the entire mediation process for a number of mediations and seeing where it works and where it does not work. Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

[Removed personal attacks by Teledildonix314] Sunray (talk) 06:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the issue is here (been gone all day). Here is at least one RS for Collect's statement [11]:
Q: You told Larry King last night, "During the whole Proposition 8 thing, I never once went to a meeting, never once issued a statement, never — never once even gave an endorsement in the two years Prop. 8 was going." But just before the election, you filmed a video for your congregation and said, "If you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8."
Warren: What I was trying to say is, those who obviously opposed my viewpoint on the biblical definition or the historical definition of marriage were trying to turn me into an anti-gay activist. The truth is, Proposition 8 was a two-year campaign in the state, and during those two years, I never said a word about it until the eight days before the election, and then I did make a video for my own people when they asked, "How should we vote on this?" It was a pastor talking to his own people. I've never said anything about it since. I don't know how you take one video newsletter to your own church and turn that into, all of a sudden I'm the poster boy for anti-gay marriage.

[Removed personal attacks by Lyonscc] Sunray (talk) 06:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

[Removed poll, personal attacks and disputatious comments] Sunray (talk) 06:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Sunray, Firestorm, Kevin, anybody with expertise, i have an administrative question: If Mediation is privileged, how do we report WP:TEND to the Administrators' Noticeboards of Incidents involving a series of violations stretching across a four month period? I will provide the long list of diffs if needed, but i must understand what is to be privileged and out of Arbitration, versus what is necessarily reported to our teams of volunteer administrators for enforcement of WP:TEND and other policies? Thanks for your advice, i've never been in this position before. I made nothing but Minor edits to non-controversial articles for two years, then i stumbled into mass-media coverage Rick Warren around the end of December 2008, so it's my introduction to all of these committee concepts.

(Edit Conflict, i don't know if i lost something just now?) ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 20:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

(out)I'm posting here on the discussion prior to the poll-related discussion.

Lyonscc, if you believe Warren didn't know that Prop 8 would stop same-sex marriage, and didn't think it should be stopped, please find a source and cite it. Regardless, the line "Warren had endorsed California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry" makes no assertions about what Warren knew or intended.

Collect, you're right that Americans have eliminated rights before. I was thinking of the rights of a suspect class, and maybe that's what the Trib writer meant -- Americans have never voted to eliminate a right of a suspect class of persons. However I did not propose to mention that in the article -- I was just explaining why it made Prop 8 more controversial than the many other SSM bans that preceded it.

Collect, when you wrote "we might as well attack him for believing in the Nicene Creed," do you mean you view the line about Warren's endorsement of Prop 8 as an attack on Warren? I've written nothing throughout our collaboration to indicate judgement of Warren -- instead I've argued against trying to make Warren look good or bad. Obviously many people were grateful for Warren's Prop 8 endorsement and many others were upset by it, and that's fine -- our task is to report notable facts without concern as to how readers feel about them.

Teledildonix314 and Collect, why are you debating the "level" of Warren's Prop 8 endorsement? It was widely reported by religious and mainstream media alike (Baptist Press, American Family Association, National Catholic Register, Orange County Register, Sacramento Bee, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post). and was a significant factor in the Invocation controversy, which is how it ended up part of our discussion. Our personal views of whether it should have become a big news story, or should have been reported as an endorsement, or whether the Beliefnet interview should have become a big news story, are not relevant to our mutual task as editors.

Lyonscc, regarding the sentence: "Obama's choice was seen as evidence that evangelicals are welcome in his 'big tent,' but came under fire in part because many liberals felt it conflicted with the principles on which he'd campaigned."[12][13][14][15][16] I've added cites to show where these concepts came from. Where do you see a problem in that sentence? Benccc (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I have noted our numerous sources mentioning Warren's endorsement of Prop 8, and i am trying to address three of our mediation points. My debate with Collect merely illustrates the conflict addiction without regard for offering Verification nor Reliable Sources when making claims which seem to speak to those points. The three i mean are:
  1. Is material which primarily serves to note that Warren's theological positions are substantially the same as those of his denomination (Southern Baptist) relevant to the BLP? Collect
  2. Are positions taken on a church website (Saddleback Church) properly referred to in a BLP about a person when the material is not otherwise attributable to him? Collect
  3. Inclusion of a description, based on third-party accounts, of Warren's comments in the Beliefnet interview, where it was reported that Warren "compared the legalization of same-sex marriage to the legitimization of polygamy, incest and pedophilia." Mike Doughney
I don't need to know whether Warren endorsed weakly or strongly, all i know from the mainstream media is he publicly endorsed prop8, that's enough for his biography, the level of endorsement is trivial so long as it was Verifiably public. Rachel Maddow's show gave me that Verification, for example; that's how i wound up spending time on Warren's bio. (EC) Your citation from the Sacramento Bee tells us usefully: "Accordingly, I have decided to decline the invitation to attend the inauguration as I cannot be part of a celebration that highlights and gives voice to someone who advocated repealing rights from me and millions of other Californians," Kors said in a statement. Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church, endorsed Proposition 8, the November ballot measure that ended same-sex marriage in California. Very clear, thanks, i want to make sure to put that in our Reliable Sources of the final draft of the article. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 21:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) to ben: Can you give cites for the "endorsement" being widely circulated before the election? I note that it was covered well after the election, when, as an endorsement, it was unlikely to sway many votes. I would suggest that in the absence of any wide coverage before the election that the endorsement was pretty low-key. And since it was in conformance with the theological position of the SBC, it was pretty much non-news until groups opposed to Warren for a multitude of reasons pushed it. All I ask is for major sources reporting on the endorsement prior to the election - should be simple to find? The goal is to get the article right, not to add partisan points of view to the already too long article. Collect (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

He just gave you the links with dates: 10/24/2008, Oct 27, 2008, Thursday, October 30, 2008. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? We also repeatedly gave you the actual video link on YouTube, from the end of October 2008, i can dig that up again if you'd like to hear Warren's endorsement on camera. Nine edits and still no answer to my request for WP:V and WP:RS, so why don't you retract your statement which we've now given you links with dates to confirm? You wrote: Warren spoke to his congregation. Period. No ads. No commercials. No big speeches. The SBC as a theological issue opposes same-sex marriage. Warren thus did not make any big issue of anything which was not a specific theological matter for his denomination. His position is simply consistent with his denomination.[ ...] Collect (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

(Personal attack by Teledildonix314 removed) Sunray (talk) 07:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the three points above, point#2 is answered by the exposure of "What Warren Really Thinks About Politics" in the national press (cited above). This answers Collect. (Personal attack removed) Regarding point#3 we have numerous third party accounts, we can summarize briefly, we don't have to imitate tabloids. This answers Lyonscc's concerns for neutrality and due weight. Regarding point#1 as Mike Doughney already noted there is a false dichotomy, we don't need to present Warren's church denomination's positions in Warren's BLP because we already have enough RS telling us Warren's position, we even have it on camera and can watch the endorsement of Prop 8 ourselves. The attempt to make an issue out of Point#1 is really just a symptom of conflict addiction, it distracts us from Warren's biography's salient facts. We use our sources to note when Warren speaks for himself (on Larry King) and when Warren speaks for his church (on his video messages and through his official spokesman). ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 21:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Your cite: "Messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting in June passed a resolution urging Southern Baptists in California to work and vote for the amendment there and for all Southern Baptists and other Christians to pray for its passage. The resolution passed nearly unanimously. Additionally, in September the executive board of the California Southern Baptist Convention unanimously passed a resolution endorsing the amendment." Thus showing, mirabile dictu, that Warren is a Southern Baptist! BTW, I would have been amazed if a video of a sermon was made months after the sermon -- we do not have time travel yet. So the fact that the sermopn was in October seems to have little bearing on how much of an endorsement Warren gave. In fact it would have been noteworthy if Warren rejected the SBC resolution. Noting again my query on the initial RfM. And you already gave me your "final warning". Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

(Personal attack by Teledildonix314 removed) Sunray (talk) 07:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

[17] The contents of mediation are confidential, and cannot be used for other purposes, including arbitration. However, bad faith conduct is not excused or protected by the mediation privilege, and deliberate bad-faith activities will not be protected.
[18] It is very important for all parties to recognize and respect that all communications during mediation are privileged. In the interests of facilitating open communication between parties, the Mediation Committee pledges to protect any and all communications made during mediation, and in particular will attempt to prevent such communications being used as evidence in other dispute resolution or similar discussions, including (but not limited to) arbitration and user conduct requests for comment.
So i could probably go here but not to WP:Arbitration with my complaints about ten tendentious edits in a row. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 21:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Collect, I wasn't commenting on whether Warren's Prop 8 endorsement was low-key or swayed votes or was widely reported before the election -- I was questioning the relevance of that debate. In the paragraph that Teledildonix314 calls "Ben'sBest" (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Rick_Warren&diff=prev&oldid=283151275), Warren's Prop 8 endorsement is mentioned as one of the reasons Obama "came under fire" for his choice of Warren to deliver the Invocation, which was announced in December '08. "Ben'sBest" is draft copy to inform readers about that invitation and the associated controversy. Though the copy reports on events that had partisan elements, I trust that the copy itself does not convey a partisan slant. Benccc (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

See above ( [19]) for RS' to Collect's contention.--Lyonscc (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ In re Marriage Cases, California Supreme Court, S147999, p. 6. [20]
  2. ^ Liptak, Adam (2008-05-15). "California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-05-16.
  3. ^ http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/title-sum/prop8-title-sum.htm
  4. ^ Emerling, Gary (2008-12-05). "Same-sex marriage activists regroup". Washington Times. Retrieved 2009-03-29.
  5. ^ In re Marriage Cases, California Supreme Court, S147999, p. 6. [21]
  6. ^ Liptak, Adam (2008-05-15). "California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-05-16.
  7. ^ http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/title-sum/prop8-title-sum.htm
  8. ^ Emerling, Gary (2008-12-05). "Same-sex marriage activists regroup". Washington Times. Retrieved 2009-03-29.
  9. ^ http://www.beliefnet.com/Video/Beliefnet-Interviews/Rick-Warren/Rick-Warren-Interview-On-Gay-Marriage-And-Divorce.aspx
  10. ^ "Rick Warren Insists He's Not Anti-Gay: Decision To Have Conservative Pastor Pray At Obama's Inauguration Had Enraged Gay-Rights Activists" CBS News and The Associated Press, 24 December 2008.
  11. ^ http://www.beliefnet.com/Video/Beliefnet-Interviews/Rick-Warren/Rick-Warren-Interview-On-Gay-Marriage-And-Divorce.aspx
  12. ^ "Rick Warren Insists He's Not Anti-Gay: Decision To Have Conservative Pastor Pray At Obama's Inauguration Had Enraged Gay-Rights Activists" CBS News and The Associated Press, 24 December 2008.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Rick_Warren/Archive_5&oldid=1149004231"