Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Rick Warren/Archive 6

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

Continuing Discussion - Prop 8

Version 7.1

Ok, how about this? The new part is in bold.

On October 24, 2008, two weeks before the election, 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 was named "Eliminates the Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry" after the CASC ruling. 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) 23:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have those excellent RS i will approve/endorse this newer revision, giving your versions more weight in the unofficial strawpoll. Also, i have never created a sandbox, i could learn how to put your newer version into a temporary page and see if it can be merged in a logical way with Benccc'sBest version, while including the salient facts in Lyonscc's as much as possible to address all viewpoints without giving undue weight. I agree with Phoenix of9's basic suggestion that we use Rick Warren's own words as much as possible, because that's the most accurate way to portray his public statements. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 23:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
You continue to add the "civil union" bit which was not part of the RfM. You add the 2% bit which i disagree is relevant. You do not note that support of Prop 8 was an official position of the SBC, of which he is a member. Collect (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

[Removed personal attacks by Teledildonix314] Sunray (talk) 06:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This is unacceptable for the reasons stated by Collect. There is no issue with WP:TEND or WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The 2% and Civil Unions don't belong - just because something is verifiable doesn't make it significant or relevant. No significance or relevance has been demonstrated for inclusion of the "2%" issue to surpass WP:UNDUE. Civil Unions aren't part of this mediation, though I'm willing to discuss them once we've disposed of all of the other issues with this RfM. To keep bringing them back into the conversation at this point IS an issue with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and if they are brought up again before the rest of the items in this RfM are settled, I'm not sure how to assume good faith, because that will demonstrate none is being given.--Lyonscc (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

7.2

changes in bold

On October 24, 2008, two weeks before the election, 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 Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry", according to CASC. Warren stated that marriage was "a contract between men and women" (consistent with the position of his church denomination, SBC in line with the official position of the Southern Baptist Convention of which his church is a member) 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) 00:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Note it was an official position of the SBC to support Prop 8 -- not just "consistent" at all. You retain the 2% quote which I do not find relevant. And you keep the "civil union" which is not soemthing in the RfM.
Try: On October 24, 2008, two weeks before the election, Warren issued a statement to his congregation, supporting California Proposition 8, in line with the official position of the Southern Baptist Convention of which his church is a member. The proposition amended the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." It was titled "Eliminates the Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry", after a CASC decision which invalidated the ban on same-sex marriages. Collect (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

[Removed further personal attacks by Teledildonix314] Sunray (talk) 06:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

done partially. Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(out) As a church service is generally public, I fail to see how the cavil applies that speaking to the church congregation is not public -- I know of few private church services. And posts not in the RfM are pretty much not appropriate to raise here -- else I could show some of yours <g>. Collect (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I support Collect's wording above, but reject 7.2 for the same reasons as 7.1. Also - please see my note above with at least one RS for the fact that Warren's support was only to his congregation - not a public press release.--Lyonscc (talk) 01:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I was only gone a day, yet I've just had to remove an incredible number of personal attacks from this page. I want to complement the editors (most of you) who have stayed cool through this. My hope is that we will now quickly move out of this phase and concentrate on the task at hand. Participants should try to keep posts short, avoid repeating yourself more than once or twice, continue focussing on content, and please do try to recognize when the other person has a point. My respect has greatly increased for those who are working hard on this. Thank you. Sunray (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Sunray, for removing the comments. While the rest of us were busy having a life on Easter, these two went at each other severely, even though I had asked them to knock it off and strike their comments. This is exactly the sort of m:Wikistress I left over last time, and if they wish to continue then i'll focus on something more productive again. Frankly, I don't see what this mediation will accomplish if editors cannot sit down at a table together and discuss things rationally. I'm giving it one more chance, but if I have to withdraw again I will not return. Firestorm Talk 15:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

[Removed personal attack by Phoenix of9] Sunray (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

6.5

(Updating from 6.4 to include language based on discussions with Collect and Benccc):

On October 24, 2008, two weeks before the election, Warren issued a statement to his congregation[1], supporting California Proposition 8, in line with the official position of the Southern Baptist Convention of which his church is a member. The proposition amended the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." It was titled "Eliminates the Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry", after a CASC decision which invalidated the ban on same-sex marriages, "The Defense of Marriage Act".[2][3]

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 of Warren's statement in support of California Proposition 8, and also because of a recent interview of Warren in which he said he opposed marriage between siblings, adults and minors, and multiple partners.[4] 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.

Notes (for 6.5)

  1. Christianity Today (April, 2009) "Q & A: Rick Warren" Source: ChristianityToday.com
  2. Reuters (October 24, 2008). "Nationally Acclaimed Pastor Rick Warren Announces Support for Proposition 8" Source: ProtectMarriage.com
  3. Warren, R. (October 23, 2008). News & Views (Prop 8) Video posted to "Pastor Rick's News and Views."
  4. Waldman, S. (December 2008) "Steven Waldman Interviews Rick Warren" Source: Beliefnet

Comments (for 6.5)

I'm still not sure abortion belongs in this, and while it could probably be accused of giving wp:undue weight to this single issue (the invocation), it deals with most of the issues in this mediation (both Prop 8 -utilizing Collect's primary wording structure- and the beliefnet interview -utilizing Benccc's wording). However, since it contains adequate facts for context around Prop 8, the beliefnet interview and the invocation, itself, I would support this.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems to cover bencc's concerns and mine. Still longer than my ideal, but we are here for compromise after all. Collect (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it achieves the goal of neutrality. It could be edited and trimmed a bit for readability. Other comments? 06:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Assuming that the meaning is essentially the same after it has been copyedited, I would support this as well. It gives adequate background for the reader to understand why there was a controversy, and provides the most essential information. Firestorm Talk 07:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Collect, I'm surprised you think that copy covers my concerns. But putting that aside for a moment, there's been a fresh wave of media coverage of the issues we're discussing, and it may factor into our task here. Some excerpts and links below....
  • Regarding the now-notorious Beliefnet interview, USA Today religion reporter Cathy Lynn Grossman wrote on Thursday: "Megachurch pastor and best-selling author Rev. Rick Warren may be hitting new heights of hair-splitting as he returns to the public stage after a post-inaugural break. And evidently only he knows for sure what he's saying, despite what we hear or read. Quick recap: In an interview with Beliefnet, he equates gay marriage with pedophilia and incest. Then he denies it. Then he complains that he's getting criticized by people for his remarks because the media just likes to create conflict, except, of course... if the media covers his efforts to combat AIDS and poverty or to create open civil political dialogue." [1]
  • Beliefnet editor-in-chief Steven Waldman (who conducted that interview) wrote this on Thursday: "This whole controversy could have been easily avoided if he'd taken a modicum of responsibility and said, 'I'm sorry. I did accidentally imply that homosexuality and these other relationships were morally equivalent. That's not what I believe, and I apologize for implying that.' Instead, he's blamed other people for distorting his words. I admit to finding it ironic that Warren would blame this controversy in part on me since I had gone out on a limb to defend his selection to give the Inaugural prayer, penning an article on Huffington Post -- the Lion's Den! -- in the midst of the controversy called 'In Defense of Rick Warren.'" [2]
  • Orange County Register columnist Martin Wisckol wrote: "Part of what's gotten him into hot water was a video-taped interview, available on the Internet, done before the Nov. 4 vote to implement the Proposition 8 gay marriage ban. In it, Warren seemed to liken gay marriage to incest, pedophilia and polygamy." [3]
  • Interestingly, on Friday Saddleback spokesman Jim Anderson acknowledged that the Beliefnet interview "unintentionally and regrettably gave the impression that consensual adult same sex relationships were equivalent to incest or pedophilia." Of course not everyone believes the comparison was unintentional, but I think this is the first time Warren's team has acknowledged that the interview did create that impression. [4]
But wait, as they used to say on TV ads, there's more. The controversy over Warren's Prop 8 endorsement has flared up as a result of Warren's appearance on Larry King last Monday, when he told King he never issued a statement or gave an endorsement regarding Prop 8. [5] Some excerpts and links below...
  • The Washington Times quoted Wendy Wright, president of the conservative organization Concerned Women for America: "Whether he supports Proposition 8 now, after the fact, is overshadowed by the bizarre claim that he did not say what the evidence so clearly proves he said." [6]
  • U.S. Pastor Council director Dave Welch wrote in World Net Daily: "I don't know why he would declare on national television that he 'never once gave an endorsement in the two years Prop 8 was going' when he clearly did." [http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94885]
  • Bill Muehlenberg in Christian Today Australia wrote: "it seems he has been bending the truth a little." [7]
I was looking at religious media there but I think some secular media have run some similar comments. I want to be clear I'm not suggesting we reproduce any of these comments in the Warren article, but I wanted you to be aware of them because they may be relevant to our task.
Back to a previous question... Lyonscc, I'm still hoping to learn what you objected to in 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." Is it the big tent part or the liberal principles part? If it's the big tent part, I found a nice phrase in the New York Times that could be a good alternative: the choice was "widely seen as a peace offering to conservatives." [8] Please let me know what you dislike about the sentence and whether you like the NY Times phrase. Benccc (talk) 08:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Benccc - Regarding your quotes, from the CT link in 6.5:
CT: 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.
He makes it clear that the one video (that we've been using some quotes from) was to his own people, not a public endorsement.
As to the "big tent" stuff - it just seems superfluous (explaining Obama's supposed state of mind) and somewhat synthetic to something that's already got wp:undue weight when compared to the rest of the article.--Lyonscc (talk) 11:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Why does this version not cover your concerns? To this point, your primary concern has been that this section should contain the ballot title - "Eliminates the Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry", which it does, and I used your wording re: the beliefnet interview. I didn't use the "big tent" stuff for the reasons above, but that doesn't seem like it should be a deal-breaker...--Lyonscc (talk) 12:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Lyonscc, are you saying we should avoid using the word "endorsed" because last week Warren told Larry King he didn't endorse Prop 8? I think it's fine for us to report the claim and the reaction to it, but this does not constrain us from using the word. To "endorse" is "to support, to back, to give one's approval to" (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/endorse), which is presumably why many sources used that word in reporting Warren's action (Baptist Press, American Family Association, National Catholic Register, Orange County Register, Sacramento Bee, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post).
As for the line that begins "Obama's choice was seen as evidence that evangelicals are welcome in his 'big tent,'" I thought it would remind readers that not everyone was critical of Obama's choice. I would not propose that we try to explain Obama's state of mind -- only that we inform readers about public reaction (with citations).
You write that my "primary concern has been that this section should contain the ballot title." Here's what I've actually stated about whether I think this section should contain the ballot title:
  • Readers who encounter the Prop 8 reference would wonder "why was Prop 8 controversial," and the most concise answer is that it eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry in California (can you think of any other aspect of Prop 8 nearly as controversial as that?). I'm not sure further info about Prop 8 would be helpful to readers of the Warren article -- if they're curious about things like "I wonder what the ballot title was" they'll click through to the Prop 8 article. Benccc (talk) 07:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • 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. Benccc (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • 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. Benccc (talk) 07:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
As for my actual primary concern, I've repeated it fairly doggedly. Benccc (talk) 07:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Benccc, you've stated that your primary concern is that the article should make it clear that Prop 8 eliminated the right of same sex couples to marry in the State of California. I think that it has been widely agreed that this is a true statement. However, because it has been challenged, we are obliged to provide a source for it. What source would be reliable on this? Well, the court itself, obviously is an unimpeachable source. Another would be the law itself. Thus, it was suggested that we use the ballot title. Are you able to provide a better alternative? Sunray (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Color me confused, then, because the ballot title is "eliminates the rights of same-sex couples to marry" and you want it to be noted that Prop 8 "eliminated the rights of same-sex couples to marry". So - apart from verb tense, including the ballot title includes the text that is your primary concern. As for whether this is what made Prop 8 so controversial, I think is strictly a matter of interpretation, as it is just as likely and arguable that amending the CA constitution and the nullification of Prop 22 were just as much components of the furor. Version 6.5 contains all three of these items and makes no value judgment as to which most contributed most to the controversy.
As for "endorsed" vs. "supported", I'm fine w/ changing the first sentence to "Warren issued a statement to his congregation, endorsing California Proposition 8" since this uses 'endorse' in context to its English meaning - apart from its political context, which implies a public drive w/ money/influence/spokesmanship, press releases, etc. I do believe, though, that it should be clear that Warren's support/endorsement was to his church, not the public at-large.
As for the "big tent", I still wonder why this is really important to note in an article on Warren, in a section that is already disproportionately large when compared to his notability.--Lyonscc (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Lyonscc, I don't understand how it matters that Warren's statement about Prop 8 was made to his congregation. Surely that is a public statement, is it not? Anyone can attend his church or view his website, no? As to the "big tent statement. I agree that it may be hard to demonstrate its relevance to Warren's biography. Sunray (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Sunray, Warren was being criticized w/in Christian circles during the two years of Prop 8's progress through the ballot/legal system for not publicly campaigning for its passage. W/in evangelical churches, there is a big difference between a pastor speaking to those under his care (his local church) and a pastor speaking "for the church" to the public (via campaigning, public speeches, etc.). The latter is something that Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and others have done for political purposes for years, but something that Warren has (to a great deal of criticism) refused to do. As he stated in one of the sources (#1) cited in 6.5, his communication in support of Prop 8 was explicitly as a communication to his church. This was also noted earlier in this source: [9]
  • "When other conservative Christians held stadium rallies and raised tens of millions of dollars for the ballot effort, there was no sign of Warren. Neither he nor his wife, Kay, donated any of their considerable fortune to the campaign, according to public records and the Warrens' spokesman. In fact, his endorsement seemed calculated for minimal impact. It was announced late on a Friday, just 10 days before Election Day, on a Web site geared for members of his Saddleback Community Church, not the general public."
It seems incumbent that if we're going to note Warren's endorsement, we ought to also communicate the intended audience of that endorsement, as the criticism of Warren from the right was because of his weak, minimalist support of Prop 8, which many fundamentalist critics are still using to accuse him of being "soft" on the issue of homosexuality.--Lyonscc (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the context of his statement is important. 07:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
My overall concern is helping readers understand why the invocation invitation was controversial: liberals objected in particular to Warren's actions/statements on same-sex marriage, and his stance on abortion. The two most widely reported of his actions/statements on SSM were his endorsement of Prop 8 and his statement during the Beliefnet interview. What originally drew me into the discussion of the Rick Warren article is that CarverM deleted the information that Prop 8 eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry, claiming it was impermissible, which made no sense and seemed fishy. Though CarverM was subsquently banned for conflict of interest, Lyonscc also contended that the deleted information could not be restored to the article because it violated policy, and the discussion continued. Meanwhile I saw an effort to exclude information about why the Beliefnet interview was controversial. It seemed to me that some editors thought the info about Prop 8 and the Beliefnet interview would make Warren look bad, yet were asserting that their opposition was based on alleged policy violations that often, upon scrutiny, did not hold up. So I felt I should join this mediation, but if I could go back in time to the day we learned who CarverM was, and restore the information he deleted -- that Prop 8 eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry -- I would do so. At this point a concern of mine is how to reach the end of this process! But my specific primary concern is still the restoration of the deleted info to the article. Benccc (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for a clear statement of your interest in this mediation. I've commented, above, on the need for sourcing the statement about rights. SSM has not been affirmed as a right in the U.S. generally, so we need to source the statement and be clear that we are talking about California law, IMO. Sunray (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Sunray, the copy I proposed previously [10] says "...California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry...." It seems clear to me that we're talking about California law -- though if you think it would help readers, we could extend it to "marry in California." As for sources, we could cite the In re Marriage Cases decision (which refers to marriage as a right under the California Constitution) [11] and the California Voter Guide, which says that Prop 8 would eliminate that right for same-sex couples. [12]. We could also wikilink to the In re Marriage Cases and Prop 8 articles. Does that sound sufficient to you? Benccc (talk) 02:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree we could cite the decision. What's wrong with just quoting the ballot title, though? Sunray (talk) 07:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


(outdent) The latest wave of chatter about Warren/same-sex marriage appears to be passing. The Politico article I mentioned yesterday was picked up by the Charleston Gazette, Cleveland Plain Dealer, New Jersey Star-Ledger, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and perhaps some other small papers. Here are some other stories:

  • Time Magazine Senior Editor Amy Sullivan wrote that Warren's Prop 8 endorsement and Beliefnet interview "were the comments that were pointed to by critics when Warren was asked to offer the invocation at Obama's Inauguration," which gives me encouragement that we're on the right track by citing those two things in the copy we're composing. Sullivan also made two points that address some of concerns I've seen expressed in our discussions; regarding the Beliefnet interview, she wrote:
To Larry King, he complained: "I was asked a question that made it sound like I equated gay marriage with pedophilia or incest, which I absolutely do not believe." (As you can see in the transcript, Warren brings up the comparisons himself.)
Regarding Warren's explanation to Larry King of why his Prop 8 statement was not an endorsement ("It was a pastor talking to his own people"), she wrote:
That's kind of like saying that when Obama sends a message to Congress, it's just a guy talking to his colleagues. Warren has a congregation with 25,000-plus members and a worldwide readership numbering in the tens of millions. If him speaking out on the most controversial issue of the election eight days before people head to the polls, saying "You need to vote for Proposition 8" does not constitute campaigning or an endorsement, then words have lost their meaning. [13]

Most of the chatter I'm seeing comes from conservative and/or religious sources, and ranges from harsh to sympathetic:

  • Sandy Rios wrote on OneNewsNow: "He had given an impassioned plea on camera for support of Proposition 8...a plea worthy of a Christian leader...a plea to follow Jesus' teaching on marriage. Then in one CNN moment, he not only backed away from the hard teaching, but lied in the process. On camera...both times...for all to see." [14]
  • Thaddeus Baklinski wrote on LifeSiteNews: "Rev. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, said he was stunned by Rev. Rick Warren's apparent about-face on homosexual 'marriage,' after the famous California mega-church pastor claimed last week on Larry King that he was not a proponent of California's Proposition 8." [15]
  • CBN News White House Correspondent David Brody wrote: "The whole prop 8 comments flap with Warren probably stems from the fact that Warren is trying to do a little damage control. The Prop 8 interview he did with Beliefnet (which got major traction) hurt his well cultivated reputation as a global Church pastor. The whole thing took him off message. My guess is he’ll be much more careful about how and when he does interviews in the future." [16]

On the left there's less chatter, and it's less sympathetic. One example:

  • Joan Walsh, chief editor of Salon, wrote: "I don't know what Warren was thinking. Gay leaders and Christian right leaders pounced on Warren's obvious lie." [17]

Benccc (talk) 03:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you are going with this, Benccc. We are not a news source. It doesn't seem to shed much light on our task. Sunray (talk) 08:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The current public discussions of Warren's statements and actions on same-sex marriage seem to have bearing on our work in three ways. One is that they echo disputes we've been struggling with in this mediation -- did Warren endorse Prop 8, or did he not? Did he compare SSM to polygamy, incest, and pedophilia, or did he not? Is the liberal left responsible for the contention that he did endorse, and did compare? The media/blog commentary on these questions in the past ten days, from across the political spectrum, which overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that he did endorse and compare, may help us resolve these disputes. Second, Warren's recent statements that he did not make the endorsement or the comparison, and the media coverage and commentary regarding these assertions, may be notable in their own right, and certainly pertain to an issue we've already agreed is notable, which is the issue of Warren's statements and actions on the topic of same-sex marriage. Because our task involves composing copy on this topic, we now face the question of how it affects our work -- do we restrict our focus to the controversy associated with the inauguration invocation invitation, in which case the article may include a separate section to address the further controversy over Warren's statements regarding SSM? Do we recast the copy we're writing to focus on issues/controversies associated with Warren's statements and actions on SSM, of which the invocation invitation is a part? Third, though Warren cancelled an interview last Sunday during which he would have been asked to address the current controversy, it's possible he will address it soon, and to be fair to Warren I expect we will take what he says into account as we compose copy for the Wikipedia article. Benccc (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I think I get your point. You want to determine the current views of whether he endorsed Prop 8 or not. I agree that that is an issue for the article. It is not, however, one of the issues we agreed to mediate. Further, I don't see a problem. IMO we should deal with verifiable facts pertaining to the controversy at the time of the inauguration. If we do that well, readers will be able to make up their own minds about his current statements. I would suggest that we resolve the issues that were established at the beginning of the mediation and then come back to this and find out whether/how participants wish to address it. Sunray (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I get the impression we've resolved that Warren endorsed Prop 8 and that it eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. I think we agree that the outcry over Warren's Beliefnet interview was due to the public perception that he had compared SSM to incest, polygamy and pedophilia, though we have not yet agreed on how to word this for readers. But the main point I meant to make was that the latest Warren/SSM episode directly pertains to the two most difficult items in this mediation, which are Proposition 8 and the Beliefnet interview. I wondered whether we'd be passing the buck if we didn't address it within this mediation. Benccc (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Noted. Would you be willing to comment on Version 8.0, below? Sunray (talk) 06:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC/U on Collect

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Collect was issued by two parties to this mediation: User:Mike Doughney and User:Phoenix of9

Posted to alert people why I may not answer posts here in as timely a manner as I would wish. Collect (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


Pof9 has now added an AN/I and an AN3 complaint ... this will likely delay the mediation a couple of weeks at this point. Collect (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yet another AN/I complaint. Collect (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a sideshow and should have no bearing on the mediation whatsoever, apart from taking up some of Collect's time. 16:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
True, though the time this farce takes will drag out the time it takes to complete the mediation.--Lyonscc (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Version 8.0

(Hoping for better luck by leaving the 6's - consider it a little bit of levity as we seem to be closer to consensus)

8.0

(Updating from 6.5 to include Benccc;s language regarding Prop 8's effect):

On October 24, 2008, two weeks before the election, Warren issued a statement to his congregation[1], supporting California Proposition 8, in line with the official position of the Southern Baptist Convention of which his church is a member. The proposition amended the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," and, in light of the May CASC decision which invalidated the ban on same-sex marriages, "The Defense of Marriage Act", eliminated the rights of same-sex couples to marry.[2][3]

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 of Warren's statement in support of California Proposition 8, and also because of a recent interview of Warren in which he said he opposed marriage between siblings, adults and minors, and multiple partners.[4] 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.

Notes (for 8.0)

  1. Christianity Today (April, 2009) "Q & A: Rick Warren" Source: ChristianityToday.com
  2. Reuters (October 24, 2008). "Nationally Acclaimed Pastor Rick Warren Announces Support for Proposition 8" Source: ProtectMarriage.com
  3. Warren, R. (October 23, 2008). News & Views (Prop 8) Video posted to "Pastor Rick's News and Views."
  4. Waldman, S. (December 2008) "Steven Waldman Interviews Rick Warren" Source: Beliefnet

Comments (for 8.0)

This version notes that, if passed, Prop 8 would eliminate the right of SSM, rather than quoting it in the ballot title. It also includes the minimal chronology to put that in context. Does this meet your concerns, Benccc?--Lyonscc (talk) 03:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I am unsure that "in effect" would meet his concerns, and I generally do nt like parenthetical statements. Is it needed? Collect (talk) 10:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Fixed it and changed the verb tense to match while maintaining context.--Lyonscc (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


OK folks -- we now have "right of ssc to marry" in the proposal -- wasn't that the stumbling block? Collect (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could get a comment on 8.0 from Firestorm and Benccc. Sunray (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it needs some grammatical fixes (nothing controversial), but as far as content it seems to efficiently address all of the most important points. Firestorm Talk 06:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it makes sense to begin, as Lyonscc has done in version 8.0, with the Prop 8 endorsement rather than the invocation announcement, because it reflects the chronology. I also agree with adding the point that Warren's position reflected the SBC position. I think the description of Prop 8 contains more detail than is warranted in the Warren article, and might confuse the reader; now that we've established that it's NPOV and verifiable that Prop 8 eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry in California, I think that brief point alone will convey to readers why it was controversial.
In the second graf it would be nice to avoid the redundant reference to Prop 8. Here's a solution: if we mention the Beliefnet interview before the invocation invitation (again, consistent with chronology), then when we mention the invocation invitation, we can refer to the SSM issues collectively as "Warren's views on same-sex marriage." I think we can say a little more about the inauguration controversy; it's notable that some on the right gave Warren grief for accepting the invitation of a pro-choicer (and the existing copy in the article, which we'll be replacing, alludes to this).
The controversy over the Beliefnet interview, as widely reported, was that Warren appeared to equate SSM with incest, polygamy, and pedophilia; we've done a lot of work in this mediation on how to present that info to readers, and version 8.0 just jettisons the point altogether; we can do better!
The third paragraph is good, though as we look ahead to putting our finished paragraphs in the article, we'll have to integrate the line about Warren being the keynote speaker for the MLK Jr. event on the day before the inauguration. Below is how I think these revisions would look. Benccc (talk) 04:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The first paragraph has all of the required elements we've discussed. Without the The proposition amended the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," and, in light of the May CASC decision which invalidated the ban on same-sex marriages, section, "eliminated the right..." is not WP:NPOV.
The second paragraph is what you proposed. It avoids the issues with contextomy by not including "I do" without the entire statement, and avoids wp:undue in the same stroke.
I've upped your 8.1 to 9.0 because it looks nothing like 8.0. I consider it a complete return to zero. Everything you've said was an issue for you was addressed in 8.0, and now you're stacking more reqs on...--Lyonscc (talk) 05:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Version 9.0

Two weeks before the 2008 U.S. general election, Warren issued a statement to his congregation supporting California Proposition 8, which would amend the state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.[18][19] Warren's support reflected the official position of his church's denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention. After the measure passed, Warren's church was targeted by protesters.[20]

In early December, Warren again sparked controversy by answering "I do" when asked whether same-sex marriages are equivalent to marriages between siblings, adults and minors, and multiple partners.[21][22] He later released a video message saying he does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia, but rather opposes the redefinition of marriage.[23]

Later that month, President-elect Obama chose Warren to deliver the Invocation at his Inauguration. Obama came under fire in part because many liberals felt that Warren's views on same-sex marriage and abortion conflicted with the principles on which Obama had campaigned.[24][25][26] Warren, meanwhile, was criticized by some members of the pro-life movement for accepting the invitation, given Obama's pro-choice stance.[27][28] Obama defended his choice of Warren, saying that although he disagreed with the minister's positions on abortion and same-sex marriage, that there should be room for dialogue on such difficult social issues.[29]

More controversy ensued when it was announced that Warren would be the keynote speaker at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Annual Commemorative Service on the day prior to the inauguration.[30] On Jan. 20, 2009, Warren delivered the Invocation, which was generally praised for its positive message.[31] Benccc (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments (for 9.0)

Excellent. This is more helpful to readers because it's chronological, complete, avoids redundant usage of marriage/marry terminology, and covers a broad variety of sources in a neutral way. Thank you for a very pithy collation. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 05:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any major issues with it, and at this point I just want us to be able to move on, so i'll support it. Firestorm Talk 05:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • no support whatsoever without The proposition amended the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," and, in light of the May CASC decision which invalidated the ban on same-sex marriages,. No support whatsoever for the Beliefnet section. "I do" is not acceptable w/o the entire quote. The version in 8.0 for beliefnet is what YOU proposed, Benccc! This version is completely unacceptable.--Lyonscc (talk) 05:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Your claim that I do is not acceptable without the entire quote is not supported by our sources. We have numerous sources from across the political spectrum giving clearly established evidence.
Your claim of filler is non-specific. What is supposed to be trimmed? And what is UNDUE in that paragraph? Please don't just toss out a policy, please tell us exactly what is Undue Weight and why you think it is not neutral. Even better: perhaps you would like to use strikethrough text or <font color=red>text_text</font> text text <font color=brown>text text</font> to insert improvements or highlight the supposedly Undue portions? Evidence is required to justify your "no support whatsoever", otherwise consensus might be formed with disregard to your unsupportiveness. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 06:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
We have the full interview, and if we're going to quote "I do", then we should quote the whole thing to give context (which is then supported by Warren's later statement). I support Benccc's earlier version that is included in 8.0, and I'm not going to add any more to that point until others who have been part of this mediation all the way through comment.
As for the third paragraph, no evidence is needed apart from its bulky nature to cite wp:undue. Nothing more is needed than 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. The rest is filler, undue weight, and unneeded. But like I say, I'll wait for Collect, Benccc, Sunray and Firestorm to comment--Lyonscc (talk) 06:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
It might move things forward faster if, instead of saying "no support," participants made suggested changes to the wording and provided the rationale for them. It would likely also be useful to use strikethroughs and different font colors for suggested changes. The idea is to become more collaborative in order to move things along. I would also recommend that participants work on one version at a time. Since Benccc's version reads well, we might want to chose that. Lyonscc, would you be willing to propose some changes in wording? Sunray (talk) 08:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Very funny, Lyonscc! All you did was change Benccc's version to yours. At this stage of the mediation, I think we might try a bit harder for some give and take. Would you be willing to give a rationale for each change you make? One point that I'm not clear on is whether Warren used the terms "incest" and "pedophilia." He didn't in his original statement. Did he in the tape? Sunray (talk) 09:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
It was not exactly the same, but you said that his wording "read well", so I tried to use it as a template. At this point, Collect and I are the only two person who have "given" anything, and we're received almost nothing at all in return. If we're going to start from any version, then I propose we start from 8.1, since it is the only one of the two that contains the compromises made to this point. Version 9.0 starts back from ground zero. I have not interest in starting over again.--Lyonscc (talk) 09:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
FYI - re: give and take - Neither Collect nor I even supported expansion of Prop 8 beyond wikilinking it. So, instead of one sentence, we're at multiple paragraphs. Neither supported the expansion including "eliminates the right..." as a description. However, over a number of weeks, we've agreed that this can be wp:npov if the actual effect of Prop 8 is included (i.e. amended the CA constitution to read "only...") along with the court reversal of Prop 22. And so right after making this concession, what happens? We get "I think the description of Prop 8 contains more detail than is warranted.." all of the necessary text stricken, and "now that we've established..." - basically WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT of the past month's discussion of this point. And the beliefnet interview? I took Benccc's suggested wording of this and incorporated it into all of my propositions after he made the suggestion. And now? "we can do better..." along with a bunch of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT over the "I do" issue. So please - please - do not lecture me on "give and take", because to this point - aside from a concession that Warren's endorsement was to his church congregation - there has only been one side of this discussion "giving" anything.--Lyonscc (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Would all participants be willing to avoid use of "WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT" (and other similar references to process) in their comments? As mediator, I regard process matters to be my responsibility. If I see a personal attack or disruptive editing, I will try to call it as soon as possible. By now, there should be few such interventions, as we all know the groundrules. Right now, participants need to focus on the tasks of this mediation and get on with it. That means concentrating on content. I apologize for my tone (above) that seemed to you like a "lecture." In fact, my words were inexact. We need to collaborate. That is better than "given and take" (also harder to achieve). I'm looking for common interests, win/win scenarios and building versions of text we can all support. Sunray (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

10.0

(Renamed 8.1 to 10.0 so that we can follow Sunray's suggestion to justify each change (addition/subtraction) made, since this is the only current version which has the compromises made to this point. Let's wordsmith to make it "read well" once we're decided what's in and what's out.)

On October 24, 2008, two weeks before the election, Warren issued a statement to his congregation[1], supporting California Proposition 8, in line with the official position of the Southern Baptist Convention of which his church is a member. The proposition amended the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," and, in light of the May CASC decision which invalidated the ban on same-sex marriages, "The Defense of Marriage Act", eliminated the rights of same-sex couples to marry.[2][3]

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 of his position on same-sex marriage and abortion, and also because of a recent interview of Warren in which he said he opposed marriage between siblings, adults and minors, and multiple partners.[4] 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.

Notes (for 10.0)

  1. Christianity Today (April, 2009) "Q & A: Rick Warren" Source: ChristianityToday.com
  2. Reuters (October 24, 2008). "Nationally Acclaimed Pastor Rick Warren Announces Support for Proposition 8" Source: ProtectMarriage.com
  3. Warren, R. (October 23, 2008). News & Views (Prop 8) Video posted to "Pastor Rick's News and Views."
  4. Waldman, S. (December 2008) "Steven Waldman Interviews Rick Warren" Source: Beliefnet

Comments (for 10.0)

This shortens the second paragraph, removing the redundant ref to Prop 8 and better incorporating abortion. This also helps lessen the issues with WP:UNDUE, and uses Benccc's earlier version of the Beliefnet flap, avoiding the problematic issues of inclusion of "I do" and the remainder of Warren's response.--Lyonscc (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I made 8.1 into 10.0. Also, Sunray asked - At this stage of the mediation, I think we might try a bit harder for some give and take. Would you be willing to give a rationale for each change you make? One point that I'm not clear on is whether Warren used the terms "incest" and "pedophilia." He didn't in his original statement. Did he in the tape?
This version contains the terms used by Warren, so there's no issue w/ using "incest" or "pedophilia", as they are not in this version.--Lyonscc (talk) 09:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I support this and per the ending of "Alice in Wonderland" about a votestacking and futile excercie whee no normal procedures get followed

[Removed trial quote from Alice in Wonderland.] Sunray (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

And so I am off on a wikibreak, as the pack of cards is only that -- the votestacking and refusal to abide by rules is only that. Take care all, and try to actually abide by the rules. Collect (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Breaking 10.0 down: Paragraph 2 (Beliefnet Controversy)

Paragraph 2 Option 1: Benccc's First Suggestion

state that there was controversy "because of a recent interview of Warren in which he said he opposed marriage between siblings, adults and minors, and multiple partners."

Paragraph 2 Option 1 Interests
Paragraph 2 Option 1 Discussion

We can go back to look at the arguments made for/against. I'm trying to logically lay out the Prop 8 issue by including the primary options discussed.--Lyonscc (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This might be the best spot (paragraph 2) to insert the language about Warren's "definition of marriage". ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 02:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
There is no need to insert Warren's "definition of marriage", as it was already made clear in paragraph 1 by noting his support for Prop 8 and that his position was the same as the SBC's. To reiterate it here is redundant.--Lyonscc (talk) 04:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Paragraph 2 Option 2: Benccc's Second Suggestion

"Warren again sparked controversy by answering "I do" when asked whether same-sex marriages are equivalent to marriages between siblings, adults and minors, and multiple partners."

Paragraph 2 Option 2 Interests
  • This is classic contextomy, as it leaves unsaid Warren's full answer - which is about the definition of marriage, not comparisons of same-sex marriage. Just because political organizations spun "I do" along, without full context, does not mean that its sole inclusion - to the exclusion of context - is appropriate for meeting WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.--Lyonscc (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Paragraph 2 Option 2 Discussion

I'm trying to logically lay out the Prop 8 issue by including the primary options discussed.--Lyonscc (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with your very valid issue of avoiding the contextomy. However! This is the thing that caused the most outrage, via mainstream media dissemination. So we need to tell our readers what happened. We don't ever want to imply that we could read Rick Warren's mind and guess what his thoughts were; instead we quote his words, and it becomes obvious to our readers why such controversy and outrage ensued. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 02:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
As you say - and I fully agree - we cannot read Rick Warren's mind! So, it is incumbent that, if we include "I do", we include the entire quote, because it is Rick Warren describing his answer, rather than us hoping that the reader will supply the correct meaning to "I do" in absence of Warren's full statement. So - if we're going to quote his words, we must quote all of them so that it becomes obvious to the readers what he said and why selectively quoting it could make it appear controversial.--Lyonscc (talk) 04:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Paragraph 2 Option 3: Inclusion of the full quote

This option would incorporate all (or most of) Warren's answer, which begins with "I do", but describes what "I do" means.

Paragraph 2 Option 3 Position
Paragraph 2 Option 3 Discussion

Let's try not to re-hash old ground here. We can go back to look at the arguments made for/against. I'm trying to logically lay out the Prop 8 issue by including the primary options discussed.--Lyonscc (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Breaking 10.0 down: Paragraph 3 (Invocation Controversy)

Paragraph 3 Option 1: Just the Facts

Obama's choice of Warren was criticized by several notable organizations in part because of his position on same-sex marriage and abortion, (possibly insert beliefnet controversy here). 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.

Paragraph 3 Option 1 Interests
  • Warren's position on abortion needs no additional mention (it is the SBC's standard position), other than noting that it is different than Obama's position (which was part of the invocation controversy). This also avoids overall concerns with WP:UNDUE
Paragraph 3 Option 1 Discussion

I'm trying to logically lay out the Prop 8 issue by including the primary options discussed.--Lyonscc (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph 3 Option 2: Expanded Abortion Discussion

Obama came under fire in part because many liberals felt that Warren's views on same-sex marriage and abortion conflicted with the principles on which Obama had campaigned. Warren, meanwhile, was criticized by some members of the pro-life movement for accepting the invitation, given Obama's pro-choice stance. Obama defended his choice of Warren, saying that although he disagreed with the minister's positions on abortion and same-sex marriage, that there should be room for dialogue on such difficult social issues.

Paragraph 3 Option 2 Interests
  • [f]urther into WP:UNDUE territory, expanding a section already too large, in comparison w/ the rest of the biography. May [lessen concerns] if it could concisely include the beliefnet controversy (sans quotation of "I do")--Lyonscc (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Paragraph 3 Option 2 Discussion

I'm trying to logically lay out the Prop 8 issue by including the primary options discussed.--Lyonscc (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually i must politely disagree here, because in numerous mainstream media RS, across all the political spectrum, from Cable News to Christian Press, there were tons of reports in which i read mention of the "big tent" idea, the "let's include Warren despite our differences" idea, the "Warren hurt gays but Obama's inviting him anyway, so now we're even more outraged" idea... these come from so many Reliable Sources, it would be a disservice to our readers to omit this highlight of Warren's career. We can't mention Warren's presence at the Inauguration without highlighting the surrounding controversy, and it's very easy to find plenty of RS. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 02:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
It's not an issue of RS' - it is now, truly, an issue of WP:UNDUE. By adding a full description of Prop 8, and by including the Beliefnet flap, we have given the key relevant RS' view of the controversy. The "big tent" is just a sideshow.--Lyonscc (talk) 04:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

L'Envoi

available through history anyways. Collect (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I mourn the hours I've lost to these discussions. Lyonscc, your statements that "Collect and I are the only two persons who have 'given' anything," and that [9.0] is a "a complete return to zero," and that version 8.0 addressed all my concerns, just made my heart sink. I find Wikipedia a useful resource and I have useful professional skills to contribute to its development, but the recent months of discussion of the same points regarding the Warren article have been something of a black hole. I do not want to abandon the commitment I've made to improving the article (and to restoring notable information expunged by an interested party), especially after fellow editors have dropped out, but I don't think I can sustain it within this process. At what point does mediation advance to arbitration? Benccc (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Benccc - I've tried to break out the main issues this morning. My apologies if you're disheartened by characterization, but "return to zero" is pretty close. I cannot read version 9.0, apart from that it mentions that Warren gave a statement to his congregation, and think that there has been any real 'give' toward myself in this process. I also have to say that your complete dismissal of the agreement reached on inclusion of "eliminated the right" in moving to 9.0 was more frustrating than anything else in that version. Your primary contention has been that "eliminated the right..." should be included and I have made nigh on a dozen proposals by which it could be included, so long as proper context is achieved. I'm also somewhat boggled by your rejection of the language you suggested for the beliefnet sentence, and the backtracking to "I do". I have tried to address all of your concerns, but you seem to ignore/forget mine as compromise solutions have been offered. There is absolutely no real compromise offered in 9.0.
I've tried to break down the issues systematically in 10.0, so that we can suggest deletions/additions in a structured fashion to the text. Can you participate in this?--Lyonscc (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's my take on this. I know several participants are fatigued with this (at times seemingly endless) discussion. Benccc summarizes his frustration above. Firestorm has made it clear that he wants things to move along faster. It is also evident from Lyonscc's remarks that he is concerned about a lack of progress too. Elsewhere, Telidildonix314 has also said it. Here's my take on it. I haven't been able to do much mediating so far, because every time we try to get going, one or the other participant has lost patience and blown up at others. We all have a limited amount of time. When I have to put all of my time into riding herd, we cannot progress. As to arbitration: My advice would be to forget about it. I cannot see anything definitive to arbitrate.

My hope is that the need for me to ride herd is now in the past. Therefore, we can actually mediate. I've been suggesting the way to do that. Let me try to pull all of my suggestions into one place. For a successful mediation, participants need to:

These are key components of collaborative editing (which is our ultimate goal). Lyonscc is proposing a way of approaching the latest version (an action plan, if you like). I've made a few suggested changes (along the lines of the above guidelines). If other participants agree, we could follow Lyonscc's suggested approach. If someone has a better approach, let's hear it.

Would participants be willing to begin anew following these guidelines? Sunray (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes--Lyonscc (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. I'm re-reading each tiny portion above, i'll try to put constructive suggestions in the right places. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 01:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Sunray, those guidelines look good to me, though I think I've been following them, and I don't see progress, insofar as some participants are exhausted, others have flamed out, and we don't seem to have settled any disputes. To continue like this I would have to choose between honoring my agreement to participate in this mediation and meeting my other commitments. Previously I've asked that we settle one point of dispute at a time, no matter how small. I continue to believe that this would drive our work to its conclusion. Instead we're approaching our work in a way that seems to require a huge amount of writing and a huge amount of reading, and we're plowing back and forth across the same turf. Can we change our approach so as to require much less writing, much less reading, and make a series of decisions, one at a time? Benccc (talk) 05:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
You proposed that previously and I believe I asked you to suggest something, Lyonscc has proposed an a approach. How about we take that one step at a time? Sunray (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Version 9.0 has my support. At this point i can't justify (for myself) spending more weeks on this. If 9.0 doesn't enjoy unanimous support, but is approved by a majority of editors, that's good enough for me. From my point of view, 9.0 is already a compromise, and overly generous in the way it avoids showing our readers why Warren was so thoroughly reviled. But it's accurate, Reliably Sourced, easily Verifiable, and gives readers a general hint of the controversies without re-enacting them. Any further watering-down would be regrettable, as it's already whitewashed for the sake of "compromise". If the rest of you decide to write something different, i won't bother uttering remarks such as "no support whatsoever", because you don't need my support. Given my personal viewpoint (best summed up by the arguments in The Trouble With Normal (book)) on the issue of any publicly licensed marriage (homo, hetero, poly, or otherwise), this has all been an academic exercise with zero possibility of personal satisfaction anyway, so i'm not going to endlessly debate. Four months of focus on a public figure whom i loathe has certainly taught me a few lessons in Wikipedia culture, "writing for the enemy", and my own limitations; i don't see where i have anything further of value to gain nor contribute. Thank you, good luck everyone. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 07:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I came to Wikipedia just now to catch up on the discussion, and I noticed that a comment I'd worked on for a while seemed to have disappeared. After being stumped for a moment I found it here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Rick_Warren#Sort_of_Buried (I added that heading so I could link to it). By looking at the "history" for this page, I figured out that Lyonscc moved it ("Moving discussion to appropriate section" was the explanation). That was disconcerting to me. If anyone here believes I've posted something in an inappropriate place, please let me know so I can move it myself. I had intentionally posted that comment at the end of the discussion (where, in my experience, participants look first) because, as I wrote to Lyonscc in the first sentence, "you seem to frequently declare that proposed language violates policies and guidelines and therefore can't be considered, and you move on...." I tried to undo the relocation of the comment, but couldn't.
Lyonscc, you began your response to that post by writing "Benccc, if we're going to cite support of the mediators as evidence for inclusion," which was not a point I made in my post. I'm asking that we resolve claims that proposed language violates Wikipedia policy, not whether anyone supports the language. One of my frustrations is that I feel accused by you of things I don't believe I've done -- not only that I've proposed we violate Wikipedia policy, but that I've reneged on agreements I've made,[32] or made no compromises,[33] or that I proposed that we report the Beliefnet interview as in version 8.0[34] to cite recent examples.
Lyonscc, the reason I mentioned Kevin, Virtual Steve, Firestorm, and Sunray was to ask whether you can trust their judgment regarding what violates policy. I am not asking whether you like certain language, and I'm not arguing against revisions. I am addressing violation of policy. For three months we have been having the darndest time trying to resolve this single policy point. It seems that nobody at the mediation level of a dispute has the ability to issue a ruling, as it were, to resolve a policy question, and yet I don't see how we can make up our own minds about what violates policy (i.e. you can violate policy X if you let me violate policy Y). I don't know how to move past this point if you won't trust the people whose responsibility in this process is to be both familiar with policy and impartial as to POV. Benccc (talk) 07:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Benccc - my apologies if I confused you - this section (L'Envoi) has nothing to do with the topic being discussed, so I moved it to the section that was organized to break down the questions at hand. I will answer the remainder of your question in that section, so that we can keep our discussions organized as to which issue they pertain to.--Lyonscc (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Lyonscc, Benccc has requested that you not move his text from one place to another. He has requested that you simply tell him if you think that he should move it. Would you be willing to restore his comments where he initially placed them?
With respect to "rulings on policy." Administrators and mediators are not automatically accorded status as policy advisors by dint of their role, nor is anyone on WP. This is not to say that an experienced editor responding to a policy question should not be listened to. The wording "trust their judgment" seems apt.
I'm finding the multiple sections of discussion a bit too complicated at the moment. Lyonscc, what do you think of selecting points for discussion and dealing them one at a time? If you agree, I would suggest that you, Benccc and Firestorm select one of the sections above for discussion and move it down. That way we could focus our attention and (hopefully) make faster progress. Sunray (talk) 07:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Let's please try to complete the discussion of the neutrality of the statement that Proposition 8 eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.
Lyonscc, in response to points you made above, if we were to say that the elimination of the right of same-sex couples to marry was a good thing, that would be a viewpoint. To say that the right of same-sex couples to marry was eliminated, on the other hand, is not a viewpoint. It's a fact verified by reliable sources. I agree with you that policies do not have black/white delineations, but if you're suggesting that it's at least a LITTLE bit biased to say that the right of same-sex couples to marry was eliminated, that's an extraordinary claim, contradicted by reliable sources, lacking reliable sources of its own, and unsupported by the folks who have been facilitating our discussion.
You argue that to be neutral, we should only characterize something in a way that's supported by the subject of a biography. But WP:NPOV would prohibit that! A biography of Ronald Reagan may not describe the Soviet Union as an evil empire, and a biography of Louisiana Governor Earl Long cannot refer to African Americans by using the N word. Reagan and Long can be quoted using these terms, but that's a different matter. The subjects of biographies have their own viewpoints, which may be reported but which should not be confused with facts.
I do not seek to inform readers that Rick Warren approved of the elimination of the right of same-sex couples to marry (though if a reliable source indicated that he did not approve of that, or did not know that Prop 8 would do that, this would be notable and surprising and would belong in the article). Instead, I seek to restore to the article the information that Prop 8 eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Benccc (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Moving the relevant section to the bottom, per Sunray's suggestion--Lyonscc (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Breaking 10.0 down: Paragraph 1 (Prop 8 Description)

I'm trying to break this down into smaller issues for discussion so that we don't keep going back-and-forth, reverting past agreements, etc.

This approach has merit. I am suggesting some changes that I hope will make it easier to find points of agreement. For example I'm removing the word "positions." At this stage, we should be looking for common interests. More important than stating what one "supports" or "opposes" would be letting other participants know what you agree with and what needs further work. I've made those changes and offered a few comments below. Sunray (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, yes - thank you. Your changes make it much less adversarial, I would agree. I guess that's why you're a mediator!--Lyonscc (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This option would wikilink Prop 8, but include no additional description.

Paragraph 1 Option 1 Interests
  • I support this option as being the most succinct and WP:NPOV, because the article is about Warren, not Prop 8, and (as we've demonstrated) any descriptions of Prop 8 are open to criticism of 'spin' and may be used to try and characterize Warren's support (which gets into WP:NOR territory).--Lyonscc (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Paragraph 1 Option 1 Discussion

Let's try not to re-hash old ground here. We can go back to look at the arguments made for/against. I'm trying to logically lay out the Prop 8 issue by including the primary options discussed.--Lyonscc (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

For this to be a good article, there needs to be appropriate context for the reader. The wording must stand on its own and be comprehensible to readers who are not from the United States. A link is necessary, but insufficient, to achieve this, IMO. Sunray (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Quite correct. I think we can put just enough info into the section to help any readers to understand, without being Undue. A wikilink is insufficient, but a long paragraph is too much. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 01:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Paragraph 1 Option 2: "Eliminates the Right" Only

This option would describe Prop 8 as "eliminated the right for same-sex couples to marry", but would include no other descriptive text of Prop 8.

Paragraph 1 Option 2 Interests
  • This article is about Rick Warren, not Prop 8, so any framing of Prop 8 must not color Warren's support of it in ways that had nothing to do with his support. Additionally, if we're going to include one of the reasons for the Prop 8 controversy, we should include all three prominent ones - Change to Constitution, CASC overturn of Prop 22, "eliminates the right". To do otherwise would be WP:NPOV and would not be in line with WP:BLP, as it mischaracterizes the intentions of the subject of the biography. I cannot support any option which includes "elminates the right" while excluding the other sources of controversy and chronology--Lyonscc (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Paragraph 1 Option 2 Discussion

[Removed repetitive comments. SR.] I'm trying to logically lay out the Prop 8 issue by including the primary options discussed.--Lyonscc (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to reformulate the question here: What is the right amount of context that needs to be provided. Sunray (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
If we're going to be providing context to Proposition 8, it should contain information that also provides the same context to Warren's statements. So - since Warren's primary point was most often "the definition of marriage", we should include that Prop 8 amended the CA Constitution to define marriage as "between a man and a woman". Also, since Warren's most common follow-up was in reference to the CASC, we should include language about the CASC's ruling. Since this article is about Warren, any context provided should enlighten the reader as to how Warren's beliefs/comments/positions match to the context of the debates at hand. Warren never talks about "elimination of rights", so this particular point is rather superfluous to Warren's position. Thus, to include it - to the exclusion of all else - gives no enlightenment to Warren or how his beliefs fit in with the Prop 8 debate. In fact, they give a false impression that Warren was trying to take rights away from people. This is not the case, and is not consistent with WP:BLP.--Lyonscc (talk) 20:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  1. I don't think we need to elaborate that far, and when we bring up Prop22, we start to go into Undue territory. I never even heard of Prop22 before this Mediation (i'm not from California.) Did Warren ever even have a noted public position on Prop22? Why mention Prop22 in his bio if it had never been emphasized in any of the RS which we're using?
  2. I agree with 'Warren never talks about "elimination of rights"'; however, "elimination of rights" is precisely the crux of why this Prop8/Warren controversy blew up so big. Elimination Of Rights is specifically the point which distinguishes Prop8 (and Warren's endorsement) from all of the other same-sex marriage amendments/controversies in other states/ other elections. That was my motivation for insisting on including the Ballot Title: because it succinctly tells us exactly why people were protesting Warren's endorsement. It's a distinctive feature.
  3. If we wish to "enlighten the reader [about] Warren's beliefs/comments/positions", we don't need a long exposition about Prop22, nor a long exposition about Prop8 (beyond what makes it distinctive). Instead, i believe we only need to give Warren's own words. When the mainstream media reported/replayed Warren's affirmation of "I do", that caused the controversy to become much more notorious. We can find a brief way to point out Warren's beliefs/positions; for example: simply quoting or summarizing Warren's later clarifications to Steve Waldman or to Larry King, in which Warren explains his "definition of marriage" position. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 01:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
This is the only version that does not meet the minimum threshold of my concerns. To use an (imperfect) analogy - this is somewhat like Senate appropriations bills, where there are multiple issues tied up in a single piece of legislation. Let's say we have a Health & Human Services Appropriation Bill SR9999(which funds HHS for the year), and one of the many clauses in the bill eliminates a school lunch program that affects 30,000 kids. While the purpose of the bill is to fund HHS, it would be true to say that it "eliminated the funding for 30,000 kids to have school lunch." Now, let's say that Senator Smith voted for SR9999. If, in his WP article we wrote "Senator Smith voted for SR9999, which eliminated the funding for 30,000 kids to have a school lunch" it would be true (in the strictest sense of the term), but it would totally misrepresent Senator Smith (who the WP article is about), because he voted for it to fund HHS. In the same way as this example, it is incumbent upon us that we do not misrepresent Warren's (minimal, I would note) support for Prop 8 by categorizing it in the singular way ("eliminated the right...") that he never cited. Therefore, if we are going to describe Prop 8, it must be in a way that allows the reader to understand WHY Warren supported it. --Lyonscc (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
So - the question is - which of the other 3 options can you live with, since the other three all meet the minimum threshold of concern for properly representing Warren's support of Proposition 8?--Lyonscc (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • No, sorry, hold on here for just a second please. How do you know that Warren was not thinking about the elimination of the right to marry, and how do you know Warren was not in favor of the elimination of civil rights. Given his public comments (i've watched the videos and TV interviews) i have been given precisely that impression. So i'm afraid the very argument which you are using to try to "prevent Non-neutral POV" and "misrepresentation" of Warren's beliefs, is, in fact, the very same argument which i'm going to use against your minimum threshold of concerns.
In fact, i have a piece of evidence which directly shows that your stance is in fact weaker than mine, evidence using Warren's own words: when Steve Waldman asked Warren to clarify his "I do" comment (some time during the weeks after the eruption of controversy, when Warren had obviously had plenty of time to pick and choose his words carefully, from a Public Relations standpoint) Warren explicitly told us that he believes "civil unions are not a civil right" and he "opposes changing the definition of marriage." So there you have it: Rick Warren told us that his beliefs do not allow for the right to marriage equality. Trying to pretend otherwise goes against our evidence in Reliable Sources. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 04:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
How do we know what Warren was thinking? Given Warren's public statements, which have been few, we must Assume Good Faith that he was speaking truthfully of his reasons, and the reasons cited in all sources are "the definition of marriage" and the CASC ruling. Now, please - which of the other three version would you give minimal support to. When in mediation, we must not sacrifice the "good enough" on the altar of the "perfect". I am offering a number of compromises. Which one is least offensive to you?--Lyonscc (talk) 06:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Lyonscc, you seem to frequently declare that proposed language violates policies and guidelines and therefore can't be considered, and you move on, even though some or most of us do not agree with that assessment, and even though a mediator is available to address those policy questions. I take policies and guidelines seriously too, and I take it seriously when you say that language I propose violates them or disregards an agreement we've made (as in the case of Prop 8) or contradicts proposals I've made previously (as in the case of the Beliefnet interview). I don't see how we can conclude our work if we don't give focused consideration to each of these things, and I don't see how we can work harmoniously in an environment of (what feels to me like) accusations. I find it alienating. Before I continue, I do not mean to sound righteous -- I can see why you felt that I was ignoring your preferences. One of the reasons I'd like us to focus on specifics is that I think it will reduce my frustration and help me avoid being harsh or careless.

I would like to discuss some specific objections you raised to language in version 9.0. May we do that? I want to be clear on what we've agreed to, and what's in violation/not in violation. Once we've settled that, we can talk about words and sentences we simply prefer, and move along to a conclusion.

Let's please first focus on this language:

  • Two weeks before the 2008 U.S. general election, Warren issued a statement to his congregation supporting California Proposition 8, which would amend the state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.[35][36] Warren's support reflected the official position of his church's denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention.

I understand that you think the Prop 8 sentence is POV because it implies something about Warren's opinion/beliefs/perceptions about Prop 8 other than that he supported it. Though you've written that the elimination of the right of same-sex couples to marry in California "had nothing to do with his support," we've seen no source to that effect, and it seems like an extraordinary claim -- nothing to do with his support? We've seen no source that shows that Warren didn't know Prop 8 would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry, nor that he did not support that outcome. There's a direct connection between 1. the insertion of the language of Prop 8 in the California Constitution and 2. the elimination of the right of same-sex couples to marry, so it's not apparent that there's such a great gulf between the two. Based on my lay-person's understanding of policy, the sentence would have to assert something that clearly misrepresents Warren's view in order to violate Wikipedia policy.

Over the past few months four admins (Kevin, Virtual Steve, Firestorm, and Sunray) have looked at roughly similar language and found no violation. I'm NOT saying I think this proves anything, or that these admins are infallible, or that you must abandon your conviction. But I think our ability to move forward depends in part on trusting the admins to be very familiar with, and serious about, Wikipedia policies. Are you willing to agree to move forward on the premise that we may consider changes to that language, but that any changes may not be required by policy?

I understand you'd prefer to extend the sentence to include the language of the amendment. I do not personally believe that this will significantly improve the reader's experience -- it seems like listing the ingredients of a soup can when we could simply say "he ate chicken soup" -- but I see no harm in including it:

  • Two weeks before the 2008 U.S. general election, Warren issued a statement to his congregation supporting California Proposition 8, which would amend the state constitution to include the words "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," thereby eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry.[37][38] Warren's support reflected the official position of his church's denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention.

I think all of us could live with that, and I hope you can too. I do see harm in adding information to that paragraph about marriage laws in California prior to the passage of Prop 8 -- it seems confusing and tangential. If Warren had a notable role in previous legal cases or initiatives or whatever regarding California marriage law, let's source it and put it in the article, though not necessarily in the same paragraph.

If you're certain that the language above -- the language that includes the text of the amendment itself -- violates policy, please say so now. If you accept the judgment of the admins that the language does not violate policy, but you believe that readers of this article will be better served by the addition of information about marriage laws prior to Prop 8, please make a case for it on that basis. Benccc (talk) 07:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Just to clarify a small point Benccc (but not to nit-pick) re your paragraph 5 above, Sunray and Firestorm are not administrators at this current time. Best wishes.--VS talk 07:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Benccc, if we're going to cite support of the mediators as evidence for inclusion, both Sunray and Firestorm have also supported versions which included all three points of controversy, as well[39]. To mirror your question back: will you not accept their judgment in this matter? As this article is about Warren, we must not misrepresent his beliefs, and his explicit support of Prop 8 was consistently tied by him to 1) the definition of marriage; and 2) the highly controversial move of the CASC to invalidate Prop 22 - almost 2 years after Prop 8 had been created (I would note). There is absolutely no harm in inclusion of all three points of controversy (since Warren consistently cited the definition of marriage and the CASC usurping the will of the people and never spoke about "elmination of rights"). I see no demonstration that there is ANY harm in inclusion of all three. In fact, inclusion of the three key issues has been my attempt to compromise with you on inclusion of "eliminates the right". (Please see the "Senator Smith" example above for why the context of Prop 8 congruent to Warren's support must be included and why to NOT include it would be WP:NPOV). I am trying to bend over backwards to accommodate your desire to insert this factoid. I do not see inclusion of the action of Prop 8 (the definition of marriage) and the nature of the "right" eliminated (a court ruling, not legislation, a few months before the election) as trivial, like listing the ingredients of chicken soup. While "elminates the right" was a key driver for the anti-Prop 8 folks, both the "definition of marriage" and the extraordinary action of the CASC in invalidating a previous proposition were primary drivers behing the pro-Prop 8 crowd. Without the court ruling, the reader cannot understand the nature of the "right" and why its creation was controversial, in and of itself - the action of which (i.e. judicial fiat) was part of Warren's stated support.
Or - to be more succinct - Are we including the additional descriptive language about Prop 8 simply so that the reader can understand what it was, or are we inserting the language so that we know why Warren supported it? Since the article is about Warren, I would assume that the latter should be true.--Lyonscc (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Benccc, you asked
  • I am addressing violation of policy. For three months we have been having the darndest time trying to resolve this single policy point. It seems that nobody at the mediation level of a dispute has the ability to issue a ruling, as it were, to resolve a policy question, and yet I don't see how we can make up our own minds about what violates policy (i.e. you can violate policy X if you let me violate policy Y). I don't know how to move past this point if you won't trust the people whose responsibility in this process is to be both familiar with policy and impartial as to POV.
It seems to me that you're expecting policies to have black/white delineations, when the reality is there is some interpretation that has to go on. For example, in the issue at hand, we are forced to balance WP:UNDUE with WP:BLP and parts of WP:NPOV. So, we may end up with a small degree of "undue weight" being placed upon an issue in order to avoid creating issues with non-neutrality. With Proposition 8, in particular, there are two sides (at least) to the issue, and why people supported/rejected Proposition 8. On one side (rejection of Prop 8), the two primary drivers were "eliminates the right" and general support of same-sex marriage (i.e. rejection of "amends the constitution to read..."). On the other side (support of Prop 8), the two primary drivers were preservation of the definition of marriage ("amends the constitution to read...") and a rejection of judicial activism (CASC invalidation of Prop 22).
So, the question becomes - it is neutral to only recognize a position of one side of the 'fight' when characterizing Prop 22, particularly when that characterization is one not supported by the subject of the biography? I have argued that it is not - and seen nothing to the contrary from the mediators (and I don't know that it's their role to issue these types of rulings). At the heart of WP:BLP is to accurately represent the subject of the biography, and that "content should [...] be about the subject of the article specifically." With this in mind, characterizations of issues should be made in such a way as to 'be about the subject of the article specifically' - which means that, in this case, to frame Prop 8 from the opposite viewpoint of Warren would violate WP:BLP.
To flip the question - it is neutral to only characterize Prop 8 in a way that IS directly supported by the subject of the biography? I would argue that it is, because it frames the issue in a way as to 'be about the subject of the article specifically'. However, I do not think it would be too WP:undue to mention the opposing viewpoint ("eliminated the right"), so long as Warren's position ("amended the constitution to read..." and the controversial CASC ruling) are represented (which allows the reader to understand Warren's position, since he is the subject of the article). It is in this spirit that I have offered the compromise language (Option #4, below).--Lyonscc (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Benccc - can you move your latest comments here (and then you can delete this sentence)?--Lyonscc (talk) 12:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Benccc, To say that the right to SSM was eliminated is a verifiable fact. To say that Prop 8 changed the constitution to read that "marriage is only between a man and a woman" is a verifiable fact. To say that the CASC invalidated Prop 22 is a verifiable verifiable fact. This is not the problem with neutrality. Where the issue of neutrality comes in is this: when we include specific facts and exclude other specific facts we can - and do - impact the POV of the article and color the subject, based on which facts were included/excluded.

With a biography, it is incumbent upon us that we include the facts that are relevant to painting an accurate picture of the subject for the reader. What we choose to exclude can say just as much as what we choose to include. Your comparisons to Reagan and Long, though, are apples-to-oranges to what I'm saying. For a better example, let's go back to my previous Senate appropriations example:

  • Let's say we have a Health & Human Services Appropriation Bill SR9999(which funds HHS for the year), and one of the many clauses in the bill eliminates a school lunch program that affects 30,000 kids. While the purpose of the bill is to fund HHS, it would be true to say that it "eliminated the funding for 30,000 kids to have school lunch." Now, let's say that Senator Smith voted for SR9999. If, in his WP article we wrote "Senator Smith voted for SR9999, which eliminated the funding for 30,000 kids to have a school lunch" it would be true (in the strictest sense of the term), but it would totally misrepresent Senator Smith (who the WP article is about), because he voted for it to fund HHS. In the same way as this example, it is incumbent upon us that we do not misrepresent Warren's (minimal, I would note) support for Prop 8 by categorizing it in the singular way ("eliminated the right...") that he never cited. Therefore, if we are going to describe Prop 8, it must be in a way that allows the reader to understand WHY Warren supported it.

With Reagan's article, we don't say that the USSR was "evil", but we do note that Reagan made the Soviet's mandate, itself, a moral issue (which was the point of the "evil empire" comment). We don't ignore Reagan's POV - we include the facts that give light to his POV. In the case of Warren, the key facts that give light to his POV have nothing to do with "eliminated the right" - they are about 1) the definition of marriage; and 2) the judicial activism of the CASC. So, when we say that Warren supported Prop 8 and then give only the fact that was the primary motivator of the opponents of his position, excluding his stated motivating factors, we imply that this was Warren's view, as well. The end result is a product that is not neutral. THAT is not an extraordinary claim - it is basic biographical writing principle.

So, with regard to the Warren article, if we want to expand on describing Prop 8, not only should we give the key motivating factor(s) of the opponents of Prop 8 (to explain the controversy), but we also must give the key motivating factor(s) cited by Warren - so as not to wrongly ascribe intent to the subject of the biography. So, while you may see that the most important "verifiable fact" about Prop 8 was that it eliminated the "right" of SSM, if we are to be neutral, and if we are working within the writing guidelines of biographies to 'be about the subject of the article specifically', we need to include the minimum "verifiable facts" that were cited by Warren, to avoid giving the reader an inaccurate picture of the subject of the article.

You said: I seek to restore to the article the information that Prop 8 eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. I am giving you a compromise solution that allows its inclusion in the most neutral manner possible in his biography. Thus, your aims are met (including the characterization of Prop 8 as 'eliminating the right of SSM'), as are the overall aims of wiki policy (wp:npov and wp:blp) by including the relevant facts which drove Warren's view and to 'be about the subject of the article specifically'.

Will you accept the compromise?--Lyonscc (talk) 12:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Benccc, in response to your proposed wording [40] I think it would be best just to include the three relevant facts (change to constitution wording, 'eliminted the right' and the CASC ruling). In Warren's video, he opens with a discussion on the court ruling, and the court's changing the definition of marriage (GLBT isn't brought in until midway through). And these are the two items (def. of marriage + CASC ruling) that he hits on and emphasizes in each interview and the congregational letter/video. Simply representing them as part of the Prop 8 discussion would be the most concise, and should be sufficient in providing the context of Warren's support. I see no reason to pick/choose/parse quotes, when citing the facts of the matter should provide enough context needed, in a more concise manner.--Lyonscc (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
If, in addition to the three facts about Prop 8, you wanted to include a Warren quote from the video, the opening one is probably the most concise:
  • "(Proposition 8) had to be instituted because the courts threw out the will of the people. Four guys (...) voted to change the definition of marriage that has been going for 5,000 years"
If this is given, in addition to the key underlying facts about Prop 8 (the CASC ruling, the actual action of Prop 8 in amending the constitution), this would make his position very clear and in context.--Lyonscc (talk) 03:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Paragraph 1 Option 3: "Amended the CA Const To Read" Only

This option would only include the stated action of Prop 8, from its inception in 2006 - that it would amend the CA Constitution to read that "marriage is only between a man and a woman"

Paragraph 1 Option 3 Interests
Paragraph 1 Option 3 Discussion

We can go back to look at the arguments made for/against. I'm trying to logically lay out the Prop 8 issue by including the primary options discussed.--Lyonscc (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. If others agree, let's continue on this track. Sunray (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm most in agreement with this one, if we're also trying to be succinct. It matches the primary issue consistently given by Warren when asked about his support of Proposition 8. While "eliminated the right" is true, it isn't necessarily germane to explaining Warren's position or part in the post-election Prop 8 controversy.--Lyonscc (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm most in disagreement with this suggestion because: California's Prop8 was different from all of the other states' amendments and laws, because unlike all the other states which never had the right to same-sex marriage in the first place, California did have that right (for a few brief months) and Prop8 eliminated the right, so it's the major distinctive feature of Prop8 worth mentioning, and it's also the major reason for Warren's endorsement of Prop8 being a target of huge protests. If we don't show this major distinction, we will be failing to inform our readers of the actual largest contributing factor to why the protests against Warren were huge, to why Warren has become the subject of so much public controversy. Please consider: suppose Californians never had the right to marriage equality in the first place (for those few months), and then California was hypothetically merely another one of the states to pass an amendment banning same-sex marriage, and suppose hypothetically Warren was just another ordinary baptist figure who made an ordinary endorsement in line with his church's standard positions. Warren wouldn't have been seen as quite so controversial. But instead, in reality, this is an exceptional situation with Prop8, and it's the reason why i ever even heard of Rick Warren in the first place. I would also guess that it's the reason why most other Americans (outside of baptists, outside of Orange County California, outside of readers of Purpose Driven Life) ever even heard of Rick Warren in the first place. So if we omit this major distinction, we are failing to give our readers the most important clues about why there were controversies and huge protests. I'm willing to bet most international readers (back me up on this, Phoenix of9) never heard of Rick Warren until the months leading up to the Inauguration Invocation, and then they only heard of Warren because he publicly endorsed Prop8 which was distinctively unlike other typical baptists-versus-gays controversies. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 02:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that outside of California, this is the reason most people have heard of him. I'm from Boston, and the first time I heard his name was when I saw it in Bay Windows regarding the invocation controversy. Firestorm Talk 02:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Paragraph 1 Option 4: Inclusive Context

This option would concisely include all three primary sources of controversy in Prop 8 - the stated action of Prop 8, the CASC ruling on Prop 22, and "eliminated the right..."

Paragraph 1 Option 4 Interests
  • While this gets much further into WP:UNDUE territory with the Prop 8 issue, it gives the reader context of Prop 8 without coloring Warren's support of it. I would support this as part of "give and take" for this issue.
It seems like it strays too far into Undue territory in Warren's biography if we try to put an elaboration of multiple legal issues here. I'd rather go with simpler summaries instead of longer legal analysis. When i say "simpler", i mean sticking to the distinctive features of the situation: Prop8 in California is different from other states' situations; Prop8 eliminated a right, rather than just preventing one from being exercised; Warren publicly endorsed Prop8, but then he was chosen by Obama for the Invocation despite Warren's anti-humanist position, so it was controversial on an international level (due to Obama's inauguration being such a huge event on the world stage); we can summarize all of this in a couple sentences at most, without weighing down Warren's bio. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 02:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
This is not all that elaborate. It quickly summarizes that 1) Prop 8 amended the constitution to define marriage as "a man and a woman"; 2) by doing so, it eliminated a right which 3) itself was controversial, because it had just been ruled on by the CASC overturning Prop 22. Both #1 and #3 were Warren's stated reasons of support, and put #2 in context to prevent it from creating a WP:NPOV situation as described above in the "Senator Smith" example. As I read your comments and the previous comments, this option seems to be the least offensive to the opposing editors, as the only objection is WP:UNDUE - which is related to Warren, not Prop 8 - and must be balanced with WP:NPOV--Lyonscc (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Paragraph 1 Option 4 Discussion

I'm trying to logically lay out the Prop 8 issue by including the primary options discussed.--Lyonscc (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Rick_Warren/Archive_6&oldid=1160858692"