Talk:Rick Warren

Balanced?

Just an observation but it seeems a majority of the article is on his critics. Gtstricky 15:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not correct to call Warren's minisrty the 4th largest "church" in America. Church is not the correct word. The proper description should be "personal congregation". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.254.190.2 (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be a persistent effort to remove references to Warren's more controversial statements. This is an influential man that has had a lot to say about some of the most controversial social issues in recent American history. How can an article about him he accurate and complete if these direct quotations keep getting stripped out of the article? If editors are concerned that more context is needed, add context, but don't remove the information.Ae6521 (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

moriel.org

One guy from 74.227.46.247 is trying to remove "{{}}" from citation links. I'm considering it vandalism, and turning it back, but if there's any reason for doing so, please post it. --FernandoAires 10:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Archives

There were a warning, every time we edit this talk page, asking for creating an archive. I don't know if I did it the best way, but, well, I did it. Fell free to discuss and change anything, and sorry for any mistake. --FernandoAires 13:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Censored information by FernandoAires

WHY? RE: WIKI policy: "let the facts speak for themselves." Financial information regarding Rick Warren's enterprises was posted by myself and was subsequently deleted by FernandoAires. Actual links showing IRS forms 990 were cited and linked. Fernando, you state you live in Brazil; if you are not familiar with the American Internal Revenue Service---perhaps you should familarize yourself with the necessity and accuracy of their data. I plan to repost, and should the financial information be removed again; I will file a dispute with Wiki. (sent by a guy from 72.26.158.119 to a wrong page, and moved to here)

In answer, I must say, first of all, that I have no problem at all with criticism of Rick Warren, and, as you can see in former discussions, I defended criticism in other points. When I removed that (and it was my fault not explaining why here, so sorry about that), it was for one main reason: it seemed to violate the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons official policy. I'm not sure about if it still don't violate, but I--Shunt11 07:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)'ll try to organize that in a way that follows Wikipedia standards.

But, with no offense at all (actually I'm very glad every time that someone starts to help Wikipedia), please start yourself considering Wikipedia as a encyclopedia, and nothing more. We are not here to state what's true, but some encyclopedical content about interesting matters. Policies are here to well define what's encyclopedical content, and that's why most of us follow them, and kept so strict about them. So don't be mad: it's not personal, in any way. --FernandoAires 18:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There are other problems: it is undocumented ("see guidestar.org" is not sufficient documentation), and it is apparently original research. Rocksong 23:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This guy is a dedicated Christian. The Christians who criticize him are spoon-fed new age crap. -66.218.19.31

Rick Warren is NOT a Christian. In his book The Purpose Driven Life, he misquotes the Bible and takes it out of context numerous times. He also quotes from paraphrases such as the Message and TEV that aren't true to the original meaning of the Bible. If he was a Christian, he wouldn't dare to misquote the Bible
Skillmaster 05:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

CITATION NEEDED: The last sentence under Criticisms, "Rick Warren also has been criticized for saying it isnt neccessary to study Bible Prophecy", is an uncited allegation that should either be cited or removed. Ex. When and where did he say that, and who wrote the criticism? --Mcrouse2004 22:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Reporting blogger news that is unsubstaniated, based on conjecture, and lacks a "credible" source (something beyond an internet address)should not be part of a biography. Accusations, interjections, and opinions do not make the cut as "biographical material".Jonnswift 07:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Blogs should not be used as references, as they ARE full of opinion and are unprofessional in citation. The issue presented at the end of the criticism section, however, IS a criticism, and criticisms are always opinion based and only need to be noted as so. The section should be added for notability, and not to pressure a right/wrong stance.--Jake 07:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources have been added, one to cite that the Warren-Murdoch tie is more official than just speculation. The other is a conservative-Christian news source (which you will rarely find me cite), that while it is opinionated, is accurate among it's religious content. The citation clearly states the FACT that an opinon does exist. Opinions in this article are only presented in the form of quotes from important figures in the cons. Chris. scene. --Jake 08:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I give up on questioning the morality of these Christian figureheads. The facts are plain, the criticism exists widely in the Christian community. I don't personally think there is connection. This isn't an opinionated issue for me, as I am not a Christian, nor do I have opinions on Rick Warren or Rupert Murdoch. Somebody please make this small issue more obviously factual. --Jake 08:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The faulty logic that you are using and the short sighted application of guidelines is beyond reason. First, Warren has also been called "America's Pastor" therefore using the logic you're supporting as reason enough to keep this post, we could say that Warren is responsible for America's current state. How absurd is that?! Also, your NPOV comment may be appropriate for being "neutral" only, however, neutrality does not give weight or support to improper association. To say that Warren is responsible for the way Murdoch thinks is a stretch in the largest sense of the word. That kind of opinion and interjection has no place in a biographical article.Jonnswift 08:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

While I think we are both on similar sides of the argument, I do not understand why an issue which has seriously degraded Warren's reputation among the more extreme Christian community is not biographical enough for at the very least, a brief explanation of the reasoning. I would never associate Rick Warren with the current state of America simply because of a title, and nobody else has yet made that association. I do not think that Warren has any influence on the "morally reprehensible" actions of Murdoch, however, the connection forged between the two issues has formed criticism. That section is reserved for criticisms that can be recognized easily. I think a quick search of the internet will show you that many people have strong interest and strong opinions on the issue.--Jake 08:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

kudos to Warren et. al for allowing the criticism section to exist....rare in these circles anymore.

Sidebar on Southern Baptists should be moved

When I first looked at the page, it looked as though a vandal had blanked it. Then I realized the article started below the sidebar. Either the sidebar should be moved to the bottom of the page or this needs to be fixed some other way. I am really poor at formatting or I would do it myself. RonCram 10:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

removed short Critics section and placed it here

This should not be included if and until it is verified and cited correctly. One could easily list out several thousand key pastors who do support Warren.

Critics There are a number of pastors, ministries and authors throughout the world who are critical of Warren and his teachings{fact|December 2007}, including Dr. John MacArthur, who addressed Warren in a chapter in his book, Fool's Gold. Other critics include Chuck Smith, Jimmy Swaggart, Dave Hunt, Daniel Dennett, David Cloud, Berit Kjos, Texe Marrs, and Dr. Noah Hutchings.

Cleanup of Self-Published and Blog-Sourced Links and "See Also"

Users Knight1000, GlassFET (Journeyman Editor) and Lyonscc updated the article to remove multiple links to blog and self-published sources (primarily, though not limited to, criticism). These were in violation of W:BLP:

Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims.

Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links.

Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article(...)

Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals if the information is derogatory. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy.

Additionally, links in the "See Also" section to the Emerging Church and Brian McLaren were removed, as these are not directly related to Rick Warren by W:V sources. The link to Joel Osteen has also been removed from this section, as Osteen is more often associated with the Prosperity Gospel movement, not the Seeker Sensitive movement, and is a firmly identified linkage through Verifiable sources.--Lyonscc (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Missing Information Needing Further Investigation

Apparently Rick Warren has links to Megachurch groups needing further elaboration and management writer Peter Drucker and the interestingly political movement called Dominionism in the Christian Right See this article http://www.discernment-ministries.org/ChristianImperialism.htm and return commentary. Dominionism as a group argues against the separation of State and Church and thus opposes the US Constitution. -- 58.163.136.175 (talk) 13:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No further investigation is needed. This is blog-sourced material, highly speculative, and it would not belong in a personal biography. Trying to insert it in would not add anything to the biography of substance, but, rather, would coatrack this tertiary issue. See WP:COAT for more information on coatracking and WP:BLP for sourcing guidelines for living persons.--Lyonscc (talk) 19:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lyonscc as to blog sourced material. I also personally know that Rick Warren is adamantly against theocracy and/or dominionism - it's not in his vocabulary. So, any assertion to such by a source would have to be categorically verified to even be considered and would be easily refuted. CarverM (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced statements

I've removed this from the criticism:

Warren's books have come under criticism from some Christian groups who question the practices promoted in these books, claiming that they distort the gospel or otherwise employ questionable tactics. Other common criticisms include objections to the accuracy with which it presents the Christian gospel, the accuracy of their Biblical exegesis, and various allegedly unbiblical teachings. Many critics contend that Warren compromises on various doctrinal truths and that he espouses ecumenical teachings.

because they are all unsourced. From WP:verifiability:

Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living persons.

It shouldn't be that hard to make the effort to come up with attributable reliable sources. "Some Christian groups" and "many critics" are examples of disallowed weasel words. Do the research, learn how to cite and add them back in. If it is a particular critic, then attribute them as does the other criticism of the section:

Philosopher and atheist Daniel C. Dennett has stated that Warren's book The Purpose Driven Life makes claims about the Universe which are "false", and that it "discourages people from scientific understanding".[1]

∴ Therefore | talk 05:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

At any rate, reading the article over for the first time as someone interested in learning about "Pastor Rick", I did want to read a more critically balanced article. The article needs much more--specifically--about what Rick Warren's critics have to say, both for good and ill. Nearmiss (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for the lecture. Pairadox (talk) 05:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha! I stand properly corrected as a pedant. I apologize. I'll try to loosen up and not assume that the editors of this page aren't aware of standard procedure. Thanks! ∴ Therefore | talk 05:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:) De nada! There's a new editor with some drafts in progress, so we'll probably see improvements soon. Pairadox (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've returned some of the criticisms along with a source removed last month for the spurious reasoning that a reliable source shouldn't be allowed unless Warren's blogged rebuttal is included. Pairadox (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It is the responsibility of other editors to include Warren's rebuttals; it certainly doesn't preclude reliable criticisms as it stands now. ∴ Therefore | talk 22:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Dennett Criticism

Earlier I posted a short statement about Daniel Dennett's criticism of Warren at his TED talk in 06. Why was this removed? I saw that someone else has posted a similiar statement about Dennett but it was removed because it was uncited. Does TED Talks not constitute a reliable source? Timothyjwood (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

While I wasn't the one who removed it, I probably would have, as well, since it was not a research symposium in which the comments were made, nor was it a peer-reviewed journal. Rather, it would be analagous to self-published comments, and its inclusion does seem to give undue weight to a rather minor and tangential criticism. The inclusion of the paragraph, as written, also seems to be a coatrack for the issue of intelligent design.--Lyonscc (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Contradictory data

Warren's birth date is either January 28 or April 1, 1954--one or the other. Which one is it? And is the April 1 birthdate vandalism?Methychroma (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

...Possibly neither date is correct and it's a different one altogether? Methychroma (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Because of the overwhelming amount of recent vandalism by unestablished users, I have requested that the article be placed under a partial block immediately.

Manutdglory (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Requests for page protection posted to various project pages are ineffective. Requests for page protection need only be posted once, at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, where I posted a request about an hour ago. I expect that the page will be protected once an administrator acts on the request. For future reference, at the top of that page is a handy list of various noticeboards and pages where vandalism and other issues may be brought to an administrator's attention. Mike Doughney (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I wasn't aware of that. In the past, I've actually requested page protection from project pages and it actually worked - that's why I did it for this article. I'll use the request page in the future. How long does it usually take for an admin to install page protection? Manutdglory (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It depends on how many admins are checking the request page each day. Sometimes it will be a few minutes and others a few hours. There is no guarantee that the page will be protected though. The admin will review the situation against the protection policy and decide if protection is appropriate. Road Wizard (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It's now semi-protected through January 20. I would certainly not hesitate to request protection on an article that's getting as much IP vandalism as this one has over the past 24 hours - particularly when that vandalism can be associated with increased media attention and/or current controversy. Mike Doughney (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The user "Manutdglory" says that they have reported me (Teledildonix314) to Wikipedia authorities for "repeated vandalism" of this article. This is nonsense. I have edited this article several times, and each of my edits has been quite according to the rules of Wikipedia. In fact, the only thing i have done is to alter certain words such as "conservative" and substitute them with more appropriate terms such as "reactionary". If you don't like what i have written, you are free to change the text in any way which you believe is more accurate and in accordance with a good encyclopedia article. However, you are ridiculously bogus in calling me a "vandal". I am a Wikipedia editor, just like you, and if you don't like what i write, that's a problem with your personal opinions, not with the policies of Wikipedia. Give me a break, you big blustering blowhard. Teledildonix314 (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

"reactionary"

Regardless of the affiliations of the editors who are pulling this term, I do not think this term may justifiably be used to describe Warren's views in this article unless some citation may be found from a reliable source that indicates that use of this term is appropriate. I've been looking and thus far have found no such citation. Mike Doughney (talk) 23:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. A simple overview of User:Teledildonix314 recent contributions reveal that he is a gay-rights activist and not an impartial blogger. Repeated, unsourced, inflammatory comments like his are exactly why the article was partially protected 2 weeks ago against unregistered users. The only difference is that he is registered. Manutdglory (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Do not take my agreement with you about this single edit as a justification for your personal attacks against another editor. The mere fact that one is an activist does not indicate that an individual is not impartial or will violate POV guidelines here. This article was protected at my request because of vandalism, not controversial edits. Your disagreement with the particular wording is not proof that the edits are "vandalism." I advise all editors to discuss such controversies here on the talk page and not engage in edit wars or personal attacks. Mike Doughney (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Unfortunately, no matter which other Wikipedia articles i link (such as Reactionary), the Manutdglory editor is just going to revert them. This is frustrating and pointless, as it reaches no compromise on acknowledging the factual basis for the choice of particular vocabulary. With Manutdglory, it seems this is no way to collaborate on an article which could use plenty of improvement, especially in terms of Neutral Point Of View. I'm sorry i bothered to scold the blowhard, and even more sorry to find my edits are not accepted as any form of lasting contribution merely because one other editor feels the need to defiantly delete anything which doesn't sound like the sort of puff-piece their ears wish to hear. If nobody else has any desire to try to add balance (to what is essentially an Apologist type of article about a living person who currently enjoys a popular following despite his anti-humanist attacks on other people) then there is no point trying to have a collaborative encyclopedia. That sucks. Teledildonix314 (talk) 04:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S.-- Once again, for example, my text was deleted although i was giving DIRECT quotations from sources which not only cite their facts, they record them and distribute them for free!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JIFhZBzvA0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JIFhZBzvA0&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/24/211141/49

Those video clips were being directly dictated word for word in the text i previously added, but Manutdglory just didn't like to hear it, so they deleted my work in its entirety. This is so childish, i wish there were some way to _protect_ an edit when it has DIRECT proof, such as in those video clips! *sigh* —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teledildonix314 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

"Despite his anti-humanist attacks on other people...". Yeah, Teledildonix314 definitely sounds like an objective, non-partial editor. I rest my case. Hey Mike, remember this: "the mere fact that one is an activist does not indicate that an individual is not impartial or will violate POV guidelines here." Are you still wondering whether this guy is an ideologue who clearly hates Rick Warren? Come on. So why hasn't he been blocked yet? Manutdglory (talk) 05:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If you look below, you will note that I myself called Warren a "thuggish slimy weasel," and I happen to agree that Warren's activities might well be called "anti-humanist attacks on other people." Evidently you don't seem to have the mental agility to distinguish between a person, their views and their edits here, but I will point out to you once again that those are in fact three different things. Having expressed views contrary to a biographical article's subject is not in any way grounds for banning an editor. Further, I suggest you review what does and does not constitute vandalism on Wikipedia and the official policies on Wikipedia regarding vandalism. Even further, you might also review the no personal attacks rule and this helpful article about assuming good faith. Mike Doughney (talk) 05:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

When you keep deleting my contributions, which happen to be direct links to the actual sources of information-- the actual camera and microphones on Rick Warren as he explicitly states his own views to the audience-- you are destroying information. That is vandalism. If you don't like my citations and direct quotations from Warren's own public interviews, why don't you just counter with some of your own sources and citations? Why don't you offer some information if you feel the article needs to be better balanced? Stop deleting everything i add. I'm not going to argue with you about the nuances of vocabulary such as "reactionary conservative" because i think you haven't even bothered to check a dictionary. I'm not going to keep up a war with you when you don't like my citations. I'm asking you to offer your own information from sources where you can cite facts and quotations and direct attributions. That's how you write an article. You don't have to worry about my point of view, you can offer your own sources of facts. Then nobody will be able to quibble over the Neutrality of the viewpoint because it will be objectively demonstrated to the readers for their own analysis. We avoid Original Research and Weasal Words and Controversial Mudslinging by sticking strictly to demonstrable facts. A television interview in front of international cameras and microphones most certainly constitutes a 'reliable source of information' which deserves to be cited. Just ask yourself as a member of an audience, "do i want to hear Teledildonix314's opinion, or do i want to hear Warren's own words directly as he speaks to the interviewer, to the cameras, and to the microphones?" Teledildonix314 (talk) 06:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This is for Mike and Teledilonix314 - the youtube.com video you both are defending is nothing more than a hit-piece titled: "Max Blumenthal on "Rick Warren's Double Life" " - excuse me, but I don't think a Wikipedia administrator nor the majority of readers are going to conclude that is an objective, rational source and if you both think it is, neither of you should be editing this article because you clearly are not objective at all. This has become a joke - both of you have clearly admitted to being prejudiced against Rick Warren, and thus, per Wikipedia regulations, shouldn't be editing an article that is supposed to be from a objective, neutral perspective. And Mike, if you hypocritically insult or threaten me once more, I'll be reporting you.Manutdglory (talk) 09:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

By all means, report anything you wish. Of course, you still haven't offered some kind of factual citation or direct quote to explain why you disagree so vehemently with other editors' contributions. If you don't want to quarrel about Neutrality, all you have to do is _offer_ some facts, show some evidence, and provide some verifiable citations with sources which can be examined. Then the truth will speak for itself, and nobody will dispute the accuracy of vocabulary words. Stick to providing direct quotations and clear attributions, without glossing it over with your analysis or spin, and the audience will be able to see how strong your position is. If you think your position is so strong, and is so totally in contradiction to the facts and citations provided by other editors, all you need to do is show us why we should believe you. Give us some proof. Until you do that, you are just childishly perpetuating an edit-war. Instead of obliterating my work and destroying the information provided, you could just give us your sense of 'balance' by inserting the proper citations in the appropriate places (pun intended). The article needs to come from verifiable sources, and i would encourage you to put yours in the bibliography and footnotes.

... and then report whatever sort of thing your little blowhard heart desires. In these Talk Pages here, i utter my inflammatory comments and boldly expose my point of view, so there will be no doubt about what i try to convey with the facts i choose to present. But on the Article pages, i have only inserted easily-verifiable quotations and citation from well-known sources of news and current information. How can you possibly be more objective than that? What could possibly be more Neutral than simply giving the readers a direct link to the actual recordings of Warren himself? We can stick strictly to reporting, we don't need to spin anything to a particular Point Of View. The audience can discern the facts for themselves.

Rick Warren is exposed as a lying, hypocritical, contradictory charlatan. He is a mountebank who does nothing other than the usual sorts of scapegoating and xenophobic assaults against the basic values of secular humanism wherever they contradict his evil fantasies. But i didn't state these opinions in the article-- i chose to give the readers _direct _evidence _of _the _actual _interviews with Warren himself. I don't have to bother pointing out how he's an unconvincing liar who can't keep his stories straight-- i don't have to use inflammatory language in the Article, as i am doing here in the Talk Page; truth is self-evident. When you repeatedly try to delete and obliterate the truth, you are destroying the quality of the article. The only way to successfully persuade people of your own viewpoint will be to present strong evidence. How difficult is this to understand? Rick Warren slandered millions of innocent people when he dishonestly equated them with incestuous pedophiles. How is that not a notable fact? How can such an outrageous slander and wicked lie be deleted so casually by any editor? Why would you try to hide the evidence of his lies and slander? Why is your point of view so strongly based on a denial of the direct quotations which are freely viewable and audible to anyone who wishes to listen to Warren? The video clips have been broadcast across so many networks around the world already, it makes you look strangely grotesque when you act as an Apologist and as a Denialist for the sake of such a reprehensible villain as Rick Warren.

If Warren says that "All _blank_ are a bunch of incestuous pedophiles," and _blank_ referred to some persons such as Africans, Jews, Chinese, Females, Single Men Over 30, Mormons, Taxi Drivers, Registered Nurses, etc, etc, then of course audiences would be outraged by such horrifying slander. But when Warren made that EXACT same comment about people who desire Marriage Equality and equality regardless of sexual orientation, Manutdglory rushed to hide the evidence. Why is Manutdglory so eager to allow hate-speech against gays and lesbians, while so vigorously deleting the links to all of the evidence of the hate-speech?

How embarrassing to be seen as an Apologist for somebody who spews hate against millions of innocent people.

Teledildonix314 (talk) 11:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Birth Date

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

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

Terry Schiavo section

I removed the section on Terry Schiavo (retained below) from the main text. While correctly cited, the editor of this section took Warren's statements out of context and presented them in a negative and biased manner, quite apart from the original intent. The actual quotes are reproduced below the Removed Section along with my comments.

Begin Removed Section --- In 2005, during the Terri Schiavo controversy, Warren called Michael Schiavo's decision to remove Terry Schiavo's feeding tube, "an atrocity worthy of Nazism," and suggested that Michael wanted Terri to die because, if she regained consciousness, she might have "something to say that he didn‘t want said." End Removed Section ---

Quote: 'If I were in a vegetative state, I would hope the people that love me would keep feeding me with the possibility I might come back out of that state. She's not on life support. This is not a matter -- this is not a right to die issue, in my opinion. It is the fact that they were just feeding a person who is, right now, mentally handicapped, and I, personally, I fear the day, that if we start saying, well, you don't have a right to live if you are mentally handicapped or you're physically handicapped or emotionally handicapped, and you -- we'll just, you know, stop feeding you. This is starvation. It's not pulling artificial life support, it's saying, we're just not going to feed you anymore. To me, that is an atrocity worthy of Nazism.' [comment - the intent here is to say that IF this is not a right to die issue then starving someone to death because we don't want them around is barbaric and is then comparable to Nazism. The intent does not seem to be, as the editor suggests, a direct criticism of Terri's husband.]

Quote: 'MATTHEWS: So why is he doing this, do you think? WARREN: I have no idea. Well, I don‘t know. There‘s 1,000 reasons you could speculate. What if she came back out of the—out of this state and had something to say that he didn‘t want said? [comment - this is a rhetorical answer and not a direct accusation as the editor tries to imply.] CarverM (talk) 02:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Warren did not express any doubt or uncertainty about the situation. As you quote, he says, "this is not a right to die issue, in my opinion." With that certainty established, the rest of the comments follow in a series based on that clearly established certainty in Warren's head. Since there is no "right to die" in Warren's opinion, and he clearly insists that if he were Schiavo he'd want to be fed, his subsequent reference to an "atrocity worthy of Nazism" is not predicated upon anything, for him, it's exactly that. He indirectly, though clearly, establishes that there's a clear link in his head between cutting off feeding of the by then jelly-for-brains-body-of-the-person-once-known-as Terri Schiavo and Nazi atrocities. His comment about Michael, again, though phrased as a question, leaves no doubt as to what Warren's assumptions about Michael are. He, like others of his ilk, merely has to express them with just enough indirection, to avoid both getting sued and to avoid calling Michael a murderer outright, thus prolonging discussion with this air of false uncertainty. The section should be re-inserted with enough context to show that Warren's comments, worded as they are to attempt to allow others to come along later and deny the obvious, are those of a thuggish slimy weasel. Mike Doughney (talk) 03:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree that the quote is 1) notable because of the magnitude of the Schiavo controversy at the time and the strength of the comment and 2) was not taken "out of context" in any way that distorts his view. Elaboration may help to add more nuance, but as the above commenter noted, it does not seem to portray his comments unfairly. I don't see why this section should not be reinserted pretty much as-is. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Warren waded into this controversy and others. The implications of his comment about Michael Schiavo are plain. Of "1000 possible explanations", he chose that one. If you feel it needs additional context, add it. Ae6521 (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the Schiavo matter, this time to the "Conservative views" section, with some additional clarifying context. Mike Doughney (talk) 08:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Creationist

I think his thoughts on evolution and creationism should be briefly mentioned, and maybe that he believes humans lived with dinosaurs.

On Rick Warren's website he wrote the following on the evolution (mispellings in original):

31. Is evolotion part of God's plan?

Question: Why is it not OK for evolution to be part of God’s plan? I don’t understand what the problem is: couldn’t God have used the process of evolution as the way that He created the earth?

Answer: When I was a new believer in Christ, I had some very strong feelings about the issue of evolution. Much as you have expressed, I believed that evolution and the account of the Bible about creation could exist along side of each other very well. I just didn't see what the big argument was all about. I had some friends who had been studying the Bible much longer than I had who saw it differently. But they didn't push me or argue with me, they simply challenged me to take some time to look into the facts and study the issues carefully. I'll always appreciate them for that, because this was an issue that I had to really think through. Eventually, I came to the conclusion, through my study of the Bible and science, that the two positions of evolution and creation just could not fit together... that there are some real problems with the idea that God created through evolution.

I would encourage you to take some time to study this issue. I found that, although I'd understood the science side of the equation, I needed to take some more time to read what the Bible really had to say about this subject. Not having taken the time to really read the Bible, I was very ignorant about what it had to say. Let me give you one example. I discovered that the problem of sin, as addressed in the Bible, was much more serious than I had previously thought. When I realized that the world was clearly a perfect place as God created it, and that this perfection was ruined by the sinful choice of Adam and Eve, it really started me thinking. Did the Bible teach evolution or did it teach the creation of a first man and woman named Adam and Eve? If we evolved, which human being would have made the choice that brought sin into this world? If Adam and Eve were just allegorical pictures, why did the New Testament place some much importance upon them as responsible and real individuals? Since God clearly says that it is our sin that brought death into our world, how could there have been death for billions of years before the arrival of the first man who sinned on the earth? As I asked questions about this issue and studied what the Bible had to say, I found it to be one of the greatest times of learning in my life as a new believer. My prayer is that you will have this same experience!

...

If you want to study this further... Here's a web site that you might want to check out: http://web.archive.org/web/20051118164840/http://www.probe.org/content/section/13/67/ (One article that is especially thought provoking discusses "Darwin's Black Box").

In 2007 interview Warren said:

Do you believe Creation happened in the way Genesis describes it?

WARREN: If you're asking me do I believe in evolution, the answer is no, I don't. I believe that God, at a moment, created man. I do believe Genesis is literal, but I do also know metaphorical terms are used. Did God come down and blow in man's nose? If you believe in God, you don't have a problem accepting miracles. So if God wants to do it that way, it's fine with me.

On Warren's website he wrote about dinosaurs:

30. What about dinosaurs? Question: How do they fit in with the idea that God created the world rather than the world evolving on it’s own? Why doesn’t the Bible talk about dinosaurs?

Answer: The Bible tells in Genesis 1 that God made the world in 7 days, and that He made all of the animals on the 5th day and the 6th day. All of the animals were created at the same time, so they all walked the earth at the same time. I know that the pictures we all grew up with in the movies were that dinosaurs roamed a lifeless, volcanic planet. Remember these are just pictures drawn by someone today! The Bible's picture is that dinosaurs and man lived together on the earth, an earth that was filled with vegetation and beauty.

What happened to the dinosaurs? The scientific record lets us know that they obviously became extinct through some kind of cataclysmic event on the earth. Many scientists theorize that this may have been an asteroid striking the earth, while many Christians wonder if this event could have been the worldwide flood in Noah's day. No one can know for certain what this event was.

Although it cannot be stated with certainty, it appears that dinosaurs may have actually been mentioned in the Bible. The Bible uses names like "behemoth" and "tannin." Behemoth means kingly, gigantic beasts. Tannin is a term that includes dragon-like animals and the great sea creatures such as whales, giant squid, and marine reptiles like the plesiosaurs that may have become extinct. The Bible's best description of a dinosaur-like animal is in Job, chapter 40. We don't know for certain if these are actually dinosaurs or are some other large creatures that became extinct. ...

This aspect of religion and opinion on science is important in describing his beliefs. And add the creationist category per the many sources.[1][2] Tgreach (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Quote not attributable to Rick Warren

The quotes from the Saddleback website, #'s 30 and 31 are not directly from Rick but a part of the small group leader training Q&A and written by another staff member. So, while a minor point, these particular statements on creationism are not Rick's and should therefore not be in an article about him. CarverM (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I figured that the minstry he founded's wesbite written in the first person (without proper attribution) was his. However, it appears that no one on that webpage put their name of scientifically ignorant claims.

Nonetheless, the 2007 interview on religion and science, does reflect his views on a literal reading of the Bible, including Genesis, as well as his opinions on science. This is relevant to his bio. Tgreach (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Removing "America's Pastor"

The phrase: "He has been christened by the media as 'America's Pastor'," keeps getting inserted [3] into the text with no citation. A quick search at Google News shows this is not a phrase that is used widely or consistently. I am removing it for now, and we can hash it out here.

This is also a good time to ask User:Manutdglory, a self-declared "member" of Saddleback Church [4], whether he can be neutral about this topic, and if not, whether he/she should voluntarily withdraw from editing this type of content. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 07:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have again removed this lame, bald attempt to inflate Warren's status which doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. The fact that "America's pastor" has appeared in print in connection with Warren is insufficient to insert such titles into the lede paragraph. In fact, such a designation is rather controversial, as is clear in a Google news search. It might eventually merit a mention somewhere down in the article, with explicit clarification as to who, exactly, is calling him that, and that others dispute that designation. Mike Doughney (talk) 01:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I already conceded that your argument was fair enough. Why demean me with this comment? Manutdglory (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I am explicitly and specifically referring to this edit right here. If you believe that you and your editing are inseparable, that's your interpretation, not mine. Mike Doughney (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Vocabulary, part II

Why do you keep destroying my edits? Every time i add information to this article by directly quoting from the reliable sources, you revert my work and then threaten to ban me? Several times i have added more footnotes to directly link to the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the DailyKosTV, the Pacifica News Network's broadcasts of Democracy Now, and i have conveniently provided the links to words i used such as "Reactionary" so you can read the literal definition and avoid quibbling about the nuances of vocabulary. If you look up the definitions of 'slander' and 'malign' you will see where i provided concrete examples which are undeniably demonstrated in those interviews and reports. Why are you so eager to obliterate my work when i have gone to the trouble of carefully providing fresh direct links to the specific _verifiable_ sources of information? Instead of arguing about whether an editor's viewpoint is sufficiently Neutral, why not just provide the information (the links, the citations, the quotations, the direct attributions) and allow the readers to decide and interpret and analyse for themselves? Why fight with me, why conduct a Revert-War, when you can just have an article full of citations and concrete examples? How can an editor satisfy your demands for 'Neutrality' if you keep deleting mention of those reports and interviews? Teledildonix314 (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If you don't expect your work to be edited, particularly with regard to Wikipedia policies such as WP:BLP, then don't post here. I have explained to you what Wikipedia policy is multiple times now, both here and on your talk page. It matters not what you think the definition of "reactionary" is and how you think it applies to Warren, or that there's an article in Wikipedia titled "reactionary." You need a reliable source that uses that term to describe Warren that may be cited in this article. You haven't produced one, and until you do, it comes out. Further, calling Warren a reactionary (or for that matter a slanderer) without citing a reliable source qualifies as a WP:BLP violation and it gets pulled on sight. Mike Doughney (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I have suggested this repeatedly for the past couple days, and i have provided citations from the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the DailyKosTV, and the news reports from Pacifica's Democracy Now. But there are a few editors who keep erasing my contributions and debating my citations and quotations. Instead of arguing and disputing, why not just offer more citations, quotations, and information from verifiable sources? Why don't these editors simply use examples and demonstrations of facts, instead of erasing every one of my contributions? If you disagree with an opinion, that's your prerogative; but when i edit the Article and insert citations which link directly to the interviews, recordings, and broadcast reports which show _SPECIFIC EXAMPLES AND SPECIFIC EVIDENCE_ of such things as 'slander', 'maligning groups of innocent people', and exposure of the OUTRIGHT LIES being spoken by Rick Warren, you just keep telling me that i'm not being 'Neutral'.

There is nothing more 'Neutral' than objective evidence, such as the direct links i provided to reliable sources of VERIFIABLE information and recordings of the interviews with Rick Warren himself. There is nothing to dispute when an editor gives you specific citations and direct quotations. If you don't like the information which i have tried to add to this article, you should feel free to 'balance' the article with your own contributions of EVIDENCE, DEMONSTRATIONS, and PROOF of your reasons for the dispute. When you simply erase my work, and then threaten me because you don't enjoy what i wrote, that achieves nothing.

If you don't agree with me, and you don't think my contributions to the Article are correct, then please: show me a specific example of any statement, declaration, implication, or suggestion which is not factual. If you don't think it's factual, please explain why the video recordings and newspaper articles are insufficient evidence to support my contributions. If you don't understand the definition of 'slander' or 'Reactionary', please double-check your dictionaries. Then please tell me (and any other readers here) why you disagree with my mention of Warren's SLANDER, PUBLICLY EXPOSED PREVARICATION, AND EXPLICIT BIGOTRY. In order for your disagreement to have any validity, it will require some kind of evidence which contradicts all of the citations i have provided. If you can't give any such evidence, then you might just have to admit that YOU ARE WRONG, and there is no 'Neutrality' to dispute. Truth is self-evident, people can watch and listen and decide for themselves whether there is anything inaccurate in an article as long as they are given direct links to the VERIFIABLE sources of information. If you don't offer any evidence to support your arguments, then you are making no sense when you threaten me for my contributions, citations and quotations.

Teledildonix314 (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Please add your new comments to the bottom of the file, in an appropriate section, rather than trashing pre-existing discussion threads.

Your assertion that MLK Day was on the same day as the inauguration was clearly false and was thus removed from the article. The rest of your complaints I've already responded to elsewhere. Repeating yourself and scribbling haphazardly on multiple talk pages will not change Wikipedia policies with respect to verifiability, neutral point of view and no original research. Mike Doughney (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The exact text at the top of the page says: "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous."

The controversial material in this case is not unsourced, nor is it poorly sourced. It is strongly sourced from immediately verifiable sources with reputable references. If a statement is true, it can not be libellous nor slanderous. When i added declarations of fact (for example, when Warren slandered millions of innocent people) i didn't just toss out an accusation lightly. I made a point of carefully linking at least three reliable sources which give us not just reports, but the actual VIDEO AND AUDIO RECORDINGS AS EVIDENCE. This causes the material to cease to be controversial: a controversy is difficult to decide, but in this case we have incontrovertible proof and immediately verifiable citations, so we don't need to decide on the Point Of View nor on the Reliability.... instead, we can all see the actual quotations, reports, and Warren's own words directly from the DEMONSTRATED EVIDENCE. Why are some of you editors so obstinate in your refusal to allow these citations, links, and footnotes to be included in this Article? Why are some editors destroying my contributions of clear citations from reliable sources, then threatening to Block or Ban me from the wikipedia editing? How can the factual presentation of supporting evidence be described as a dispute? What else could you possibly desire beyond actual recordings and interviews linked directly from the newspapers and TV broadcasts? What could be a more reliable source of information than an actual broadcast of a relevant interview in which the audience can listen to Rick Warren express his own words?

It has become so tiresome trying to continuously defend facts, evidence, examples, and demonstrations of proof, when a few hostile parties choose to exercise their non-democratic powers to suppress those facts and citations. What is the point of having an encyclopedia if a few editors just keep deleting all of the footnotes and direct quotations?

Attempts to intimidate and suppress simple declarations of fact do not succeed here. If you must insist on perpetuating your dispute with any of the demonstrable facts and evidence, please provide us with some kind of proof for your positions; otherwise we will have to assume that you are full of nonsense, and your edit-war activities this week have been entirely pointless. If you don't like what i write, why don't you ask editors to examine the citations, the evidence, the reports and interviews? Why don't you ask for a consensus, rather than deleting all of my contributions? Your attacks make you look unreasonably stubborn and indefensibly hostile to simple presentations of fact. Teledildonix314 (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You have still not produced an article from a reliable source that says that Warren's actions are either "slanderous" or "reactionary." Without that, there isn't much to talk about. You, and only you, introduced those words without evidence that any reliable source has used those words to describe Warren. Without that kind of source, you are violating WP:BLP. Mike Doughney (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

For goodness' sake, how can you keep saying there isn't any reliable source?!?

http://news.google.com/news?q=%22rick+warren%22,+slander,+gays

http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/rick-warrens-invocation-inclusive-of-christians/

http://letters.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/12/22/etheridge_warren/view/index6.html

What more could you possibly demand for evidence?! I've given you articles in major national newspapers, i've given direct links to the video interviews from internationally-renowned news broadcasters, and i've even offered quick links to the internet searches which easily verify the sources of information. I've given you the most unambiguous and specific and concrete example i could possibly imagine of an overtly slanderous action by Rick Warren, and i didn't just give you some paraphrased quotes or some second-hand hearsay, i gave you THE ACTUAL VIDEO INTERVIEWS. If you don't want to believe your own eyes and ears when you see Rick Warren refer to homosexuals as incestuous pedophiles, that's your problem. But you can't dispute a fact when people offer you actual videotapes, recordings on microphones, transcripts from newspapers and radio and television networks, and thousands (millions!) of witnesses to such an act of slander, maligning, and prevarication. If the unadorned truth is insufficient for you, no amount of editing is going to change your mind. If you just keep deleting my links to the proper citations and reliable sources, then you keep coming to my User page to threaten me, it makes YOU look like a sad little bully who can't win an argument by supporting your case with evidence. It makes you look like an impetuous child who can't see reason when it is literally spelled out for you, recorded on videotape, distributed across the Internet, and delivered directly to your desktop. Teledildonix314 (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll explain the edits to your work one by one. This is a diff of the subsequent changes to your edits. The reversions at lines 13, 23, 46 and 129 are removals of the word "reactionary" because, as I've repetitively said, no reliable source has been provided to show that such a characterization of Warren's views is justified, thus this is potentially a WP:BLP violation. At line 23, the reference to the video ultimately sourced to the Rachel Maddow show was moved to the part of the article where it is relevent. Also at 23, the reference to MLK day was removed because it is false, MLK Day is the day before the inauguration. The elaboration at line 97 was removed because it is largely POV commentary and repeats what's in the following paragraph. The material removed at 121 was a blatant WP:BLP violation because it accuses Warren of slander. The changes at 129 removed a redundant reference to Maddow's video, the cite was replaced with the one that was at line 13. Now you're welcome to discuss each of these changes one by one instead of vaguely complaining about the fact that, like most everything contributed to Wikipedia, somebody came along and edited or removed what you contributed. Here your work was changed or removed for exactly these reasons, some of which were because it violated the biography of living persons policy which is considered a serious matter.

All references to "slander" that are easily found in the links you provided are either not from reliable sources (blogs, self-published web sites, letters to Salon, minor newsletters, etc. are not reliable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia) or the accusation of slander must be directly attributed to the speaker quoted and not simply asserted in the article's text. Mike Doughney (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Somebody (i.e., Warren) stood in front of the TV camera and microphones and told the audience (in his own words, for you to verify on the videotape footage) that he directly equated the advocates of marriage-equality with the people who are incestuous, pedophiles, or polygamists. This is not an accusation, this is not a subjective assertion which can be debated because of some lack of confirmation! The actual footage is right there in those articles from Reliable Sources which i cited clearly and directly. Nobody is making a supposition, nobody is speculating, nobody has to dispute anything.... you can watch and listen and witness the overt act of slander for yourself! What could possibly be more clear? Why do you just keep repeating this nonsense mantra of "not reliable sources"? We don't need some extra special source of verification when we already have the ACTUAL FOOTAGE IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE. For crying out loud, what could possibly be more reliable, verifiable, and incontrovertible than a direct link to Rick Warren's own interviews?!? Please, please, will you try to make some sense when you argue about this? So far you have only repeated your nonsense tediously, and neither you nor any other editor has offered a single shred of evidence to refute any of these undisputed FACTS which are freely offered to all viewers, unfiltered, unembellished with any kind of "Point Of View" or any other troublesome quality! This has to be the most unnecessarily repetitive argument i've ever had, especially because i have offered citations and links for every single word i contributed to the Article. Can you say the same? Can you show me any citations or links which give any reason to dispute the sources which i have offered?

I didn't think so. Teledildonix314 (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't dispute that Warren said what he said. That what he said was "slander" of anyone or any group is your assessment. That's something that you came up with. While you might be able to find various commenters here and there that might agree that that's what Warren did, that's still insufficient to include that word in the article as if it were fact. I don't seem to be able to explain to you that your assessment of what Warren said, in and of itself, cannot be added to the article in the way that you added it. I will just clearly remind you that if you do accuse Warren of slander, outside of a clear quote attributable to a reliable source, you will violate WP:BLP after you've been final-warned and you'll be blocked. If you think that's nonsense, go put it back in the article and see what happens. Having explained the lay of the land around here to you many times now, I'm done responding to your repetitive babbling. Mike Doughney (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't scare me with your threats. I have violated not a single policy of verifiability, reliability, accuracy, facts in evidence, direct citation, direct quotation, nor any other rule of Wikipedia. It is only YOU who keeps trying to impose some extra special demand of further sufficiency by insisting that a direct quote is somehow an "assessment" or by insisting that my citations somehow don't qualify as satisfying your demands despite their obvious and unambiguous contents. You seem to be mistaken in this notion that a statement of fact or a declaration of evidence is somehow an "assessment" or somehow a subjective thing. The difference between a fact versus an "assessment" or versus "original contribution of research or analysis" is the ability to show immediate, clear, strong, incontrovertible proof. Strong proof comes in forms such as video interviews, tape recordings, and transcriptions in national newspapers, as well as broadcasts on networks such as Pacifica or in the AJC. If you insist on arguing any further about this, it is only you who will continue to appear nonsensical. Go ahead, Ban and Banish and Block and Threaten and Cajole all you wish. The truth is its own defense, it doesn't require your approval. It is freely visible for anybody to see for their own satisfaction, and your hackneyed attempts to obliterate direct links and citations have grown boring.

Eventually people will stop contributing to articles where you are present because your ham-fisted Blockage and Banishing and Suppression Of Facts And Evidence will undermine any decent efforts made by legitimate editors. You will have only yourself to thank/blame when articles devolve into a morass of hearsay as their citations and Reliable Sources are suppressed and deleted. You probably think your voice/ opinion/ administration is somehow more important, more correct, more powerful than the work of other editors.... and as soon as you actually make that situation come true, that will be the precise moment when your encyclopedia ceases to be a collaboration. Teledildonix314 (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)