Jump to content

Talk:Rick Warren/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

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)
Additionally, Dennett is a well known atheist and would criticize any person who held the view of creationism or intelligent design. I don't see how this adds to the article. CarverM (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Un-conservative views

It is widely reported that Warren also holds many views that are not typical for American Christian conservatives. Global warming, AIDS, and poverty for example. A section outlining those should be included. Don't Be Evil (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The sixth paragraph of the Biography section covers this. Perhaps this should be moved to a retitled section covering his views regardless of label. Mike Doughney (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I've changed the section to read Political and social views, I think "conservative views" as a section header is inherently POV just as "liberal views" would be. -- Banjeboi 03:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

How do we request Page Protection again?

Resolved
 – Page protection unneeded at the moments. -- Banjeboi 04:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

How do we request Page Protection again? As of the last round of edits, the contents of this article are disputed, there is contention about their bias and level of puffery, and it would be better if the readers were clearly alerted that this version of the article has not been accepted by consensus. May i simply put the "{ { p p } }" at the top of the page, or is that not the acceptable way to place this article on 'hold' until the issues are resolved? Teledildonix314 talk 02:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no need, since there's no edit war. I'll put NPOV tag tho. Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
That's much better, thanks. It would be nice to see editors make improvements, while still displaying the ongoing point that the version is in contention, and then maybe eventually after enough improvements we'll find everybody here at the Discussion might be able to agree at some point that it's no longer contentious. But that's idealistic for the immediate future, so it would make sense to keep the notice at the top of the page until we really all do see a better article, along the lines of something comparable to the other good wikipedia articles which happen to cover Biography Of Living Persons. Teledildonix314 talk 03:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Balanced?

Resolved
 – A POV tag section has been started to address this, if you have specific actionable items please comment there so others can discuss them. -- Banjeboi 04:34, 27 January 2009 (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)

Contradictory data

Resolved
 – Ref is in place citing a reliable source, if this is still disputed then show RS with other info. -- Banjeboi 20:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

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)
Has this been resolved? -- Banjeboi 05:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

beliefnet video (the now-infamous polygamy and pedophilia references)

First -- videos do not meet WP:RS Secondly, and more importantly, the video does not support the claims made about its content. In an interview where Warren sates he sould support "civil unions" but was opposed to changing the definition of "marriage" he does not compare "civil unions" to pedophilia or the like at all. He states that a brother-sister union should not be called a "marriage" and a union between a man and a child should not be called a "marriage" but this is not how the claim was worded in the article. Per WP:BLP then, the claim and the cite both are removed. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I take issue with your blanket statement that videos do not meet WP:RS. I've not yet seen a discussion or policy statement that makes that blanket assertion (if there is, please direct me to it). There are also citation templates at WP:CIT that enable citation of video and television productions without qualification as to their use (qualifiers should be added to that page if there are such on their use). In the particular case of the Beliefnet video, the cited article includes a transcript, and there is now some clear relationship between Beliefnet and the Wall Street Journal. Clearly this is not some random blog posting that has been cited here.
As the article stands now, the last paragraph of the "Biography" section, contains this phrase, "This decision angered pro-choice and gay-marriage advocates," referring to Warren being named to give the invocation at the inauguration. There is no explanation, drawing a connection for the reader as to why this is so when such connections are discussed in reliable sources. The Boston Globe article cited names several reasons [1], though that article doesn't name the pedophila-polygamy-and-incest-comments controversy that seems to be fueling the immediate anger about Obama's selection.
As for that, there are a number of possible approaches. Frank Rich in the New York Times went into quite a bit of detail about this matter [2] linking to the Beliefnet piece that was used as a citation here. (I find this particularly important since evidently Rich's editors have allowed him to cite the Beliefnet piece in the pages and on the website of the Times; thus they must have evaluated the Beliefnet piece as reliable.) The Los Angeles Times was more direct, flat-out publishing in a straight news article (not an opinion piece) that Warren "has compared same-sex nuptials to approving polygamy and pedophilia" in the second paragraph of a published article way back on December 20. Other prominent commentators weighing in on this matter included Rachael Maddow (transcript directly from MSNBC, video of the same by way of Daily Kos) and Max Blumenthal on Democracy Now! (transcript, video).
Without some mention of this controversy, given the caliber of newspapers in which reporting and discussion of this matter has occurred (New York Times, Los Angeles Times), it appears to me that the article now shows evidence of having been deliberately sanitized of derogatory and controversial material about its subject. WP:BLP concerns about the alleged lack of a direct, non-opinion WP:RS? The Los Angeles Times (which could be, in a sense, one of Warren's hometown papers) has published that Warren "has compared same-sex nuptials to approving polygamy and pedophilia" and I know of no move by the Times to retract or correct this reporting. The Rich, Maddow and Blumenthal commentaries? Rather than deleting all mention of this matter, the article should instead be changed to make it clearer that these prominent commentators are talking about it. More context explaining who said what should be added in lieu of removal. Mike Doughney (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
"Videos" are "primary sources" per WP:RS Thus one can not make any claims as to what a person was inferring in such a video. Warren did not make the statement in the claim. Thus it fails ab initio. Secondly, transcripts of videos can be used for quotes (again, due to the "primary slurce" rules. The claim that Warren compared "gay marriage" to pedophilia fails. Frank Rish is not a reporter - he is an "opinion columnist" whose work is his own, and not even "fact checked" by the NYT. Per WP:RS anything cited from an opinion column must be identified as the opinion of the writer, not stated as "fact." "Primary sources are sources very close to an event. For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs. The key point about a primary source is that it offers an insider's guide to an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on.[7]" And per the issue of "contentious material" in a BLP, I would consider the use of "commentaries" to invite the insertion of other commentaries which disagree with Rich et al. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I think your interpretation of how a primary source is to be used is rather odd. You first say that primary sources cannot be use to directly make claims about what a person inferred, or meant, or for that matter, what they did not mean. You then say that, based on the primary source that we're not supposed to be using directly to formulate claims, that "Warren did not make the statement in the claim." This, frankly, makes no sense to me.
From WP:PRIMARY, here is the Wikipedia official policy on the use of primary sources, with my emphasis:
Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source.
By this policy, it is incorrect to flatly state, as you did at the top of this section, that primary sources are at all times not reliable sources. It would also be incorrect for you or I to say that Warren did not mean something by what he said in the primary source, since the policy is quite clear: "any interpretation of primary source material" means that we cannot directly make interpretive claims about what appears (or for that matter doesn't appear) in a primary source, such as the referenced video. Instead, other secondary, reliable sources must be used as a source for that interpretation. I believe that there are at least two reliable secondary sources to support the interpretation that Warren "has compared same-sex nuptials to approving polygamy and pedophilia," but I'll get to that in a moment.
I'll first quote Warren directly, the primary source video and transcript, published by way of a reliable secondary source, MSNBC, to make it clear what we're talking about, in light of this policy:

WARREN: I‘m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and calling that marriage. I‘m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I‘m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You think those are equivalent to gays getting married?

WARREN: I do.

He didn't use the words "incest," "pedophilia" or "polygamy." Clearly to a reasonable person, that was what he was describing. Preachers often speak in parallel sentences to indirectly make associations, but his answer to the question makes it clear that saying those things are "equivalent to gays getting married" was exactly what he intended.
Now many other observers and I would come away with that understanding after viewing or reading from the primary source, but you don't need to take my word for it. We have at least two hard-news secondary sources to which to refer to support this interpretation. First, there's the Los Angeles Times, a relatively local paper to Warren: "In fact, he has compared same-sex nuptials to approving polygamy and pedophilia." There's now also the Memphis Commercial Appeal: "In a well circulated video interview posted on YouTube, Warren, Pastor of Saddleback Church in Southern California, compared same-sex marriage to pedophilia, incest and polygamy." As I already explained, there are also the commentary pieces by Frank Rich at The New York Times and Rachael Maddow's use of the video in her own commentary, both of which help support the validity of this interpretation of the primary source.
I propose that this material be included in the article, since to leave it out is a glaring omission. It should not be paraphrased or watered-down, neither should it be interpreted in a way that might be considered inaccurate. The fact that two major newspapers printed this interpretation, and perhaps the entire piece of the transcript above which resulted in that interpretation, should probably be included with clear attribution as to who said what. Mike Doughney (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I dispute the claim that Frank Rich or other columnists can be RS for anything other than their own opinions per WP:RS. The Tina Daunt article does not meet normal journalism standards -- if one wishes to ascribe positions to Warren, one ought reasonably use his own words. Your statement that one should infer words which were not said is not common sense. Put the wording as Warren said it, and cite an actual transcript of the entire interview. Fine. Using words he did not say? Not fine. Collect (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
As long as everyone seems to be interpreting what Warren meant let me offer another suggestion. The context of the question was the "definition of marriage." So, when asked the equivalence question might he have simply meant that these other definitions were just as unacceptable a definition as gay marriage? (The slippery slope argument.) I do not think he was comparing gay behavior to incest or pedophilia, rather he was using all of these examples as unacceptable definitions of marriage. My opinion is, therefore, that if this section is left in, that the "interpretation" be less sensational as the liberal press and blogs have tried to make it out to be. I think that the press is trying to stretch the point and a Wikipedia article should support not that effort. CarverM (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Proposition 8 -- On a related issue, I suggest that the wording for the paragraph on Proposition 8 be changed from "Warren publicly supported California Proposition 8 (2008), which amended the state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry." to "which amended the state consitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The way it is currently written has an obvious agenda from a negative standpoint. To be NPOV it would be best to simply use the wording from the proposition itself. CarverM (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)



Warren's tax dispute with the IRS

According to this article by Jon Wiener in The Nation, Warren had a major tax dispute with the IRS. It resulted in litigation and, most notably, a change in the tax law. Whenever the page is unprotected, this information should be added. As Erwin Chemerinsky notes in the Nation article, it's unusual for an individual case to prompt legislation while the case is pending. JamesMLane t c 12:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


Um -- he fought the IRS and WON in court. So therefore this belongs in this article? Aha -- the claim is that because the 9th Circuit was going to make a decision (Ouija Board time) that would affect ALL clergy, that the Congress in a totally bi-oartisan manner voted to say "no" to such a possibility, and Warren HAD to be the one who did it? Even Barney Frank voted for the law -- seems that means it had pretty near unanimous support, no? Oops -- it WAS passed "unanimously." sorry -- linking this to Warren from an editorial columnist is not only iffy, it becomes absurd. In short, the editorial does not belong here in any way, shape, manner or form. Collect (talk) 13:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


Interestingly this was a separation of church and state issue. Warren used his own money to take up this case on behalf of all pastors and faith-based workers. His defense of this was actually a noble act. So, while JamesMLane seems to be raising the issue here to be pejorrative, I believe the facts would prove otherwise. However, I think a whole article on this court case and the broader issues involved would make a good article all on its own. CarverM (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that, with a controversial figure like Warren, every proposed edit is immediately seen as an attempt to support or criticize him. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
For Warren to have a dispute with the IRS wouldn't be particularly important by itself (and certainly not pejorative), regardless of whether he won or lost. It would be important only if it involved, for example, some finding of misconduct by Warren, but it's not misconduct for a taxpayer to disclose the facts accurately and treat them one way, even if the IRS treats them a different way. This is tax avoidance, which is OK, as opposed to tax evasion, which is not. Absent a finding of misconduct, the outcome of a tax dispute might also be worth mentioning if it had a significant effect on the article subject. (For example, Sierra Club#History includes the organization's loss of its 501(c)(3) status.) Those factors don't arise here. At this point, we have no information suggesting that the IRS accused Warren of bad-faith litigation or that the case had a big impact on the financial status of this multimillionaire author.
Contrary to Collect's statement, however, Warren did not win in court. What's significant is that he also did not lose in court and did not resolve the case through a settlement. Those are the normal outcomes of a tax dispute. What's significant, therefore, is that the litigation was aborted by enactment of a statute that was prompted specifically by Warren's case. As Chemerinsky said, that's very unusual, which is why it's worth including.
No, Collect, I'm not trying to say "Warren is evil! He's a thief!" so saying that Barney Frank voted for the bill is completely irrelevant. The incident is notable not because it shows Warren to be immoral but because it shows him to be politically important. Secondarily, it's also an aspect of his participation in the broader community of religious leaders, because the statute enacted because of his case affected many other people in similar situations. JamesMLane t c 20:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
It would be nice if there was a tax law journal article out there that explains in detail what this was about. If the claim is to be included in the article that it was specifically Warren's situation plus his political clout that resulted in the legislation (and not simply the usual legislative deference given to religious exemptions with respect to taxes), then that also needs to be cited in a reliable source - preferably a hard-news item in a major newspaper. In the meantime, there is this Baptist Press article that only says that "Congress reacted with unusual speed and unanimity:" [3] -- Mike Doughney (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Correcting a claim above that Warren "did not win in court", the source given says "Warren spent four years defending his housing deduction in tax court; in May 2000 he won." Which, to me, implies that he won in court. Your mileage may vary on interpreting the cite as given. Collect (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: there are two parts here. It was the appeal by the IRS to the Ninth Circuit that was dismissed in August 2002. [4] From the BP article: "In May 2000, a U.S. Tax Court in California decided in Warren's favor by a 14-3 vote." Mike Doughney (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The cite given here was the Weiner article. I am glad you accept that he won in court, and that the appeal to the 9th circuit was short-circuited <g> by Congress. Warren won in the only court decision on the case. Collect (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Collect, I don't understand why you keep emphasizing this "he won in court" meme. First, my point is that the case is unusual because its final resolution depended on statute, not a court win by Warren. The outcome in the Tax Court turned out to be immaterial. If the IRS had won, Warren would've appealed. Either way, the distinctive feature of the case was that a pending appeal was short-circuited by a statutory change.
Second, even if the facts were different so that the case involved nothing but a Warren victory in court, so what? You seem stuck in the pro-and-con mindset -- that if a court ruled against Warren, that shows he's evil, and people who dislike him can get the information into the article, but in fact Warren won, so he's virtuous, nah nah nah nah nah. That's the wrong analysis. For the reasons I stated above, I think that most tax cases wouldn't be worth mentioning in an article, regardless of who won. This one is interesting because of the link to the legislation. (It might also be unusual if the Ninth Circuit asked for briefing on the constitutional issue because Warren's prominence triggered closer scrutiny of the case, but that's pure speculation.) JamesMLane t c 03:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


IIRC, you were the one who insisted Warren had not won in court. Why belabor the fact that such a claim on your part was wrong? As for the "link" -- when one gets Congress to be unanimous on anything, it is not because Warren had such control over Barney Frank -- it was likely because Congress saw the merits of his position, and the positions of EVERY other group involved in protecting that tax deduction. As for rank speculation on the Ninth Circuit asking for something which it never asked for -- that is Ouija Board time. Collect (talk) 11:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
If you interpreted my statement as meaning that Warren never won in court at any stage of the process, then it was inaccurate, and I apologize for confusing you. On the other hand, if you noticed that I said he also didn't lose in court, and if you noticed my explanation in the same paragraph about "the normal outcomes of a tax dispute", then it might have occurred to you that I meant something different: that Warren did not resolve the dispute by winning in court. I hope we can both now stop belaboring this nonpoint.
No one has said anything about "control" of Barney Frank -- where did that come from? Also irrelevant is your speculation that "it was likely because Congress saw the merits of his position". That Congress even took up the matter is notable. Most taxpayers aren't prominent enough for Congress to consider the merits of their positions in the first place. Our article certainly shouldn't assert as a fact that the bill passed only because of Warren's political clout, or that it passed because Congress saw the merits of his position, or that the Ninth Circuit went gunning for him (which I of course labeled speculation so thank you for agreeing with me). We can, however, report the undisputed fact that Congress addressed Warren's tax dispute by passing a statute while the litigation was pending. I agree with CarverM that a separate article would also be a good idea. JamesMLane t c 17:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I did infer from "Contrary to Collect's statement, however, Warren did not win in court. " that you were saying he did not win in court. He, in fact, won in the last court decision. Congress acted as it felt the law should be made clear, and it did so unanimously. Warren had actually little to do with that. If your question is why Congress established the tax laws about this, you have to go back to the mid 1950s. Warren was not around then <g>. Collect (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Tweet tweet - Out of the pool. OK, as lovely as strenuous debate can be ... please either propose language and reference for this article or close the discussion. -- Banjeboi 03:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Proposed language about the IRS dispute and congressional law? " " (succinct enough?) Collect (talk) 13:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
WhiteWashing isn't the same as succinctness. Lather, Rinse, Repeat: WhiteWash it all away. Teledildonix314 talk 18:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Either add to the discussion or don't say anything at all - stop the silliness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.65.186.65 (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Ahem. To be more clear, please suggest proposed content wording with reliable sourcing to be added to the article or we should let this go. Hypothetical issues aren't terribly helpful. If reliable sources state something we can look into it, if they don't - we really can't. -- Banjeboi 20:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Africa?

I find the omission of Warren's work in Africa odd, especially considering Warren's focus on the continent. A section on Warren's activities in Africa seems appropriate. Is there something I'm missing? Some reason I'm unaware of that his African work is missing? soto (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

His speech to the African Union is noted. Is there something specific about Warren that you want included? He does not appear to have spent a great deal of time there. Collect (talk) 11:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
If you want to go down this path you've have to add Europe, Latin America, SE Asia, East Asia, South Asia and Oceania. CarverM (talk) 06:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
And Antarctica -- the invocation was heard by scientists down there. Collect (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I really have limited knowledge on this guy but it does seem like he has some global reach and significance. Perhaps his global tours and impact could be discussed and woven in? -- Banjeboi 05:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Not really. Most people do not have every place they have visited listed in their biography. Collect (talk) 09:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
With all respect that seems shortsighted at best. It's clear he has baby churches, or something similar, around the world and has done at least one tour. If there are many tours or his global impact has been more significant than "a visit", his biography should express that. -- Banjeboi 20:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF

I have seen several comments made on this talk page (in this RfC) that are in violation of civility and the assumption of good faith. Some examples from different sources are:

  • "biased, gay-rights activists like yourself"
  • "and another who isn't even American"
  • "your obvious and blatant bias (and in some cases, hatred) against Warren."
  • "Why would a banned user have any say on the objectivity of an article?"
  • "how long have you been an employee of Saddleback Church?"
  • "How much money have you donated to Rick Warren?"
  • "How much have you donated to other Apologists who support Warren?"

Benjiboi is topic banned from a specific article, not this one. He is not community banned and has every right to edit and discuss here. This is an English language Wikipedia, not an American one, and the comment about not being an American is inappropriate. Referring to biased gay-rights activists is inflammatory. Comments relating to private life affiliations are inappropriate and normally none of anyone's business. Also, every editor is new to a discussion at some point, although they have a responsibility to look at the history of the discussion. None of these comments above belong in a civil consensus based discussion on how to improve an article. Especially a subject that has become contentious as this one has, and therefore require more care to remain cool and civil. Knock it off. — Becksguy (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)



Image

Resolved
 – Done. -- Banjeboi 21:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sending the lede image to the Image lab to get a headshot. -- Banjeboi 04:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the above links as they won't hold up to our EL policies but may be useful sources. -- Banjeboi 05:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Prop 8 Reference

The current version reads:

Rick Warren said divorce is a greater threat to the American family than gay marriage.[22] He also publicly supported California Proposition 8, which amended the state consitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

It has been suggested that the following be added:

According to American Civil Liberties Union, Proposition 8 eliminated this fundamental right to marry only for same-sex couples.

This is a) redundant, and b) displays the tendentious editing of Phoenix of9, who is now being reported for a 3RR violation in this matter, due to his three edits of this information (edits 266799115, 266800077, and 266797485).--Lyonscc (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I am not editing tendentiously. However, you seem to think you own the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix of9 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Failure to include the extra sentence obfuscates the meat of the issue and the reasons for Notability. This is what we call "whitewashing". It is not Objective nor Neutral, and it is a sign of your trying to force article to be only to your own liking. It is necessary for PhoenixOf9 to revert the page because the christianist whitewashing is deleting the objective contents of the BLP. It really seems like Lyonscc needs to step back from editing just as surely as anybody else who has been scolded around here, because the last few edits made by Lyonscc have been particularly *against* consensus. Teledildonix314 talk 22:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Against consensus? Not in terms of folks who have been editing this article for a number of years now (noting that both positive and negative items have been added and agreed to during this time period). This is not an example of "whitewashing", as it sticks to exactly what occurred - Warren was asked about his position on Prop 8. He answered that he supported it. The language of Prop 8 was included in the reference, along with a wiki-link. You can't get more WP:NPOV than that. What you're asking for is actually an example of WP:SOAP, as it seeks to "spin" the story by adding additional definition and labels to Prop 8 (which, incidently, is not the topic of this article). I would also note that in the "scolding" above, no quotes of mine were included, so I'm not sure how your logic is squaring on this one.--Lyonscc (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Past consensus is not present consensus. Present consensus says it stays, so stop edit-warring against it. Spotfixer (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
To claim consensus based upon discussion of less than 24 hours, but that "past consensus" - less than a couple weeks old - doesn't seem up to Hoyle.--Lyonscc (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and consensus all support the version you have edit-warred against. Your opinion is noted and duly rejected. Spotfixer (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
No they don't - you're not even part of the conversation. The only "consensus" being claimed is less than 24-hours, and much of the consensus I'm noting was archived today, but is less than a month old.--Lyonscc (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)

Attempting to exclude me from this decision is unacceptable. You do not WP:OWN this article, or any other, and you cannot stand against consensus when it's backed by the rules. Spotfixer (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No intention to exclude you, but you arrived and out of the gate started asserting authority in a conversation you weren't yet a part of. If you review the history of the article, I don't have all that many edits (though it is on my watch-list), and I've not been involved with the previous 'edit-wars' on the article.--Lyonscc (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The current version is from POV because there is explanatory info about Prop 8 and the explanation is skewed towards one side of the issue. I understand that the pro Prop 8 people also imagined that this was only about definition of marriage. Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose This change is inappropriate. The ACLU's analysis of the proposition is irrelevant in this biographical article about Warren. This article should simply note his position (with proper citation), and provide the necessary wikilink to Proposition 8. Any other analysis of what the proposition did or did not do can be discovered there. --ZimZalaBim talk 02:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Intrinsically POV, using an organization to render judgement when it is not the court which will actually interpret and define the law. Not direcly related to a biography. Injects non-biographical issues into a biography. Collect (talk) 09:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Counter-proposal

I'll counter-propose the following sentence instead:

The ballot title of this measure noted that it changed "the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California."

See citations 11 and 12 at California Proposition 8 (2008) for the references for this. No doubt certain editors would consider breathing the four letters A C L U anywhere near this article to be completely unacceptable. Mike Doughney (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good choice of words, as it refers directly to the measure itself.IceCreamEmpress (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I have no strong objection to it, but I do object to the notion that this article can be declared an ACLU-free zone. Spotfixer (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
After two months of repeatedly restoring this language to the lede of the California Proposition 8 (2008) article when at the time it was the title of the ballot measure, let's just say I'm way too familiar with this dynamic, and with what kinds of references seem to trigger certain editors into frenzies of deletion. (The above was meant to be sarcasm, of course.) Mike Doughney (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The ACLU's opinion is just that - an opinion. The public's opinion was different. And the ACLU makes the baseless assumption that there is a "fundamental right to marry". Besides which, a liberal minister can marry anyone who wants to be married in the spiritual sense. The people have the right to decide what marriage is from the legal standpoint, i.e. who gets the legal privileges of marriage (tax deductions, etc.) and that's what this whole issue is really about. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
This should stop here, since it's way off topic, but the "fundamental right to marry" is not the ACLU's basic assumption, since in California it is law: "...past California cases establish beyond question that the right to marry is a fundamental right whose protection is guaranteed to all persons by the California Constitution" (at page 49). Mike Doughney (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
We do have a fundamental right to marry. That's why, for example, a contract in which you agree not to marry in return for compensation is illegal. This is precisely why Prop 8 has a good chance of being overturned; it turns out that no proposition can undermine a fundamental right, so the people don't get to decide.
I will add that the ACLU's opinion is notable and relevant, which was my original point. Spotfixer (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
While the ACLU's opinion on Prop 8 might be notable, as it pertains to Prop 8, it is tangential to Rick Warren. Expounding on Prop 8 in this article is little more than a coatrack. I would accept the counter-proposal, though, since it contains the actual ballot language, rather than an editorial linkage.--Lyonscc (talk) 02:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
It isnt tangential because Warren gave the inaugural speech and were critcised because of his position and there was a lot of media coverage on this. Hence it is notable. It isnt up to you determine what is tangential or not. Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
That ACLU's position on Prop 8 IS tangential to an article on Rick Warren, though it may be fully relevant to an article on Prop 8. Bringing in third-party views of a position held by the subject of a biography is no longer dealing with the nominal subject, but rather a coatrack issue. Mike Doughney updated the agree-upon counter-proposal. Let's leave it at that.--Lyonscc (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Rick warren supported Prop 8 and if u are going to explain Prop 8 briefly in this article, you have to make that explanation NPOV. When you only include "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.", you are giving a biased explanation. Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
This is precisely what i meant about having to fight an uphill-battle against whitewashing. The whole morass of issues surrounding Rick Warren's involvement with the Prop8 situation, as well as Warren's involvement with other contentious topics, is exactly why he is so prominently in the public eye during recent months. It's not reasonable to mention his fame/infamy without mentioning *why* he is currently so famous. His notability stems mostly from his embroilment in controversial issues, so it hardly seems appropriate to delete the citations and quotations which illuminate his positions and oft-repeated stances on the topics which lead to any of his biography even being worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. Teledildonix314 talk 02:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
It is possible you missed it, but Mike Doughney updated the language per this counterproposal, which I said was fine with me, because it quoted part of the proposition, itself, and not a third-party's commentary on the issue. I would think you would be OK with the new language, as it expounds on the language you wanted to add (just w/o bringing in a third-party commentary from the ACLU). However, I still think the best solution is to have no commentary on Prop 8 and let the wiki-linked article speak for itself (in line with User:ZimZalaBim's opposition, below)--Lyonscc (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose This change is also inappropriate. Any attempt to analyze what Prop 8 says or doesn't say is inappropriate in this biographical article about Warren. This article should simply note his position (with proper citation), and provide the necessary wikilink to Proposition 8. Any other analysis of what the proposition did or did not do can be discovered there. --ZimZalaBim talk 02:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support This change is necessary for basic illumination of the fundamental facts of the whole issue in contention. If you don't allow editors to describe the reasons for Warren's positions being considered controversial/notable, then you are blocking the basic objective data upon which a biography can be written. Once again, that's called Whitewashing. Teledildonix314 talk 02:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Clarification of the actual effect of the measure in the light of California law, as was provided in the official title of the ballot measure, is appropriate when discussing Prop 8 in the context of related controversies such as this one (Warren's support of it). Please note that we are not writing solely to Californians and others familiar with the controversy, but to an international audience to whom many would find the proposition unclear. Mike Doughney (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, then it's ok if I remove everything that's vaguely positive about Warren and hide it behind a link, right? Thought so. Spotfixer (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Inclusion of any language describing Prop 8. The article is about Rick Warren, not Prop 8. Let the wiki-linked article speak for itself. There's no need for analysis of Prop 8 beyond the wiki-linked article. User:ZimZalaBim, an experienced administrator is correct in the matter.--Lyonscc (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest that there's room for a short sentence summarizing what Prop 8 is, so that the rest of the section makes sense. Without context, 8 is just a number. Spotfixer (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Support: That makes sense as long as the summary is from NPOV and current summary looks NPOV. Phoenix of9 (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Support: Using text directly from the lede of the wikilinked material would be the best approach to NPOV presentation of premise. Teledildonix314 talk 04:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Edits against consensus?

There is also text in the article which Manutdglory has reverted today without asking for consensus. There is no reason to remove the double-square-brackets from the word "abortion", and there is no reason to change the words "marriage equality" to say "gay marriage" instead. I would like to request that the wording of the sentence be restored, or amended to a more neutral and inclusive type of language, and i would like that Revert to be undone. Is there some consensus on the appropriate way to form that sentence? Thanks. Teledildonix314 talk 06:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahh...why do you keep doing this? Abortion is already linked in the opening paragraph, and per Wiki procedure, shouldn't be linked again. "Marriage equality" is clearly a highly non-NPOV term and a quick look at its article reveals that it is a private organization - not a general movement, so it shouldn't be used here. "Gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage" are common, NPOV terms. Manutdglory (talk) 06:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I've noted the removal of the paragraph in the section where it is being discussed. "Marriage equality" does not link to an article about "marriage equality" but to an article about an organization. I tend to use the titles of articles as preferred terminology absent any other argument to do otherwise, thus I've used "same-sex marriage" which links to a valid article instead. Since the terms were earlier wikilinked, there is no need for all later uses of the term to be linked to articles; see WP:OVERLINK. I'm more concerned about the reference to "traditional approaches" which I think is rather vague (tagged appropriately). Mike Doughney (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks kindly. It's hard to see the chicken-or-the-egg sometimes during "use the titles of articles as preferred terminology", but i won't split hairs on that point because you've correctly highlighted bigger flaws and it's getting tiresome having to "pick one's battles" over what should be a basic biography. Much appreciated. Teledildonix314 talk 13:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Saddleback's Associate Pastor's view of Physical abuse and divorce

The current article reads:

A pastor at Warren's Saddleback Church said that physical abuse by a spouse should result in a separation, for safety's sake, but is not a biblical reason for divorce. [5]

I suggest that this be removed (or possibly moved to the Saddleback page, if it is relevant to the church, as a whole), since it was not Warren's comment, and since the associate pastor does not speak for Warren, nor is he Warren's employee.--Lyonscc (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If the quote is not attributable to Warren, and if he didn't provide any reaction to that particular quote, it doesn't belong in his biography. --ZimZalaBim talk 02:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
No, it's Warren's church, and one of his employees made this statement, so he is accountable for it, if only to disavow agreement. Without this statement, it is unclear what Warren means when he says he considers divorce a threat to marriage. Any attempt to remove this is obvious whitewashing. Spotfixer (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec) By your logic, every statement by a Microsoft employee should be listed in Bill Gates article, and every statement by a federal employee should be listed in Barack Obama. That's just not logical, let alone possible. Go put it in the church's article, if the statement is notable. --ZimZalaBim talk 03:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
A better analogy would be if Bill Gates is quoted as endorsing open source, but we also have a quote from one of his VP's admitting that the idea is to support open source as a way to undermine it. Spotfixer (talk) 03:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Spotfixer. He's the founder of that church and head of it. He didnt correct the man. He didnt fire the man. His employee's views are relevant because Warren goes on and on about marriage and divorce. Phoenix of9 (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
It is your opinion that he should have corrected or fired the man. Is there evidence of any controversy over Warren's non-reaction to this comment? Short of that, it simply doesn't belong here. I think everyone needs to go and review WP:BLP.... --ZimZalaBim talk 03:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure about this. Here, the source clearly thought pastors comments was relevant to Warren, from title: "UPDATE: Warren's church says violence no excuse for divorce" [6] Phoenix of9 (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
It is a fact that he did not fire or correct the man, so what the man said is relevant to Warren's views. The issue isn't controversy but explanation: it illuminates Warren's otherwise ambiguous anti-divorce stance. Spotfixer (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
An associate pastor at a church like Saddleback is not an employee of the senior pastor - both answer the the church's board of elders and the entire membership of the church, itself. It should also be noted that in churches like Saddleback, it is not uncommon that pastors do not speak for the church as a whole (unlike the Pope and the Catholic Church), so an associate's comments cannot be inferred to be approved by the senior pastor.--Lyonscc (talk) 03:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
That's fascinating original research. Got a reliable source for it? Spotfixer (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Why so combative? Do you have a reliable source for your contention that an Associate Pastor is the employee of the senior pastor - or that he speaks on behalf of the church - or that the Senior Pastor must approve what he says? Since I belong to an independent Christian church similar to Saddleback (though 2000+ miles away from there), I understand how it works, but your inference that Warren must believe everything his associate says has not reliable source, either.--Lyonscc (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
AGF does not mean accepting unsupported claims. If that's "combative" then so be it. Spotfixer (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
My point is - your contention that the associate pastor speaks for Warren (or is his employee) is an unsupported claim, so my explaining to you how such a church works was not for the purpose of the article, but simply to explain why your unsupported supposition was incorrect.--Lyonscc (talk) 03:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you don't get to shift the burden onto me. If one of his ministers makes a public statement, it is prima facie relevant to Warren's views. Spotfixer (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The burden IS on you - the guy isn't Warren's minister - he's an associate pastor of the church (i.e. the entire community known as 'Saddleback'), not Warren. He doesn't speak for Warren. As it is, you are inferring that he speaks for Warren, without any supporting evidence.--Lyonscc (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

Funny, I was just reading an article that said, and I quote: "He is the founder and senior pastor of the Saddleback Church" Spotfixer (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

So? That just says that he helped start the church. That doesn't imply that staff members are his employees, or that they speak for him. What is your source which says that associate pastors are employees of senior pastors, and that they speak on their behalf?--Lyonscc (talk) 03:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I think it's pretty clear that this junior minister isn't saying anything that Warren disagrees with. Spotfixer (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph under discussion here was just removed. [7] My impression is that there is no consensus supporting this removal. The opinion of a single administrator is not sufficient to override consensus here absent any obvious policy violation. Mike Doughney (talk) 06:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, ZimZalaBim - who do you think you are?! (; Manutdglory (talk) 06:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ascribing positions stated by others to a person in his biography is fraught with peril. Better by far to stick with what he says about his own opinions lest we end up with "Some say he thinks he is God and Lord of the Universe, while most do not." Or the like. If the position can not be ascribed directly, let us not ascribe it at all. Collect (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Reasons for divorce

My edit comment got mangled, so let me repeat it here. The cited article is already a puff piece that bends over backwards to put the Saddleback view in the best possible light, but even it doesn't support the original research involved in explaining away the statement that women who are getting routinely beaten should not seek divorce. Instead, it looks like what it is: an obvious attempt to add bias. Spotfixer (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Schrandit, an editor who has a pattern of edit-warring and pro-religion partisanship, has decided to ignore this discussion and instead edit-war over the article. Unless he can justify his changes here, they will wind up reverted in the near future. Spotfixer (talk) 04:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I've adjusted the sentence to read as follows, which corresponds to the cited reference: "A pastor at Warren's Saddleback Church recommends that physical abuse by a spouse should result in a separation, while maintaining that divorce is not an option in cases of domestic violence." I don't see how that sentence in any way flatters Saddleback or Warren; there was nothing in the reference about "for safety's sake" which was evidently somebody's WP:SYNTH. Mike Doughney (talk) 04:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
If I'm pro-religion does that make you anti-Religion? Anywho, the source says; "he strongly recommends the couple to separate. During the separation, the couple should undergo counselling and try to mend the marriage, he said." and "“There is nowhere in the Bible that says you should put up with abuse,” he emphasised. There is no where that says it is an “attitude of submission to let someone abuse you”, he said.". The way it was written previously was clearly a POV attempt to make it sound like this guy fine with husbands hitting their wives. - Schrandit (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I originally removed it as WP:OR, but WP:SYNTH is more precise. I think your version sticks to the cite and maintains neutrality, but I did add one word of clarification, regarding the duration of the separation. Spotfixer (talk) 04:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Keeping in mind in reading such articles that the subjects sometimes don't seem to be talking about real people... I didn't clearly see the word "temporary" in any part of the article. The implication left open there is that permanent separation without remarriage may be perfectly acceptable to them and preferable instead of divorce. Of course, real people will get divorced no matter what they say. Mike Doughney (talk) 04:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, he's talking about the Christian ideal that he expects people to follow. It's hard to imagine someone remaining permanently separated but married. It would be the worst of both words.
But, putting reality aside, this minister said, in just about as many words, that women have to stay in miserable marriages. And, as I mentioned below, the way I read it is that separation cannot be permanent. Spotfixer (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Here's a source that clearly thought pastors comments were relevant to Warren, from title: "UPDATE: Warren's church says violence no excuse for divorce" [8]. But I'm not sure about the addition of this (eventhough I was the first one who added it). I'll go with the consensus, if theres gonna be one. Phoenix of9 (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)

Thanks for the additional link. Let me quote the end of that article here:

"Does God expect me just to live with this pain?" he asked. "No, I think he expects us to ask him for wisdom to do the things that would cause the pain to begin to be solved. He says we're one and as Christians, as believers, the Bible says a husband is to sacrifice for his wife and the wife is to respect her husband."

"So if that's not happening," he said, "I think you have not only the right but also the responsibility to keep pushing for that, to not just settle for the pain."

Am I wrong to read this as saying that she can never divorce an abusive husband or even write him off by refusing to end the separation? Spotfixer (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to be a jerk, but no, I really think you are reading that to see what you want to see. He is saying God is calling for both partners to do what is right and then to unite the couple. That statement, if anything, endorses pro-longed separation until the husband is ready to conduct himself in accordance with God's will. - Schrandit (talk) 07:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP

I suggest everyone working on this article pause for a few moments and re-familiarize themselves with our policy on biographies of living persons. In a nutshell: Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research. Editing with this vital policy in mind will help improve the article. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim talk 03:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

And I'd like to point out that it's Biography of Living Persons, not Hagiography. Neutrality does not mean whitewashing, weaseling or original research. Spotfixer (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
And Warren's biography is just that - it includes good and bad - relevant positives and criticisms. There's no "whitewashing" going on, but there does seem to be a hatchet-job afoot, by folks who haven't been interested in this article until quite recently (and who don't even have basic comprehension how Warren's job or church function).--Lyonscc (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
It doesnt include this: "It was claimed that Warren compared compared same-sex marriage to pedophilia, incest and polygamy, [9][10][11] based on his beliefnet.com interview [12]. Warren rejected this claim [13]." I strongly think it should be included.Phoenix of9 (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
And you're not wrong. It's precisely this sort of thing that a 'balanced' article requires. Spotfixer (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
And I frequently deal with a guy who claims that Warren is the False Prophet of the Anti-Christ, and who writes - from time-to-tim - for verifiable sources. Just because someone claims something about a living person (particularly his/her opinion) doesn't make it true - particularly when refuted by the individual in question. Going back to ZimZalaBim's OP above, if you check out WP:BLP and its overall intent, these sudden "additions" to this article are not being offered in the spirit of how Wikipedia treats biographies of living persons. The burden of proof for contentious material about a living person is much higher than in a normal wiki article. This is continually being missed in this discussion.--Lyonscc (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Need I remind you that Wikipedia requires verifiability, not truth? In this case, it is both verifiable and true, so there is nothing more for you to say on this matter. Spotfixer (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be an odd statement, "Wikipedia requires verifiability, not truth?" I'm not sure I understand. Even if it is a lie, as long as something is verified it's okay? Maybe this is what is wrong with the world. Truth should be the only thing we seek. CarverM (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
It's because people will disagree on what truth is. I actually suggest you to read core policies of wikipedia, which ZimZalaBim linked to. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Again, that is your opinion it isnt in the spirit of Wikipedia. I'll copy paste again:
I got your point. You believe that Warren's views were taken out of context. I read the whole interview too, and your explanation, and CarverM's explanation but I still believe it wasnt taken out of context, based on other things Warren said and his actions. And I didnt find his later rejection as sincere. But as I said both our opinions are irrelevant.
Some people (ie: backed by reliable sources) thought Warren made the comparison. There is reliable sources for this and it should be in the article. You cant deny that some people (ie: backed by reliable sources) made a claim which Warren rejected. Hence the claim and Warren's rejection should be in the article. It is notable. It saw huge media coverage.
But I guess this discussion should be carrien on above. Phoenix of9 (talk) 03:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing "sudden" about adding that one sentence. It's been discussed for over a month now, despite the fact that numerous reliable sources can now be cited to support that sentence. Mike Doughney (talk)
Oh and "The burden of proof for contentious material about a living person is much higher than in a normal wiki article" is irrelevant since we arent saying that Warren made the comparison. We are saying that it was claimedPhoenix of9 (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there's any doubt at all that it was claimed, or that the fact that it was claimed is notable. Spotfixer (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I am not well versed in all the pertinent policies of Wikipedia (I am, however, positively amazed at the thoroughness of the thought put into developing them) so forgive my relative inexperience, but it seems to me that in a biography of a person, living or dead, that the point should be to present who they were in thought and deed. In the case of this article Warren's thoughts relative to the homosexuality issue are quite straightforward and I am perplexed why there is so much difficulty in having them expressed in this article. The basic point is that Warren holds a quite traditional Christian view on the issue. His view is not notably different from the vast majority of the Christian community. That view should be simply stated. If one wants to debate the Scripturally based view, put the debate in the article on homosexuality. Simply because the news media wanted to make an issue of statements made does not necessarily mean the view is notable. I don't see where Warren has ever been anti-homosexual. In fact his work on the issues of HIV/AIDs would suggest otherwise. (I note that some have described him as homophobic. I would suggest that is an inaccurate term since I see no verifiable actions or statements that he fears the homosexual community.) To conclude, I think this issue has been blown way out of proportion. He holds a traditional Christian view that homosexuality is an unnatural state. Arguments can continue ad infinitum about statements and what they mean but so what? They are irrelevant to the view. He's not an activist, he's simply a pastor who responded to an interviewer's question with an unfortunately worded answer that he later clarified for accurate meaning. It remains, his view is well in line with the traditional Christian view of Scripture. It's not that notable! CarverM (talk) 12:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Lather, Rinse, Repeat; buff until sparkling, then sell that sheen as fabulous new WhiteWash brand wax-and-shine! Teledildonix314 talk 13:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Note that this is the English Wikipedia. It is global. Just because some views have regional (ie: US) significance does not mean they arent notable. Also note that US is the only Western country that deviates from the norm when it comes to homosexuality. (eg: US is the only country where more people think homosexuality should be rejected (49%) vs accepted (41%) among the surveyed Western countries (Europe and N America) [14]). In Sweden, even 68% of pastors are ok with same sex marriage. [15]. So Warren's views and the way he puts them are surprising (so is yours) to some people, including me, both as a Canadian and a German. But you are right about the views of vast majority of practicing Christians since those people are now mostly in Africa, Latin America and US. However, these events are notable, it had a big media coverage. Phoenix of9 (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Interesting report by Pew, thanks for the reference. To the point, it would be simple to say "Evangelical Christian views" and then it would be more accurate and again, not especially notable. As to my views, I don't recall expressing them. Perhaps you're synthesizing? CarverM (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I meant your view that it isnt notable. Certainly, that is not my view. And you are still incorrect. You are still thinking too local. If you go to Evangelical, it says "Evangelical may refer to: Lutheranism and Evangelicalism (among others)". Lutheranism is the primary religion in Nordic countries. And the distance and difference between Lutherans there and Evangelical Americans are in light years. Actually, this is quite recent, Iceland has a gay prime minister now, its in the news now. 80.7% of Iceland is Lutheran.
But anyway, Warren's views may not be notable with respect to middle aged, American, church going people but that is not the sole demographic Wikipedia targets to. I'd say most readers would be unfamiliar with the US version of Evangelicalism. So, I think that important information is currently not present in the article. And this is backed by reliable sources, eg from Germany (in german): [16] [17]. First one mentions the pedophilia, incest, polygamy comparison and the second says Warren considers homosexuality immoral. Those are reliable sources and they did not think those views were not notable.
So as I said, ommitting this information from the article is not WP:NPOV. If you dont like our wording of that information, make your own suggestion. Current form of the article is not WP:NPOV because it does not accurately and fully describe why people reacted against Warren and him giving the invocation. Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I see your point re local/global. However, I would still contend that the only "notable" issue then is that Warren believes homosexuality is an unnatural and immoral behavior. I would not support that he has actually compared homosexual behavior to incest, etc. He has specifically stated that that was not his view. So, let the person about which the article is about define what he said, not sources who try and discern what he meant. He said what he meant. With that said, I've lost track. What is the wording that is currently being proposed? CarverM (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Rick_Warren#Proposed_content and Talk:Rick_Warren#Proposed_Content_2 Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rick_Warren/Archive_6&oldid=1136377079"