Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:27, 27 January 2009

This is not a forum for general discussion of Rick Warren or related controversial topics. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article.

Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Christianity Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rick Warren received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archives

/Archive 1

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages standards.

But, with no offense at all (actually I'm very glad every time that someone starts to help Misplaced Pages), please start yourself considering Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Misplaced Pages: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".

∴ 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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages and the official policies on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Wow, you have me in tears. Dude, calm down, seriously. Do you know what you sound like? Quick question - so because Barack Obama doesn't want gay marriage legalized either is he a "lying, hypocritical, contradictory charlatan" too? The point is, I'm for the facts and truth. Like 90% of Americans, I see Warren as a kind, loving man who has done incredible good for the world and is one of the greatest Americans alive, not as a hateful bigot like you and a very small (but vocal) fraction of Americans. As demonstrated by your hateful diatribe on this page, you are clearly way too emotional to be objectively editing this article. I mean, you even managed to turn User:Mike Doughney against you - and he was on your side! What a joke. Good luck with the investigation by Misplaced Pages administrators.Manutdglory (talk) 08:18, 2 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.'

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? 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. 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)

It is not needed in this article but I would like to address your use of the phrase "scientifically ignorant claims." Using the more proper term of "intelligent design" I would contrarily assert that there is much scientific evidence towards the claim and that other theories for the origins of the universe as equally valid to talk about and research and do not need to be disparaged. Have you seen the film Expelled? CarverM (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen Expelled and its ridiculous. Do you believe everything in a movie? Read www.expelledexposed.com to see where the film makers lied in several parts.

If you want to ignore the evidence for evolution then you are ignorant of the science behind it. Also intelligent design isn't science, it is creationism. And creationism is a religious belief, not a scientific theory. See Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District-- ruled on by a conservative, Bush appointed judge. Tgreach (talk) 03:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Given recent events related to this article, I'm promptly reminding editors that this thread is veering way off-topic. In particular, general discussion of the Expelled movie is clearly off-topic, as Warren wasn't involved with it. Please limit your discussion to topics directly related to this article. Thanks. Mike Doughney (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Removing "America's Pastor"

The phrase: "He has been christened by the media as 'America's Pastor'," keeps getting inserted 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 , 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages policies such as WP:BLP, then don't post here. I have explained to you what Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages) 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

Please see WP:CIVIL. Thanks, PXK /_C 00:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

solutions for contention/ apology

Please let me offer my sincere apology for causing difficulties and disputes in this Article. I am sorry to make trouble, i wanted to contribute, but when people called me a 'vandal' and accused me of being an 'idiot-savant' i just reacted with anger and hostility and i didn't do the intelligent thing, which would have been to walk away and just stop perpetuating the conflict. I'm really sorry for causing anybody to feel like they were in conflict here, and i want the encyclopedia to be of better quality.

Realizing now that the quality of Misplaced Pages depends upon editors reaching a civilized consensus, i understand that i should avoid any article where my personal feelings may cause me to get into conflict. Please forgive my behavior: i was so absolutely convinced that my contributions and citations were simple matters of fact, i just couldn't understand why people would tell me i wasn't being neutral, and it felt terribly inflammatory to have people calling me a 'vandal' when i thought i was doing the proper thing by bringing citations and quotations.

Unfortunately, i can see how some editors are going to look at my contributions here and they will say, "You are SUMMARIZING in a way which is not sufficiently neutral, and this is a lot like doing Original Research which is also not neutral." Although i don't personally feel like my contributions were improper on Misplaced Pages, i can understand that other editors did not welcome my work, and i am willing to accept this without continuing some kind of fight. It feels unfair to have my phrases and sentences dismissed, while other editors appear to be allowed to write all sorts of biased and non-Neutral content, but i know there is nothing 'fair' about Misplaced Pages and the editing process. Since i do not have the debating skills to persuade people of the objectivity nor Good Faith of my attempted contributions here, i will stop editing this article. I feel like this article on Rick Warren is biased, unfair, filled with puffery, and completely wrong to be included "As-Is" in this encyclopedia. But those are my own personal opinions, and it would be stupid for me to keep editing here because my opinions aren't going affect the way other editors choose to flatter people such as Rick Warren. I feel too much revulsion and disgust to be an un-biased editor, and i see how i was so mistaken to allow my disgust to motivate me to try to alter the article about Rick Warren to reflect what i thought were the important facts and details.

Will any other editors acknowledge _their_ bias and consider how their motivations are affecting the quality of the contents of this article?

I'm sorry to have taken up the time of administrators who have better things to do than to referee these stupid edit-wars. I'm sorry i didn't immediately cease my contentions, and in the future i will avoid repeating any of these mistakes. It is very difficult to just Shut Up and move away when i feel like monsters and their crimes are being glossed over by the media in our society (media which includes Misplaced Pages) but i can see that no amount of contributions i make here will fix the situation nor bring any other editors to sympathize with my efforts. My attempts to add information here are futile, and i will just have to accept that the readers of Misplaced Pages are going to be misinformed about many things, such as criminals like Rick Warren. (I say "criminal" because when you accuse millions of innocent people of being incestuous pedophiles, that is a clear-cut case of Slander, a criminal activity, and there isn't any wiggle-room here to deny this. But i'm sure Rick Warren is only one of the many criminals who enjoy the convenience of having Misplaced Pages publish their puff-pieces to be read by an unsuspecting public. Future generations will judge these activities and these disgustingly unethical situations, but that won't do me any good HERE TODAY, so i give up.)

Part of the problem is that we all want so badly to edit and 'fix' any of the articles which strike us as inaccurate and unfair, and it's hard to surrender that urge to 'improve' something as long as we feel that it is broken (and could even be perpetuating harm by perpetuating mis-information.) But now i see that my motivations are not helping the situation, no matter how much i convince myself that my desires are based entirely on good intentions, i will admit i am going about this all wrong, and i can see where i have made big mistakes by trying to argue and 'correct' the situation. Please accept my apology for anything which felt disruptive, i didn't mean to disrupt, i'm sorry for directing my anger and frustration toward editors and administrators who were just trying to help. I am not an 'idiot', and when people impugned my thoughts and contributions, i felt all offended and hyper-defensive. I'm sorry if i reacted by lashing back, it was the wrong way for me to respond. From now on i will just stay away from editing any articles where i have strong feelings, and stick strictly to topics where the information and citations will not cause serious contention. Thank you for trying to help me improve as an editor and for trying to help people understand the expectations around here. Thank you for not referring to me as an 'idiot' or as a 'vandal' in the future, if you please.

It's too bad we don't have any more convenient ways of testing the objectivity and confirming the neutrality of information given. I had assumed the links to interviews, broadcasts, newspaper transcripts, and other such materials would all strengthen my positions, and it seemed strange that anybody would dispute the inclusion of such links in an article, but now i see i was wrong. Apparently no amount of evidence-based writing nor reporting of facts can overcome the wishes of a few editors and administrators who are determined to mould Misplaced Pages into the sort of resource of which they strictly approve. It would be nice if the Misplaced Pages could more democratically treat all editors in an egalitarian fashion, but there is no such thing as Justice or Egalitarianism on Misplaced Pages. And i was crazy to think i could fight against that situation, all i achieved was to stir up further contention rather than bring any peaceful consensus. I see how i have made several big mistakes like that, especially when i kept trying to assume the conflicting edits came from people in Good Faith. Many people around here will talk about Good Faith, but they don't actually practise it, and they are very quick to accuse the rest of us of failing to operate in Good Faith even when there is no evidence of such. This is probably an inevitable result of so many people with different biases trying to collaborate on the same articles. Since people are so quick to dismiss the possibility of my contributions being in Good Faith, i can't see how i can participate in much of a meaningful way on anything the slightest bit controversial, so i will just not bother. I hope that will allow other people to work around here in peace, even if their work is biased and inaccurate, and in direct denial of facts and objective reality. At least then i won't have a bunch of editors calling me a 'vandal' or an 'idiot-savant' when i try to cite the Reliable Sources of information who expose criminals and mountebanks and scapegoating hatemongers for who they really are.

Congratulations to Rick Warren and all you other evil hatemongers and scapegoaters and fantasy-based superstitious barbarians. You win again. No amount of facts and reporting and journalism and citations will apparently be sufficient to overcome the dedicated work of your fantasy-based supporters (i.e., people who behave religiously) who are comfortable with your messages of hate disguised as pablum for the unthinking. Even in a supposedly 'open and accessible' place like Misplaced Pages, the scapegoaters and hatemonger-supporters outnumber people who are more fond of facts and objective reality, as in most all other public venues, and so i am not surprised to see the hegemony perpetuated quite ordinarily here on Misplaced Pages just like in all other communities.

Teledildonix314 (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

blogs

As a general rule, blogs do not meet WP:RS standards. This article relies on them for a great deal of material, and, absent new reliable sources, such claims should be removed. Also use of cites for claims which are not actually supported by the cites is not "good." If you wish to keep in the blog claims, find geneuine reliable sources. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:14, 3 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 , 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 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." 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 Misplaced Pages official policy on the use of primary sources, with my emphasis:

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:

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Re: CW's request for sources on last revert

CalendarWatcher asked for the edits to be backed up with reliable sources, so here they are:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/international/africa/30aids.html http://www.avert.org/aidsuganda.htm http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-01-07/the-truth-about-rick-warren-in-africa/full/

Those are the sources which were clearly linked from the reference material in the footnotes before CW's last revert. Please check the sources yourself when they are so copiously available, rather than simply deleting other people's contributions while simultaneously insisting such sources are insufficient.

They're educational.

Teledildonix314 02:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Teledildonix314 - I removed the section you inserted here because while Warren is peripherally related, there is no citable evidence that an "alliance" is in effect or that Warren has been active in the issues raised. According to the reports Warren has had Ssempas speak in an HIV/AIDS forum but that is not the same as a working alliance. I suspect that Warren does not support the specific activities and it is not correct to attribute the activities to him. Simply because people are known to each other does not make them partners. Therefore, unless you can provide specific evidence that Warren has specifically been a part of the support and implementation of those activities, it does not belong in this article. If you want to write an article on the views of some clergy in Africa towards the gay community, it would be more appropriate there. CarverM (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

In response to CarverM, from the article which you failed to read --

Warren’s man in Uganda is a charismatic pastor named Martin Ssempa. The head of the Makerere Community Church, a rapidly growing congregation, Ssempe enjoys close ties to his country’s First Lady, Janet Museveni, and is a favorite of the Bush White House. In the capitol of Kampala, Ssempa is known for his boisterous crusading. Ssempa’s stunts have included burning condoms in the name of Jesus and arranging the publication of names of homosexuals in cooperative local newspapers while lobbying for criminal penalties to imprison them.

When Warren unveiled his global AIDS initiative at a 2005 conference at his Saddleback Church, he cast Ssempa as his indispensable sidekick, assigning him to lead a breakout session on abstinence-only education as well as a seminar on AIDS prevention. Later, Ssempa delivered a keynote address, a speech so stirring it “had the audience on the edge of its seats,” according to Warren’s public relations agency. A year later, Ssempa returned to Saddleback Church to lead another seminar on AIDS. By this time, his bond with the Warrens had grown almost familial. “You are my brother, Martin, and I love you,” Rick Warren’s wife, Kay, said to Ssempa from the stage. Her voice trembled with emotion as she spoke and tears ran down her cheeks.

There are many more elaborations in the article, but if you don't read it, you won't see the "citable evidence that an 'alliance' is in effect or that Warren has been active in the issues raised." It's impossible to read the article without seeing the alliance and the description of the evidence. Thus i'm accusing you (CarverM) of not reading it. No 'synthesis' nor 'original research' is necessary when the evidence is spelled out in those conveniently linked references.

Teledildonix314 03:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I did read the article cited and many of the comments following the DailyBeast blog. I was especially interested in the lone Ugandan's comments. Please, let's not get into an edit war; that's not my intent nor do we need an uncivil discourse. In the quote above there is no citation that would say Warren is involved in the actions of which Ssempas is taking. 1) there is no citation other than the author's opinion that Ssempa is "Warren's man." That is simply an opinion with no citable facts. 2) the "stunts" are Ssempa's, not Warrens. The tone of the article(s) try to suggest that Ssempa's actions are in tune with Warren but, again, there is no factual basis for stating such. The article(s) simply contain innuendo and therefore do not belong in an encyclopedia article. Inference is not fact. So, again, kindly, unless you can cite specific evidence that Ssempas has any tie to Warren other than speaking at a conference, this accusation of Warren should not be included. CarverM (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(duplication delete by editor) Edgepedia (talk) 09:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Conservative views section

{{editprotected}}

Converted the refs in this section to templates, just before it was protected! (Technical edit only)

In a conversation with atheist author Sam Harris in Newsweek magazine, Warren spoke out against evolution and in favor of creationism, and stated that brutal dictators such as Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot were all atheists, when questioned on whether religion is beneficial to society. Asked about the difference between himself and Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, Warren claimed that "it's a matter of tone," meaning they hold essentially the same beliefs but simply have differing ways of expressing them. In 2005, during the Terri Schiavo controversy, Warren stated that withholding feeding to Schiavo, a woman in a persistent vegetative state, was "not a right to die issue." He then called Michael Schiavo's decision to remove her feeding tube, "an atrocity worthy of Nazism," and while speculating about Michael's motives, put forward the idea that Michael wanted Terri to die because, if she regained consciousness, she might have "something to say that he didn‘t want said." Edgepedia (talk) 09:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Also The purpose driven life had over 30 million copies in print by 2006. Edgepedia (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ref work in that section done. For your second item, is this a request to change the lead? Pagrashtak 15:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes please, can we change has sold over 20 million copies to had sold over 30 million copies by 2006,

which brings it up to and includes the ref Edgepedia (talk) 13:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Done with a slight modification. Since the ref says 30 million "in print", I've used the same phrase in the article instead of "sold". Since the previous version was unreferenced, this is a step up in any event. If someone has hard sales numbers that might be a further improvement. Pagrashtak 15:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Edgepedia (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Article protected due to edit war

That should be rather obvious by now. Got really quiet all of a sudden, didn't it?

As for the attempted edit that set this block in motion, there is no way that thedailybeast.com qualifies as a reliable source. If you have a problem with that, then take it up at an appropriate place such as the reliable sources noticeboard.

Repetitively posting links to articles on the talk page that make no mention of the subject of this article doesn't change that fact. If reference to Blumenthal's work is to go into the article, he will have to be supported by reference in some reliable source like a major newspaper to qualify such an inclusion. It will have to be an article that is clearly reporting on Blumenthal's reporting about Warren, and that clearly supports the allegations Blumenthal attempts to make about Warren. A search on Google News on "max blumenthal" "rick warren" turns up numerous hits in blogs and other sources that cannot be considered reliable, and nothing in a major newspaper that could be referenced here. Mike Doughney (talk) 04:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You can lead a horse to water, but you can not make it drink. If you don't want to believe that an article is correct, nor do you wish to accept a plethora of reports as a sign of support for the reliability of a source, then the burden is on YOU to find some other article or some other reliable source who offers a contrary point of view. You can't just revert and delete the references and citations without offering us some compelling reason here to dispute their accuracy. If you don't agree with the award-winning journalism of Max Blumenthal, then maybe you should take that up with HIM and with his editors, rather than deleting links to his reports on Mr Warren and on Mr Warren's church's activities.

Anything else just makes you look like an apologist for Warren and for his type of 'christian ministry' or 'religious organization' in general. In fact, as you repeatedly delete anything which might reflect poorly on Warren, sanitizing his biography and making it look like a puff-piece, you cause us to wonder whether you are truly a disinterested editor, or whether you are perhaps somebody who works for Warren's public relations staff, or perhaps are somebody who donates/ gives support to/ aids and abets Warren's church or its affiliates.

As for your claim of "nothing in a major newspaper", you seem to be forgetting that Max Blumenthal and his co-worker Amy Goodman are award-winning international journalists whose stories on the Pacifica network and coverage of events in several countries have been lauded as examples of the fifth estate at its best. When you try to dismiss Blumenthal's reports of Warren's activities, while failing to offer a single article or piece of evidence to support your contrarian stance, this causes your actions to appear suspicious and biased.

From Blumenthal's personal description: "Max Blumenthal is an award-winning American investigative journalist and documentary filmmaker. He or his work has appeared on NPR, MSNBC, in The Nation, the Washington Monthly, The American Prospect, The Huffington Post, Salon, and Media Matters."

If you can't give us a counterpoint article from a source as reliable as NPR, MSNBC, The Nation, Democracy Now, Pacifica, or some other reporters with an established reputation, then why should we let you delete the references and citations from Warren's biography which give critical insight to his actions and their outcomes? Please, give us some evidence, before you delete anything else from Warren's bio which might not flatter him!

Teledildonix314 06:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Um... hello? Why the diatribe? I am discussing this edit and only that one, the beginning of the present edit war, in which you added content that makes only one reference to the writing of Max Blumenthal in only one place, thedailybeast.com.

thedailybeast.com does not qualify as a reliable source, particularly if it is the only source named for this particular allegation. That is all the justification needed to pull the allegation and reference from the article, particularly when the article is a biography of a living person. There is no requirement that whoever pulls that unqualified material from the article replace it with something else. The lack of a referenced reliable source supporting the allegation is all that is needed to dispute the accuracy of the material you're trying to add. Hero worship of Mr. Blumenthal, things he may have at some time published elsewhere, his father, or awards he may have received are quite irrelevant. I'm talking about this specific allegation from this specific article, and your subsequent edit referencing same, nothing else.

Since it is not clear to me that you and other editors are actually reading the applicable Misplaced Pages policies when it comes to matters like this, I'll include a portion of the Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons article here for your reference:

From the title of the linked reference in the above: "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information."

As for your personal attack, charging me personally with being "an apologist for Warren and for his type of 'christian ministry' or 'religious organization' in general," you really must not be paying attention. While that might apply to some other editor(s) here, I have a rather long and easy-to-find paper trail on the 'net doing quite the opposite, let alone my stated personal assessment of Warren that appears elsewhere on this page. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages. Comment on content, not on the contributor." Or the remover of questionable content, if that is the case.

You conclude with an exactly backwards assessement of the situation, particularly with this article being a biography of a living person. Again you must support whatever you add to Misplaced Pages with a reliable source; absent that, other editors need not have any further justification for removing what you attempt to add. Mike Doughney (talk) 13:20, 11 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:" -- 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. 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)

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)

Big mistake

{{editprotect}} This should be included: Many news sources have called his choice to speak at the inauguration a big mistake. Madhava 1947 (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually you mean "noted LGBT groups" etc. -- but the controversy is already in the article. "President-elect Obama later sparked controversy when he asked Warren to give the invocation at his Presidential inauguration, which is scheduled to take place on January 20, 2009.". Your language is inapt and does not add to the article as it stands. Collect (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be wonderfully helpful if somebody with a NPOV could update the article in the near future when current events have been summarized in Reliable Sources. I would volunteer to edit but i don't want to give any of the content my taint of bias. I can offer to proofread for spelling and grammar, but i don't wish to insert any of my own words here. Could somebody (neutral) please pretty please give this article a nice freshen-up and polishing? Thanks so much for any volunteers. Cheers. Teledildonix314 11:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Be sure to include the heated controversy over "trespasses" vs. "debts", and the subliminal connection to the 700 billion dollar bailout. Baseball Bugs 11:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Your constructive suggestions are well noted. Would you care to give an example? Thanks for being so helpful. Teledildonix314 04:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

 Not done: No consensus for this change.--Aervanath (talk) 16:02, 21 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)

This article needs lots of work

Its been protected since Jan 10. When will be able to edit again? The article is too short, there is room for subsections on his views on abortion and homosexuality. All that has been summarized by "This decision angered pro-choice and gay-marriage advocates and led to criticism of both Obama and Warren." Theres so much room for more detail.

And theres room for subsections on his charity work, etc, the article shouldnt just be about criticism. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the article is now unprotected, hopefully there wont be any edit warring. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no need for additional detail on the section on Warren's view of abortion and homosexuality. Any more gives it undue weight, as it is not the primary source of his notability, but a single event. Additionally, the change to the church's website FAQ was not in response to Obama's invitation, but because they changed to an audio FAQ format (see http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/home/bibleqanda/index.html - which still has a section on homosexuality). I would also note that the Advocate probably doesn't qualify as a verifiable, unbiased source. How about proposing something on the discussion page before trying to add it to the main page?--Lyonscc (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thats why I put the NPOV tag. I was gonna add his PEACE Plan and Global Warming stance to his political and social views, I was working on that now actually. Please assume good faith.

The advocate is a reliable source, it is a newsmagazine of more than 100,000 bi weekly circulation. Sources dont have to be entirely unbiased, the articles should be neutral tho. Newspaper sources will be somewhat biased, given the political leaning of some organizations (eg: Fox news vs NY Times). See: Misplaced Pages:Verifiability

I'm gonna revert and add PEACE Plan and Global Warming now. Give me some time before reverting back. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

How about proposing edits here before the main page? There's been a good deal of work on the page to date, with lots of negotiation on wording, and there's no real need to scrap all of it w/o discussion.--Lyonscc (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Phoenix of9, please take note of the history of this article, especially related to the behavior of User:Teledildonix314, who was repeatedly warned by fellow editors and administrators and eventually caused the article to be protected for weeks. He agreed to stay away from this article. As someone who clearly has a similar bias (noted from your user page), I would encourage you to follow his lead and abstain from editing this article before you start another edit-war. Thanks. Manutdglory (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant, Manutdglory. Comment on content, not users. See, Misplaced Pages:Civility. Looking at your talk page now, I see that you were warned about this by User:Mike Doughney. Stop.

Lyonscc, see this link for what I was planning to do, its not complete yet tho. Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, don't do anything that would make me need to comment on you further. It wasn't me who came barnstorming into an article that had just been protected for weeks and began making wholesale changes without any consensus on the talk page and began edit-warring with another editor - that was you. I can bring in an administrator if you'd like. Manutdglory (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead. Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Phoenix of9, I would suggest that the proposed edits still put undue weight on Warren's views on homosexual practice, and that any additional commentary from the invitation to the inauguration likely belongs here: and not in a personal biography page. Unlike James Dobson and others, Warren does not emphasize his church's stance on homosexual practice above other social issues (AIDS, human trafficking, etc.), and that the comments made on the subject were in response to direct questions, not his own agenda. Therefore, it is not something that is all that notable, unless you want to give a laundry list of other social issues he devotes more discussion to (like divorce). He was already quite notable and famous apart from being invited to pray by Obama, and he'll likely continue to be, and not for his positions on abortion and homosexual practice, which are unremarkably standard biblical positions for any Christian pastor.--Lyonscc (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Then why dont you put those issues (AIDS, human trafficking, etc.) on the article, with their subsections instead of deleting what he has said about LGBT issues? If you look at Pope John Paul II, another famous xtian figure, his views on homosexuals are there along with his other views. Thats what I said at the beginning: "Theres so much room for more detail. And theres room for subsections on his charity work, etc, the article shouldnt just be about criticism."

So again, dont delete the details about his views on non-heterosexual people but add more details. Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Because biographies in Misplaced Pages are to be Encyclopedic, not exhaustive. There is no need to list every theological position of every religious figure. The Pope is the head of the entire Catholic church (whose adherents believe his ex cathedra rulings are inerrant), and had numerous rulings and emphases, which would be relevant to cover, as they were considered 'law' withing the entirety of that faith. Warren, on the other hand, is the pastor of a single Evangelical church, and is not considered to speak on behalf of God.

The amount of weight given to the question of Warren's position on homosexual practice in the current article is already more than appropriate, given the balance of things Warren teaches and emphasizes. He does not go out of his way to treat homosexual practice as a sin more grievous than divorce or other sexual sins. In fact, he's been criticized w/in fundamentalist circles for being "too soft" on the issue, because he doesn't speak out on it, other than when asked very direct questions about it. His position on the issue is no different from the norm in his denomination, so it does not raise to the level of notability, and an extended section on the topic gives it undue weight. Part of something being notable is that it is different than the norm. In this case (and many others), his position is no different from the norm. If this type of standard were not followed, Misplaced Pages would be an unwieldy mess. There are folks on the right who want to label every pastor based on systematic theology (Calvinism, Arminianism, etc., etc.), eschatology (futurist, preterist, partial-preterist, dispensationalist, covenant, etc.) and any/every other label under the sun. By this same reasoning (deviation from the norm, outspokenness on an issue), these things are also not notable. Extended commenting on his position on GLBT issues is no different. He's not outspoken on the issue, and his position is not abnormal. Thus, it is not notable.--Lyonscc (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It is your personal opinion that Warren's opinions is different than the norm. I dont think a man like Warren would be invited to presidential/prime ministerial/royal ceremonies in Canada or Germany. The article I'm proposing is more than 2000 words. While the LGBT section is less than 250. And theres more room for improvement. It may be the norm that abuse is not a good reason for divorce in Warren's christianity but it is not the norm in modern societies. And if you find reliable sources, you may add that Warren's positions are no different than the norm into the article. Currently it is your personal opinion.

Again the LGBT issues will be less than 13% of the article. I dont see anything against that in Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons. But I do not see you changing your opinion so a RFC may help. Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the article is currently not from Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view since it simply says "This decision angered pro-choice and gay-marriage advocates and led to criticism of both Obama and Warren.". This is only partially true since some (or maybe most) of the criticism was due to Warren comparing gay relationship with pedophiles and incest AND his other previous remarks. Reaction against Warren was not only due to his opposition to gay marriage. The article lacks that. Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Phoenix of9, you clearly do not have consensus to make your proposed edits and now that Warren's invocation at Obama's inauguration is in the past, you will have trouble finding editors who agree with you in attacking Warren (that's why it was protected prior to the inauguration). You already have had two other veteran editors of this article say that your edits were inappropriate (again, we just dealt with another editor similar to you) and I guarantee that at least two more editors would join us if you attempt to post them again. You also have absolutely zero credibility because of your admitted bias against Warren, so attempting to "out-argue" us is ridiculous. If you continue, all you will accomplish is getting this article protected again. You're not going to "win" this - walk away from the article. Manutdglory (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Phoenix of9, you will find that some editors are strongly Apologist and Protectionist toward any article which might not show their favorite pro-christianist characters in a favorable light-- thus the edit-warring and subsequent blocking of further edits on the article. You won't be able to win any kind of logical debate or argument with Apologists, and they will easily employ canvassing tactics to lend strength-in-numbers to their pro-Christianist viewpoints, all the while decrying other editors' "lack of neutrality". So i would suggest that if you want to see this embarassment of an article come to some improvement, you will need to offer a good working draft here (or on one of your subpages) and then eventually (hopefully) a large enough number of non-biased editors will review your draft and express their support, if it is truly "neutral". But don't hold your breath! Teledildonix314 22:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Look who's back. Manutdglory (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on content, not editors, Teledildonix314. Theres a section below, feel free to express your opinions on the content of the article there. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

More details in the article including his position on homosexuality?

Template:RFCbio

Should we extend the article, adding more sub sections about his PEACE plan, stance on Global Warming and about Warren's views on homosexuality and maybe more? About Warren's views on homosexuality, the article may currently not be from NPOV since it misrepresents reaction against Warren claiming it was only due to his position against gay marriage while some (or maybe most) of the criticism was due to Warren comparing gay relationship with pedophiles and incest AND his other previous remarks. —Phoenix_of9 (via posting script) 19:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Warren's position isn't notable, because it is no different from the norm for American Evangelical churches, particularly those of Baptist origin (of which Warren's church, Saddleback, is one). The norm can be defined by the ]]Southern Baptist Convention]], of which Saddleback is a member. Here is their position on homosexuality: http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/pssexuality.asp - "We affirm God's plan for marriage and sexual intimacy—one man and one woman, for life. Homosexuality is not a valid alternative lifestyle." Warren's position is identical to that of his denomination, which has 16 million members in America, across 42,000 churches. Thus, this is not my opinion, it is supported by the facts of Warren's denomination. If we're going to add GBLT issues, then we might as well add every minor social issue, from public funding of stem-cell research to the Endangered Species Act. Additionally, we might as well categorize every religious biography with every possibly doctrinal distinctive, including systematic theologies supported, hermeneutical principles supported, ecclesiology and eschatology. In short, what you're proposing is giving undue weight to fringe issues and leads to unwieldy articles.

This is, at best, a coatrack issue for the discussion of doctrine toward homosexual practice within the church. As noted in the previous flamewar that led to the article being locked, Warren did not compare gay relationships with pedophiles and incest. This is inferred commentary from the interview and was not explicitly stated.--Lyonscc (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is currently not from Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view since it simply says "This decision angered pro-choice and gay-marriage advocates and led to criticism of both Obama and Warren.". This is only partially true since some (or maybe most) of the criticism was due to Warren comparing gay relationship with pedophiles and incest AND his other previous remarks. Reaction against Warren was not only due to his opposition to gay marriage. The article lacks that.

As for if Warren did or did not compare gay relationships with pedophiles and incest, many people thought he did and there are many reliable sources for this. But I propose to include a direct quote from him in the article. See User_talk:Phoenix_of9/warren#LGBT_issues Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

And Misplaced Pages is a global encyclopedia, just because something may or may not be the norm in a US Christian denomination does not mean that it isnt notable. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The article IS from a WP:NPOV with the current wording. I would note that (even in your update) Warren later clarified that he was not equating homosexual practice with pedophelia and incest, so adding the interpretation that this is what he was doing is inconsistent with what he said he meant in the interview. Therefore, adding this to the article would be inconsistent with WP:BLP. Additionally, the difference between an encyclopedia and a comprehensive work is that encyclopedic knowledge, by definition, covers only notable breaks from the norm (i.e. what makes something special or significant), and not an exhaustive description about all aspects of a subject. In this case, Rick Warren is in agreement with his denomination (the SBC) and every other SBC church (which has disbarred churches from its membership in the past for trying to justify homosexual practice as compatible with orthodox Christian practice). He does not emphasize it over other sins, and only comments on the topic when asked by media outlets or in the context of all other sexual sins. Thus, he does not break from the norm in his church's doctrine, nor is he outspoken on this point of doctrine. Thus, devoting 10% of an article is granting undue weight to an issue, and in this case is also contra to WP:BLP.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Warren also claimed he wasnt a homophobe. That doesnt make it true. His views on homosexuality is notable because there was lots of attention on it and this can be verified by reliable sources (ie something special or significant). As for Misplaced Pages:BLP: "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources..." Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?

Oh , I do.

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

See the previous comment by Carver M:

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

This is also what Warren explained his answer to mean. Again - trying to insert a subject's words in a way that is contradictory to the subject's intent is a direct violation of WP:BLP. As for the claim that Warren is a homophobe, there is no documented evidence of this. Again - this doesn't rise to the level of notability, and puts undue weight on a normal (as defined by his church denomination) position held by Warren.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think that CarverM's opinion about how Warren intended his words is relevant? If there is such an interpretation (by reliable sources), put that into the article. I suggest you to read: Misplaced Pages:Verifiability Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

As Ged UK rightly points out, you're making an argument from synthesis (which is a violation of WP:NOR), not from Warren's actual statement. My quotation of Carver M was simply to note that there can be multiple interpretations of this singular quote, and that the one you're fostering has been contradicted by Warren, himself.--Lyonscc (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Theres no synthesis on the proposed version: User_talk:Phoenix_of9/warren#LGBT_issues. I suggest you to read it before commenting on it. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course there is - twofold. First, by including only the specific quote, you miss the overall topic being discussed (which was on whether homosexuality or divorce is a bigger problem for the church - and to which Warren specified that divorce was the bigger issue) and give the impression that the interview was about homosexuality. Secondly, you follow up the quote with "Warren later denied equating gay relationships with incest or pedophilia.", which infers a contradiction between the interview and the later statement. Additionally, this doesn't address the complete lack of notability in Warren's position on homosexuality and his lack of over-emphasis on the issue - both of which suggest that extending the coverage of GLBT issue would be giving it WP:UNDUE weight. It's obvious you've got an axe to grind, and this isn't the place to do it.--Lyonscc (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

His opinions about divorce is in the article. If I'm giving the wrong impression, you are free to try to clarify instead of deleting the whole thing.

Yes, there's a contradiction. Thats why both statements are there. To give both sides of the issue. Make relevant arguments, please.

Comment on content. Dozens of reliable news article links disagrees with your personal opinion that this isnt notable. As I said before, your personal opinions are irrelevant. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not about my personal opinion. It is about adding original research into an existing article, and expanding on a topic that needs no expansion (as it is tangential to a subject's notability). I've given you avenues in which to grind your axe - particularly with the Obama Inauguration article. The quotation, as it exists, gives wp:undue weight to the topic of his position on homosexual practice, as it is being used to infer something contradictory to the intent of the person who spoke it (by his own follow-up commentary). Why does it grant wp:undue weight? Because in full context, it was an interview about divorce, not homosexual practice. There is no need to expound on the topic. It's already covered in the article.--Lyonscc (talk) 23:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

And you're not? I was making clear why the proof-texted Warren quote would not fit WP:NPOV as you've used it.--Lyonscc (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflcit) All that quote does, though, is make clear his position on gay marriage. Beyond that, anything else is synthesis as far as I can see. --Ged UK (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

So what do you think of the proposed version: User_talk:Phoenix_of9/warren compared to the current one? Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Warren's views against LGBT people are certainly notable and significant. I don't remember which version of Obama's inauguration I was watching but it was part of the discussion of the news. That he was a controversial figure because of his comments, that anti-gay material was taken down from his church website because of the controversy and that Warren had controversially compared LGBT people to pedophiles. This has been a running story and was tied to the use of an openly gay minister in the prior day's ceremonies. PBS has a good overview of how the story shook out.Controversy Emerges Over Obama's Choice of Inauguration Pastor: President-elect Barack Obama has fielded criticism for choosing Christian leader Rev. Rick Warren, whose conservative views are in contrast with some of Obama's base supporters, to give an inaugural invocation. Analysts discuss the controversy. It would make sense, IMHO, to note that with Warren's ascension to one of the US's leading religious figures he has modified his public statements regarding LGBT people from commonly held views in his religious tradition. It would also make sense to add that during the Prop 8 campaign is when much of that material was protested and it resurfaced in light of his involvement with the Obama inauguration. If Warren has recanted anything that should likely also be addressed. -- Banjeboi 23:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Warren has not stated any views "against LGBT people", but rather has stated a position against a particular set of practices. The controversy about his invitation is already noted in the article, and if more discussion on the invitation is warranted, it would be in the Inauguration article (as noted above) and not Warren's bio page. His support of Prop 8 is also noted in the current version of the article, as well. What is opposed is adding additional commentary which gives wp:undue weight to his church's position on LGBT practice. It's already noted in the article, as it stands.--Lyonscc (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

'Warren has not stated any views "against LGBT people"' That is your personal interpretation of the issue and as I said many times before it is and has been irrelevant. Misplaced Pages is not your soapbox. In the proposed version, there are many reliable sources which claim otherwise. And thats what is important. Reliable sources. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not my interpretation of the issue. It is Warren's interpretation of the issue. He's said many times that he has no issue with LGBT people. He just believes that there are certain behaviors that are sinful, and that a person's sins do not define who they are. Thus, giving a different characterization of the "interpretation" of and issue, than the subject of a WP:blp would give would create a straw man argument, and be in violation of WP:blp, wp:nor and wp:npov. It seems that I'm not the one making Misplaced Pages a soapbox with this particular issue...--Lyonscc (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Bill Clinton also said he did not have sexual relations with Lewinsky. Yet Lewinski scandal is covered in that article. Sometimes what people say about themselves is not true. This is a very basic point. Why are we even discussing this? Warren may claim otherwise but that is not how his intentions are interpreted by certain people, especially given his actions and other stuff he has said (eg: "Warren said that homosexuality is not a natural way of life and thus not a human right. "We shall not tolerate this aspect at all," Dr Warren said. ").

So if you ignore these other interpretations (which have reliable sources) solely based on what Warren claims, you arent being neutral and you are giving undue weight to Warren and not enough towards criticism. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Clinton was talking about verifiable (and later acknowledged) facts and circumstances, not opinions. With biographies of living persons, there are additional considerations that need to be taken into account, and misrepresentation of beliefs/opinions is one of them, as these can lead to charges of libel/slander. I would note that your "reliable sources" do not have direct quotes and interviews which support them, but rather the opinions of the 'reporters' (noting that allAfrica.com may not be all that verifiable, and that "Warren said that homosexuality is not a natural way of life and thus not a human right" is an opinion of the writer, and not verifiable fact. Who knows what he said that was slanted to this representation? Again - Warren was asked about the specific quote you've cited, and he gave an interpretation of what he was saying that contradicts your assertion. Thus, you've created a straw man argument.--Lyonscc (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I proposed adding a direct quote from an interview, you rejected. Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok Phoenix of9, now you are arguing with 3 veteran editors of this article who do not approve of your edits, User:Lyonscc, User:Collect, and myself, who for months have managed to maintain a neutral, unbiased article. It's nice to see that you've managed to bring in a couple other editors to your cause who have absolutely no history with the article - however, from their user pages it's clear that they are also biased, gay-rights activists like yourself (and one of them isn't even American). No one here is gay-bashing or questioning your rights as gay people - only that you shouldn't be editing this article because of your obvious and blatant bias (and in some cases, hatred) against Warren. Any logical, neutral person can clearly see that the article is currently unbiased and that your proposed changes would obviously give it a highly-biased slant. That is what we are opposed to. And your argument that the main reason that gay people hate Warren so much is because of his comment about pedophiles (which after hearing the entire interview, was clearly taken out of context) and not about Obama selecting him to give the invocation at his inauguration is completely false. Within an hour after the announcement was made, this article had been repeatedly vandalized a dozen times by gay-rights activists (which caused it to be protected) - days before Warren made the comment about pedophiles. Check the article's history if you don't believe me - FACTS can be tricky things. Manutdglory (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

1. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0503/22/lkl.01.html
2. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7286474/
3. "The God Debate". Newsweek. Retrieved January 10, 2009.
4. "What Saddleback's Pastor Really Thinks About Politics". The Wall Street Journal. August 23, 2008. Retrieved January 10, 2009.
5. "Larry King Live: Interview With Rick Warren (transcript)". CNN. March 22, 2005. Retrieved January 10, 2009.
6. "Hardball with Chris Matthews (transcript)". MSNBC. March 23, 2005. Retrieved January 10, 2009.
7. "By The Numbers: Top-Earning Authors". Forbes.com. Retrieved January 10, 2009.
8. "By The Numbers: Top-Earning Authors". Forbes.com. Retrieved January 10, 2009.

• Unassessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Christianity articles
• Mid-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• Old requests for peer review