Talk:Rick Warren/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Tony Blair Faith Foundation: The Religious Advisory Council

Rick Warren is board member of The Religious Advisory Council for Tony Blair's Faith Foundation.

Source: Tony Blair Faith Foundation Rna8arnold (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Analysis of proposals (aka proposal 7)

I've collated some of the similarities and differences between these proposals in an effort to see where the common ground lies. I've showed below what I see as these differences, and which proposal they come from.

• Obamas choice of Warren was criticised - all seem to agree with this

by whom was the choice criticised:

• by prominent liberal groups - 1
• gay rights opponents - 1
• by several notable organisations - 2 & 4
• several organisations - 3
• number of notable organisations 5
• liberal and LGBT organisations - 6

"several notable organisations" seems the best compromise

What were the criticisms:

• PAW pres Kathryn Kolberts "deeply disappointed" bit - 1
• PAW pres Kathryn Kolberts statement re the Warren/Dobson comparison - 1
• Warren's Beliefnet comparison of same sex marriage (SSM) with incest etc - 1,2,3 & 6 (i know there are some wording differences)
• Warren's opposition to sibling and adult/minor marriages, comparison to gay marriage - 4
• Warren's remarks in opposition to SSM (short version) - 5
• Warren's publicised position re abortion/SSM - 6
• Warren equating abortion with the Holocaust - 6

some mention of the Beliefnet interview has rough consensus here.

Other statements:

• Warren released a video opposing SSM, saying that SSM is not the same as incest etc - 1,2,3,4 & 6
• "..which Warren later clarified" (talking about remarks in opp. to SSM) - 5

The video release has rough consensus

• The church replaced an article etc - 1,2,4 & 6

Seems acceptable to most

• Warren supported Prop 8... (long version incl Prop title, plus consequence) - 1,2,3 & 4
• Warren supported Prop 8... (short version) - 5
• Warren supported Prop 8... (clunky version) - 6 (sorry, just doesn't read well to me)

The long version is most popular

• Obama's choice was criticised because of Warren's views on abortion - 1,2,3,4 & 5 (possibly 3 anyway)

Common ground here

• Obama defended his selection, saying he disagrees with Warren's views but room to talk - 1,2,4,5 & 6

And here

• Warren faced criticism leading up the the invocation, delivered an inclusive+religious invocation - 1
• Warren delivered the invocation Jan 20th - 2,4,5 & 6

The shorter version is most popular

I have used a lot of abbreviations here, feel free to expand/re-format as required, so long as it stays easy to follow.

Looking at the most supported bits, I would put the following as a possible compromise:

Obama's choice of Warren for the inauguration invocation was criticised by several notable organisations, contending that Warren had previously compared the legalization of same-sex marriage to the legitimization of polygamy, incest and pedophilia (in a December 2008 Beliefnet interview). Warren later released a video message that said that he does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia, but rather opposes the redefinition of marriage. At the same time, Warren's church replaced an article on their website about the Bible and homosexuality that included [gays] "unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted" as members with a message that explained the church's view that Scripture prohibits sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman. Warren also publicly supported California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.", which eliminated the legal right of same-sex couples to marry.

President-elect Obama's choice was also criticized because of Warren's stance on abortion. Obama later defended his selection saying that he disagrees with the minister's opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage but that there should be room for "dialogue" on such difficult social issues. On Jan. 20, 2009, Warren, delivered the invocation at the Inauguration of Barack Obama.

This includes all the popular bits and leaves out the least popular bits. I'm hoping it or something close, is acceptable to most here. Kevin (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Kevin, thanks for breaking the proposals/"votes" down this way -- I find it helpful. Re the first sentence, I think we have agreement on directly excerpting the Beliefnet interview rather than talking about who contended what. And KenMcPherson came up with a nice flow for a few of those points. How about this for the beginning:

In December 2008, President-elect Obama chose Warren to deliver the Invocation at his Inauguration. Obama's choice was criticized by several notable organizations in large part because of a recent interview of Warren by Beliefnet chief editor Steven Waldman in which Warren said he opposed marriage between siblings, adults and minors, and multiple partners. When asked by Waldman whether he thought "those are equivalent to gays getting married," Warren ignited a controversy by responding "I do." [Etc.]

I'll rely on everyone else to confirm whether Kevin's version reflects the various compromises that have been worked out. Also (not to jump ahead too far) at the end of all this we may need a few touch-ups re punctuation and style. Benccc (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I wasn't paying much attention to style. If there is agreement on the basic content, then style, exact wording & citations need to be worked out. Kevin (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Minor points. "[gays] should be replaced by "those" as I suspect most people with a "homosexual lifestyle" are, indeed , "gay." "contending" can be replaced by "saying." "previously" is unneeded, as it had to be a "previous" interview. "That explained" could be changed to "explaining." Change "that said he" with "saying." "publicly" (as agreed before) is hardly needed. "at the Inauguration of Barack Obama" is hardly needed. I am also unsure that "at the same time" is really needed either. I am still unsure of the relevance of the church website in a BLP, but your version otherwise seems a tad less POV than some earlier ones. And "dialogue" does not really need quotation marks - the cite is clear, and the word is commonly used. Collect (talk) 11:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we add "and Warren faced criticism for his anti-gay views.[58]"? And this is better because it is the most factual: 'In an interview with Beliefnet chief editor Steven Waldman, Warren said he opposed marriage between siblings, adults and minors, and multiple partners, and when asked by Waldman whether he thinks "those are equivalent to gays getting married," responded "I do."' I believe Warren's own words are preferable to what people contend with. Phoenix of9 (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Here:

Obama's choice of Warren for the inauguration invocation was criticised by several notable organisations in part because Warren said, in an interview with Beliefnet chief editor Steven Waldman, that he opposed marriage between siblings, adults and minors, and multiple partners, and when asked by Waldman whether he thinks "those are equivalent to gays getting married," responded "I do". Warren later released a video message that said that he does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia, but rather opposes the redefinition of marriage. At the same time, Warren's church replaced an article on their website about the Bible and homosexuality that included [gays] "unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted" as members with a message that explained the church's view that Scripture prohibits sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman. Warren also publicly supported California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.", which eliminated the legal right of same-sex couples to marry.

President-elect Obama's choice was also criticized because of Warren's stance on abortion. Obama later defended his selection saying that he disagrees with the minister's opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage but that there should be room for "dialogue" on such difficult social issues. On Jan. 20, 2009, Warren, who faced criticism for his anti-gay views, delivered the invocation at the Inauguration of Barack Obama. Phoenix of9 (talk) 12:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (@Collect) - all these minor changes seem fine. I just cut & pasted from proposals above, so the sentences don't necessarily fit together well.

(@Phoenix of9) - where would you fit the first bit in? "Contending" is used here to connect the groups criticising with the specific criticisms. How would you maintain the connection? Kevin (talk) 12:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflicts suck, eh, Kevin? :P Phoenix of9 (talk) 12:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It does. And the admin should always win, IMO ;) Kevin (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Kevin. Collect (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I've pasted an updated version of the paragraphs below, with the changes Collect mentioned. My solution to fixing "publicly supported" was to replace it with "endorsed" (the usual word in the context of elections). I also made a few stylistic changes, and I hope they don't affect points that are important to my fellow editors. In "Warren's church replaced an article on their website" I changed "their" to "its" because "church" is singular and inanimate. In that same sentence I changed "included those" to the clearer "said that people." I also took the liberty of recasting the sentence, because I thought it was convoluted. In that sentence I also cut the factoid that the messages appeared in a section of the web site pertaining to the Bible and homosexuality, because it seemed extraneous and other parts of the sentence make it clear we're referring to both the Bible (Scripture) and homosexuality. Another stylistic problem I noticed is that because the Prop 8 sentence appeared at the end of the paragraph, it appeared disconnected from the criticism of Obama, and its chronology was muddled (i.e. did it come after Warren's church updated its web site). So I joined it to the second sentence in the paragraph, which resulted in a very long sentence, but I think the semicolon keeps it manageable. An alternate solution would be to place the Prop 8 sentence after the Beliefnet sentences, but I felt that this would overly weaken the connection between the Beliefnet sentences and Warren's subsequent clarification.

I'd personally be content with this version of the paragraphs, but (like my fellow editors I'm sure) there are sentences and points I have no interest in/don't care about, and sentences and points I do care about. I know this version still includes info about the church web site that both Collect and Lyonscc have asserted is irrelevant to this article, and to my knowledge that issue has not been resolved. If I'm not mistaken there's a compromise on the table regarding the removal of some "positive" (not my word) info about Saddleback Church elsewhere in the article in exchange for the removal of the info about the Church web site. This latest version also retains language about Prop 8 ("eliminated the legal right") that Lyonscc has disputed -- and though we've had a pretty thorough discussion about it (thanks Lyonscc) it's a point on which we have achieved only "rough consensus" rather than true consensus. Lyonscc, I know you don't support "eliminated the legal right" but can you tolerate it? Phoenix of9, I didn't add the wording you suggest about "Warren, who faced criticism for his anti-gay views" for two reasons: for one, regardless of whether ABC News used those words, they're disputed and not NPOV. By reporting some of Warren's views on homosexuality in this article, we supply readers with information about which they can form their own opinions. Two, the previous paragraph makes it perfectly clear that Warren was criticized for his views on homosexuality, so the wording you suggest adds nothing but the "anti-gay" angle, which won't fly.

So here are the two paragraphs that I *think* are now our working version, subject to further revision but perhaps getting close to done (someone else please add the citations; I haven't kept track):

In December 2008, President-elect Obama chose Warren to deliver the Invocation at his Inauguration. Obama's choice was criticized by several notable organizations in part because Warren had endorsed California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," which eliminated the legal right of same-sex couples to marry; and also because of a recent interview of Warren by Beliefnet chief editor Steven Waldman in which Warren said he opposed marriage between siblings, adults and minors, and multiple partners. When asked by Waldman whether he thought "those are equivalent to gays getting married," Warren ignited a controversy by responding "I do." Warren later released a video message saying he does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia, but rather opposes the redefinition of marriage. Warren's church placed a message on its web site explaining the church's view that Scripture prohibits sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman, which replaced a message that said that people "unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted" as members.

President-elect Obama's choice was also criticized because of Warren's stance on abortion. Obama later defended his selection saying that he disagrees with the minister's opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage but that there should be room for dialogue on such difficult social issues. On Jan. 20, 2009, Warren delivered the Invocation. Benccc (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This version reads quite well. It has all the popular bits and doesn't sound like a committee wrote it. Kevin (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support Benccc's version: Lets hope there wont be a propositon 8 :D Also note that I now would be strongly opposing any other version than this. Those, who disagree, if you havent already, sign up for official mediation. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rick Warren Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly Support Benccc's version: per Kevin and Phoenix of9. This is it, clear, well constructed. Mike Doughney (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose It places stronger emphasis on the website bit than I thought had been agreed, and it uses language about the interview which I thought we had left behind us. I still believe we would be far better off placing the church stuff in the church article, and keeping the biographical stuff in the biography. In many respects this is a long step back from Kevin's earlier proposal. Collect (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I will be opposing to dropping the mention of church website. Mike, Benccc, will you agree to that? Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I oppose any further changes except one: the insertion of "legalized" in the discussion of the interview, such that the phrase reads, "Warren said he opposed legalized marriage between..." I think this is the clearest description I've seen thus far of what occurred in the interview and also of the church website matter. I'm again back on the apparent need by some to sanitize this addition to remove any hint from Wikipedia and the long-term historical record that Warren made the comparison that he made, and to keep the phrase "eliminated the right" away from Warren at all times. Formal mediation - for whatever good that will do, since this dispute is being driven by the intransigence of two editors with respect to fully-sourced and verified language that I don't see changing no matter what cosmetic modifications are made to it - is the next step. Mike Doughney (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Why? The clearest description would be Warrens own words. Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a lengthy transcription would add anything or satisfy the objectors. Mike Doughney (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I really do think our first priority should be being as factual as possible, ie: writing as close as possible to what reliable sources say, instead of satisfying the objectors. So, please reconsider. Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Collect, could you be more specific about your reservations. You seemed accepting of the website info when I proposed it, so long as the word "gay" was removed, which it has been. Kevin (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose for the same reasons as collect.--Lyonscc (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then we are done here. Lyonscc, when are you going to accept to formal mediation? Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I certainly didn't mean for that to be a long step back -- let's work on specifics together to make it right. Let's start with the second paragraph: I made two changes that Collect requested (I removed quotation marks from the word "dialogue" and I removed "at the Inauguration of Barack Obama") so if anything that paragraph should be a step *forward*. I don't recall seeing other requests re the second paragraph, so I'm assuming it's fine and we can put it to bed, done, finito. Yes?

So let's run a comb through the first paragraph. I added the first sentence because it seemed to be missing ("In December 2008, President-elect Obama chose Warren to deliver the Invocation at his Inauguration"). I'm assuming no problems there!

Kevin's version had two sentences that I combined, because the second one (about Prop 8) appeared at the end of the paragraph, which made it appear to be unrelated to the criticism of Obama, and may possibly have created confusion regarding chronology. I'm not hearing any specific disagreement with that rearrangement, so I'm assuming the issue is the wording, so let's look at the wording. Kevin's wording was:

Obama's choice of Warren for the inauguration invocation was criticised by several notable organisations, contending that Warren had previously compared the legalization of same-sex marriage to the legitimization of polygamy, incest and pedophilia (in a December 2008 Beliefnet interview).

and:

Warren also publicly supported California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.", which eliminated the legal right of same-sex couples to marry.

My combined sentence was:

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

I placed the Prop 8 part before the Beliefnet part, so as not to divorce the Beliefnet interview from Warren's subsequent clarification, which would be unfair to Warren. "Publicly supported" is now "endorsed" per previous opposition to the word "publicly." The description of Prop 8 is unchanged. So far so good?

The first substantive (I think) change in the content of those sentences is re the Beliefnet interview, where the part about so-and-so contends such-and-such (which has been the source of much disagreement among editors) is replaced with an account of the relevant portion of the interview itself, including the sentence I added with verbatim excerpts of the portion that caused controversy ("When asked by Waldman whether he thought 'those are equivalent to gays getting married,' Warren ignited a controversy by responding 'I do.'"). Is that not an improvement? I offered that solution three long days ago (minus the "ignited a controversy" which someone else added) followed by the query "does that work?" and I haven't previously heard any disagreement about it -- Collect, why do you not like it? Isn't the most fair to Warren? Is it fine if we ditch "ignited a controversy"?

The next sentence, about the clarification Warren issued, is unchanged between Kevin's version and mine.

Lastly, a sentence about the web site appears in both versions, and in my version the sentence is recast for style (flow, punctuation, grammar), which is presumably not a problem, and I also made two changes requested by Collect: I removed "[gays]" and "at the same time." So Collect, that sentence should be *less* problematic in my version, no? And by moving it to the end of the paragraph didn't I place *less* emphasis on it rather than more? FYI that's the sentence I had top of mind when I wrote "there are sentences and points I have no interest in/don't care about." I also reminded everyone that there's a compromise on the table that includes the removal of that sentence altogether. I see in Firestorm's post below he proposes to follow through on that compromise, which of course is fine with me.

So work with me here folks! Let's zero in on specific words so we can put this puppy to bed! Benccc (talk) 04:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to mention that all the details you list here are why I thought this version is clear and well-constructed. I wish we were done now. Thanks. Mike Doughney (talk) 05:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposition 8

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On my talk page, I have been negotiating with Collect to provide an alternative that he can support. Mine is identical to the one above, except that the section on the website is moved to Saddleback Church. Also, in order to make consistency, all positive information about the church goes into that article as well. In addition, the one foreign-language one should be removed as well, since we already have an overabundance of sources for this. Are people amenable to this, or is it not even worth officially writing up? Firestorm ^Talk 03:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

As I've explained at length on your talk page discussion, I think this process has been irreparably tainted by the presence of a paid staffer of Warren's. All this goes to show is that his repeated objections have taken on a life of their own long after his ejection and are being given undue weight because they were repeated so many times by an editor and his accomplice who should have both been completely disregarded. I don't think taking positive information about the church out of this article makes any difference; the German link is irrelevant. Bottom line: information about the church's actions that's inseparable from Warren and that were the obvious result of Warren's statements to the press must be included here, information that is reliably sourced and completely relevant. Mike Doughney (talk) 04:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Its a news article about Rick Warren and invocation controversy. Therefore it is relevant. And:

"On Tuesday, Warren's church replaced a brief article on the Bible and homosexuality with an audio message on Saddlebackfamily.com to better explain the church's view that Scripture prohibits sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman, according to Larry Ross, a Warren spokesman. Anyone can attend Saddleback worship services. But the church article had said that gays "unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted" as members.

Removal of German source is silly. The policy doesnt say non-english sources should be removed, it just says, english sources are preferred. See: Wikipedia:V#Non-English_sources Phoenix of9 (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not only worth writing up, it is essential that a worked on compromise be presented here. The position of some that they must veto all compromises must be made clear, or let them actually accept one. Mediation requires compromise, as I have stated before, and I put a great deal of thought into this before making my acceptance of it quite clear. As for a "paid staffer" having been here -- at this point it is totally irrelevant. The job here is to reach consensus, and refusing to achieve consensus now will not make it likely to be reached at any point. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

We had compromised. See previous proposed texts. Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Are yoi asserting that since "you" had compromised "before," therefore there is no reason to compromise "now"? Seems odd/ Collect (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really, but I find it futile to discuss it with you, we seem to have a communication problem. Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MedCabal Case

It appears that I have not been able to successfully mediate this dispute. Therefore, since the Mediation Committee has accepted this case, I have decided to close my end of it and pass it to them. I will remain a part of the discussion, but I am relinquishing my role as mediator to the MedCom. Firestorm ^Talk 21:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Am I correct that it would be considered quite bad form for any editing to be done to the section in question pending any mediation resolution? Collect (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to stop trying to reach a consensus, at least up until the mediation kicks off. Kevin (talk) 04:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Firestorm. Sorry we weren't able to work through it together. Benccc (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks also for your assistance. Kevin (talk) 04:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Practice By Some Wikipedians of Taking a Recent News Item and Insisting on Placing It in the Introductory Section of a Well-Established, Broader Article

The [Rick Warren] article provides an example. The biographical entry for Rick Warren has been around for many years. Yet, reference to the contoversy around his selection by President Obama for the Inauguration Invocation has been placed in the Introductory section of the article, rather than more objectively placed below in the substantial sections of the entire article--the proper placing. If the section on the controversy is large enough, it can also be placed in the Table of Contents for the article. Just because an item comes up for a week or two or even for a month in the news, does not make it worthy of headlining in a many-year-old article. There is a timeliness and qualitative assessment to be made on any news item when information is added--in other words, take a deep breath and wait a few weeks and write your section and place it appropriately--rather than jumping in head over heels with nice enthusiasm but little reasoning and neutrality. The Rick Warren Inaugural Event controversy does not appear in the news at all now--less than two months later. Wikipedia is not a "chat room" or a "debate room" or a place to fight social agenda battles. Rather, it is a community-edited ENCYCLOPEDIA-TYPE document. It has the ability, but not the NEED, to be edited like a newspaper or a blog. Please try to be more patient and reasonable in placing such information. In conclusion, the Inaugural controversy does NOT belong in the Introductory section to Rick Warren's article--that shows short-sightedness and a potential lack of neutrality (or a bias). That would be against Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Let's remove that to an appropriate sub-section. Thanks for listening! Rbfitz0529 (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with your point in general, but in this specific case i would argue against it because of the nature of the notable items presented in the two lead paragraphs at the top of the whole biography. Those first few sentences point out the most noted events in Warren's life, and it is entirely reasonable to compare the amount of news coverage and public attention which has been devoted to his churches, to his book sales, to his role in the presidential election and inauguration, and to his role in the Californian politics which were simultaneously taking place with that election and involving his church directly. If these are the events and milestones in his biography, regardless of whether they are from recent months or from many years ago, we should give them all a tiny mention in the opening paragraphs. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 ~ 03:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Teledildonix314 covers this fairly well. Generally the lead paragraph should summarize the rest of the article, so any section that is prominent in the article should also have a place in the lead. Kevin (talk) 04:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kevin that the reader is well-served if we provide at last a brief reference to the controversy early in the article, but I have no strong opinion regarding which paragraph that reference would appear in. And I agree with Rbfitz0529 that Wikipedia is not a place to fight social agenda battles! It's a fine place to *inform* readers about social agenda battles, as we do in this article, and of course we must do so without bias. Rbfitz0529, it sounds like you see potential bias in the placement of the reference -- could you be more specific about that? What kind of bias do you see, and how is it related to placement? Benccc (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I rest my case. My comments have nothing to do essentially with bias (although Wikipedia is absolutely rife with bias on so very many articles). It is now 4 months or so later and who is talking about Rick Warren and the inauguration controversy? I reiterate my point: If EVERY Wikipedia article had the latest news media pop-up or splash entered into the "Introductory" section of articles dealing with people who have substantial YEARS or DECADES of issues and controversies and media flaps associated with them, then what would the articles look like or become like? This is a REAL substantial problem with the direction many Wikipedia articles have taken. Now, to move onto what is more pertinent to the "bias" comment: The Rick Warren article may be an example again (there are thousands of other Wikipedia articles that also succumb to this), i.e., being locked up in debate like this due mainly to politics and bias--NOT due to literariness, style, grammar, form, consistency of format, sensibility of separating journalistic tendencies and tabloid tendencies from objective, encyclopedic, and substantial tendencies. This talk section and the history of this aticle (and many like it) are PROOF of the point I am making. The essence of my original point was not bias--that should be clear. But the stagnation and the bogging down of simple resolutions is concerning. I would even go so far as to say that a RECENT incident can be mentioned in the Introductory section (and then detailed below) because of the nature of a wiki, technology allows us, creates and fosters interest and use, etc. But after 6 months has passed and the issue is painfully dated and irrelevant, the "Introductory" section of ANY article--not just the Rick Warren article--needs to go back to being essentially an introduction. Table of Contents and search words can fill the other functions for finding incidents--or just read or scan the article. User:rbfitz0529 —Preceding undated comment added 12:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC). Rbfitz0529 (talk) 13:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Rbfitz0529 (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. The lede sentence seems fine and balanced per MOS, this was how the the vast majority of people first heard of Warren. I remember watching the inauguration on a public tv network and this was what was said about him; that having Warren was met with much controversy from liberals because of Warren's comments regarding gay marriage and abortion. This content is not about cherry-picking and scarlet-lettering Warren as much as accurately reporting his actions and the re-actions to his statements that became notable. -- Banjeboi 02:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The lede as it is now includes one sentence about the Obama inauguration invocation controversy: Obama later sparked controversy when he asked Warren to give the invocation at the presidential inauguration in January 2009. That is 19 words out of 208 words, or about 9 percent. Also, it's at the very end of the lede, further decreasing its prominence and relative importance. And that, taken in consideration with comments from Benji, Teledildonix314, and Benccc above (with which I generally agree), indicates that the lede is balanced and NPOV and does not violate WP:UNDUE. It is in accordance with WP:LEDE, as it is "...a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic." This controversy is what placed Warren in the mainstream public eye and it has to be mentioned. Rbfitz0529 is correct that WP is not a social agenda battleground. It is, however, a place where all the notable and reliably sourced information about a subject should be placed in the article according to WP:UNDUE. I had never heard of Warren before this controversy, neither did many others in the mainstream. The NY Times reported on March 12, 2009: Already, some gay rights groups remain upset over Mr. Obama’s choice of the Rev. Rick Warren, an opponent of same-sex marriage, to give the invocation at his inauguration. So it's still in the news, not that it needs to be. One could make a case that many readers have come, or will come, to this article because of this controversy and therefore it should receive increased prominence in the lede. However, I will not argue for a change from the consensus status quo. The lede is fine as is. Also, this issue has been debated before at length. Further, the H2 thread title is unreasonably long. Can we change it? — Becksguy (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

There a mediation now going on. I gather you also should have been apprised of it. Collect (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Collect. I'm aware of the RfM, but I'm not a party to it. — Becksguy (talk) 07:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The "controversy" was criticism by People for the American Way and the Human Rights Campaign, and did not many single Democratic congressman or "liberal" groups. This is not noteworthy. It is notesworthy however that Rick Warren hosted a debate between McCain and Obama and was invited to the inaugaration. That's what "placed Warren in the mainstream public eye" and that's what the article should mention. The story was not that there was a controversy but that CNN et al reported that there was a contoversy. It's like the story they ran ad infinitum between Caylee Anthony and Tom Daschle's taxes. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken but your opinion is duly noted. Many liberal groups, LGBT groups and politicians criticized Warren's involvement and that issue is being worked out, I believe, in a mediation. The debate was noteworthy and has been included but the controversy of his being invited to deliver the presidential prayer, thus the most visible religious icon in these proceedings, is what brought him to international attention. -- Banjeboi 10:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Banjeboi, you are correct. I am no longer in that formal Mediation which is linked from the top of this Talk Page; i did see those issues discussed in that mediation are limited in scope. The notability on an international scale which you mentioned is confirmed in multiple languages, and the comments from people outside America have included confirmation of your mention that the Inaugural Invocation was the reason for Warren to arrive in their awareness. I also have heard personal comments along the lines that some see it as remarkable as inviting a member of the American Taliban or some equivalent, perhaps as would be seen in at an Invocation in countries such as Iran _{(LGBT Rights)} and Uganda. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 ~ 06:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, i did join that Mediation again, as it plods along at a snail's pace. But i find myself so angered and prone to feel negative emotions about the topic, i am choosing not to contribute directly to the text itself, as i am sure my bias is just too overwhelming. So i'm letting the other editors hammer out their text proposals, they seem to have infinite patience. Coincidentally, just as i was re-reading the Items to be Mediated and looking over this article's disputed points, in another browser window i (unfortunately) wound up looking at these items: [1] [2]. Sadly, i am so inflamed and disturbed by the monumental level of anti-humanist behavior, i just don't think i can possibly do any good work on the actual wording of any sentences and paragraphs in this article. Thankfully there are a few other very calm and much more experienced editors at work on that Mediation, so i will simply participate in the technical process, rather than inject any of my own words into anything that might end up in the mainspace. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 11:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Support for Proposition 8

Hi, All.

This article has these words:

He also publicly supported California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."[26][27] After the measure passed, Warren's Saddleback Church was targeted by protesters.[28]

The first two footnotes are to two PDFs that are about Proposition 8 but don't say who supports it. The third footnote is to a news article about protests at Saddleback Church—an article that mentions Rick Warren but does not say that he supported Proposition 8. I recommend that, when the article is unlocked, we add a footnote referring to CNN.com's transcript of the 6 April 2009 episode of Larry King Live, in which Rick Warren engaged in this exchange:

KING: Did you not encourage your flock to vote yes on Proposition 8?

WARREN: Oh, yes. You know, I don't think that the definition of marriage should be changed.

KING: So you did ask your people who worship with you to vote that way?

WARREN: Yes. I just never campaigned...

KING: ...because that's an active issue.

WARREN: I never campaigned for it. I never -- I'm not an anti-gay activist -- never have been. Never participated in a single event. I just simply made a note in a newsletter. And, of course, everything I write it's -- it's (INAUDIBLE).

KING: It's not high on your road of issues?

WARREN: No, no, it's very low. In fact, I am working with a number of gay organizations on issues that we care about, in saving lives.

Footnotes simply showing the constitutional amendment don't really support the statement that he publicly supported it. His words in the interview do.

President Lethe (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for a very pertinent transcript, it does help to have Rick Warren's own words presented whenever possible. At the moment there is a very long Mediation on this Biography taking place, so i don't know how many days, months, or weeks, will pass until the article finally becomes unlocked. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 01:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Political and Social Views

"He also said that brutal dictators such as Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot were all atheists, when questioned on whether religion is beneficial to society."

It should be noted that this claim is disputed (eg. by Richard Dawkins: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UtwMczGKX8) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.55.66 (talk) 10:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Lol, everything with a touch of religion is disputed by that guy. Although I'm no fan of Warren, Moa, Stalin, and Pol Pot were in fact, atheists. Whether or not that had an effect on what they did is the controversy. I think Dawkins misses the point, as does Warren. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 06:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Civil Unions

"One controversial moment for you in the last election was your support for proposition 8 in California. … Just to clarify, do you support civil unions or domestic partnerships?

I don’t know if I’d use the term there but I support full equal rights for everybody in America. I don’t believe we should have unequal rights depending on particular lifestyles so I fully support equal rights.

[Clarification from Pastor Warren 12/15: I now see you asked about civil UNIONS -and I responded by talking about civil RIGHTS. Sorry. They are two different issues. No American should ever be discriminated against because of their beliefs. Period. But a civil union is not a civil right. Nowhere in the constitution can you find the “right” to claim that any loving relationship identical to marriage. It’s just not there. ]" [3]

I think this should be in the article in some form. It is Warren's view. It is reliably sourced. It is relevant. Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. And you know why I can not say more. Collect (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I dont. Please state your reasons. Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh btw, regarding your edit [4], this issue wasnt mediated. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep -- always fun to use removed edits, though there was nothing actually wrong. Collect (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

So whats your objection? Cause if you have none, I'm gonna add this once the protection is removed. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that would not show temperance. Collect (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not? Can you please state why you object? Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This is unnecessary and irrelevant. It is consistent with his denomination's stance on CU's, and there was very little, if any, major backlash w/ Warren regarding this nuance. The clash was about Prop 8, not CU's, and the addition of CU's is tangential to a subject already receiving considerable space in the article. Rather than suggest/threaten an edit war, if you feel strongly about this, you may as well start requesting mediation (separate from the one in progress), since it's already been beaten to death several times.--Lyonscc (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It has received some attention. Eg: [5]. Huffington post is a reliable source: [6]. Your comment "This is unnecessary and irrelevant" is nonsensical. I'm not "suggest/threaten[ing] an edit war". If you have no valid reasons against inclusion of reliably sourced relevant material, then I'll add it. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You've not proven relevancy, nor proven this reaches the threshold of notability re: Warren. Just because something appears in a RS (which the Huffpost is not - it is a blog), does not mean that it is notable or relevant to the subject at hand. We might as well just publish every statement and sermon made by Warren if we're going to note everything that can be sourced. If you add it, I will remove it per WP:BLP and WP:Undue - so, unless you can prove that it is truly relevant, that it adds to Warren's bio in a substantial and relevant way, it doesn't belong.--Lyonscc (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:Undue and WP:BLP do not apply. This is Warrens article so Warrens views are the "majority". So Warrens own words cant be given WP:Undue weight. Theres no reason not to include Warrens own words in his BLP. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP doesn't apply to a Biography of a Living Person? Picking and choosing what is included is what gives something WP:undue weight, or not. That Warren said something is not determines "majority" - it is the level of importance and prominence given to a topic by the subject of the biography, and the overall amount of space/discussion of that topic in the article. In this case, Warren has very little to say about CU's, his position is identical to that of his denomination, it has not been an overwhelmingly covered angle, and it adds little-to-nothing to a reader's understanding of Warren above the Prop 8 language and Warren's theology.--Lyonscc (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority........The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail so the reader understands how the minority view differs from the widely-accepted one, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should clearly be identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject: For instance, articles on historical views such as flat earth, with few or no modern proponents, may be able to briefly state the modern position then discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief."

So your interpretation of WP:UNDUE is wrong. And I'm guessing his denomination is also against civil unions so Warren is also against civil unions. Why do you want to censor this fact in this article? Phoenix of9 (talk)

Saying that something is not notable and/or that it gives wp:undue weight is completely different from 'censorship'. I don't want to censor anything. I just want the article to give a fair, accurate picture of Warren. Preventing hyperfocus on a topic he's not outspoken about, and hasn't had extensive coverage/criticism for, is at the heart of what wp:undue's about, and is what "getting it right" is about in WP:BLP. Just because an editor happens to have an axe to grind on a particular niche view of the subject of a biography doesn't mean that this niche view rises to the level of notability for the subject of the bio.

If I was a rabid cat-lover and I found an RS article where Rick Warren said he preferred dogs to cats, this doesn't mean that just because a RS quote exists, it is censorship to omit his dislike of cats. Rather, it just means that Warren's opinion on cats - since it is not something he is outspoken about - doesn't rise to a level of relevance and notability to include it. In point of fact, it would give wp:undue weight to add sentences to the article to his 'minority view' on cats.--Lyonscc (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Giving his views on civil unions with a sentence or two is not WP:UNDUE. Yes, a BLP has to get it right so there is no reason to omit his views on civil unions. Also, I dont have an axe to grind. I only want Warren's own words in Warren's own article. If you have a source about Warren being not outspoken about civil unions, add that. Or if you want you can add something from here: "The Rev. Randall Balmer, a professor of American religious history at Barnard College, said that he and Mr. Warren were friends, but they disagree on issues like gay marriage and abortion. And yet, he said, “I think it is a terrible mistake for anyone to view Rick Warren as being in the same category as James Dobson or Chuck Colson,” who are among the most prominent leaders of the religious right.“He’s a new breed,” said Father Balmer, a longtime scholar of American evangelicals, who recently became rector of an Episcopal church.He said that unlike many other evangelical pastors, Mr. Warren had not devoted as much time or effort in support of Proposition 8, a measure on the California ballot in November that amended the State Constitution to ban same-sex marriage." [7]

Your repeated attempts to omit reliably sourced relevant material just because it contradicts your POV is becomming too much. Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You just made my point for me as to why this is not notable (since Warren is not outspoken on the issue). The source you suggest I provide demonstrates that this is simply a WP:coatrack issue. You've not demonstrated relevance or notability - but rather that it is NOT notable. You seem to be consistently (across multiple issues) making the new editor's mistake of "if it's in a Reliable Source, that's all that's needed to argue for inclusion in an article". This line of reasoning completely ignores WP:BLP, WP:Undue, WP:NPOV, and ultimately WP:PLOT. You've demonstrated no relevance or notability to the inclusion of CU's in an article about Rick Warren. A single interview answer with almost no media coverage on a topic that other sources indicated is not a Rick Warren soapbox topic does not make a good argument for inclusion.--Lyonscc (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:Notability is irrelevant here: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons." Again dont make up stuff about policies. Rest of your answer is nonsensical too, ie: misrepresenation/misunderstanding of policies. Read them first before you cite them. But its clear, we are going nowhere. Would you discuss this if I file a RFC / cabal and official mediation? Or would you like to discuss this during the current mediation? Phoenix of9 (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Any discussion about the current mediation should be undertaken there. Not here. Collect (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You said you did not want to discuss this during the current mediation. Have you changed your opinion? Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If you aren't going to propose any new information as to why this is relevant or noteworthy (not talking about WP:Notability), and you won't accept no for an answer w/o being told by someone "official", then this is going to end up in mediation anyway.--Lyonscc (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Saddleback Church and Warren

"Warren's church placed a message on its web site explaining the church's view that Scripture prohibits sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman, which replaced a message that said that people "unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted" as members." [8]

This is reliably sourced relevant material so should be added into the article. See more discussion here [9] Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And you are aware why this is not the proper place yet for sure. Collect (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This answers your position: "My opinion is that 2 news refs linking Warren to the web site are acceptable so long as we do not state that he is/was the author of the content of the web site. It doesn't seem an extraordinary claim to me. Kevin (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)". Anything new to add? Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This item is currently under mediation (see [10]), and since you're party to the mediation, it should not be discussed here at the same time.--Lyonscc (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Collect refused to discuss it. [11]. Read it in Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Rick_Warren/Archive_7, "Another issue" section. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

As I read it, this was disposed of after you left the conversation and before you rejoined (in the Prop 8 negotiations & discussion). I read Collect's comments to mean that he didn't want to reopen the discussion because it had already been decided (as part of the long, drawn-out discussion on what should/should not be in the section about Prop 8. The website change was determined to be superfluous to the discussion, and couldn't be directly attributed to Warren, so it was dropped because nobody in the mediation felt it added to the section on prop 8. I just returned from being gone on vacation for two weeks, so I wasn't around to clarify in the archived section, but I'd suggest bringing this back up in the mediation if you think the Prop 8 discussion needs to be reopened.--Lyonscc (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

After I joined, made clear it wasnt about Prop 8. Phoenix of9 (talk) 03:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

After which joining? Collect (talk) 10:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

There was only one time. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Unprotection to semi-protected state

Well done to all participants in the mediation process. I have commenced unprotection with a 14 day trial period so that transition to agreed content can commence. I have maintained semi-protection so as to allow established editors to complete that process. In 14 days I will return (prompt me if necessary) to remove semi-protection. I will return to full protection if edit warring outside of the transition to agree content occurs.--VS ^talk 21:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Lyonscc and I have completed the substantive edits (fellow editors, please review) but the refs/citations need to be fleshed out; any volunteers? Benccc (talk) 02:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the edits are in. Thanks, Benccc - I got called away and had missed the Dobson/rewording that you picked up. If nobody picks them up tonight, I should be able to check the refs tomorrow.--Lyonscc (talk) 03:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both -- I think we should now co-operate to prevent any additions contrary to the spirit of the mediation. Collect (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

length of Rick Warren's marriage

Rick was married to Elizabeth Kay Lewis on June 21, 1975. They have been married 34 years. Katrinakat (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Photo

Could we update the photo of Rick Warren at the top? That picture might be about 10 years old and does not reflect his current "look". It is not all that recognizable either. Perhaps since since either the inauguration or the civil forum were probably Mr. Warren's most widely viewed events, a picture from either would be appropriate. Be nice, I am new here. - --Mmking31 (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a more up-to-date one that is free licensed (i.e. not copyrighted, or released under a free licence like CC-BY-SA), then by all means upload it somewhere and we can look into replacing it. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a photo on his website that is described as being in his "press kit". Would that be sufficient?--Mmking31 (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably not, unless we can convince him to release it under a compatible license. It might not be too hard to do, actually; Wikipedia articles get millions of pageviews, so he may be willing to help ensure that the lede image is a flattering one of him. If you show me the picture and give me contact information for him, I can try to get in touch with him to get that going. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

http://www.rickwarrennews.com/photos1.htm His official contact information is rickwATsaddleback.net --Mmking31 (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a press kit photo falls under non-free fair use. see Publicity photos --Mmking31 (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Link to Saddlebacking

Since the article had no connection to the term Saddlebacking I have added a link in the see also section. i find it untenable that no link should exist to this word from this articleor any mention of the controversy spawning it. I understand that this has been an issue of controversy before in the editing history of this article, but I simply cannot passively behold this significant connection being suppressed. If there are still strong opinions wanting the suppression to remain in place, I think we need to have a new round of discussion to assess the current consensus on this. __meco (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

We will leave it out until consensus is gained, then. It is an obscure and purposely offensive slur, and there is still no need for it.--Lyonscc (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

As I have stated on Talk:Saddleback Church#The saddlebacking term I can live with the term being removed while a would-be discussion takes place. __meco (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Synclavier, 28 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I would like to add the following text. "Rick Warren was an elected member to the Council on Foreign Relations for 2005-2006." The source for this information is http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/CFRMembers.html

Synclavier (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Done GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number (about 100) selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

Social/Political views

The source for his support of action on climate change did not make any suggestion at all that the letter was controversial, nor was there any suggestion that it was his most controversial act. If that is the case a source needs to be cited supporting this assertion, otherwise it is OR and potentially POV. Ninahexan (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has started carrying links ads which seems to be added randomly. They seem to be marked by underlining the links as in this article: "Warren has called on churches worldwide to also focus their efforts on fighting poverty and disease, expanding educational opportunities for the marginalized, and caring for the environment."

It also happened in article on Wars of the Roses on the word "restored" in the sentence "Several prominent Lancastrians died, but their heirs continued a deadly feud with Richard. Although peace was temporarily restored."

I appears to be done randomly in several articles, and it's done in such a way as to make it hard to trace.

Daniel Digby (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC) Daniel Digby Daniel Digby (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Daniel, you have spyware on your machine. Wikipedia does not contain the kind of ad links you are describing (nor does it contain any advertising). TricksterWolf (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Sources

This article barely has any sources. Can this be verified, the statistics of the drug program Etc? Thanks.

"Over the past two decades, Celebrate Recovery has helped more than 500,000 people overcome alcoholism, drugs, overeating, anger, financial problems, physical and sexual abuse, and other issues. More than 20,000 churches have used the Celebrate Recovery program, and a typical meeting will attract more than 70 percent of its attendees from outside the host church. 85 percent of the people who go through the program stay with the church, and nearly half go on to serve as church volunteers."

Where are the sources for that information? Preceeding unsigned comment by User:Mrdeleted 11:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)