Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Rick Warren/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Summary thus far

Latest comment: 15 years ago19 comments4 people in discussion

Hopefully we have settled down to mediation and will be able to put the personal attacks behind us. You will note that I have excised several of those and I intend to continue to do this as, and when, needed.

Five participants have now provided an initial statement. While the information has been most useful to me in gaining insight into the issues pertaining to this mediation, much is a restating of participants' positions. I asked for a statement about how to solve the dispute and did get some responses. Two comments caught my eye:

... material related to Warren personally be in the BLP, and material directly and specifically related to the church be sent over to the church article.
Find verifiable statements in reliable sources (while the reliable sources are still standing, anyway). Write a description of the events and the controversy based on what's in those reliable sources, adding it to the article about the public figure.

How can these two points be reconciled? WP:NPOV, and particularly WP:UNDUE can perhaps be used as a compass.

Also useful was the wording proposed by Phoenix_of9, based on the earlier version by Benccc. This strikes me as something we can use. Benccc has done some analysis of that text, and that might be a good place to go next. Would each participant now be able to put forward any concerns about the proposed text?

Meanwhile, I hope the other two participants will share their thoughts about ways to solve this conflict. Anyone who has already spoken is also welcome to provide further thoughts on that score. Sunray (talk) 08:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not see a conflict. Verifiable material about the church will be in that article, verifiable material directly about Warren goes in his article. There is no need for church puff (size etc,) being in the BLP, for example. The purpose would be to get two clean articles made to the benefit of WP users. I also do object to using the "finalized" text. I would like you to examine and post my initial compromise proposal as well in that event. The "finalized" proposal is clearly incompatible ab initio with the compromise Firestorm specifically agreed to with me. I would also like Firestorm to provide the compromise on which we had agreed. Thanks! Collect (talk) 10:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama chose Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation. Several organizations criticized Omama as a result, contending that Warren had compared legalized same-sex marriages to the legalization of polygamy, incest and pedophilia. [1][17](etc.) based on Warren's December 2008 Beliefnet interview [24]. Warren sent a video message to his church that said that he does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia, but does oppose the redefining of marriage.[11] Warren 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] eliminating the legal right of same-sex couples to marry.[27] (followed by short abortion paragraph which seems really minor in news coverage) (coupled with removal of puff material bout the church elsewhere in the BLP) Of all the proposals, this was the only one to get some support from each side, by the way. Also note that the number of cites would be reduced to a rational number. Collect (talk) 10:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(sigh). Sunray, for the past 2 months we've been trying to accommodate criticism from Collect, Lyonscc and CarverM. So the version I quoted is the result of that compromise. Maybe I made a 'tactical mistake' and I should have presented a larger version here so that when we came here, we could have said: hey some of those stuff can go, we are willing to compromise.

But that didnt happen and the version I quoted is already a compromise. It is really well sourced. And church stuff is relevant to invocation controversy per the source. I dont know what more to say. What Collect suggested omits relevant reliably sourced material. Phoenix of9 (talk) 11:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh and yes, verifiable church material should also be in the church article, but I see no reason why it shouldnt be in the Warren article as well, if it is relevant. Phoenix of9 (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should note that I came in trying to find a middle ground. As you state it, some might infer that I am in some way of the same opinions as others. This is not really the place to inject personalities IMHO. And note that no material would be omitted from WP at all, contrary to your claim. BTW, status quo ante is a long way from your "finalized" position. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes but relevant material would be ommitted from the Rick Warren article. And your suggestion that the number of cites should be reduced to a "rational number" is entirely nonsensical. With more sources, the article would be more reliably sourced. And WP:V is one of the core policies of Wikipedia. Phoenix of9 (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

And WP:V is honored far more than your edit summary suggests. And it is nice that you view a rational number of cites as "nonsensical" -- some start for mediation. There is no reason in any article for an irrational number of cites. Collect (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any backing for that? Any Wiki policy that mentions "irrational" number of sources? My understanding of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is that the more souces an article has, the better it is. Remember, this is an encyclopedia and we are not here to indulge your "pet peeves" [1] Phoenix of9 (talk) 11:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Responding to points that Collect has multiply repeated, and that I think need to be addressed, clarified and either supported or debunked as may be the case. (I'll be debunking today.)

This attempt to split information between the articles for Warren and his church, with an insistence that any one item belongs in one or the other, and not both, does not work, and I hear it slowly moving toward the absurd. Churches such as this one, though in some sense a large corporate body, reflect the views and personality of the people who start and run them. People hired by the church work at the CEO's instruction (this particularly applies to spokespeople such as Larry Ross who figure into the disputed text). Trying to arbitrarily split the two does not reflect the reality of what transpires in the real world. There will have to be some information about Warren's church in the article about Warren, as likewise the reverse will also be true. (The first part of the "History" section in the church article is all about Warren. I think a one-sentence mention of Warren having given the invocation at the Inauguration would be appropriate to add as it is an indicator of Warren's, and the church's status nationally. This isn't some little chapel by the side of the road somewhere.)
Symptomatic of the drift toward an absurd degree of sorting of fact between CEO and church, is the dismissal of certain important details about the church in the Warren article. I think that the details that Collect dismisses as "church puff" belong in the Warren article. (And I'm speaking as a critic who is generally allergic to "church puff.") The fact that Warren pastors one of the largest churches in the US and the largest church in California is relevant; with that level of organization status comes personal status and influence. That can't be denied or avoided. The church's size is well documented in the usual reliable third-party sources. (Note: I don't recall removal of "church puff" being on the list of issues to be mediated, nor was additional transfer of information from this article to the Saddleback article on that list.)
Splitting facts into one article or the other based on some completely arbitrary and absurd notion of "clean" does not in any way serve readers. The object (in this particular article) is to describe the person, and why they are notable, among other things. Much if not all of of Warren's notability and controversy stems from the fact that he runs a church, so some description of the church is necessary, and so will be some description of what role the church plays in controversies generated by Warren's words and actions in public. (There may in fact be a case here that readers would have been best served if there were only one merged article, such that readers would find all of this information about this tightly coupled set of founder and organization all in one place - not a case for further confusing readers by arbitrarily splitting information across two articles.)
Technically there's nothing "finalized" about the proposed text, but after two months of dispute, discussion, suggestion and work it is what has emerged - and I'm very pleased with it.
Anything you and Firestorm agreed to is between you two, and if I recall correctly no other editor agreed with that. It seems that now Firestorm has endorsed the Proposal 7 language which I do believe is what Phoenix of9 posted above (somebody correct me if I've got that wrong) which might indicate that Firestorm, no longer a mediator, no longer agrees with whatever you agreed to.
I have heard of no policy or convention that suggests that arbitrarily limiting the number of cites is a good thing. Somebody correct me if I've missed something significant about that.
I may be picking nits, but posting your proposed text multiple times with the name of the President of the United States misspelled doesn't help me take your proposal seriously. - Mike Doughney (talk) 11:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Talking about Proposal 7, Sunray, did you check out Talk:Rick_Warren#Analysis_of_proposals_.28aka_proposal_7.29? It was also an analysis from one of the admins, Kevin. Phoenix of9 (talk) 11:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Yes. And referring to "pet peeves" makes me fear you do not comprehend "mediation." As does "debunking." WP:CS has "If an article contains too many references, feel free to remove some of these, but take care that no essential information is lost." [2] "The conclusion seemed to be that foreign language refs should only be used if no equivalent English language refs can be found." [3] "What is sufficient? Well, you don't need to place an inline citation after each sentence." "Oops, about "being over referenced" there does seem to be (in some cases) a tendency to do the academic paper approach (the more the better or more credible) but it is an encyclopedia, not a journal article for peer review at that level and might indicate a lack of confidence in the material. " and so on for as many cites as you might desire. "Overciting" makes for nicely unreadable articles at best. Collect (talk) 12:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In obvious tension with that convention, also in WP:CS, are, under "When to cite sources:" "When adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" and "When adding material to the biography of a living person." Also, further down: "In some cases, more than one reference may be necessary to support a fact. This can be because the claim is particularly controversial..." and obviously everything in the proposed text is particularly controversial, as well as in a BLP and likely to be challenged by somebody eventually, so additional references should be welcomed, not removed. Mike Doughney (talk) 12:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I redact my nonsensical and pet peeves comments, I hadnt seen WP:CS. Thats all I needed, some backing, rather than personal opinions. I dont have any problem with removing the german source anymore. Phoenix of9 (talk) 12:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Firestorm and I agreed when I committred my full support to a compromise that four cites for a claim was a reasonable limit. That surely should be sufficient. "In some cases, more than one" does not remotely approach a half dozen or more (grin). The use of Ossa on Pelion does not aid any encyclopedia. Collect (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I guess we can drop this as well [4]. Then it becomes 4. Phoenix of9 (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I updated my statement. Phoenix of9 (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason why the cites appear to be for the word "because"? (grin) Collect (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I thought it was obvious. Phoenix of9 (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

suggestion? leave the details for last

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

I rather think it is unwise to have long posts at the start dealing with every jot and tittle -- ought we restart with really, really short statements as to what we each feel the salient couple of points are so that we can proceed apace? At this point, we basically have a recreation of the article talk page. BTW, I would like to note that virtually none of the edits I ever made to the article were controversial in the slightest. If we can get a list of issues into a table, maybe we could understand better how to proceed? Collect (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I only asked for concerns about Phoenix of9's proposed wording. I didn't add "keep it brief and to the point." However, it will be most beneficial to adopt that as a principle for all our communications. I've made two requests:

A brief statement from each participant as to how to solve this dispute (and the door is open to add to this).
Comments, or concerns, related to the text proposed by Phoenix of9.

Collaborative, and brief, contributions will assist us to find a solution, IMO. Sunray (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Re Sunray's question about how to reconcile the dispute about including info about Saddleback Church in this article, surely we can provide readers with salient and brief information about Saddleback Church -- information that illuminates the article's subject -- without crossing the boundaries of policy. Disinterested readers will presumably skip over that info. I think it's inevitable, as well as useful, that encyclopedia articles have some overlap. Editors who have interest in and knowledge of various subjects can help ensure that those subjects are presented appropriately, consistently, and proportionally across the various articles that mention them.

In answer to Sunray's request that we put forward concerns about the proposed text, I have a few:

While the information that "Warren later released a video message saying he does not equate (etc)" may be accurate, the significance of the format of the message is lost on me -- could we not simply say "Warren later stated that he does not equate (etc)"?

I have a hard time imagining that readers would better understand Warren upon learning that "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." Doesn't the information we provide about Warren's statements regarding same-sex marriage make roughly the same point, and with more direct connection to Warren?

Re the Saddleback policy that gay people "unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted" as members, I don't have a strong opinion about whether it's useful in the Rick Warren article, but it's a striking factoid, distinct from the marriage issue (which I think we cover sufficiently in the proposed text), and may not be widely known, and therefore might help readers understand why Obama's invitation to Warren generated controversy. Benccc (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Lyonscc additions/comments-

Shorten the Prop 8 section as noted in my comments (to not repeat them here) - note the subject matter, but avoid the posturing language.
Severely distill the beliefnet information. Including the "I do" w/o the full response is proof-texting it.
Strike the website material. It's about Saddleback - not Warren - and it's no different than the position of the SBC (to which Saddleback belongs).
This doesn't address the issue with trying to tie Warren to Dobson, unless its absence from Phoenix_of9's proposal is to eliminate this section, in which case I would support it.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Teledildonix314

[struck-through text by Teledildonix314 removed] Thank you for letting me give my opinions. I hope people will see that i am not commenting on specific editors, i am commenting only on what i see as important aspects of writing articles honestly. 18:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Process idea - Brief Answers Please

Latest comment: 15 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion

We're discussing many individual points of dispute regarding the first paragraph of our "working version" (assuming, again, that the paragraph regarding abortion is resolved). We've presented so many arguments (some specific, some not) regarding these various points, I find it hard to keep track. Meanwhile I think nerves are frayed. My inclination at this point is to isolate specific points of dispute, break them into bite-size pieces, resolve each in turn, and thereby finish. Having not been through a mediation process before I don't know whether it's presumptuous of me to advocate for a process -- Sunray please let me know if I'm disrupting a process you find effective. But here goes. Setting aside wording for a moment -- we can address wording next -- let's isolate three pieces of information that we must simply decide whether to include in, or exclude from, the paragraph. I list them below, along with my understanding of each party's current position. If any of you feel I've misrepresented your position, I apologize and ask that you correct me. Firestorm, because you're listed as a party to the mediation I have included your name here, but if you prefer to take more of an observer/facilitator role please say so and we can leave your name out of it. The three issues are:

1. Whether to include/exclude the information that California Proposition 8 eliminated the (TBD) of same-sex couples to marry in California. (wording TBD)

include -- Benccc, Teledildonix314, Mike Doughney, Phoenixof9, Firestorm

exclude -- Lyonscc

accept either -- Collect

2. Whether to include/exclude the information that Saddleback Church does not accept unrepentant homosexuals as members. (wording TBD)

include -- Teledildonix314, Mike Doughney, Phoenixof9

exclude -- Lyonscc, Collect

accept either -- Benccc, Firestorm

3. Whether to include/exclude the information that the view of the Saddleback Church is that Scripture prohibits sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman. (wording TBD)

include -- Teledildonix314, Mike Doughney, Phoenixof9

exclude -- Lyonscc, Collect

accept either -- Benccc, Firestorm

Assuming I've properly characterized everyone's positions, we come close to agreement on issue #1, so we may be able to resolve that one quickest.

We are seriously divided regarding issues #2 and #3. I have leanings on both issues, but have listed myself as "accept either" in the interest of achieving resolution. Here's what I propose: to be very structured and methodical about this, let's work first only on issue #1, then once we have resolution, move on to #2, and so on. Once we've resolved all 3, I propose we move onto specific wording, again doing so methodically, phrase by phrase or word by word as needed. Would this be acceptable to everyone? If it's not acceptable to you, would you please propose a specific alternate process?

Assuming (hoping) the above process is acceptable, Lyonscc would you please recap your concerns regarding issue #1? Benccc (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

4. Comparison Issue

include -- Teledildonix314, Mike Doughney, Phoenixof9, Collect (doesnt like current wording?), Firestorm (?)

exclude -- Lyonscc

accept either -- Benccc (?)

...Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually would prefer the normal mediation process, if that is all right. Collect (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the above does not adequately represent my views -- I would exclude nothing from WP -- my issue is solely where in WP material belongs, which is what I had reached an agreement on before. Collect (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Then correct it. For efficiency, I took the liberty to put the parts that can be edited by anyone between lines. Benccc, if you dont like my edits, sorry, feel free to revert. Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I would second Collect in letting the process work, as well. However, I will still briefly comment on where I stand w/ Issue #1.

With Issue #1 (wording of Prop 8), my issues are primarily around WP:UNDUE and WP:COAT, and (depending on the wording) WP:NPOV. Warren was not an outspoken proponent of Prop 8 - and, in fact, was criticized by the churches supporting Prop 8 for not using his public persona or cash to support it. In the end, because "no expressed opinion" was confusing to those in his church, he released a statement to the church members supporting Prop 8 - but not a press release. (Also, as a long-time editor of the Warren article, his church's position on homosexuality has been most criticized by fundamentalist Christians as being "too soft on gays", which makes efforts to make him seem like an anti-gay crusader all the more ironic.) Keeping this in mind, devoting much space, at all, to Prop 8 would be to give it WP:UNDUE weight in a WP:BLP about Warren. So, it is completely within the bounds of notability to say that he supported Prop 8 (at least to his church), but to devote much space to the issue seems to be overkill, coatrackish and tendentious.

Additionally, describing what Prop 8 was is a rather tricky proposition (if you will pardon the pun). There was a good deal of public wrangling in California over the "official" characterization of Prop 8, and there have been a number of flaps over this on the California Proposition 8 (2008) page. So, keeping this in mind, it seems the most WP:NPOV to just mention that Warren supported Prop 8, wikilink Prop 8, and give the general subject matter of Prop 8, as suggested by (then-admin) Kevin:

Warren also issued a statement to his church that supported California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution with regard to same-sex marriages.

This a) describes accurately what Warren (the subject of the biography) did; b) gives the subject matter of Prop 8 and a wiki-link in the most WP:NPOV manner possible; 3) is brief, avoiding WP:UNDUE; and (2) + (3) to avoid coatracking. Why all of the extra posturing about Prop 8 - what it said & what it did - is needed in a WP:BLP on a nominal supporter of the amendment has never been justified.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Scattering related, relevant information about the subject into another article serves the same purpose as outright exclusion of the information. Mike Doughney (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) "Also, as a long-time editor of the Warren article, his church's position on homosexuality has been most criticized by fundamentalist Christians as being "too soft on gays", which makes efforts to make him seem like an anti-gay crusader all the more ironic." What does this have to do with the article? Be brief, this isnt a blog. Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

sigh Do we really need to go here again? I'm just trying to take the long-view on this article, as on any one, that an article should not just be a summation of current events, but that it should accurately reflect the overall make-up of its subject. As such, in the sentence you quote, I am pointing out that the "long view" on Warren has been that he has been less strident on homosexuality issues than his counterparts, and that most historic criticism has been from the right. SO, to try and paint him as an anti-homosexual zealot is very inaccurate, short-sighted, propagandistic and tendentious.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as a matter of fact, we need to go here again. This is largely a mechanical process. As I wrote above, events occur, when they appear in reliable sources they are eligible to be included in the article. Warren's statements are well documented, are the source of controversy - perhaps the most public, high-profile things that ever involved Warren in his entire lifetime - and that needs to be reflected in the article. I will note that I've been making an effort to be clear and concise in my writing, appealing to common sense rather than policy. You, on the other hand, don't seem to be making a common-sense argument, instead, dragging in a lot of links that start with "WP:" as if they were weapons, and not making much sense to me except to make it clear that you're continuing the same campaign that you, Collect and other removed editors have been carrying on for months, in an apparent continuation of the same determined effort to sanitize this article of anything that now or may ever accurately document Warren's actions. (Personal attack removed) Mike Doughney (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Mike: Would you be able stick to content, and not personalize things, please? Sunray (talk) 07:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Collect, I was just trying something new to keep things moving. My hope was that if we could create greater clarity around very specific disagreements, then Sunray could more easily help us work through them. I may be out of bounds, and it sounds like you don't think the process I proposed would be helpful -- I'm curious to know why if you don't mind saying.

Collect, I absolutely did not mean to suggest I think you want to exclude anything from Wikipedia! I thought it was understood that we're talking here about the Rick Warren article. With that in mind, please correct me if I mischaracterized your positions above.

Everyone, please set aside the question of whether Rick Warren is hard on gays, soft on gays, right about gays, wrong about gays, etc. I'm afraid it will get in the way of our ability to effectively serve readers (who hold all of those opinions and more). We agree that Obama's invitation sparked controversy, which was tied in part to perceptions about Warren's opposition to same-sex marriage and support for Proposition 8. We've agreed this will be mentioned in the article. We've agreed to briefly identify what Prop 8 was, versus simply wikilinking it. Some of these agreements have been hard-won, but I think they're behind us. The issue at hand is whether it's helpful to tell readers that Prop 8 eliminated the (TBD) of same-sex couples to marry. Lyonscc has recapped (thank you) his concern that this info may cross the boundaries of WP:UNDUE, WP:COAT, and/or WP:TEND (let's start with the policies -- as you can see I'm trying to break things down to specifics). He also mentioned concerns about WP:NPOV depending on the wording, but let's tackle that later when we talk about wording. I think the other parties here share Lyonscc's concern that we must adhere to those policies, but believe that we may include the info in #1 above without violating them. It would be helpful for us to learn Sunray's perspective on whether the info would run afoul of those policies. If we can resolve the adherence-to-policy question, we'll have made progress. Benccc (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"... whether the info would run afoul of these policies." I'm glad you raised this. WP:BLP, WP:VER and WP:NPOV (and, of course, WP:UNDUE, which is a section of the latter policy) are the bible when it comes to Wikipedia biographies. WP:COAT and WP:TEND are essays and not binding in any way. Of course, if we are following the three policies, we won't be likely to have problems with these two. The reason why policies are important to consider right now is that participants will benefit from having an external reference point. If we focus on the policies, we can begin to do some problem-solving. Sunray (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

And still I happen to think we are ignoring the process here. Did anyone else read prior mediation cases? Collect (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

What aspects of the process are we ignoring, Collect? Sunray (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Normally one would expect the issues set forth in the RfM to be addressed in an orderly manner -- asking each person to briefly address each issue as stated in it. Then the mediator can see where the disagreements lie, and suggest possible compromises regarding each individual issue raised. Instead, we are back on the original talk page discussing "proposals" which is actually the very last part of the process. Otherwise the whole concept of identifying issues was useless indeed. Did you look at past mediations over the past two years? The successful ones all identified the individual issues as the first part of the process. Collect (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It sounds as though you would like this mediation to identify the issues and then proceed systematically through each identified issue. Do I read you right? If so, I agree that this is a good way to proceed. The process of mediation is to assist the participants to move from positions to interests. Once this happens, common interests can be identified and a collaborative, problem-solving approach adopted. The final step is to determine a solution, or solutions, and an action plan.

I am well aware of what works in mediation. Things don't always go by the numbers, though. In this case, there has been ongoing mediation and some participants seem to have dug in. The positions and interests have been pretty well clarified as a result of the mediation with Firestorm. I didn't try to go back over that ground because participants have moved on to working on text. I can see the sticking points. My goal is to help participants begin to work collaboratively on dealing with the outstanding issues and concerns. BTW, there is no reason why the mediator should have to do all the work. In a multiparty mediation, it often works well when participants take initiative. Sunray (talk) 06:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Process

Latest comment: 15 years ago66 comments8 people in discussion

I very much appreciate the efforts of several participants to provide an overview of the issues of this mediation. Benccc focussed on three points and Phoenix of 9 added a fourth. Lyoncc referred to the applicable policies and suggested that we take a "long view." This seems consistent with the "conservative" and "neutral" style that WP:NPOV requests. Participants have commented on the various issues identified for this mediation. While many good points have been raised, much of it is said from a particular position.

As I said above, it is important to move from positions to interests and to begin working things through. The issues have been identified and we have the policies, how about we start with one of the issues and begin work on it? I propose that we start with Prop 8. Am I correct that everyone agrees that it should be mentioned and the issue is how? If so, let's look at some alternative approaches and see how the policies guide us. Simply put, we have to be conservative, neutral, and not give undue weight. Sunray (talk) 08:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I demur that the issues have been clarified. I have no personal connection to any theological or political issues here, and it is important that the issues as defined in the RfM be, at some point, properly discussed. Else once the one paragraph is done, surely the material removed from it will likely be inserted again in another spot in the article. By getting a fully agreed mediation to which each will be bound, I trust this could be avoided. Collect (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"Long view" according to whom? Phoenix of9 (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The policy, in a nutshell, is: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." We have to agree on how to best achieve that. Sunray (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Prop 8

List of suggested wordings (feel free to add):

1)because Warren had endorsed California Proposition 8[1][2][3], which amended the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," [4] which eliminated the legal right of same-sex couples to marry; [5]

2)Warren also issued a statement to his church that supported California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution with regard to same-sex marriages.

3)In December 2008, President-elect Obama chose Warren to deliver the Invocation at his Inauguration. "Gay rights advocates and progressives denounced the decision to associate with Warren, an outspoken opponent of abortion rights, same-sex marriage and stem cell research..." A letter from The Human Rights Campaign "noted Warren's vocal support of California's Proposition 8, a ballot measure banning gay marriage in the state that was approved by California voters last month." According to Balmer though, a longtime scholar of American evangelicals, "Mr. Warren had not devoted as much time or effort in support of Proposition 8..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix of9 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about how to present Prop 8 in the article - Brief Answers Pls

Latter is only supported by Lyonscc I think tho Collect may support him as well since their positions are very close. I think the 2nd is unnecessarily vague. WP:NPOV =/= delete everything. The point of Wiki articles is to provide information. Phoenix of9 (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe that having "eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry" is NPOV. When voters in California cast their ballots, what they saw was Proposition 8: Eliminates the Right of Same Sex Couples to Marry, followed by the text added to the California State Constitution. That is the official title of the ballot initiative, and that is the wording that should be used, in my opinion. Firestorm ^Talk 17:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

As I have explained many times over in previous discussion... yes. I don't know why this is even an issue. Mike Doughney (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Other Discussion

There are far more than "2 options" which we could discuss if we actually talk about the issues delineated at the RfM. Trying to dichotomize everything is not a wise path IMHO. Collect (talk) 13:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Then correct it. You arent being efficient. Phoenix of9 (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The efficient manner to proceed, as I had thought I had previously stated, was to follow the standard mediation route. Did you miss that post of mine? Collect (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you miss Sunray's answer to you? Phoenix of9 (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

And did you still miss my posts? Let;s work on this since you are so anxious. The earliest and only report I can find for Warren;s support of Prop 8 is at [5] which has his support being an email to church members saying "For 5,000 years, every culture and every religion - not just Christianity - has defined marriage as a contract between men and women. "There is no reason to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2% of our population."" Thus the issue of when (two weeks before the election and well after voting had started for absentees), to whom (email to church members) and nature of his position (clearly he did not view it as removing a "right" so appending that as though it was his personal goal is marginal. Next comes the question of his view as to whether it was a right" or not when he noted "He added that the California State Supreme Court "threw out the will of the people" when it decided to overturn Proposition 22, which declares marriage to be a union between one man and one woman. The proposition was upheld by 61 per cent of voters in 2000 but thrown out in May this year when the court deemed it discriminatory towards same-sex couples and therefore unconstitutional." which rather implies he did not feel a proper "right" existed when the will of 61% of the electorate was rejected. Thus one might well argue for "Warren, in an email to church members, stated "For 5,000 years, every culture and every religion - not just Christianity - has defined marriage as a contract between men and women. There is no reason to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2% of our population." One possible other way to treat the subject. And there are more, but until we settle to what extent the common theology of Southern Baptists is relevant in the article (one of the issues in the RfM) how can we settle this? As far as I can tell, his email does not actually "oppose Proposition 8" as a direct statement. Collect (talk) 14:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) That was too long. Please add your suggestion to the list above. Phoenix of9 (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

ROFL -- I noted your earlier posts. TLDR is about as impolite as you can get, and massively ironic. And since I could add two dozen choices, I think your comment is not useful here. Collect (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Add the best one according to you. Phoenix of9 (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

As mediator, it is my job to make suggestions to participants about their contributions. It would be helpful if participants avoided commenting on how others express their views. Would all participants be able to avoid commenting about each other, please? Sunray (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no "best one" unless and until we determine what the salient issues are and how they get mediated. At this point, I think we are a long way from settling those, and dichotomizing choices is not the way to go. Collect (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What salient issues? Phoenix of9 (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Bite-size pieces

Collect, I know you want to follow a standard mediation route, and I confess I don't know what that is. But a process is not a goal, and you and I and our fellow editors have the mutual goal (I hope and trust) of resolving all the editing issues under dispute, and surely there are a few different and effective and valid ways we can skin that cat. It looks like we can't resolve all the issues in one fell swoop, as might have happened prior to mediation when Firestorm initiated some straw polls. That's why I suggested the bite-size pieces process above. Won't you please join me in giving it a try? If it doesn't work we'll move on, but mightn't it work?

Today it seems we're talking about both the content and the wording of our Prop 8 explanation, and within that discussion I see two distinct areas of disagreement: 1. Does our explanation include or exclude the factoid that Prop 8 eliminated the (wording TBD) of same-sex couples to marry; and 2. How do we word our explanation of Prop 8. I had very much hoped to approach these questions one at a time. Conservative leader Grover Norquist once said "I simply want to reduce (government) to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." That's my view of our editing tasks -- though I prefer the old publishing term of "putting them to bed."

Collect, I can appreciate your concern about not wanting to dichotomize choices when more that two choices exist, but the attractive thing about one question on the table -- the one I hope we can settle fastest, as we're closest to agreement on it -- is a binary choice (whether to exclude/include the factoid). If we can put that to bed, we can move on to wording, where more than one choice has been proposed. I think the wording discussion will be easier once we've made the first decision.

Is this not the lowest-hanging fruit? Wouldn't it be a relief to put a checkmark next to an item? Benccc (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is not, and I fear that going sentence by sentence is not sentient. If we can determine what the major issues are, we will avoid having people, after this is done, reinserting the same materials into other sections of the same article. No matter what is agreed to, that would be the worst of all possible results. Thus trying to iron out a single sentence at a time is unlikely to provide any long term efficacy. Collect (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Please allow me to redact my remarks which weren't constructive, i'm sorry if i offended by not being Civil enough and i will try to just listen quietly from now on. Thank you ~ Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk~ _4-1-1 ~ 18:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to propose we go sentence by sentence but rather decision by decision. Regardless of what sentences we use, I see a dispute over whether to include/exclude three distinct factoids as I listed above. The wording I use there may just be "placeholder" -- it's the factoids themselves (whatever the wording) that I wished to list.

One of them, whether to include/exclude the factoid that Prop 8 eliminated the (wording TBD) of same-sex couples to marry, is what brought me to our discussion in the first place when I added it to the article on January 6 and it was removed by CarverM. I did not put it back, even after I was informed who CarverM is, because I saw that other editors wanted to keep it out, and I hoped to learn why and see if their concerns could be resolved. Thousands of words and more than a month later I have failed to get to the bottom of it -- it seems to keep sinking back into a haze. Certain other decisions that seem tantalizingly within our reach seem to keep sinking back into a haze. Mightn't we pause to pick one specific decision and get it behind us (and it doesn't have to be about my factoid). Won't it be like a cool swig of water?

Speaking of resolving concerns (if I may spend another moment on my factoid), Collect if I correctly understand your post of 14:05 today, one of your concerns is that the factoid might cause readers to think that Warren himself believed that Prop 8 would take away a right, when evidence does not support such a conclusion. Is that indeed a concern or am I misunderstanding you?

Teledildonix314, your note about civility is appreciated. I hope you will continue to participate in our collective efforts to reach decisions. Benccc (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Multiple issues -- including how "public" an email which does not state that he is "endorsing proposition 8" is, and whhether that email as reported supports a charge in any way that he saw it as "taking away a right" of anyone at all, or whether he viewed it as reinstating the 61% of the electorate who voted for the previous proposition's rights. Whether his theological beliefs, insofar as they are typical within his denomination, merit specic coverage in this article, and whether material specifically about the church is better suited for this article than for the article actually on the church. I can not speak for what others regard as issues here. I believe we all accepted that all the stuff about Dobson is completely extraneous to this BLP - is that correct? In any case, whatever is mediated I would propose should extend to the entire article -- so there can be no editorial gameplaying. D'accord? Collect (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

We havent gotten to Dobson yet. Phoenix of9 (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Collect, I share your wish to avoid editorial gameplaying. If it ever looks like I'm straying into gameplaying territory please (anyone) give me a (specific, please) heads up about that. As for mediations extending to the entire article, I don't follow you -- only a handful of elements of the article are in dispute...?

Re Prop 8, I don't remember the email you're mentioning. I first learned about Warren's support of Prop 8 via the news (probably like most people), and it wasn't until recently that I saw his video about it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o4QqGbQmU0). I haven't paid close attention to what citations we're using and I figure we'll eventually agree on some appropriate ones -- that video could be a good one. I agree with you that we have no cause to tell readers that Warren saw Prop 8 as taking away a right. It doesn't look to me like the wording above ("...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...") creates that particular impression. I'm not crazy about the wording but it reflects input from a variety of editors and I can live with it -- it gets the job done. In your view what specific word(s) might create the impression that we're claiming Warren saw Prop 8 as taking away a right, and what specific words might solve the problem? Benccc (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That's just the thing. By adding in the additional, unnecessary (since it's not about the subject of the article) verbiage about Prop 8 gives the impression that Warren did see Prop 8 as taking away a right. Why include the extra verbiage at all? By simply noting nothing more than that the Proposition dealt with same sex marriage, the reader is given no "spin" as to what Warren believed about Prop 8. It's the most WP:NPOV of the options we've discussed that define Prop 8 in any way. Why is it necessary to further define Prop 8, other than noting its subject matter, and how is the further definition not a coat-rack for the issue of same-sex marriage in California?--Lyonscc (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Well you already know I think the factoid helps the reader understand why Obama's decision was controversial. I just thought of a way to illustrate it. Here are a few lines about the Watergate complex in Washington DC, paired with a few lines about the controversy over Obama's decision. We can assume that some readers won't know what the Watergate scandal was or what Proposition 8 was. We'll start by telling them nothing, and we'll gradually tell them more.

The Watergate complex is an office-apartment-hotel complex built in 1967 in northwest Washington, D.C., United States, best known for the Watergate scandal.

Obama's choice was criticized by several notable organizations in part because Warren had endorsed California Proposition 8.

The Watergate complex is an office-apartment-hotel complex built in 1967 in northwest Washington, D.C., United States, best known for the Watergate scandal, which pertained to burglaries that occurred there.

Obama's choice was criticized by several notable organizations in part because Warren had endorsed California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution with regard to same-sex marriages.

The Watergate complex is an office-apartment-hotel complex built in 1967 in northwest Washington, D.C., United States, best known for being the site of burglaries that led to the Watergate scandal and the resignation of President Richard Nixon.

Obama's choice was criticized by several notable organizations in part because Warren had endorsed California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.

The last sentence about the Watergate Complex is the one that appears in the Wikipedia article. I imagine the reader thinking "aha, no wonder the Watergate complex is well known!" They may be inspired to visit the article about the Watergate scandal and learn more. I don't think the first or second versions of the Watergate sentence convey the thing that's most distinctive about what happened there. The second version mentions burglaries, but burglaries have happened in many hotels.

Simiarly, I don't think the first or second sentences about the Obama controversy switch on the lightbulb for readers ignorant of Prop 8. As for the second version, many states have amendments regarding same-sex marriage. That's not what was distinctive/unique about Prop 8. But when readers encounter the third version, I imagine some thinking "aha, no wonder some criticized Obama!" Other readers who know what Prop 8 was, or who don't care, would presumably skip over it. Readers who appreciate Prop 8 may think, "and thank goodness." Readers who dislike Prop 8 may think "argh." Peace to them all.

As for your belief that inclusion of that factoid would mislead readers into thinking that Warren saw Prop 8 as a way to take away a right, this is the first time I've heard you raise that issue....

...which leads me to step back here and say I'm having a little crisis of faith. Ever since Mr. Carver nixed my addition of that factoid in January, the status quo has been that the factoid is absent from the article, which I understand is your preference. I have worried that this might give you a disincentive to negotiate with me regarding whether the factoid could indeed be included in the article in a way that's accurate, consistent with policy, and helpful to readers. Please consider that from where I sit you have introduced many ideas as to why the factoid should be excluded, including Wikipedia policies it might violate (WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, WP:COAT, and WP:TEND), as well as your opinions that it is unnecessary, not sufficiently relevant to the article's subject, too long, and spin-ish. You've even said it's inaccurate because Prop 8 did not eliminate the right to create civil unions, which are a shade of marriage; a federal court could have overturned the California Supreme Court's finding of a right to marriage and therefore no such right actually existed; and the finding hadn't been affirmed by legislation. (I think this list is roughly correct and I apologize for anything I got wrong there).

I've done my best to read the relevant policies, review the Court finding and the ballot initiative, review whether a federal court could overturn the California Supreme Court, and engage you in specific examination of each of those ideas to see if the language truly contained policy violations and inaccuracies and whether they could be fixed. I feel like you keep moving on to other things and are not inclined to work with me on the specifics. I know you have other things to think about -- we all do -- but can you see why my faith is flagging? If we can roll up our sleeves and find a way to present the factoid accurately, concisely, and within the boundaries of WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, WP:COAT, and WP:TEND, is it something you could accept? If not, please do me the favor of telling me "no" now so I can stop knocking myself out here! Benccc (talk) 03:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the thing, and I thought I'd been pretty clear in citing the specific policies, but maybe not. You arguments are all on the part of making Prop 8 fully understandable to the reader. And that's the crux of the issue: This article is not about Prop 8 - it's about Rick Warren. The essence of WP:UNDUE and WP:COAT, as they relate to biographies of living persons, is in making sure that biographies remain that, rather than places for introduction of other subjects. My experience as an editor is almost exclusively involving BLP's (a number dealing with folks I disagree with, theologically, including Mr. Warren on a number of points), and I've come to see that these articles, in particular, are seen as "gold-mines" for launching POV's and coatracks on a myriad of subjects (quite often criticisms of specific minutiae of their theological positions on the most esoteric of topics). But when it comes down to it, a biography of a living person is their biography, not a place to position, place and influence opinion on side-issues they may or may not be involved with.

In the case of Prop 8, Warren's support was communicated to his church family, not aimed at the press, and he spent very little time and $0 in supporting it. Had he been highly outspoken and funded opposition campaigns, it might warrant more focus, but he wasn't and he didn't. My original position was that Prop 8 shouldn't be mentioned (best option) or that it should only be wiki-linked (acceptable option). I've compromised and agreed that it does deserve mention, and that its subject matter should be mentioned (as Prop 8 fades from the public consciousness). Between the completely neutral mention of the subject matter and the wikilink to the full article on Prop 8, all of the needed content in a BLP is present. Further posturing/positioning of Prop 8 gives the appearance of making those views of Prop 8 into Warren's views of Prop 8 (since this is an article specifically about him - not prop 8). Adding more information about Prop 8 does not do more to illuminate Warren's biography - it just makes his article less about him and more about a subject he was tangentially involved with. I understand everything you're saying - I'm just saying it belongs on a page about Prop 8, not one about Rick Warren.--Lyonscc (talk) 05:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

(redacted my extraneous remark, please ignore ~ Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk~ _4-1-1 ~ 05:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC))

Generally, I think it is preferable to leave posts on talk pages, once made - although participants often think better of something they have said and strikethrough some of their text. I remove personal attacks in keeping with WP:NPA, but other than that contributions of participants usually remain until archived. I thought that some of your comments, above, about the media coverage in reference to WP:NPOV, were valuable. I hope you will continue to participate. Sunray (talk) 08:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, i felt i had spoken slightly incoherently and maybe it would be better if i could redo that entire comment. I am disagreeing with that phrase about he was tangentially involved with. I'm looking at the Reliable Sources of AllAfrica in March, the Google Video of Rick Warren's official endorsement of Prop 8 in October, the New York Times in November, the Advocate in December, and the many other citations such as when CNN has a headline about "Obama's Choice Sparks Outrage". That's part of why i believe a small elaboration about Prop 8 would't be Undue Weight: because it was part of a famous story with many media outlets covering the issues; and each step of the way, Warren made public statements about his concerns, rather than any claims of being uninvolved. When i read these Reliable Sources they tell me Rick Warren chose to be specifically involved. When i watched Warren's own video, he ferevently expressed his concern about making a statement and making an important request of his churchmembers to vote on Prop 8 and the California political issues. He is shown on video actively choosing to be involved, in his own words, and i think that is rather the opposite of side-issues they may or may not be involved with and also the opposite of he was tangentially involved. Thank you. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk~ _4-1-1 ~ 09:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Lyonscc, you mention how little effort and money Warren put into supporting Prop 8. Perhaps he didn't mean his support to become controversial. Perhaps it's unjust that it became so. You wrote that his endorsement "was not aimed at the press," and for all I know he was surprised and frustrated that it became news. It did become news, and consequently Prop 8 is mentioned in the Warren article, so I provided readers with a very brief, neutral, accurate, and salient explanation of it. My edit -- the one Mr. Carver nixed -- lengthened a single sentence by only five words, and yet it provided readers with info -- previously missing -- about why Prop 8 was controversial, which in factored into the controversy over Obama's choice of Warren to give the inauguration invocation.

There was once a barrage of media implying that Gary Condit was involved in the death of Chandra Levy, though there's no evidence he was. George Allen's political career was damaged by a media firestorm over his use of the word "macaca," which some alleged was a racial slur -- even though Allen said he didn't know the meaning of the word. These things became news, and part of history, and part of the biographies of the people involved. I'm not saying Warren was falsely accused of endorsing Prop 8, of course; my point is that something that may seem irrelevant or minor to you or me or Rick Warren can nonetheless become part of history and part of biography (and of course the inauguration controversy didn't seem minor at all to some people).

You write that people often seek to use BLP's to do bad stuff and influence opinions. If you mean you think I intended my edit to influence opinions, wouldn't I be foolish to think it could do so? A huge number of people wanted to put a halt to same-sex marriages, a huge number of people wanted to let them continue, and no doubt a lot of people didn't care one way or the other. All presumably have different opinions of Prop 8 and its effects.

If a piece of information appears to promote a particular view, we can balance it with information about other views. If Warren did not believe Prop 8 would take away a right, OK, we can find a source and cite it. To exclude a small piece of information that readers may find helpful, shouldn't we set the bar higher? Can't we work on the wording instead... add other info or clarifications as needed...? Benccc (talk) 10:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) As I noted above, we ought not say he "publicaly endorsed" something when he made a statement in an email to church member which apparently did not use the word "endore" not the phrase "proposition 8" in it. We ought not append "right" in the same sentence as that becomes WP:SYN per se. What we can say is "Warren in an email to church members stated that marriage was 'a contract between between men and women.' ^[1] Proposition 8 be defining marriage as between a man and a woman ended the rights of same-sex couples to marry in California." If we do so, we should also agree that the article should not ten have a statement in any other section which goes beyond this. Else mediation would solve nothing. Collect (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments on discussion

While the Prop 8 reference may have looked like "low hanging fruit," it has proved far too illusive to grab. I'm not sure that either of the proposed wordings are quite there yet. The first wording, "[Obama was criticised] because Warren had endorsed California Proposition..." does not seem to be supported by the references. Neither the CNN story nor the article in the NY Times make the direct link with Proposition 8. Rather they say that Obama's choice was controversial because of Warren's views. I also agree that the second wording is vague. How about we draft wording that is closer to the sources, perhaps even including one or two short quotes? Sunray (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The low-hanging fruit I thought I saw earlier was just the narrow question of whether to include/exclude the factoid that Prop 8 eliminated the (something) of same-sex couples to marry -- not the words themselves but the concept. I thought if we could resolve that, and then move on to the wording (just of that factoid, and not even the sentence in which it appears), we could make progress. That fruit does manage to remain out of reach! Benccc (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

See comments above. (typos and all) Collect (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sunray said: "Neither the CNN story nor the article in the NY Times make the direct link with Proposition 8."

What?

"But the founder of the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, has also adhered to socially conservative stances -- including his opposition to gay marriage and abortion rights that puts him at odds with many in the Democratic Party, especially the party's most liberal wing..........Warren's support of California's Proposition 8, a measure that outlaws same-sex marriage in the state, sparked the ire of many gay rights proponents earlier this fall." [6]

"Obama's selection of Orange County mega-pastor and bestselling author Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his swearing in has hit liberal Hollywood in one of its sorest spots: the passage of Proposition 8, California's ban on gay marriage, which Warren strongly supported. " [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix of9 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe we can shift it from Prop 8 to same sex marriage:

"With his choice of the Rev. Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration, President-elect Barack Obama has found himself enmeshed in a new controversy involving a pastor, facing criticism this time from liberal and gay rights groups outraged at the idea of including the evangelical pastor at a Democratic celebration.

Mr. Obama’s forceful defense of Mr. Warren, the author of “The Purpose Driven Life,” has signaled an intent to continue his campaign’s effort to woo even theologically conservative Christians. As his advisers field scores of calls from Democrats angry because Mr. Warren is an outspoken opponent of abortion and same-sex marriage, Mr. Obama has insisted that a range of viewpoints be expressed at the inauguration festivities next month in Washington." Phoenix of9 (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Another source, direct connection?

"Gay rights advocates and progressives denounced the decision to associate with Warren, an outspoken opponent of abortion rights, same-sex marriage and stem cell research, immediately after inaugural organizers announced the lineup for the ceremony yesterday.

The Human Rights Campaign sent a blistering letter to Obama (D) in which it called the choice of Warren "a genuine blow" to gay Americans, who supported Obama overwhelmingly in his race against Republican nominee John McCain.

The letter noted Warren's vocal support of California's Proposition 8, a ballot measure banning gay marriage in the state that was approved by California voters last month." [8] Phoenix of9 (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Alas I can not find specifics on any "vocal support" other than as a statement from those opposing Warren. All I found in substance was the email, which apparently did not actually mention P8. I also find "outspoken" to be POV in esse. Also I can only find oblique mentions which say he is opposed to embryonic stem cell research, and no cite at all having him oppose "stem cell research." The first obligation of a BLP is to make sure every claim is factually correct as best we can. Collect (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The way I understand WP:V, you dont have to find any specifics. Washington Post is a reliable source. Maybe Sunray can clarify. Phoenix of9 (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Where specifics are found contrary to a normally reliable source, we should use the best source, not the one which helps a specific POV. Recall this is BLP and we must get it right. Collect (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Description of events is not a POV. HRC did send a letter, saying that. Maybe you should clarify with another reliable source. Phoenix of9 (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Here actually, we already have it "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."[9] Phoenix of9 (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion would be this: if we're going to characterize P8 in this article, we should do it in Warren's words (and not in the third-person views of a reporter), since this is a BLP about Warren, not a reporter or an Episcopal rector.--Lyonscc (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with that. We may add this: "For 5,000 years, every culture and every religion - not just Christianity - has defined marriage as a contract between men and women. There is no reason to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2% of our population." Phoenix of9 (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

We are still faced with the apparent fact that he did not actually refer to "proposition 8" in the email, and that the bit about a "right" should be a separate sentence entirely, right?

Where is this email? Your own source said this:

"Megachurch Pastor Rick Warren has given his backing to a major campaign to overturn same-sex "marriage" in California.

The Golden State heads to polling stations on November 4 to vote on Proposition 8, a proposed amendment to California's state constitution that would see a ban on same-sex unions, with potentially major repercussions for states across the US...."I never support a candidate but on moral issues I come out very clear," he said." Phoenix of9 (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

He does refer to P8 in the linked video above (which was released to Saddleback members for the weekend services of Oct 24-26). I'd say if we reference P8 specifically, it should be Warren's quote from the video, not a third-party synthesis.--Lyonscc (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

What was his precise wording in the video? I tend to not like them without a transcriot, as I have seen videos misused as sources in the past. The article I cited attributes specific quotes to the email, which should be solid. Collect (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Collect, your earlier comment that it's wrong for us to say that Warren "endorsed" Prop 8 caught my eye just now. In the compromise wording you suggested in your March 11 post above, you used "publicly supported":

Warren 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," eliminating the legal right of same-sex couples to marry.

I think that sentence is fine, but what is the difference between "publicly supported" and "endorsed"? Somebody said that Warren himself did not use the word -- but that doesn't bear on whether it's appropriate. Warren's (support) of Prop 8 was called an endorsement not only by Prop 8 proponents (Baptist Press, American Family Association, National Catholic Register), but also by mainstream media (Orange County Register, Sacramento Bee, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post). "Publicly supported" is fine, but it seems to say essentially the same thing less economically. Benccc (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Starting from option 3

The discussion seems to highlight a number of important issues. The point has been made about the extensiveness of media coverage and weight. Some good sources have been identified. Nuances of wording are being looked at. My sense is that it would be productive to work on coming up with an acceptable wording. What do participants think about the third option recently added by Phoenix (top of this section "Prop 8")? One way to approach it would be to actively edit that piece with editors using different colors, using "<font color = blue (red, green, purple, etc.)</font>" Another approach would be to have one editor make changes as editors propose wording (along the lines that Phoenix of 9 has been doing). What I'm suggesting is just that we might focus the discussion a bit more. Let's see if we can nail this one down. Sunray (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem arises in the "vocal support" bit -- where such "vocal support" appears to have been far less vocal than is implied. And the issue of Warren's reasoning then also becomes of substantial relevance to the matter. And we must still ensure that whatever language we do settle on is not ignored by future additions to the article to subvert mediation -- thus my desire to reach a mediation on the major issues, so that such a mediation will continue in frce as the article changes over time. Collect (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That, and we're back into WP:undue and WP:COAT territory. I'm not sure I even understand what Option 3's trying to say. I concur w/ collect, though - let's mediate the majors...--Lyonscc (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Collect, I agree, both in terms of not exaggerating Warren's support and in terms of coming up with language that will endure (to whatever extent possible with Wikipedia). Benccc (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"In an email to church members in late October 2008, Warren asserted that marriage "is a contract between men and women." Prominent gay and progressive groups viewed this as support for Proposition 8, which would place specific language in the California Constitution barring same-sex marriages, which had been found to be a right by the California Supreme Court a year before. (or whatever time frame wording is correct). " I think this is succinct and accurate. Collect (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This looks silly and its a waste of time. What source says: "Prominent gay and progressive groups viewed this as support for Proposition 8"? And Benccc just gave us SO MANY sources [10] which indicated Warrens support for Prop 8 which makes your wording irrelevant. After Benccc's post with that many sources, I fail to assume good faith about your suggestion. Sunray, when can we go to Arbitration???? Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Collect, the addition of info about the CA Supreme Court decision might appeal to those who see "right," unqualified, as a biased or inaccurate word -- but with a significant an increase in length. Lyonscc, this seems to address one of your concerns at the expense of another -- what are your thoughts?

My view is that for readers who wouldn't think "right" is biased or inaccurate, the additional info might seem overly tangential. I'm ignorant of how many people in the general population share Lyonscc's view that Prop 8 did not in fact eliminate a right, which makes it difficult for me to assess the trade-off between adding material that X% of readers will find tangential in order to address the view of Y% of readers. That said, as you know my general attitude is to favor addition and disfavor subtraction of information, and if we can reach consensus by adding info about the Court decision, I could swallow my concern that it's not salient.

Other thoughts about your version: it might be confusing to tell readers that some groups thought Warren's late October statement about marriage (that it's "a contract between men and women") was a sign that he supported Prop 8, because late October is also when he issued his endorsement (or whatever we end up calling it), which presumably made such speculation moot. Also, though this is a little picky, let's not say Prop 8 placed "specific language in the California Constitution banning same-sex marriages," because while the language had that effect, it didn't directly address same-sex marriages. In earlier versions we've said "amended the California Constitution to..." which seems safer.

Regarding option 3, I'm having a hard time assessing it due to the quotation marks and ellipses -- it's pretty different from other options I've seen during my participation in these discussions, and I'm not familiar with some of the material like the Human Rights Campaign letter. Phoenixof9, what would it look like in a more completed version with citations? Benccc (talk) 05:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your positive comment. Accuracy without stridency seems a good goal -- even with the added dozen words. Franklin said "Let us doubt a little of our own infallibility" when he urged acceptance of compromises. As the California Constitution said nothing about sex and marriages before, "amended" is technically correct, but "place language in" is actually a clearer point in my opinion. Let us use, as nearly as possible, the least divisive language we can. Collect (talk) 10:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think "placed language in" is an acceptable (if less economical) alternative to "amended." I had forgotten that "amendment" (versus "revision") is in dispute (in courts, not here). Benccc (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Maybe now we can get off square one. Collect (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarification of applicable policies

I think that some of you may have missed my comment above about applicable policies, because I see people referring to WP:COAT and WP:TEND as policies. Here's some clarification:

WP:BLP, WP:VER and WP:NPOV (and, of course, WP:UNDUE, which is a section of the latter policy) are the bible when it comes to Wikipedia biographies. WP:COAT and WP:TEND are essays and not binding in any way. Of course, if we are following the three policies, we won't be likely to have problems with these two. The reason why policies are important to consider right now is that participants will benefit from having an external reference point...

I continue to believe that if we focus on the policies, we can begin to do some problem-solving. Sunray (talk) 07:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

They are "the bible"?? Dont we have enough Christian references in this mediation? I think I see the point Teledildonix was making. Phoenix of9 (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was one figure of speech I perhaps should not have used ;-) To be precise, those policies are a widely accepted standard that should normally be followed by all editors." Sunray (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

:P Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

We also forgot the policy strictly forbidding all emoticons. Collect (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Discontinuing Mediation

Latest comment: 15 years ago16 comments6 people in discussion

After Benccc gave us SO MANY sources [11] which indicated Warrens support for Prop 8 and even after Lyonscc said that Warren "does refer to P8 in the linked video" [12], User:Collect comes up with this: '"In an email to church members in late October 2008, Warren asserted that marriage "is a contract between men and women." Prominent gay and progressive groups viewed this as support for Proposition 8...' [13] I do not consider such blatant disregard for WP:Verifiability a good faith effort. Its also a blatant disregard for Benccc's efforts in finding so many sources.

Sunray...What is the procedure here? Can I request that this mediation be discontinued and referred to WP:ARB ?? Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Try a dose of AGF and continue. Saying "blatant disregard" for any attempt at finding compromise bodes ill. So far I have not seen any trancript for the video, which makes using it as a source a bit problematic (video in itself is a primary source, we can use it for nothing other than exact quotes). Awaiting your redaction. Collect (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Note also that mediation can easily take 6 weeks or more -- we have not reached week one yet. Collect (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I do consider your proposal a blatant disregard to WP:Verifiability. This mediation will not proceed unless you understand and abide to that policy. Hence I see no reason to continue. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Note to Sunray: Collect has a trend of ignoring reliable sources. A relevant example may be this: User_talk:Kevin/Archive_5#Warren Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Note to Phoenix -- this mediation is not a place for engaging in personal attacks of any kind whatever. Collect (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of attempts to poison the well on both sides. Could we all please knock it off and stick to the issues, rather than the people supporting them? Firestorm ^Talk 21:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been assuming that two editors here were not acting in good faith since before this round of mediation started. That should be obvious; they were continuing the habits established by two editors with conflicts of interest, one of which was in direct employ of the subject. This dispute is fundamentally about the fact that those editors with a COI were able to exclude information, and their remaining lackeys demand continuation of that exclusion. Ignoring WP:V is one of a very long list of their offenses. One obvious piece of evidence that these editors are living in an alternate reality was provided by Lyons with this piece of blatant, unverifiable nonsense he pulled out of thin air and inserted in his initial statement: "Staff members at Saddleback are not Warren's employees, they are employees of the church community." Multiple levels of confusion are now proposed by Collect with the nonsense you've (Phoenix of9) quoted. If editors who insist on tying up the process with this kind of nonsense (and calling it "nonsense" is being too mild) can't be ejected, than it's time to go to arbitration. Knowing what the outcome would be, given the previous actions of these editors, I was going to suggest bypassing this round of mediation. I've stayed out of most of it because I believe saying anything is a waste of time, short of demanding a stop to this and referral to arbitration. Now that you've broached the subject - I strongly concur. Mike Doughney (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Now if anyone chooses to get all upset about my use of the word "lackeys" in the above, or go around saying things like "attempts to poison the well on both sides," I should probably remind everyone that there's a duck carrying a spade sitting on top of the elephant in the middle of the room. I'm simply pointing out the obvious. Ignoring the obvious circumstances here has its own corrosive effect. Mike Doughney (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again, not helping. argumentum ad hominem is not welcome here. All viable ideas must be considered regardless of who supports them or doesn't. I think that referral to ARBCOM is premature, as MC mediation has barely begun. Firestorm ^Talk 21:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:V is an issue. Sticking to it is an issue. Sticking to policy is how we are gonna resolve this. Therefore, Firestorm's and Collect's comments do not make sense to me. If I'm "poison(ing) the well", yeah, that should be dealt with as well. But I disagree. I've written my explanation. We can not continue when parties ignore WP:V Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent_ I would ask that editors who specifically feel that they do not need to AGF to kindly move to the side. And saying if you do not get your precise way that you want arbitration is not actually going to impress arbitrators. We are very early in the mediation process and pateince is essential if you really want a result we can all abide by. Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because I go away for a few hours doesn't mean that you guys have license to start running amok. Thanks for stepping in Firestorm. I agree that talk of arbitration is premature. I think it might be useful if participants avoided reacting personally to each other's comments. We are actually making progress. Give it a chance. Sunray (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I don't mind stepping in to try and keep the peace. This is exactly why my attempt at mediation failed; people couldn't stop seeing arguments in terms of who proposed them. This needs to change if we can successfully mediate this content dispute. This applies to both sides, as both are equally guilty of this. Firestorm ^Talk 03:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Re "both sides," I think this is more of a multi-sided situation. Re discontinuing mediation, I too think that would be premature, though I suspect my loved ones would perform an intervention if they knew how much time I've been spending with y'all. (forbidden winking emoticon pre-redacted). Benccc (talk) 05:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that this is a multiparty mediation. Sunray (talk) 06:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

^ christiantoday ref

[1] ristiantoday ref

[1]