Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Rick Warren/Archive 4

< Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation‎ | Rick Warren
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Sunray in topic Streamlining process

Work plan

Latest comment: 15 years ago156 comments7 people in discussion

In order to move forward, I suggest that we conclude the discussion on Proposition 8 for now. Not that we haven't made progress, but I want to test what we agree on with respect to the other issues that are the subject of this mediation. Below are the seven issues. I've grouped some of them according to Mike's suggestion, above. Would anyone care to attempt a summary of points of agreement under each heading? Sunray (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

How to mention Proposition 8 in the article

  • Either we use the official ballot title, or there's no point trying to include it all. If the offical ballot title is somehow rejected, despite every Wikipedia principle of verifiable and reliable sources from a neutral point of view, then there's something wrong with this mediation process. I'm honestly a little bit surprised that we are being asked to "set this aside for now". How many more months should we have to wait? ~ Teledildonix314 ~ Talk ~ 4-1-1 ~
  • Suggest we use Option 6 as a starting point. It mentions the word "right" (which 3 editors have been insisting is their sticking point), and describes the chain of events in enough detail that the user can understand what Prop 8 was, and Warren's stated rationale for supporting it. It is about as succinct as can be possible in accomplishing what it has been asked to do.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I would be far more supportive and able to get closer to compromise, including acceptance of the majority of your text in Option 6, if we could be allowed to simply use the official title of the ballot. We need to tell readers why Warren was in a famous controversy, yes? We need to tell them it was because (according to all of our sources) Warren supported Proposition 8. But a reader from outside America or outside of California or outside of the gay/ civil-rights communities might know nothing about Proposition 8, it might as well be called Placeholder 2348 or Wibble 199998. What i have been asking repeatedly, in harmony with several other editors, is to simply include the official title, "Eliminates Right Of Same-Sex Couples To Marry". Surely that must appear to be in the direction of compromise, based on the most strict and ruthless application of WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, and all other issues relevant to WP:BLP, right?! If i could get some kind of concession on that simple sticking point, i think it would make it much easier for me to move along to all of the other points with alacrity and much more spirit of successful cooperation! Thank you for considering this. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ Talk ~ 4-1-1 ~ 01:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that the official ballot title is NPOV and I see no reason not to use it. With respect to people outside of North America not being familiar with Proposition 8. They can also click on the link to get more info. Sunray (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The article tells readers about some controversial episodes in Warren's life, including his Prop 8 endorsement and the inaugural invitation. Readers who encounter the Prop 8 reference would wonder "why was Prop 8 controversial," and the most concise answer is that it eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry in California (can you think of any other aspect of Prop 8 nearly as controversial as that?). I'm not sure further info about Prop 8 would be helpful to readers of the Warren article -- if they're curious about things like "I wonder what the ballot title was" they'll click through to the Prop 8 article. But I do think some readers would be interested in learning more about Warren's views on marriage in general and same-sex marriage in particular, and it looks like we've identified a few relevant quotes and factoids we could work into the article. Benccc (talk) 07:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Option 4c

Warren 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," because "the courts threw out the will of the people [when] four people voted to change a definition of marriage that has been going for five thousand years" and also because "There is no reason to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2% of our population.", thus eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry. Warren thinks that while "no American should ever be discriminated against", nowhere in the constitution there is "the “right” to claim that any loving relationship [is] identical to marriage", adding "a civil union is not a civil right"


Summary

There seems to be potential consensus on Prop 8 if we use the wording of Option 6 but incorporate the official title of the ballot. Do participants agree with this proposal? Sunray (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree - we've worked the official title into Option 6a above.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
By only referring to "judicial fiat.", Proposition 22, Lyonscc misrepresents Warren and implies that Warren supported Prop 8 only because, to uphold the will of the people and the definition of marriage according to him. This isnt neutral because there are other reasons for him such as the ones above: "no need to appease" "civil union is not a civil right". This is Rick Warren's article and I see no reason to omit what Rick Warren himself has said. Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Warren's comments on civil unions were independent of Prop 8, which had nothing to do with civil unions/domestic partnerships (which have been legal in CA for some time). The "no need to appease" is a subset of 'judicial fiat', because that was what he argued the justices were doing when they created the "right" for these types of "marriages". Again, Option 6a is the best of what we've got, and it is as long as it needs to be to accurately portray the series of events and Warren's place within them.--Lyonscc (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Claims like this weaken my AGF: "Warren's comments on civil unions were independent of Prop 8" How can you make such an argument? This is the question in beliefnet interview:


[1]

Note - I said "Prop 8, which had nothing to do with civil unions/domestic partnerships (which have been legal in CA for some time)." Prop 8 defined marriage as between one man and one woman. It had no impact, whatsoever, on the laws governing CU's/DP's in CA. All we're dealing with in the section on Prop 8 is the language about Prop 8. CU's are a completely different issue (even if there's a comment about them in the same interview).--Lyonscc (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
No, in your proposal, you are explaining Warrens reasons for supporting Prop 8. However, you are omitting some of his reasons. CU's are a different issue but Warrens explanation is relevant since question was partly about prop 8. And "no need to appease" is not a subset of 'judicial fiat'. Your proposal 6a is unacceptable. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

(out) Sunray, I wonder if it's not just time to arbitrate. What we've got here is just a basic kitchen-sink approach to muck-racking. There is no way Phoenix and Tele will be satisfied, unless Warren is made out to be a rabid homophobe. Example: We've got a compromise solution here with #6 that addressed their HUGE sticking point of not including the ballot language. Now that it has been included, there are demands to dogpile it with irrelevant (Civil Unions) or further muddied ("no need to appease 2%") quotes. In this section, we are discussing the language about Prop 8, which had nothing to do with civil unions. Civil unions aren't even part of this mediation, and we really don't need any more added, do we? On this section, let's deal with Prop 8 and not allow scope creep. With the "no need to appease", this was part of his argument that the CASC was trying to appease 2% of the population via their act of 'judicial fiat'. This is sufficiently covered in both versions of Op 6.--Lyonscc (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If we are discussing language about Prop 8, why are you including Prop 22 and judicial fiat? And in this source [2], I see nothing that supports your subset claim. However, I agree w/ your "time to arbitrate". Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
We are discussing Prop 8 as it relates to a WP:BLP of Rick Warren, thus the context of his support (Prop 22 & judicial fiat) is relevant.--Lyonscc (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. "context of his support is relevant". Indeed! Hence: his views about civil unions and "Nowhere in the constitution can you find the “right” to claim that any loving relationship identical to marriage." and "no need to appease". Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Adding the issue of "civil unions" at this point is unlikely to advance mediation. Collect (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
1) You've not demonstrated civil unions/domestic partnerships are an issue. They are legal in CA, and Prop 8 didn't affect them. 2) "Nowhere in the constitution can you find the “right” to claim that any loving relationship identical to marriage." - this is a long-winded description of "judicial fiat" (i.e. creating law 'from nothing') - it is already included; 3) "no need to appease" - this is included in his comments on judicial fiat, as well.
This section is already long enough, probably long enough to argue for WP:UNDUE, but I'm willing to agree to the length if it allows for a compromise that includes "eliminated the right" and the appropriate context of Warren's support. I would hope that some recognition of my trying to work to a compromise by including the "eliminates the right" (which has been your sticking point for weeks) would make petty inclusions like these most recent ones fall off the plate so that we could actually compromise on the final wording and move on to something else.--Lyonscc (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

To include a quote of Warren from a Wall Street Journal interview or not / James Dobson - Rick Warren

  • If yes, to agree on wording.
  • It would be useful to include Warren's own words in a number of places, but most of all in this particular instance. The WSJBeliefnet interview is part of why there was so much outrage and so many protests... failure to give Warren's own words might lead to all sorts of misinterpretation, whereas a direct quote would be very helpful as long as it's not taken out of context. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ Talk ~ 4-1-1 ~
  • I'm not aware that the WSJ article was the source of any outrage (it's the one with the brief Dobson-related quote). The only purpose it seems to serve is to try to make a guilt by association claim between Warren and Dobson. The interview questions are not revealed, answers are characterized, and the difference between theological beliefs, social policies and political policies (which are all very different concepts from one another) as muddled together and conflated in an unclear "it's a matter of tone". This is a poor source and shouldn't even be in the article.
I'm terribly sorry, i made a confusingly incorrect reference: i should have said "Beliefnet interview" instead of "WSJ", i made a typographical correction now, thanks. But i would add that the WSJ interview also seemed to further fan the flames which were raging after the Beliefnet video became easily publicly accessible; both interviews seem to be somewhat alike in that regard. I don't think my confusing error will change the general substance of what i meant. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ Talk ~ 4-1-1 ~ 02:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Per Tele Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Per CNN: ""There is no substantive difference between Rick Warren and James Dobson," Kolbert said. "The only difference is tone. His tone is moderate, but his ideas are radical."" [3] Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a quote from the left-wing group, PAW, not a CNN hard news piece. Just because a left-wing mouthpiece makes a guilt-by-association accusation does not make that accusation true or verifiable.--Lyonscc (talk) 06:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Question: It seems to me that there is agreement that a quote from this interview would be acceptable to all, provided a reliable source is used. Have I got that right? Sunray (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Which interview? I don't support ANY inclusion of the WSJ interview, because it completely muddies the differences between "theology", "social policy", and "political policy" and does not include enough of the actual questions & answers to determine what Warren said, and what "It's a matter of tone" is actually referring to.--Lyonscc (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Wall Street Journal is a reliable source. So whether it 'muddies the differences between "theology", "social policy", and "political policy"' or not is not up to you. Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Whether the WSJ is a reliable source or not is not the issue. As Collect notes further below, all Catholics, for instance, could easily be said to have no significant differences in their "theology" (beliefs about God), but can be demonstrably shown to be vastly different in their beliefs on "social policy" (how society should act) and on "political policy" (how politics should act). The WSJ implies (but does not state, since it does not show the questions being asked) that the "matter of tone" is in reference to the theological differences between Warren and Dobson, but the implications being made by the inclusion of this in the "Social and Political Beliefs" section of the Warren article is that Warren and Dobson do not differ on social and political policy.
From WP:BLP: Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.
The inclusion of this snippet from the WSJ is clearly an attempt at guilt by association, and whether or not Warren's and Dobson's theology are not different is irrelevant to their social and political belief.--Lyonscc (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Eg of guilt by association: "Hitler was a vegetarian. Hitler was pure evil. Therefore, vegetarians have evil ideals."
We are doing no such thing here. The current version of the article is pretty neutral:
In an interview in The Wall Street Journal, the interviewer wondered why "most of the press [was] under the impression that Rick Warren, a Southern Baptist, [was] so different from, say, Focus on the Family president James Dobson?" Warren said that "it's a matter of tone" and, according to the interviewer, seemed "unable to name any particular theological issues on which he and Mr. Dobson disagreed." [22] Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a perfect example of synthesis. The first phrase "it's a matter of tone" is not very specific, as "tone" is a rather vague (and we don't know if this was the extent of his quote). The second phrase is a synthesis by the interviewer and is about "theological issues" (which are vastly different from "political" or "social" views). Tying these two together, under the section of "Social and Political Views" is further synthesis, since (at the very least) the second item is not about "social" or "political" views at all!--Lyonscc (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • (Both of these address the same matter.)
  • Again, this isn't some kind of fringe notion from out of nowhere, this is a Verifiable question from an interview in a Reliable Source which gave us quotations directly from Warren's own mouth. How can we not include the information contrasting Dobson with Warren? It's such a concise way to give information to readers of the article without having to elaborate very far, because wikilinks for Dobson (and possibly for other significant nouns in a hypothetical paragraph) could help readers to quickly see how Dobson and Warren could be compared and contrasted in our encyclopedia, and then it would be up to the readers to decide how they felt about the comparison/contrast in the Verifiable interview. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ Talk ~ 4-1-1 ~
  • See above. This doesn't belong at all, because the interview questions are not known, the snippet of one answer is given, and the interviewer's synthesis of other Q&A's are rather vague. This doesn't match the high bar for WP:V set in WP:BLP.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear. As much as it pains me to do so, i'm going to have to side with the Mainstream Media on this issue. Please regard the above comment from PhoenixOf9 with the citation to the CNN material, as i think it very much meets our high bar for V and RS and BLP, having been reported on official Cable News Networks in language which seems to match quite consistently with other sources-- for example, the short phrase "matter of tone" has been repeatedly quoted and attributed to Rick Warren himself, directly, unambiguously, by our actual official "news reporters", rather than just by any random people with an axe. The Mainstream Media tend to have plenty of flaws, but they're a little more acceptable in our BLP when they are consistently compatible with our other Reliable Sources, right? ~ Teledildonix314 ~ Talk ~ 4-1-1 ~ 02:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
See above. This is not a MSM hard news piece, its a statement by a radical leftist, quoted in a news piece - not an actual verifiable source proving that there is no substantive difference between Warren and Dobson. WP:V and WP:NPOV aren't even remotely being met with this source.--Lyonscc (talk) 06:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
No, i'm sorry, i think you're wrong here, and i am hoping Sunray can assist me to determine whether or not i am saying this correctly? Here is the quote from the CNN article:

People for the American Way President Kathryn Kolbert told CNN she is "deeply disappointed" with the choice of Warren and said the powerful platform at the inauguration should instead have been given to someone who has "consistent mainstream American values." ... "There is no substantive difference between Rick Warren and James Dobson," Kolbert said. "The only difference is tone. His tone is moderate, but his ideas are radical."

I know you think the People for the American Way are radical leftists, but that thought is not applicable to any policy here. (I almost said "irrelevant", but i don't know if i'm allowed to use that word?) CNN is the source, it is a Reliable Source, it's not a piece in a blog, it's an actual News article on CNN. It's also Verifiable because we are giving you the links to the content directly where the author and her employers and their contact information is available-- so if you doubt the Verifiability, i suggest the burden of proof is on you to email somebody at CNN or take some kind of similar action to produce a reason to doubt the author of the news piece who is quoting Kathryn Kolbert. I'd like to point out that despite any hair-splitting about sub-sub-denominations of sub-sub-divisions of any particular religion, you can see the template and the paragraphs in our Rick Warren Wikipedia Article which clearly state Rick Warren is an "Evangelical Christian". I don't know enough about the distinctions which would pertain to the discernment of one particular fantasy over another, but when the lede of the James Dobson article describes Dobson as an "Evangelical Christian", it is reasonable for me to assume that they must have some things in common. It is also reasonable for me to assume they could have important differences. If they have some, i'd be happy to see them pointed out by some agency such as CNN or the People for the American Way or MSNBC or whomever; but in this case, we have the opposite. CNN has published a news article in which the text quite explicitly and unambiguously states Kathryn Kolbert expressed her disappointment and "There is no substantive difference between Rick Warren and James Dobson," in this CNN article about Obama's selection of Warren for the Invocation and the many protests which ensued.
If you don't have another article, from a Reliable Source, which can be Verified according to the strict expectations of a BLP, explicitly refuting the passage which i just laboriously and repetetively quoted, then i'm afraid i must ask you to reconsider the accuracy of your dispute. WP:V WP:RS WP:BLP WP:NOR and any other acronyms you'd care to suggest have been met-- repeatedly!-- and i hope the mediator or some other editors will correct me if i'm wrong about any of this. Please. Because i'm incredibly weary of going down this same kind of path over and over.... i don't want to have to sacrifice that much effort for the sake of being "one of the last few standing". I don't care enough about this article (nor any other point of contention) to go burning any bridges behind me during a hasty departure, but i am astonished that this is how this collaborative situation is still flowing. I was warned and scolded and Lyonscc filed an ANI because they didn't think i was properly following the basic Pillar of Civility-- so why aren't we seeing scoldings and warnings and ANI noticeboards about this other kind of unCivil behavior, i.e. Contentious Editing? "Extreme gestures of good faith need not be extended toward an experienced editor who consistently violates fundamental policies and rebuffs appropriate overtures." Did i put all of that into a Civil tone which is said correctly and respectfully? I meant to, i hope it sounds right. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ Talk ~ 4-1-1 ~ 09:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
P.S.-- i just realized it might have sounded like i was trying to convince somebody to believe a quote from a CNN article. I'm absolutely not. Ordinarily i couldn't care less whether or not some editors agree or disagree with a particular piece of information. But i find it absurd that we can accept all kinds of material in this biography from other sources, but we can't seem to add any information from the CNN article, we can't seem to add any information from the MSNBC coverage, and my edits were deleted when i tried to add information from the Wall Street Journal, Beliefnet, and Pacifica. For crying out loud, this is insane. I usually criticize American media for failing to give enough coverage of any actual news, but here we are: a group of editors who have easily found a ton of coverage from mainstream media, as easy as a few Google searches, even in other languages. I don't know what to do any more.... i'm really sick of having to defend the mainstream media coverage, but i shouldn't have to in the first place. Well, maybe in the first place, but absolutely not in the second, third, and twentyfrickinseventh. It's not like i even care about churches, marriages, religions, Californian politics, ballot titles, religious disputes, or any other aspects of our modern tribalism. Seriously. It's a shame this whole topic wasn't about something cool, like ice cream, or entheogens. :( ~ Teledildonix314 ~ Talk ~ 4-1-1 ~ 10:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: CNN is a reliable source. However, that does not mean that we automatically include any news article from that source. It seems we need to consider whether Kathryn Kolbert's comment was notable enough to be included in a biography on Warren. What other media covered her comments? Sunray (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Here:

'PFAW president Kathryn Kolbert said Warren enjoys "a reputation as a moderate based on his affable personality and his church's engagement on issues like AIDS in Africa," but has said that "the real difference between (Christian conservative) James Dobson and himself is one of tone rather than substance."' USA Today More: [4]. More Kolbert about invocation but not about Dobson: [5]

Also see below, what Warren himself has said in Wall Street Journal (WSJ) interview. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm still not clear why we would want to include the opinion of Kathryn Kolbert in a biography on Warren. Would you be able to explain that? Sunray (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, Warren himself said he wasnt different from Dobson. And Kolbert criticised that. Would you be able to explain why this shouldnt be included? Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not the one determining inclusion or exclusion. I am simply trying to clarify. I do not understand why we would care what Kolbert thinks. If it was Obama speaking that would be significant enough to put in a biography on Warren. Kolbert doesn't seem important enough to be quoted in a biography of Warren. But perhaps I've missed something... Sunray (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
It's not clear to me how we serve readers by telling them that an interviewer explored the similarities and differences between Warren and James Dobson. Those lines in the article don't seem connected to any greater point. The preceding paragraph talks about Warren's break with Dobson over global warming, perhaps that paragraph could be expanded somehow to illustrate for readers that Warren is aligned with other prominent evangelicals on some issues and not on others? Benccc (talk) 08:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, we are trying to explain why people protested against Warren giving the invocation. I think we can only do it in this article at length. We cant do it at the invocation article since Warren's views werent the official views of the invocation. Human Rights Campaign and People For the American Way seem to be the main organisations that were criticizing. Kolbert is from the latter. Her criticism was quoted by USA today, which has the widest circulation of any newspaper in the United States, and CNN. I do not understand why that criticism shouldnt be in this article. Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) From WP:BLP: Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. Inclusion of this (and PAW's comments via Kolbert) is an attempt at guilt by association. There is no clear demonstration of relevance of Kolbert to Warren's notability. As Sunray notes, it is usually the comments/observations of a "greater party" (in this case, Obama) that confer notability to a "lesser party" (who, in this case, compared to Obama, would be Warren). In the case of Kolbert, there is no case to be made that she's a "greater party" commenting on a "lesser party". She has no level of importance and no notable expertise in theology to make her comments relevant or notable.--Lyonscc (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If she isnt a notable critic, why was she quoted by USA Today and CNN, among others? Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
It's called the principle of being the "tallest midget". When news organizations look for "balancing quotes", they examine the organizations they have to choose from, even if all of them are fairly insignificant, and pick from the "tallest" of them. Quoting from a political opponent is not equivalent to quoting a subject matter expert. Kolbert is not a subject matter expert whether or not Warren and Dobson were separated at birth, she is a political action committee spokesperson making a political statement - not a statement of demonstrable fact.--Lyonscc (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me put this another way in response to Phoenix's question: I think that the issue here is that we are not a news medium. USA Today and CNN are looking for news that will entertain readers and sell product. We are trying to write a neutral biography on Warren. What is it about Kolbert's comments that make them important enough to include here? Is anyone able to explain that? Sunray (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to include Kolbert's comments. [The actual reason this is being attempted is because the WSJ article w/ the Warren "matter of tone" comment is so vague, and Kolbert spins it in the most sinister way possible.] Thus, my proposed wording for this section is that there be no wording for the WSJ article.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
You are speaking for Phoenix here? Sunray (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
No - you asked "Is anyone able to explain this", so I assumed "anyone" meant anyone and gave my interpretation of what motive/between-the-lines reasoning I've seen about this.--Lyonscc (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Yet you don't explain it. :-) Sunray (talk) 08:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I have a comment regarding the usage of the USAToday/CNN coverage of Kolbert's criticism as contrasted with Obama's stated intentions, in the above section of "Clarification" ~ Teledildonix314 ~ Talk ~ 4-1-1 ~ 03:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
And I have a response to this comment, above, as well.--Lyonscc (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The thing about Kolbert's comments that make them important enough to include here is that some people perceive Warren as being not so different from James Dobson and partly based on that perception (whether true or false), they were against Warren giving the invocation. Kolbert is one of those people and she is a notable critic. And I'm not proposing to add "Warren isnt different from Dobson" into that article, I'm proposing to add "Kolbert criticized Obama's choice and said...." Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
And if you found a notable critic who says Warren is a "gay bashing homophobe" you would use the same argument? [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-and-veronika-sommer/jaccuse-mr-president-is-r_b_157681.html[ HP source "Reverend Warren is also a gay-bashing homophobe ." I would hope not. This is a BLP and musr conform to WP rules and guidelines, and Kolbert's views are not notable enough to be in a biography. Collect (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I know that, as an American conservative, you like Slippery slope arguments, but its still a Logical fallacy. Dont ask me Hypotheticals, I'm not arguing for inclusion of "gay bashing homophobe". Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec)While you are not arguing for "gay bashing homophobe", you are making an exact parallel argument, except that the HP is a more notable source of criticism than Kolbert, and neither rises to the level or notoriety or relevance to be included in an article about Rick Warren. Her criticisms don't belong in an article on Warren in any form. They are not hard news, they are opinion, and there is no need to include WP:FRINGE criticisms, particularly when the overarching subject is already covered in the article.--Lyonscc (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

(out) Main problem you have is that I am not a "conservative." I happen to try editing without bias, and to make sure that articles even on people whom I do not like are neutral. Have a nice day. Collect (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

They are not "WP:FRINGE criticisms". Sources are USA Today and CNN. Make realistic arguments. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The source in which a criticism is quoted is not the source of what makes it "fringe" or not. The attempts to tie Dobson to Warren (which is the entire point of the Kolbert quote) are "fringe". I saw a guy a few weeks ago on CNN that mentioned supernatural conspiracies and the Illuminati in the JFK assassination, as well, and I doubt his view is a significant source of criticism, but is rather "fringe", just like Kolbert, as well. We're back to trying to back-door guilt by association re: Dobson. Nothing is needed on her. Who cares what she said? She's not notable, and her comments are not WP:NPOV.--Lyonscc (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Is material which primarily serves to note that Warren's theological positions are substantially the same as those of his denomination (Southern Baptist) relevant to the BLP?

  • Connected with the previous point, again not included in the proposed text.
  • In most cases, it would be pointlessly redundant to describe all of Warren's positions which are basically the same as any other pastor of the Southern Baptist affiliation. However, there are two important facts which could cause some mention to be helpful: 1) there are apparently Reliable Sources who tell us Warren has been criticized for the way he is perceived in contrast with other Southern Baptist Christians; and 2) Warren's theological positions have direct bearing on some of the most important parts of his biography, such as Warren's involvement in the controversies of California politics, freedom to marry, human rights for gays, and bigotry toward people who don't conform to Southern Baptist positions (nor to Warren's positions, be they different or similar to the Southern Baptists' in this case.) ~ Teledildonix314 ~ Talk ~ 4-1-1 ~
  • In most every case, this is not notable, and would not be encyclopedic. In the case of Warren's opposition to SSM, his comments on Prop 8 should be sufficient.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Whats the policy backing for this argument? Def not WP:Notability or WP:V Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I haven't closely followed discussion of this point previously, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. If Warren has broken in some way with his denomination, that's potentially interesting. Benccc (talk) 08:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I have found zero theological differences between Warren and his denomination. Writing here about his theology is, IMHO, like writing about a lion that does not live in your bedroom (assuming, of course, that you are neither S nor R). Thus to the extent that his positions theologically are the same as his denomination, they belong under the denomination, not in his BLP. My opinion only. Collect (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Whats the policy backing for this argument??? Def not WP:Notability or WP:V. Remember, this is not a discussion forum and focus on the content of the article. Phoenix of9 (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:BLP speaks to relevance, and typically (as Benccc notes above) it is when someone breaks from the norm that significant detail is potentially interesting enough for an encyclopedic entry, not all of the places where someone conforms to the norm. WP:NOTDIR notes that Wikipedia is NOT a complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Treat verifiable and sourced statements with appropriate weight. This also references WP:UNDUE for undue weight, which would include giving undue weight to exposition describing how the subject conforms to the norm.--Lyonscc (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
So we shouldnt mention what Stalin did in his article cause its the norm among Communists? Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
No, that's not what I'm arguing, but we shouldn't have to reiterate the principles of Communist belief in Stalin's article, except for where he differed from, expanded, or contracted from its norms.--Lyonscc (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
So your saying christianity considers same sex marriage equivalent to pedophilia and incest? Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm saying that Christianity considers that "same sex marriage" is not "marriage". "Pedophilia" is not "marriage". "Incest" is not "marriage". Do you consider theft to be a crime? Do you consider rape to be a crime? Do you consider reckless driving to be a crime? Do you consider murder to be a crime? If you answered "yes" to all four of those, do you consider reckless driving to be equivalent to theft, rape and murder?--Lyonscc (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Of course reckless driving is not equivalent to murder. Maybe you should use a dictionary? Anyway if christianity doesnt consider same sex marriage equivalent to pedophilia and incest, the point of this section is irrelevant w/ respect to section "Inclusion of a description, based on third-party accounts, of Warren's comments in the Beliefnet interview" Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't need a dictionary, but you just proved my point. Just because Warren stated the traditional Christian position that SSM, incest and pedophilia are not 'marriage' doesn't mean that he equated them as being equal, in the same way that theft, rape and murder are not equivalent to reckless driving (even though they are all crimes)...--Lyonscc (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No, your point was that reckless driving was equivalent to murder just because they were both crimes. Now thats a very stupid argument. Its like: is a coffee mug an object? Is a nuclear reactor an object? If you answered yes to both, then you should think that a coffee mug is equivalent to a nuclear reactor. Again, thats a very stupid argument. You need to be reasonable and rational for this mediation to proceed. All this is irrelevant to mediation. But again, I'm saying that you need to be reasonable and rational for this mediation to proceed. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh. my. word. Who would best know what my point was - me or you? Please, let's use a little bit of rationality here. This is a concept that you (apparently) don't/won't get, pertaining to basic logic. Just because A=Z and B=Z and C=Z, does not necessarily mean that A=B=C. When I said that reckless driving, theft, rape and murder were all crimes does NOT mean that I am saying that reckless driving is equivalent to murder. They are all crimes, but they are not equivalent. In the same way, when Rick Warren says that SSM, incest, polygamy and pedophilia are not marriage does NOT mean that SSM=incest=polygamy=pedophilia. None of them are marriage, but that does not mean that they are equivalent. You have proven my point for me by agreeing that reckless driving does not equal murder. Who better than me should understand what point I was trying to make?--Lyonscc (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Warren did say they were equivalent. Did you not read the source? Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
From the source - Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married? What is "those"? from the interview: I’m opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage. So, "those", from the context of the interview, is calling incest marriage, calling polygamy marriage and calling pedophilia marriage. Are "those" equivalent to calling SSM marriage? Yes - none of them are marriage! That does not mean that he is saying incest, polygamy, pedophilia and homosexual unions are equivalent.--Lyonscc (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh and notation you are using is incorrect. If A=Z and B=Z and C=Z, then A=B=C. See: Math Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, if A is in Z and B is in Z and C is in Z, that does not mean that A is B is C.--Lyonscc (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Lyonscc, I know you made this point many times before. However, what I tried to tell you many times before was that he did make a comparison which people criticized. And that should be in the article, regardless of if they are the positions of his denomination. Not every Southern Baptist attends a presidential ceremony. Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

It seems that there is agreement that we may cover how his views diverge from those of the Southern Baptist Convention. Have I got that right? What I am unclear on is the significance of this with respect to the inauguration day controversy. I know that this may be repetition of some things that have been said before, but, in simplest terms, would someone please explain this to me? Sunray (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Common ground between Warren and Obama (positions on global warming, poverty elimination, concern for Africans and people on other continents) appeared to make Warren more sympathetic toward Obama than would be expected of a typical preacher in a SBC church, and all the Reliable Sources said Obama chose Warren because it would hopefully be seen as conciliatory and uniting, reaching out to people with major differences but still being harmonious. The controversies erupted in part because the opposite perception occured. Warren was seen as divisive and negative towards the civil rights of homosexuals and pro-choice citizens, etc, so he was described in the Reliable Sources as a choice which outraged many people instead of uniting them.
This is why the quote from the WSJ by Kolbert is convenient: we could include a reference to Obama's decision being based on a hope for unity, but the choice instead caused divisiveness, and so much of the controversy erupted due to the sense of being betrayed and hurt after the passage of Prop 8 on the same day that Obama was elected. I hope i've just answered two questions at once. I'll try to come up with a text to encapsulate these concepts, and people can pick those apart, but that's my clarification for the topic of SBC divergence, the perceptions of uniting versus dividing, and the main thrust of much of the controversy. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ Talk ~ 4-1-1 ~ 03:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
One social (not theological) issue where Warren diverges from the SBC is on environmental policy, and that is already covered in the article. The area that some folks want to re-tread is an extended discussion on Warren's views of homosexual practice - where Warren's positions do not differ from the SBC (other than the one RS we have where he is criticized by Evangelical Christians for muted, non-monetary support of Proposition 8). Here, there is no need for additional discussion on his views, since they have already been covered in the Prop 8 option agreed to above.
The argument about the Kolbert quote is a complete non-starter (since it brings back in the WP:SYN issues with Dobson, among other things), besides which if Warren agreed with Obama on everything, it wouldn't really be a "uniting factor", then, would it? In short, including extended discussion on Warren's theological position on homosexuality is redundant, and unneeded, since his position is identical to the SBC's.--Lyonscc (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
It's not Synthesis, it's citation of expert opinion from a Reliable Source. The way i see it (and many other people might agree) Kolbert is more qualified to speak at the Inauguration Invocation than Rick Warren. Kolbert is a defender of civil rights and unity, and has made a career of promoting civil rights in America. Warren is seen as divisive, much like some kind of Christian American Taliban. Both Kolbert and Warren are people who would qualify to give an Invocation. Obama chose Warren. Kolbert is fit to criticize this choice, and Kolbert's criticism is thus printed in USAToday and CNN, etc. If we indicate Obama wanted Warren to be a unifying presence, we balance this by showing it backfired and Kolbert said the disappointment was because Warren is a divisive presence. Kolbert's opinion as an expert on civil rights, quoted in a Reliable Source, Verifiable and relevant and notable, is a potentially informative and pertinent valid inclusion in this BLP. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ Talk ~ 4-1-1 ~ 05:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Expert opinion from a RS? (Personal attack removed) Kolbert is a partisan lawyer, not a theologian. She has no basis of "expertise" for the opinion given, and she's not notable. It's a nice thesis you've put out, but Wikipedia is not a place for original research.--Lyonscc (talk) 06:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
This is my last warning, Lyonscc. No more personal attacks. Sunray (talk) 08:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
My apologies (just noting that I think this is my first warning, as well, though I may have missed something in the past few days?), I was just frustrated that it seemed like everything we'd been working on was just tossed and something obviously unacceptable was being proposed.--Lyonscc (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Ouch. For the umpteenth time, i will ask you to please redact those first two questions before i can consider replying to your opinion, because you are overtly and rudely telling me my words aren't good enough to deserve Good Faith. Am i not doing the things required to help the mediation progress to more compromises? ~ Teledildonix314 ~ Talk ~ 4-1-1 ~ 07:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

(out)IIRC you recused from the process? I do not see how adding lots of opinions to what should be, at most, a short single paragraph is moving towards a compromise. Collect (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Are positions taken on a church website (Saddleback Church) properly referred to in a BLP about a person when the material is not otherwise attributable to him?

  • Warren has an official spokesperson, i think we can safely attribute comments from the spokesperson to Warren as long as the Reliable Sources indicate that the spokesperson was explicitly delivering messages in line with Warren's well-documented positions. Also, the first half of Warren's biography (or in this case, hagiography) elaborates for several paragraphs about Warren's success at establishing the church, developing the church, enlarging the church, overseeing the church's expansion into other continents, etc; and we have a large number of verifiable reliable sources, including the website of the SaddleBack Church itself, which specifically delineate Warren's publicly stated views while clearly indicating they are the official position of his church. To give Warren credit (in the first half of the article) for the successes of his church, but then deny Warren's involvement (in the contested second half of this article) in the controversies of his church seems rather non-Neutral. It also seems ridiculously illogical, but i guess i should be careful about applying logic to anything religious. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ Talk ~ 4-1-1 ~
  • Referencing positions on the church website which are not directly attributable to Warren don't belong on this page, though they might fit on the Saddleback page, if notable. Extended comments about when items on the website were changed, exact quotes from the site, etc., are spurious and WP:SYN synthesis when attempting to make them into Warren's words. They don't belong here w/o direct quotation from Warren.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
See: User_talk:Kevin/Archive_5#Warren Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Note: Kevin was the admin looking into this. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
And that is irrelevant to the mediation at hand. This is for us to have discussions, not for anyone to insert material chosen from other loci. Collect (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Well I'm in mediation and I agree with Kev:

Note Proposal 3 specifically removes all the problematic material you are concerned about re: the church's position as not relevant to a BLP on Warren. Collect (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Note also [6] the RfM just made for the article, which was not particlualry mentioned there. Collect (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw that Prop 3 (this will shortly be confusing - we're up to 5 already) excludes this part, but I think that it does miss out important information. I may see if I can offer something today. Kevin (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The BLP/church position wasn't the point I was making, just that the source does not fully support the statement re previous contents of the web site, but I think only a slight rewording or better source is required. This is a separate issue from relevance/inclusion altogether. Kevin (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The proposed compromise (moving church stuff to the church article) using proposal 3 as modified as the basis seems to have some support from Firestorm. Two appear hopelessly against anything using the word "compromise" <g> Collect (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
You have to agree though that there are reliable sources connecting the invocation controversy with the alterations to the church web site. I will not be either supporting or opposing any of the proposals, in an effort to remain neutral. Kevin (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
That was not where it looked from my keyboard -- Firestorm proffered a compromise with the specific contentious material left out as long as some of the other church material could be moved to the church article. Unless, of course, I have misunderstood his posts. The consept is, to me, separatin of church and pastor. Collect (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not talking about Firestorm's posts, just that the 2 sources connect the invocation controversy with the web site alterations. There is merit in the argument that if reputable media outlets have made the connection we should do the same. Kevin (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Sort of like if the NRA web site says something, that it should be attributed specifically to the president of the NRA? There is merit in the principle that extraordinary claims require extreme care in WP as well. Collect (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Are you arguing that I am ignoring the careful use of reliable sources in BLPs, or that the alteration of the web site is an extraordinary claim? Regarding the attribution, we do not specifically connect Warren with the change, just state the facts (the website was changed near the time of the invocation) and let the reader make their own assumption on the level of control over the website that Warren has. Kevin (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) did you see my proposal which allows the statement that the site was changed but does not contain the charges as to what was on the earlier page as it can not reasonably be sourced to Warren? The goal is compromise as I recall. Collect (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you able to answer my question above? It does seem to me that you are avoiding answering anything directly. Kevin (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Claims asserting that a church website is directly relevant to a BLP are extraordinary, especially when the purported former content is used to ascribe a position to a person who is not described as having written the material. I think that is fairly clear. I gave a hypothetical example to make it even clearer. And I am most certainly not trying to avoid answering any questions at all. Collect (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
Per Kevin Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I've become a little foggy on this one and I don't know if I can contribute anything useful to the discussion. Would you mind repeating whatever language is proposed here, and briefly summarize how it would serve readers? Benccc (talk) 08:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
A church website for a period of time had something to the effect that practicing homosexuals would not be welcomed as members. At about the time of the Prop 8 issue (after 24 October 2008) the website changed (we have no way of knowing who made the change, or why the change was made at theat precise time) to a message stating that marriage was between a man and a woman. "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." was the proposed language. The issues are multiple: where no claim is made that Warren writes the website or runs it, are the words of the website properly given in the BLP? Second, is "at the same time" a bit of SYN implying causality in some way contrary to BLP? Third, the use of "[gays]" is not what the website apparently actually said. Mu suggestion is that we are better off without this, and especially without the POV "at the same time" which implies a direct connection between Warren and the website. Warren is an employee of a church, he is not the person who determines church policy, just like the other pastors in his denomination. (BTW I have no religious COI, or anti-religious COI here at all). Collect (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
You are repeating your arguments. Maybe Sunray will comment. Phoenix of9 (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems that there is a great deal of discussion, but not much collaborative work going on. For each of the issues, I would like to look at at proposed wording. Then participants can make actual changes to text until we have something we can all live with. (I said live with, that's the bottom line). Sunray (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
The thing is they are against the inclusion of whole thing so we cant proceed with wording. Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The points Collect brings up are the crux of the matter - 1) The Saddleback website information cannot be directly sourced to Warren, unless Warren is quoted. He is an employee of the church, not the other way around. 2) "At the same time" is WP:OR, because it tries to synthesize a causation between the change on the website and Warren's invocation. No such verifiable causation exists; 3) It doesn't actually quote what the website said. (violating [[WP:V]. This information doesn't belong in this article for (at least) these three reasons.--Lyonscc (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The points you have brought up had been refuted by Keving above. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm unaware of Kevin's being a mediator or a signator to this mediation, and I wouldn't categorize his response as "refuting" it.--Lyonscc (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I would. So as I said we are repeating our arguments. Maybe Sunray will comment. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, right, I remember this one. On its own, I think the news that Saddleback says Scripture prohibits sex outside traditional marriage doesn't particularly illuminate the reader's understanding of Warren, especially when other parts of the article describe Warren's views on marriage. As for the Saddleback policy that gay people unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle are not accepted as members, that may be useful to mention, insofar as it might not be widely known and it's another angle on why liberals were upset by the Obama invocation invitation. As for the issue of how one message replaced the other on the Saddleback web site, I don't see the significance of that -- Phoenix of9, was Saddleback accused of some kind of coverup or something? I'm sure you've explained previously but would you please summarize what you think we can do for readers here? Benccc (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Repeating arguments: "2 sources connect the invocation controversy with the web site alterations. There is merit in the argument that if reputable media outlets have made the connection we should do the same" Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
The church website has undergone many changes over the years. It is SYN to posit that there was causality involved, and that would be improper per WP:SYN. Are you saying that if you can find a RS to say Warren is a "gay-bashing homophobe" that we should iterate those words? Collect (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:SYN is about Wiki editors, not sources. Your latter question is irrelevant to my point. Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you use it? We have a fact -- the church website changes. (kind of normal). The website said practicing homsexuals would not be members. (no sign as to who wrote this). We have new language that stated the SBC theological view of marriage (which we established is not different from Warrn;s view as it is a matter of theology). To assert that anything happened because of a specific event or to imply such causality is SYN. Since it is clear that Warren;'s views theologically do not differ from his denomination, it is irrelevant to his BLP to point out that he, in fact, agrees with his own denomination. If they differed, you might have a point, but so far no one has given any evidence at all that they differ on this issue. Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:SYN can occur w/ wiki editors, or in original sources. This is why opinion pieces are not considered WP:V even if they are in an RS. In this particular case, just because an RS says X doesn't mean that X is automagically WP:V. In this particular case, juxtaposing the website change with Warren's invocation, without explicit ties to such is synthesis, even if it was the original article in which the synthesis occurred.--Lyonscc (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of a description, based on third-party accounts, of Warren's comments in the Beliefnet interview

  • it was reported that Warren "compared the legalization of same-sex marriage to the legitimization of polygamy, incest and pedophilia.
  • It wasn't just reported, it was splashed across countless mainstream media as well as countless special~interest channels. It was so infamous, it has actually now become very easy to find all sorts of links to copies of the interview, in addition to the original source itself (and its transcript at Beliefnet). This is the kind of thing which is excellent for inclusion in a BLP because it is such an easy trifecta of Verifiable, Reliable Sources, and Neutral Point Of View when it's quoted directly in context without any added 'spin'. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ Talk ~ 4-1-1 ~
  • Perhaps we can reach some sort of agreement on this w/o fully fleshing out what everyone believed/twisted/insinuated was said, and w/o quoting the entire transcript. Specifically, to include the "I do." w/o the rest of that answer is contextomy. It would be better to not characterize what Warren said in the interview, but to link to the interview, itself, and let the reader decide the 'spin'.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
That isnt up to you. Reliable Sources didnt think it was contextomy. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that seeking out a confrontation of a very questionable item is not worth it. Accuracy is more important than impressions in any event in a BLP. Collect (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. And "I do" part was very accurate to me. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I want to phrase this in the form of a question, but i don't want it to sound less than Civil. Have you ever been interviewed by an official news agency or reporter? Because Warren chose to give that interview to Beliefnet, and it seems like the sort of situation where he would be especially careful about what he said. He knew his interview would be seen by anybody on the internet with the Beliefnet link. He knew that the audience would thus be comprised (presumably) of people who would have a high likelihood of ascribing to some system of Belief or another, perhaps even to Christianity, perhaps even to Southern Baptism or even to Saddleback Churchiness. Wouldn't you expect his simple, direct, unambiguous answers to those extremely simple, direct, unambiguous questions to be representative of precisely what Warren wants to convey? Don't you think he was very clear and direct, on the video and in the transcript, about the question comparing same-sex marriage to pedophilia and incest? The interviewer (Waldman, the head of Beliefnet, if that matters in terms of our WP:RS and WP:V and WP:NOR) even gave Warren a chance to clarify or amend his answer to the question, and that's when Warren quite emphatically reiterated "I do" as his direct answer to the direct question. I realize this is going to be incredibly difficult to accept if you are opposed to thinking about Warren's interview as a situation where he was responsible for the Huge Conflict which seemed to result directly... but i'm pretty sure we could go show that video interview to a hundred random people, ask them what Warren's answers and positions were, and we'd get very close to a hundred responses which all said, "Warren says I do in answer to the unambiguous question about marriage equality compared to incest and pedophilia. In fact, i bet we'd get a few dozen responses in which people gleefully cheer Warren for his position. I'd be sad, but i'd probably win the bet.

This seems to be one of the most contentious parts of this whole biography, upsetting enough to cause editors to get frustrated and leave. I'm sure we can compromise on anything to make it successfully bulletproof against BLP failures.... wouldn't a direct quote of both the question and the answer help us avoid getting into "spin"? ~ Teledildonix314 ~ Talk ~ 4-1-1 ~ 02:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope -- to place the full material in context would likely involved well over two hundred words -- reaching legitimate WEIGHT issues. The issue in a BLP is getting it right, not in figuring out precisely how much "stuff" can be piled on. [Removed material unrelated to the issues under mediation. Sunray (talk)] Collect (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, we have to get it right. Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, I thought we'd already wrestled up a good solution to this one (snip, paste):
  • ...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.
Didn't that do the trick? We got rid of earlier language about the public reaction (i.e. people felt Warren was comparing same-sex marriage to incest, pedophilia, polygamy), and we paired the controversial quote with a sentence about Warren's clarification of what he meant. The interview generated controversy, which we point out and cite. What am I missing? Benccc (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Not quite - unless we give the precise wording of the question. The NPOV statement would be that "Warren stated that he opposed any form of marriage other than 'one man, one woman' and gave examples including same-sex marriage, polygamous marriage, incestuous marriage and pedophile marriage." Would that cover the facts? Collect (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Nope. The question was "those are equivalent to gays getting married?". Warren did not say "No they arent but I'm opposed to marriage except one man and woman". He said "I do". Please comply with WP:V Phoenix of9 (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I think what we're doing is briefly reporting an episode in which an interview with Warren caused a ruckus (had it not caused a ruckus I assume it wouldn't be in the article). We're reporting the portion of the interview at the center of the ruckus, and we mention the ruckus ("a controversy") with a few links, and then we conclude by telling people about Warren's subsequent clarification. In the solution I pasted above, we don't presume to tell readers what we think Warren did or did not mean -- we even stripped out the part where we reported that people thought he was comparing SSM to incest etc. It looks well-written to me. Collect, where specifically do you think it falls short of NPOV? Benccc (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
For one thing, just using "I do." is contextomy, because it does not include the entire answer. Collect's version from 11:47, 20 March 2009 above is probably the only way I've seen this interview cited w/o either a) Extreme WP:UNDUE violation, due to the space to include the full quote and put it in context; or b) WP:BLP, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV violation due to contextomy.--Lyonscc (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, That isnt up to you. Reliable Sources didnt think it was contextomy. Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:SYN can occur w/ wiki editors, or in original sources. This is why opinion pieces are not considered WP:V even if they are in an RS. In this particular case, just because an RS says X doesn't mean that X is automagically WP:V. In this particular case, juxtaposing the website change with Warren's invocation, without explicit ties to such is synthesis, even if it was the original article in which the synthesis occurred. In this particular case, we have the text of the entire interview. So, just because a RS chooses to engage in contextomy does not mean that it is OK for us to do the same in an encyclopedic entry.--Lyonscc (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
There is no need to keep repeating policies to other participants, Lyonccc. What we need to do is apply the policies to a proposed text. Would you be willing to work on that? Sunray (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Lyonscc, I read the contextomy essay you referred to, but it talks about distorting the meaning by excluding nearby phrases and sentences. I don't think that's applicable to the proposed version I pasted above. Consider this: the Warren article currently says "Warren has stated that divorce is a greater threat to the American family than gay marriage." This refers to an exchange during the same Beliefnet interview. Here's what was actually said:
Waldman: "Which do you think is a greater threat to the American family –- divorce or gay marriage?"
Warren: [laughs] "That’s a no brainer. Divorce. There’s no doubt about it."
It's reasonable to assume that in his answer, Warren is responding to Waldman's question, and that when he says "divorce" he indeed means "divorce is a greater threat to the American family to gay marriage."
If, in the Warren article, we were to say "Warren has stated that same-sex marriage is equivalent to incest, pedophilia, and polygamy," I think that would be no less accurate, because when he said "I do" it's reasonable to assume that he was responding to Waldman's immediately prior question "do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?" and it's reasonable to assume that when Waldman said "those" he was referring to Warren's immediately prior "I’m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage."
Certainly this was the assumption made by mainstream newspapers such as USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-12-21-warren-speech_N.htm) and the San Francisco Chronicle (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/21/BAS315DPTE.DTL) and Waldman himself (http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/12/rick-warrens-dark-night-of-the.html).
Other evangelicals have compared same-sex marriage to incest etc., which may have reinforced the assumption, but it seems to me that this understanding of Warren's comment is virtually inevitable based on the dialogue between Waldman and Warren.
The proposed version of this info in my previous post includes the exchange prior to Warren's "I do," which I believe provides sufficient context. Here's what Warren said immediately afterwards:
"I, I, I just think... for 5,000 years, marriage has been defined by every single culture and every single religion –- this is not a Christian issue. Buddhist, Muslims, Jews -– uh, you know, historically, marriage is a man and a woman. And, so I'm opposed to that, and the reason I supported Prop 8, really was a free speech issue. Because um, if it had... first the court overrode the will of the people, ah, but second is, um, there were all kinds of threats that if you, if that did not pass then, uh, any pastor could be considered, uh, doing hate speech if he shared his views that he didn’t think homosexuality was the most natural way for, uh, relationships, and that would be hate speech. Well to me, that's, uh, we should have freedom of speech, ok? And you should be able to have freedom of speech to make your position and I should be able to have freedom of speech to make my position, and can’t we do this in a civil way?"
None of those sentences seem to indicate that when he said "I do" Warren was not responding directly and clearly to Waldman's question, so if we omit them from the article, is it really fair to say we're distorting Warren's meaning? Furthermore, to accommodate your concerns that we avoid any possible "spin" on Warren's statement, the proposed version no longer uses the words incest, pedophilia, or polygamy; instead it's a pretty dry report of what was said, and it's immediately followed by the clarification Warren issued.
Speaking of which, Waldman reports that after Warren read a transcript of the interview, he asked if Waldman would print some clarifications, which Waldman published on December 17, and we see that Warren made no clarification regarding his answer to Waldman's question about incest etc: http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/12/rick-warrens-controversial-com.html Subsequently, the story of the interview blew up in the mainstream media, and on December 21 Warren issued his clarification video.
Here's what Waldman, the interviewer, had to say about Warren's clarification video: http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/12/rick-warrens-clarification-vid.html. I regard Waldman, former National Editor of U.S. News & World Report and former National Correspondent for Newsweek, as a responsible source (http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Blog-Story-Pages/About-Steven-Waldman.aspx) but I do not propose to cite that essay in the article; I cite it here simply to underscore my point that by offering Warren's video, we're being plenty fair to Warren.
Maybe Warren misspoke. Maybe Warren spoke honestly, but was then unsettled by the public reaction and wanted to avoid causing Obama more trouble, so he backtracked. I don't think we'll ever know. Such things happen to everyone, and because Warren's so prominent it became a brouhaha. I have no idea what's in Warren's heart and mind, and the Warren article is no place for us to speculate.
I think our proposed report of this incident is non-speculative, brief, accurate, verifiable, relevant, NPOV, doesn't blow the issue up, and is fair to Warren. Please consider this while re-reading it:
  • ...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. Benccc (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Any quotation of the "I do." in the article is completely unacceptable if the remainder of the quote is missing.--Lyonscc (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
But the remainder of what Warren said caused no controversy. It sounds like you're saying you refuse to accept the proposed text unless it includes more of Warren's thoughts about marriage and free speech, without persuading us that the additional material is necessary...? Benccc (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Lyonscc, on re-reading my post above I realize I meant to phrase that as a question to you. After researching the context of the proposed Beliefnet language per your concern about contextomy, I explained (above) why the proposed language does not constitute contextomy. It sounds like you disagree with one or more of the points I made, but which in particular? Benccc (talk) 07:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

(out) Warren's answer was not just "I do." It was:

"Oh , I do. For 5,000 years, marriage has been defined by every single culture and every single religion – this is not a Christian issue. Buddhist, Muslims, Jews – historically, marriage is a man and a woman. And the reason I supported Proposition 8, is really a free speech issue. Because first the court overrode the will of the people, but second there were all kinds of threats that if that did not pass then any pastor could be considered doing hate speech if he shared his views that he didn’t think homosexuality was the most natural way for relationships, and that would be hate speech. We should have freedom of speech, ok? And you should be able to have freedom of speech to make your position and I should be able to have freedom of speech to make my position, and can’t we do this in a civil way. Most people know I have many gay friends. I’ve eaten dinner in gay homes. No church has probably done more for people with AIDS than Saddleback Church. Kay and I have given millions of dollars out of Purpose Driven Life helping people who got AIDS through gay relationships. So they can’t accuse me of homophobia. I just don’t believe in the redefinition of marriage.

So, to just include "Oh, I do." gives the impression that Warren is comparing SSM to pedophilia, etc., but the full quote give the context as redefinition of marriage and First Amendment rights. Thus, your argument that only inclusion of "I do" is not contextomy is incorrect, because without the entire answer, it gives a false appearance to what he said and his stated intent.--Lyonscc (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Beliefnet Wording Option 1

In an interview with Beliefnet chief editor Steven Waldman, Warren stated that he opposed any form of marriage other than 'one man, one woman' and gave examples including same-sex marriage, polygamous marriage, incestuous marriage and pedophile marriage. This statement angered a number of political action groups, prompting Warren to clarify his statement to make it clear he was opposed to the redefining marriage, and that he was not equating homosexuality to polygamy, incest or pedophilia.

Comments

This is the most concise version I can think of that does not play to contextomy, while avoiding violations of WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:NOR. This also avoids having to quote dozens of lines of the interview to provide the appropriate context of "I do".--Lyonscc (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Do others agree with this wording? Sunray (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Fine here -- it covers the issue, covers the interpretations, and does so in few words. Collect (talk) 02
43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this paraphrasing is any better than just giving the actual quotations of the Question and the "I do" Answer from the interview. It's about the same amount of reading, but the direct quotations are harder to misinterpret, whereas any paraphrasing will have difficulty remaining "bulletproof" in the future when editors come along much later to examine these events in a historical context. I'd rather not take a chance on giving false impressions in a BLP, so i recommend a direct quote instead of a paraphrasing, or else a paraphrasing which goes far closer to the original direct quote than the suggestion above. I don't really think i can live with the above wording, especially the part about which groups were angered... we can be more specific, for the sake of a BLP. Hopefully. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ Talk ~ 4-1-1 ~ 03:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
1) The paraphrasing is MUCH better, because it avoids the WP:UNDUE issues with the extended text required to include "I do" (which is completely unacceptable on its own); it also avoids contextomy with the singular "I do" sans the entire answer; 3) It is no less "bulletproof" than the one with extended quotes. What would you suggest that is more concise than "This statement angered a number of political action groups" to replace that clause? The option, as presented is the absolute best I've seen for the sake of this BLP.--Lyonscc (talk) 04:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest Option 7. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ Talk ~ 4-1-1 ~ 05:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I dont agree. None of the mainstream newspaper sources put it like this. Plus I think this misrepresents the belifnet interview. Rick Warren didn just "give example", theres also the "equivalent" issue. Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
This is the best WP:NPOV summary possible that also avoids WP:GRAPEVINE, as "equivalency" is truly contentious. He did not say that SSM was equivalent to pedophilia, etc. He said that all of them were violations of the definition of 'marriage'.--Lyonscc (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Beliefnet Wording Option 2

Warren ignited a major controversy when he compared same-sex marriage to pedophilia, incest and polygamy during a video interview posted on Beliefnet.com. [7]. Warren later released a video message saying he does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia, but rather opposes the redefinition of marriage. [11]

Comments

There has been quite a discussion about this and for me its either option 2 or Benccc's wording. Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a non-starter. "Major" is WP:Weasel and not WP:NPOV, and Warren did not compare ssm to pedophilia, etc.--Lyonscc (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
He did. We've been discussing this for 2 months so I'll try one last time. Maybe using math notation that we were using earlier would help. When Warren said A∈Z, B∈Z, C∈Z, he compared A with B and C by including them in the same category(set Z). Or going from the crime example, you may think X,Y,Z are comparable because they are all crimes but people disputing that X is a crime will not like it being put in the same category (set in math example) with Y and Z.
Back to Wikipedia, your suggestion is a non-starter as well. So I have no idea how we'll proceed. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Given the full context of the "I do" quote, it is obvious that he did not make an equivalency statement. And, to use the math/crime example, just because people don't like X to be a crime, doesn't mean that Y and Z are being declared 'equivalent'. To sum it up - it is obvious that this statement is contentious. In order to make a definitive statement about the material, we have to either:
1) Use ONLY "I do". This gives an impression that is not congruent with Warren's entire answer, which makes it clear that it is redefinition of "marriage" that is at issue, not making moral equivalency comparisons between homosexuality, pedophilia, etc. Thus, this option is unacceptable.
2) Use the FULL "I do" quotation, which is 213 words long, by itself. While this avoids the contextomy/WP:NPOV issues from #1, it is so far beyond WP:UNDUE for this issue, that it's not even funny. Thus, this option is unacceptable.
3) Use a summary of the interview, the furor and the clarification/reiteration. This satisfies both the WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE issues from #'s 1 and 2, and is much more palatable for an encyclopedic entry.
What option am I missing that meets the above criteria? (avoids "I do" by itself (thus avoiding contextomy and WP:NPOVissues) and avoids WP:UNDUE?)--Lyonscc (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
In option 2, San Francisco Chronicle didnt say Warren declared them 'equivalent'. They said he compared. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
He didn't compare them, either.--Lyonscc (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
LOL, ok. I do hope we can move to arbitration soon. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

(Our) Mediation is a deliberate process -- frequently taking six weeks or more. No hurry per WP:DEADLINE. Collect (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing on a text which describes and explains this controversy

Sunray, you have brought the issues in the main page to here, thats good. But what I had meant by "Agreeing on a text which describes and explains this controversy", was the whole thing we are discussing here, so this is a duplicate section. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

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.

  • I've wasted countless hours during the past few weeks trying to come up with a wording which would be bulletproof against any claims of "propaganda" or "undue weight", but every time i get to the second or third paragraph, i find that i'm just basically plagiarizing Benccc, Mike Doughney, and PhoenixOf9, because they already wrote what i thought were accurate and honest versions which met the requirements of a BLP. I'll feel a little bit uncomfortable if i just mimic their texts, so for now i'd like to just give support to several of their proposed Options and Versions and Propositions. I will gladly be flexible and compromising, altering anything which isn't "bulletproof", but i don't see anything in their currect proposals which substantially fails to do a good job on this BLP. And i say this, oddly enough, as somebody who's usually very eager to air my own viewpoint and my own version of how i'd like things to be; but in this case, several very reasonable patient considerate people have already written so much which is compatible with my viewpoint, it hardly seems worth quibbling over any tiny little difference. Any difference which might exist would probably just be due to my own personal biases anyway, because (although i've never edited any article in Wikipedia in such a way to show this) i don't personally value marriage at all in any way/ shape/ or form, gay/ straight/ or otherwise, and i think my disapproval of the basic concept would become obviously infused in some POV way into my little quibbles.
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.

Streamlining process

Latest comment: 15 years ago26 comments5 people in discussion

I think we need to streamline our approach in a couple of ways. First, it would be helpful if we could reorganize the page to be able to more easily see where comments are needed. Participants are contributing volumes and much of it is good. The problem is, as Benccc has suggested, it is hard to keep track. Does anyone have good page organization skills who could suggest a way of organizing discussions?

Also, and more importantly, we need to re-focus the discussion now, so that we can go through the issues and finalize things. We have two many balls in the air. I am grateful to the participants who are contributing collaboratively. Bringing this mediation to a successful conclusion may seem daunting right now, but I am confident that as more participants start working collaboratively, we will pull it off. I will spend some time over the next couple of days, trying to highlight and summarize points that we need to address. Sunray (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

How about archiving this melange, setting out sections which cover the issues, and beginning from there? Collect (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Sunray, I'll think about how we might organize our discussions. Meanwhile I hope you can clarify something. You did some editing at 23:48 on 21 March 2009 (your note says "removed extraneous material") that I found disorienting. I've somewhat reoriented but I have questions. It looks like you moved what had been sections 13 ("goodbye hello again") through 15 ("option 7 combining Invocation on 20th, MLK on 19th, explains Divisive vs Unifying") to the end -- why did you do that? I'm also curious about some of the material you removed; why did you remove this post by Lyonscc: [[8]], this post by Lyonscc: [[9]], and this post by Phoenix of9: [[10]]. Benccc (talk) 09:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
There was more actually. Entire subsections Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Rick_Warren#Option_4c Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Rick_Warren#Beliefnet_Wording_Option_2 were deleted. Can you streamline the process w/o deleting suggestions? Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
My apologies. That was an error on my part. I had intended to remove only one block of text that was unrelated to the issues under mediation. Somehow I managed to remove a great deal of relevant material. Phoenix has now restored that. Sorry. Sunray (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I've thought about a new approach that might reduce some of our problems and help us make progress.
Why don't we see if we can resolve some issues one at a time. We'd all be looking at an issue together, and giving that issue our full focus. If there's a dispute over whether it conflicts with a policy or guideline, we can ask Sunray to help us examine that together. Maybe we'd do a straw poll on the issue to see where we stand. In this way we might more quickly zero in on the core of the dispute; i.e. perhaps we'd find that a dispute over a sentence can actually be boiled down to a dispute over a single word within the sentence, or perhaps we'd find that a non-specific "that's unacceptable" can be clarified into "that's unacceptable because x."
We'd finish with each issue by moving it into one of two buckets: "resolved" (with a note about what was resolved), or "come back to it." I see three main reasons why an issue might end up in the "come back to it" bucket. First, we might conclude that additional research is needed -- for example an editor needs more time to find an appropriate source to verify a claim. Second, we might conclude that a decision must be made elsewhere before the current issue can be resolved -- for example there's no need to decide whether to say Rick Warren is 5'10-1/2" tall or 5'11" tall until we first decide whether we're going to include his height in the article. Third, we might find that in spite of our serious collective efforts, an issue is at an impasse -- for example a party takes an "over my dead body" stance, and in the worst case scenario that issue advances to arbitration. So those are three ways an issue might end up in the "come back to it" bucket, and there may be others.
Meanwhile, we'd have a "queue" containing issues awaiting our attention, and inevitably during the discussion of an issue we'll think of things to add to the queue.
As the queue fills, we may find it useful to occasionally group issues thematically, so we can tackle a series of related issues rather than disjointedly work our way through unrelated issues. If we have disputes over which issue(s) to tackle next, we might ask for Sunray's recommendation or we may do a poll (I'm a fan of ranked choice voting, but I don't know if there's a tool for that we can use within Wikipedia).
Note that at first, we would probably not be producing whole paragraphs or even necessarily whole sentences. This will vary depending on the nature of the issue in dispute. We'd probably first clarify the aspect of Warren's life we're going to communicate, for example "tell readers about Warren's doctoral thesis and how he won an award for it." Then we might resolve various factoids related to that subject, then produce phrases to convey those factoids, then finally string the phrases together in a way that coherently presents that aspect of Warren's life. This most efficient sequence may vary issue by issue, and will become clear to us as we work, and can of course be one of the things we collectively decide upon.
In this process, a facilitator may be helpful, and that's a decision we could make collectively.
To keep pages clean and non-overwhelming, perhaps we'd archive what's on this page, and start a fresh page with each issue or at least each thematic grouping of issues, and perhaps we'd link to a separate page that contained the "resolved" and "come back to it" buckets and the "queue" for easy reference.
Do you think this could this be useful? If so, do any of you have suggestions for modifications or additions to this process? Shall we give it a try? Benccc (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

(out)I would actually prefer to see what trade-offs can be made -- that, to me, is the surer course of compromise. If we go sentence by sentence, the result is far more likely to fail than if each editor decides where he is willing to give a little on one end to get a little on the other (what you gain on the swings you lose on the roundabouts). Collect (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Trade-offs? This isnt a haggling street market. I will not be trading off my understanding of Wiki policies. Currently we are at standstill on 2 points.
1) Collect and Lyonscc are refusing to let church website info change material to be included in the article. Section: "Are positions taken on a church website (Saddleback Church) properly referred to in a BLP about a person when the material is not otherwise attributable to him?"
2) Section "Inclusion of a description, based on third-party accounts, of Warren's comments in the Beliefnet interview"
PS: Np, Sunray, I once had the RFC posted on the main page instead of the talk page :P Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Compromise is not a "haggling street market" and I regard that as a quite unuseful attitude. Collect (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Same here, I also consider your attitude "to give a little on one end to get a little on the other" quite unuseful. We should strive for a NPOV, verifiable w/o OR article which complies w/ BLP. Not personal "trade-offs" of editors. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Collect, I'm not proposing we commit ourselves irrevocably to such a process, but rather we see whether any of its elements help us make decisions. Each resolved dispute, however small, may serve as a building block for further successes. Without trying it, we don't actually know whether it will result in any progress -- but it might. Are you willing to try, or put another way, would you refuse to try?
The proposal has various parts, some of which may already strike you as worth a try. For instance one part is that we all focus on an issue together, and clear a page for that issue. Perhaps we would then, as you propose, do some trading specifically on that issue. I had envisioned that we'd start by seeking guidance on what elements of an issue might conflict with a policy or guideline; any trade-offs involving words or phrases that conflict with policy would be moot. Speaking of which, assertions about violations of policies and guidelines have been a recurring and unresolved stumbling block for us, and Sunray can provide useful guidance specific policy matters.
Another part of my proposal is that we work on an issue until we can decide whether it goes into the "resolved" or "come back to it" buckets. This also may be compatible with a process you envision; i.e. as a result of trade-offs, an issue would go to one of those two buckets.
I had also proposed we maintain a queue of issues to be worked on (or traded), grouped thematically (for example we might go through all disputes related to the portion of the article that informs readers about the Beliefnet controversy). We can all put items into the queue.
We've already tried crafting proposals for whole paragraphs, and we've run into at least a couple of problems with that; one problem is that unless we're on the same page regarding the overall point of a paragraph (i.e. here we're informing readers about the nature of the controversy associated with the Obama invitation, and the lead-in would be a description of the invitation itself and Obama's wish to reach out to evangelicals), it's hard to evaluate whether the elements of a paragraph are assembled in a way that communicates that and flows within that larger narrative; and another problem with evaluating paragraph-size proposals at this stage is that in each proposal, each of us may agree that certain elements are sound and certain other elements are unsound, and sometimes when editors reject whole paragraphs we can't tell which elements they actually agree with. By identifying, focusing on, and resolving specific points of dispute, be they words or phrases or facts, we can start to build some momentum.
In short, can we find, among the various parts of my proposal, a process we can take on a trial run? No doubt once we start using the process, as its weaknesses reveal themselves, we'll identify ways to improve it. Benccc (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


As I said in the beginning -- let's start with the issues identified at the outset on the RfM page, discuss each in an orderly manner, and work from there. All this stuff about mediation not involving compromise is totaly unhelpful to the process. We have no deadline on getting this settled. Collect (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm all for following the process, rather than making it up as we go along.--Lyonscc (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are the components of Benccc's proposal that I think could be implemented right away:

  1. Review the issues one by one
  2. Determine points of agreement and points to be addressed from the contributions of participants to date
  3. If there are "sticking points" identify them for further discussion or to be set aside
  4. Identify external references (research sources, etc.)
  5. Determine applicable policy
  6. Summarize status in a table

You mention ranked choice voting. I don't think that this can be adapted to our environment. However, there is a technique used in educational settings that might work: nominal group technique. Its advantage is that it allows for quick decisions and ensures that everyone's input is taken into account.

I am willing to facilitate this process and think it is consistent with the mediation process. Mediators do not only refer to policy. I think I will be able to spend more time facilitating now that most participants have adopted a more collaborative approach. Sunray (talk) 06:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sunray, I didn't want to make assumptions about your availability to facilitate -- thanks for doing. If nobody objects to proceeding, what do you think are next steps? Benccc (talk) 06:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
If participants agree, we could take one of the issues and move the discussion to the bottom of the page. I could summarize points to consider. We could archive everything else on the page (with issues to be brought forward from archives whenever we are ready to move on). How does that sound? Sunray (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Lyonscc and I have been working on what the "x" would be in a line that goes something like this:
  • Proposition 8 eliminated the (x) of same-sex couples to marry in the State of California.
Though it's been a long discussion, we've made some progress and may be able to resolve it with some further focus and input. Benccc (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Benccc - I thought we got this resolved w/ Options 6 and 6a, where I included the ballot language ("eliminated the right..."), since the context of the "right" is set by the chronology of events in CA. So long as the chronology is present (which allows the reader to understand the context of the "right"), including the ballot language fits WP:NPOV.--Lyonscc (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Lyonscc, the options you wrote do give us more material to work with, but they didn't resolve the "x" question, and that's been tripping us up with most of the efforts we've made to tell readers about Prop 8. We've discussed your opposition to the word "right" but it's my impression you still have a concern about it. I think with some collective focus we may be able to resolve your concern, which is why I think it's a good place to start. Benccc (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
My concerns are resolved if the "right" is given in context with the chronology (Prop 22 -> CASC ruling -> refusal of Stay -> Prop 8 title change), so I'd say that resolves my concern.--Lyonscc (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Lyonscc, you've indicated that if we use the word "right" to replace the "(x)" in the following line, the line will not conform to WP policies and guidelines:
  • Proposition 8 eliminated the (x) of same-sex couples to marry in the State of California.
If you're right, then several versions of language that we've developed over the past weeks would have to be excluded from consideration unless we replaced "x" with a different word (in fact, numerous other Wikipedia pages that reference Prop 8 would be affected). So I'm asking that we examine what word would be accurate in place of the "x." I'm sure you'll agree I've taken your concerns seriously and worked with you diligently for weeks on these policy questions, and we have not been able to resolve them together. We need help from a neutral party who has knowledge of WP policies. I'm confident we can resolve this as a group with Sunray's guidance. Benccc (talk) 08:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I believe Sunray would like to hear whether everyone agrees to try this process. Lyonscc? Collect? Phoenix_of9? Benccc (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems that, due to the high volume of posts, not everyone has read everything in Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Rick_Warren#Work_plan. So I'll wait until people catches up. As for the process, I really dont care. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, probably true. A couple of participants have suggested that progress has been made on how we deal with Prop 8. Should we begin by moving that down and seeing if we can wrap it up? It would be nice to begin this next phase with a win-win. Sunray (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm all for trying to wrap up Prop 8. I don't know about the process for doing this, but I'm game to try.--Lyonscc (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
We need to focus the discussion. It would be good if someone could summarize the points of agreement and identify sticking points. Then we could look at the closest option with respect to wording. Would you and Phoenix be willing to summarize what you think are points of agreement right now? Sunray (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Rick_Warren/Archive_4&oldid=672592658"