Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Rick Warren/Archive 7

Focussing the discussion

I'm having difficulty focussing on the multiple issues. Also, I think we need to try harder to keep posts brief. Would participants be willing to focus on one thing at a time? I suggest that each of you propose a couple of things that you would like to work on. Then we can choose one to focus on and develop an action plan for the rest. How does that strike you? Sunray (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

1) We've still not addressed the "Dobson comparison" issue. I think that's the easiest of the lot - perhaps we could knock that one out.

2) I think if we address "is it NPOV to include all three 'facts' about Prop 8?", we can put that one to bed.--Lyonscc (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't planned to take a break but... I took one. I hope you've enjoyed the rest too. I'll post within the next day. Thanks. Benccc (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Lyonscc, perhaps an area of agreement for us is that the article can give readers a fuller picture of Warren's primary concerns about marriage. I just took some time to study Warren's Prop 8 endorsement video, and gathered some quotes. How about this:

• Two weeks before the 2008 U.S. general election, Warren issued a statement to his congregation supporting California Proposition 8, which would amend the state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.[1][2] Warren's support reflected the official position of his church's denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, and was, he said, based on his beliefs that "God created marriage for the purpose of family, love, and procreation," "the traditional historic universal definition of marriage (is) one man, one woman, for life," and "we should not let (lesbian and gay people) change a definition of marriage that has been supported by every single culture, and every single religion for 5,000 years."[3] After the measure passed, Warren's church was targeted by protesters.[4]

We don't necessarily need to use all of those quotes -- I'm sensitive to advice we've previously received about using BLPs as platforms for the subject's views [5] -- so if you think one or two of them best represent Warren's position on marriage, please choose. We should also round up a citation for the line about the Southern Baptist Convention, which you or Collect (I forget who) asked that we include. Is this acceptable? Benccc (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Benccc - I've responsed in the appropriate section above [6] and [7]. What is your answer to Sunray's question?--Lyonscc (talk) 03:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sunray, sorry I neglected to answer your question. I too was having difficulty following multiple issues. Let's continue to focus on Prop 8, and once that's done let's discuss the "Dobson comparison" issue as Lyonscc suggests, then how about we discuss the Beliefnet interview. I'm not looking much beyond that at the moment... but regarding an action plan, what did you have in mind?

Lyonscc, I find it difficult to maintain conversations in more than one part of the page. Would you mind if we post at the bottom of the page like this? Benccc (talk) 05:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Lyonscc, I'm not sure I understand everything in your response to the Prop 8 paragraph I presented. I understand that you want to add the language of the amendment, which is OK with me though as you know I think it's more detail than readers of this article will want. I've added it below. You want us to provide readers with what you call "the chronology" of certain aspects of California marriage law prior to Warren's Prop 8 endorsement, especially the In re Marriage Cases decision, and I have added that too. I was surprised that you said you didn't see the need to quote Warren; you recently emphasized concern that language I proposed did not make Warren's intentions sufficiently clear. Nonetheless I scaled back the quotes (I kept one that refers to the definition of marriage, as we both agree that's an area of emphasis for Warren). Here goes:

• Two weeks before the 2008 U.S. general election, Warren issued a statement to his congregation supporting California Proposition 8, which would amend the California Constitution to say "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," thereby eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry.[8][9] Warren's support was consistent with the official position of his church's denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, and reflected his belief that "we should not let (lesbian and gay people) change a definition of marriage that has been supported by every single culture, and every single religion for 5,000 years."[10] Warren stated that the measure was necessary because the Supreme Court of California "threw out the will of the people" when it found, in the In Re Marriage Cases decision, that previous statutory bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional.[11] After the measure passed, Warren's church was targeted by protesters.[12]

Please accept this, and we'll pop a bottle of champagne.Benccc (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

(Out) How about:

• • On October 24, 2008, Warren issued a statement to his congregation supporting California Proposition 8, which would amend the California Constitution to say "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," stopping the right of same-sex couples to marry stated by the Supreme Court of California in May. Warren's support was consistent with the official position of his church's denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention. After the measure passed, Warren's church and others were targeted by protesters.[13]

Thus removing lots of quotes, saying the word "right," (which appears important to you), giving the timeline and stating that multiple churches were targeted by protesters (not just one church). Collect (talk) 10:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we're almost there! I do think a quote from Warren would be helpful in framing his position, but I don't think it is essential, if the facts are all present. I would use his opening framing, though, (where he first uses the definition of marriage for 5k years, rather than the "2%" quote from the middle). Maybe - pulling your version and Collect's together:

• Two weeks before the 2008 U.S. general election, Warren issued a statement to his congregation supporting California Proposition 8, which would amend the California Constitution to say "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," thereby eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry, per the May In Re Marriage Cases decision, which overturned California's "Defense of Marriage Act".[14] Warren's support was consistent with the official position of his church's denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention[15], and reflected his belief that "(Proposition 8) had to be instituted because the courts threw out the will of the people. Four guys ... voted to change the definition of marriage that has been going for 5,000 years."[16] After the measure passed, Warren's church and others were targeted by protesters. [17]

This shortens it a little bit, keeps all of the Prop 8 facts together, has Warren's most prominent and concise statement of support cited, keeps "eliminating the right" in a prominent place, and includes the protests, which were at Saddleback and beyond. Yes?--Lyonscc (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This represents good progress, IMO. I'm just signing in to let you know that I'm supportive of what you are now doing. Keep up the good work! Sunray (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, the preposition "per" (through, by means of) won't work there -- it leaves the reader with the impression that the In re Marriage Cases decision may have caused the elimination of SSM. We could solve that by replacing "per" with "which had been established by," like so:

• Two weeks before the 2008 U.S. general election, Warren issued a statement to his congregation supporting California Proposition 8, which would amend the California Constitution to say "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," thereby eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry, which had been established in May by the In Re Marriage Cases decision, which overturned California's "Defense of Marriage Act."

But that sentence probably wouldn't last five minutes before a copy editor turned it into two sentences; I recommend we do so ourselves. My first sentence and yours are identical up to the point at which my first sentence ends, so let's end the sentence there and use a new sentence to carry the additional content. Another advantage of starting a new sentence is that we can refer to the Court decision and Warren's related "will of the people" comment in a single sentence, which I think will be easier for readers to follow. I see that you added the month (May) of the court decision, so I have done so too (along with the year to ensure no doubt).

You changed "previous statutory bans" to "California's 'Defense of Marriage Act'", and after doing a little homework I see that neither is quite right; there was a single (not plural) statutory ban, but it was embodied in two statutes, of which Proposition 22 (the Defense of Marriage Act) was one and an amendment to the California Civil Code section 4100 was the other. Rather than identify both (which may be too tangential to the Warren article), we can correctly say "statutory ban."

I used a Warren quote that refers to the 5,000-year-old definition of marriage, the consensus of cultures and religions regarding that definition, and the role of lesbian and gay people in changing it, all of which come across as factors in his decision. However it does not make the point that Warren was concerned that "four guys" changed California marriage law. You proposed replacing it with a quote that does make the point about the four judges, but at the expense of losing the other points Warren made, which I think readers will find helpful. I don't think the "four guys" quote is essential, but I don't oppose it and we can work it in without having to delete the other quote.

I agree with your change to the last sentence ("Warren's church and others"). So....

• Two weeks before the 2008 U.S. general election, Warren issued a statement to his congregation supporting California Proposition 8, which would amend the California Constitution to say "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," thereby eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry.[18][19] Warren's support was consistent with the official position of his church's denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, and reflected his belief that "we should not let (lesbian and gay people) change a definition of marriage that has been supported by every single culture, and every single religion for 5,000 years."[20][21] Warren stated that the measure was necessary because the Supreme Court of California "threw out the will of the people" in May 2008 when "four guys" found, in the In Re Marriage Cases decision, that the previous statutory ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.[22] After the measure passed, Warren's church and others were targeted by protesters.[23] Benccc (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on the quotes. And the parenthetical addition to the first.

• Two weeks before the 2008 U.S. general election, Warren issued a statement to his congregation supporting California Proposition 8, which would amend the California Constitution to say "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," thereby eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry stated by the Supreme Court of California in a 4 - 3 decision in May 2008 which found the statutory ban on same sex marriage unconstitutional. Warren's support was consistent with the official position of his church's denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention. After the measure passed, Warren's church and others were targeted by protesters.[24]

Removing any parenthethical statement and any chance of misinterpretation of quote fragments and their contexts.

I think Collect's version will work for me, w/o the Warren quote. If we would include a Warren quote (which I don't think is necessary w/ Collect's version), it should be his opening one. By parenthetically replacing "2%" with "(lesbian and gay people)", you miss the point of his quote - the "2%" highlights the overturning the will of the people - not the fact that the 2% were gays and lesbians. The opening quote is much clearer and concise (and needs no controversial paranthetical replacements). Still, though, I think Collect's proposal is good w/o the quote.--Lyonscc (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it wise to avoid any comments about the mechanics of the court decision (e.g., that it was a 4/3 decision). By long tradition, a court decision is a court decision. Once made, it stands. I'm also not clear why this version excludes so much of Warren's remarks. In an article about Warren, surely we need the gist of his views. We also need sufficient background to understand why he was targeted by protesters, do we not? Sunray (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

To your point, here is an edited version taking Collect's, Bencc's and my most recent suggestions:

• Two weeks before the 2008 U.S. general election, Warren issued a statement to his congregation supporting California Proposition 8, which would amend the California Constitution to say "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," thereby eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry, as declared by the Supreme Court of California in May 2008, in a ruling which found the statutory ban on same sex marriage unconstitutional. Warren's support was consistent with the official position of his church's denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, and reflected his belief that "(Proposition 8) had to be instituted because the courts threw out the will of the people. Four guys voted to change the definition of marriage that has been going for 5,000 years." After the measure passed, Warren's church and others were targeted by protesters.[25]

This takes out the CASC vote tally, and brings in Warren's most prominent (and concise) statement of support.--Lyonscc (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we are on the right track in focussing the discussion at this point. However, I see some difficulty in deciding on individual passages when we don't have all the text (i.e., all that we will be adding to the article) in front of us. Would it make sense put up a version of the whole thing and then look at each sentence together? Would participants be willing to do this? What would be the logistics of such an approach? Sunray (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we would just have an outline of the key points to be discussed/added, and then pick/choose from there. Then, if we can archive most everything else, we can "fill in the skeleton" as we go.

1 - Prop 8

2 - Invocation invitation/controversy

2a - Beliefnet interview

2b - Abortion (if a separate mention is needed)

3 - The actual Invocation

4 - Other items

4a - Comparison to James Dobson

If we can get to a quick resolution on #1 (I think the latest version may have us there), #3 should be very easy, and #4a should be pretty straightforward. Then, w/ those, we can come back to #2 (possibly the only difficult piece remaining) to finish up the work.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This outline looks good. My only problem is that I'm having difficulty with the text on Prop 8 when I have no idea on what other text will be added. Prop 8 was related to the invocation controversy, as was the beliefnet interview. So I look at a proposed version of text regarding Prop 8 and I'm not sure what else will be mentioned. To state this another way: The versions above regarding Prop 8 relate to the overall inauguration controversy, but don't completely explain it. So I find myself needing to know what else will be said. Is it just me having this problem? Sunray (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess I assume the remaining text (in #2 above)will be something along the lines of what we had in versions 7-10.

A) Obama invited Warren to speak

B) Warren was seen as controversial due to - i) support of Prop 8; ii) the beliefnet interview; iii) his views on abortion (which may be covered in the quote in (C)

C) Obama supported his choice (with the language I think we've all agreed upon - "Obama later defended his selection, saying that he disagreed with the minister's opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage but that there should be room for dialogue on such difficult social issues."

Between what we have in the last version above and (A), (B), and (C), I think the invocation controversy would be adequately explained.--Lyonscc (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sunray, I agree (and assume we all do) that the Prop 8 info we're working on doesn't completely explain the inauguration controversy. As Lyonscc points out, we previously produced draft text that represented our views on what the whole invocation section might look like (Version 8, Version 9, etc.). Because there were many points of disagreement, the discussion was scattered and progress seemed unlikely. Now that our conversation has fewer participants it's less likely to become scattered, but I still think it's easier for us to make progress by working on smaller chunks of copy.

I think Lyonscc's outline above (A, B, C) is roughly right. Also, I think we've all overlooked this at times, but the paragraph about the invocation that's currently on the live article contains information that's not under dispute that we'll therefore presumably integrate into our copy ("More controversy ensued when it was announced that Warren would be the keynote speaker at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Annual Commemorative Service on January 19, 2009, the day prior to the inauguration"[26]).

How about we continue to work toward agreement regarding the Prop 8 info, then move on, and if editing issues in subsequent sentences in the invocation section lead us to reconsider some aspect of the Prop 8 info, we can go ahead and reconsider as needed. Benccc (talk) 07:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Lyonscc, regarding the version you propose above, I think you're still packing too much into the first sentence. We already made it fairly long by including both the language of the amendment and its effect; by extending it to include info about the previous statute and court decision I think we'd guarantee that other editors would soon divide it into smaller parts. If we place that information closer to Warren's critical comment about the court, our sentences will be more readable and the themes of the paragraph will be more coherently organized.

As for content, I accept scrapping the reference to gays & lesbians. I think it's useful to retain Warren's point about opposite-sex marriage being supported by every single culture, and every single religion for 5,000 years. I agree with you that Warren was concerned about the court overturning the will of the people, but clearly it's also important to him to uphold what he sees as the ancient consensus of cultures and religions regarding marriage (and we need not exclude either point). I agree with Sunray that the tally of the court vote is unnecessary -- the vote could have been unanimous and it would still be seen by some as throwing out the will of the people -- so I dropped it.

Here's the result:

• Two weeks before the 2008 U.S. general election, Warren issued a statement to his congregation endorsing California Proposition 8, which would amend the California Constitution to say "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," thereby eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry.[27][28] Warren's position was consistent with the official position of his church's denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, and reflected his belief that this definition of marriage "has been supported by every single culture, and every single religion for 5,000 years."[29][30] Warren stated that the measure was necessary because the Supreme Court of California "threw out the will of the people" in May 2008 when it found, in the In Re Marriage Cases decision, that the previous statutory ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.[31] After the measure passed, Warren's church and others were targeted by protesters.[32]

What do you think -- acceptable? Benccc (talk) 09:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

How important is the "thereby"? Collect (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This looks fine to me, Benccc. I think the 'thereby' might be superfluous, but it's not a deal-breaker for me. Wheew! This has been a long road. Can I suggest we agree on the Dobson inclusion/exclusion/wording next, as I think it will be pretty straightforward when we examine it?--Lyonscc (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Great work guys! I think we should frame this. Actually, when we archive, we can just leave this text at the top of the page. So do you agree to work on the Dobson inclusion/exclusion/wording next? Sunray (talk) 07:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Wheew is right! Re "thereby," maybe I've been staring at that sentence for too long -- I can't tell whether I think it makes the sentence clearer or not. Lemme get back to you on that. Re the Dobson matter, I'll have to delve into the archives to remind myself what that issue was about. Lyonscc or Collect, what do you propose regarding Dobson? Benccc (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Dobson

(out) IMHO, Dobson is pretty much irrelevant to a biography of Warren. And I do not see what, precisely, is gained for the BLP by inserting such a minor side issue at all. Collect (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't combed through the discussion on the archives -- instead I looked for the Dobson reference on the Warren article, noticed that Dobson is mentioned in two places, and then got sidetracked by the editing forensics. It seems that both Dobson references were added to the article on December 19 by editors who have no talk pages (does that mean the accounts no longer exist?).

First, "CaliforniaProf" added the point that Warren supports efforts to fight global warming in contrast to other evangelical leaders "such as James Dobson." In the edit summary, CaliforniaProf noted that the edit ""Indicates how Warren's initiatives on poverty, disease, AIDS, educaton, and global warming have created an alternative movement within U.S. evangelism."[33] The reference to Dobson strikes me as gratuitous, but indeed Dobson is mentioned in the cited article, so I can see why CaliforniaProf might have considered it appropriate.

Next, "Patrikd" added the bit about the WSJ article that mentioned the Warren/Dobson comparison, with the unilluminating edit summary "added some more quotes."[34]

I wish we could reach both editors; I'm especially curious to ask Patrikd whether his/her edit was intended as a response to CaliforniaProf's edit. As it is, the two edits seem to somewhat contradict each other; one underscores the difference between Warren and Dobson and the other underscores the similarity. Confusing.

I read the WSJ piece,[35] and it seems to me that the writer was saying that the press thinks Warren is theologically more liberal than most evangelicals whereas in reality the only difference is -- in Warren's words -- "a matter of tone." The point could presumably be made without reference to Dobson. Let's think about how. Benccc (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The problematic piece here is that the Dobson reference is in the section about Political and Social views. Theology is what someone believes about God. Both Dobson and Warren are in the Southern Baptist Convention, so it is unsurprising that they have similar theology. Where they differ (often vastly) in how their theology is applied. In religious conversation, your theology is part of your orthodoxy, whereas how you act it out is your orthopraxy. So, when Warren is questioned about how his theology differs from Dobson, he would say it "is a matter of tone" - which speaks to orthopraxy. The items added by CaliforniaProf are examples of this. Another example we should be able to relate to, in light of the Warren video about Prop 8, is that Warren noted that he never supports specific political candidates. Dobson, on the other hand, sees himself as a conservative kingmaker. The WSJ piece is confusing because it has no full context around the "matter of tone" comments, but does immediately follow up by saying that Warren can't name any significant theological differences w/ Dobson.

From the discussion on adding Dobson to the article, it was clear that there was a desire to use Dobson's name (via "matter of tone") to evoke a view of extremism to Warren. The problem with this is that it's not accurate to what Warren's answers convey. It places this item under Political and Social Views - which is Warren's orthopraxy (application of theology) - but has a quote about Warren's theology - which is orthodoxy (theological belief). Additionally, it falls afoul of WP:BLP, which warns - Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association - which is why the murky Dobson quote is included - to create a situation of 'guilt by association' (GBA). Warren and Dobson travel in different circles and are often quite at odds in terms of how Christian principles should be applied (orthopraxy) - and it is primarily Dobson's practice (orthopraxy), not belief (orthodoxy), which is the cause of criticism. The WSJ quote and its wording in the article completely muddy this up.

I don't think it even belongs in the article, as it doesn't make the reader's knowledge about Warren any clearer, and it just seems to be in place for GBA purposes.--Lyonscc (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think I sort of agree with this. While i'm sure we could figure out a way to make the compare/contrast relevant to the article if we tried, I think that based on the way it is currently implemented it was an attempt at character assassination. Now, can we establish whether there is the potential for it to be fit for inclusion? Firestorm ^Talk 04:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

How? When two people are in the same sect, it is rather hard to make out any major theological differences at all <g>. Rather like saying that two Catholic priests "do not have any theological differences," it verges on insertion of Dobson's name for the simple sake of inserting Dobsons name. Collect (talk) 13:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a question to ask is "what would this tell you about Warren if Dobson's name was not included?" I struggle to find anything of significance it would add to the bio.--Lyonscc (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't post to the Rick Warren discussion page until February, so I missed the discussion about adding Dobson to the article. Whatever the intentions of the editors may have been, the edits themselves don't seem to me to paint Warren as an extremist or bad guy. In particular, I don't see any policy violation; Dobson may be disliked by liberals, but he's not by any objective measure guilty of anything (as far as I know). I'm wary of removing content, especially without having a chance to discuss it with the editors who added it. However, it seems the editors used Dobson's name in support of points that don't depend on it, and the editors seem to have left Wikipedia, so I'm open to ditching the Dobson references.

In the first instance this is easy; we could revise "thus breaking with other conservative, high-profile evangelical leaders, such as James Dobson, who had opposed such a move" to "thus breaking with other conservative, high-profile evangelical leaders, who had opposed such a move" without losing the point.

The second instance is more complicated. In the WSJ article the writer and Warren both seem to be saying that Warren's broader agenda has been misunderstood by the media as a sign of a shift in position on traditional evangelical issues such as abortion. This point would be easier to make if the "Political and social views" section was better organized. Currently it starts with examples of how Warren has diverged from the traditional evangelical focus, then in the second paragraph it gives examples of Warren speaking out on issues of traditional evangelical focus, and then in the third short paragraph gives a divergence example AND a tradition example.

In my view, we could deal with this by having the divergence examples in one place and the tradition examples in another, and by using the WSJ point as a bridge, like so (changes to existing article indicated in bold):

Warren has worked to shift the evangelical movement toward broader social action and away from an exclusive focus on traditional evangelical social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage (regarding the latter, he called divorce a greater threat to the American family). Warren's five-point plan for global action, the P.E.A.C.E. Plan, calls for church-led efforts to tackle global poverty and disease, including the spread of HIV/AIDS, and to support literacy and education efforts around the world. In February 2006, he signed a controversial statement backing a major initiative to combat global warming, thus breaking with other conservative, high-profile evangelical leaders, such as James Dobson, who had opposed such a move. Polls have indicated that most evangelicals are skeptical of global warming theories, especially related to human culpability. This decision by Warren remains one of his most controversial and criticized moves.

Warren's softer tone on political issues once central to U.S. evangelicals and his concern for issues more commonly associated with the political left have resulted in the characterization of Warren as one of a "new breed of evangelical leaders."[36] But it has also been misunderstood by the media, according to Warren, as indicating a shift in position on traditional evangelical issues.[37]

In a conversation with atheist author Sam Harris in Newsweek magazine, Warren spoke out against evolution and in favor of creationism. He also said that brutal dictators such as Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot were all atheists, when questioned on whether religion is beneficial to society. In 2005, during the Terri Schiavo controversy, Warren stated that withholding feeding to Schiavo, a woman in a persistent vegetative state, was "not a right to die issue". He then called Michael Schiavo's decision to remove her feeding tube, "an atrocity worthy of Nazism", and while speculating about Michael's Schiavo's motives, put forward the idea that Schiavo wanted Terri to die because, if she regained consciousness, she might have "something to say that he didn‘t want said."''

What do you think? Benccc (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This works for me.--Lyonscc (talk) 00:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

OK... hearing no objections... let's say that's that. Next how about we tackle the Beliefnet interview. I'll start a new section for that. Benccc (talk) 07:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason for the "creationism" section as it is part of the SBC theology. Interviews with anyone where the result is that Warren is, in fact, a Southern Baptist, do not advance the biography. As I understand it, we could add whole paragraphs on the Virgin Birth, Pentecost, and the Resurrection as well -- not to mention the actual existence of Satan. Need we have them? Collect (talk) 10:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

(out)Collect, I think that the 'creationism' section (and the weird inclusion of Terri Schiavo) can be discussed on the Rick Warren page after the mediation, but I don't think it's part of this mediation. I read the bolded sections of Benccc's suggested wording to deal with the Dobson material that's part of the mediation. The non-bolded material is already part of the Rick Warren article, but I didn't think was part of the mediation. Am I missing something?--Lyonscc (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Another issue

Note that there was another issue:

"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? Collect (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)"

Do you not want to mediate this? Do participants want to discuss this issue? Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

We settled this a couple of days ago. Collect (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Where? I'm talking about this:

"Warren's church placed a message on its web site explaining the church's view that Scripture prohibits sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman, which replaced a message that said that people "unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted" as members.[11][12]"

As far as I know, this hasnt been discussed since the initial statements. Are you ok with discussing this issue? Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This was all part of the Prop 8 discussion. It is "old news" at this point here as we agreed on language whoich properly explained what was said, by whom, in what context, and that the statements were in accord with the SBC, etc. covering Prop 8. Do you wish to insert this now? Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Not really, it hasnt been discussed during Prop 8 discussions. Sunray, can you please clarify? If it is not going to be part of the mediation, thats fine, I'm just gonna move its discussion to the talk page of Rick Warren. Prop 8 and Dobson have been settled. If we can settle beliefnet, I'd still consider this mediation a success, even without church and civil union issues. Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The theme is consistent. Is this a new message on his website, or one from back that came up during the initial controversy? Sunray (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This was after the initial controversy. First criticism: December 18, 2008 [38]. After that Warren answered his critics and the website was changed: Dec. 24, 2008 [39] It has nothing to do with Prop 8 tho, unlike what Collect has claimed. Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Inasmuch as it is not part of the discussions to date, we must exclude it. Sunray (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok so your saying it wasnt part of the discussions until now. What if other editors want to discuss this issue? Collect, Benccc? Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said to you before, the participants decide what they want to discuss. If there is consensus to discuss something, provided it is within the scope of the issues to be mediated, of course we can do that. Sunray (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(out) I aver "no consensus." Simple. Collect (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I moved this discussion to Talk:Rick Warren. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Where you stated your intent to add the material as soon as the article is unprotected? Collect (talk) 00:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)