Talk:Rick Warren/Archive 10

"one of the best selling non-fiction books of all time"
The citation provided does not support this claim. Rather, it indicates that Warren is among the list of "top-earners". I have adjusted the text accordingly. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  15:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps showing "The Purpose Driven Life" at its 166th week on the NYT best seller list will be sufficient? "Life was already a publishing phenomenon. "It was the best-selling book of any kind by far in 2003 and 2004, according to our survey of sales of books," says Publishers Weekly religion editor Lynn Garrett." (note that 2005 etc. figures would be in the future at that point). PDL nearing 40 million in sales -- already over 30 million (three diamond awards). Need more? Collect (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * None of these support the claim "one of the best selling non-fiction books of all time". Perhaps for certain years, yes. But "of all time" is a claim that, thus far, hasn't been verified. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  16:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly -- very few books have sold 30+ million copies ever. The  WP list shows a total (excluding Mao, the Book of Mormon and the Bible for which the claims of "copies sold" are hard to verify) of a relative handful of non-fiction books selling over 30 million copies.  "Boy Scout Handbook" at 150 million. M-W Collegiate Dictionary at 55 million.  Spock's Child Care at 50.  Roget's Thesaurus at 40 (note all of these have had many editions).  Better Homes and Garden's Cook Book at 38.  Hay's You Can Heal Your Life at 35. Then Warren at 30 (tied in that list with a bunch of others -- but they are not still selling).  Appears to be no worse that number seven on all time best sellers on that list.  It is not OR to recognize that nearing 40 million copies keeps it on the all-time non-fiction list.  Number 2 if you discount books which have had many editions over the years.  Collect (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If the sales data and rankings at that article are properly sourced, then feel free to incorporate it into the text. All I was saying is that the original source provided, and those you followed up with, didn't support the claim. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  18:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I've heard several times that the Purpose Driven Life is the best-selling hardcover in history. I'm sure there's a source for that somewhere. Manutdglory (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This article from ABC News (go.com) claims 30 million copies as of June 2007. However, the article places most of its focus on the subject of why Warren and SaddleBack are famous, infamous, popular, and controversial. Given a preponderance of articles which support the contentions that Warren's controversial views deserve some mention, and given the preponderance of evidence which supports some claims saying Purpose Driven Life is one of the best-selling hardcover books in America, i propose a compromise.


 * Let's put insert text which summarizes these claims of high sales figures, which are not just puffery if they are being reported as Notable in a variety of Reliable Sources, and let's also insert text which summarizes the oft-cited major reasons why Warren's views and his SaddleBack Church are viewed as controversial, and also the Notable mentions from Reliable Sources about how people react with such vigor. As a perfect example of these reactions, Dan Savage's campaign for promoting an infamous definition of "SaddleBacking" would be one which can be summarized concisely and with good citations.


 * Does that seem like a reasonable compromise at this time? Please consider for the next day or two whether there is middle-ground here which allows us all to present our relevant contributions to the topic without putting undue weight on some particular aspect over another. I'm trying to think of the most neutral wording which follows the facts of the Proposals given above, while keeping away from Undue Weight. Maybe you could suggest some kind of Proposal, or amend the Proposals above? Thank you kindly. Teledildonix314 Talk  ~  contributions  22:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No deal. A well-known, legitimate and notable accomplishment such as being the author of the best-selling hardcover book in American history is obviously not comparable with a derogatory-term coined in jest a few weeks ago. Please stop attempting to override the clear consensus of the majority of editors. Manutdglory (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec)Seems to me that if we take out the part of your proposal that is already in the article - "30 million copies", then what remains is a rehash of arguments made previously that failed to reach a consensus. This section would be better kept on track finding alternate / better sources for bestseller claims. Kevin (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, sure. So when Manutdglory (still not recusing theirself!) mentions a "clear consensus of the majority of editors", what does this mean? We have four or five editors voting one way, we have seven editors voting on the contrary, but one of those seven still won't redact their vote despite COI. This leaves approximately 60/40 in the vote on the Proposals, so i don't know what sort of "consensus of the majority" is being discussed? And i'm sorry if it seems like i'm trying to tie separate sections of this biography together, because i would love to avoid Synthesis-O.R. etc. and yet it seems like the common themes of "Criticisms" or "Public Reactions" or "Recent Media Coverage of Warren" are being stonewalled with no further offers of compromise? If we are stuck on some kind of 60/40 or 70/30 or 50/50 situation, then wouldn't it be good to offer more Proposals or more Amendments to Proposals instead of just blocking any insertions? I don't want to insert any text which doesn't have consenus. But i also don't think it helps the article to block any kind of "Criticism" or "Reaction" subsections from being proposed, because the intentional omission or suppression of Notable information is actually a kind of flipside to Undue Weight... it's a kind of Undue Fluffiness. Who else has a Proposal for a compromise? Who else knows how to restore this article to a NPOV? How do we mention the highly publicized Criticisms and Public Reactions to Rick Warren's recent political activities while avoiding giving Undue Weight to the relative importance (or un-importance) of Rick Warren vis-a-vis the controversial topics in which he chose to be involved? And although everybody should feel free to answer and discuss, i think it's only fair to disclose possible COI here so we don't repeatedly run into situations of head-butting and adversarial conduct, especially when the COI and non-NPOV are firmly established. Does that sound proper here? Teledildonix314 Talk ~  contributions  01:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, as I clearly stated, I didn't include my "vote", so it really was 7 to 4 (including an administrator who agreed with us) - go ahead and check. And if we're including your vote, mine should also be counted (since your anti-Warren behavior caused the article to be fully protected twice), so it's actually 8-4 (or 7-3 without us), which is a clear consensus. I know it sucks to be in the minority, but it's obvious that you are and you need to admit that fact. And clearly, the majority of editors do believe that the current article is NPOV, so your arguments to the contrary are baseless. Manutdglory (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * And now it is officially 8-4. That should end the discussion. Manutdglory (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, no. There is no such situation as "end the discussion", and your insistence of such is worrisome. Also, i'm doubting you've really grasped the process of consensus-building, so i feel it's necessary to point out how we go about Participating in community discussions. Additionally, you have not shown any reason why my vote should be ignored: you have not shown where i have any Conflict Of Interest, whereas we have repeatedly pointed out your COI. If you think 8-4 or 7-3 is a "clear consensus", then i would politely ask you to review the dictionary definition. And as for the issue of how it is for me when it "sucks to be in the minority" (and my goodness, doesn't it just warm one's cockles to hear christians declaring whether i am or am not a "minority"?) i would happily point you to the words of the Consensus Policies: In determining consensus, consider the strength and quality of the arguments, including the evolution of final positions, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace if available. Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the "logic" (point of view) of the majority. New users who are not yet familiar with consensus should realize that polls (if held) are often more likely to be the start of a discussion rather than the end of one. Editors decide outcomes during discussion. So it is highly inappropriate to attempt to declare the discussion finalized simply because of a half-dozen pro-christian pro-whitewash pro-censorship votes. Teledildonix314 Talk  ~  contributions  00:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

(OD)Manutdglory, in terms of "establishing consensus," you really should understand that you have an admitted conflict of interest in this case and as such, you should not be making sweeping gestures about establishing consensus. You do not have the right to disregard another user's comments, and in light of your COI, you shouldn't be closing this discussion either. Dayewalker (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I do believe the current state of the article is NOT from NPOV, it is from a biased POV. People who are opposing are failing to bring any suggestions or proposals themselves but are just saying no. So I'll wait for more votes, comments and suggestions for RFC until Feb 15th and if there is no agreement then, I'll Requests for mediation Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward
It is obvious that it will be difficult to reach agreement when the proposals are such large additions or changes. Editors here would be better served suggesting minor changes so as to move slowly toward a neutral position that everyone can like with. Something of the nature of the previous section, although consensus for a change must be reached before adding editprotected. At present mediation will be difficult with the black/white nature of the arguments. Kevin (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sadly the enmity here is strong, maybe in time this will dissipate. -- Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#FF0066">b oi   15:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to say, i can't figure out if any of my efforts here are helping or harming anymore, and i just don't want to make things worse instead of better. So i'll probably just have to wait for somebody else to Arbitrate and resign myself to the fact that the previous six edits and edit attempts which i have tried to make during the past six weeks have all been stonewalled by editors who specifically gave Apologist pro-christian views as their reasons for their blockage, despite four or five editors giving contrary views which supported my edit attempts. If none of my contributions are permitted by a group of editors all sharing a particular bias while being described as 'approvable' by another group of editors sharing a diversity of viewpoints, what does that mean? Because that's the way it feels, to me. Maybe i'm wrong, but as i read back through my Contributions and my proposals and votes, it seems like this is the pattern glaring in front of me. Teledildonix314 <sup style="color:#0A5">Talk ~  <sub style="color:#3B7">contributions  21:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Your assertions are incorrect and against WP guidelines. As far as I can tell, your arguments show the greatest religious bias of any editor's posts here at this point, so I suppose that is a major problem for you. Collect (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, i don't know what you mean by my religious bias? What edits are you describing? I would happily remove any religious bias from any of my edits and have them all instantly corrected to your approval if they were religious. Could you kindly tell me where i did that? Seriously, please look at the Edit History of this article and show me where my edits had religous tone or non-NPOV so i can be sure to eliminate that from any future behavior. Thanks, i really want to get that right and stick to the same standards as expected of everybody else. Teledildonix314 <sup style="color:#0A5">Talk ~  <sub style="color:#3B7">contributions  17:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your posts here repeatedly disparage large numbers of people for their religion. And the edits I refer to are primarily on the Talk page where such bias is made sufficiently clear to most.  Do you feel you have not disparaged traditional Christian teachings? Collect (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, i don't know what you mean by "teachings" or anything educationally related? Where did i disparage people for their religion? Did i say something about a religion or a religious person or their religious ideas which was somehow inaccurate or intolerant? I want to practise tolerance, i think it's a big component of Wiki-Civility, so if you show me where i disparaged people's religion, i'll apologize and then improve my behavior by learning from my mistakes. Thanks. Teledildonix314 <sup style="color:#0A5">Talk ~  <sub style="color:#3B7">contributions  19:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (will remove after you respond) in your words you refer to "other Apologists who support Warren", "Congratulations to Rick Warren and all you other evil hatemongers and scapegoaters and fantasy-based superstitious barbarians", "your fantasy-based supporters ", "pro-christianist characters", "Apologist pro-christian views " and the like might well be construed as disparaging those with traditional Christian views.  Disparaging beliefs of others rarely makes them more amenable to your positions indeed. Collect (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC) thank you, i also went back just now and did the strikethroughs of my flamewords too Teledildonix314 <sup style="color:#0A5">Talk  ~  <sub style="color:#3B7">contributions  23:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(OD) Okay, Collect, i'm sorry for using a word like 'evil' and that kind of vocabulary because it was inflammatory. In my defense, i was almost a total newbie, and the first several people who greeted me identified as christian and bit me rather hard; i was following the wrong examples. I'm sorry for making that kind of mistake, and if you review my History of contributions, i promise you will see only improvements, and no backsliding. I mean this sincerely. I don't hurt people's feelings or sensitivities on purpose. Unfortunately, i have a powerfully strong opinion, and i just blurted it out crudely, without finding the tactful and collegiate way to say it. I know now how Civility is so tremendously useful, and you helped teach me that. I will do better.

My opinion is better expressed referring to the topic and the qualities of the information rather than the editors and their supposed view for presenting the references. The way i form fundamental criteria for my behavior here is to stick to the language which abides by the spirit as well as the letter of the rules. So, here it is, just an opinion: some may drastically disagree, but i am permitted to say it with dignified civility and concision in this collegial discussion.

Religion is the opposite of education; faith is the opposite of intelligence; fantasy is the opposite of reality; superstition is the opposite of demonstration; i can only make constructive contributions when i politely honor those principles with dignity in a civil and collegiate way. Thank you for helping me to learn how to do this better. Your patience is appreciated. I don't want to appear like some horrible decrepit old disabled crank who can't even figure out how to ethically and honestly value these ideals and goals; i will never intentionally throw piety and callous harsh words like 'evil' and 'hate' incorrectly, and i will never swear that i am unquestioning or inflexible on any truly intelligible topic. If you help me remain that ethical, i will learn how to be a model of graciousness to all encyclopedists, editors, visitors, and general random people. Sincerely and fervently, Teledildonix314 <sup style="color:#0A5">Talk ~  <sub style="color:#3B7">contributions  22:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Many would demur from your opinion, but, more importantly, strong opinions make for bad edits. Pretend the other editor is your next-door neighbor -- whose lawnmower you might wish to borrow someday.  Invite him over for dinner, and don't discuss the stuff you disagree on.  When all is said and done, this article is "mere words" and all the angst about what it says is to little long-term avail. That does not mean "Don't care" but it does mean "Don't care too much." OK? Collect (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. I looked at how BenjiBoi was trying to be a model of tolerance, and i needed to follow your sorts of advice about not exposing viewpoints in the edits because the verifiable facts can expose information without my help. I thought people were behaving like commentators on webcomics fora (e.g.) and mistakenly took my early impressions of rabblerousing all the way into what would better be an atmosphere like a college or library or museum, and i know how to totally adjust. I even had experience at curating and procuring information and fact-checking when i had jobs years ago, so i can learn all the dignified ways to do that well around here. I think DJs and chefs and curators and encylopedists are good models of behavior for me to try to learn because i don't have personal abilities to be creative and do research, but i can learn how to share information and language if you help me understand. I promise. Teledildonix314 <sup style="color:#0A5">Talk ~  <sub style="color:#3B7">contributions  23:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "verifiable facts can expose information without my help" Indeed. Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding conflicts of interest
The tone of discussion on this article is extremely uncivil and needs to change. Even if some editors have a conflict of interest, note that the guideline compels editors to "not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute." Further, those with conflicts are not precluded from engaging in (civil) discussion on the relevant talk page. Please work towards consensus constructively, otherwise, perhaps this collaborative project simply isn't the place for some of you. -- Zim <b style="color:darkgreen;">Zala</b> Bim <sup style="color:black;">talk  02:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous editing - personal attacks etc - editors blocked
I do not like putting up general notices at an articles talk page BUT this continually escalated situation is now way beyond the pale. I have just blocked two editors for 72 hours for their personal attack style edits and I will immediately block for personal attacks as necessary in the case of any future cases of such attacks, even if I find them a few hours later. You can also be sure that dramatic increases to blocking lengths on second or subsequent offenses will occur. Look folks nothing is so important that you risk your good name and ability to be a part of this project if the only way to do so is to resort to harassing, attacking, calling names etc. My very strong suggestion is that if this article even causes you to think there is a need to act in such a way, that you instead go and work on a completely unrelated page. This beating each other into verbal submission and attacking any person who comes in with a new view is ridiculous. Instead please remember that working on wikipedia is supposed to be enjoyable for you and for everyone - let's make it that way again at this page please; or alternatively suffer the consequences of being locked out for a period of time? -- VS talk 07:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Seconded. -- Zim <b style="color:darkgreen;">Zala</b> Bim <sup style="color:black;">talk  14:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Unprotecting
I think the protection here has been on for long enough, so I intend removing it shortly. Let's please avoid the edit warring and personal animosity, and continue the way it has been for the past few days. Kevin (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring
Is there anyone here who does not understand that continually reverting the article while there is obviously not a consensus is edit warring? I'm thinking that full protection is warranted again. Kevin (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I will gladly discontinue making any edits to this article whatsoever, for the sake of avoiding disruption, and to promote dialogue rather than conflict. But have you noticed which edits were reverted today? They were the edits with notable information from reliable sources, and they were reverted to synthesis which inserts personal point of view. I don't want to make you do anything unfortunate, locking or protecting anything unnecessarily, but i hope you and other mediators/administrators will please make note of which edits follow the established guidelines for BLP (highly Reliable and Verifiable) and which edits are whitewashing (removal of anything potentially unflattering). Sorry if this is wasting your time, i wish there were some way to turn the entire article into something a little more objective and a little bit less like a Public Relations release from the church. Teledildonix314 <sup style="color:#0A5">Talk ~  <sub style="color:#3B7">4-1-1  06:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If you would notice, Kevin correctly noted that the wider quote itself was a) synthesis; and b) not notable. This is not "whitewashing".--Lyonscc (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The joke's only funny the first time, the second time it begins to sound crazy. The title of the interview is: "What Saddleback's Pastor Really Thinks About Politics". The Wall Street Journal. August 23, 2008. This is one of the most widely circulated mainstream publications to report on specifically what Warren says about his views in relation to politics (and thus relation to things such as Prop 8 and the election, inauguration, invocation, etc). It is considered to be much more notable than many other sources of information in this Rick Warren article, and quite possibly more reliable because the fact-checking at the WSJ undergoes more scrutiny (presumably) than the Public Relations releases from various cheerleaders of charlatans and other churchy organizations. Teledildonix314 <sup style="color:#0A5">Talk ~  <sub style="color:#3B7">4-1-1  06:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec)I happen to know two writers for the WSJ and their fact-checking is no more rigorous than that of other major publications. The article cited is not a hard news piece, but portions of an interview, with a good deal of non-specific characterization by the interviewer.  The very fact that you seem to think that "matter of tone" implies that Warren agrees with Dobson's politics or social policies is demonstration that you don't understand the only words quoted from Warren in that section of the article.  The interviewer's characterization - since it does not cite the specific questions and full answers - would NOT be considered 'reliable', but rather would be considered 'synthesis' - for the same reason that Op/Ed pages are not considered to be hard news, reliable sources.  I'm not trying to be difficult here, but you don't even seem to understand the only actual Rick Warren quote in the citation, and the way it is currently quoted is misleading and contrary to WP:BLP.--Lyonscc (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think to move forward 2 things need to happen:
 * Every editor here should apply WP:1RR to their own editing. I would prefer WP:0RR if you can manage it.
 * Talk of whitewashing, irrelevant opinions, accusations of 3RR, COI, superstition mongers etc needs to be left off this page. If you have an issue with what someone has written about you, take it to their talk page, my talk page or to some other admin.
 * Deal with 1 issue at a time. This way we can move slowly through the article until everyone is happy, or at least not up in arms over it.

Perhaps a list of the 5 most pressing issues from the pro/con/couldn't care less sides can be presented here, so that a fixit agenda can be developed. If that doesn't seem suitable, then perhaps we can deal with the Prop 8 bit above, as it nearly seems like a consensus has been reached on it. 06:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Before we can move on to consensus, I would like to know, specifically, what fact this WSJ quote adds to the WP:BLP of Warren for which we need consensus? Personally, I don't think the quote adds anything and I still don't know why it's notable to be included in the article.  CarverM (talk) 07:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was actually talking about the Talk:Rick Warren section, which doesn't relate the to WSJ quote. On that, I agree with you, it has no place in the article at all. Kevin (talk) 07:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I'd open a RFC but we already have one LOL. Phoenix of9 (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "What fact"? Rick Warren responded to the interviewer's questions with his personal views, and those views were reported in the Reliable Source. I'm pretty sure that counts as a fact. Thanks Teledildonix314 <sup style="color:#0A5">Talk ~  <sub style="color:#3B7">4-1-1  09:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * And the single quote is mischaracterized in the wiki article, as it currently stands, giving a completely different meaning than the only quote snippet given in the article.--Lyonscc (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's pretty obvious by now that any attempt by anyone to make substantial mention of additional reliably-sourced facts that portray Warren in a negative light are going to be met with a bunch of your spurious objections about "mischaracterizations" along with accusations involving NPOV, NOR and coatracking. Your objections are generally groundless and seem to be merely reflexive based on the nature of the facts involved. Mike Doughney (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc_gl2pPdlY I present for your edification (anyone, everyone, and especially Lyonscc as they objected above) that video excerpt again, so you can see for yourself exactly what was in the interview and what Rick Warren said to the microphones and cameras. Teledildonix314 ~ <sup style="color:#0A5"> Talk ~ <sub style="color:#3B7"> 4-1-1 19:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Youtube is not RS for anything in WP at all. Collect (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, certainly. The YouTube video is only provided for you to see here, whereas in the actual BLP the citations which were inserted previously were the references to Rachel Maddow on MSNBC (where she analyzes the video interview and revisits it for a couple months leading up to the Inauguration) and to Max Blumenthal with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now (where they showed the quick excerpts and gave a direct transcript which i presume was copied from BeliefNet) and so forth. In order to stay away from YouTube, it seemed prudent to use only the sources which have reputations for a certain level of fact-checking (Pacifica, MSNBC, WSJ, AJC, et al) but i thought you might personally find the YouTube helpful in this talkpage area because it cuts to the most salient portion. If you personally do not wish to point your browser at YouTube, perhaps you will find the other Sources more suitable for your viewing pleasure. MSNBC instead or Pacifica instead. Thank you kindly, Teledildonix314 ~ <sup style="color:#0A5"> Talk ~ <sub style="color:#3B7"> 4-1-1 21:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)