Talk:Rick Warren/Archive 9

Proposal to remove disputed "saddlebacking" sentences
edit protected Remove the following sentence from the article, added without consensus yesterday, prior to the page protection.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ --- As promised I have allowed a few more hours for this matter to settle. In my view a clear consensus for it to be removed has developed.  I say so cognizant of my previous comments regarding the COI inclusions by Manutdglory - which I have disregarded at this time.  Please note consensus is not a static achievement and as has been, IMHO well put below by JamesMLane this material probably belongs at Saddlebacking at this time - however that may adjust in the future.  I also note for the record that I have been approached with regards cessation of the full protection of this article.  I have commented both at my talk page and at the administrator (Kevin) who initially protected it, that at this time - given the strong recent history of edit-warring here and the continuing comments at Saddleback Church - I suggest waiting a few more days before protection is removed.  I will be happy to assist with further consensus driven changes to the article during that time. I will be watching this page but if I am tardy in responding please come to my talk page at any time for assistance.  Good luck.-- VS  talk 00:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Thanks Lyonscc - please see my note below - I will monitor this proposal for a few more hours and then act accordingly. Best wishes.-- VS talk 21:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As part of that protest, and in response to President Obama's choice of Warren to deliver the benediction at his inauguration, well-known sex columnist Dan Savage spearheaded an effort to redefine "saddlebacking" (referencing Warren's church) as a sexual term[27], following a suggestion from television satirist Stephen Colbert.[28] [29]


 * Support The sentences are clearly highly non-NPOV, completely unnecessary, and extremely vulgar. Manutdglory (talk) 06:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Object The ongoing WhiteWash is pointless, and the sentences use no vulgarity whatsoever. Do you even know what vulgarity is? You won't find an example of vulgarity in the article or the cited materials. Teledildonix314 talk 07:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support The addition violates WP:BLP. It is a brand-new, made-up term, less than a week old.  Trying to guess that it will become ubiquitous is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, and the sources are incredibly poor.  Two of the three don't even know what the definition of the term will be!  Additionally, this is not about the nominal subject of the article, Rick Warren, but (supposedly) his church.--Lyonscc (talk) 07:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I also note that this change is in line with WP:NEO.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Object- Seriously? I'm sorry, but something that has garnered interest from the Economist and was printed in Dan Savage's column (which has a very large syndication) is notable enough to be mentioned, with due weight, in the Rick Warren article. While these two things might not push the term to the threshold of having its own article for some people, it clearly is important enough to garner a mention in this article. Wikipedia is not censored and it isn't a place to POV push. If something notable is happening to a subject on Wikipedia, it deserves a mention, whether or not people with COI like it or not. Editors should remember that WP:BLP refers to unreferenced claims, not unsavory ones. SMSpivey (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is the link to the Savage Love article which makes it clear what the term means. A week ago, I would have agreed to leave it out because of WP:CRYSTAL, but that is now out of play. SMSpivey (talk) 07:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Object to removal. Seems notable, with suitable citation from reliable source; amount of weight seems appropriate. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  07:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support removal. I disagree with the reasoning of other supporting opinions above.  The addition is not unacceptably vulgar.  It is not a smear -- it's an accurate factual report of what some would call a smear but the challenged passage doesn't adopt any POV; the report of a smear is not itself a smear.  The passage is not a BLP violation because it's adequately sourced.  The issue is whether it's important enough in Warren's bio.  That some people reacted negatively to his bigotry is certainly important enough to be mentioned in this article, but that fact can be shown more solidly with other information.  There's no evidence the term has had any significant impact on Warren's life.  (If people start deriding him in public about it, or if he lashes out in anger at the incident, reconsider.) If the newly coined usage becomes common, then Warren's (inadvertent) role in its creation will merit mention here, but it's too soon to reach that conclusion.  The proper place for the information is in the Saddlebacking article. JamesMLane t c 08:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have agreed with you except for that the term was introduced in response to and directed at the actions of Rick Warren specifically. The name of his church was used instead of his own, presumably, because it is more easily punned. I believe it is important enough for a small mention on his bio because of this, not because he happens to be the head of the church that is being satirized. SMSpivey (talk)


 * Support removal for now. Per my comments in the saddlebacking thread, it's a bit too new and seems POV as well. Let's see if saddlebacking survives AfD and also what notability/impact this event actually has. With some hindsight we can see what reliable sources state the impact is and we have very few non-primary reliable sources on this presently. -- Banj e  b oi   11:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support removal Not only is it a neologism (WP:NEO et al) it is not proper material for a BLP. Collect (talk) 11:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC) And per BLP, let the removal take place while any discussion continues.  It is contentious and disputed material, and hence would need a positive consensus for inclusion. Collect (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support removal for now only because the term seems too new to include at this point. The rest is up for discussion and usage can change, even in a relatively short time. — Becksguy (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support removal for now: there are much more important issues and this is what you are arguing about? Phoenix of9 (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - How notable is this "material" really? If this becomes some big issue or story or whatever then MAYBE revist its inclusion. --Tom 17:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support removal for now It's still a neologism and not really an important part of Rick Warren's life. Possibly it could go in the Dan Savage article.  Cardamon (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That's 9 supports to 3 objections. I believe that a clear consensus has been reached to remove the disputed sentences, so would an administrator please do so? Manutdglory (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You have already admitted to a conflict of interest with respect to this article by disclosing that you are, or were, a member of Warren's church. Please refrain from commenting on this matter. Clearly this consensus is going your way; please show good faith by allowing the process to run its course. Mike Doughney (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually that is 8 supports and 3 objections. I am not including Manutdglory's !vote (indeed it will be discounted as a COI per the ANI discussion closed yesterday as will any further comments by that editor - further as a sign of good faith by Manutdglory I would request that he strike both of his posts in this section and afford the community the good faith to decide this matter without his interjection).  I will give this situation a few more hours and then reconsider the consensus - afterwards acting accordingly.-- VS  talk 20:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarify in Lede
editprotected Hi, prior to the editing issues I had been doing some prior clean-up. Could you tweak the wikilink in the lede's 2nd paragraph where it says 2008 presidential election and amend to 2008 United States presidential election? It would seem obvious but I think we should spell it out. -- Banj e b oi   10:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅-- VS talk 20:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Amend caption request
edit protected For the image in the "Political and social views" section; could you amend Kay and Rick Warren to Kay and Rick Warren (on the left) - or similar verbiage, to the image caption to clarify the identity of those pictured. It may seem obvious to those currently editing here but it certainly isn't obvious to all our readers. -- Banj e b oi   10:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅-- VS talk 20:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Addressing the argument for saddlebacking.
I was unable to comment here, so my views were not acknowledged, even though my pattern of editing made it clear that I object strongly to the removal of saddlebacking from the article. There is no WP:BLP violation, but the absence of the term would constitute a serious WP:NPOV violation. Wikipedia is NOT supposed to be censored, and I see no reason why Warren should be given privileges not afford to Santorum.

Nobody, and I mean absolutely nobody, has actually addressed this argument. They've merely acted offended, which is not persuasive in the least. Does anyone actually have a rebuttal or do you acknowledge the soundness of my argument through your conspicuous silence? Spotfixer (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note the proposal discussion above - consensus is clearly against your view so it was removed by an administrator. Sorry, but that's how Wikipedia works. Manutdglory (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's not. Consensus is not a vote, nor is it a block of stone.  All you've done here is proven my point by being unable to address my argument.  Thank you! Spotfixer (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Contrariwise, a majority of editors here did feel it was inappropriate for the BLP article. And if by "not censored" you mean that all slurs and accusations are allowed in BLPs, I would suggest you read WP:BLP.  And per BLP, all contentious and disputed material requires a consensus for inclusion, not the other way around. Collect (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, and what basis was given for this conclusion? Remember, this is not a vote, so unsupported conclusions carry little weight. Do you actually have a counterargument to address the issues I raised or just one of those conclusions? Spotfixer (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Since nobody seems to be able to answer, perhaps the fault is my own for not being sufficiently clear. Let me try again.

I realize that people who support Rick Warren are naturally going to personally dislike the fact that "saddlebacking" was coined in reference to him. That's to be expected. But in what way is this an argument for censoring this term from the two two articles that it has the most relevance to? Or, to ask more simply, what reason can you offer other than personal dislike? I await your civil and well thought out response. Spotfixer (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Spotfixer, may I suggest Don't-give-a-fuckism ? Is "saddlebacking" that important? Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's important enough for The Economist to report on it even before its definition was firmed up. And it's precisely as important as Santorum is to Rick Santorum. Spotfixer (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll start off with the slur's questionable notability and close with WP:BLP - Schrandit (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You start off by begging the question: you call it a slur, when it is not. Then you invoke WP:BLP but fail to point out how, in specific, it violates policy.  In particular, you do not address the matter of Santorum.  In short, you have not expressed even a plausible argument. Spotfixer (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, Spotfixer, I count 3 users who from their past history and user pages are certainly not in any way Warren supporters, who voted to remove the content - including some who actually sided with you in other discussions. And now you're even arguing with them. Your "conspiracy theory" does not exist. Manutdglory (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Great, now all you have to do is get one of them to share a good reason that overcomes the arguments above. Spotfixer (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * To quote WP:BLP; "poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" - Schrandit (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Not one bit of this applies. You know full well that it is thoroughly sourced.  Moreover, this rule is about being careful to initially err on the side of avoiding defamation.  It is, for example, the reason certain editors were allowed to knowingly violate WP:3RR yesterday without punishment.  What it's not, however, is an argument against including mention of saddlebacking.  Do you actually have such an argument? Spotfixer (talk) 02:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Speaking as someone who far from supporting Warren has called him a "thuggish slimy weasel," here's my two cents. There is no direct WP:BLP issue as the term doesn't refer to Warren but to the church he started and runs; while many (particularly Christians supportive of Warren) may tend to merge the two, there is no direct relationship between the term and Warren that would support a WP:BLP objection. That said, there is an issue of both undue weight and the lack of more than one supporting secondary, hard-news, non-opinion-piece sources supporting the notability and significance of this term and its inclusion in this article with anything more than a see-also link, if that. We went round and round with this opinion-piece versus hard-news source issue with the incest/pedophilia comparison matter, and that's still not settled. Settling that discussion and including some reference to that controversy in this article (after all, that concerns something that Warren himself said) is to my mind much more important than this distraction. It was certainly not worth an edit war necessitating another round of full protection. Mike Doughney (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As much as i admire the general concept of "choosing one's battles efficiently", i have to say: this particular issue shouldn't be so controversial. It seems cut-and-dry (to me) that there is no violation of any important policy about a Living Person's Biography nor is there any harm in mentioning why things like "saddlebacking" would even become well-known in the first place. That's the purpose of this sort of article: to explain why the subject is famous, notable, mentioned in the press, mentioned as a household-name, etc. So actually i don't think Spotfixer should back down at all from his well-reasoned points (as trivial and beside-the-point as they might seem in the bigger picture), and i think it was rather exceptionally DUBIOUS AND NOT AT ALL CONSENSUS TO ALLOW SOME EDITING FOR THE SAKE OF WHITEWASHING WHILE THE PAGE WAS BRIEFLY unPROTECTED THEN QUICKLY LOCKED UP AGAIN WITH PROTECTION BEFORE THE OFFENDING EDITS COULD BE AMENDED BY CONSENSUS. Oops, so very sorry if all-caps looks sort of like shouting, i am finding it hard to believe we even need to keep arguing with apologists about such basic types of editing. Teledildonix314 talk 06:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should not edit war over this, and I agree that there are more important issues. Having said this, the term "saddlebacking" is itself notable, and becoming increasingly so as the media reacts to the recent announcement.  It's been picked up by Pharyngula, and even generated a rebuttal of sorts.  Like pegging and Santorum (sexual neologism), this term has started off with media recognition and notability.


 * Now, if we're going to accept that there is a need for a saddlebacking article, then we have to ask whether it should be an orphan or link back to both Rick Warren and Saddleback Church. And if we link to it, why shouldn't we have a sentence explaining the link? Spotfixer (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Much as I enjoy Pharyngula, the two things you've cited are both clearly blogs and/or opinion pieces. While there might be some real live reliable source media attention in the future, there is none now. WP:CRYSTAL and WP:DEADLINE and a turtle thrown in for good measure. Mike Doughney (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, anything explaining the links in the saddlebacking article should be added there, not here. That article really doesn't even begin to explain what's going on or where the term originated. Mike Doughney (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)

Let me take this one item at a time. First, yes, saddlebacking needs to be fleshed out, much like Santorum (sexual neologism). The full explanation has to be there, while this article (and Saddleback Church) only need a sentence or two that links.

Second, I bring up these two links to show that it's not being ignored, not as reliable sources about saddlebacking. The mention by The Economist, along with the track record of Santorum and pegging should be sufficient to let us put away our crystal balls and take out our broomsticks. Spotfixer (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But, Santorum and pegging are not saddlebacking, and you still have barely one hard-news source. It can wait until others show up, if any. Mike Doughney (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * True, each term is itself, but all three are coined by Dan Savage and are notable. What's the relevant difference?  Is it just that this one is the latest? Spotfixer (talk) 03:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The relevant difference is that you need reliable sources to determine notability, since notability is part of the criteria for inclusion. This must be done on a case-by-case basis, not with some hand-waving like "all terms coined by Dan Savage are notable" because other terms he coined were notable. In the case of this particular term there is at present only one marginal hard-news reliably sourced reference. Mike Doughney (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A couple of items. In addition to all previous comments, Saddlebacking shouldn't make it into Saddleback Church or Rick Warren, per WP:NEO.  Also, per INN, the whole Santorum argument is invalid.--Lyonscc (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:INN is merely an essay, which may be heeded at our own discretion. More importantly, from WP:NEO: "Neologisms that are in wide use—but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources—are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles." Fear the turtle? Mike Doughney (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Also from WP:NEO:

The use of neologisms should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people. Care should be taken when translating text into English that a term common in the host language does not create a neologism in English. Determining which meaning is the true meaning is not only impossible, it is original research as well—we do not do that here at Wikipedia. Articles that use neologisms should be edited to ensure they conform with the core Wikipedia policies: neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability.

[...] Where editors disagree about the use of these neologisms it is best to err on the side of not using them. Editors should generally use established words instead of neologisms, unless the neologism decreases the complexity of the sentence or increases the clarity of the sentence.
 * --Lyonscc (talk) 03:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I dispute your entire line of logic there, Lyonscc, because the neologism in question is being mentioned and explained, whereas it is *not* being used in a confusing manner. Nor is it being presented as original research, as the growing number of citations in third-party mentions is beginning to show.


 * Furthermore, nobody has shown any reason why mention of these notable pieces of information should be considered "harmful" or "defamatory" to Rick Warren. He can't be defamed or harmed by a citation in Wikipedia if he and his church are already being discussed in the mainstream media at large in the context of these particular topics ("saddlebacking", contentious social viewpoints, etc.) Teledildonix314 talk 06:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)

Picking up an earlier thread, the mention on Pharyngula is notable because it's not a typical blog; it's the top-ranking blog written by a scientist, who is himself notable enough for a non-stub article. For that matter, the blog is also notable. Unlike some random person's soapboxing on LiveJournal, this is a reliable source and evidence of notability. Spotfixer (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed content regarding Warren chosen for invocation
Obama's choosing Warren for the inaugural invocation was seen as controversial because of Warren's outspokeness against abortion and same-sex marriage and the position was a "prominent, central role in the ceremony which is supposed to usher in a new civil rights era." According to the New York Times, ABC News and the San Francisco Chronicle, Warren compared, in a December 2008 Beliefnet interview, gay marriage to "incest, polygamy or 'an older guy marrying a child'". He also equated abortion with the Holocaust. Warren later released a video message to his church that he opposes redefining marriage and does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia. 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.

Discussion

 * Support as nominator, Prop 8 material can be woven in later as sources do connect these events. -- Banj e  b oi   03:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose: It misrepresents the reaction against Warren. The reaction against Warren and him giving the invocation was not simply due to his opposition to same-sex marriage. Eg: 'The first openly gay member of Congress said yesterday that it was a mistake for President-elect Barack Obama to invite the Rev. Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. "Mr. Warren compared same-sex couples to incest. I found that deeply offensive and unfair," said  Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). ' . Obama is also against same sex . It kinda ignores "the equivelant" issue. And his 3rd source seems to be a blog. Also I think we should include something about Warren questioning if homosexuality is natural. Phoenix of9 (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm using the best reliable sources and how they report the controversy. The Washington Post article that quotes Frank, ledes with The first openly gay member of Congress said yesterday that it was a mistake for President-elect Barack Obama to invite the Rev. Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. I think that is reasonably covered in the proposed content. That blog is the political blog of the New York Times and certainly is a RS for this information.  -- Banj e  b oi   03:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you want this suggestion under RFC or you want it left alone? Phoenix of9 (talk) 03:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's not clear to me how you could describe the reaction to Warren in any other way. You'd need a cite, or you'd have to figure out how to, for instance, quote Frank directly, since we have reliable sources for Frank's words, which would perhaps overcomplicate/undue weight the sentences. I really don't care to go around a few more times on the details of whether reactions to Warren can be traced to mere opposition to same-sex marriage or more generally because he opposes same-sex sex, or whether Frank's characterization of Warren's words is incorrect and despite the fact that he said it it should be excluded. I personally think it goes well beyond any single reason, but we have to trace things to reliable sources here, and this proposed addition does that. Mike Doughney (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I already did that and let Benjiboi know, asking for his opinion before an RFC but he posted this here instead, seems like he is very insistent on his version. Phoenix of9 (talk) 03:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like it was an edit conflict as I didn't see your comment until after i posted this. I still feel this version is more in line with our policies and is written more NPOV. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#FF0066">b oi   04:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support: Clear, concise and solid references. Mike Doughney (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is placing WP:undue weight on the issue of homosexuality and other events already described in the article, primarily spurring from one out-of-context quote from an interview (which is already a source in the article). If you want more of the articles about the controversy of Warren praying in the inauguration, add them to the citation already in the introductory section.  Additionally, the article on homosexuality on the Saddleback site was not authored by Warren.  Also, the phrase "At the same time, Warren's church replaced an article" is an inferrence that the replacement was tied to the Obama invitation, not a proven fact.--Lyonscc (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources disagree with your assessment as do dozens of other mainstream media. I simply picked some of the more reliable ones. As the CEO of his church it's quite normal to attribute content issues to his leadership and we correctly attribute where the content was so the reader can decide the connections for themselves. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#FF0066">b oi   04:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To be more specific, the first sentence is already covered in the introduction of the current article. The Sullivan article from Time is an opinion piece, and the NYT article is also a blog opinion piece.  The Warren quote is not an actual quote, but a paraphrase.  The PBS article is a transcript of commentary.  The UK Goldberg piece is an opinion piece.  WP:V or notable, this suggestion is not...--Lyonscc (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The lede of an article should summarize the article's content, this particular content has, apparently, come and gone multiple times, once we have a stable version in the article the lede can be revised. I have replaced the Time article with a more NPOV one to avoid quibbling if it is indeed an opinion piece. The NYT article is a political blog and certainly reliable for the content cited, and doesn't seem to be an opinion piece. I've added attribution and reworded to clarify who stated what - I hadn't seen the Beliefnet interview so had only relied on non-primary sourcing. The PBS article is perfectly reliable as a source but I added on CNN as well to alleviate concerns on that as well. I've replaced the UK Guardian piece with one from the Associated Press. Hopefully this will address these issues.  -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#FF0066">b oi


 * oppose This is classic mountain-molehill material when the article is supposed to be a biography. Collect (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This was international headline news. I had never heard of Warren before hearing of this controversy. Obama's inauguration was one of the largest media events in recent US history. It is little wonder that this was magnified and reported repeatedly. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#FF0066">b oi   12:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Never heard of a person who was on the NYT Best Seller List for ages? 30 million copies? Collect (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not until Obama's picking him for the inauguration controversy arose - it's a big world and not everyone reads the same books apparently. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#FF0066">b oi   21:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OpposeI support the arguments made above by those who also Oppose. CarverM (talk) 12:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So if their concerns have been addressed so have yours? -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#FF0066">b oi   21:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Per Lyonscc's excellent observations, sourcing has been updated and the wording of the incest quote has been attributed correctly. My mistake for implying it was a direct quote from Warren. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#FF0066">b oi   12:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Ok, altho I wanted a section on his views on homosexuality, seperate from his views on abortion, and if you dont wanna mention the Uganda issue, can you at least add: "Asked if he was homophobic in another interview, he said he was not. [7] He questioned if homosexuality was natural [8] and he considers same-sex relationships immoral [9]" ? Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the Uganda issue should be discussed separately, and given the enmity so far would likely not pass at this time. Having stated that I'm willing to work on it to see what may work after this and the relevant Prop 8 content has been worked out. 02:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment/Suggestion: Perhaps this paragraph should be cut apart into its constituent sentences and each considered and perhaps modified one by one. References 1,2,4,5,7,8 and 9 are all hard-news pieces in clearly reliable sources, a number of which make reference to the pedophilia/incest/etc. matter. I find it hard to believe that a contribution carrying 7 such solid sources is being summarily rejected by editors. Mike Doughney (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There seems to be two main issues - the gay marriage comments and abortion ones. The gay marriage comments got more traction - possibly due to Prop 8 news - so I gave them more weight. If we split them we may be getting into undue explaining more about Warren's comments and who reported them, etc. I share your concern that any NPOV and sourced content will simply be rejected by those who hold opposing views for inclusion. This is likely why RfCs and edit-warring escalated this.  -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#FF0066">b oi   02:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I copy and pasted your text with some changes and also added another source for the Uganda thingie and dropped the mentioning of Ssek. Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As the discussion here seems to be complete, and no consensus has been reached for inclusion, I intend to archive this section unless there is an objection. Kevin (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)