Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Rick Warren/Archive 1

Comment from MedCab mediator
Hello, I am the guy that came from the MEDCAB case. I agreed to be a party to this mediation, but a few things have happened over the last 24 hours that renews my hope that consensus can be reached without formal mediation. I would like to request that you wait a week for my last effort before the MC gets involved, to see if it can be done without formal mediation. Firestorm Talk 05:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, this has been going on for more than 2 months and we are still seeing the same arguments: See: Talk:Rick_Warren Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm holding off on signing off on the mediation until I see how the current round is going. I was out the past 3+days, and haven't completely processed the current round of suggestions.--Lyonscc (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Per Firestorm -- there are five current proposals, and the only real question is which will get modified to the point that most can live with it as a consensus compromise. Of course, there is always the chance that some will make essentially no move at all, but we can hope that only one or two will be in that camp. Collect (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Firestorm: Any update on your progress with the initiative you speak of above? Sunray (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That proposal fell flat on its face and was withdrawn by me. I have closed the medcab case and acknowledged that I was unable to bring the parties together. From here on out, its the domain of the MC. Firestorm  Talk 01:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's begin
I have been asked to mediate this dispute. It will take me a little while to get up to speed as I have commitments elsewhere to discharge. What I note thus far is that you all seem to be making an effort to find a solution and you are generally civil in your interactions. Those seem like good signs to me. Could we begin with a brief statement from each participant as to how to solve this dispute? Please remember to focus on content, not the contributor. Let's work on finding a result that you can all live with and, along the way, see what we can learn about collaboration. Sunray (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Separation of Church and Pastor
Firestorm and I reached a compromise which I really wish would be discussed and not dismissed out of hand. The article is a BLP, and there is also an article on Saddleback Church. My suggestion is that material related to Warren personally be in the BLP, and material directly and specifically related to the church be sent over to the church article. No material gets lost, and we can have a clean biography here. The other issue which I raised when agreeing to mediation is the question of the relevance of Warren's theology where it is substantially the same as those of other pastors of his denomination. I do not feel that biographies are the place for theological discussions, especially when the discussion could very well take place in the article on his denomination. Collect (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC) [struck-through text by Mike Doughney removed]


 * The mediator asked for brief statements. (Personal attack removed) Thanks! Collect (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please specifically and precisely indicate exactly where anyone to whom you are apparently responding was "introducing material into the mediation which is not part of the issues to be decided." Mike Doughney (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Personalities in no way and at no time belong in the mediation. The mediation ought to be restricted to those issues identified and agreed to on the RfM. At least that is how mediation works in the cases I looked at before writing word one here. Collect (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Phoenix_of9
Proposed text to be added into the article under a section called "Invocation Controversy" (defunct) Phoenix of9 (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

In December 2008, President-elect Obama chose Warren to deliver the Invocation at his Inauguration. Obama's choice was criticized by several notable organizations in part because Warren had endorsed California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," which eliminated the legal right of same-sex couples to marry; and also because    of a recent interview of Warren by Beliefnet chief editor Steven Waldman in which Warren said he opposed marriage between siblings, adults and minors, and multiple partners. When asked by Waldman whether he thought "those are equivalent to gays getting married," Warren ignited a controversy by responding "I do." Warren later released a video message saying he does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia, but rather opposes the redefinition of marriage. 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.

President-elect Obama's choice was also criticized because of Warren's stance on abortion. Obama later defended his selection saying that he disagrees with the minister's opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage but that there should be room for dialogue on such difficult social issues. On Jan. 20, 2009, Warren delivered the Invocation.

Above is the version finalized by Benccc. Note that everything is reliably sourced, WP:neutral (X makes a claim, Warren answers), relevant material. Also note that it is notable and theres no undue weight, given the extensive media coverage of this issue. Also note that above is a compromise from previous versions   and the ones here Talk:Rick_Warren. Also note that we had 2 users, who were opposing to the addition of material critical of Warren into the article, and who have been found to be having WP:COIs. Former is indef blocked, latter is topic banned for 3 months.

---


 * (Personal attack removed) Collect (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * " (Personal attack removed) Mike Doughney (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Mediation is, or should be, limited to precisely the questions asked and issues stated on the RfM page -- and statements which are totally unrelated to those issues which are clearly stated do not belong in this process. The idea is for really short statements so that the mediator can see what the issues as seen by each person are, not to see rehashing of "someone was paid" or the like which was not raised on the RfM.  Right now, this looks like an extension of the old Talk page, which is not how I understand mediation to work, nor how I have seen it work. Thanks! Collect (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Now read the main page, under "Issues to be mediated": 'Rick Warren was chosen by US President Barack Obama for his inaugural invocation. This is a highly notable event, which created controversy. Currently, the article barely mentions the existence of a controversy and, without describing why. 1st issue is to agree on a text which describes and explains this controversy.' Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That's nice. You're now the subject of a report at AN/I . Mike Doughney (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * About this comment in AN/I, I used "finalized" because parts of the version above were written by several users, including me, and Benccc re-arranged/wrote the version I quoted here. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Mediator's comment: I am more than a little perplexed. I asked for brief statements and requested participants to focus on content. Since then there have been several barbed comments, an AN/I report and spill over onto my talk page. Would participants be willing to focus on the task at hand and give brief comments on how this dispute might be resolved? Also, if you find yourself flying off the handle. STOP: Don't send that reactive message. Instead get up, stretch, go for a walk or otherwise do something completely different for awhile. That's what I am about to do now. I will be back when things are a bit more settled. Sunray (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC) --


 * About Collect's statement: He is talking about the part 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.[13][14] in the text above. That part is from a news article about Rick Warren and invocation controversy. Therefore it is relevant. And:


 * On Tuesday, Warren's church replaced a brief article on the Bible and homosexuality with an audio message on Saddlebackfamily.com to better explain the church's view that Scripture prohibits sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman, according to Larry Ross, a Warren spokesman. Anyone can attend Saddleback worship services. But the church article had said that gays "unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted" as members." Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarifications for Sunray
This talk page is huge. Rick Warren's talk page is huge. So I'd expect that mediators may confuse some stuff. We can clarify points here, briefly, no content discussion please.


 * There are 2 interviews:


 * 1) Beliefnet interview:

Warren:..... The issue to me, I’m not opposed to that as much as I’m opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

Steven Waldman: Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?

Warren: Oh, I do.....


 * 2) Wall Street Journal interview

So why is most of the press under the impression that Rick Warren, a Southern Baptist, is so different from, say, Focus on the Family president James Dobson? "It's a matter of tone," says an amused Mr. Warren, who seems unable to name any particular theological issues on which he and Mr. Dobson disagree. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

1. This goes to the heart of one issue -- to the extent that Dobsomn and Warren have the same "theology" (this is not the same as "all beliefs" but only refers to beliefs relating to God -- every single Catholic, for example, has the same "theology" - so not having "theological differences" is pretty meaningless at best.   To the extent that - by Confession of Faith - Warren shares the same "theology" with millions of others does  not make his own beliefs separately notable.  And for the "I do" to make sense, the entire preceding parts of the interview are needed.  The point appears to be that Warren opposes ALL forms of marriage other than one man - one woman.  Not that he is making a comparison saying gays are like pedophiles, and his later statements make that clear.  We can hate Warren, but misinterpreting his stated position is wrong. Collect (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Mike Doughney
I will add to this momentarily to specifically address issues to be mediated not included in my earlier comment, moved here, below. Mike Doughney (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "BLP" is not a substitute for common sense, an excuse for the omission of reliably sourced, relevant information about the article's subject, an excuse to avoid explaining why an individual is controversial (particularly when explaining it to a reader who is likely completely unaware of how such controversies play out in American culture), or an excuse to develop some artificial false dichotomy between the article's subject and the institution he founded and runs.
 * Warren is the CEO of a church he founded. The fact that Warren's church, and a hired professional spokesperson who works for both the church and Warren acted in response to a controversy caused by his public statements (Warren compares the legalization of gay marriage to the legalization of incest and pedophilia, Warren's church changes the way policy regarding gay persons joining the church is phrased, attributing policy to Scripture instead of letting it stand on its own). The fact that this happened is relevant; it is part of the response by Warren to the controversy his comments generated. Excluding this fact from this article and putting it in the church article decontextualizes the incident from the reason it occurred (Warren's words), putting it on the church page would make no sense at all.
 * Discussion of theology is relevant if that theology is one of the sources of controversy, even if those theological positions are commonly held; again, we should not assume that the reader already knows or understands what theological positions are common among church leaders or prominent personalities, generally or in a particular denomination, in the United States. An explanation of why Warren generates controversy involves mentioning his views on social policy, and those views are in some way based on his theology. Whether or not his views are shared by others is irrelevant; the point is that Warren has them, they are the cause of controversy, which is notable in a broader political context, and mentioning them is necessary to explain what the controversy is.
 * I think it's quite appropriate that Collect is the first commenter, as his opening statement makes it clear what the nature of the dispute about this article has been over the past few months. His comments are entirely focused on the exclusion of information from this article. Anyone new to this dispute should review earlier talk page discussions, particularly since the tone of this dispute was in large part set by two editors who have been blocked or banned. One of those editors was a paid staffer for Warren, whose entire purpose here was directed toward the exclusion of any information from the article that might reflect badly on his employer, no matter how well documented and sourced. The other was a former church member who worked toward the same goal. Despite the removal of those editors, the relentless effort to exclude reliably sourced and relevant information from the article continues, and there is absolutely no justification for it. Mike Doughney (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll point by point address the seven issues on the Request for Mediation (combining two to make six points). Note that many of these are addressed in the proposed text above as reposted by Phoenix of9. - Mike Doughney (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ...to agree on a text which describes and explains this controversy. The proposed text does exactly that, which I endorsed when it was originally proposed.
 * How to mention Proposition 8 in the article. There are two generally agreed methods to refer to Proposition 8, that come from the history of the Proposition, as I wrote at length on the talk page a month ago. It was the accepted convention after long discussion and consensus at the California Proposition 8 (2008) page that both must be included. The same is true here. Since the Prop 8 matter was such a prominent focus of controversy with respect to Warren, it's appropriate to flesh out a one-sentence explanation of what the proposition was and why it was controversial, in lieu of a mere link to the Prop 8 article. This was also included in the proposed text above.
 * To include a quote of Warren from a Wall Street Journal interview or not. If yes, to agree on wording. and Inclusion of information attempting to tie political and social policy views of James Dobson to Rick Warren. (Both of these address the same matter.) The fact that Warren, when pressed, could not name any theological issue on which he and Dobson disagree, and that he admits to differing only in tone, is noteworthy and should be included in the article. The theological issues support his stands on social issues, and from those stands on social issues his controversies proceed. The theological/social issues are thus notable (even if they are commonly held among those in his denomination/among evangelicals) and should be included. A clear statement of what his views are is not forthcoming (Warren's representative on that talk thread was unable to cite one) so we are left with describing his views relative to Dobson, as is done in the WSJ article. This point is not addressed by the proposed text.
 * Is material which primarily serves to note that Warren's theological positions are substantially the same as those of his denomination (Southern Baptist) relevant to the BLP? Again, this being a BLP is not an invitation to discard common sense. If Warren's positions, theological or otherwise, commonly held among his co-denominationalists or evangelicals, or not, are the source of notable controversy then they must be included in the article to explain why there is a controversy. Again, you can't assume that anything about such an individual is obvious or can be left to the readers' prior knowledge when talking to a worldwide audience. I'm assuming this is connected with the previous point, again not included in the proposed text.
 * 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? Yes, if the positions are inseparable from the CEO of that church, are attributed to a spokesperson who is named as Warren's spokesperson as well as that of the church, and those positions (or the description or justification of those positions) have changed as the result of a controversy sparked by Warren's statements to the press. This was, I think, correctly addressed in the proposed text above.
 * Inclusion of a description, based on third-party accounts, of Warren's comments in the Beliefnet interview, where it was reported that Warren "compared the legalization of same-sex marriage to the legitimization of polygamy, incest and pedophilia." This is also, I think, correctly addressed in the proposed text above. His comparison, limited to acts of legalization or legitimization, was exactly as described in this point and in the proposed text.

Here's the brief statement that it seems I've omitted on how to resolve this dispute. Start at the beginning. Public figure does something controversial. Find verifiable statements in reliable sources (while the reliable sources are still standing, anyway). Write a description of the events and the controversy based on what's in those reliable sources, adding it to the article about the public figure. Lather, rinse, repeat. Exclude relevant, vital and reliably sourced information about notable events involving the subject only in very unusual circumstances - and you'd better have a damn good reason. Repeating "BLP" or other policy abbreviations incessantly as a justification for removing information, when there's multiple sources out there backing the proposed text, is not a reason. Note that I've made no references to policy above except to note that BLP is not a substitute for other policies, conventions or common sense. Now, why are we here? Mike Doughney (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting how my noting the tiresome, antisocial, counterproductive repeating of policy abbreviations didn't stop it from happening again below. Perhaps every comment should have its font size reduced half a point for every link in the comment that starts with "WP:" to force editors to appeal to common knowledge and sense instead. Again, the fact that certain editors are repeating policy abbreviations for two months, and have raised few new arguments, again drives home my original point: without the presence of Warren's paid staffer and his lackey here, this absurd clubbing of other editors with policy abbreviations would have been laughed at, and this essential addition to the article would have been done and over with back in mid-January. Mike Doughney (talk) 05:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Teledildonix314
Thank you, Sunray, for your assistance; and thanks to Firestorm for putting a lot of effort into improvements. My statement (sorry it's not short, honesty tends to overpower concision): i basically support the proposed text above from PhoenixOf9 which generally follows the advice of Benccc and gives sufficient information to make the article hopefully informative. But i feel it's already a tremendous compromise, as we've seen a bunch of other material trimmed away despite its being well-sourced.[struck-through text by Teledildonix314 removed] Thank you for listening, i promise always honesty and flexibility. 18:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Benccc
I'm not familiar with all the issues to be mediated but I'm familiar with the two paragraphs that now occupy most of our time (presented by Phoenix_of9 above). I believe those paragraphs reflect most edits on which we've achieved rough agreement, as well as elements on which we have not reached agreement. I don't endorse every part of them or think of them as "my" proposal, though I did present them on the article's discussion page and I could accept them.

In the first paragraph, I think the first sentence ("In December 2008...") and third sentence ("Warren later released...") are resolved and do not contain, or no longer contain, disputed elements. I also believe the entire second paragraph is resolved and does not contain, or no longer contains, disputed elements. Other editors please correct me if I'm mistaken!

As for the first sentence of the first paragraph, I think the areas of dispute are:


 * Whether to include/exclude the information that California Proposition 8 eliminated the right (alternately: legal right) of same-sex couples to marry in California
 * If we include that information, whether "right" (alternately: "legal right") is accurate and NPOV language

My view: That info is what distinguishes Prop 8 from the 29 other state laws/constitutional amendments that ban same-sex marriage (i.e. in California, same-sex couples could legally marry), which helps explain why Prop 8 was controversial and why Obama's choice of Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation was controversial. Re the wording, the California Supreme Court's decision in In Re Marriage Cases referred to marriage as a "fundamental right." The controversy and the In Re Marriage Cases decision both generated big media coverage, and we've identified mainstream citations.


 * Whether to include/exclude information about an interview of Warren that resulted in controversy
 * Whether the wording of that information in the "working version" is accurate and NPOV

My view: The interview generated a lot of media coverage, and it further helps readers understand why Warren became identified with this controversial issue. The wording is accurate and NPOV.

As for the second sentence of the first paragraph, I think the areas of dispute are:


 * Whether to include/exclude the info
 * If we include it, whether the wording is accurate

My view: It's helpful info (as I explain above), and by quoting and citing a primary source we've achieved accuracy.

As for the fourth sentence of the first paragraph, I think the area of dispute is whether to include/exclude the information. I haven't focused on discussion of that sentence so there may be other concerns/disputes about it. I haven't yet formed an opinion about it. Benccc (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Lyonscc
The issues at hand:

This is where I stand, as of today.--Lyonscc (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Rick Warren was chosen by US President Barack Obama for his inaugural invocation - agree on a text which describes and explains this controversy.: While this does need to be mentioned in the article, it should not be given WP:UNDUE weight. Warren's notability stretches far beyond this particular event (he's had a wiki article for 5 years now), and a 2-week media-manufactured controversy doesn't deserve a section of its own in a WP:BLP.  The final text should have the following items: 1) Obama selected RW to give the invocation; 2) His selection was criticized by notable organizations; 3) The criticism was based on his opposition to same-sex marriage in a December 2008 beliefnet interview (see below); 4) which Warren added clarification to (in response to mischaracterization of his answers).
 * How to mention Proposition 8 in the article. There is a lot of political posturing on the Prop 8 page, itself, and in the public sphere regarding Prop 8. Since this is a biography of Rick Warren, not an article on Prop 8, and since RW was not an outspoken or financial supporter of Prop 8, the less definition given to prop 8 in this article, the better (since Prop 8 would be wikilinked to the wiki article on the subject).  The most reasonable wording for this was suggested by admin Kevin: Warren also issued a statement to his church that supported California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution with regard to same-sex marriages. This gives the subject matter of Prop 8 in a completely WP:NPOV manner, and notes that Warren did support it in a message to his congregation.  It avoids the WP:WEASEL issues with characterizing Warren's support, and the WP:COAT issues with extended text defining Prop 8.
 * To include a quote of Warren from a Wall Street Journal interview or not/Inclusion of information attempting to tie political and social policy views of James Dobson to Rick Warren. In a WSJ interview, Warren was asked questions (not included in the article) regarding the differences between him and James Dobson. Warren's quoted answer was "it's a matter of tone".  The interviewer later notes that Warren seemed "unable to name any particular theological issues on which he and Mr. Dobson disagreed."  1) This really isn't notable, because Warren and Dobson belong to the same Christian denomination, and their theological views should be similar; 2) This is in a section of the BLP on Warren's Social and Political views, not his theological ones; 3) Warren has broken with Dobson on a number of political/social issues (environment, involvement in politics, etc.), but this is included in this section as an effort at  Guilt by Association.  This entire reference is not notable, and is really just an attempt to tie Warren to Dobson via GBA and to coatrack in Dobson's social agenda as supposedly being Warren's.
 * Inclusion of a description, based on third-party accounts, of Warren's comments in the Beliefnet interview The final text should not have proof-texted quotes or characterizations of the BeliefNet interview, as Warren stated that these were specifically incorrect as to what he said. Just because Warren's critics in this completely fail at logic (that just because A=C and B=C does not mean that A=B )- or because they had a specific agenda in mind - doesn't mean that extended regurgitation of their propaganda needs to be provided in a BLP on him.  Otherwise, wikipedia just becomes a gossip rag, where any BLP's can be full of "X said Y about Z: Z denied Y".
 * Is material which primarily serves to note that Warren's theological positions are substantially the same as those of his denomination (Southern Baptist) relevant to the BLP? No. The SBC has its' own wikipedia page, and to redundantly list that a pastor in the SBC agrees with the SBC is not notable.
 * 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? No. Staff members at Saddleback are not Warren's employees, they are employees of the church community.  Bringing in changes to web pages, quotes from other pastors, etc. and attributing them to Warren (when he is not specifically given attribution) is not verifiable as belonging to him or his BLP.

Firestorm (medcab)
Although I have only been a part of the controversy regarding this article for two or three weeks, I have seen my fair share of action with regards to it. I have seen full-protection, a temporary block of Teledildonix for WP:CIVIL violations, two COIs revealed (indef block for a member of Saddleback Church, and a 3 month topic ban for CarverM aka Michael Carver, the BLP subject's top adviser), and i'm pretty sure there were a few other blocks and admin actions. In addition, at least a dozen proposed wordings have been written up. There has been tendentious editing on both sides, an alphabet soup of policies thrown around without good reason, and people being incredibly obtuse about the whole thing. I can say without regret that I gave this issue my best efforts as mediator. for the record, the proposed wording I currently back is version 7 from the article's talk page. Firestorm Talk 21:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am writing to confirm Firestorm's detail above - and to inform the mediator that I am the administrator in the main that has over the past many weeks used enforcement tools as necessary to contain poor editor behaviour during this long and winding debate. I note that one of the other administrator's has disengaged completely from this fray; and that the other administrator has voluntarily given up his adminship (not necessarily for reasons related to this debate alone).  I will stand ready to assist at any time (and if necessary make appropriate decisions myself) and I invite the meditator Sunray to come to my page with any request that is felt will assist in the keeping of peace during this meditation.-- VS  talk 05:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I offered my word to back the compromise we agreed on. Collect (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is correct. You and I came to an understanding of what you could support, and I introduced that as the ironically named Proposition 8. When it was clear that that would not be able to pass, I withdrew that proposal and instead endorse the one made by Kevin before his retirement from Wikipedia. Firestorm  Talk 17:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Firestorm, Kevin offered a version of the two paragraphs near the beginning of the Proposal 7 section, and about two-thirds of the way down that section I offered a revision. Kevin was among the supporters of that revision, which is why I have (perhaps presumptuously) referred to it as the "working version."  Your post above is clear regarding your endorsement, but I'd just like to double-check regarding whether you specifically endorse the version Kevin offered near the beginning of that section and not the revised one I've been calling the "working version." Benccc (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I also endorse your version. At first I did not see the differences between the two, but upon looking at it closer I fully support the one you have called the "working version." Firestorm  Talk 19:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Which happens to be the one quoted in my statement. Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)