Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Rick Warren/Archive 3

Return to discussion
We can clear up the issue with WP:V if someone can link to a transcript of the Warren video statement to the Saddleback community. If so, then WP:V is not an issue.

Side Issue: I have to say that I really wonder why it is "nonsense" to say that staff members at Saddleback are not Warren's employees? What reliable source shows the organizational structure of Saddleback? Since it is an Evangelical church in the SBC, it has to be run by a board of elders, who are answerable to the congregation. Warren is not the "CEO" of the church in any traditional sense. Members of the church do not report to him, but rather, he is answerable to the members.

Now, assuming we can link to a transcript of the view, I would recommend an "Option 4"


 * Option 4 Warren also issued a statement to his church that supported California Proposition 8, because "the courts threw out the will of the people [when] four people voted to change a definition of marriage that has been going for five thousand years".

This would then cover a) that Warren supported prop 8 (he used the word "we support" in the video more than once); b) that it was communicated in a message to his church; c) it would use his own words to describe his reasons for support; and 4) it would use his own words to describe Prop 8 (which would be wikilinked for those curious for in-depth information on Prop 8).--Lyonscc (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Folks, I'm lost re the conversation about the video. I grasp that you're talking about this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o4QqGbQmU0 but please recap what is the problem about it that we're trying to solve?


 * Also FYI I posted something at the end of the section above in reply to the language Collect recommended -- I wasn't sure whether to post there or here so I figured I'd post there and add this little note here (what is the common Wikiquette in such a situation?)


 * Re Option 4, it implies that Prop 8 had something to do with the definition of marriage, but it's a little cryptic. If our task is to provide a brief explanation of Prop 8 to readers who aren't already familiar with it so they will better understand the associated controversy, I don't think this sentence succeeds.  It's more about Warren's perception of the In Re Marriage Cases decision, which may interest some readers, but news coverage of the controversy was more focused on his Prop 8 endorsement and Beliefnet interview -- if we can communicate something about those things, I think we'll shine a brighter light for readers. Benccc (talk) 09:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Replying in the relevant section and drawing others attention to it here seems like exemplary practice to me. As to your comments on Option 4. Would you be willing to provided an amendment with your additions? Sunray (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My understanding of the problem was two-fold: 1) We should use Warren's words to describe Prop 8; and 2) We should use Warren's words to define his support/endorsement/whatever of Prop 8. This seems to be agreed to, above.  As such, I was trying to find a way to meet #1 and #2 (since this is a bio on Warren, and not an article on Prop 8.  Now, we could draw a line between the official language on Prop 8 and Warren's statement, since they logically flow from one to another:


 * Option 4a - Warren also issued a statement to his church that supported California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," because "the courts threw out the will of the people [when] four people voted to change a definition of marriage that has been going for five thousand years".


 * This maintains WP:NPOV, and while it might be at the widest boundary of WP:UNDUE, it may be as concise as we can get.--Lyonscc (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This does seem to meet WP:NPOV. What do other participants think? Sunray (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (EC)
 * Doubleplusungood. "Legal Right" is a term i endorse because it's on the official ballot. That's as Verifiable and Reliable and Notable as a piece of data could ever conceivably be. "Definition of Marriage" is whatever Rick Warren wants to say -- based on whatever system of beliefs he prefers -- and when you quote the "definition" (speculative/subjective) alongside the Legal Right which is being reneged by Prop 8 (already objectively defined for us by the Attorney General of California, WP:V WP:RS WP:N infinitely) you are improperly arranging them into a sentence which makes a false equivalence of objectivity, and gives inappropriate credence to both sides of the sentence despite one side being empirically proven while the other side is basically unfalsifiable. This fails to provide a Neutral point of view because it is a fallacious imbalance. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ Talk~ 4-1-1 ~ 00:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No. It is more important that an acceptable, NPOV description of Prop 8 be included than additional wording about what Warren's internal fantasies justifying Prop 8 are. (Inclusion of what Warren's thinking was on Prop 8 is a different matter, and beyond the scope of mediation, so why is it proposed here as a solution to the specific issue of how Prop 8 should be described?) Again, the phrase "eliminated the right," the state's assessment of the actual effect of the measure, must be included for this to in any way be considered NPOV. Again, as I explained over a month ago, the description of Prop 8 is completely different between the proponents (whose interest in the matter ends on Election Day, they've demonstrated what they set out to demonstrate) and those who have to apply the law and who are targeted by the law. Both views must be included in any description if it's credibly to be considered NPOV. Mike Doughney (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You are saying that the article should make both sides clear. It seems to me that we probably need to look at all the changes (the various issues we are discussing) together to have a sense of this. Would participants be willing to take a closer look at how some of the sources deal with this? Would it also make sense to establish separate sections for each of the issues, so that participants get a sense of how it will all fit together? Sunray (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Since this is an article about Warren - NOT Prop 8 - If we're going to include a description of Prop 8, it should be framed in terms of the subject of the article and his justification for any support. Including the "rights" language is (as I've said all along) a complete non-starter.  It was not his position, and describing it as such implies that it had that understanding/interpretation by Warren (i.e. he knew it/saw it as 'eliminating a right').  I will not support ANY version which includes the description of it as a "right" (unless a direct quote from Warren), because a) this is an article about Rick Warren - not Prop 8; and b) it was never framed by him as "elimination of a right".  The pros & cons of whether it was truly an "elimination of a right" or "preservation of a definition of marriage" should be self-contained in the Prop 8 article - not coatracked here.  So - unless you can come up with a Warren quote which describes it as an elimination of a right, it shouldn't be here.  If, however, you can come up with a Warren quote describing it as such, I'm completely open to including it.--Lyonscc (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You are trying to forbid anybody from indicating why all the news networks reported "outrage" at Warren's support of Prop 8. Why do you think people were outraged? Do you think it's because they hate the "definition of marriage"? If we have a long list of two dozen reliable sources who verified that there were thousands of protesters on multiple occasions because there was anger in response to Warren's support of Prop 8, and it was because Prop 8 reneged the fledgeling legal right of a disenfranchised minority which was finally beginning to see the meager dawn of justice and secular equality, and yet you say "non-starter" when we give you the most concise summary of that protestation in the language cited directly from the newspapers and cable tv news networks. This is hard for me to understand because i thought we were going to "compromise". Failure to permit the most basic attempt at a biography which isn't entirely one-sided and non-neutral... is hardly a compromise inducement. MiniTru malQuoted, please rectify. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ Talk~ 4-1-1 ~ 00:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Lyonscc, you are again stressing that this article is not about Prop 8. That is true and we do need to keep it in mind. Let's try to find a formulation that works for everyone. Since the media made frequent mention of Prop 8, and as Teledildonix314 is saying there was "outrage" about Warrens stated views, we do need to find a way to deal with these facts in a way that is in keeping with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. One way to achieve this is to agree on some principles for each issue and then work on a draft that meets these. I would like some input from participants on this as an approach. Sunray (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're proposing be done differently. As for "dealing with the facts," we cannot assume that readers already know what Prop 8 is, thus it must be briefly described. A brief description of Prop 8 is a brief description of Prop 8, based on what Prop 8, independent of Warren, actually is. The Prop 8 article is one possible guideline to formulating the description, and there it is in the second sentence of that article: "It changed the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples and eliminated same-sex couples' right to marry..." That definition stands independent of what Warren thinks Prop 8 was. It does not matter whether Warren agrees with what the accepted definition is, or whether he cares what the actual effect of Prop 8 was (and I venture to say he does not care.)
 * I don't think there can be agreement on "principles for each issue." Lyons clearly wants the definition of Prop 8 in this article to not be a generally accepted, NPOV definition of Prop 8, but a definition specific to Warren's thinking; there is no policy or convention that supports his contention, but a truly NPOV alternative that includes the fact that there are two descriptions of Prop 8 is, to him, "a complete non-starter." This does not serve readers, and besides, we can safely assume that Warren's thinking is entirely of the pro-Prop 8 POV. Mike Doughney (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm having a hard time keeping track of what we're working on. Sunray asked whether it would make sense to establish separate sections for each issue, and I think that's worth a try.  I know I'm a broken record re the potential benefit of isolating decisions into bite-size pieces  and until we give that a shot I don't think we should rule it out -- perhaps it would be compatible with what Sunray's suggesting.  It seems to me we've been discussing how to word things when we don't even have agreement on whether the thing itself should be included, and we end up talking past eachother and trying to tackle too much at once.  If we start with some small and simple include/exclude decisions -- and I'm talking about factoids here, not language -- we may realize we don't even have to worry about how to word a thing because the thing itself won't be included.  ('Scuse me for adding the "Bite-size pieces" section heading but I wasn't sure how else to link back to that post). Benccc (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Re Sunray's question about what do participants think of option 4a proposed by Lyonscc above, let me try to model the kind of bite-size-piece decision process I have in mind, though the following is sort of an inversion of the order in which I'd propose we approach things. Option 4a was:


 * Warren also issued a statement to his church that supported California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," because "the courts threw out the will of the people [when] four people voted to change a definition of marriage that has been going for five thousand years".


 * I see four main units of info, and my cryptic way of representing them below is to indicate that at this stage the wording is unimportant (and in some cases disputed):


 * Warren: yes on Prop 8
 * Prop 8 [changed] CA constitution
 * Language of Prop 8
 * Warren statement re "will of the people"


 * I'd start not by saying "does everyone agree the article should include info #1 (Warren: yes on Prop 8), but rather "could you accept inclusion of info #1," with the understanding that we'll all negotiate wording later. And so on with info #2-4.  Personally, I would accept inclusion of all four of those units of info, assuming all are true (I'm not familiar with #4 but I don't doubt its accuracy).  Do I think all four are helpful to readers?  Not really.  Do I think any of them would harm the interests of readers?  Nope.  So let's say we all weighed in, and we found that all of us can accept inclusion of all four of these units of info.  Hooray, and now perhaps we'd move on to options re the wording of info #1.  Again, I'd recommend we tackle decisions in a different order so as to flow from the macro to the micro, but this is the spirit of it.  It just seems to me that such a method could bring us to real mutual decisions. Benccc (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Item 4 is outside the scope of mediation. I would certainly consider including it, but it is completely separate from the issue of including the "eliminated the right" definitional term and it should probably go in a separate sentence that explains his views. But again, this should not be added to this mediation unless we're now talking about a deal to include the "eliminated the right" part. Mike Doughney (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, understood, I just chose option 4a as an illustration of a kind of process I think could help us. Benccc (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You were correct. The position that it must be presented sans Warren's words is unjust per NPOV. We could have an article on Goldwater saying "He opposed giving the right to vote to blacks in the Civil Rights Act of 1964" and say we can not say why he opposed the act.  As for it not being part of the mediation -- that is wrong. The purpose of mediation is to resolve problems, not to ensure that another problem will instantly appear.  The task is to make sure that similar problems will not appear. Collect (talk) 12:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "The position that it must be presented sans Warren's words is unjust per NPOV." I don't think anyone has stated exactly this, that Warren's words must be left out. I have said that the suggested addition may certainly be considered. I say it is "outside the scope of mediation" because as far as I can tell this was not one of the issues raised when this mediation was proposed. I've also pointed out that it's outside the scope of mediation because I'm also getting the impression that instead of resolving the issue of how Prop 8 will be described in an equitable and neutral way, discussion of this new language, which is not descriptive of Proposition 8 itself but merely Warren's position on it, is derailing the discussion of one of the initially stated mediation issues. Mike Doughney (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) My problem with the "rights" wording is that it COULD be redacted down, via basic English mechanics to read "Rick Warren supported [the elimination of the right...blah, blah, blah]. Not to repeat all of the previous discussion on "rights" (as a word) - it is disputable that the fully enumerated right of SSM ever existed, because the court case was still under appeal when Prop 8 passed.  To use a completely different example, let us say that Prop 777 passed, saying that only the government could own anti-tank rockets.  Then, a court struck down the ban and I purchased 5 anti-tank weapons.  Then, while that court case was under federal appeal, Prop 778 passed, throwing out the lower court ruling.  In effect, I would lose my ability to own the rockets, but it would be specious of me to say "I lost the right to own an anti-tank rocket", because that "right" was tenuous (at best) while the court ruling was under appeal. So, in this example, I could accurately be described as supporting a position that Prop 777 was the will of the people, and that my endorsement of Prop 778 was in support of the will of the people in the traditional position that anti-tank weaponry should only be owned by the government. I could NOT be accurately described as supporting the elimination of rights to own anti-tank weaponry.--Lyonscc (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * How about:
 * Option 4b - Warren also issued a statement to his church that supported California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," because "the courts threw out the will of the people [when] four people voted to change a definition of marriage that has been going for five thousand years", thus preventing same-sex marriages in California.


 * This option, gives the information a) that Warren supported prop 8; b) that it was communicated in a message to his church; c) that uses his own words to describe his reasons for support; 4) that uses his own words to describe Prop 8 (wikilinked for those curious for in-depth information on Prop 8); and 5) that uses language to describe the effects in a way that could not be redacted down to something Warren (the subject of the BLP) would disagree with (thus, preventing creation of a straw-man fallacy).--Lyonscc (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No. Though your sermon illustration invokes the image of anti-tank rockets, it's quite unconvincing, and your first sentence about the proposed language being "redacted down" is completely nonsensical, invoking "English mechanics" that must be some product of your imagination (or an assumption of widespread illiteracy, or an assumption that unlikely, incorrect impressions are more important than what the words on the page actually mean), since the proposed language doesn't in any way say that. What matters here is that the "eliminates the right" language can be attributed to multiple reliable sources - including the Attorney General of the State of California. That's why it belongs in the article, to describe Proposition 8. I'm inferring from this a confirmation of what I said earlier, that you just can't bear to see those three words associated, however tenuously, with a high-profile Christian personality by mere inclusion of those three words somewhere in an article about that personality. In the process you've created some enormous straw man that the words in the proposal will be taken to mean things that they clearly don't. But your aversion to those words is not my problem, nor does it trump Wikipedia policy. Nor does Warren's opinion of how Prop 8 is described have any influence on how Proposition 8 is described in this article. Your continued attack on the policy of verifiability is noted. Mike Doughney (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No - "redacting down" is a common principle of English mechanics to determine if you've written something correctly. In this particular case, there are two clauses "Rick Warren supports Prop 8" and "Prop 8 eliminated the right".  So, because "Prop 8" is a specific item (and not a class item), you can reasonably substitute [eliminated the right] for [Prop 8] in the first clause.  In this particular case, such a substitution would be untrue.  In reality, the only reasonable way to include "eliminated the right" would be to then note that the alleged "right" was only provisional, created by judicial fiat, with additional mention of California Proposition 22 (2000), which had been in force for 8 years, and heck, since we're now well into WP:UNDUE coatracking territory, note that Warren's support was based upon enforcement of Prop 22, not elimination of a temporary "right" that was nowhere near settled law.--Lyonscc (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Warren even thinks that civil unions is not a civil right. This should be in the article as well:


 * "[Clarification from Pastor Warren 12/15: I now see you asked about civil UNIONS -and I responded by talking about civil RIGHTS. Sorry. They are two different issues. No American should ever be discriminated against because of their beliefs. Period. But a civil union is not a civil right. Nowhere in the constitution can you find the “right” to claim that any loving relationship identical to marriage. It’s just not there. ]"


 * Also this: "There is no reason to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2% of our population." Phoenix of9 (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "We affirm God's plan for marriage and sexual intimacy – one man, and one woman, for life. Homosexuality is not a "valid alternative lifestyle." The Bible condemns it as sin. It is not, however, unforgivable sin. The same redemption available to all sinners is available to homosexuals. They, too, may become new creations in Christ." is an official statement of the SBC. Insofar as Warren is simply repeating tenets of his denomination, they hardly stand out from what every other minister of that denomination would say.  Would you say all positions of te SBC should be discussed in this article?   etc.?   Collect (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Back here bangin' on this one again, I see. What is it about explaining the controversy - including, positions held by the subject of the article that are in no way obvious to the reader - that you constantly refuse to acknowledge? In particular, the fact that Warren used a completely bogus "2%" figure in his rant is actually quite noteworthy - I'd certainly agree that it may be just another bigoted "deeply held personal belief" about the gay community common among Christians all over this country, but you seldom hear a high-profile Christian personality like Warren come right out and repeat it. Mike Doughney (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you please understand that personal remarks do not help? My position is trying to make the article as good as it can be while following all WP policies and guidelines, and using compromise as a tool to achieve that end. If a position is that which any pastor of a denomination would hold as an official position of that church, then how notable is it to ascribe the position to an individual pastor of that church?  Ought we, for example, attach to all Mormon leaders the position that we can have sex after death? Or to any Catholic leader that he believes in "ritual cannibalism" as some claim?  Attach to each individual Jewish rabbi the statements which he routinely makes about the "chosen people"?   Attach to each Muslim leader the statements which they routinely make in affirmation of beliefs with other Muslims?   As for asserting that any statement made by a person is "completely bogus" - that is a judgement which WP editors are not in a position to make, therefore is of limited value in achieving compromises. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Which policy backs that argument? Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, if there are sources which connect those discussions to Warren. Phoenix of9 (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a remarkable little bit of original research there, Lyons. Complete with dogwhistle codes like "judicial fiat." It being original research, it is, of course, completely inadmissable. Your continued flagrant disregard of the principle of verifiability well beyond the point of delusional absurdity is showing. Mike Doughney (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Mike, we're not talking about specific sources, yet, but nothing I stated is unverifiable. It does not become WP:NOR until wording is actually suggested for inclusion that cannot be supported w/ verifiable resources.--Lyonscc (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * One example from a verifiable source (the dissenting opinion on the CA Supreme Court):


 * "A bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves," said the dissent written by Associate Justice Marvin R. Baxter and joined by Associate Justice Ming W. Chin.


 * And another from the NY Post:


 * "Just eight years ago, Proposition 22 was passed 61.4 to 38.6. The much narrower victory of Proposition 8 suggests that minds are moving toward toleration of same-sex marriage. If advocates of that have the patience required by democratic persuasion, California's ongoing conversation may end as they hope. But if the conversation is truncated, as Brown urges, by judicial fiat, the argument will become as embittered as the argument over abortion has been by judicial highhandedness."


 * Perhaps letters to the NY Post and the CA Supreme Courts are warranted, since they're using "dogwhistle codes" (whatever those are) like 'judicial fiat'? My point is not to be a smart-alec, but to say that if "eliminated the right" must be included, it is a distorted picture w/o all the other history, as well, including Prop 22 (2000).  And at that point, if we're not into WP:UNDUE and WP:COAT territory, and outside of WP:BLP, then those policies really don't mean much...--Lyonscc (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you grasped WP:V. Now move onto the next one. Neutrality. These are 2 of 3 core policies of wikipedia.


 * You have to present both sides:


 * "which amended the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," [4] which eliminated the legal right of same-sex couples to marry; [5]"


 * Side 1 (conservative/religious/warren et al): "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,"


 * Side 2: which eliminated the legal right of same-sex couples to marry.


 * If you think side 1 is misrepresented, make suggestions, without ommitting side 2. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And stop meantioning WP:COAT. Its an essay, not a policy. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)While I would disagree with there being "sides" represented, per se, I thought Option 4b showed both the application ("side 1") and impact ("side 2") of the issue:


 * Option 4b Warren also issued a statement to his church that supported California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," because "the courts threw out the will of the people [when] four people voted to change a definition of marriage that has been going for five thousand years". thus preventing same-sex marriages in California.--Lyonscc (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Here, you have the application (amended the constitution) and the result (prevented SSM). By avoiding the "supposed 'rights'" question, there is no need to coatrack it in, along with all of the additional clarifying history (Prop 22, etc.) which would be required to meet WP:NPOV (with respect to the "rights" claim).--Lyonscc (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Option 4c Warren supported California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," because "the courts threw out the will of the people [when] four people voted to change a definition of marriage that has been going for five thousand years" and also because "There is no reason to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2% of our population.", thus eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry. Warren thinks that while "no American should ever be discriminated against", nowhere in the constitution there is "the “right” to claim that any loving relationship [is] identical to marriage", adding "a civil union is not a civil right". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix of9 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Eliminated is gonna stay there. Per Firestorm: "When voters in California cast their ballots, what they saw was Proposition 8: Eliminates the Right of Same Sex Couples to Marry, followed by the text added to the California State Constitution. That is the official title of the ballot initiative, and that is the wording that should be used" Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, heck, if we're going to be all WP:UNDUE and WP:COAT about it, let's just go for the gusto:


 * Option 4d Warren supported California Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," because "the courts threw out the will of the people [when] four people voted to change a definition of marriage that has been going for five thousand years" and also because "There is no reason to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2% of our population.", thus eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry, a temporary 'right' issued by judicial fiat after the California Supreme court overturned California Proposition 22 (2000), prior to that ruling's federal appeal being ruled upon. Warren thinks that while "no American should ever be discriminated against", nowhere in the constitution there is "the “right” to claim that any loving relationship [is] identical to marriage", adding "a civil union is not a civil right".


 * Yeah, neither (c) nor (d)are a bloated mess or give wp:undue weight to a topic that Warren only supported in a statement to his church. How about let's be serious and drop crap like (c) from such a minor issue?--Lyonscc (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not a minor issue . And I was serious. Meanwhile, words like 'judicial fiat' are not WP:NPOV Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Judicial Fiat" comes directly from WP:V sources, including the official CASC dissent and the NY Post. I can pull it up in other news sources, as well.


 * OK, seriously, how about this:


 * Option 5 Warren also issued a statement to his church that supported California Proposition 8, which prevented same sex marriages in the state, because "the courts threw out the will of the people [when] four people voted to change a definition of marriage that has been going for five thousand years".


 * Here, the affect/result of the proposition is mentioned (prevented SSM) first (w/o coatracking in the "rights" issue) and the application (one man-one woman) is inferred by the quote. Neither side has a strong POV presented, but both have their points made (prevented SSM + about the definition of marriage).  This is concise, not WP:UNDUE, neutral, verifiable, and within the spirit of WP:BLP.--Lyonscc (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, if you attribute "Judicial Fiat" to "CASC dissent" or whatever, with reliable sources, I'd support 4d. Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 4d was an (apparently missed) attempt at humor via exaggeration - to demonstrate how absurdly WP:UNDUE and coat-rackish it would be to try and shoe-horn in everything everyone thinks would be needed to give a full airing to Prop 8 in an article that's not even about Prop 8.--Lyonscc (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So, you are making proposals now, just for humour? Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sigh... Sometimes being absurd demonstrates absurdity better than just describing it. So, yes, the proposal was for purposeful humor.--Lyonscc (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh so now you claim your own proposals are absurd? Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I rather thought I was making it obvious that I was being intentionally absurd (including the Edit Summary note). My apologies for trying to maintain a sense of humor.--Lyonscc (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My apologies as well, I'm unable to tell if your proposals are purposefully or unpurposefully absurd. Can you please tell in advance when you are serious and when you are using humour? Thanks! Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh and linking will of people to Prop 22 is OR. See WP:NOR. Another core wiki policy. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In Warren's video, he refers specifically to the court overturning the "will of the people", referencing the earlier referendum. There is no WP:SYN here.--Lyonscc (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * But you are linking to it within a quote. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Because, in context to the entire video, this was the "will of the people" which he referred to as being subverted by "four judges".--Lyonscc (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You cant summarize the context of the entire video with a direct quote. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * To be more clear, in his description of "the courts threw out the will of the people [when] four people voted to change a definition", he was specifically referring to the CASC invalidating Prop 22. The four CASC justices are the four people who "voted to change a definition".  I find it fascinating that explicitly wikilinking Prop 8 is not enough for you if it doesn't include, additionally, a specific "spin" on interpreting what Prop 8 was, yet implicitly wikilinking to Prop 22 without additional exposition to further define it is too much.  At least I'm being consistent...--Lyonscc (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You can wikilink Prop 22, but not in a quote unless the quote mentions it by name. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We already propose to link prop 8 to his quote -- seems that the issue is quite the same. Collect (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, Lyonscc, you're concerned that it would be inaccurate for a Wikipedia article to state or imply that same-sex couples once had the right to marry in California, and this would indeed be implied by the phrase "eliminated the right to marry." You've asserted that such a right didn't actually exist; had Prop 8 not passed and mooted the matter, the California Supreme Court's In re Marriage Cases decision (which found such a right) would have been appealed to a federal court, and eventually to the U.S. Supreme Court, and only if the decision survived those appeals could the word "right" be accurately used. (You shared this concern on Talk:Rick_Warren/Archive_11 and reiterated some of it above). The claim that no such right existed is, you assert, neutral, and to say otherwise in a Wikipedia article would be to insert bias.

I think one reason you haven't been getting support for this view is that mainstream sources indicate that the right did exist, and you haven't (to my recollection) provided sources to show that it did not. That might help. I haven't seen your argument made elsewhere, and as you know I sought but didn't find sources to verify it (the rest of you may recall we had some discussion of this on that archived page). So... would you mind taking on the burden of proof regarding that point? Benccc (talk) 08:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Benccc, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that my position is that the inclusion of the phrase "eliminated the right to marry" is only part of the story - and is kind of like declaring a winner of a baseball game, canceled because of rain, based on the score after the fourth inning. We cannot include this statement without noting the circumstances around the "right", including: 1) the citation of 'judicial fiat' by the CASC dissenting opinion, 2) the history of Prop 22; 3) the refusal of the CASC to wait for the result of Prop 8 (putting any same-sex "marriages" between June 16 and Nov 4 in jeopardy); and 4) the remaining legal appeals available to the CASC ruling.  Without inclusion of these facts with "eliminated the right to marry", Warren (who we seem to keep forgetting is the subject of this article, not Prop 8) is being painted as someone who knowingly desired to "eliminate" someone's "rights", which is patently false (and contrary to WP:BLP).


 * So, for a moment, if we go down the path of including all of the relevant information to what would be required for "eliminating the right to marry" to be added to meet WP:NPOV, we're left with something pretty unwieldy and definitely in the realm of WP:UNDUE and WP:COAT. I've suggested a number of ways around this, but no counter-proposals have even been attempted without inclusion of the problematic "rights" language.--Lyonscc (talk) 12:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I was serious about my proposal 4c. Phoenix of9 (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know baseball rules. I do know that the California Supreme Court needs only a simple majority to issue a ruling.  Though dissenting opinions typically argue that the court's majority was wrong, they don't invalidate a court's decisions.  The CASC's judgment that marriage is a fundamental right under the California Constitution, and that this right may not be denied same-sex couples, was enforceable and took effect.  Many Wikipedia articles cite court decisions without mentioning dissenting opinions and/or legislation (such as Prop 22) that may have been invalidated by those decisions, as do articles in the mainstream media.  You know I've taken your concern seriously, and have written "eliminated the (x) to marry" pending resolution of your disagreement with the word "right," and have read the various Wikipedia policies you say we'd violate were we to use "right," and have tried (unsuccessfully) to find corroboration for your assertion that the California Supreme Court may have violated federal law in its decision that the California Constitution guarantees such a right.  We're left with the fact that the California Supreme Court, the Attorney General, and the mainstream media say same-sex couples had the right to marry, and you say they did not.  I hope you'll agree that at this point it's fair for me to ask you to shoulder the burden of proof in your argument that you, and not they, are correct regarding whether or not this right existed.  To be clear, I'm just asking that you share with us some citations to credible authorities.  As regards whether Warren himself believed such a right existed, or knew that Prop 8 would eliminate this right when he endorsed Prop 8, I have no knowledge and do not propose we make any claims.  The point of this is not -- and must not be, and has not been -- to assert that the CASC decision or same-sex marriage or Prop 8 or Rick Warren were right or wrong or good or bad.  The point is to help readers understand why Warren's support for Prop 8 resulted in controversy. Benccc (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I only have a couple minutes here (will try to be back tonight). The long and short of it is - presenting Prop 8 and "eliminated the right" is like presenting Acts 4 and 5 in a 6-Act play. You either let Act 5 stand on its own, or you recap the whole darn thing, and not just Act 4. There is so much more to the story of this history of SSM in CA than Prop 8, and you either need to let Prop 8 stand on its own without positioning/posturing (beyond identifying the subject matter), or you spell the whole thing out. Since this is an article on Warren, not SSM in CA, it is far more within the spirit of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE (and the WP:COAT essay) to take the former approach than the latter one. The reason the dissenting opinion must be cited if you are also citing the majority opinion is that Warren's stated intent in supporting Prop 8 was that he was opposing the 'judicial fiat' which changed the definition of marriage. Additionally, I would note that the purpose of Prop 8 was not to 'eliminate a right'. Prop 8 was approved for inclusion on the 2008 ballot more than 6 months before the CASC ruling in In re Marriage Cases. That it ended up having, to an arguable degree, that effect was more the fault of the CASC in not staying the ruling pending the outcome of Prop 8, than Prop 8, itself. Without this back-story, "eliminated the right" is a stilted, POV description for Prop 8. (sorry for late sig)--Lyonscc (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This seems like a reasonable attempt to achieve balance. I struckthrough the reference to WP:COAT since it is not policy. You make good point about why we might include the reference to the minority opinion. I appreciate that you have proposed a new version. Sunray (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Repeatedly insisting that "eliminated the right" is somehow "Point Of View", despite it being the actual title of the Prop 8 ballot materials, is incorrect. In fact, it illuminates your Point Of View which is in conflict with our information. Furthermore, when you describe any same-sex "marriages", with those scare-quotes, you are being derogatory toward the people who were in fact married. I would kindly ask you to please refrain from such inflammatory usage of scare-quotes, because i find it just as unCivil as any sort of remarks which might be made about biblical "reasoning", superstitious "tradition", and "intelligent" religious positions. Do you see how that works? Thanks ~ Teledildonix314 ~ Talk~ 4-1-1 ~ 19:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Lyonscc, while it's true that we could tell a longer story about same-sex marriage than simply making the point that Prop 8 eliminated a right, I don't agree that policy requires us to exclude that point. That point is what made Prop 8 so controversial, and will illuminate for readers why it was controversial (which was one of many varied and notable episodes in Warren's life).  That's why I think the bar must be set higher if we are to let Mark Carver's deletion of that point stand.  By "set higher" I mean it would help us if you would cite credible and authoritative sources to support your contention that the CASC, Attorney General, and mainstream media were in fact mistaken in calling marriage a right.  Is that a fair and reasonable request?


 * Re your comments above, I have not proposed that we add info about the In re Marriage Cases decision to the Warren article (though we could cite it to verify use of the word "right"), nor that we claim that Warren agreed that a right existed, intended to eliminate a right, or even knew that Prop 8 would eliminate a right. I have not proposed to use my own personal wording to say what Prop 8 did -- I lifted the language about "eliminated a right" from the | official title in the California Voter Guide in order to ensure both verifiability and NPOV.  I would have no trouble accepting the addition of quotes and explanations regarding Warren's view of Prop 8 and/or of same-sex marriage in order to make absolutely certain that readers understand his views.  Also please note that I do not propose we claim anything about the purpose of Prop 8, nor do I propose that we defend or even comment on the wisdom of the CASC.  The language deleted by Mr. Carver simply informed readers that Prop 8 eliminated a right.  As you know I did not undo Mr. Carver's deletion even after we learned his identity and he was banned for COI, because I saw that you objected to the word too, and I wanted to find out why.


 * So far, the admins who have weighed in on the word "right" have agreed that it is accurate, verifiable, and NPOV. I am simply asking -- please -- for you to provide sources to back up your claim that it is not accurate because a federal court could have overturned the CASC's finding that the California Constitution guarantees a right to marriage.  I have tried and failed to find such sources.  Will you please share yours?


 * One more point: you and the rest of us agree that the CASC decision (erroneously, in your view) required that marriage licenses be issued to same sex couples, and we agree that they were in fact issued to same sex couples, and we agree that Prop 8 stopped that. So we have a fair amount of agreement.  Hence the formulation "eliminated the (x) of same-sex couples to marry," which leaves intact the wording we agree is factual and thanks to the "x" leaves open the possibility of another word.  Do you wish to persuade us that a word other than "right" belongs there, or rather to persuade us that we must exclude the information altogether, even if we add information about Warren's views? Benccc (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Option 6

 * Option 6 On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that same sex marriage was a right in California, invalidating California Proposition 22 (2000), and on June 4, 2008, it refused to issue a stay on its ruling, pending the outcome of Proposition 8 in November, which would amend the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."  Using the same reasoning as the dissenting opinions of California Supreme Court Justices Marvin R. Baxter and Justice Ming W. Chin, who called this ruling an act of 'judicial fiat', on October 24, Warren issued a statement to his church that supported Proposition 8, stating "the courts threw out the will of the people [when] four people voted to change a definition of marriage that has been going for five thousand years."[1][2]  Proposition 8, which had it's ballot title changed to "Eliminates Right Of Same-Sex Couples To Marry" after the CASC ruling, passed on November 4, 2008.

Comments
While this still seems to give WP:UNDUE weight to this issue, due to its length, this has the minimum required content to understand Prop 8 and Warren's support of it to his church. I would accept this, though, if we must include that SSM was a "right".--Lyonscc (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a complex issue. Since there was so much media attention that mentioned Prop 8, it does seem to strike a balance between the various views, while recognizing that it is a biography of Warren. Let's see other participants comments or concerns. I would suggest that if someone has a particular concern they propose and alternative wording to address it. Sunray (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I could support this wording. However, I would ask that we make one minor correction for clarity. Where it says "...supported Proposition 8, because (quote)", I would suggest changing that to say "...supported Proposition 8, stating (quote) ". We don't actually know that that was what he was thinking. We know that that's his stated rationale, so we can safely say the report supported Prop 8 by stating (quote). Whether or not that was actually why he supported it isn't for us to say. This new change also flows better, in my opinion. Anyone opposed to that? Firestorm  Talk 19:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've now incorporated this - your are correct.--Lyonscc (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to start using more direct quotations from Warren himself, then i see no reason why we should stop here. The quotation in Option 6 is from a video source for which nobody has yet provided a transcript; i'm not saying we shouldn't use it, i'm just pointing out that we shouldn't cherry-pick quotes simply to flatter Warren. Let's use the quotation from the transcript of his Beliefnet interview in which he emphatically compares the legalization of the freedom to marry with the legitimization of incest and pedophilia. After all, it gives us Warren's beliefs, motivations, and wishes, in his own words, as recorded by a Reliable Source which we can verify.

Come to think of it, if more direct quotes from Warren were put in this article, i would see it as an improvement. Let the man hang himself with his own noose, is my line of thinking. Why bother trying to show people the sort of anti-humanist behavior perpetrated by Warren through indirect means? Why not let his own words do the talking? If he has made such a successful career out of Scapegoating, why not let the Scapegoating speak for itself? ~ Teledildonix314 ~ Talk~ 4-1-1 ~ 19:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The point of a WP:BLP is not to flatter or excoriate, but to give a biographical account of someone in as neutral manner as possible. "Trying to show people the sort of anti-humanist behavior perpetrated by Warren", whether through indirect or direct means, is starting from a point of already having an axe to grind, and is not what we're trying to achieve.  The quote chosen for Option 6 was not 'cherry-picked', but was taken from his opening remarks in support of Prop 8 (where he was framing his 2-minute endorsement to his church), and was chosen because it was the most succinct of his statements in support of this ballot proposal, consistent with his later, public statements on the matter.  Let's stick with the Prop 8 section, for now, before moving on to the beliefnet interview (since it is part of this mediation, as well).--Lyonscc (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree slightly with this issue of "cherry-picked". I'm proposing we pick quotes from the most Reliable Sources with the most Reliable transcripts. And as far as my "axe to grind", don't you think it's the right thing for me to air my views explicitly and honestly here, so you have the opportunity to eliminate any possible bias which i might accidentally insert into an article? I thought i was doing you a favor by being so clear about the difference between my own personal viewpoints, versus the things we can put in a BLP because they are verified and reliable and well-balanced. If i really wanted to push things into my own POV territory, i could have been all sneaky and dishonest like CarverM, but instead i've tried to give you the most straightforward and unembellished versions of that which is truly my opinion, assuming it would help you to eliminate any of my own bias from articles. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ Talk~ 4-1-1 ~ 20:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "the courts threw out the will of the people [when] four people voted to change a definition of marriage that has been going for five thousand years" is not the only reason. These are also other reasons: "There is no reason to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2% of our population.", thus eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry. Warren thinks that while "no American should ever be discriminated against", nowhere in the constitution there is "the “right” to claim that any loving relationship [is] identical to marriage", adding "a civil union is not a civil right". So this isnt NPOV. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems that the "most reliable resources" would include words recorded on tape directly from Warren. As for the POV of an editor, it seems like the best policy is to try to maintain neutrality, as best as possible, without an agenda to "expose" someone or "whitewash" them.  What part of Option 6 is "whitewashing"?  It efficiently describes Prop 8 - including what Benccc, Phoenix_of9 and Teledil have all been asking for - that SSM be described as a "right" between May 15 and November 4 - and the basic nuts and bolts back-history of why Prop 8 was supported by Warren.  It also includes Warren's exact statement he used to sum up his support for Prop 8 in the message to his church.  How is this unacceptable?  (And I'm the one being obstructionist?)--Lyonscc (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Why are these "There is no reason to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2% of our population.", thus eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry. Warren thinks that while "no American should ever be discriminated against", nowhere in the constitution there is "the “right” to claim that any loving relationship [is] identical to marriage", adding "a civil union is not a civil right" not acceptable? They are Warrens words too. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Because they are redundant sub-points of the first quote, and bloat what is already at the extreme end of undue weight on this particular matter.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * How do you know they are less important than other reasons? Source? Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm impressed with the level of discourse, above. Thanks to all participants for an excellent (and civil) discussion. Bodes well for this mediation, IMO. I've added two citations. Several participants have mentioned a transcript. I couldn't find one, but I think these two citations would suffice. One is a Reuters article based on the ProtectMarriage.com news release, which sources the Warren quotes. The other is the video itself. Sunray (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added a statement to Option 6 (which previously did not have the result of Prop 8), adding in the outcome of the ballot and designating the ballot title in a way that makes it clearly separate from Warren's view. Maybe we could put this to bed now?--Lyonscc (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps: In May 2008, the California Supreme Court invalidated Proposition 22 "The Defense of Marriage Act", which had been law in California for eight years, ruling that same sex marriage was a legal right in California. The dissenting judges called this an act of "judicial fiat."  A similar proposition to Proposition 22, Proposition 8, was given the official title "Eliminates Right of Same Sex Couples to Marry."   On October 24, 2008, two weeks before the election, Warren issued a statement to his congregation stating that marriage was "a contract between men and women"  and supporting Proposition 8.    This states the legal status quo ante, the wording of Warren;s rationale, and includes the "official title" as well.  Collect (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Whats the connection between "judicial fiat." and Warren? Did Warren support Prop 8 cause of a "judicial fiat."? Sources? Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Option 6a (Based on Comments)
In May 2008, the California Supreme Court invalidated Proposition 22, "The Defense of Marriage Act", which had been law in California for eight years, ruling that same sex marriage was a legal right in California. The dissenting judges called this an act of "judicial fiat." In June, the CASC refused to issue a stay on its ruling, pending the outcome of Proposition 8 in November, which would amend the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." On October 24, 2008, two weeks before the election, Warren issued a statement to his congregation stating that marriage was "a contract between men and women" and supporting Proposition 8.[1][2]  On November 4, 2008, Proposition 8, which had it's ballot title changed to "Eliminates Right Of Same-Sex Couples To Marry" after the CASC ruling, passed.

Notes (for 6a)

 * 1) Reuters (October 24, 2008). "Nationally Acclaimed Pastor Rick Warren Announces Support for Proposition 8" Source: ProtectMarriage.com
 * 2) Warren, R. (October 23, 2008). News & Views (Prop 8) Video posted to "Pastor Rick's News and Views."

Comments
This has the key information, including the change of ballot title and the refusal of the CASC to stay its ruling, pending Prop 8. Unless I'm missing something, this includes all of the key information required by the different parties w/o going into extended quotations and overly complicated explanations. The connection between "judicial fiat" and Warren is that his statements were all couched, by him, in the frame of "four people voted to change a definition of marriage that has been going for five thousand years."--Lyonscc (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, you misrepresent Warrens views by assuming "judicial fiat" was the only reason he supported prop 8. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It was the reason he gave, and the reason under which all of his supporting comments were couched. If there were other bases of reason, he did not give them.--Lyonscc (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-negotiable principles for each issue
In response to the mediator's suggestion that to deal with available facts, it will be necessary "to agree on some principles for each issue and then work on a draft," I will point out that it's obvious that agreement on principles will not be forthcoming among the various parties to this mediation. I will list two examples of why this is the case; no doubt other examples may be found.


 * Lyonscc: "If we're going to include a description of Prop 8, it should be framed in terms of the subject of the article..." No. Descriptions need to be descriptions. They don't need to be bent based on the beliefs or fantasies held by the subject of the article. This is particularly important here since, as I've pointed out multiple times, it's evident that many if not most evangelical supporters of Prop 8 simply want their views codified into law - and do not care what the actual effect or the implementation of the law actually mean on the ground. That is why there is a two-part summary of what Prop 8 is in the second sentence of the Prop 8 article, to properly reflect this fact. (Note that I am not precluding inclusion of more detail on what Warren's actual opinion about Prop 8 might be, it's just that that has no bearing on what the description of Prop 8 should be - and that is also outside the scope of mediation.)


 * Collect: "Verifiable material about the church will be in that article, verifiable material directly about Warren goes in his article." No. This implies that some arbitrary gutting process must be undertaken that values putting individual facts in only one article or the other over all else. The result of this will be two gutted, meaningless articles which together might be meaningful but that individually will not include vital facts or a clear explanation of controversies. (Note that having gutted, meaningless articles on Wikipedia does serve the purpose of some - I'd say the two ejected editors with an obvious COI were working to make this happen.) Short of merging the two articles (which I've broached but which is far outside the scope of this mediation), enough detail about Saddleback Church must be included in this article about Warren to fully describe events and controversies involving Warren. Again, that must include mention of damage-control measures undertaken by the church and announced by Warren's spokesperson in fully explaining the controversy over Warren's remarks.

Again, given just these two examples (which I think illustrates that these two editors seem driven by other considerations of their own making, and not the usual Wikipedia policies and conventions) I do not think there's much of a point to continued mediation. Mike Doughney (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, both examples you've chosen spring directly from Wikipedia policies (particularly WP:BLP and WP:NPOV). I don't know how many times I've got to point it out, but this article is on Rick Warren - not Proposition 8.  Prop 8 has an article all of its own where every side of the debate can be represented and flushed out.  The article on Rick Warren is HIS biography, not a propaganda piece for framing Prop 8.  So, if you're going to include further information on Prop 8, it should be from the WP:POV of the subject of the WP:BLP, and how he framed his opinion on the subject.  Otherwise, it is not WP:NPOV, but is, instead, a coatrack for someone with an axe to grind.  If you listen to, and read, Warren's framing, there is no discussion of supposed "rights" at all, other than those of the voters which was subverted by four judges before it was put to right in Prop 8.  Since this is an article about Rick Warren, and not Prop 8, we should avoid creating original research by trying to ascribe descriptions to Prop 8 that Warren did not believe in, especially since Prop 8 has its own article, where the different views can be explored ad infinitum.  I fail to see why it's so gosh-darn important to spin Prop 8 in an article that's not even about it.--Lyonscc (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well it seems to me that you are completely mistaken (or, exhibiting an absurd, obtusely postmodernist insistence that definitions are completely arbitrary, contextual and a matter of opinion) when you say that the definition of an item must be adjusted to conform to the POV of the subject of an article when used in that article. There is nothing in all the articles in the links you've again so helpfully provided that begin with "WP:" that says that. Including information on Warren's framing or opinions (again, within reason, something I have no reason to immediately dismiss) doesn't change the generally accepted definition of terms, and I think something from the second sentence of a longstanding Wikipedia article (that was arrived at over months of work and consensus in which I participated, so I will note that arriving at that wording wasn't a trivial matter) certainly qualifies as "generally accepted." I don't understand why you can't see that there's a difference between the generally-accepted description, and what Warren thinks - and that what Warren thinks will not change that definition, whether the definition is included in this article or anywhere else. Mike Doughney (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm saying that every version I've seen of "eliminated the right" has at least given the appearance that Warren agreed with this view, which is absolutely not the case. There's no need for the clause, other than WP:NPOV propaganda purposes.--Lyonscc (talk) 03:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've seen nothing in any version that has that appearance. Perhaps the fact that "eliminated the right" would appear anywhere in the article is, for you, the problem? No proposal has said that Warren "eliminated the right" or that he agreed with that. The wording says that the proposition when enacted "eliminated the right," which is verifiable by numerous sources including the ballot title. I don't know what it is that you're asking to change short of the complete removal of those three words from anywhere in the article, and I don't think that's acceptable or justifiable. You have a really interesting description of "propaganda" if you think it applies to the ballot title language, the long-term consensus language from the second sentence of a Wikipedia article, and numerous other reliable sources. Again, I think that the basic principle of verifiability has long been under attack here. Mike Doughney (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)How can "Warren supported Proposition 8, which eliminated the right..." say that he believes it was a right? It is absolutely not NPOV to say it eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry, when the actual official title of Prop 8 was "Eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry". The official title of it is NPOV and not propaganda. Firestorm  Talk 03:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Lyonscc, I don't think you're being ignored re your point that the Rick Warren article is not a place to ramble on ad infinitum regarding Prop 8. I think we all actually agree with that, and we just have different opinions about how much info is too much.  Most of us think that readers will benefit from some info about what Prop 8 is in the Warren article, because it's mentioned in a small but high-profile episode in his life.  I think (though I may be misremembering) that you previously suggested that a simple wikilink would be sufficient, so perhaps anything more than that seems like overkill to you, but I think it's likely we're going to end up with something more than that and we're trying to find wording you can live with.


 * Re Warren's personal point of view re Prop 8, I think we all agree that the article should mention that he (supported/endorsed/whatever) it because that was one of the reasons for the controversy. If you want to include some quotes about it by Warren, I see no problem.  But it seems like you're saying it would be wrong for us to provide any information about it that does *not* come from a Warren quote, and it's not clear to me what you mean -- obviously the article is full of info about Warren's life that doesn't come from Warren's quotes, and you've previously expressed support for including info in the article that doesn't come from his quotes -- even info about Prop 8 (such as the language of the proposition). Benccc (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way folks I added a post near the end of the section regarding process -- I'm interested in your thoughts.Benccc (talk) 04:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I decline to accept the terms "NON NEGOTIABLE." This is mediation, not trenches in France. I sahll not reply to any claims that someth8ing is "non negotiable."  Collect (talk) 12:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Mediation does not preempt Wikipedia policies, which are the root issue here. Adherence to policy is, in fact, non-negotiable. Mike Doughney (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Reread your initial post and redact as needed then. Especially any claim that my sole consideration is not producing the best article possible here and elswhere on WP.  Collect (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I will be redacting nothing. I just choose to make a common sense argument without multiple links with "WP:" in them in every sentence. Both of my "no" statements above express the fact that the obstructionist positions taken by you and Lyonscc are baseless with respect to any Wikipedia policy or convention. Mike Doughney (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh? I have taken no "obstructionist positions" here at all -- perhaps you should reread the guidelines for mediation? Collect (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Obstructionist positions." Please avoid such comments. Sunray (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:DUCK. While I'm at it, here's a line from WP:TURNIP: "...gestures of good faith need not be extended toward an experienced editor who consistently violates fundamental policies and rebuffs appropriate overtures." Mike Doughney (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am competent to judge when policy is being violated for the purposes of this mediation. I am surprised that you would continue in this vein. You seem capable of reasonable discourse. Would you be willing to be more civil? Sunray (talk) 06:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand the rules against derogatory terminology, but i don't understand how to have a discussion without the use of objective terminology such as "obstructionist". If the word is the most accurate, correct, honest, simple word which means what i think it means, i should be allowed to say it. It's not a personal attack. It's not a failure to care about the successful compromises needed for mediation to work. It's honesty. It quacks like Obstruction, i'm calling it out. How many editors and administrators have to agree that the title on the official ballot ("Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry") is not something you can just filibuster out of this article for three months? I'll compromise on just about anything, but i will not accept this Obstructionist argument that the title of the Proposition 8 ballot label is somehow "PointOfView" or "not Verifiable" or "propagandist spin intended to vilify people like Warren who publicly supported it". Somebody mentioned Mediation can take more than six weeks, but i would like to point out these Warren/SaddleBacking articles have been edit-warred and Protected almost continuously since the end of December, so i don't toss out the word "Obstruction" lightly without examining the evidence and comparing it to other contentious Wikipedia articles. Thank you. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ Talk~ 4-1-1 ~ 01:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It tends to hinder progress when participants in a mediation make judgmental comments about each other. I have repeatedly requested participants to focus on content, not the contributor. It tends to take a great deal longer if participants do not follow basic norms of civility. Would you be able to abide by that simple rule? Sunray (talk) 06:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'll work harder on that. Are there any rules about filibustering? It also tends to hinder progress. When somebody says a Verifiable fact from a Reliable Source is a bit of "propaganda", i tend to be "judgmental" about whether that obstructs progress. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ Talk~ 4-1-1 ~ 06:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing is you were not set up to be the arbitrator of that. Sunray (talk) 07:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (Personal attack removed) If somebody around here thinks progress is being made, I certainly don't see it. Right now it's just a matter of who's going to be left standing and/or sane at the end of this so-called "process." Mike Doughney (talk) 07:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Continuing down this road not helpful. If you don't wish to continue, Mike, by all means recuse yourself. Sunray (talk) 07:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a joke - a very poor joke and a waste of time. I'm outta here. Mike Doughney (talk) 08:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Mike, I'm guessing we've all felt some weariness and frustration at various times in this process -- why not just take a break and return when you feel up to it.

FYI folks, I posted a question to Lyonscc above at the bottom of the section. Benccc (talk) 08:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Benccc, I second your comment to Mike. IMO Mike has made significant contributions to this mediation. I can see his frustration. I do hope he will return when he is able. Lyonscc: The policies you have been quoting are to be applied by us all. We all need to look at them to ensure we have a common interpretation. Without reiterating them yet again, would you be willing to respond to Benccc's request? Sunray (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've responded to Benccc's request, and provided, which specifically includes reference to SSM as a "right" within the context of the chain of events. I would hope that it would be considered with the assumption of good faith, since I am trying to find a compromise that is acceptable to the parties involved.--Lyonscc (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Lyonscc, I suspect that the request referred to by Sunray is the request I referred to in my post directly preceding hers, which is that you provide sources to back up your claim that a federal court could have overturned the CASC's finding that the California Constitution guarantees a right to marriage. Please do share your sources, please.


 * Lyonscc, I'm frustrated that you wrote that Option 6 includes "what Benccc, Phoenix_of9 and Teledil have all been asking for - that SSM be described as a 'right' between May 15 and November 4." I've tried hard to be clear that what I'm asking is that we restore the fact that Prop 8 eliminated the (x) of same-sex couples to marry.  What's more, I have substituted an "x" for "right" to indicate my willingness to hear you out regarding your assertion that "right" is inaccurate and/or violates WP policy.  I've also tried to be clear about the reason for my recommendation, which is that this fact was the single most controversial aspect of Prop 8, and will therefore help readers understand why Warren's endorsement resulted in controversy.  That last bit -- helping readers understand the controversy -- remains my focus.


 * Sunray, you wrote that Option 6 strikes a balance between the various views. But my view is that a certain fact will be useful to readers, and should not -- assuming it doesn't violate WP policy -- be excluded from the article.  I do not see that view reflected in Option 6.  As for my views about whether the California Supreme Court or same-sex marriage or Prop 8 or Rick Warren were right or wrong or good or bad, I believe they are irrelevant to my responsibility as an editor, and I have not imposed them on my fellow editors.  In fact, when I first added the explanation of Prop 8 to the article back in January -- before I knew anyone would wish to keep it out -- I used language sourced from the California Voter Guide (eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry) in order to avoid using POV language. Benccc (talk) 05:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Lyonscc, on second thought maybe Sunray was referring to the other question I asked you in that same post, which was: do you wish to persuade us that a word other than "right" belongs in "eliminated the (x) of same-sex couples to marry," or rather do you wish to persuade us that we must exclude the information altogether, even if we add information about Warren's personal views of Prop 8? I'd appreciate it if you'd answer that one too. Benccc (talk) 05:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Benccc, all references I could find (along with a phone call to a lawyer friend in CA) indicated that Prop 8 proponents held on any appeals decisions until after the election (waiting on Prop 8 decision). They did note (as is noted here  and elsewhere) that the "right" to SSM in California is only valid at the state level, and not at the federal level, and that the appeals were prepared to deal with issues under DOMA.  However, I believe that I have dealt with your "factoid" in Option 6.  It describes the circumstances under which SSM was a right (From June 18 to Nov 4), and notes that it was a California right (not a federal one, which it normally would be under the Commerce Clause, but for DOMA preventing it), and that Prop 8 would reverse the CASC decision.--Lyonscc (talk) 06:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Lyonscc, if I understand correctly, you accept that the federal government could not have overturned the In re Marriage Cases decision, which guaranteed only a right to marry within California. Further, if I understand correctly, you remain concerned that the line "eliminated the (x) of same-sex couples to marry" might lead readers to believe that such a right had existed at the federal level.


 * Is it fair to say, then, that you accept that the following is verifiable and NPOV (note the addition of the last five words):


 * "eliminated the (x) of same-sex couples to marry in the State of California"


 * I would be entirely supportive of such language. Please confirm that if we use additional language to ensure that readers understand Warren's personal views of Proposition 8, as you've previously said you wished to do, you could accept this line. Benccc (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not accept that the federal government could not have overturned this - the appeal had not been submitted, pending the outcome of Proposition 8, but was still an available avenue. Since WP:CRYSTAL would prevent any speculation of its outcome, though, I can see that it is better to not bring this into the article.  However, I do accept that we have no need to argue this point if the chain of events is listed concisely (as has been done in Options 6 and 6a), so that the nature of the "right" is understood with its chronological context.  Both Option 6 and Option 6a also include the ballot title (which has been your sticking point), since enough context has been provided, with that context being - a) overturn of Prop 22; b) dissenting view of 'judicial fiat'; c) refusal to stay ruling for Prop 8; d) actual language of Prop 8; e) ultimate result of Prop 8.--Lyonscc (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

goodbye hello again
Due to the supposedly privleged nature of mediation (which seems like patent nonsense, since anybody can read any of these pages any time they want) i am unable to bring Collect's and Lyonscc's actions here to RFC, WQA, and ANI. However, i would like to mention that outside of this particular mediation, Collect has been repeatedly trying to get me to rise to his flamebait this morning (on Talkpages William Timmons, Talkpage for User Dicklyon) and this is after many previous incidents of edit-warring and insulting, and joining up with user THF to intentionally bully. This makes it impossible for me to participate in this mediation in Good Faith, and i was an absolute idiot for even trying. I am deeply personally insulted that Collect would return to these tactics after i put so much effort into raising the quality of my own behavior and Good Faith toward him during the past two months.

Firestorm, PhoenixOf9, Benccc, Mike Doughney: sorry i couldn't be more helpful, i thank you for all the work you do here. Sunray: i'm sure you're a very patient and reasonable mediator, i wish you well in your efforts. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ Talk~ 4-1-1 ~ 12:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you feel that way. However, we do need to focus on the issues under mediation. The privileged nature of mediation is an important principle, long held in mediation; not only in Wikipedia. We would have a great deal of difficulty resolving disputes were it otherwise. Thank you for your participation. Sunray (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

[Removed information posted by Collect that does not pertain directly to the issues under mediation] Sunray (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Teledildonix314, I'll say to you what I previously said to Mike, which is that we've probably all felt some weariness and frustration at various times in this process -- why not just take a break and return when you feel up to it. Benccc (talk) 09:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

violating privilege? i'm returning to cooperate, but i need clarification please
After already saying "goodbye" but then changing my mind i'm returning for several reasons. I don't want to derail the mediation as progress is being made but i must address the important issue of the "Privileged Nature of Communications During Mediation".

I believe firmly that mediation deserves to be privileged, but you all must be aware that anybody can read these Mediation pages, they are not "hidden" in any way at this time. Nevertheless, i can keep my mouth shut, and i would never divulge your privileged comments here, just as i would never purposely "out" an editor. I might be obsessively honest, but i'm not an idiot, i know when to shut up.

So when i said "goodbye" yesterday, user:Collect proceeded to accuse me of "a strange attempt at violating the privilege of Mediation", and then Sunray removed that irrelevant accusation.

However, nobody has made any effort to address the way in which Lyonscc violated "the privilege of Mediation" a week ago. Did none of you feel that i should be defended from such a violation? Did Sunray or anybody else feel that this was a grossly unfair way to treat me in this mediation? Did nobody notice?

When we were having problems with edit-wars on the Rick Warren article during the past few months, the administrator VirtualSteve kindly dealt with the situation. Then Mike Doughney discovered how CarverM was Rick Warren's close advisor and a top-ranking employee of the church, and so Mike went to VirtualSteve while i went to the COI Noticeboards. As a result, VirtualSteve banned CarverM from touching the Saddleback/Warren articles. But Lyonscc was so angry at my supposed "religious slurs", he complained to THF and Kevin and Firestorm, and VirtualSteve blocked me for a week as a result, based on apparent WP:Civil infringement. Then user:Collect falsely accused me and Mike of "outing" CarverM; VirtualSteve quickly disabused Collect of that absurdity, and told Collect that an apology was due to me and to Mike. Collect left an apology on VirtualSteve's page, saying sorry for the wrongful accusation. I point this out, to demonstrate that i have a proven record of never "outing" anybody, just as i would never "violate privileged communications of mediation".

So a week ago, at 18:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Lyonscc went to the Wikiquette Alerts and blatantly violated our privileged communication! Due to my inexperience, i didn't realize this was a much more serious offense than any quibbles over my supposed disparagement of religion, and fearing further WP:Civil infringements, i then reassured Lyonscc and all of you of my utmost adherence to WP:CIVIL by editing several parts of our mediation page here to simply show "struck-through text by Teledildonix314 removed".

So my Question Number 1 is: what do we do about Lyonscc violating privilege?

Question Number 2: do we simultaneously address the issue where i was falsely accused by user:Collect of such a violation? An apology would be nice, plus clarification of the rules from the mediator and administrators would be excellent for future reference (although i hope i never have to go through this kind of rigmarole ever again!)

Question 3: can we still go ahead and work on this mediation anyway, even if Lyonscc and Collect are abusing the process, violating the rules, and making me feel subject to their hostility? I'll either continue working on the Rick Warren and Saddleback Church articles if i am still welcome, or i will go away and never edit this article again if the mediator or administrators say that i should not be welcome here.

Meanwhile, i have some responses to other portions of this TalkPage, i will post them in a few minutes. Thank you. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ Talk~ 4-1-1 ~ 03:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 1 - My apologies for the Alert, this is my first mediation ever, and I'd never heard of the privilege. In fact, I just read up on it for the first time, and didn't even understand what the hubub was about yesterday.--Lyonscc (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 2 - Have you properly disclosed the COI you may have with your businesses/websites?--Lyonscc (talk) 04:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have any businesses, and my website is clearly linked from my UserPage, along with tons of identifying information which clearly states my biases. I have invited you repeatedly to examine my bias and weed it out of any edits to articles, i only express my bias on TalkPages, i don't put my bias into articles. I'm pretty sure Collect was making baseless allegations about "thousands of businesses" in regards to Mike Doughney, not in regards to me. You can check Mike Doughney on any search engine to see his websites about Biblical America Resistance Front (BARF), he never kept it a secret, he always used his real name. I've always put my real name and my personal webpage URLs on my userpage, including my personal diary and description of viewpoints. I am unable to have "any business", as i have been medically disabled from any business activities for the past eight years. Thank you for your apology, i want to Assume Good Faith, but i seriously doubt i am receiving the same treatment which i am giving. If we can all stick to the Golden Rule, maybe the mediation would work better. That would mean i will continue to try to avoid saying anything which offends your religious feelings, and it would mean you might consider avoiding offending the editors by following the rules of Privileged Mediation and by keeping your bias strictly limited to this Discussion page instead of applying the biased Point Of View to the edit Options we are suggesting. But that's just the way i see it, maybe i'm wrong, i hope an experienced mediator or administrator such as Sunray or VirtualSteve will be able to keep everything very clear for us. Thank you, i don't want hard feelings, i just want resolution to this tedious process.


 * And it should be said: everybody has Interests. That doesn't automatically meant the Interests will Conflict with the edits. It just means we have to keep our Interests from disturbing our Neutrality and Civility. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ Talk~ 4-1-1 ~ 05:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the clarification, Tele.--Lyonscc (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not returning. However, given the nature of the vague accusation made by Collect in the direction of Tele and/or me - an accusation that I consider defamatory and that was since struck without further sanctions - I'll note the following for clarification.
 * As far as I can remember I've never written anything about Rick Warren anywhere other than here on Wikipedia in connection with this article.
 * I edit under my own name and have been quite open about my views here, particularly on the article's talk page. Likewise, googling on my name returns plenty of past work which again makes no secret of what my views are.
 * I have worked toward nothing more than for inclusion in the article of widely-reported facts about the article's subject, working neither to sanitize the article of inconvenient facts troublesome to Warren nor to impose my point of view on this article. (As is obvious, there are any number of other more appropriate outlets at my fingertips in which to put forward my views about Warren or anybody else, should I choose to do that.)
 * I receive no compensation for anything published on any of my websites. There may have been some links to Amazon placed with that possibility in mind on a website I run, but the few dollars earned from that over the past few years is a trivial amount and doesn't even begin to cover my costs.
 * It is clear that striking Collect's false, defamatory and ridiculous accusation (six thousand websites?) was insufficient, since as a result of that false and defamatory accusation Lyons has now demanded some "disclosure" regarding "COI" which clearly does not exist. I think Collect's false and defamatory accusation, posted here without even the slightest shred of supporting information (which of course does not exist) is reason to block him and give him a month-long or so time-out. But that won't be happening - actual enforcement with respect to spreading such defamatory fictions is clearly non-existent, as is any enforcement against those who advocate ignoring core policy and imposing their own agendas - which is why I'm not here. Mike Doughney (talk) 05:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:COI : "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest."  Your posts and actions which you call "oppositional research", (including articles mentioning the Southern Baptists among others) places you in that camp per your numerous anti-religious articles.  This is sufficient to answer your post at this time. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Collect (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The privileged nature of communication
Let me first try to clarify what privilege means in WP mediation. I recommend that you read the section of the mediation policy on the privileged nature of mediation. Privilege in mediation means that what is said here cannot be used in any other Wikipedia dispute resolution process. It does not mean secret. People can read these mediations and (hopefully) learn from them. But nothing said here can be used against you in arbitration.

Comment on accusations
The subject matter for this page is only the issues agreed to on the Requests for mediation page. There is nothing to be gained from making accusations (in fact, I will probably remove them). There is little to be gained in complaining here about what another participant has done elsewhere. As far as complaining elsewhere about what someone has done here: That is an abuse of the mediation process. As you all can see it hinders progress here. However, while it is an act of bad faith, there is no law against it.

Now, since you asked for advice, I will give some: If you think that there is an issue that bears on this mediation, let's deal with it here. if it is an outside matter, deal with it elsewhere. But don't get stuck polishing these precious little nuggets of resentment. Please try to move on. Those that are interested in doing some serious mediation, lets get on with it. I need your help for it to be a success. I need people to do some work. Not quote rules; apply them. Not point fingers; listen. In a word: collaborate. Don't think I don't know that it ain't easy. But there are huge rewards if you can do it. End of lecture. Who is ready to give it a serious try? Sunray (talk) 07:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand if you think i'm polishing some resentment nuggets, and i find such a suggestion quite near to Bad Faith. I never did any edits to Wikipedia except Minor Edits, until three months ago. I have never been in a Mediation before. I don't really know for sure what Arbitration is really all about, i have no experience nor knowledge. I've had no education except what i could find on my own and from the suggestions of VirtualSteve and Mike Doughney. In the last three months i have come up developed the skills of civility and literacy and meta-analysis to edit and participate in TalkPages at a collegiate standard which is not being reciprocated. Basic principles of Civility and Good Faith are consistently denied during a formal mediation process, and yet i have been blocked for less. Common sense isn't even being applied to the simplistic gaming of the system in which a pebble is thrown into the gears, causing our mill to grind to a halt, and somehow all the millers pretend they can make the pebble compromise when it demonstrates three months of intransigence.


 * I followed your suggestions and came back to the mediation tonight with a proposal to incorporate points that i thought were relevant to resolution of the topics on the front page of this mediation case. In response i was ridiculed again and again. So shame on me for not learning the first time, any reasonable editor would not have put this much effort into the simple case of how to prevent the whitewashing of a BLP. I was an unreasonable editor, thinking i could get things right by following the rules of the system while being totally honest and open about my viewpoints. Mike was of course correct, it does seem to be a pointless game of absurd postmodern obtuse protracted delaying tactics. I know there must be a Wikipedia policy to prevent such improper filibusters which are not truly intended to reach compromises. Too bad somebody didn't enforce it weeks or months ago. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ Talk~ 4-1-1 ~ 08:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

response to a post by Phoenix which is in an owned section

 * I suggest you move this to Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As it was moved from there, I am amazed it is in a new section. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it wasnt moved from there. Keep track of where you post. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It was right here in fact -- dunno who inserted the "Collect" section title though. It is not needed. Collect (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you not use edit history? It was in the section "Clarifications for Sunray". I moved it to "Collect", suggesting you to move it to "To include a quote of Warren from a Wall Street Journal interview or not / James Dobson - Rick Warren". Please do not include in my section, it is not about content discussion, but about clarifying points in the mediation. Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Doing it after I objected to it makes no sense. You do not, as far as I know, "own" a section.   Thanks! Collect (talk) 00:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We seem to be having a communication problem. Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Thanks most kindly! Collect (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, please keep it civil, Collect. Sunray (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

option 7 combining Invocation on 20th, MLK on 19th, explains Divisive vs Unifying

 * Warren publicly supported California Proposition 8 (2008), which amended the state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry, a basic civil right which they had only very recently begun to enjoy. The amendment was passed on November 4, 2008, by a very slim majority of 52.3% "Yes" versus 47.7% "No". This was the same day when Barack Obama was elected to become America's newest president with one of the highest rates of voter turnout in the nation's history. After Prop 8 was successfully passed in November, the Saddleback Church was targeted by thousands of protesters. Proponents of human rights, same-sex marriage, and other minority rights were dismayed by the loss of the recently gained freedom to marry, and for years they had been unhappy with Warren's positions against abortion and other secular issues.


 * Six weeks after winning the presidential election, Barack Obama chose Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration ceremony to be held on January 20, 2009. This decision angered civil rights advocates and led to criticism of both Obama and Warren. Official statements indicated Obama had chosen Warren in the hope of bringing unity and togetherness at a time of national difficulties; unfortunately some critics had the opposite perception instead. The choice was berated because gay-rights and pro-life groups felt Warren was extremely divisive rather than unifying.


 * 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 MLK Day events traditionally recognize achievements in the promotion of human rights, and Warren was chosen partly because of his church's efforts to fight poverty and AIDS in Africa and other continents. But many people felt Warren's public positions as an Evangelical Christian minister were detrimental to the progress of civil rights (as evidenced by Warren's support for Prop 8) thus the Commemorative Service in Atlanta was also targeted by protesters during those days leading up to the keynote speech and the Presidential Inauguration. Rick Warren's official spokespeople indicated Warren would refuse to answer all questions about his appearances at the MLK Day events and the Inauguration, explaining that Warren did not wish to distract from Obama's (and King Jr.'s) important messages of unity. On Inauguration Day, Warren delivered the Invocation at the Washington ceremony which was observed by millions.

If those three paragraphs are too far removed from the Options proposed by Benccc and Mike Doughney and PhoenixOf9 and Firestorm, i will gladly invite everybody to chop and hack and gussy them up until they are acceptable, or we can disregard them and i would happily go closer to a text similar to the recent proposal from Benccc. Thanks!

~ Teledildonix314 ~ Talk~ 4-1-1 ~ 04:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * [Uncivil and unhelpful comments removed].
 * Lyonscc, saying things like "WP:NOR violations all over the place..." are unhelpful. Would you be able to work collaboratively? If you think that there is a breach of policy, would you please state what exactly is in breach. Above all, please keep a civil tone. One way to do this is to use "I" messages. Sunray (talk) 08:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Pardon me, i am serious, but perfectly willing to let you strikethrough all over that text and propose changes, maybe with different colors to show your improvements? When you say "this isn't even a serious proposal", you are overtly expressing failure to Assume Good Faith. Perhaps the Golden Rule would encourage you to redact that.


 * The whole "unifying vs. divisive" is what seemed to be the source of much controversy mentioned in the CNN and USAToday articles, because we are being told Obama expected "unifying" while the gay-rights and abortion-rights PFAW people were outraged at "divisive". I thought that was a major factor described in our sources, but if you would like to look at those sources and correct me, i welcome some improved text. Or you can ignore my Option 7 and go back to the texts where Benccc and Firestorm and PhoenixOf9 were very close to consensus with you, that's also where i'm willing to go work. I don't "own" this article, i just thought i'd try to make a constructive suggestion of Optional text. sigh. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ Talk~ 4-1-1 ~ 07:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Teledildonix314: Before we start to work on yet another proposal, it would likely be a good idea to agree on what will go into it. There has been progress on the Prop 8 issue. Option 6a is currently being worked on. It seems to me that we need to get some agreement on some of the other issues and then either finalize one of the existing options or agree to work on a new option. Sunray (talk) 08:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Teledildonix314, I appreciate your effort here, but I agree with Sunray that we should first get clarity on the content.


 * Sunray, yesterday you wrote that you'd like to see proposed wording, but it seems to me that without agreement regarding the factoids within the words, responses to proposals often end up focusing not on the wording but rather on whether the factoids themselves are accurate or belong in the article. I wonder if we could make better progress by taking some time to sort out which factoids to include in the article, then see if we can group factoids thematically and finally tie them together with wording.  This is one of the things I have in mind when I periodically ask if folks would consider breaking some things down into smaller decision items, which we could then build on.  I don't recall that anyone has said yea or nay to trying that.  Might that help us make progress? Benccc (talk) 08:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Also it's hard to keep up with all the various conversations and loose ends. Sunray, I have a comment for you near the end of the  section, and a reply to you at the end of the  section.  Lyonscc, I have a question for you at the end of the  section, and another at the end of the  section.  Is anyone waiting for a reply from me on anything? Benccc (talk) 08:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it has become far too unwieldy. Breaking things down into smaller decision items might be a good way to go. Sunray (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)