Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Rick Warren

This Request for Mediation has been closed. This case was closed by: Sunray (talk) 06:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC). The reason given for closure was: Successful. Parties: If you wish to resume this mediation, please file a new request.

Archives

• Archive 1 - Initial statements
• Archive 2 - Summary; Process; Option 3
• Archive 3 - Options
• Archive 4 - Work plan
• Archive 5 - Prop 8 v. 4.1 - 6.X
• Archive 6 - Continuing discussion of Prop 8
• Archive 7 - Finalized Prop 8; Dobson; Saddleback

Final draft of wording re: Proposition 8

[See discussion in Archive 7] Sunray (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Two weeks before the 2008 U.S. general election, Warren issued a statement to his congregation endorsing California Proposition 8, which would amend the California Constitution to say "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," thereby eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry.[1][2] Warren's position was consistent with the official position of his church's denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, and reflected his belief that this definition of marriage "has been supported by every single culture, and every single religion for 5,000 years."[3][4] Warren stated that the measure was necessary because the Supreme Court of California "threw out the will of the people" in May 2008 when it found, in the In Re Marriage Cases decision, that the previous statutory ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.[5] After the measure passed, Warren's church and others were targeted by protesters.[6]

Beliefnet

Here are some examples of how the Beliefnet matter was reported in the mainstream media:

• Associated Press [7]

"I have many gay friends. I've eaten dinner in gay homes. No church has probably done more for people with AIDS than Saddleback Church," he said in a recent interview with BeliefNet. But later in the interview, he compared the "redefinition of marriage" to include gay marriage to legitimizing incest, child abuse, and polygamy.

• New York Times [8]

Mr. Warren, who brought both John McCain and Mr. Obama to his California church this past August, in at least one interview likened committed gay relationships to incest and polygamy.

• USA Today [9]

Like Obama, Warren opposes same-sex "marriage." But Warren, unlike Obama, campaigned against legalized gay marriage in California, and in a much-replayed video interview on Beliefnet.com, Warren equated gay marriage with incest.

• Toronto Star [10]

Warren has likened gay marriage to pedophilia and incest.

I had proposed to summarize the incident in a way that would make no assertion about whether Warren equated SSM to incest, pedophilia and polygamy, but would simply quote what may have been nothing more than a misstatement or careless choice of words, as follows:

• In early December, Warren again sparked controversy by answering "I do" when asked whether same-sex marriages are equivalent to marriages between siblings, adults and minors, and multiple partners.[11][12] He later released a video message saying he does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia, but rather opposes the redefinition of marriage.[13]

Lyonscc, you expressed concern that this would violate contextomy and wp:nor because, in your view, Warren's subsequent comments reveal that his "I do" had a different meaning. Your view is evidently not shared by the news sources I cited, all of which had access to the full transcript of the interview. Whatever we may personally believe about Warren's intentions, or about whether he was misunderstood, it is accurate to say that his "I do" sparked controversy by creating the impression that he equated yadda yadda. Nonetheless I don't think it's essential to quote from the interview in order to inform readers about the controversy. We could say:

• In early December, Warren again sparked controversy by appearing to equate same-sex marriage with incest, pedophilia and polygamy in an interview with Beliefnet.[14][15] He later released a video message saying he does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia, but rather opposes the redefinition of marriage.[16]

...or:

• In early December, Warren was again a figure of controversy when it was reported that he had equated same-sex marriage with incest, pedophilia and polygamy in an interview with Beliefnet.[17][18] He later released a video message saying he does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia, but rather opposes the redefinition of marriage.[19]

Benccc (talk) 09:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Where it is clear that he did not, in fact, make the equating claimed. it is inaccurate in a BLP to report that someone reported he made that equating. We might as well report that someone equates Warren with Hitler (invoking Godwin) as to "report a report." Collect (talk) 10:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree w/ Collect here. This is an example of quote mining. Just because a RS engaged in quote mining to create a controversy does not mean that this fallacy of quoting out of context should be propogated in a biography page. Per WP:BLP it is important that we 'get it right'. In this case, 'getting it right' means giving the full quote or no quote at all. With this in mind, I would still support the very first suggestion you made for this item:

• In December 2008, President-elect Obama chose Warren to deliver the Invocation at his Inauguration. Obama's choice was criticized by several notable organizations in part because of his position on same-sex marriage and abortion, and also because of a recent interview of Warren in which he said he opposed marriage between siblings, adults and minors, and multiple partners. Obama later defended his selection, saying that he disagreed with the minister's opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage but that there should be room for dialogue on such difficult social issues.

--Lyonscc (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should stint at finding quotes that bear on this subject. However we need to recognize that the above quotes are from the news media. Words like "pedophilia" clearly sell news. A more neutral approach would stay close to Warren's actual words, as this latter wording does. May I suggest that you use this wording as a starting point and consider whether anything needs to be added or subtracted from it? Sunray (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

And clearly I support that last wording as being accurate and concise, without adding any editorializing at all. Collect (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Concise, yes, but accurate? That notable organizations criticized Obama because Warren said he opposed marriage between siblings, adults and minors, and multiple partners? We haven't seen sources to that effect. Most people oppose those things. Opposition to those things does not generally ignite controversy. The controversy was over the same-sex marriage angle.

Collect, you say "it is clear that he did not, in fact, make the equating claimed," which I take to mean that you disagree with the Associated Press, New York Times, USA Today, etc. Lyonscc, you say you think the media "engaged in quote mining to create a controversy." I don't think it's our business as editors to speculate about whether the media was plainly mistaken (Collect) or manipulated the facts (Lyonscc). Those are respected, mainstream sources, and the point on which they agree was a significant one.

In the language I proposed above, which I repeat below, I wrote not that Warren equated SSM to anything but rather that he appeared to, and I followed it immediately with a line about Warren's subsequent statement on the subject:

• In early December, Warren again sparked controversy by appearing to equate same-sex marriage with incest, pedophilia and polygamy in an interview with Beliefnet.[20][21] He later released a video message saying he does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia, but rather opposes the redefinition of marriage.[22]

It seems to me this is a reasonable presentation of the incident, within the bounds of policy, and has some chance of enduring. Benccc (talk) 07:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"by appearing to" is an editorial comment, not a statement of indisputable fact. "Later released" is factual as far as timeline, but appears to enter a value area like "However he said" or "But he said" or the like. And by placing it after the "appears to" bit gives a different weight intrinsically to each. Why not:

Warren said he did not equate same sex marriage with polygamy, incest, or adult-child marriages after some news sources used a Beliefnet interview to imply that he did make that comparison. He stated that he opposed any definition of marriage as other than between one man and one woman.

Note "Pedophilia" was not used in the interview, and it is quite a loaded term, and one which I feel would detract substantially from this BLP. Collect (talk) 11:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

(Out) I think Collect's version covers the facts of the controversy and avoids the issues with contextomy and avoids editorializing.--Lyonscc (talk) 11:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Benccc, how would we deal with neutrality concerns if we include the words "incest, pedophilia and polygamy"? As a criminologist, I am very aware how these terms are used to create moral panic. In order to provide balance, would we not have to get deeper into the political overtones? I'm not convinced that such socio-political discussion would be appropriate in a biography. Nevertheless, if you think that it is important to use those words, would you be able to provide further justification? By that, I mean responding the concern that we are an encyclopedia, not a news medium, and explaining how we could achieve a neutral point of view. Sunray (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Collect, the version you proposed says nothing about the controversy that erupted over Warren's response to Waldman's question. Also, if we were to write that news sources "used a Beliefnet interview to imply" something about Warren; we'd be suggesting that the sources were unfair or inaccurate. Also the sources didn't imply that Warren made the comparison; they directly stated it.

On consideration, I don't think the "appearing to equate" or "it was reported he had equated" versions I proposed are sound either. I continue to believe that the following proposal, though previously rejected by Lyonscc and Collect, is clear, accurate, verifiable, and fair to Warren in that it links to the Beliefnet interview (so people can hear Warren's answer themselves), describes his follow-up clarification/defense, and links to that clarification/defense:

• In early December, Warren again sparked controversy by answering "I do" when asked whether same-sex marriages are equivalent to marriages between siblings, adults and minors, and multiple partners.[23][24] He later released a video message saying he does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia, but rather opposes the redefinition of marriage.[25]

Sunray, the words incest, pedophilia and polygamy are sometimes used to create moral panic, and at other times are simply used factually; I give the Associated Press, New York Times, and USA Today the benefit of a doubt regarding their use of the terms. Hotter terms ("child-rape") and cooler terms ("having a brother and sister be together," in Warren's words) are available; I think of the terms used by the sources as the standard terms. Regardless of the terms used, the things they describe are -- by any name -- morally and legally quite hot, which presumably is why the Beliefnet interview caused a ruckus. In the first sentence of the version I propose above, I used cool terms ("marriages between siblings, adults and minors, and multiple partners"), and in the second sentence I used the terms used by Warren himself in the cited video (in which Warren said "I have been accused of equating gay partnerships with incest and pedophilia. Now of course as members of Saddleback Church, you know, I believe no such thing.").

Collect and Lyonscc, I don't presume to know what Warren believes, or what he meant to say during the Beliefnet interview. Perhaps he misspoke. When Waldman asked him whether he thinks marriages between siblings, adults and minors, and multiple partners are equivalent to gays getting married, Warren meant to say "Oh, I don't," or even "no," and the whole thing wouldn't have blown up the way it did. But he said "Oh, I do," which seems like a pretty clear response. When you watch the video of the interview, you can see that this is not an excerpt of a longer sentence such as "Oh, I do not think that's true at all." It's a complete sentence. You seem to be arguing that reasonable people should not have heard it as a "yes," and should instead have heard it as a "no." You seem to be arguing that if only everyone heard what Warren said after he said "Oh, I do," they would realize that Warren wasn't responding to Waldman's question. But the reliable sources mentioned above (which are among the most respected of mainstream news sources) did hear what Warren said next, and this did not lead them to your view of the matter.

The interviewer himself, Steve Waldman, is the former National Editor of U.S. News & World Report and also a former national correspondent for Newsweek.[26] For this reason, I'm inclined to think he's fairly experienced with interviews and analysis. I recommend his blog post titled "Why Rick Warren's Controversial Words on Gay Marriage Are Entirely My Fault" in which he makes some useful points about this controversy.[27]

Sunray, what guidance can you offer regarding the question of whether the version I propose above, in this post, would violate WP policy or guidelines? Benccc (talk) 04:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that the best version is the one that simply quotes him (first on what he originally said, and then when he uses the words pedophillia, incest and polygamy in the beliefnet interview. I've given several reasons why I think we should avoid the statements of the news media that use the hot button words, but the most telling, I think, is the fact that this is a biography of Warren, not an account of the controversy. By using his own words, we cover the same ground without following the line of the media (which inevitably, he does anyway). Sunray (talk) 06:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I consider the "I do" as a stand-alone quote to be misleading where there is much material which makes his position clear, and for which the "I do" becomes a simplistic misstatement of his position as made in other interviews. "Sound bites" do not make for good encyclopedia articles at all. The goal here is to get the article right, not to have the article include claims which other quotes from the person contradict. Collect (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding: " Actually, in my interview, the only relationships he mentioned were the most nefarious ones, between siblings (incest), an older man and a child (pedophilia) and polygamy. He did not mention people living together or common law partnerships, and if he had, it would have entirely changed the implication of his comment. " Note that Warren did not use the term "pedophilia" according to [28] the interviewer. "BELIEFNET: Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married? Oh , I do. For 5,000 years, marriage has been defined by every single culture and every single religion - this is not a Christian issue. Buddhist, Muslims, Jews - historically, marriage is a man and a woman. And the reason I supported Proposition 8, is really a free speech issue. Because first the court overrode the will of the people, but second there were all kinds of threats that if that did not pass then any pastor could be considered doing hate speech if he shared his views that he didn't think homosexuality was the most natural way for relationships, and that would be hate speech. We should have freedom of speech, ok? And you should be able to have freedom of speech to make your position and I should be able to have freedom of speech to make my position, and can't we do this in a civil way. Most people know I have many gay friends. I've eaten dinner in gay homes. No church has probably done more for people with AIDS than Saddleback Church. Kay and I have given millions of dollars out of Purpose Driven Life helping people who got AIDS through gay relationships. So they can't accuse me of homophobia. I just don't believe in the redefinition of marriage." thus showing that "I do" was not considered by the interviewer as a two word answer to the question, and using "I do" as the sole answer in inaccurate according to the interviewer, as is also the use of "pedophilia" or "incest" as an implied quote. [29] has the transcript from the interviewer, which is a better source than any video per WP:RS. Collect (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. He didn't use the words in the beliefnet interview. Did he use them in his apology? Sunray (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I found no use by him of those words in anything related to "equating" them with same-sex marriage. And, as I noted, the transcript makes clear that the answer was not just "I do" which makes that quote-mining inapt for a BLP. Collect (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sunray, Warren did not issue an apology; he recorded a video in which he acknowledged the controversy: "I have been accused of equating gay partnerships with incest and pedophilia. Now of course as members of Saddleback Church, you know, I believe no such thing. ... I understand how some people think that, because of a recent Beliefnet interview."[30]

In reply to my question, you wrote "we should avoid the statements of the news media that use the hot button words." To clarify, I was asking you for guidance regarding language that does not quote the media at all:

• In early December, Warren again sparked controversy by answering "I do" when asked whether same-sex marriages are equivalent to marriages between siblings, adults and minors, and multiple partners.[31][32] He later released a video message saying he does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia, but rather opposes the redefinition of marriage.[33]

Sunray, please advise whether either or both of those two sentences would violate WP policy or guidelines. Benccc (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, not an apology. The video he released to Saddleback Church members is what I was referring to. As to whether your proposed text meets policy and guidelines. That is not the question I think we should be addressing. Of course we should meet policy and guidelines. This mediation turns on how best to do that. Sunray (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The quote fully (per transcript) is "Oh , I do. For 5,000 years, marriage has been defined by every single culture and every single religion - this is not a Christian issue. Buddhist, Muslims, Jews - historically, marriage is a man and a woman. And the reason I supported Proposition 8, is really a free speech issue. Because first the court overrode the will of the people, but second there were all kinds of threats that if that did not pass then any pastor could be considered doing hate speech if he shared his views that he didn't think homosexuality was the most natural way for relationships, and that would be hate speech. We should have freedom of speech, ok? And you should be able to have freedom of speech to make your position and I should be able to have freedom of speech to make my position, and can't we do this in a civil way. Most people know I have many gay friends. I've eaten dinner in gay homes. No church has probably done more for people with AIDS than Saddleback Church. Kay and I have given millions of dollars out of Purpose Driven Life helping people who got AIDS through gay relationships. So they can't accuse me of homophobia. I just don't believe in the redefinition of marriage." I would suggest that eliding it to "I do" is a misleading use of what the Beliefnet transcript clearly presents. Collect (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should not reproduce this full quote. Most of it is off topic. I would suggest using the following excerpt "I do... I just don't believe in the redefinition of marriage." Sunray (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

(out) Collect has it correct - the simple "I do" is an example of quote mining/contextomy. It's not an issue that "I do" should have been "I don't" - it was that "I do" was a modifier to changing the definition of marriage (as in evidence by the full quote, as was captured by the interviewer in the transcript as a single thought, as well), not a modifier comparing SSM to the other relationships. As such, Collect's version gets it right, sans any quote:

• Warren said he did not equate same sex marriage with polygamy, incest, or adult-child marriages after some news sources used a Beliefnet interview to imply that he did make that comparison. He stated that he opposed any definition of marriage as other than between one man and one woman.

Otherwise, if we're going to include "I do", we must include the entire quote to avoid quote mining/contextomy, which would be a violation of wp:blp, wp:nor, wp:v and wp:npov. It is clear from the entire quote that Warren's "I do" is a modifier to changing the definition of marriage, not a modifier to same-sex marriage. Thus, without the full quote, "I do" gives an meaning other than was was stated by Warren in the interview.--Lyonscc (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The "I do" even with the partial quote is still fully out of context and is used to imply that Warren did make an equation which he quite specifically did not make. Our obligation to get this right is great. The obligation to avoid implying what is not supported by a full quote is strong. Either we use substantially the full response, or we do not use "I do" at all. Otherwise we are quote mining. I note an earlier claim that all he said was "I do" has been shown to be inapt. Collect (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Lyonscc and Collect: The references to "quote mining" and "contextomy" do not represent policies and I would suggest that we omit further reference to them. I agree that just quoting him as saying "I do" is not adequate. But I don't think it would be appropriate to use the whole quote either. It is rambling and much of it does not respond directly to the question. As I've mentioned above, the key is to capture the essence of what he is saying. Again, I think that saying: "I do... I just don't believe in the redefinition of marriage" does capture his meaning. Is there a better way of phrasing it? Sunray (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

How about omitting the misleading use of "I do" and restrict ourselves to what you consider the salient bit "I just don't believe in the redefinition of marriage"? Collect (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you show me how that would look in a sentence? Sunray (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps: "In early December, Warren again sparked controversy by answering "I just don't believe in the redefinition of marriage" when asked whether same-sex marriages are equivalent to marriages between siblings, adults and minors, and multiple partners. "(cite transcript not video per WP:V)

Clearly the simple "I do" substantially misrepresents the entirety of his answer per the transcript.

Or better: "In early December, Warren again sparked controversy by answering "I just don't believe in the redefinition of marriage" when asked why he opposed same-sex marriages. " (transcript)

Which avoids all the miscellaneous stuff which is not actually relevant to the issue -- he supported Proposition 8. Collect (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Collect and Lyonscc, it seems you're arguing that the news media erred or manipulated the facts regarding Warren's Beliefnet interview, and you're arguing that reasonable people should not believe that Warren answered Waldman's question affirmatively. To better understand our disagreement about that, I'd like to clarify some areas of agreement.

1. I think we all agree that Waldman asked Warren a direct and clear question; at least I have not seen you claim otherwise. It was a question that could be answered with a simple yes or no.

2. After Waldman asked the question, the first sentence out of Warren's mouth was "Oh, I do." I think we can agree that before Warren spoke further, most people would have heard "Oh, I do" as an affirmative answer to Waldman's question, i.e. synonymous with "yes." Am I right?

3. I think we can agree that the subsequent sentences Warren spoke do not directly or explicitly address the question of whether same-sex marriage is equivalent to marriage between siblings, adults and children, or multiple partners. Most of those subsequent sentences didn't even contain the word "marriage."

Is it understandable to you that those sentences did not change the belief of many reasonable people that Warren had answered Waldman's question affirmatively? Benccc (talk) 05:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No. The transcript makes the full answer clear, and trying to use the misleading first two words only in against the principle of getting the article right. There is no doubt that using only the first two words substantially distorts Warren's position as given in the interview. WP does not support using words to distort positions. And asserting or implying that "I do" was the answer is a misuse of the transcript entirely, as was the assertion made earlier that it was essentially his full answer. We ought not make such errors in a BLP ever. Collect (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Benccc, actually, having watched Warren being interviewed for several years now, I would note that he is rather poor at expressing himself in a live interview format (which is a common trait of preachers, who are used to giving long answers rather than sound-bites, and who are used to answering questions before they're fully asked - often missing the point if the question is nuances). You can see this in the other questions from the beliefnet interview (like the one on civil rights vs. civil unions), and the most recent Larry King interview. As the full quote noted, and as he was more explicit in his follow-up to Waldman, the "I do" was not about moral equivalency, but about marriage as an institution. [Just as an aside - As sources go, written interview answers are actually more reliable than live oral answers, because the person answering has the ability to read the question and clearly formulate an answer to the question. So, the directness/clarity of a question in a live interview format is not the as 'crystal clear' as when it is read - which is why good reporters ask pointed follow-ups to 'reverify' controversial statements made in a live interview.]

As Sunray and Collect both note, "I do" by itself does not convey an accurate portrayal of Warren's position described in the context of the interview. We could go with a shortened quote from the interview:

• I do. For 5,000 years, marriage has been defined by every single culture and every single religion - this is not a Christian issue. Buddhist, Muslims, Jews - historically, marriage is a man and a woman. And the reason I supported Proposition 8, is really a free speech issue. Because first the court overrode the will of the people, but second there were all kinds of threats that if that did not pass then any pastor could be considered doing hate speech if he shared his views that he didn't think homosexuality was the most natural way for relationships, and that would be hate speech.

With even that context, it is obvious that the "I do" is not about moral equivalency - to make the claim that it does makes the entire answer unintelligible.--Lyonscc (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

PERSONAL NOTE: I'm leaving on vacation for 12 days to Ireland beginning tomorrow. I'll try to follow this as I can, when I have an internet connection at night, but my reponses may be slower over the next week and a half. My apologies in advance.--Lyonscc (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Stay well -- this is only subject to WP:DEADLINE which is that there is no deadline. Tell us if you visit Collon (by Drogheda), where my family came from <g>. Collect (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Collect, I'm not sure whether your "No" was in reply to the final question in my post (which was: Is it understandable to you that those sentences did not change the belief of many reasonable people that Warren had answered Waldman's question affirmatively?) or whether it was disagreement that we have the three areas of agreement I mentioned. I went back and used numbering and bolding to indicate the three areas of agreement; if you do not in fact agree with one or more of them, please let me know specifically. This will help me better understand your view.

I want to clarify that I'm not trying to argue that media coverage of the incident was "right" or that your opinion of the media coverage is "wrong." I'm trying to show you how journalists may have arrived at their conclusion that when Warren said "Oh, I do," he answered Waldman's question affirmatively.

Lyonscc, if you're saying that Warren may have misunderstood Waldman's question, or misspoken his answer, with the result that he inadvertently answered Waldman's question affirmatively, I see an area of possible collaboration opening between us. Benccc (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Benccc, while I don't think we can 'read Warren's mind', it is clear that the full text of Warren's answer to Waldman's question is not about equivalency of SSM to polygamy, etc. Whether this is because Warren's answer was misspoken, he didn't understand the question, he was answering the question with following the previous train of logic (around the definition of marriage), or some other combination of factors, I don't think we can state for certain. In the same way, we're only guessing if we say parts of the media's treatment of his answer (overemphasis on "I do") was intentional bias, inadvertant bias, or 'successful' spinning by special interest groups is only a guess, as well. However, per WP:BLP, it is most important that we "get it right" - with it being an accurate representation of Warren's belief. As such, "I do" alone does not suffice, because alone, it is incongruent with Warren's full answer. Warren's full answer is congruent with the later statements he made in response to some media's inaccurate treatment of his answer, as well, giving even more weight to inclusion of the full answer, and not just "I do".--Lyonscc (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand how the response "Oh, I do" is unclear as an answer to the question. i said that I didn't think that it was sufficient in itself. However, bearing in mind that Warren himself introduced the topic:

Warren: "I am opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that a marriage. I am opposed to an older guy marring a child and calling that a marriage. i am opposed to one guy having multiple partners and calling that a marriage."

Waldman: You think that those are equivalent to gays getting married?"

Warren: "Oh, I do. For 5,000 years, marriage has been defined by every single culture and every single religion..."

It seems to me his meaning is pretty clear, don't you think? Would participants be willing to try a couple of different ways of summarizing this? Sunray (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It is very clear that he did not use the words "incest" or "pedophilia" in his statement, so we should take those loaded words off the table ab initio. It is also clear that "I do" is used to misrepresent his articulated views.

"In early December, Warren again sparked controversy by answering "I just don't believe in the redefinition of marriage" when asked why he opposed same-sex marriages. " fully covers his position and the interview without introducing the straw issues of incest, polygamy and pedophilia. "Warren said he did not equate same sex marriage with polygamy, incest, or adult-child marriages after some news sources used a Beliefnet interview to imply that he did make that comparison. He stated that he opposed any definition of marriage as other than between one man and one woman." fully addresses the claims made by some groups, and includes his accurately stated position as made in the transcript, which certainly appears to be RS. Collect (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I would support Collect's direction on this. It avoids the "I do", but concisely includes the heart of Warren's answer. I'm off to the airport now, so I'm not sure how much I'll be involved again prior to the 25th.--Lyonscc (talk) 11:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Collect and Lyonscc, I had hoped to persuade you that reasonable people, upon watching the interview (including everything Warren said after "Oh, I do"), may believe that Warren equated same-sex marriage to incest, pedophilia and polygamy. You seem unpersuaded, and I can accept that. We can at least agree that reliable sources reported that he did, and that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not whether we think they're right.

We've already seen, at the beginning of this section, that the Associated Press, New York Times, USA Today, and Toronto Star reported it. Here are some others:

• San Francisco Chronicle: Warren invited Obama to his church during the presidential campaign and more recently ignited a major controversy when he compared same-sex marriage to pedophilia, incest and polygamy during a video interview posted on Beliefnet.com and widely circulated on YouTube. [34]

• Here's another San Francisco Chronicle story, a month later, by a different reporter: Even though Warren's support of California's Proposition 8 and comments made in a Beliefnet.com interview last month equating gay marriage to pedophilia drew widespread criticism from some of Obama's core supporters, analysts say Warren is symbolic of a new political reality. [35]

• The News & Observer: Few would reject his opposition to incest or pedophilia, but his effort to link them with gay marriage is a red herring. We prohibit incest, in part, because it's bad for the gene pool; we outlaw pedophilia because it is an inherently unequal, coercive relationship. Gay marriage -- a consensual relationship between two adults -- raises none of these issues. [36]

With so much agreement among reliable sources, an editor could presumably add the following sentence to the Warren article without violating policy:

• In early December, Warren again sparked controversy by equating same-sex marriages with pedophilia, incest and polygamy.[37][38]

Please consider that the language I proposed makes no assertion that Warren equated these things, and it includes Warren's statement that he did NOT equate these things, and it includes a link to the Beliefnet interview that enables users to see the full text of the interview for themselves. And yet I think it could be accepted by the general editing community. If we were to skip writing something about the "equivalency" controversy altogether, as it appears you'd prefer to do, it will end up in the article anyway.Benccc (talk) 06:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope. WP requires that we use reliable sources, and the transcript is the single reliable source as to what Warren said. That you say we should consider what some people "believe" he said is wrong. And asserting that someone would accept mediation and then put something in the article anyway is something we should certainly seek to avoid else mediation has no benefits. We have what he said, and to put words into his mouth is wrong in a BLP. As to putting what people think -- WP is not a crystal ball as to what people think, and sources which say what people think are less factual than sources which report actual facts. Where possible, BLPs should use facts. Or would you support references to [39] "Follow Jesus Like Nazis Followed Hitler, Rick Warren Tells Stadium Crowd"? Let us agree in mediation to prevent such ruining of BLP standards -- our job is to get the article "right" and not to insert material which is wrong, biassed or seeks to demean the person involved for the sake of demeaning him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs) 13:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Collect, I meant if we were to decide not to write copy about the comparison of SSM to marriage between siblings, adults and minors, and multiple partners, others would do so. Firestorm advised us of this over two months ago when he wrote: "reliable sources say that he equated legalization of one to legitimization of the other, so that is what the proposed text has to make clear" [40] and "the reaction to the Beliefnet interview is extremely notable. If something has been covered in such major publications as the New York Times, LA Times, and USA Today, among many others, then it is notable. Showing how the world reacts to Warren is relevant to his article."[41].

I'm obviously willing to work on the copy with you, but when the conversation slips back into whether it happened at all, or whether the media was wrong, or whether the New York Times is reliable, or whether something might make Warren look good or bad, I feel like we're wasting time.

Sunray, please advise whether it's true that the copy I proposed would violate WP policy. The last time I asked, you wrote "That is not the question I think we should be addressing. Of course we should meet policy and guidelines. This mediation turns on how best to do that." I want to clarify that I'm not asking whether you think the copy I proposed is best, or even whether you think it's good. I want to learn whether it must be excluded from our consideration altogether, because it violates WP policy. Here's that copy:

• In early December, Warren again sparked controversy by answering "I do" when asked whether same-sex marriages are equivalent to marriages between siblings, adults and minors, and multiple partners.[42][43] He later released a video message saying he does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia, but rather opposes the redefinition of marriage.[44] Benccc (talk) 06:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Collect, how about this. We could word it to indicate that Warren said other things after "Oh, I do." Like so:

• In early December, during an interview with Beliefnet editor Steven Waldman, Warren again sparked controversy. While discussing his opposition to same-sex marriage, Warren spoke out against marriage between siblings, adults and minors, and multiple partners. After Waldman asked "do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married," Warren's reply began, "Oh, I do." [45][46] He later released a video message saying he does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia, but rather opposes the redefinition of marriage.[47]

Is that acceptable to you? Benccc (talk) 07:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I just listened to the News & Views message of December 22 2008, in which Warren speaks to his Church members about the controversy. The proposed wording by Benccc is an account of what he said in the Beliefnet interview and the News and Views broadcast. It seems to me that we could work with this text. One of the difficulties I see is the inconsistency between Warren's words in these two videos. However, perhaps it is best to leave that to the reader to conclude. Thoughts? Sunray (talk) 07:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is 1. "I do" was clearly never intended as a two word answer. 2. The extended answer is in a written and published transcript. 3. What he wishes to add in response inthe later Church talk is not only not in the interview, it has no backing transcript AFAIK. 3. WP says not to use primary sources (the videos) where any secondary source (transcript from article by interviewer) is available. 4. The Church video is well after the interview, and reflects the wording he felt he had to refute in the press -- even though he did not initiate the wording of "incest", "pedophilia" etc. 5. The sole requirement is to correctly reflect the person in the BLP -- I found a "reliable source" asserting Warren told people to emulate Hitler -- I suggest that simply because pejorative material is found, it is not our function to present it where an unquestioned factual source is found. The controversy arose from the first interview -- let us deal with that. Otherwise we muddy the waters entirely. And clearly the "I do" is misleading when presented as anything other than the introduction to a substantial response in the sole interview stated to be controversial. Otherwise we can use "pedophilia" because (say) Larry King later used it in an interview. It is a loaded word, and if Warren did not use it in the interview in question, it is not up to us to insert it in his mouth when he responded to the poor reportage. Collect (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Collect, speculation about what Warren intended, or about whether the mainstream erred, is not going to help us write copy. Reliable secondary sources did not report that the media erred in its coverage of the Beliefnet interview controversy. They did report that Warren equated same-sex marriage with (etc.).

Because Warren later asserted that he does not believe SSM is the same as incest and pedophilia, I think it's appropriate and fair to Warren that we inform readers of this. Not a lot of secondary sources reported it. Waldman himself did here so we could link to that. Or we could refer to Warren's April interview with Larry King, in which he said "I was asked a question that made it sound like I equated gay marriage with pedophilia or incest, which I absolutely do not believe." There's a transcript of that interview here and it's mentioned in this Orange County Register column. Following the Larry King interview, a statement was sent out by Warren's PR rep containing further clarification:

“During the King interview, Pastor Warren also referenced a letter of apology that he sent to gay leaders whom he knew personally. However, that mea culpa was not with respect to his statements or position on Proposition 8 nor the biblical worldview on marriage. Rather, he apologized for his comments in an earlier Beliefnet interview expressing his concern about expanding or redefining the definition of marriage beyond a husband-wife relationship, during which he unintentionally and regrettably gave the impression that consensual adult same sex relationships were equivalent to incest or pedophilia.”

That comes from a variety of less prominent, less reliable sources [48][49][50] so I'm not sure we can make use of it. But one way or another I'm sure we can inform readers that subsequent to the controversy over his Beliefnet interview, Warren asserted that he does not see SSM as equivalent to pedophilia and incest.

Regarding the perception that a word like "pedophilia" is "loaded," I want to point out that the thing it refers to is offensive to most people, which is of course the reason the Beliefnet interview caused such controversy. I wouldn't advocate for the use of an overtly sensationalistic term ("child rape") or euphemistic term ("inappropriate contact between an adult and minor") to try to give the matter more or less potency. "Pedophilia" is a sober, factual, and economical term that we need not avoid simply because, like "murder," it refers to something offensive. In his video message on the Saddleback site, and in his interview with Larry King, Warren specifically asserted that he does not equate same-sex marriage with incest and pedophilia; we do Warren no service by avoiding those words ourselves.

Lastly, as a point of clarification, I think transcripts, like videos, are primary sources, not secondary sources. Benccc (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: the sources you've used: Capitol News has an editorial board and is published in partnership with mainstream media, so is a reliable source. The other sources corroborate the information. Sunray (talk) 01:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Transcripts from a later published article are considered "secondary" and not "primary." The article was, in fact, written after the blowup, and as such it is not primary in itself either. If we use "pedophilia" which was not the term Warren used in the interview, we must make sure that no one thinks it was a term he used in the interview. And, by the way, most pedophiles have no interest in "adult-child marriage" at all -- I suspect the Jerry Lee Louis case is more on point. Now what precisely is so important that "pedophilia" is a sine qua non for you here? Is it essential that we place words in Warren's mouth for the first interview? I would prefer we stick with what he actually said as being proper for a BLP. Collect (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean when you say a "later published article." It seems to me transcript of an interview is a primary source, provided that it is an official transcript (i.e., published by the owners of the medium responsible for the interview), or agreed to by the subject of the interview). Sunray (talk) 01:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

In this case, primary sources are important. We have established that the statements were newsworthy through secondary sources. IMO we need primary sources to be absolutely clear about what he actually said. If there is any question about how his comments were taken, we would logically go to secondary sources. I do not want to repeat myself too often about the word "pedophilia" He did not use the term in the Beliefnet interview, so I hope we all agree that we cannot use it in reference to what he said in that interview. We have discussed why the news media used the term. Then, in response to the media's use of the term, Warren himself uses it in the New and Views broadcast. We can use these sources (i.e., the two videos, which are after all, the subject himself speaking) as long as we do not make interpretations. However, I do not see how use of "I do" in response to a clear question is in any way an interpretation. His point is that he considers marriage to be between a man and a woman only. Are we all in agreement on this? If not, would you please identify which parts of what I have said you do not agree with? Sunray (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that "I do" can not be used as anything mear a standalone quote, and that it is likely better just to use the germane parts of the full answer rather than use "I do" to convey an impression not borne out by the full answer. I also suggest that "adult-child" be used to refer to anything he said in that interview, rather than insert "pedophilia" which was clearly not first used by him at all. The transcript I cited is "secondary source" as it is in an article published with the interviewer's byline. This is then analogous to using a newspaper for the text of a speech where the newspaper article contains such a text. Collect (talk) 01:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Collect, you are suggesting that "I do" is insufficient, and that the gist of his comment should be added. Some time ago, I proposed: "I do... I just don't believe in the redefinition of marriage." That is his main point. We can add to it if necessary. Or state it in summary form instead of as a quote. Sunray (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I am, in fact, stating that the use of "I do" with ellipsis in insufficient to counter the wrong done by implying on any level that the primary response was "I do" when the transcript makes the full answer quite evident. As no one has given any real reason for emphasizing the "I do" (other than with the aim of cnnecting Warren with hot-button words) we best serve getting the article "right" by not using it, or if we use it, use the full unelided quote. WP-paper is not all that expensive here if it prevents making implications which the full quote avoids. Collect (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As we would be ill-advised to quote the whole text of his response, would you be able to summarize the gist of what he said? Sunray (talk) 06:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Collect, we cannot be arbiters of whether the media was right or wrong, or arbiters of how Warren's words should have been understood. Professional journalists from a variety of prominent media organizations looked at the same interview that you and I did, concluded that Warren answered Waldman's question affirmatively, and reported the incident accordingly. This is the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia, "not whether we think it is true." Here's a way we can describe it without relying on the "I do" quote at all:

• In early December, Warren again sparked controversy by comparing same-sex marriages to marriages of siblings, multiple partners, and adults and minors.[51][52] He later released a video message saying he does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia, but rather opposes the redefinition of marriage.[53]

Of the seven mainstream stories I looked at (all of which I have quoted above), two said Warren "compared," two said he "equated," two said he "likened," and one said he "linked." I used "comparing" to accommodate your belief that no equating happened. I think it's still straightforward enough that it will be accepted by the general editing community. Can you live with it? Benccc (talk) 07:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

After the "adults to minors" add a comma, he added in the same interview "I just don't believe in the redefinition of marriage." As the wording about "redefinition" occurs in the first inteview, there is valis reason for pointing that out. Now that we have the first sentence done, what, precisely, is then added by the "later video" sentence which might leadpeople to think he did not use the word "redefinition" in the first interview, where it appears to have been overlooked by some?

• In early December, Warren again sparked controversy by appearing to compare same-sex marriages to marriages of siblings, multiple partners, and adults to minors, adding in the same interview "I just don't believe in the redefinition of marriage." (using transcript from interviewer's article)

Which, to me, appears to fully cover the sum and substance needed. Collect (talk) 12:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Collect, earlier this month I proposed we write "by appearing to equate," and you made the point that this wouldn't work because it's an editorial comment. Lyonscc agreed with you. I thought it was a good point too. Our sources say he equated/likened/compared, not that he appeared to. What changed your mind? I can live with "appeared" if you can, as it seems to solve our dispute -- but I'd like to know your thinking. We may have to defend the choice with other editors, starting with Lyonscc.

You wrote "adults to minors" and I recommend we say "adults and minors." If we were to use "to," then it might look like we're describing a scenario in which "siblings, multiple partners, and adults" marry minors. That would of course be an absurd reading, but it's already a borderline confusing sentence, and we can make it a notch less confusing with "and" instead of "to."

I also think it would be confusing to end the sentence with: "adding in the same interview 'I just don't believe in the redefinition of marriage.'" Warren made a variety of statements about marriage during the Beliefnet interview that, while unpopular among supporters of same-sex marriage, were fairly common (such as his opposition to the redefinition of marriage) and did not spark controversy. Our point with that first sentence is to report the controversy, and the bit about redefinition doesn't fit well there. It would make more sense in a new sentence. My impression is that we want to tell readers that Warren responded to the controversy by making a statement that he does not equate SSM with etc., and that his main point on the matter is that he opposes the redefinition of marriage. I get what you're saying about making sure readers understand that he made that point during the Beliefnet interview. So how about this:

• In early December, Warren again sparked controversy by appearing to compare same-sex marriages to marriages of siblings, multiple partners, and adults and minors.[54][55] He later released a video message saying he does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia, and that his point had been to explain his opposition to the redefinition of marriage.[56]

What do you think? Benccc (talk) 09:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Add the second sentence : In the same interview, Warren had said "I just don't believe in the redefinition of marriage."

Making it clear that this was in the first interview, and not in the later communication to the congregation. And the last sentence can end after "pedophilia" even though I do not feel it belongs. We do not need "redefinition" twice. Collect (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Next steps

It seems that we may now be near to agreement on one sentence in this section. I think that we need to now move to wrap this up. What else do we need to discuss before we move to close? Sunray (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's move then. BTW, the RFAR on me uses this mediation as an example of a "failed dispute resolution" on me (two other examples were messages sent me just before the mediation, so I really think they are pushing). Can we tell them that the mediation is working quite well, and that I do not appear to be a PITA here? Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

[Off-topic comments removed] Sunray (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not a failed mediation by any stretch. I would like to summarize what we have agreed to and determine if there is anything else we should discuss before closing. Would each of you be willing to comment? Sunray (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment from Collect

(from project page as additional issues to be mediated)

• Is material which primarily serves to note that Warren's theological positions are substantially the same as those of his denomination (Southern Baptist) relevant to the BLP? Collect (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Are positions taken on a church website (Saddleback Church) properly referred to in a BLP about a person when the material is not otherwise attributable to him? Collect (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Inclusion of a description, based on third-party accounts, of Warren's comments in the Beliefnet interview, where it was reported that Warren "compared the legalization of same-sex marriage to the legitimization of polygamy, incest and pedophilia." Mike Doughney (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Inclusion of information attempting to tie political and social policy views of James Dobson to Rick Warren.--Lyonscc (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

From the bottom up -- Dobson has, I understand, been accepted as not particularly germane to the BLP.

The Beliefnet interview is now, as far as I can tell, settled.

The church website issue has not been dealt with, though the sentences now agreed to appear to not need any such material.

We now note that Warren's positiona are the same as those of the SBC on issues, so I suspect that one is also settled.

Does anyone see an issue not adequately discussed at this point? Collect (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Adding Warren's views on Civil Unions. Do you agree to discuss that? Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

We had pretty much agreed it did not add to the BLP. Sorry. Collect (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

All right, I'll start the process again then. RFC and cabal and then official mediation. Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to start as many processes as desired. Collect (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Current proposal re: Beliefnet

Benccc has proposed (see his rationale in the Beliefnet section) the following wording with respect to the interview:

• In early December, Warren again sparked controversy by appearing to compare same-sex marriages to marriages of siblings, multiple partners, and adults and minors.[57][58] He later released a video message saying he does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia, and that his point had been to explain his opposition to the redefinition of marriage.[59]

This seems to cover all aspects of the controversy in a way that is both neutral and respectful to Warren's views. Do participants agree with this statement? If not, would you be willing to suggest new options or changes? Sunray (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

One step back here. His position in the original interview was clearly stated, and we do not need to imply that it was only "later" that his position was made clear when it was actually fairly clear in the first interview. Instead of the second sentence, I would use as a compromise: "In his answer in that interview he stated "I do not believe in the redefinition of marriage." (cite article with transcript, and use actual quote as it is just as short as the paraphrase). There is still no need to insert "incest" and "pedophilia" into this at all. I also prefer using transcripts to videos as a rule as sources, certainly a transcript is better. I am also quite unsure as to the "again" when we deal clearly with Prop 8 already. Collect (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"appearing to compare" seems like a personal interpretation from a non-neutral point of view. I liked Sunray's suggestion, "I do... I just don't believe in the redefinition of marriage." or some other way to summarize or the full quote. Warren's article is short so I see no reason not to include the full quote. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The "I do" part was already compromised on and agreed to by using the "appearing to" language. The issue here is whether the words "incest" and "pedophilia" add to the content, and whether it is sufficient to point out that his original interview had the "I do not believe in the redefinition of marriage" language, and it was not just "later" which makes it seem an afterthought. Collect (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, beliefnet part wasnt settled when I arrived and I do not agree to this. Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

OK then -- what relevant material do you wish in the Beliefnet sentences? (Note we have specifically agreed that "I do" is not needed and used compromise language at the start.) Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs)

Read above, in this section. Do you still maintain that "I do" part is not up for discussion? Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe you were told before re-entering about what is and is not up for reopening. We were very nearly done here. Collect (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's settle down a bit here. I have requested participants to provide alternatives if they do not agree with Benccc's proposal at the top of this section. Collect, you have said that you do not see the need to bring in anything from the News and Views tape. That's not really an alternative. The merit of that statement is that it does provide balance and it is Warren himself clarifying. Phoenix is saying that he would accept, as an alternative "I do... I just don't believe in the redefinition of marriage." Both are clear. Both are complete. Let's try to agree on one or the other. If not, let's hear alternatives. To my mind, the essential ingredients are his statement about "marriages of siblings, multiple partners, and adults and minors," and his statement about opposing the redefinition of marriage. If we get this right it will stand, we can close the mediation and unlock the article. Sunray (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Precisely -- the first sentence about "appearing to" is fine for me as long as we make it clear that the comment about "redefinition of marriage" was in the same answer. I consider the "I do" with the ellipsis as bing potentially misleading.

So we have "In early December, Warren again sparked controversy by appearing to compare same-sex marriages to marriages of siblings, multiple partners, and adults and minors.[60][61]"

I would then have "He stated in the interview, "I just don't believe in the redefinition of marriage." (cite transcript)

To get this settled -- perhaps a third sentence would be "He affirmed this in a statement to his church where he said he did not equate same-sex marriage with (incest etc.)"  ?

Does that get past the "He later said" type problem? I would still prefer we use language other than "incest" and "pedophilia" especially since we are not furnishing a quote for that usage and it may convey a view which does not benefit the "right BLP." Again, I would like to see this all settled before I lose power. (25" so far - but we have a break for now). Collect (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this proposal is fine. It adequately summarizes his statement, and then his clarification. Firestorm ^Talk 20:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the source for "appearing to"? I still do believe this is a personal interpretation. Even Collect made the same point:

'"by appearing to" is an editorial comment, not a statement of indisputable fact.' [62]

I do not understand why he changed his position now. If participants are tired of discussing these issues and just want to get it over with, we can all take a break. Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No breaks! Some of you have been off elsewhere while others have been doing the heavy lifting :) I think we have an alternative proposal from Collect, and Firestorm is saying that he supports it. Collect, could you reproduce the statement you have proposed, just so we are clear? Sunray (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(out) In early December, Warren again sparked controversy by appearing to compare same-sex marriages to marriages of siblings, multiple partners, and adults and minors.[63][64] He stated in the interview, "I just don't believe in the redefinition of marriage." (cite transcript) He affirmed this in a statement to his church where he said he did not equate same-sex marriage with (incest etc.) (cite transcript)

I would suggest that the "incest etc." bit be replaced with "other sexual practices" or the like rather than "incest, pedophilia etc."? I am quite open here to alternative wording. Collect (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The terms are definitely part of the controversy over the Beliefnet interview because the media used them. We have avoided quoting the media, but the fact remains that Warren, himself used them in his clarification. "Other sexual practices" sounds weaselly. It is far too general, IMO. Sunray (talk) 22:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps "incest and the like"? I fear that once we use "pedophilia" in the article that others will push the envelope as soon as the article is unlocked. I do not expect anyone will view this as "perfect" but I hope is is as close to "right" as we can get with our disparate views. Collect (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I do think that this isnt right. From the interview, your only quoting "I just don't believe in the redefinition of marriage." If thats the only quote, then why Warren "appeared" to make a comparison? So the text in your suggestion does not make sense. "Appeared" is also unsourced. And I do not like this censoring of Warren's own words. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This was already settled. Do you wish to start anew? Collect (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe Sunray has said it hasnt been clarified. Sunray?

The concern Phoenix is raising about the use of the word "appeared" seems legitimate. Without both sentences there is a lack of balance to the statement. Do you want to try a re-draft, Collect? If so, we need to find a way to include both his comment about "marriage between siblings...(etc.) and his statement that he opposes the "redefinition of marriage."

Firestorm, were you agreeing with Benccc's proposed statement, above or Collect's proposal. I just realized that I may have read your last comment wrong. Sunray (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

My statement was supporting Benccc's proposal, but Collect's is an acceptable alternative. The revised proposal of Benccc below (where i'm also commenting) is, I think, the best we've seen yet. As long as the two sides of this continue to work together peacefully, we seem to be getting closer and closer to a version that is acceptable to all parties. Firestorm ^Talk 05:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(out) As we do not use quotes around "appeared" we do not need a cite for that word. I consider it quite obvious that some groups at least felt he appeared to make the comparison, and that was part of the compromise we had made. WP is not here to ask that reasonably obvious statements have every word followed by a numbered footnote, after all. I would not object to the full interview without elisions as a section at the bottom of the article, and make no other mention in the article and allow readers to decide what was said and how it was intended. Collect (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

As WP:BLP advises, "the article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject." Many reliable sources have reported that Warren compared/equated/likened SSM to incest, pedophilia and polygamy, and the incident was notable (the San Francisco Chronicle reported it "ignited a major controversy"), so if we fail in this mediation to agree on language, other editors will simply add it to the article. In other words, our power within this mediation does not extend to the exclusion of this information from the article. Collect, you write "I would not object to the full interview without elisions as a section at the bottom of the article, and make no other mention in the article and allow readers to decide what was said and how it was intended," but if all parties to the mediation were to agree to that, we'd have wasted our time; the material would certainly be added by others.

Phoenix of9, Collect has said he'd accept the sentence "In early December, Warren again sparked controversy by appearing to compare same-sex marriages to marriages of siblings, multiple partners, and adults and minors" under the condition that the word "appearing" is included. To my thinking, that's like saying the Atlantic Ocean "appears" to contain water. BUT, the Atlantic Ocean DOES appear to contain water! It's not false. Does the word imply doubt? Sure, but keep in mind that some readers may believe, as Collect and Lyonscc do, that the media erred. By occupying some kind of middle ground, the sentence may actually be more enduring. That's why I can accept it without feeling like I'm betraying my responsibilities as an editor, and I urge you to accept it too. Benccc (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Collect, I don't share your view that the language I proposed would imply to readers that Warren had not, during the Beliefnet interview, declared his opposition to the redefinition of marriage. Nonetheless I think a simple modification can ensure it's clear to readers that he did make that point during the Beliefnet interview:

• In early December, Warren again sparked controversy by appearing to compare same-sex marriages to marriages of siblings, multiple partners, and adults and minors.[65][66] He later released a video message saying that he does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia, and that as he had stated during the Beliefnet interview, he opposes the redefinition of marriage.[67]

Acceptable? Benccc (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason not to make all the interview material contiguous?

• In early December, Warren again sparked controversy by appearing to compare same-sex marriages to marriages of siblings, multiple partners, and adults and minors.[68][69] He had stated during the Beliefnet interview, he opposes the redefinition of marriage. He later released a video message saying that he does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia. [70]

Would seem to be quite equivalent to your proposal (I simply cut-and-pasted one piece and moved it to the middle) , and meet my request that all the interview material be consecuative, instead of having the video come in the middle. OK? Collect (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed a problem in the language I proposed, which is that it's not clear that "the Beliefnet interview" mentioned in the second sentence has anything to do with the first sentence. Here is revised language, with "In an interview with Beliefnet" added to the beginning:

• In an interview with Beliefnet in early December, Warren again sparked controversy by appearing to compare same-sex marriages to marriages of siblings, multiple partners, and adults and minors.[71][72] He later released a video message saying that he does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia, and that as he had stated during the Beliefnet interview, he opposes the redefinition of marriage.[73]

Collect, in the version you propose, I think we'd lose some coherence; by inserting the comment about the redefinition of marriage between the controversial comment and its disavowal, we might leave readers wondering: what is the relationship of the redefinition comment to the comparison comment, and was the redefinition comment also controversial? There's no apparent connection between them. Also, by placing the redefinition comment between the comparison comment and its disavowal, I think we risk weakening the disavowal.

Also I'm not seeing the problem you're trying to solve. Are you saying you think readers will be confused about the chronology? If so, how? Benccc (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Benccc, you have no sources for "appearing to compare". Its a personal interpretation. You said you didnt like the idea that much as well. So I can not comprehend your insistance on "appear" when we have a good suggestion from the mediator: "I do... I just don't believe in the redefinition of marriage." Phoenix of9 (talk) 05:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this version is probably the best so far. I don't think the "appeared to compare" has any irreconcilable POV issues, but it does sound really awkward. If we can replace it with that quote, as has been suggested, I think it would flow much better. Firestorm ^Talk 05:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I vastly prefer having all the interview material together, and the "later" material -- later. I do not see how anyone could get confused that way. I think we are just about at agreement, and I find the "I do" to be quite objectionable -- as the ellipsis suggests that the "redefinition of marriage" was an afterthought entirely, when the transcript shows otherwise. And the disavowal of something he did not actually say is strong enough 12 words later. It is not like I moved anything to another paragraph to be sure. Collect (talk) 11:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Again. This is a BLP and we have to get it right. I can understand "appearing to equate". But "appearing to compare" is quite silly and POV since there is no question about the fact that he made a comparison. The only question was if he equated those. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I fear this is not a meaningful cavil. "com·pare (kəm-pâr') v. com·pared, com·par·ing, com·pares v. tr.

'To consider or describe as similar, equal, or analogous; liken."

The word comes from the French word for "equal."

Hence the distinction is not there. As for "adults and minors" how about "adults with minors"? Collect (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Now, you claim compare is the same with equal? Despite "similar" in the description? Interesting. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

What I "claim" is that there is zero substantive difference between "appeared to equate" and "appeared to compare." Equate "to reduce to an average; make such correction or allowance in as will reduce to a common standard of comparison." [74] gives "compare" as a synonym of "equate." And [75] gives "equate" as a synonym of "compare." As we are using English here, it appears that the equating of "equate" to "compare" is correct, and that the comparing of "compare" to "equate" is similarly correct. Is there a reason for the cavil? Collect (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

In English, "compare" [76] is different than "equate" [77]. Please see [78], this isnt within the scope of this mediation. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

In American English, "appeared to compare" and "appeared to equate" are equivalent. This is getting to be odd. And referring me to a site on English for Learners is not actually helpful in this mediation. By the way, what, precisely, is your point here? Collect (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Oxford English Dictionary is a much more reliable source than thesaurus.reference.com or your understanding of American English. And I had made my point:

"Again. This is a BLP and we have to get it right. I can understand "appearing to equate". But "appearing to compare" is quite silly and POV since there is no question about the fact that he made a comparison. The only question was if he equated those. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)"

arbitrary section break 1

Alright, i'll chime in again here. Given that some of us think that "equate" is better than "compare", and some people believe that they are both equivalent, nobody has stated that "compare" is actually a better word. From there, we're left with no reason not to switch to "equate", or am I missing something? Personally, I think that equate makes the sentence flow more smoothly, so i'm chiming in on that side of things. I fail to see anyone make an argument for why equate shouldn't be used. All I see is some saying equate is better, and some saying equate is the same. Am I missing something here? Firestorm ^Talk 00:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I happen to feel "compare" is far closer to any actual reading of the transcript. I also feel that this is something which I am surprised Pof9 would feels so strongly about. Normal usage of words rarely engenders so much feeling in my experience. And since the actual words are what are important to the biography, and not wrong inferences, I suggest Warren deserves to be treated quite carefully here. Collect (talk) 00:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If we were psychic and knew exactly what he was thinking, you would be correct. We don't. Even if we did, making such assumptions in the article is OR. All we can use arew what he said, and how our sources interpreted it. In this case, it was interpreted as equating, not merely drawing comparisons. So, we have to say that he was interpreted as equating them, because that's what was reported. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, but barring absolute proof of what he was thinking, all we can write is how our secondary sources interpreted it. Firestorm ^Talk 01:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I said I can understand "appearing to equate" while "appearing to compare" is quite silly. However, I suggested neither of them. I still maintain this position:

"I liked Sunray's suggestion, "I do... I just don't believe in the redefinition of marriage." or some other way to summarize or the full quote. Warren's article is short so I see no reason not to include the full quote. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)" Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

In order to make the compromise -- if we use "equate" in the first sentence, and use my suggested sentences 2 and 3 are we at a compromise? If not, then we have a long way to go still here. Collect (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I would support this, Collect. I'm not sure why there's such a stir at this. Benccc - what do you think?--Lyonscc (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with this as well. Equate sounds better than Compare, and I can't see a reason not to use Collect's other sentences as well. Firestorm ^Talk 22:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope. "appear to equate" is unsourced material from non-neutral POV. It isnt nonsensical like "appear to compare" and I understand the incorrect reasoning behind it but it's still incorrect. So Warren's own words are better than any non neutral editorial. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I've lost track. Collect, what language are you suggesting? Benccc (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(out)In an interview with Beliefnet in early December, Warren again sparked controversy by appearing to equate same-sex marriages to marriages of siblings, multiple partners, and adults and minors.[71][72] He also said "I just don't believe in the redefinition of marriage" and later released a video message saying that he does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia.[73]

Thus using "equate" which Pof9 had felt so strongly was superior to "compare" (using the same verb twice in close proximity in this version) and, I trust, putting this all to bed. Collect (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

In order for this to work, we need to drop "appear to", because it is an incorrect interpretation of what Warren has said. Ie: "Do you think those are morally equivelant" "Yes, I do". Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

P_of9 - "appear to" IS a correct interpretation when you read the Warren quote in its entirety, rather than giving a false impression by truncating at "I do". I think we've all been in some level of agreement that Warren's full statement is at odds with a simple "I do". Thus, "appear to" is correct and not "incorrect reasoning".--Lyonscc (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've read the entire thing and I do think that "appear to" is incorrect and from a non-neutral POV (ie: "giving a false impression"). Thats why I said that the correct way to go is to drop "appear to". However, you and Collect reject this so thats why I proposed:

"I liked Sunray's suggestion, "I do... I just don't believe in the redefinition of marriage." or some other way to summarize or the full quote. Warren's article is short so I see no reason not to include the full quote"

Again, I'd prefer a full quote than "appear to". Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Sunray's suggestion for a "full quote" is too short, though. If we're going to include the full quote, it needs to include more of what has been lost in the ellipses. "Appear to" is correct, insofar as how some media/political organizations treated it. You are correct, though, that just using "I do" would give a false impression and would be incorrect. This is why "appear to" is NPOV and would work fine, as is.--Lyonscc (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is a BLP and we have to get it right. Usage of "appear to" here has no basis in beliefnet interview.

And please try to keep up. Sunray hasnt suggested the full quote, he suggested a summary. I didnt say that using "I do" gives a false impression.

What I said was that:

a) use "I do... I just don't believe in the redefinition of marriage."

b) or find another way to summarize inluding "I do"

c) or the full quote Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(out)Actually, "appeared to" is much more accurate of the situation, since it was the 'appearance' that some media outlets responded to, ignoring the full quotation. Warren's follow-up comments were consistent with the full quote and were made to clear up the false 'appearance'. The usage of "appear to" is not based on the beliefnet transcript - it is based on the activist reaction to an incomplete quotation. I'm not sure why it's necessary to toss a wrench into the works at the eleventh hour on this topic. It has not been demonstrated that "appeared to" is not NPOV (when it leaves judgment up to the reader as to appearances and the media reaction), just unfounded assertions.--Lyonscc (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"Do you think those are morally equivelant" "Yes, I do". There is no "activist reaction" to that, even with the entire quote, since nothing in the quote cancels "I do". What does an activist reaction mean anyway? "Appeared to" seems to be the incorrect POV of those who do not know the meaning of 'equivelant'. "Appeared to" is unsourced, so the fact that it is unsourced is the "demonstration" that it is non NPOV and non compliant with WP:V. Phoenix of9 (talk) 03:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

P_of9, I may be mistaken, but I believe that English is not your primary language. German may be different in its mechanics, so I am AGF in this explanation - The full quote does not "cancel" 'I do' - it demonstrates that 'I do' is an answer about the definition of marriage, not moral equivalency. In English, at least, when you give a two-word and follow it up with a mini-dissertation, the large quote is given to support the one- or two-word answer. So, the full quote does, in that sense, "cancel" 'I do', insofar as 'I do' being interpreted as making a moral equivalency. So - if you only use "I do" (as some in the media and some activists reacting to the quote did), it does "appear to" give an impression that is at odds with the full quote from Dr. Warren. Thus "appeared to" is the most NPOV wording possible to describe a situation in which one group of people interpret an answer one way and the person who made the quote has immediately clarified, and later re-clarifies, the answer a completely different way. Appeared to is not 'unsourced', as it has been used by Warren and/or his spokesman in the later clarifying statements.--Lyonscc (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Your claim " 'I do' is an answer about the definition of marriage, not moral equivalency " is nonsensical since the question was about moral equivalency. If you are going to claim that Rick Warren was answering to a question other than what was asked, you will have to source that claim. Until then, "appeared to" is unsourced and hence non-NPOV and non WP:V compliant.

However, for compromise, as I said many times, I'm not saying we should only use "I do" in Rick Warren's article. Phoenix of9 (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Church Website Change - Already Dealt With?

One of the "Additional Items to be Mediated" is Are positions taken on a church website (Saddleback Church) properly referred to in a BLP about a person when the material is not otherwise attributable to him?, with the relevancy of this being that, during the Prop 8 flap, the church changed the website from text to audio format, and some news sources cited the change with the inference that the change was in response to the beliefnet interview & Prop 8 flap, rather than a website re-vamp. This "Additional Item" was one of the items grouped into our discussion on Prop 8, and during the discussion, comments about the website change were dropped as superfluous, with nobody arguing for them (after Phoenix_of9 stepped out of the discussion). Now, he is making noises on the main article talk page that he will be changing this when the article is unlocked after completion of mediation.

Can we put this to bed as having been dealt with, or - *shudder* - do we need to re-open the Prop 8 discussion and re-decide whether its inclusion is relevant and meets WP policy (which I think it was clearly an issue of unsupported synthesis, among other things)?--Lyonscc (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I certainly considered this as having been put to bed. If, on the other hand, everything not included in the mediated sentences can then be added by any of the parties, then I fear that mediation has not accomplished much at all. The idea is that we all agree that we all accept what we arrive at here, and will not try making any substantive changes in the agreement. Collect (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You have not discussed it, as confirmed by Sunray. This isnt related to Prop 8. Phoenix of9 (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

One of the general principles we have arrived at through this mediation is that, due to the fact that Warren has been a figure surrounded by controversy, we can refer to his own comments in Church material (whether written or in video) in the BLP to ensure clarity. However, we have dealt with the major components of the controversy (i.e., Prop 8 & Beliefnet). What is there to be gained by continuing on in the article with issues that are repetitive or of lesser importance? Sunray (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

What is there to be gained by ommitting relevant information? Is Rick Warren article too long? No, actually it's short. And who says its of lesser importance? And it's not repetitive. This particular church article/info has nothing to do with Prop 8 and beliefnet but is part of the overall invocation controversy. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Look, if you dont wanna discuss it during the mediation, its fine, I already took it out. But dont make false claims that it has been discussed or "put to bed" or whatever. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

(out) The entire discussion on Prop 8 etc. was pretty all-inclusive (and quite long), and, as a result, the material about what the Saddleback web site said was specifically not included. And please redact the "false claims" bit. Thanks! Collect (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

They are false claims. Show me where you have discussed them, with diffs. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Easy, now. Please stay cool and deal with content. With the additions that are under consideration here, there will be plenty of info on the controversy. We must be careful not to go overboard. There are issues of neutrality and weight to be considered in a biography. That is not to say we cannot consider additions. But we need to agree on the need for that (whether here or, later on the article talk page). Sunray (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting annoyed by repeated false claims by Collect and Lyonscc. This:

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

has not been settled during this mediation. It has not been discussed while I was gone. It either gets discussed here or at the talk page. Collect refused to discuss it here so it gets discussed at the talk page. So, are we done with this section and be able to return to beliefnet discussion? Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that as a false claim, so I hope you will AGF. This quote very close to what we have covered (though granted, not the exact words). The questions in my mind are: What would it contribute to the article by adding it? Was it newsworthy? Does it add something that hasn't generally been covered? I do want to complete the discussion on Beliefnet, but if you want to continue this discussion, it might be useful for future reference. Sunray (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You yourself said you did not cover it [79]. In order to continue, you need to be less vague. While I was gone, have you covered the issue about church having this material [80] and then removing it after Obama was criticised for choosing Warren [81] [82] ? Yes or no? Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

One of the nice things about this mediation has been that, despite the incommensurability of points of view, participants have engaged collaboratively in arriving at wording that works for all. To get this far, participants have had to work at not personalizing comments to each other. Phoenix, you have been away, so you deserve some slack. However, would you be willing to avoid using statements such as "please try to keep up" or "you need to be less vague"? When you speak like that my first reaction is to not respond.

Nevertheless, because you are trying, apparently in good faith, to get clarity on the Saddleback issue, I will try to be clearer. It doesn't seem to me that a "yes or no" answer is helpful here because this isn't some sort of court case. We are simply discussing how best to approach the controversy surrounding Warren and the inaugural. We have already described Warren's views on marriage and homosexuality. This is an encyclopedia not a news medium. Biographies have to have appropriate weighting of views. We need to see a clear case why this information is important enough to add to the article, given what we have already agreed on. And we need someone to present the proposed wording. Would you be willing to make that case? Sunray (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes or no answer is not only helpful but it is required. Because if you have "put" this issue "to bed", as Collect and Lyonscc claimed, there is no point for me to make a case here, given your precondition here [83] ("However, we are moving towards wrapping up and I definitely want to limit the further scope to what the current participants want.")

If this issue wasnt "put to bed", again there is no point for me to make a case here unless other participants are willing to discuss it, again per your condition (and Collect already refused to discuss it [84]). In that case, I can continue this discussion in Talk:Rick Warren. However, in that case, in order for me to continue this discussion there, I need to know if this issue was settled or not so that I wouldnt be obstructed by comments such as this in Talk:Rick Warren: [85]. So, to answer your question, yes, I'm willing to make that case but I need to know where to make that case, here or in Talk:Rick Warren. If that discussion is going to be here I dont want to be obstructed by repeated claims that this was already settled: [86] [87] (and above, in this section again) Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You have my answer. Please make your case here. I cannot promise that other participants will want to discuss it (in which case, you can move it over to the article talk page). However, if you make a good case, with reference to WP policies, it will increase the likelihood that participants will agree to discuss it. I would present it alongside the other agreed on additions. Sunray (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Theres not much of a case to make. Its a reliably sourced relevant material (something I have said bunch of times) which covers an angle of invocation controversy that hasnt been covered. It is notable [88] [89]. And theres no synthesis since news sources covered this as part of Warren's invocation controversy and if we just mention what happened, without making editorial comments such as "warren changed website after criticism". Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Just because something appears in a RS does not make it notable or relevant for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Whether it is explicit or not, its inclusion gives an implicit suggestion that the change in the church's website was related to Warren and to the controversy - which IS synthesis, whether it appears in a RS or not. Additionally, its inclusion adds nothing to the substance of the invocation 'controversy', which is why we dropped it from inclusion the first go around.--Lyonscc (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no "implicit" in NOR. Please dont make up stuff about policies. And Wikipedia:NOR#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position: '"A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.' The stuff I'm trying to add has been published by reliable sources in relation to the topic of the article (Rick Warren) and in relation to what we are talking about (invocation controversy). Ie:

“ Rick Warren Insists He's Not Anti-Gay

Decision To Have Conservative Pastor Pray At Obama's Inauguration Had Enraged Gay-Rights Activists........... On Tuesday, Warren's church replaced a brief article on the Bible and homosexuality with an audio message on Saddlebackfamily.com to better explain the church's view that Scripture prohibits sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman, according to Larry Ross, a Warren spokesman.

Anyone can attend Saddleback worship services. But the church article had said that gays "unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted" as members. [90]

”

So your argument that there is a synthesis is nonsensical. This is also notable because it was in the news. It is relevant because it was in the news about invocation controversy and Rick Warren. It also gives relevant information which means "adds substance". So you whole response was nonsensical.

Proposal:

On December 23, 2008, Saddleback church replaced a brief article on the Bible and homosexuality with an audio message on Saddlebackfamily.com to better explain the church's view that Scripture prohibits sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman. [91] [92] The church article had said that gays "unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted" as members and called homosexuality an "enormous sin." [93] [94] [95]

Proposal rejected for multiple reasons. 1) two blog sources in violation of WP:V and WP:BLP; 2) The article is about Rick Warren - not Saddleback. Inclusion of this material is a synthetic inference that Rick Warren had something to do with the change to the website and that the website change was related to the invocation controversy - when neither can be proven. "Implicit" is just another word to describe 'synthesis', which is a violation of WP:NOR. You've not demonstrated that a) this is relevant to an article on Rick Warren; b) that it is notable; or c) that its inclusion is not an attempt to synthesis of suggesting a cause/effect between the church changing its website and the invocation controversy (when, in fact, its inclusion serves to make this unsubstantiated claim implicit). Just because something is documented in a RS does not make it relevant, notable or suitable for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. This "factoid" (if it even rises to such a status) has no place in an article about Rick Warren.--Lyonscc (talk) 03:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Lyonscc: Would you be able to avoid statements such as: "Proposal rejected for multiple reasons"? It is not up to one participant to "accept or reject" a proposal, just to discuss it. You have provided a rationale as to why you think that the proposed wording doesn't meet certain policy requirements. That is sufficient. Sunray (talk) 09:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

1) One blog is belifnet's blog, Steven Waldman's column. Beliefnet, Steven Waldman. Beliefnet, Steven Waldman. Beliefnet, Steven Waldman. Beliefnet, Steven Waldman. You know the guy who made the belifnet interview with Rick Warren. Are you still going to claim thats not a RS with respect to Rick Warren? The other blog is from a regular in NYT.

2) So we will not be able to say anything about what White House did under G.W. Bush? Cause there is a Bush article and White House article? Dont be ridiculous. If a reliable source connects Warren and Saddleback and invocation controversy, we can do the same. Again, dont make stuff about policies. And again read:

Church Website Proposal

• On December 23, 2008, Saddleback church replaced a brief article on the Bible and homosexuality with an audio message on Saddlebackfamily.com to better explain the church's view that Scripture prohibits sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman. [96] [97] The church article had said that gays "unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted" as members and called homosexuality an "enormous sin." [98] [99] [100]

So your claim "Rick Warren had something to do with the change to the website" is nonsensical. Your claim "that the website change was related to the invocation controversy" is partially correct. It was covered with other invocation controversy elements. Per this reliable source: [101]. Hence we can do the same. There is no NOR. Read and understand policies first, please. I've demonstrated a, b, c above. You are repeating yourself. Sunray, can you comment with respect to policies? Phoenix of9 (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Your paragraph belongs in the Saddleback Church article, not in the BLP of Rick Warren. Without any cite that Rick Warren writes or is webmaster for that church, it clearly has no direct connection with him as a person. Collect (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This was answered above. Again, Sunray, can you clarify with respect to Wiki policies? Phoenix of9 (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The comparison to Bush/White House is not analagous. Rick Warren is not the "President" of Saddleback, nor is he the "authority" through which all communications of the church are assumed to speak. Blogs are not acceptable sources of BLP's - except where they are the blog of the subject of the BLP - or (in the case of the Beliefnet interview) where they contain the uncommented transcript of the interview. You've not demonstrated by any stretch of the imagination that this is relevant to an article about Rick Warren.--Lyonscc (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Rick Warren "is the founder and senior pastor of Saddleback Church, an evangelical megachurch located in Lake Forest, California, currently the eighth-largest church in the United States (this ranking includes multi-site churches).[4]". So the analogy is correct. The claim " nor is he the "authority" through which all communications of the church are assumed to speak" is nonsensical since the proposal above makes no such claim and since its inclusion requires no such precondition. And demonstration was done above. You are repeating yourself again. 16:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It is apparent you have no working knowledge of That is not how an evangelical church works. Rick Warren is not the "president" of the church. An evangelical church is run by a board of elders, not a single individual, and most of its 'statement of beliefs' are either supplied by a national/denominational board or by a local committee - not the senior pastor (he doesn't have time or authority to unilaterally determine a statement of beliefs). So, unless Warren is specifically quoted on the church's website, we have no way of knowing if its content was approved by, created by, or even read by Warren.--Lyonscc (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"It is apparent you have no working knowledge..." Would you be willing to avoid personalizing, Lyonscc? Sunray (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The policies are WP:NPOV and WP:BLP (esp. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Writing and editing). Collect has suggested that the information you have presented would be better suited to the article on Saddleback. Lyonscc's point about Warren and Saddleback also seems apt. A congregation's actions are not one and the same as those of its pastor. I don't see the comparison to the president and the White House. The White House exists to support the president. However, a congregation does not serve its pastor. Sunray (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

All right. However, "So, unless Warren is specifically quoted on the church's website, we have no way of knowing if its content was approved by, created by, or even read by Warren." is not required since the proposed text above doesnt mention Warren. However those actions of the church are related to the invocation controversy per the source, the controversy in which the principle element was Rick Warren. Basically, there is a connection hence why the proposed text should be in Rick Warren as well as the article on Saddleback. You said that the policies are WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Whats your opinion based on those policies, then? Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not my place to decide. My role is to affirm that decisions by participants conform to policy and will fly. The decisions in a mediation are made by consensus. I will go so far as to comment if I think that a participant is missing something or that someone has a point that should be considered. Sunray (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

All right. Then if it is ok with other participants, I'd like to pause this discussion and continue with Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Rick_Warren#Beliefnet_proposal_-_including_post_invocation_follow_up first. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The proposed text does not mention Warren, but the WP article is about Warren. Also, even though the source linked the website change, there is no proof offered in a reliable source that the change was a direct result/response to the invocation controversy. This runs afoul of NOR, NPOV and BLP. WP: NOR, because inclusion in the Warren article is inferring that the website change is related to (and caused by) Warren, and because there is no RS offering proof that the change was related to the invocation controversy. WP:NPOV, because it is implicitly pushing an an unproven assertion (that Warren caused the website to change in response to the invocation controversy). And WP:BLP because we do not "get it right", because we are attributing something to Warren that has no adequate sourcing.--Lyonscc (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Beliefnet proposal - including post invocation follow up

In an interview with Beliefnet in early December, Warren said he opposed marriage between siblings, adults and minors, and multiple partners. When asked by Waldman whether he thought "those are equivalent to gays getting married," Warren ignited a controversy by beginning his answer, saying "I do..." (Warren then continued his answer, talking about what he considered to be free speech and the historical definition of marriage, his work for people with AIDS and finally said "...I just don’t believe in the redefinition of marriage.")[71][72 full quote within references section] Warren later released a video message saying that he does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia.[73] After the invocation, Warren's church said that "impression that consensual adult same sex relationships were equivalent to incest or pedophilia" were unintentional and regrettable [102]. Waldman said that Warren didnt clarify this after the interview eventhough he made other clarifications. [103] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix of9 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I decline to go back three weeks on this one. Collect (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

What do other's think? Sunray (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll stick w/ what we hammered out with Benccc a few weeks ago. This version is full of problems and ignores a large number of compromises made along the way.--Lyonscc (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Were we complete on that version? I seem to recall that there were outstanding issues. If so, we could look at Phoenix's suggested version for some ideas as to how to handle some of the phrasing. Sunray (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"In an interview with Beliefnet in early December, Warren again sparked controversy by appearing to equate same-sex marriages to marriages of siblings, multiple partners, and adults and minors.[71][72] He also said "I just don't believe in the redefinition of marriage" and later released a video message saying that he does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia.[73]" specifically gave Pof9 what he asked for - the inclusion of "equate" and I did not see anyone else upset at it. Where the word at issue ("compare" v. "equate") is a point given in on, I am unsure why we need to continue from where we were weeks back, but heck, if we need to simply rehash all the give and take it is fine I suppose. I just do not think a better verison will be arrived at. Collect (talk) 01:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This was Benccc's post

• Associated Press [104]

"I have many gay friends. I've eaten dinner in gay homes. No church has probably done more for people with AIDS than Saddleback Church," he said in a recent interview with BeliefNet. But later in the interview, he compared the "redefinition of marriage" to include gay marriage to legitimizing incest, child abuse, and polygamy.

• New York Times [105]

Mr. Warren, who brought both John McCain and Mr. Obama to his California church this past August, in at least one interview likened committed gay relationships to incest and polygamy.

• USA Today [106]

Like Obama, Warren opposes same-sex "marriage." But Warren, unlike Obama, campaigned against legalized gay marriage in California, and in a much-replayed video interview on Beliefnet.com, Warren equated gay marriage with incest.

• Toronto Star [107]

Warren has likened gay marriage to pedophilia and incest.

There are also other variations. So "appearing to equate" is only one point of view. If we only include that it'd be non neutral. To be neutral, itd have to be like according to X, Warren "appearing to equate", according to Y, Warren equated gay marriage with incest, according to Z, Warren has likened gay marriage to pedophilia and incest. But this would be too long. So the neutral thing to do would be to quote Warren directly. We can negotiate what to include in this quote. I said that we can even include the whole quote. But it seems Collect and Lyonscc is uncompromising and only want their POV to be in the article. Sunray, what is next? Can we got to Arb? It seems we can agree and need a third party to arbitrate. And you said that wasnt your place so it isnt you. Whats next? Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

We had already negotiated all this. Your position was that you preferred "appeared to equate" to "appeared to compare." I gave in on that one. Now you appear to wish to go back tree weeks, which I feel is not the right thing to do. And please do not make personal comments. Thanks! BTW, ArbCom specifically does not handle content disputes, so that is not a process open for this. Collect (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That was not my position. If you are going to respond to my posts, itd be helpful if you understand them first. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

None of the quoted sources matter when we have a transcript of what was actually said. Thus, any source interpreting something we have a transcript for is irrelevant as a primary source, because it is superceded by the original. So, it is completely NPOV to say that the controversy was that, to some, he "appeared to equate" - this leaves the option open that some interpreted it as a comparison and others did not (which was actually the case), and does not ascribe motive.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, it is your own personal interpretation that he "appeared to equate" when you read the transcript. And you only want that point of view to be in the article. You consider other point of views to be incorrect, "activist", etc, whatever and dont want those POVs to be in the article. When I read the transcript, my interpretation is different. And I also consider yours to be incorrect. But what matters is that there are reliable sources which disagrees with your POV. Ignoring that is not neutral. "Appeared to equate" implies that he didnt equate it, I dont consider that to be correct. This is a BLP and we have to get it right. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Phoenix has, I think, made the case that "appeared to equate" may be interpreted in different ways. He is suggesting that we go with Warren's actual words, where possible, particularly for his main points. How could we incorporate his ideas to improve the previous draft version? Sunray (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps including the full transcript sans any commentary might work, but I think it would look odd. Let the reader figure it all out. Collect (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with full transcript. Rick Warren is only 20kb:

In an interview with Beliefnet in early December, Warren said he opposed marriage between siblings, adults and minors, and multiple partners. When asked by Waldman whether he thought "those are equivalent to gays getting married," Warren ignited a controversy by saying:

“ Oh , I do. For 5,000 years, marriage has been defined by every single culture and every single religion – this is not a Christian issue. Buddhist, Muslims, Jews – historically, marriage is a man and a woman. And the reason I supported Proposition 8, is really a free speech issue. Because first the court overrode the will of the people, but second there were all kinds of threats that if that did not pass then any pastor could be considered doing hate speech if he shared his views that he didn’t think homosexuality was the most natural way for relationships, and that would be hate speech. We should have freedom of speech, ok? And you should be able to have freedom of speech to make your position and I should be able to have freedom of speech to make my position, and can’t we do this in a civil way.

Most people know I have many gay friends. I’ve eaten dinner in gay homes. No church has probably done more for people with AIDS than Saddleback Church. Kay and I have given millions of dollars out of Purpose Driven Life helping people who got AIDS through gay relationships. So they can’t accuse me of homophobia. I just don’t believe in the redefinition of marriage.

”

[108]

Warren later released a video message saying that he does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia.[73] After the invocation, Warren's church said that "impression that consensual adult same sex relationships were equivalent to incest or pedophilia" were unintentional and regrettable [109]. Waldman said that Warren didnt clarify this after the interview eventhough he made other clarifications. [110]

I think my summary: '"I do..." (Warren then continued his answer, talking about what he considered to be free speech and the historical definition of marriage, his work for people with AIDS and finally said "...I just don’t believe in the redefinition of marriage.")' was better but I can agree to a full quote. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

We have discussed the possibility of using the full quote. I believe we reached consensus that it was not appropriate. I would summarize the discussion by saying that Warren includes several tangential ideas which make it hard to follow his main point. I think that you have given a reasonable alternative. I would like to hear other participants about the idea of using it, or tweaking it, for inclusion. Sunray (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think it is not appropriate? Collect just said he wanted full quote and I think I remember that Lyonscc was ok with that too, altho I'm not sure. I think including the full quote without any editorial action is the fairest way to go. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That was my sense of the discussion some time ago. Collect, Benccc and Lyonscc will correct me if I'm wrong. But I will just say (as an editor) that a lengthy, rambling quote like that will add little to the article, IMO. Sunray (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Subtlety sometimes is not seen :) We had reached a logical point (where some see the "equate" and others do not, then "appear" is the logical construct). Collect (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Alternate versions

We need to get on track and stay on track to finish this. Less than 24 hours ago, in response to a proposal by Phoenix, Lyonscc said: "I think I'll stick w/ what we hammered out with Benccc a few weeks ago." I wasn't sure which version Lyonscc was referring to, but here is the latest two versions I could find (perhaps it just seemed like "weeks" :)

Version 1

• In an interview with Beliefnet in early December, Warren again sparked controversy by appearing to equate same-sex marriages to marriages of siblings, multiple partners, and adults and minors.[111][112] He later released a video message saying that he does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia, and that as he had stated during the Beliefnet interview, he opposes the redefinition of marriage.[113]

Version 2

• In early December, Warren again sparked controversy by appearing to compare same-sex marriages to marriages of siblings, multiple partners, and adults and minors.[114][115] He had stated during the Beliefnet interview, he opposes the redefinition of marriage. He later released a video message saying that he does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia. [116]

Version 3

• In an interview with Beliefnet in early December, Warren said he opposed marriage between siblings, adults and minors, and multiple partners. When asked by Waldman whether he thought "those are equivalent to gays getting married," Warren ignited a controversy by beginning his answer, saying "I do..." (Warren then continued his answer, talking about what he considered to be free speech and the historical definition of marriage, his work for people with AIDS and finally said "...I just don’t believe in the redefinition of marriage.")[71][72 full quote within references section] Warren later released a video message saying that he does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia.[73] After the invocation, Warren's church said that "impression that consensual adult same sex relationships were equivalent to incest or pedophilia" were unintentional and regrettable [117]. Waldman said that Warren didnt clarify this after the interview eventhough he made other clarifications. [118] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix of9 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If one of these is, indeed the version L referred to, let us see if we can get consensus on it. If we need another version, let's agree on that and then ask someone to draft it. If we can get three participants to agree on a version, I think we will have a working consensus. Agreed? Sunray (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the second, mainly because some readers might not realize the proximity of the "redefinition" comment to the one where "he appeared to compare" and saying that he said something in the Beliefnet interview does not otherwise resound, as the first sentence does not refer to Beliefnet (other than using it as a cite - and I would prefer using the transcript cite here as being easier for people to understand), and readers might not realize it is all the same interview. Is this reasonable? Collect (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sunray, why didnt you include what I just proposed? Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Within the last couple of days, you have proposed two alternate (and very different) approaches. Assuming that you mean your most recent proposal (previous section), I will just ask participants to comment on that, along with the two in this section. Sunray (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Most recent one at the previous section as well as the one at the start of the previous section. Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you be able to pick one, please? Sunray (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

First. Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've copied that version into the third position. Sunray (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(out) The second one is the most NPOV and concise, and (I thought) we were close to agreement with Benccc on that one. Between that and the other language we've already approved, I think we've given fair coverage to the invocation/beliefnet issues. The third one is far too long (along with its WP:V (for using blogs) and NPOV issues) and convoluted.--Lyonscc (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to note - both #1 and #2 have the right information for inclusion, #2 just organizes it into chronological order and, to Collect's point, both reads better and is less likely to cause confusion as to whether it was one or two interviews being referenced.--Lyonscc (talk) 12:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

We need to hear from Benccc and Firestorm. Sunray (talk) 09:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Phoenix of9, I'm sympathetic to your concerns about "appearing to" being unsourced, but as I've stated before it's not an untrue claim, and Sunray has indicated that it would fly policy-wise, and it's important to Collect and Lyonscc, and I can tolerate it. You wrote "I can understand 'appearing to equate'" but not "appearing to compare." Does that mean you can accept "appearing to equate"?

I just updated "version 1" to reflect what was actually my most recent proposal; the previous version was confusing because I had inadvertently omitted mention of the Beliefnet interview from the first sentence. This version now uses "appearing to equate" to (I hope) address Phoenix of9's concern.

Collect, you previously said you thought my version might cause confusion regarding chronology. Now that the first sentence refers to the Beliefnet interview, does any problem remain? Benccc (talk) 07:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine -- though I think it needs a comma after "that" (a matter of punctuation issue only <g>). And can we use the transcript ref? Many thanks - I think we are about done here. And as Pof0 seemed anxious about "equate" as opposed to "compare" I trust this will meet his concerns as well. Collect (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Good for me, too.--Lyonscc (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I said I can understand it as I can understand (but still disagree with) different point of views than mine. However, we have to be neutral. As I said:

"This was Benccc's post

• Associated Press [119]

"I have many gay friends. I've eaten dinner in gay homes. No church has probably done more for people with AIDS than Saddleback Church," he said in a recent interview with BeliefNet. But later in the interview, he compared the "redefinition of marriage" to include gay marriage to legitimizing incest, child abuse, and polygamy.

• New York Times [120]

Mr. Warren, who brought both John McCain and Mr. Obama to his California church this past August, in at least one interview likened committed gay relationships to incest and polygamy.

• USA Today [121]

Like Obama, Warren opposes same-sex "marriage." But Warren, unlike Obama, campaigned against legalized gay marriage in California, and in a much-replayed video interview on Beliefnet.com, Warren equated gay marriage with incest.

• Toronto Star [122]

Warren has likened gay marriage to pedophilia and incest.

There are also other variations. So "appearing to equate" is only one point of view. If we only include that it'd be non neutral. To be neutral, itd have to be like according to X, Warren "appearing to equate", according to Y, Warren equated gay marriage with incest, according to Z, Warren has likened gay marriage to pedophilia and incest. But this would be too long. So the neutral thing to do would be to quote Warren directly. We can negotiate what to include in this quote. I said that we can even include the whole quote. But it seems Collect and Lyonscc is uncompromising and only want their POV to be in the article. Sunray, what is next? Can we got to Arb? It seems we can agree and need a third party to arbitrate. And you said that wasnt your place so it isnt you. Whats next? Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)"

Benccc, you seem to be giving up on neutrality just to compromise. Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh I forgot to ask. Sunray, is "appeared to equate" neutral eventho other reliable sources put it differently? Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sunray, perhaps the thing to clarify for P_of9 would be that when a source - even a RS - makes an interpretation of a quote, if we have a transcript of the quote, the transcript take precedence as the primary source. As such, any characterization of the quote in a source - even if in a RS - is irrelevant. I see no problem with neutrality in the position we've compromised on.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

To avoid confusion - a published transcript is not a "primary source" under the idiosyncratic definition used by WP. It is, moreover, an authoritative source as to the words used. Collect (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct - I should have said "authoritative source" (I forgot the operational definition of "primary" vs. "authoritative" here).--Lyonscc (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Lyonscc and Collect. You are mischaracterizing the transcript. The transcript may take precedence if we quote it, without making a POV editorial such as "appeared to equate". But you arent doing that. What you are doing is that you are adding one and only one unsourced interpretation (among many) and ignoring others (eventho they are rs'ed). Sunray, does this comply with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view? Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

None of us (Benccc, Collect or myself) is mischaracterizing the transcript. Rather, 'appeared to equate' characterizes the reaction of some of the press to it, not the transcript, itself. This takes in the reaction of the press, while leaving the characterization of Warren's answer to Warren, himself.--Lyonscc (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh so its not what Warren said but rather an analysis of "some of the press". Whats the source of that analysis? Its definately not the transcript since I cant see "appeared to equate" in the transcript. Phoenix of9 (talk) 03:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, other people answer so my questions get lost. Sunray,

1) Is using 'appeared to equate' while citing beliefnet interview [123] (where there is no 'appeared to equate') compliant with WP:Verifiability?

2) Since there is no 'appeared to equate' in the interview, this is a personal interpretation from a specific point of view. Is adding one and only one unsourced interpretation (among many) while ignoring others (eventho they are rs'ed) compliant with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view? Phoenix of9 (talk) 04:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)"Appeared to equate" gives the benefit of the doubt both to "some of the press" and to Warren - because there is disagreement between how the press interpreted his comments, and what he stated - and restated - that he'd said. Thus, "appeared to equate" gives those who said he equated them the benefit of the doubt (based on his initial "I do") and "appeared to equate" also gives Warren the benefit of the doubt, because his response was that he had been misinterpreted.--Lyonscc (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sunray - Question - Benccc, Collect and I have agreed upon the (slightly modified) version #1 - and that gives us three in agreement (per your comments above) for the sake of moving on. All we're getting now is the same repeated (and repeatedly refuted) line from Phoenix_of9. Can we move on?--Lyonscc (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"Appeared to equate" does not give the benefit of the doubt to those who said Warren equated since "appeared to equate" implies Warren didnt equate. Phoenix of9 (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"appeared to equate" allows either interpretation - that he did equate, or that he did not and it was a misinterpretation. In the English language, "appeared to" does not imply that the appearance is false. "Appeared to" allows that the appearance may be false, but it does not prescribe that it is a false appearance.--Lyonscc (talk) 05:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This is what you guys proposed:

"In an interview with Beliefnet in early December, Warren again sparked controversy by appearing to equate same-sex marriages to marriages of siblings, multiple partners, and adults and minors.[111][112] He later released a video message saying that he does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia, and that as he had stated during the Beliefnet interview, he opposes the redefinition of marriage."

Warren saying that he didnt equate is right after "appearing to equate". Hence, yes, there is such a implication. Ie: He appeared to equate but he didnt, he was just against the redefinition of marriage.

And this isnt neutral. Phoenix of9 (talk) 05:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

To clarify better, since I tried to explain this so many times. We have 2 sentences. By your admission, the first sentence allows for either interpretation. The 2nd sentence, on the other hand, strongly provides one interpretation. So the proposed text as a whole is not balanced, ie: not neutral. Phoenix of9 (talk) 05:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Phoenix of9, I don't understand your claim that the way the paragraph is written is not neutral. It seems to me that it summarizes what he said in the interview and then presents the additional information, stated in the tape, that he didn't mean what he apparently said. There is no spin or judgement, just some facts. This is a biography, after all, not a newspaper article. How is what the paragraph says not neutral? Sunray (talk) 07:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Lyonscc said: '"appeared to equate" allows either interpretation - that he did equate, or that he did not and it was a misinterpretation.'

Is this not a misrepresentation of the beliefnet transcript? There is nothing in the beliefnet transcript that allows the interpretation that he did not equate. He was asked a clear question and he said "I do", a clear answer, and then talked about stuff irrelevant to the question. His irrelevant rant (such as free speech) after "I do" does not invalidate the "I do" answer. So weakening his answer by summarizing the beliefnet transcript with "appearing to equate" and then giving what he stated on the tape while ignoring this: "Waldman said that Warren didnt clarify this after the interview eventhough he made other clarifications. [124]" is not neutral to me.

So to summarize, there is ambiguity in "appearing to equate" while there is no ambiguity in the beliefnet transcript. So, "appearing to equate" is a misrepresentation of the source and hence not neutral. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Warren's point (and the legitimacy of "appeared") is that "I do" is not the entire answer - the entire answer is about the definition of marriage, not a moral comparison of SSM to other things, so the "equating" IS a mistaken appearance, according to the full quote (at minimum) and Warren's responses (at length). Thus "appeared to" is most accurate when describing all sides.--Lyonscc (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Phoenix of9, though I'm compromising, I don't agree that I'm doing so at the expense of neutrality. As I mentioned previously, I believe Warren appeared to equate SSM with blah blah blah the way I believe the ocean appears to contain water. "Appearing to" raises a doubt where I think there should be none, but I don't agree that it therefore violates policy. Some people may doubt that Warren equated SSM with blah blah blah, as Collect and Lyonscc appear to, and this compromise language accommodates that. Keep in mind that Sunray, who is better positioned than we are to assess compliance with policy, regards this language as acceptable.

Following is the language, with the addition of a comma after the second "that" and the addition of a citation of the transcript of the interview published by Beliefnet, both of which Collect requested.

• In an interview with Beliefnet in early December, Warren again sparked controversy by appearing to equate same-sex marriages to marriages of siblings, multiple partners, and adults and minors.[125][126][127] He later released a video message saying that he does not equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia, and that, as he had stated during the Beliefnet interview, he opposes the redefinition of marriage.[128]

Phoenix of9, I know you don't like it. I hope you can tolerate it. Benccc (talk) 06:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The other participants have listened to your comments about this Phoenix of9. They remain unconvinced. Would you be willing to drop this and move on? Sunray (talk) 09:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I dont think its neutral. And noone has explained to me why "Appearing to" is better/more neutral than your suggestion "I do... I just don't believe in the redefinition of marriage." or my suggestion above. So I wont recognize it when and if the article gets unlocked.

Benccc, you are right, "Appearing to" raises a doubt where there should be none. Thats why it misrepresents the source. And I think misrepresenting sources and NPOV violations are conduct disputes, rather than content. The doubt "Appearing to" raises is why we shouldnt make editorial comments like that. As I said, I think using Warrens words, ie: quoting, is the most neutral way. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you consider dropping this now. Once the horse has died, it doesn't matter whether you beat it on this talk page or the article talk page, it will still be dead. Sunray (talk) 00:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said, misrepresenting sources and NPOV violations are conduct disputes, IMO. So I think I'll try Arb. Maybe they'll ban me, but I dont want to leave this text at this biased state. Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

There are no NPOV violations or conduct issues or a "biased state". At this point, the only 'bad faith' seems to be your own, since you've rejected mediation as the lone holdout to a position you've garnered no support for. ArbCom isn't for content disputes.--Lyonscc (talk) 04:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't seen WP:STICK until Sunray mentioned it, and it contains points to keep in mind for all of us. I disagree that Phoenix of9 is acting in bad faith, or has no support. Everyone in this mediation has made good points, and we've made hard decisions. No victory dances please. Phoenix of9, please set aside the Beliefnet issue, at least for now. What would you like to work on next? Benccc (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing. I think I'm done with the mediation. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you still want to mediate the issue of Civil Unions?--Lyonscc (talk) 01:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Civil Unions

Move that thie mediating parties agree that "Civil Unions" do not belong as a matter of contentiousness in the Rick Warren article. Let's get this matter over with as reasonably as possible after all this time. Collect (talk) 11:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this issue is about. I see on the Case page Phoenix of9 wrote "Adding Warren's views on Civil Unions" as an issue to be mediated. Phoenix of9, would you please explain? Can this not be handled in discussion with other editors once the article is unlocked? Benccc (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that the issues about Warren and the invocation are adequately covered by the two parts we have just completed, and adding further "stuff" does not benefit the biography. BLPs are supposed to convey information about the person, and since Warren's views on marriage have already been agreed to in this mediation as being basically the same as that of his denomination, adding the Southern Baptist Convention's views on civil unions does not add anything of value to the biography. Else we could find ourselves discussing its views on every possible matter of political concern. Let us agree that this is enough "stuff" at this point, and get on with making the biography right. Collect (talk) 08:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like we are done here. Unless I hear otherwise, I will close and get the article unlocked. Would one of you be willing to make the changes to the article once that is done? Sunray (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I am steering clear -- one editor has already complained to Gwen Gale seeking to have me blocked, and two others are pestering her with untruths about my BLP position. As soon as I post any edits at all, I am sure they will be on me like a tonne of ... I am getting pretty upset at the stuff being perpetrated for sure. Collect (talk) 01:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I can get them updated once the RW article is unlocked sometime tomorrow. Might I request that when it's unlocked it be (at the very least) semi-protected for a bit, to avoid the anon-IP warring that seems to happen so often when protection from BLP's like Warren's is removed?--Lyonscc (talk) 06:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I would also ask that each participant in the mediation be informed that making further edits will not be helpful at all. The purpose of the mediation is to stop bickering, not to give a license to anyone to start all over again. Thanks. Collect (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Closing mediation

We have essentially achieved what this mediation set out to do: Find wording to describe the controversy surrounding Obama's selection of Warren to give the invocation at his inaugural. In fundamental ways the views of participants seemed to me to be incommensurable. While that may be true, the fact that participants were able to discuss the matter in a civil and reasonable manner, has made it possible to find a solution that describes the controversy from a neutral point of view.

In the end, a small subset of the original participants were able to find the solution. I hope, though, that all the participants have learned worthwhile lessons from this mediation. Wikipedia can only work if people with different points of view are able to find ways to collaborate. I hope that this lesson will carry over to the article and its talk page. I will stick around to assist with that transition. Thank you all. Sunray (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I will try to get the updates to the Warren article late this afternoon. RL has intervened a bit, but I should have time later today.--Lyonscc (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)