Talk:Rick Warren/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Rick Warren. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Somebody put a Yahoo!News link about Pat Robertson. I didn't get it. It just cites Rick Warren down there. If somebody have a good reason to put it there, let's discuss here. --FernandoAires 19:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually the link is directly related to the target above! It contains a sentence showing Warren believes humans are causing global warming. If it is to be included (and, as I've indicated, I don't), there should be a sentence saying that Warren believes global warming is caused by humans and needs to be addressed, with that link as a footnote. For why I don;t think it should be in at all, see my comments above. Rocksong 23:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, but there's just one sentence about Rick Warren in the entire article. There should be a whole article somewhere on Rick's opinion about global warming, and, IMO, it should be cited. --FernandoAires 05:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Just an observation but it seeems a majority of the article is on his critics. Gtstricky 15:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not correct to call Warren's minisrty the 4th largest "church" in America. Church is not the correct word. The proper description should be "personal congregation". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.254.190.2 (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

One guy from 74.227.46.247 is trying to remove "{{}}" from citation links. I'm considering it vandalism, and turning it back, but if there's any reason for doing so, please post it. --FernandoAires 10:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There were a warning, every time we edit this talk page, asking for creating an archive. I don't know if I did it the best way, but, well, I did it. Fell free to discuss and change anything, and sorry for any mistake. --FernandoAires 13:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

WHY? RE: WIKI policy: "let the facts speak for themselves." Financial information regarding Rick Warren's enterprises was posted by myself and was subsequently deleted by FernandoAires. Actual links showing IRS forms 990 were cited and linked. Fernando, you state you live in Brazil; if you are not familiar with the American Internal Revenue Service---perhaps you should familarize yourself with the necessity and accuracy of their data. I plan to repost, and should the financial information be removed again; I will file a dispute with Wiki. (sent by a guy from 72.26.158.119 to a wrong page, and moved to here)

In answer, I must say, first of all, that I have no problem at all with criticism of Rick Warren, and, as you can see in former discussions, I defended criticism in other points. When I removed that (and it was my fault not explaining why here, so sorry about that), it was for one main reason: it seemed to violate the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons official policy. I'm not sure about if it still don't violate, but I--Shunt11 07:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)'ll try to organize that in a way that follows Wikipedia standards.

But, with no offense at all (actually I'm very glad every time that someone starts to help Wikipedia), please start yourself considering Wikipedia as a encyclopedia, and nothing more. We are not here to state what's true, but some encyclopedical content about interesting matters. Policies are here to well define what's encyclopedical content, and that's why most of us follow them, and kept so strict about them. So don't be mad: it's not personal, in any way. --FernandoAires 18:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There are other problems: it is undocumented ("see guidestar.org" is not sufficient documentation), and it is apparently original research. Rocksong 23:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This guy is a dedicated Christian. The Christians who criticize him are spoon-fed new age crap. -66.218.19.31

Rick Warren is NOT a Christian. In his book The Purpose Driven Life, he misquotes the Bible and takes it out of context numerous times. He also quotes from paraphrases such as the Message and TEV that aren't true to the original meaning of the Bible. If he was a Christian, he wouldn't dare to misquote the Bible
Skillmaster 05:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

CITATION NEEDED: The last sentence under Criticisms, "Rick Warren also has been criticized for saying it isnt neccessary to study Bible Prophecy", is an uncited allegation that should either be cited or removed. Ex. When and where did he say that, and who wrote the criticism? --Mcrouse2004 22:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Reporting blogger news that is unsubstaniated, based on conjecture, and lacks a "credible" source (something beyond an internet address)should not be part of a biography. Accusations, interjections, and opinions do not make the cut as "biographical material".Jonnswift 07:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Blogs should not be used as references, as they ARE full of opinion and are unprofessional in citation. The issue presented at the end of the criticism section, however, IS a criticism, and criticisms are always opinion based and only need to be noted as so. The section should be added for notability, and not to pressure a right/wrong stance.--Jake 07:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources have been added, one to cite that the Warren-Murdoch tie is more official than just speculation. The other is a conservative-Christian news source (which you will rarely find me cite), that while it is opinionated, is accurate among it's religious content. The citation clearly states the FACT that an opinon does exist. Opinions in this article are only presented in the form of quotes from important figures in the cons. Chris. scene. --Jake 08:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I give up on questioning the morality of these Christian figureheads. The facts are plain, the criticism exists widely in the Christian community. I don't personally think there is connection. This isn't an opinionated issue for me, as I am not a Christian, nor do I have opinions on Rick Warren or Rupert Murdoch. Somebody please make this small issue more obviously factual. --Jake 08:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The faulty logic that you are using and the short sighted application of guidelines is beyond reason. First, Warren has also been called "America's Pastor" therefore using the logic you're supporting as reason enough to keep this post, we could say that Warren is responsible for America's current state. How absurd is that?! Also, your NPOV comment may be appropriate for being "neutral" only, however, neutrality does not give weight or support to improper association. To say that Warren is responsible for the way Murdoch thinks is a stretch in the largest sense of the word. That kind of opinion and interjection has no place in a biographical article.Jonnswift 08:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

While I think we are both on similar sides of the argument, I do not understand why an issue which has seriously degraded Warren's reputation among the more extreme Christian community is not biographical enough for at the very least, a brief explanation of the reasoning. I would never associate Rick Warren with the current state of America simply because of a title, and nobody else has yet made that association. I do not think that Warren has any influence on the "morally reprehensible" actions of Murdoch, however, the connection forged between the two issues has formed criticism. That section is reserved for criticisms that can be recognized easily. I think a quick search of the internet will show you that many people have strong interest and strong opinions on the issue.--Jake 08:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

kudos to Warren et. al for allowing the criticism section to exist....rare in these circles anymore.

When I first looked at the page, it looked as though a vandal had blanked it. Then I realized the article started below the sidebar. Either the sidebar should be moved to the bottom of the page or this needs to be fixed some other way. I am really poor at formatting or I would do it myself. RonCram 10:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This should not be included if and until it is verified and cited correctly. One could easily list out several thousand key pastors who do support Warren.

Critics There are a number of pastors, ministries and authors throughout the world who are critical of Warren and his teachings{fact|December 2007}, including Dr. John MacArthur, who addressed Warren in a chapter in his book, Fool's Gold. Other critics include Chuck Smith, Jimmy Swaggart, Dave Hunt, Daniel Dennett, David Cloud, Berit Kjos, Texe Marrs, and Dr. Noah Hutchings.^{[verification needed]}

Users Knight1000, GlassFET (Journeyman Editor) and Lyonscc updated the article to remove multiple links to blog and self-published sources (primarily, though not limited to, criticism). These were in violation of W:BLP:

Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims.

Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links.

Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article(...)

Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals if the information is derogatory. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy.

Additionally, links in the "See Also" section to the Emerging Church and Brian McLaren were removed, as these are not directly related to Rick Warren by W:V sources. The link to Joel Osteen has also been removed from this section, as Osteen is more often associated with the Prosperity Gospel movement, not the Seeker Sensitive movement, and is a firmly identified linkage through Verifiable sources.--Lyonscc (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Rick Warren has links to Megachurch groups needing further elaboration and management writer Peter Drucker and the interestingly political movement called Dominionism in the Christian Right See this article http://www.discernment-ministries.org/ChristianImperialism.htm and return commentary. Dominionism as a group argues against the separation of State and Church and thus opposes the US Constitution. -- 58.163.136.175 (talk) 13:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No further investigation is needed. This is blog-sourced material, highly speculative, and it would not belong in a personal biography. Trying to insert it in would not add anything to the biography of substance, but, rather, would coatrack this tertiary issue. See WP:COAT for more information on coatracking and WP:BLP for sourcing guidelines for living persons.--Lyonscc (talk) 19:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lyonscc as to blog sourced material. I also personally know that Rick Warren is adamantly against theocracy and/or dominionism - it's not in his vocabulary. So, any assertion to such by a source would have to be categorically verified to even be considered and would be easily refuted. CarverM (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed this from the criticism:

Warren's books have come under criticism from some Christian groups who question the practices promoted in these books, claiming that they distort the gospel or otherwise employ questionable tactics. Other common criticisms include objections to the accuracy with which it presents the Christian gospel^{[citation needed]}, the accuracy of their Biblical exegesis^{[citation needed]}, and various allegedly unbiblical teachings^{[citation needed]}. Many critics contend that Warren compromises on various doctrinal truths and that he espouses ecumenical teachings.

because they are all unsourced. From WP:verifiability:

Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living persons.

It shouldn't be that hard to make the effort to come up with attributable reliable sources. "Some Christian groups" and "many critics" are examples of disallowed weasel words. Do the research, learn how to cite and add them back in. If it is a particular critic, then attribute them as does the other criticism of the section:

Philosopher and atheist Daniel C. Dennett has stated that Warren's book The Purpose Driven Life makes claims about the Universe which are "false", and that it "discourages people from scientific understanding".[1]

∴ Therefore | talk 05:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

At any rate, reading the article over for the first time as someone interested in learning about "Pastor Rick", I did want to read a more critically balanced article. The article needs much more--specifically--about what Rick Warren's critics have to say, both for good and ill. Nearmiss (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for the lecture. Pairadox (talk) 05:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha! I stand properly corrected as a pedant. I apologize. I'll try to loosen up and not assume that the editors of this page aren't aware of standard procedure. Thanks! ∴ Therefore | talk 05:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:) De nada! There's a new editor with some drafts in progress, so we'll probably see improvements soon. Pairadox (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've returned some of the criticisms along with a source removed last month for the spurious reasoning that a reliable source shouldn't be allowed unless Warren's blogged rebuttal is included. Pairadox (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It is the responsibility of other editors to include Warren's rebuttals; it certainly doesn't preclude reliable criticisms as it stands now. ∴ Therefore | talk 22:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Because of the overwhelming amount of recent vandalism by unestablished users, I have requested that the article be placed under a partial block immediately.

Manutdglory (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Requests for page protection posted to various project pages are ineffective. Requests for page protection need only be posted once, at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, where I posted a request about an hour ago. I expect that the page will be protected once an administrator acts on the request. For future reference, at the top of that page is a handy list of various noticeboards and pages where vandalism and other issues may be brought to an administrator's attention. Mike Doughney (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I wasn't aware of that. In the past, I've actually requested page protection from project pages and it actually worked - that's why I did it for this article. I'll use the request page in the future. How long does it usually take for an admin to install page protection? Manutdglory (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It depends on how many admins are checking the request page each day. Sometimes it will be a few minutes and others a few hours. There is no guarantee that the page will be protected though. The admin will review the situation against the protection policy and decide if protection is appropriate. Road Wizard (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It's now semi-protected through January 20. I would certainly not hesitate to request protection on an article that's getting as much IP vandalism as this one has over the past 24 hours - particularly when that vandalism can be associated with increased media attention and/or current controversy. Mike Doughney (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The user "Manutdglory" says that they have reported me (Teledildonix314) to Wikipedia authorities for "repeated vandalism" of this article. This is nonsense. I have edited this article several times, and each of my edits has been quite according to the rules of Wikipedia. In fact, the only thing i have done is to alter certain words such as "conservative" and substitute them with more appropriate terms such as "reactionary". If you don't like what i have written, you are free to change the text in any way which you believe is more accurate and in accordance with a good encyclopedia article. However, you are ridiculously bogus in calling me a "vandal". I am a Wikipedia editor, just like you, and if you don't like what i write, that's a problem with your personal opinions, not with the policies of Wikipedia. Give me a break, you big blustering blowhard [sorry] concerned editor. Teledildonix314 (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the affiliations of the editors who are pulling this term, I do not think this term may justifiably be used to describe Warren's views in this article unless some citation may be found from a reliable source that indicates that use of this term is appropriate. I've been looking and thus far have found no such citation. Mike Doughney (talk) 23:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. A simple overview of User:Teledildonix314 recent contributions reveal that he is a gay-rights activist and not an impartial blogger. Repeated, unsourced, inflammatory comments like his are exactly why the article was partially protected 2 weeks ago against unregistered users. The only difference is that he is registered. Manutdglory (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Do not take my agreement with you about this single edit as a justification for your personal attacks against another editor. The mere fact that one is an activist does not indicate that an individual is not impartial or will violate POV guidelines here. This article was protected at my request because of vandalism, not controversial edits. Your disagreement with the particular wording is not proof that the edits are "vandalism." I advise all editors to discuss such controversies here on the talk page and not engage in edit wars or personal attacks. Mike Doughney (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Unfortunately, no matter which other Wikipedia articles i link (such as Reactionary), the Manutdglory editor is just going to revert them. This is frustrating and pointless, as it reaches no compromise on acknowledging the factual basis for the choice of particular vocabulary. With Manutdglory, it seems this is no way to collaborate on an article which could use plenty of improvement, especially in terms of Neutral Point Of View. I'm sorry i bothered to scold the blowhard, and even more sorry to find my edits are not accepted as any form of lasting contribution merely because one other editor feels the need to defiantly delete anything which doesn't sound like the sort of puff-piece their ears wish to hear. If nobody else has any desire to try to add balance (to what is essentially an Apologist type of article about a living person who currently enjoys a popular following despite his anti-humanist attacks on other people) then there is no point trying to have a collaborative encyclopedia. That sucks. Teledildonix314 (talk) 04:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S.-- Once again, for example, my text was deleted although i was giving DIRECT quotations from sources which not only cite their facts, they record them and distribute them for free!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JIFhZBzvA0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JIFhZBzvA0&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/24/211141/49

Those video clips were being directly dictated word for word in the text i previously added, but Manutdglory just didn't like to hear it, so they deleted my work in its entirety. This is so childish, i wish there were some way to _protect_ an edit when it has DIRECT proof, such as in those video clips! *sigh* —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teledildonix314 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

"Despite his anti-humanist attacks on other people...". Yeah, Teledildonix314 definitely sounds like an objective, non-partial editor. I rest my case. Hey Mike, remember this: "the mere fact that one is an activist does not indicate that an individual is not impartial or will violate POV guidelines here." Are you still wondering whether this guy is an ideologue who clearly hates Rick Warren? Come on. So why hasn't he been blocked yet? Manutdglory (talk) 05:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If you look below, you will note that I myself called Warren a "thuggish slimy weasel," and I happen to agree that Warren's activities might well be called "anti-humanist attacks on other people." Evidently you don't seem to have the mental agility to distinguish between a person, their views and their edits here, but I will point out to you once again that those are in fact three different things. Having expressed views contrary to a biographical article's subject is not in any way grounds for banning an editor. Further, I suggest you review what does and does not constitute vandalism on Wikipedia and the official policies on Wikipedia regarding vandalism. Even further, you might also review the no personal attacks rule and this helpful article about assuming good faith. Mike Doughney (talk) 05:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

When you keep deleting my contributions, which happen to be direct links to the actual sources of information-- the actual camera and microphones on Rick Warren as he explicitly states his own views to the audience-- you are destroying information. That is vandalism. If you don't like my citations and direct quotations from Warren's own public interviews, why don't you just counter with some of your own sources and citations? Why don't you offer some information if you feel the article needs to be better balanced? Stop deleting everything i add. I'm not going to argue with you about the nuances of vocabulary such as "reactionary conservative" because i think you haven't even bothered to check a dictionary. I'm not going to keep up a war with you when you don't like my citations. I'm asking you to offer your own information from sources where you can cite facts and quotations and direct attributions. That's how you write an article. You don't have to worry about my point of view, you can offer your own sources of facts. Then nobody will be able to quibble over the Neutrality of the viewpoint because it will be objectively demonstrated to the readers for their own analysis. We avoid Original Research and Weasal Words and Controversial Mudslinging by sticking strictly to demonstrable facts. A television interview in front of international cameras and microphones most certainly constitutes a 'reliable source of information' which deserves to be cited. Just ask yourself as a member of an audience, "do i want to hear Teledildonix314's opinion, or do i want to hear Warren's own words directly as he speaks to the interviewer, to the cameras, and to the microphones?" Teledildonix314 (talk) 06:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This is for Mike and Teledilonix314 - the youtube.com video you both are defending is nothing more than a hit-piece titled: "Max Blumenthal on "Rick Warren's Double Life" " - excuse me, but I don't think a Wikipedia administrator nor the majority of readers are going to conclude that is an objective, rational source and if you both think it is, neither of you should be editing this article because you clearly are not objective at all. This has become a joke - both of you have clearly admitted to being prejudiced against Rick Warren, and thus, per Wikipedia regulations, shouldn't be editing an article that is supposed to be from a objective, neutral perspective. And Mike, if you hypocritically insult or threaten me once more, I'll be reporting you.Manutdglory (talk) 09:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

By all means, report anything you wish. Of course, you still haven't offered some kind of factual citation or direct quote to explain why you disagree so vehemently with other editors' contributions. If you don't want to quarrel about Neutrality, all you have to do is _offer_ some facts, show some evidence, and provide some verifiable citations with sources which can be examined. Then the truth will speak for itself, and nobody will dispute the accuracy of vocabulary words. Stick to providing direct quotations and clear attributions, without glossing it over with your analysis or spin, and the audience will be able to see how strong your position is. If you think your position is so strong, and is so totally in contradiction to the facts and citations provided by other editors, all you need to do is show us why we should believe you. Give us some proof. Until you do that, you are just childishly perpetuating an edit-war. Instead of obliterating my work and destroying the information provided, you could just give us your sense of 'balance' by inserting the proper citations in the appropriate places (pun intended). The article needs to come from verifiable sources, and i would encourage you to put yours in the bibliography and footnotes.

... and then report whatever sort of thing your little blowhard [sorry] heart desires. In these Talk Pages here, i utter my inflammatory comments and boldly expose my point of view, so there will be no doubt about what i try to convey with the facts i choose to present. But on the Article pages, i have only inserted easily-verifiable quotations and citation from well-known sources of news and current information. How can you possibly be more objective than that? What could possibly be more Neutral than simply giving the readers a direct link to the actual recordings of Warren himself? We can stick strictly to reporting, we don't need to spin anything to a particular Point Of View. The audience can discern the facts for themselves.

Rick Warren is exposed as a lying, hypocritical, contradictory charlatan. He is a mountebank who does nothing other than the usual sorts of scapegoating and xenophobic assaults against the basic values of secular humanism wherever they contradict his evil [impossible] fantasies. But i didn't state these opinions in the article-- i chose to give the readers _direct _evidence _of _the _actual _interviews with Warren himself. I don't have to bother pointing out how he's an unconvincing liar who can't keep his stories straight-- i don't have to use inflammatory language in the Article, as i am doing here in the Talk Page; truth is self-evident. When you repeatedly try to delete and obliterate the truth, you are destroying the quality of the article. The only way to successfully persuade people of your own viewpoint will be to present strong evidence. How difficult is this to understand? Rick Warren slandered millions of innocent people when he dishonestly equated them with incestuous pedophiles. How is that not a notable fact? How can such an outrageous slander and wicked lie be deleted so casually by any editor? Why would you try to hide the evidence of his lies and slander? Why is your point of view so strongly based on a denial of the direct quotations which are freely viewable and audible to anyone who wishes to listen to Warren? The video clips have been broadcast across so many networks around the world already, it makes you look strangely grotesque [unintelligible] when you act as an Apologist and as a Denialist for the sake of such a reprehensible villain [polemicist] as Rick Warren.

If Warren says that "All _blank_ are a bunch of incestuous pedophiles," and _blank_ referred to some persons such as Africans, Jews, Chinese, Females, Single Men Over 30, Mormons, Taxi Drivers, Registered Nurses, etc, etc, then of course audiences would be outraged by such horrifying slander. But when Warren made that EXACT same comment about people who desire Marriage Equality and equality regardless of sexual orientation, Manutdglory rushed to hide the evidence. Why is Manutdglory so eager to allow hate-speech against gays and lesbians, while so vigorously deleting the links to all of the evidence of the hate-speech?

How embarrassing to be seen as an Apologist for somebody who spews hate against millions of innocent people. _{Sorry if that makes me sound like a gargoyle, i will learn to always comment strictly on edits instead of editors, and i apologize for not learning that civil guideline sooner; i was a newbie editor back in the autumn of 2008, i won't repeat that sort of pattern, thanks} Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _{contributions} 23:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Teledildonix314 (talk) 11:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you have me in tears. Dude, calm down, seriously. Do you know what you sound like? Quick question - so because Barack Obama doesn't want gay marriage legalized either is he a "lying, hypocritical, contradictory charlatan" too? The point is, I'm for the facts and truth. Like 90% of Americans, I see Warren as a kind, loving man who has done incredible good for the world and is one of the greatest Americans alive, not as a hateful bigot like you and a very small (but vocal) fraction of Americans. As demonstrated by your hateful diatribe on this page, you are clearly way too emotional to be objectively editing this article. I mean, you even managed to turn User:Mike Doughney against you - and he was on your side! What a joke. Good luck with the investigation by Wikipedia administrators.Manutdglory (talk) 08:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)