Talk:Saddleback Church

Why was the child molestation arrest section removed - Objectivity and maintenance of article is by the church itself. Entire article needs reviewed for deletion due to lack of objectivity

I understand that Christians feel child molestation is cool but removal of the section was inappropriate, and reeks of church members running protection on this page, and would that not be against Wikipedia policy? His arraignment of fucking two fourteen year old boys is later today in Santa Ana. Is a supporter of child molesters guarding this page for the church?

I ask that the properly written entry, with references to both the Los Angeles Times and KABC 7 Los Angeles Eyewitness News article be restored. The fact that someone affiliated with this particular church molested teenage BOYS is VERY relevant to this article, given the church's EXTREMELY high profile against gays, and the involvement of this church in national politics, so the relevancy requirement for the section is CLEARLY met.

If I have to rewrite and resubmit the section, I will add the Orange County Special Victims Unit phone number that the prosecutor is asking further victims to call. 2600:100C:B010:E6EF:4EC8:838F:6136:DB4F (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Your very first sentence is quite beyond the pale, so I fear you are unlikely to persuade anyone here of much. Collect (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Based on the Christians commenting everywhere in support of TLC, as well as the soft sentences when prosecution is even done at all, say what you want, I stand by the first sentence above. You didn't answer the question. This is the talk page, and I am not obligated to respect or lie for your religion. Now, will you answer the question on why a compliant and properly sourced, relevant section was removed?

I call page protection by the subject of the article. The page edit notes back up the assertion that church personnel or members maintain protection on this article.

Does that amount to Saddleback using Wikipedia for free advertising and propagandizing? The notes sure make control and protection of the page look like it is from inside the church itself.

Wikipedia is not being paid to be a yes-man publicist, nor is it supposed to be treated as such. There is a place where such lack of objectivity and lack of truth is allowed, why not just go there, it's called Conservapedia. It's a nice little echo chamber of people just like you.2600:100C:B010:931F:B439:9B5F:501C:1325 (talk) 04:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Concerns

The "Serious concerns with" section added September 27, 2005 does not pertain directly to Saddleback Church so much as the author's personal opinions about Rick Warren and the "Purpose Driven" movement. I have changed the title to "Opposition, concerns" do to the unduly prejudicial tone it invoked.

I do not believe this amount of editorializing is appropriate, and should be at the least reduced to a few relevant concerns. As is, the "opposition" section is as big as the general explanation.

• What was here in 2005 appeared objective. Seems that this church and it's supporters have removed all objectivity on this article making it appear to be advertising copy for the church and religion. This church made itself political, and the guards of this page want to keep facts out.

2600:100C:B010:E6EF:4EC8:838F:6136:DB4F (talk) 03:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Further, a section is already present in the entry for Purpose Driven Purpose_Driven I propose shorting the section to a reference (as it is in the Purpose Driven entry) instead of a list of redundant, critical links.

Please sign your posts on talk pages.

Agree this article needs work. The section of links to critics is actually longer than the text of the article! Ridiculous. It shows that some don't like this particular church, but I think we knew that. Andrewa 23:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Links - Criticisms

I can see how it would be entirely appropriate to have criticisms and debates within a Wikipedia article. I wonder, however, if the links section in this article goes too far. In fact, for the individual who is expressing his opinions through them, I think that s/he would find it far more useful to boil it down to one or two powerful links, thus appearing more neutral.

Just one user's thoughts... --Jelgie 18:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I added the info and a link to the LA Times article about one of their youth ministry being arrested for molesting two 14 year old boys. The entry was deleted, presumably by a member of the church, as it was properly referenced. 2600:100C:B010:E6EF:4EC8:838F:6136:DB4F (talk) 04:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Some adds

I´ve put some new information concerning the subject purposed, that I think is give real information about this institution. Of course, everybody has the right to make critics, but both sides must be heard. Se ya, from Brazil!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.186.80.19 (talk • contribs)

Blatant POV

The continuous references to "God" expanding this or that ministry in this (Saddleback) church is clearly POV by any reading of Wikipedia's policy. I have to wonder how many readers would even be offended by it.

If anyone argues that it is not POV but "fact", please consider this: What if I said that it was really Satan driving the expansion of this church? Wouldn't someone (rightfully) point out that that was POV?

On a personal note, I think it is foolish, dangerous, and disrespectful to ascribe the success of a particular church to "God". How dare you! InFairness 05:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"How dare you!" seems a teeny bit extreme. I guess I'm just not that shocked at my fellow Christians (or Muslims or Jews for that matter) ascribing their church's success to God. Or do you see the only intelligent, safe and respectful view as one that is secularly based?;)

We Christians come at things from a different paradigm. And I think folks of different faiths who live in a pluralistic society are all mature enough to realize that us making claims of the God-based nature of worldly successes (just as they do) does not equal disrespect. It equals faith.

In any case, might it be better to remove and annotate what you believe is POV rather than remove the entire contribution of the author? Is there not any content that you felt could be kept in your revision of the article rather than a mass delete? I was tempted to revise it myself before you deleted. It just seems rather "unwiki-ish" to undo everything a contributor did. But I am new at this so this is newby feedback. It just seems more in-line with what I've read about how wikipedia works.

All the best!--Jelgie 07:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you and I have found similar POV on here when authors claim the church is growing by dynamic speaking techniques. lets fix it! Scottdude2000 (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Left Behind

Okay, really don't wanna get involved with this article, but... while it may be true that Left Behind does take place in the end times and does involve people getting shot, "Ties to violent end times video game" is still POV. Two reasons: (a) It's arbirtrary that you chose to draw attention to these two facts to the exlcusion of others. It could also be described just as accurately as "Ties to modern-era real-time strategy game", or even "Ties to video game which has lots of concrete." An anti-concrete activist would be particularly offended by such a game, and would want to make sure that everyone knows that Saddleback has ties to such a debacle. So, the fact that two particular aspects of the game are being highlighted displays a POV on the game itself. (b) "Violence" is a relative term. I'm sure Left Behind is less violent than, say, Grand Theft Auto. Actually, I'm sure it's less violent than the Bible. So, to use it implies a judgment on the game which is extraordinarily difficult to make objectively. Hope this helps. Korossyl 13:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• This is so totally slanted, and has no historical significance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.247.221 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 20 September 2006

• Dude, the game involves indoctrinating the Christians to do EXACTLY what ISIS does, except in the United States. If someone refuses to convert, you kill them. ISIS gives the Christians this choice too. This church's sponsorship of the game is relevant. This section needs to be restored, along with links to the practices of ISIS/ISIL. Would the RAND Corporation be a good source here to show the apples to apples nature of the game in relation to ISIS/ISIL? There are even scholarly citations that the game had an influence on ISIS/ISIL leaders.2600:100C:B010:E6EF:4EC8:838F:6136:DB4F (talk) 05:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

You appear to say Christians are as bad as ISIS, and thus need to have accusations of molestation by a church member etc. prominently mentioned in the article on that church. I suggest that this position would need an actual WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion, thus have removed that accusation from the article. Collect (talk) 15:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Saddleback church settlement

What is this about? I can't seem to find anything on it and I'm curious. Strawberry Island 07:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well known and influencial

This has been moved from the article for discussion.

Saddleback is currently one of the most well-known and influential churches in the world.http://www.inplainsite.org/html/saddleback_church.html

I don't think the source could be considered a reliable one. [www.inplainsite.org www.inplainsite.org] doesn't indicate in any way that it is anything other than one person's website.[1] A google search for the author of the piece, David Cloud, shows that he has nothing in his background to make this kind of claim valid. In fact, his writings are apparently controversial in themselves.[2] For this kind of claim, it requires a source with some editorial oversight and fact-checking. Pairadox (talk) 07:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There a still some problems with this statement. Currently the reference source is the website of the Saddleback Church [3]. NPOV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.214.37.243 (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Saddleback Church creationism

I think what the church teaches shouyld be discussed. This includes beliefs on science/evolution and creationism and that pastors incorrectly claim humans lived with dinosaurs.

On Saddleback Church website: he wrote the following on the evolution (mispellings in original):

31. Is evolotion part of God's plan?

Question: Why is it not OK for evolution to be part of God’s plan? I don’t understand what the problem is: couldn’t God have used the process of evolution as the way that He created the earth?

Answer: When I was a new believer in Christ, I had some very strong feelings about the issue of evolution. Much as you have expressed, I believed that evolution and the account of the Bible about creation could exist along side of each other very well. I just didn't see what the big argument was all about. I had some friends who had been studying the Bible much longer than I had who saw it differently. But they didn't push me or argue with me, they simply challenged me to take some time to look into the facts and study the issues carefully. I'll always appreciate them for that, because this was an issue that I had to really think through. Eventually, I came to the conclusion, through my study of the Bible and science, that the two positions of evolution and creation just could not fit together... that there are some real problems with the idea that God created through evolution.

I would encourage you to take some time to study this issue. I found that, although I'd understood the science side of the equation, I needed to take some more time to read what the Bible really had to say about this subject. Not having taken the time to really read the Bible, I was very ignorant about what it had to say. Let me give you one example. I discovered that the problem of sin, as addressed in the Bible, was much more serious than I had previously thought. When I realized that the world was clearly a perfect place as God created it, and that this perfection was ruined by the sinful choice of Adam and Eve, it really started me thinking. Did the Bible teach evolution or did it teach the creation of a first man and woman named Adam and Eve? If we evolved, which human being would have made the choice that brought sin into this world? If Adam and Eve were just allegorical pictures, why did the New Testament place some much importance upon them as responsible and real individuals? Since God clearly says that it is our sin that brought death into our world, how could there have been death for billions of years before the arrival of the first man who sinned on the earth? As I asked questions about this issue and studied what the Bible had to say, I found it to be one of the greatest times of learning in my life as a new believer. My prayer is that you will have this same experience!

...

If you want to study this further... Here's a web site that you might want to check out: http://web.archive.org/web/20051118164840/http://www.probe.org/content/section/13/67/ (One article that is especially thought provoking discusses "Darwin's Black Box").

On the website FAQ about dinosaurs:

30. What about dinosaurs? Question: How do they fit in with the idea that God created the world rather than the world evolving on it’s own? Why doesn’t the Bible talk about dinosaurs?

Answer: The Bible tells in Genesis 1 that God made the world in 7 days, and that He made all of the animals on the 5th day and the 6th day. All of the animals were created at the same time, so they all walked the earth at the same time. I know that the pictures we all grew up with in the movies were that dinosaurs roamed a lifeless, volcanic planet. Remember these are just pictures drawn by someone today! The Bible's picture is that dinosaurs and man lived together on the earth, an earth that was filled with vegetation and beauty.

What happened to the dinosaurs? The scientific record lets us know that they obviously became extinct through some kind of cataclysmic event on the earth. Many scientists theorize that this may have been an asteroid striking the earth, while many Christians wonder if this event could have been the worldwide flood in Noah's day. No one can know for certain what this event was.

Although it cannot be stated with certainty, it appears that dinosaurs may have actually been mentioned in the Bible. The Bible uses names like "behemoth" and "tannin." Behemoth means kingly, gigantic beasts. Tannin is a term that includes dragon-like animals and the great sea creatures such as whales, giant squid, and marine reptiles like the plesiosaurs that may have become extinct. The Bible's best description of a dinosaur-like animal is in Job, chapter 40. We don't know for certain if these are actually dinosaurs or are some other large creatures that became extinct. ...

In 2007 interview Warren said:

Do you believe Creation happened in the way Genesis describes it?

WARREN: If you're asking me do I believe in evolution, the answer is no, I don't. I believe that God, at a moment, created man. I do believe Genesis is literal, but I do also know metaphorical terms are used. Did God come down and blow in man's nose? If you believe in God, you don't have a problem accepting miracles. So if God wants to do it that way, it's fine with me.

This aspect of religion and opinion on science is important in describing their beliefs. Tgreach (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this belief notable though? Many evangelicals (especially pastors) would agree with him. He didn't come up with these beliefs. Its standard conservative evangelicalism. Ltwin (talk) 05:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"Saddlebacking"

Malicious editors are adding in the term "Saddlebacking", which is not a ubiquitously recognized neologism, but rather a derrogatory sexual term made up in the past few days. It isn't notable, and it's not encyclopedic. The only reference (The economist) notes that, at the time of publication, the word didn't even have a definition. It needs to be removed, and the users blocked from editing this page.--Lyonscc (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't confuse your opinion with reality. The term is notable and has a well-cited article. You don't have to like it, and I don't have to care if you like it, but you don't get to censor this article. Just back away. Spotfixer (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Lyonscc said: "the word didn't even have a definition" but this is a patently false declaration, as the Economist said there were multiple definitions, and we can easily determine which is the now common neologism. Please don't rush to have "users blocked from editing this page" when you are in fact showing a bias and a tendency to fight consensus. Thanks. Teledildonix314 ^talk 05:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

And now Manutdglory is trying to push for violation of the 3RR. I would like to point out: Manutdglory has openly mentioned that they are a member of the Saddleback Church and thus it seems there is a Conflict Of Interest when they try to delete anything which might go against their personal preferences for how to portray the Church with puffery and WhiteWashing. Teledildonix314 ^talk 05:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion of this term - it's clearly non-NPOV. (unsigned by Manutdglory)

  Given your obvious conflict of interest as a member of this church, your opposition carries no weight. You should recuse yourself. Spotfixer (talk) 05:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

And I suppose that you are completely objective and neutral and have no bias at all - sure. Manutdglory (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Totally indifferent Is the inclusion of this barely-month-old term really worth two simultaneous edit wars (here and at Rick Warren)? Mike Doughney (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep it in, are we honestly arguing here that something that has garnered interest from the Economist and was printed in Dan Savage's column isn't notable enough to be mentioned, with due weight, in the Saddleback Church article? While these two things might not push the term to the threshold of having its own article for some people, it clearly is important enough to garner a mention in this article. Wikipedia is not censored and it isn't a place to POV push. If something notable is happening to a subject on Wikipedia, it deserves a mention, whether or not people with COI like it or not. SMSpivey (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep it in, and please avoid any kind of whitewash while we're at it. Failure to include notable and relevant facts will cause this article to appear too much like a puff-piece. And by the way, i don't think it's fair to include Manutdglory's opposing vote above, because there has already been a firmly-established Conflict Of Interest exposed in their relationship to the topics. This thread on the Administrator's Noticeboard and this deleted discussion on Manutdglory's Talk Page contain requests from Administrators asking Manutdglory to recuse themself from the SaddleBacking and SaddleBack Church and Rick Warren articles and related voting. Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _{contributions} 02:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Shall we mention your conflict of interests Teledildonix? Such as how your persistent anti-Warren comments and edit-warring have caused the Rick Warren article to be fully protected not once, but twice. I have never let my bias affect my edits on this and the Warren article and have not made a single inappropriately-sourced edit - can you say that? And you're questioning my legitimacy? Wow. Manutdglory (talk) 03:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please. I would very much like you to mention any supposed Conflicts Of Interest wherever i might have them. My "persistent anti-Warren comments" are restricted to these Discussion Talk Pages, and are not in any contents of any article. This hearkens back to (as MikeDoughney has tried to tell you repeatedly) the simple fact that an editor's contributions to articles are not the same things as the editor's discussion of their viewpoints on Talk Pages. If my comments "and edit-warring have caused the Rick Warren article to be fully protected", i would point out: it takes two to tango, so your Reverts are equally contributing to any edit-war as much as any edits i have made. (Also please note i stopped making edits to the article even when it wasn't fully-protected, because i chose to have Discussion here rather than prolong any edit-war.) If you "have never let [your] bias affect [your] edits on this and the Warren article" that's wonderful, i applaud your ability to supposedly stay Neutral, but i would pose a simple question: If any random reader came to these pages and looked at your edits, would they be able to determine whether there is bias? Would they find the puffery and flattery of Rick Warren and his MegaChurch to be encyclopedic, or would they have an impression of a puff-piece which almost seems as though it were designed and edited by SaddleBack Church members and staff? Would they be able to catch any whiff of any editors' biases or Conflicts Of Interest? Here's what other editors and adminstrators had to say to you about that: their comments which were deleted from your Talk Page and their repeated polite warnings.

To answer your question: Yes, i can say that i have not let my bias affect my edits, by virtue of sticking to appropriately-sourced references. In fact, that's what most of these edit-wars with you are about: i come along and try to insert text which is summarizing the various Notable points relevant to the article(s) which i found in Reliable Sources, and then that text was conveniently WhiteWashed away, and then the article was Protectively Locked Down so i can't clean up the WhiteWash.

And finally, No, i am not "questioning [your] legitimacy". First of all, i'm learning to stick to discussion of the Edits not of the Editors. Secondly, i am not asking questions about you, i am exposing your Conflict Of Interest which is quite unquestionable, and which has already been pointed out repeatedly here and in other places. So i have no questions for you at all, except perhaps: when are you going to recuse yourself from the Voting and the Editing on these topics? Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _{contributions} 04:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(OD) Now that Dan Savage's efforts have had a few weeks to percolate through the mainstream media (mid-February 2009), it appears that saddlebacking (as a term with specific sexual innuendo) has moved from somewhat notable to extremely notable: http://www.google.com/search?q=saddlebacking It is not my intention to light the fuse of another flamewarring catfight, but now that we have huge amounts of citations from mainstream media, it would appear that the term Saddlebacking (and probably Savage's associated website of saddlebacking.com) would deserve to be inserted into the See Also... section of this SaddleBack Church article. I don't want to be the editor who re-inserts the potentially inflammatory reference, because i can just imagine how many other people are eager to pounce on me if i make such an edit, so would it be possible for other voices to continue the discussion here on this Talk Page so we can do this in the correct manner without violating any policies? Thank you very much Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 00:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the huge numbers of citations from mainstream media that you do. This search for news articles is more relevant, and more accurately shows the notability of the term. Kevin (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, i followed your link to the Google News results, and the first result is Dan Savage's term Saddlebacking being discussed in a Florida media outlet, followed by seven articles which describe and discuss SaddleBacking as a word in relation to the protests against the church. The Village Voice, the Orange County Register, and the Washington City Paper are three of the first seven news results, so i'm pretty sure this counts as "notable" in a very widespread way. Is it now appropriate to include the "See Also..." wikilink to Saddlebacking because we have so much notability, verifiability, and relevance to the main article? It seems inappropriate to block the inclusion of the wikilink when the terminology is now so evidently documented in so many places. Can we stop fighting about it, and just add the link? You've been very patient with me and i thank you for letting me air my viewpoint on this Talk Page, and you can see how i will certainly avoid letting my viewpoint slip into Article contents if we only include this as a "See Also..." rather than giving it any unnecessary elaboration in the main part of the Article. Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 19:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If this term is so well-known and noteworthy, why were attempts to create its own article soundly denied? There is absolutely no legitimate reason to include this term in the article. This is clearly another highly non-NPOV, agenda-driven attempt to defame an organization and should clearly not be included in this article - period. Manutdglory (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to reply without sarcasm or snideness, although i don't think it's very reasonable to have to address your COI over and over. Attempts to create its own article were not "soundly denied", they were met with your cries of "not notable enough, not neutral enough". Eventually it was determined that instead of an entire article, Saddlebacking belonged in a sub-category under Dan Savage, similar to his other neologism of Santorum. As for "absolutely no legitimate reason to include", i guess my legitimate reasons would be: notability, verifiability, continued presence in mainstream media after a period of several months (thus avoiding recentism), and particularly because this single word is such an extremely useful and concise sort of clue/ summary/ shorthand example of much of the notable and verifiable public reaction to the SaddleBack Church. Rather than try to give undue weight to a lengthy and elaborate subsection of "Criticisms of SaddleBack Church" or "Negative media coverage and protests against Saddleback" we could simply give this single term and its wikilink in a "See Also" section. By keeping extensive discussion of the term away from this page, and by wikilinking to the separate page, we are avoiding Undue Weight. We are also apparently caving in to your demands of WhiteWashing, but c'est la vie, your COI is again noted for the umpteenth time. By using only the wikilink we avoid POV; by avoiding elaborate discussion of Saddlebacking in this Saddleback Church article, we avoid your accusations of "agenda". It's a little bit difficult to fathom how we can "defame an organization" when we are merely linking to the notable and verifiable terms, and i would suggest that you can't "defame" an organization which is already infamous on an international global level. The genie's out of the bottle, you can't shove it back inside. Further attempts to censor will be viewed as your "agenda". Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 22:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of the Google News search I posted. 2 of the first 3 results are written by Dan Savage. As he coined the term, I don't think we can use his opinion pieces as a guide to notability. The OC Register article does not even mention "saddlebacking". I did not see a single source mentioning "saddlebacking" that was not an opinion piece. Kevin (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Teledildonix, since you love referring to my COI so much, how about finding a single edit I have made to either this or the Rick Warren article that is non-NPOV or biased in any way. You won't find one, because I only make legitimately-sourced, NPOV edits. And FYI, I never made a single comment regarding the "Saddlebacking" article. Oh yeah - and it's spelled Saddleback - not SaddleBack - I don't know where you're going with that. Manutdglory (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I have two questions for you, please, and anybody may answer of course, but i am hoping Manutdglory could particularly elucidate. First question is about the obstruction of insertion of the term "Saddlebacking" into the "See Also" section of the article. You have expressed strong feelings about blocking the insertion. What if the term "Saddlebacking" meant something flattering and complimentary instead of something pejorative and derogatory? Would you allow it to be inserted then? Would you accept its inclusion if it were describing some positive-sounding action which could be construed as a compliment to Warren and his church? I'm asking because i think it helps to imagine the situational reversal in order to determine whether our bias is determining our decision-making in the obstruction or insertion, or whether our decision-making is a result of cold hard analysis rather than personal feelings about whether something has a positive or negative value judgment attached.

Second question is about the situation where this article became protected when there were too many reverts and edit-war activity. I want to peacefully arrive at a compromise and friendly understanding, i don't want to edit-war. Can we think about how to get beyond this impasse without getting anybody into administrative warnings and troubles/disruptions /etc ? If you don't want to allow the notifiable term "Saddlebacking" to be included, then could you come up with another single-word or very-short-phrase which so succinctly and easily summarizes precisely the voices of criticism aimed specifically at the Saddleback Church and at Warren's positions as the church's autarch? I thought "See Also....Saddlebacking" was a perfect way to let the readers know about the recent protests and criticisms, without putting anything elaborate on this church article here. A simple wikilink over to the section of Dan Savage's page about the term "Saddlebacking" would give the readers a very concise kind of look at one of Warren's biggest critics, but it wouldn't be necessary to put any details whatsoever into this Saddleback Church article. So then i couldn't complain about "whiteWashing" because it would be an allowance of "See Also..." such and such critical voice, and hopefully nobody would be able to complain that i was pushing any POV inflammatory irrelevant material into this article. Does that make sense? Can you think of a better alternative? Can you think of a way to have a concise section referring to "here are some critics of Saddleback Church" which doesn't get too elaborate? Wouldn't a single wikilink of "See Also Saddlebacking" near the bottom of this article be very demure and unassuming? Thank you for your consideration, respectfully, Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 02:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for completely avoiding my comments - nice. To answer your first question, no, I wouldn't support listing any term that didn't have its own article in the "See Also" section - even if it was supportive of Saddleback, because listing insignificant terms that don't even have their own article is not the purpose of the "See Also" section. So now what? Once again, your "vast, right-wing conspiracy" theory is disproven. Manutdglory (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, way to keep pulling StrawMen out of thin air. I'm not sure whether you've honestly confused me with somebody else, or whether you just loosened your last little screw? Anyway, you don't seem to see the (almost humorous) irony in the fact that there is no article of its own for Saddlebacking because you are the person with a Conflict Of Interest as an actual paying member of the SaddleBackChurch who specifically edit-warred in opposition to creation of that article. If it weren't so funny, it would be sad. Actually, it is sad. It's sad because i'm wasting my time arguing about things i don't even care about. I don't care about cults or their rubes, i don't care about marriages or traditional social conformity, and i don't care about the very concepts of virginity, matrimony, and heterosexuality which are all wound up in the controversies which Warren chooses to exploit for the sake of his professional charlatanism. So really, what does it even matter... i'm only arguing at this point because on principle i don't believe your COI should be allowed to stand in these situations where edits are reverted or obstructed. I find the whole matter of staying civil to you in the face of your well-proven COI and weird strawmen from outofyournetherlymysteries to be sort of a comical challenge. It's too bad you wind up wasting the time of others who could be better spending their time working on articles about something educational or fun. Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 08:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again, did you even read my original comments? I didn't make a single comment regarding the creation of the "Saddlebacking" article, so stop saying that I did - I merely objected to inserting it into this and the Warren articles. And for the tenth time, I haven't lived in California for 6 months - I don't attend Saddleback, so I don't know why you keep harping on that. And thank you for once again publicly stating your obvious COI against Christianity. Regarding your comments about "wasting my time arguing about things i don't even care about", I think everyone is wondering the same thing - so why do you continue to do it? I mean who continually takes the time to edit and argue about articles they don't even care about? Manutdglory (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you will find that those people are often called administrators. Everyone here needs to stop commenting on what others have said about them, their views on Christianity, their COI etc and only post here if there is an actual suggestion about the article. Kevin (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You (Manutdglory) are the only person here, and at the Rick Warren talk page, who is saying anything about a "conspiracy" of any kind. Do not make up phrases, put them in quotation marks, and then falsely claim that others here are somehow using those phrases that are entirely of your own creation. Mike Doughney (talk) 05:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought you're supposed to stop dialoguing with me Mike. Out of respect to the administrator who requested that, I'll refrain from doing likewise. Manutdglory (talk) 05:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, no administrator has written any such thing directed to me. Since neither of us has been topic-banned, I think avoiding any interaction with you would be impossible. By all means, show me a diff if you believe otherwise. Mike Doughney (talk) 05:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me. This is what all the fuss is about "Saddlebacking"? Ltwin (talk) 05:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If the point is that Warren and his church are viewed as controversial in some circles and that some substantial, clear (particularly to those unfamiliar with the American cultural stew from which this springs), additional detail should be added to the articles (both here and at Rick Warren) to reflect that, then that should be argued. Otherwise, all this blather over Savage's latest addition to the English language is a waste of time; it's a poor surrogate that avoids mention of such substantive issues. I think it reflects accumulated fatigue from the long arguments over past unsuccessful proposed changes. Mike Doughney (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

To answer the first question - regardless of the bias angle of a recently invented slang term (which is nowhere near ubiquitous in the English language), I would not support its addition. Puffery is no better than demagogy.--Lyonscc (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Unprotection

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I am going to remove full protection from this article in a few minutes. From an administrator's point of view how editors react here will allow us to see if the Rick Warren article can be reopened also. I am not going to add in the "Saddlebacking" term - which from my point of view does appear to be supported for inclusion by some consensus - but I will leave that to others to include in an as NPOV way as possible. I also make comment that whilst I would prefer not to have to come back and close the article off again; or to block editors for disruption, vandalism or incivility etc if I am left with no other recourse then I will act as necessary. My final comment at this time is to remind editors that COI is not POI (point of view) - we all have a point of view for example I might like or dislike the Big Mac Burger, how I detail my view on issues surrounding that Burger either makes my edit neutral or biased. If I own a McDonalds store; am a member of the McDonalds family; a shareholder; the brother of Ronald; an advertiser for the company etc then this fact will help to decide if I have a COI. Thus editors saying this person or that person is biased in their editing does not extrapolate to COI unless a link to (in this case) the Saddleback Church; Rick Warren etc is shown/proven. More to the point just because an editor frequents McDonalds, eats burgers etc (or in this case visits the Saddleback Church, is a Christian etc) does not automatically establish a COI for an editor. To date there is only one such case established within the list of editors frequenting this and the Rick Warren article and I am pleased to note that that editor has made some major progress (at his user page and elsewhere) of listing his biases and confirming his COI. I wish all good luck in the next stage for this article.--VS ^talk 04:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for checking this for accuracy and verifiability with good faith. The latest anonymous editor's change to the article was a one word inflammatory insertion of "pro-death" instead of "pro-choice", but i checked the references and citations on this article, and they are using the common "pro-choice" wording. I don't see the reliable sources using the "pro-death" wording. Is it acceptable if that kind of word change is reneged, so we could Undo and put it back to "pro-choice" please? I want to know if that's the consensus from the people who felt the article needed to be protected and treated delicately? Thank you for your time and consideration. Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _{contributions} 19:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted it. Kevin (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks very much. It's nice of you to watch. Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _{contributions} 20:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. "Pro-death" is inflammatory, and POV. I think allowing each side of that particular debate choose their moniker (pro-choice, pro-life) rather than POV characterization (pro-death, anti-abortion) is the best route...--Lyonscc (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "pro-death" is the misleading opposite of "pro-life". In contrast, the opposite of "pro-choice" is the entirely accurate "anti-choice". After all, everyone is pro life and anti abortion. The difference is that some of us want childbirth to be a choice. Spotfixer (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your view of "anti-choice" versus "pro-choice". I believe you miss the point. The point is "who" gets to choose life. People who choose the "pro-choice" moniker discount that they are actually "choosing death" for a person. I sure the aborted person would not make that choice! CarverM (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the other thing you don't understand is the nature of the choice.

I think you would agree that it would be wrong to treat you the way I might treat a corpse just because, if we wait a bit, you will become a corpse. After all, your potential status is not your current status. When you finally die, you will cease to be a person, but you're still a person now and we can't just ignore that in the name of far-sightedness.

In the same way, an embryo's potential for personhood does not constitute personhood, and potential rights are not actual rights, so nobody is choosing life or death for a person. When a woman chooses not to become a mother, it is the pregnancy that is aborted, not a person. The actual rights of an actual person are being recognized as primary over the potential rights of a potential person.

Of course, if you're really against abortion, like I am, not just choice, the real solution here is to allow comprehensive sexual education and full, free access to contraception. Women who don't have an unwanted pregnancy are never in the position to even consider an abortion. Spotfixer (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the definition of when life starts is beyond your pay grade. You conveniently change the definition of "life" so you don't have to deal with the issue of killing. However, I agree to comprehensive sex education as long as in includes abstinence and discussion of the long term psychological effects of abortion on women. I would add that we need more robust programs for adoption and orphan care. CarverM (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)

The issue is personhood, not life; any cell is alive, but that doesn't give it rights. You would like to give rights to a clump of cells at the expense of the person it is inside. Worse, "long term psychological effects of abortion" is your little way of attempting to guilt women into having unwanted children. Clearly, it is not that you can't see the reality, but that you choose to put your own spin on it for political reasons. This conversation is over. Spotfixer (talk) 05:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The saddlebacking term

I have added a link to where this term is being discussed. I have made a rationale for having this connection established at Talk:Rick Warren#Link to Saddlebacking in case we need a renewed debate on this matter. __meco (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

We will leave it out until consensus is gained, then. It is an obscure and purposely offensive slur, and there is still no need for it.--Lyonscc (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with your assessment that it is a purposely offensive slur, however, that is a POV we share. That it would be obscure is something that could be gauged by evaluating the press which this issue has received, and when doing that I believe the characteristic obscure not to be accurate. I can also live with leaving the term out of the article pending a would-be discussion. __meco (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

To this point, it is primarily a blog-fed term without any real major media emphasis (the first five pages of Google-hits are all blog-sourced or links to the Savage wiki article (which doesn't mean it passes WP:V muster for inclusion w/ Warren or Saddleback). And, even items that have appeared in the verifiable press are not always weighty enough to not be obscure. So, it really is obscure, at best.--Lyonscc (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If you are right, that would dictate the removal from the article where it is being discussed. __meco (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The only possible exception is that the article it is currently residing in (as a small section) is about the author of the term, and the exception to the use of self-published sources for WP:BLP purposes is the subject of the biographical page. (i.e. What Person A says about Person B in their own self-published materials might be acceptable for use in a page about Person A, even if it is not acceptable for use in a page on Person B. This is one of the reasons why wikipedia, itself, cannot be used as a verifiable source for other articles.--Lyonscc (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms and Controversy

I'm starting this section to make sure we iron out the criticisms and controversy. earlier my whole section was deleted by Lyonscc because he didn't like part of it. lets be clear here. an organization of this size and weight needs a proper criticism section for the article to be truely neutral. we can haggle over the details. we can haggle over the sources used or what to include or what not to include. but at the least it has to cover prop 8. it has to cover the inauguration. and it has to cover the mixup on larry king which brought the whole church under a media firestorm. also I was thinking it should have a small shout out the the fred phelps church incident. but what we can't do is just delete everything because we don't want any criticisms of our favorite megachurch. what I put up there to start with isn't perfect and I know that. I know it needs work. so lets work on it! Scottdude2000 (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, per Wikipedia:Criticism, etc., stand-alone criticism sections are discouraged. In this particular case, the relevant material was added to Rick Warren's page (since he is not the church he speaks at, nor does he speak on behalf of the church). In the case of the Prop 8 fight, Warren made the reluctant endorsement to his congregation at the last minute and was not part of the broader fight against Prop 8. Let's not refight the six-month arbitration agreed to on the Warren article in 2009.--Lyonscc (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, let's avoid an edit war by using this page for any desired changes and not just jump to the article.--Lyonscc (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

a) he did speak for the church he works for. his website hosted his message and he did not communicate to some individuals by private means. he used the church platform and told his members that if they believe in the bible they should support prop 8. the political messages of the leader that is channeled through the organization is ""entirely"" relevent to that organizations article. I'm willing to iron out the criticisms on the talk page with you lyon. but I'm not willing to completely omit it because you don't want to. nixon has a section on watergate. watergate has a page. and the nixon administration has a section on watergate. while I'm not saying this is warren's watergate. what I am saying is that just because information appears on two pages or overlaps somehow doesn't mean you omit entirely on one giving all but one article the air of blamelessness. the church blogs alone make this relevant to this discussion. the media firestorm he created surrounding his church second that motion. I'm putting it back up. feel free to help edit what you feel is or isn't accurate. Improve what's here lyon! lets grow this article's information base together! Scottdude2000 (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

As we did with the Warren article, and as is normal practice for controversial additions, please use the discussion page to gain agreement - as the "sandbox" - not the main article page.--Lyonscc (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I was going to until I noticed the consensus stands in favor of the edits being present. I never promised they were perfect as they were but I've been afraid of a trend on wikipedia where people who hate their hero's being besmirched ask for things to remain on the talk page till the end of time. do you have a valid reason for the section to remain on the talk page? is there something specific you don't like or feel needs to be changed? because Ltwin's edits were really really good and he caught most of my mistakes. why can't it run right now is my question. Scottdude2000 (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to get some points out that came out in the entire Warren arbitration: 1) The church's stance on same-sex marriage is no different than any other church in the SBC (its denomination) and is, therefore, not notable in and of itself; 2) A pastor speaks for himself - he/she is not the CEO of his/her church, so his statements cannot be considered blanket belief/policy of the church (in a complete difference with the nixon/watergate example)--Lyonscc (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm very aware that a church being anti-gay marriage isn't surprising to anyone. what makes this notable is rick warren basically led the charge among southern evangelicals and used his church and his church's assets for that end and there are still ""to this very day"" remenants of that campaign which he later denied on national tv bringing his church into the middle of a national media scandal. all of these things are noteworthy aside from the fact that a church playing politics is illegal and they did it anyways. this pastor did not speak for himself. my references are of him in a video on the ""church website"" addressing the ""church congregation."" Scottdude2000 (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Warren was heavily criticized in Christian circles for NOT "leading the charge" in support of Prop 8. He gave no money to the campaign against Prop 8 and didn't participate in any of the public rallies against it. As a pastor, his taking a position against Prop 8 was not, in and of itself, a notable event. It was only when multiple people within his congregation asked him what he believed on the issue that he sent the video message to his congregation. There was no "scandal" as to his position on the matter which (as was noted in the discussion on Warren's page) isn't notable, because it's identical to his church denomination's position.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Lyonscc, can you please link to the Warren arbitration? Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Lt I leave this at your discretion. I thought when you edited that meant you agreed at least some of it should stay as rough as it was. what do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottdude2000 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's a link to the Seventh (and I think last) arbitration page: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Rick_Warren/Archive_7 It went on for months and had all sorts of haggling (including some discussion of what would go on that page and whether anything would be added to the Saddleback page)--Lyonscc (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

he was criticized by both sides for doing too much and too little. regardless of how the video ended up on the church's blog (which by the way you didn't prove) it still ended up there and remains on the church blog to this very day. this makes it a matter of church business. he has his own separate blog he could have put the note on but still it ended up on the church's blog where he told people to support prop 8. and there was a scandal because he went on to CNN and lied about it on national TV later. now I'm willing to let you guys iron out the details. that I think is fair. but the church assets WERE involved at least to some extent and that became an issue of note later when taxes came into question since they claim tax exemption yet politicked. like it or not he got the church involved using church assets and affected the outcome of a major political election. end of story.

Any comments on tax-exempt status and "politicking" are considered WP:NPOV, particularly since supporting/opposing a ballot measure does not impact a 501(c)3 organization's tax-exempt status. 501(c)3's are not allowed to endorse candidates in an election, but they may support/oppose public policies and ballot measures. Per the previous discussion on this particular matter, it is not a notable addition to this article, though it IS included in Rick Warren's article.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I made edits to Scottdude's section because it appeared to me to be completely POV and I wanted to make it as balanced as I could. I was not aware that there was a history of arbitration regarding this and the Warren article. I did, however, have doubts as to whether this section really belonged on the church's page. Ltwin (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Why Magog the Ogre removed the section

Well I stepped into this edit war, which is unusual for me; usually I only arbitrate them, but a reading of the article struck me as unfair, so I've chosen this course of action. For those who are somewhat new on Wikipedia, being an administrator (which I am) doesn't grant any more weight to my opinion than anyone else who is editing in good faith (WP:NOBIGDEAL).

But my reasoning behind the issue is as follows:

• First off, I don't really like criticism sections; IMHO they're the Wikipedia equivalent for the journalistic "some critics of X claim" - i.e., their purpose is to insert one's own POV into the article. See Wikipedia:Criticism sections.
• The church is an evangelical church; evangelical churches, along with various other religious sects in the United States (e.g., JW, LDS, Fundamentalist Christians, Islam) are almost always opposed to homosexual marriage. Treating this particular group's opposition as something special is a case of WP:UNDUE unless their opposition is particularly of note (e.g., they were main players in the campaign and/or received a lot of press around it). And even then, I'm not fond of demarcating it into a criticism section, more like an "Opposition to Prop 8"/"Opposition to Homosexual Marriage" section (depending on the type of opposition which is notable). Mind you, I don't think listing their opposition to homosexual marriage is bad, but placing too much weight on it is, just as it would be bad to have an entire section devoted to the church's teaching on, say, the deity of Christ.
• I also feel that Wikipedia plants a particularly strong emphasis on the scandal of being opposed to homosexual marriage, versus that of any other criticisms that come with the religious conservative movement in the US, e.g., opposition to feminism, opposition to abortion, the teaching of creationism over evolution, too much closeness to the Republican Party, etc. Any one of these could be considered a valid criticism, but for some reason we focus our criticisms on them only on their opposition to gay marriage. Indeed, this may be fair, but it is placing undue weight on the particular subject when there are other criticisms that abound just as much. Do not get me wrong - I hope to remain positively ambiguous as to homosexual marriage while editing Wikipedia (as I do with all subjects), so I'm not saying it's not scandalous or that it is - I just think it reflects our modern times too much. For example, 20 years ago the section would have read about the scandal of the church teaching that men are the head of the household, and women come second. Fifty years ago, it would have been the church's teaching on racism, and 150 years ago the church's position on slavery. It is my opinion we should try to avoid that WP:RECENTISM by including all of the relevant subjects on the matter, whether offensive or flattering, not just honing in on the one's that happen to offend us most at a given time.

This is kind of a wordy way of me saying I think the section is too long and a bit too scandal-mongering; sorry about that, but I think it's important that you all know the reasoning behind this sentiment (so that my opinion isn't just another loud complaining voice). Let me know what you think, and I will respond when I am around. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: - I wasn't aware either of a history of arbitration. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You might look at the interesting mediation on Rick Warren (especially the deleted parts), where it was finally decided that if a person or church subscribes to teachings of a denomination, that it is gratuitous to then separately list those beliefs and teachings as a criticism of the person. I am still dogged by some who were involved in the POV pushing there :(. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

thanks maggog. The gist of what he wrote was that it wasn't wrong to cite the political activism and the subsequent media firestorm but the wording needed to be changed from criticisms to something else so as not to take on a POVish perspective. This I can understand and abide by. The section will be reposted after I've edited it to match Magog's criticisms as I think most of them were fair. Scottdude2000 (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Just make sure you don't violate 3RR today. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

will do! I can be patient! Scottdude2000 (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

And please post them here in a new section, so that they can be discussed and agreed that they meet Wikipedia guidelines.--Lyonscc (talk) 02:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll post it here but I will not wait till all agree since you've stated over and over that you don't want it to go live. you're biased. end of story. you can contribute to the work. but an arbitration on another guys page about a slightly different topic doesn't entirely apply here. you've followed me around from page to page trying to undo all the contributions I've made because you don't like it when churches look bad. I did sourcework and I even went so far as to find christian sources so I'm not playing a game of strawman. if I pulled articles from the NYTimes you'd say I was using a liberal bias. nothing satisfies your standards because your standards include no accountability for your theological heros. so I'm going to follow magog's instructions and work with everyone here (including the other people you steamrolled today) and post it. what you do at that point is up to you. Scottdude2000 (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Scottdude2000 - please assume good faith here. In this particular case, I noticed that you were making the same errors on a similar page as you did on this one. Everyone has bias - it cannot be escaped. The key is to not allow your bias to prevent fairness and neutrality in editing articles. I would note that Magog did not "rule in favor" of anyone (as he noted), but rather gave his opinion on policies related to this article. If you re-read what he wrote, he was not supporting any addition, but was supporting discussion on how to go about editing the article, and his own observations on criticism sections (not supportive of them) and trying to single out non-notable support of traditional marriage doctrine (which tends to result in WP:RECENTISM).--Lyonscc (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I did assume good faith till you admitted your biases. you've personally told me you don't want any of this to see the light of day. the similar edits occurred because it occured to me the two churches partook in similar actions but the accounts on both pages varied where they did different things. essentially I took advantage of my reseach on one and carried it over where it was valid and did the extra research on the other. some bias is unavoidable with everyone. completely making sure no criticism befalls your heros goes beyond normal. this thing is going to go up eventually. when it's ready. because as he said it is relevent to have a major media scandal and political activism noted on the organization's page. he might not have loved my methodology but he agreed to the necessity of all the facts being published.Scottdude2000 (talk) 06:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Editing of the Article

I will be requesting that Scott be blocked, because he has broken the 3RR (in which the first edit to the article counted as the first "revert"). This is clear POV-pushing and tendentious editing. Let's follow the process and agree to changes here first.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I just checked the rules again which I did before reverting. I don't see this in there. I didn't modify anyone's work I added my own. you modified my work. but if this is true I throw myself at the mercy of the system lol. Scottdude2000 (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I realize as a new editor, you may not understand the conventions, but you will not be held responsible for the 3RR if you return to the article to it's previous state and agree to changes on this page before escalating to an edit-war. (and adding your own work is considered the first "revert".--Lyonscc (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

the rules say it's not a revert unless you're destorying another editor's material. I added a section as my first post and the admins are already starting to decide you are the one edit warring. maybe I'm unconventional but I'm not going to let this not run just because you seem to want it to remain in wikipurgatory forever. Scottdude2000 (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks like Magog the Ogre reverted it to the original, as this is obviously a WP:COATRACK issue.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

maggog is on his way to show us all how it's done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottdude2000 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

magog essentially agreed that it should be up but wanted some of the language ironed out. Scottdude2000 (talk) 02:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

controversies section (formally criticisms section)

here's the controversies section. magog has requested we iron it out while leaving the political action the church took intact as he said that was fair. this is the last version of LTwin's edits before Lyoncc destroyed them wholesale. Scottdude2000 (talk) 02:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Saddleback opposes same sex marriage and was a supporter of the 2008 Proposition 8 ballot initiative, a statewide constitutional ban on same sex marriage. Weeks before the state general election Saddleback endorsed Proposition 8 urging its congregants to vote for it in a video statement posted on its blog on the church's website. Quote: "[It was a] proposition that had to be instated because the courts threw out the will of the people. A court of four guys actually voted to change a definition of chris-- of marriage [sic] that has been going [sic] for 5000 years. Let me just say this really clearly, we support proposition 8. And if you believe what the bible says about marriage you need to support proposition 8."

Later that year, when selected to pray at the inauguration ceremony of then President Elect Barack Obama, the church found itself embroiled in a national controversy. In an interview on Larry King Live, Rev. Rick Warren was asked about his statement to his congregation on the church's blog to which he responded: "I am not an anti-gay or anti-gay marriage activist. Never have been, never will be". Warren continued, "During the whole Proposition 8 thing, I never once went to a meeting, never once issued a statement, never once even gave an endorsement in the two years Prop. 8 was going". This sudden reversal of the pastor's position ignited anger from evangelical leaders and seemed to contradict his statement on the church's blog. The church later clarified Warren's comments saying, "When Dr. Warren told Larry King that he never campaigned for California's Proposition 8, he was referring to not participating in the official two-year organized advocacy effort specific to the ballot initiative in that state, based on his focus and leadership on other compassion issues".

A few problems I see. You seem Someone seems to be climbing through sources, some of which are Saddleback's own blog and even a voters guide to generate your their own controversy. Drawing from Saddleback is not drawing from a reliable published source at all, and is dancing around original research.

Problem sources (or rather what's being done with them):

• http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/title-sum/prop8-title-sum.htm
• http://www.saddleback.com/blogs/newsandviews/index.html?contentID=1502%2010/23/2008
• http://www.saddleback.com/blogs/newsandviews/index.html?contentID=1502

Basileias (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't climb through sources. I posted the blog video as a direct link to the video in question that became the source of the later scandel and also the flashpoint for the political activism in the weeks before the election. normally I'd never post a blog. normally post higher rated sources like NYT CNN WSJ etc. but in this case I grabbed the blog because it was neccesary. I used christian publications so I wouldn't be accused of strawman.Scottdude2000 (talk) 06:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

also I grabbed the voter's guide because it was done the same way in another article on prop 8. I was just afraid someone was gonna ding me for not citing my source when I made a claim about what prop 8 was. thats the only reason I did that. if it's overkill feel free to axe it. no skin off my back :).Scottdude2000 (talk) 06:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It was written "Saddleback endorsed Proposition 8." Did Saddleback itself or Rick Warren take the position? If it was Warren, then what is being presented is wrong and you should have climbed through the sources. Basileias (talk) 09:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

rick warren in the name of saddleback using saddleback's assets. as I told lyons, he has his own blogs and his own resources to publish a personal thought. instead he published on the church's website. it was a proclamation of support for the proposition to the tens of thousands of members at the church... doesn't get much more official than that.Scottdude2000 (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional note...the Washington Times and Politico are indeed valid sources. However, "Gay leaders furious with Obama" and "Warren waver on Prop 8 stuns leaders" does not seem to fit in the Saddleback article. That is simply because the primary topic(s) is not Saddleback Church. Basileias (talk) 03:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, per Magog's input - Criticism sections are discouraged in Wikipedia (as they are inherently often WP:POV), but rather the material should be integrated into other sections. Also, per his comments (and the long arbitration on the Warren article), it is not notable that an SBC church opposes same sex marriage - all SBC churches oppose SSM, so this is not notable (and therefore not something to include in a wiki article). Saddleback, itself, did not take a position on the topic, but rather its pastor, Rick Warren, did, less than two weeks before the election. This fact is included on Warren's wiki page and (per Basileias' comment above) there is no reason to include it on the church's page. All of the above section is about Warren, not Saddleback. And his article already contains this event.--Lyonscc (talk) 04:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

you and magog make an excellent point. sorry about the controversy criticism language. how about we make a big section called media attention and activism and cover all of this in that section? then we can lump in the skimpy one liner on the fox christmas broadcast and the civil presidency forum and kill like three birds with one stone. this all really revolves around the media anyways. is this a fair compromise everyone?Scottdude2000 (talk) 06:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

IF there is anything that needs to be added (for which the burden of proof has not yet been met, with key notes by Basileias and Collect), I think your proposal for placement makes sense. I would still note, though, that Magog did not render an official "verdict" for or against inclusion. If you would prefer, though, if we reach an impasse, we can easily request a third opinion.--Lyonscc (talk) 06:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

lol if... the church survived a major media firestorm which lyon isn't willing to admit is relevant yet it's dumb little christmas pageant being aired on fox is equally as noteworthy or moreso as this or the presidential forum.Scottdude2000 (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

What incident is being added with the Fox one liner and the Presidency forum? The California Proposition 8 endorsement was covered in the Rick Warren article. Basileias (talk) 09:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

he made the endorsement in the name of the church on the church's blog which was broadcast to his church's congregants. guys, not only have I been over and over this but the information is in the article directly above us. then when he tried to redact the church's statement he brought a media firestorm and incurred a SECOND statement from the church's press agent to the media. no matter how we slice and dice this one the church ended up involved in a national controversy. and all this leads up to the fact that he was nationally recognized and brought recognition back to his church as it's head for the 2009 prayer. for a section on media interaction (which is what I'm thinking of calling this) I think this is all relevant material. (and lyon, magog said that stating their political activisms is perfectly within the wheelhouse. stop saying the jury is out... it's not out... it's very much in and it's relevant material) Scottdude2000 (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

sorry bass lemme explain: I wanted to create one section for all the major media interactions saddleback has had. this way we can tie up that dinky section on a fox christmas pageant, the presidential debates, and the media debacle that they endured all neatly into one place that covers all these topics.Scottdude2000 (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

and HOLD UP. upon a further re-read why is it fair to browbeat obama and clinton for being pro-choice in a section on aids but not to talk about church's politicking or national media firestorms or speaking at presidential inaugurations!? double standard lyonScottdude2000 (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You appear to not be editing from anything near a neutral point of view. Saddleback's positions which conform to the SBC positions in the first place are of essentially no notability at all. No double standard - this same standard applies thrughout Wikipedia. In fact, I seriously doubt the broadcasting of services merits mention in the article at all either. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

again. for the one millionth time. the distinction magog made was between stating that saddleback is simply anti-gay (which is browbeating or coat racking or whatever) and talking about major political action the church took part in and covering media scandals. I've already apologized for the original draft and noted that it was a first stab. a work in progress is a work in progress and I'm much less biased than some on this article.Scottdude2000 (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It is my opinion that, given the impasse, a request for comment is due, or perhaps mediation if everyone is willing to spend some time on it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to this, though it's rather frustrating plowing the exact same ground because the players on one side of the debate have changed.--Lyonscc (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

And just to note, yet again, Saddleback didn't take part in any "major political action" on Prop 8. While other large churches were writing op-eds and holding rallies, Saddleback did nothing. In fact, the pastor was vocally criticized by numerous Prop 8 supporters for NOT providing any funds or speaking engagements in support of the ballot measure. The pastor, after asked by a number of members for his opinion on the subject, sent a message to members of the congregation giving his opinion on the matter (and this fact is noted in the pastor's wiki article). As for "media scandals", the church had no involvement in any "scandal", and neither did the pastor, though disagreement over his involvement in the presidential inauguration regurgitated the previous criticism of his tepid support of Prop 8. The pastor is not the church, and the church is not the pastor.--Lyonscc (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

how about we look at it like this since I'm the only one here who thinks a pastor speaking to his flock is pretty much as official as it gets... if a pastor wanted state the official political stance of the church what would he do? speak to his congregation (as I've similarly stated for a different church and backed up with an actual videotaped sermon which lyons thinks isn't admissible as evidence). if a pastor wanted to make a personal statement without bringing the church into the picture or making anything official? he'd speak to these members by more private means OR he'd use his own blog. I'd be willing to go by magog's cryptic comment thing lol. he's right we're just going in circles. but I don't understand since I've proposed like three or four different formats and they've not contributed in any way they just shoot down idea after idea. to me this just reads as bias on their part since they clearly aren't receptive to this finding the light of day. Scottdude2000 (talk) 05:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Willing to spend time, but Scottdude2000 does not comb through the sources well, but narrows in on what he wants and starts paraphrasing. Sometimes with little accuracy as in the statement "...Saddleback endorsed Proposition 8..." Then he restates "...rick warren in the name of saddleback using saddleback's assets." Basileias (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

True - to this point there is no proposed language or proposed relevant sources, so there's nothing to arbitrate. Not even the direct quotes support inclusion on the Saddleback page without original research through paraphrase. Also, Saddleback is not Catholic and Warren is not a Pope, so he doesn't have the ability to speak ex cathedra. Saddleback has an eldership structure to which the staff report, and Warren is unable to unilaterally speak on behalf of the entire church. His video was not a public press release, but an inwardly-focused message to the members of the church giving his own opinion (which he made clear in his comments to Larry King). Also, the simple act of answering a media inquiry does not make something qualify as notable.--Lyonscc (talk) 05:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

References

proposal for a campaign 2008 section

originally I wanted a media interactions section. but with the deletions of the fox stuff by collect this leaves us with the presidential debate and the prop 8 campaign and subsequent firestorm and statement to the media. so the unifying factor between all these is they relate in that they all stem from the 08 campaign. better?Scottdude2000 (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

While they do relate to Campaign '08, the Presidential Forum was hosted by the church, as was the AIDS awareness event, but the endorsement of Prop 8 was by Warren to members of the church, not a political position taken by the church. If you wanted to keep in the notation on Obama, pro-choice, and Hillary Clinton, you could argue that it was notable because it was highly unusual for an SBC church to allow a pro-choice politician at an event sponsored by the church (which the folks who wanted to add it to the article argued, I would say reasonably, even though it seemed to try and coatrack in an agenda from some on the right), and Saddleback did get a good deal of verifiable flack from the right.

Let me try and explain the difference between Warren taking a position and the church taking a position in a different manner: In Catholocism, the Pope can make two types of public statements: One is called an ex cathedra statement, where the Pope is claiming to speak "infallibly" for the church - his statement is considered the church's statement. The other type of public statement is considered to only be his personal opinion, and in these statements he is only speaking for himself and not the church. While the comparison isn't perfect (Warren doesn't have the authority from people in the church to unilaterally speak for God or the church), Warren made it clear that he was speaking his own opinion and not making a public endorsing statement for the church (thus his answer to Larry King). This is why, back when this happened in 2009, the information was included in the Rick Warren article and not the Saddleback one. The hope, in that arbitration, was that we would never have to address this issue again. That hope panned out for over two years until yesterday, and now we're treading the exact same ground.--Lyonscc (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Prop 8 has already been covered in the Rick Warren article. Basileias (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

not in the video. in the video he made an absolute statement. he said if you believe in the bible you must support prop 8. that doesn't seem like a personal opinion to me at all. that seems like a statement of absolutes. but we're getting lost in the woods here. let me take this to the base. at the bear minimum after the scandal the church was forced to go on the record (defending him) and make a public statement. this is a major event. it's not everyday reporters from CNN bumrush my office with request for comments. I'm not suggesting we cover his perspective in all this. that would be a mis-categorization. but we do have to cover the major media events and this is easily one of them. to cover this story we do have to give some of the back story. we might not even have to talk about prop 8 at all but all I'm saying is we'd be crazy to pretend they didn't end up in the mix. I also think the absolute terms when he told his congregation to support prop 8 make it an ex cathedra statement. there was no opinion and it was done with church assets. but we can get to that later. at least for now we need to start planning on covering the the parts of this story that are relevant like we did with the presidential debates. (minus some of that weird unsupported stuff about mccain and obama meeting) Scottdude2000 (talk) 23:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to give an example of the inaccuracies in the above statement, the video was published in a blog called "Pastor Rick's News and Views" (which is not a Saddleback policy statement, but specifically the views of Warren). Secondly, his statement was that "if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you should support Prop 8". This is not at all equivalent to "if you believe in the Bible you must support prop 8". It is also clearly to an audience within the church and not a press release, as he frames it pastorally in a systematic theological argument, not as a public statement of the church's policy. Answering a media inquiry doesn't qualify for notability (particularly since the response was to verify that Warren's message was inwardly-focused and not a public press release, backing up Warren's statement to Larry King). The answer given, in and of itself, makes it clear that the church wasn't taking a public lead in support of Prop 8. And, finally, Warren isn't Catholic and cannot make ex cathedra statements - he is a member of a SBC church, on staff at Saddleback, and he answers to the eldership of the church, and cannot unilaterally speak on behalf of the church (as a Pope could do for the Catholic church). As for the McCain and Obama meeting, there was a group insisting that it all be included because Saddleback allowed a pro-choice politician to speak there (drawing the ire of fundamentalist churches). It was included because such an event could be considered notable. Even so, in the grand scheme of things, I've no opinion on its inclusion/exclusion.--Lyonscc (talk) 05:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

if you looked at the news and views section it had a gigantic saddleback logo on it as well...... not really doing much to keep the two separate are they? and using the name of your CEO as a brand isn't uncommon for a major org to do. and he framed it as a theological statement mixed with a political gripe about how judges overturned the will of the people... are we even watching the same video? I'm aware he's not catholic.... ugghhh dude I'm trying to use your analogy to answer your questions... does it really have to be this difficult... I'm starting to think you two are obfuscating the issue to keep this from going up as opposed to being constructive. and on the inclusion of the obama thing... then why don't you have an equal aloofness to the gay thing?Scottdude2000 (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand how an SBC church is organized and works. The senior pastor isn't analagous to a "CEO" of the church - he is a staff member with the responsibility to teach the people at the church. While he may act as an individual or a leader in political activity, he is not able to unilaterally speak on behalf of an entire church body. The video was clearly not in the format of a press release, but was originally published on internal video monitors at the church, as a message to them from the senior pastor. (Just as an FYI - the reason they call them "pastor" is that the word means "shepherd" and is used to describe their purpose within a local church - to "shepherd their flock". The SBC - of which I am not a member - is pretty literal and rigid in how this is understood and implemented. The church is considered to be a "ministry of all believers", and not an organization which reports to a CEO-figure.

I work with people who write press releases, and interact with pastors on a frequent basis. The purpose of a press release is to make an official statement of fact about an organization. The purpose of a pastoral statement is to persuade those who belong to your church to agree with you on a teaching. The video is pretty obviously a pastoral statement and not a press release. Saddleback's later answer to the press inquiry backs this up, and the content of the statement is that Warren was not engaged in political activism in support of Prop 8. So the content of the source you quoted argues against this issue being included in the article, simply for lack of political action!

if we're going to pull the personal history card here then I'm going to remind you I am the son of a pastor and the senior pastor's outlet to the congregation for his statements of belief (which are nearly always synonymous with the official positions with the exception of some extenuating circumstances) are wide and varied. a press statement is also effective to this end but like any press statement can be misleading as well.Scottdude2000 (talk) 06:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is "obfuscating an issue" here or being unconstructive. Those involved in the discussion are long-time editors who understand that contentious material in any article is often discussed for weeks (or in cases of arbitration, sometimes months) before it is included in an article. And as to why I'm not ambivalent on including the "gay thing", it is because - unlike the pro-life/pro-choice thing - the "gay thing" (as you call it) is no more notable than any other issue of SBC doctrine. The reason the Obama/McCain/Hillary thing could potentially be notable is because the vast majority of SBC churches would not allow a pro-choice politician to speak at their church, so allowing Obama and Hillary to speak there (and participate in the forum w/ McCain) was quite abnormal for an SBC church. So, it could be argued that that might be notable, though IMO, in the big scheme of things, is borderline as to importance for inclusion in an article. The "gay thing", though, isn't notable. The SBC opposes SSM, so it's not a surprise that an SBC church would oppose SSM. In the case of Saddleback, Rick Warren was not involved in the 2-year-long campaign to pass Prop 8 - either with his money or his time - and Saddleback did not host or support public rallies (and was criticized for not taking any lead in the effort). Thus, it is even less notable that an SBC church would reiterate to its members that is doesn't support SSM, while not making any political push for Prop 8's passage.--Lyonscc (talk) 06:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

why do you keep saying that?! this hasn't been about their doctrine in a long time! this is exactly the reason I think you're obfuscating. this is about the media firestorm now. I got the doctrine memo when magor informed me and I proposed the alternative. Scottdude2000 (talk) 06:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

"...media firestorm now?" um...where? Basileias (talk) 06:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

"Media firestorm"? Really? There is absolutely nothing in the Google current news search that turns up Saddleback and Prop 8, and the archives search picks up a nugget from The Houston Chronicle:

The pastor chosen by President-elect Barack Obama to give the inaugural invocation backed Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in his home state of California. But he did so belatedly, with none of the enthusiasm he brings to fighting AIDS and illiteracy.

When other conservative Christians held stadium rallies and raised tens of millions of dollars for the ballot effort, there was no sign of Warren. Neither he nor his wife, Kay, donated any of their considerable fortune to the campaign, according to public records and the Warrens’ spokesman.

In fact, his endorsement seemed calculated for minimal impact. It was announced late on a Friday, just 10 days before Election Day, on a Web site geared for members of his Saddleback Community Church, not the general public.

This is a verifiable source which demonstrates exactly why tagging Saddleback as a major supporter of Prop 8 would be the exact wrong thing to do.--Lyonscc (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

lol. you keep making this about warren. this isn't about warren anymore and magog made a really good case about that. (but side note: the "other churches" mentioned in this quote are the rock which means it is a major political event from a source you yourself said was credible... this is going to make it to the rock page.) the point is this: I already have the source above which has the warren thing covered by washington post (which even Bassipoo had verified as reliable), politico and I can just as easily get it from NYT CNN and hell maybe even fox. it was a national event and yes the word firestorm is appropriate here. now since this is NOT about warren none of that matters unless there is a connecting issue that brings that whole affair into the picture of saddleback's history. otherwise I'd just be citing scandals to make saddleback look bad and at that point I could just list off affairs pastors have had or random misdealing or whatever which anyone could dig up on any organization and that would not be neutral in the slightest. BUT, the reality of the matter is saddleback did have to step in to save his national bacon and release a statement vindicating him and bringing his personal scandal to a close. while you and I may disagree on whether or not the use of their blogs and web server's defines the statements that started this whole thing as official. they did step in between and the press shooting squad and defended him. this is indeed major. and notable to cover at least part of the event on this page and link to the rest of the event on the other page. So here's what I propose: we very lightly cover the origins of the matter in about one or two sentences and give larry king interview and the subsequent press release double the space and have a hotlink that takes you over to warrens section which covers the rest. this is the most fair way to cover what did happen without as magog described: giving undue weight to issues that are normal for this organization. Scottdude2000 (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't find any credible source suggesting that The Rock Church (which did participate with hundreds of other churches in advocacy events) was the driving force behind the events in a way that would distinguish the church notably from any other similar organizations. But that's another article. As for the rest of the above screed, it's all POV ("firestorm" is completely POV, as are "save his bacon" (which is completely, totally inaccurate)). There was no "scandal", other than in the minds of the gay activists who had a snit over anyone supporting Prop 8.

Here's what I propose: We don't mention in the article at all, because you've provided nothing to suggest it's notable. Anything would be undue weight at this point, because a single statement by a spokesperson giving veracity to a statement made by the pastor is absolutely zero on the notability scale. As it is, trying to say that Saddleback "saved Warren's bacon" (or even a non-POV wording of this idea) is original research on your own part, unsupported by the facts of the matter. At this point, you've got no suggested addition with any verifiable sources proving anything notable about Saddleback that isn't a coatrack for gay marriage. Absent those, there's nothing to add to the article. Sorry.--Lyonscc (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

surprise surprise. the guy who in the very first post on my talk page said he was never going to agree that it should go in ended up not agreeing to putting it in. such a shocker. Scottdude2000 (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

An example of something notable would be a statement released by a church that contradicted what its pastor said. That would be notable. We're back into duck-quacking territory. Is it surprising that Person A would say something, Person B would complain about it, and then the organization Person A belongs to says "yup, that's what happened"? Not at all. A contradiction would be notable.--Lyonscc (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know wikipedia only publishes surprising facts. duly noted.Scottdude2000 (talk) 05:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Surprising facts? Surprising is too strong a word. Notable is good enough, but "notable" implies that some level of abnormality or uniqueness has been met. In this particular case, it isn't at all unusual that a SBC church would not support same sex marriage. It would be unique, though, if a SBC church had come out opposed to Prop 8. Why? Because it is unusual, and because the national SBC organization would, at that point, begin proceedings to expel that church from the SBC. Or, for another example, it would not be unusual for a church, when asked, to support specific facts represented by its senior pastor. On the other hand, if a senior pastor made a statement which a spokesperson for the church contradicted (leading to a public rift), it would make the situation notable. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to grasp.--Lyonscc (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

As for the lack of surprise at my not agreeing to put this material into the article, unless there are facts with verifiable resources about the situation I am unfamiliar with, it's not unreasonable that I would have this opinion. We dealt with this issue in incredible depth and detail during the Rick Warren arbitration, and to this point in the discussion there has been nothing new suggested/proposed/argued that was not suggested/proposed/argued two years ago, and in the end we agreed that the material on the Rick Warren page belonged there and nothing about the incident belonged on the church's page. I am still waiting for someone to present new facts and circumstances which would justify re-opening that discussion, but none have been introduced yet.--Lyonscc (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Saddleback Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071020235230/http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/etv/images/etvnewsletter01.pdf to http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/etv/images/etvnewsletter01.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216145824/http://www.relevantmagazine.com:80/politics/ to http://www.relevantmagazine.com/politics/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Meulenberg

Two editors who previously removed this information have posed questions in their edit summaries:

1. The church approved the molestation?
2. The church abetted the molestation?
3. Rv:Undue. Why is this relevant to this article?
4. Does every crime committed by a member become the responsibility of that org.?

1. & 2. No-one has made any such claim. The questions are irrelevant.

3. "Why is this relevant to this article?" Meulenberg has been associated with the church for six years, the alleged victims also attended the church, some of the alleged offences took place on church premises, and Meulenberg held a position of responsibility at the church specifically involving youth mentoring. It's hard not to conclude there is some connection. Meulenberg's parents are reported to be on the staff of the church and there is some question as to whether he himself was a volunteer as claimed or actually on staff. Meulenberg is also a person of some standing in the community having, with his twin, written religious children's books and developed a computer game based on the Bible. The stark contrast between nature of the offences and the stated aims and beliefs of the church is also cause for its inclusion.

4. "Does every crime committed by a member become the responsibility of that org.?" Now that is an interesting question - and in general I would give a cautious "no". If a member robbed a bank I wouldn't hold the Automobile Association responsible. But we're not talking about "every" crime, we're talking about this crime, and this organisation. "Responsible" has shades of meaning. Am I my brother's keeper? (The answer, remember, is supposed to be yes). Does a church have a responsibility to and for its members? How about a responsibility for its officers (whether paid or not)? And what about vulnerable minors who it places in the care of such officers? Does it have any responsibility towards them?

The questioner can answer in the privacy of his conscience because, though interesting, it is as irrelevant as the first two questions. Wikipedia is not about apportioning blame, it is a record of fact. The desire of individual members to shield their church from uncomfortable facts is understandable but wrong-headed and counter-productive, giving an impression not of enlightened truth but rather of hypocrisy. The church's own comment on this case has the last word: "As followers of Jesus, we always want the whole truth to come out because Jesus taught us that lies enslave us, but the truth sets us free."

However I can see that giving the information its own section and arguably inflammatory heading is undue so I have merely added it to "History". Captainllama (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing this issue on the talk page. I am against including the accusations of molestation on the grounds of relevance (please see wp:relevance # relevance level 3). Inclusion of irrelevant accusations may expose wikipedia to charges of libel. We just cannot "tar" the church with "the same brush" as one of its members. For this reason I will remove the offending edit. If you seriously believe that this information should be included in the article, consider opening a Request for Comment. I will cheerfully accede to whatever outcome results from that process. Jschnur (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Biased Point of View

(1) There is no controversies section in this article, but there have been several controversies with the church: Including that the church is run like a business with a marketing plan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbrcRKqLSRw The sexual assault charges brought against a youth leader (I don't agree with the language someone else used to point this out, but I do agree it is glaringly absent from this article) https://ktla.com/2018/08/23/saddleback-church-youth-mentor-convicted-of-molesting-teen-brothers-da/ and the controversy over the churches involvement in the 2008 presidential election http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1872453,00.html There have also been several criticisms of the church by other denominations and churches. Ignoring controversies when there have been controversies leads to the overall feel of bias. Someone needs to create a section addressing these (and any others).

(2) The "Campus" section only tells where different campuses are located. There is no description of what one will generally find when they visit the main campus. It seems there are multiple buildings: What are they? Are these standard on every campus? In fact, the picture of the church doesn't even help. Since there seems to be multiple buildings, a map would be more relevant here than a picture of the entrance. There is no mention of the architect who designed the church layout. The "reference" in this section is actually a direct link to the online church services. http://www.gotochurchonline.tv/saddleback-church/ or https://blog.capterra.com/the-5-biggest-online-churches/ are better references. As it is written, this section seems to be more of an invitation to come to the campuses (or online services) instead of an unbiased description of what you would find there. "The Refinery houses Saddleback's middle school ministry (JHM), high school ministry (HSM), college ministry (CM), and young adults ministry, (Fuel)." and some of the other information about the Refinery that is found in the History section should be moved here, but there needs to be balance between all the buildings and ministries of the church-not just a highlight of one ministry that takes up the entire section.

(3) With over "80 different buildings" used, why is Laguna High School the only one mentioned and why is it then mentioned twice? Why is it mentioned twice there are 22,000 members in 2017?

(4) In the editing page, it states at the top "all information in the article should be fully sourced with reliable third party citations." The main body of the history section only has two citations and both of those are from the church website (which is not a third party source). Not surprisingly it reads like an advertisement for the church. The Purpose Driven Church section only references the websites that were set up by Saddleback Church for its specific ministries (again, not third party). In fact, 6 of the 12 references cited are church sponsored websites. Also in the history section-stating something was somebodies "dream" needs a reference to where that person made the statement in a third-party source.

(5) Phrases like "the state-of-the-art facility is considered the premier student ministry facility" are opinions and not facts and should be deleted. "Saddleback is "virtually" attended online by those around the country and the world who watch and listen to worship services on demand" needs to be changed to remove the bias: "Saddleback offers worldwide, on-demand and live online services." OR the reference from a third-party that shows people attend these services "virtually" needs to be cited. "Attending" and "offering" are two different things, there is nothing on the primary source website that even shows anyone has visited it or watched a service, and finally, even if there were a counter on the website, it could be tampered with by church members since they own the website (I am not implying they would do this, I am just trying to point out that you cannot use primary source information for something like this). Another example of this language bias throughout the article is "the event is notable as the first time the two presidential candidates met during the campaign." This event, based on all descriptions I have read of it was not "notable" and it certainly wasn't talked about because it was the "first time the... candidates met." That statement should be deleted. "Notable" is an opinion and not a fact. This was not even a meeting many would agree was remarkable, such as the one between Nixon and Mao. Obama and McCain were already planning to meet in a televised debate later (as have all candidates since the 1960s). It was also not the "first time the... candidates met during the campaign" Both candidates were active senators throughout the campaign. They met on the Senate floor and even supported some of the same bills while campaigning against each other. The main reason the meeting with Warren was talked about afterward was because the liberals felt Warren posed questions that were biased against Obama in the meeting. If the meeting is to be mentioned in the Wiki article, it should be portrayed as it was- nothing special- and the controversy surrounding it should be mentioned in a controversies section.

I came to Wikipedia for an unbiased view of this church and the controversies surrounding it. If I had wanted a biased view, I would have simply Googled the church website and looked at that. Hopefully, these issues will be addressed by someone who has the time, and hopefully church members won't attempt to delete the needed changes.

P.S. By a "Controversies" section, I do not mean an in-depth he-said she-said debate as to whether or not the controversy is true. I mean "One youth pastor at Saddleback was recently convicted of behaving inappropriately with twins who were also members of the church in a movie theater." One or two sentences telling me what the facts are. That is all I want. 2601:245:C100:AAD0:35EA:6B43:4264:675B (talk) 14:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that any notable controversies should be included in the article. I do not know much about church, and any controversies, but the article as-is reads like a brochure from the church itself. However, Controversy sections are discouraged by wikipedia standards. Any controversial events should just be incorporated into the main article. Ashmoo (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Apostasy

Church Leadership wrong on Female pastors. 1 Timothy 2. 2601:5C5:4302:26E0:15C2:3C9C:6F01:A14B (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)