Talk:Anti-Mormonism/Archive 2

message: So, I tried to "be bold" and I did a complete re-write of the page. I chopped out a lot of material, I hope I don't offend anyone by chopping out their favorite part, but my main goals were:
* provide a solid framework for re-integrating old material
* provide solid sources for main claims
* reference "main articles" wherever possible, sticking mostly to descriptions rather than specific debates
* try to at least provide some semblence of NPOV (I realize this may be a fruitless task for this article in general, much less for one person to attempt)
Please proof-read, give feedback, and let me know if you think this article is on the right track. Thanks! --Dlugar 21:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Bold" Rewrite

message: I have placed the POV tag back on the article.  It may have been a kneed-jerk reaction to ANON166's edits, but I think it best.  I find the vast majority of his edits compeltely POV.  Rather than get into an endless edit war, I felt it best to just tag.  
Dlugar did an admirable job and was correct in stating that it may be a fruitless task on this article.  We can always hope, but evidence is not seen yet.  Storm Rider (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is not balanced, fair, and directly serves an opponent interest (explicitly against POV policy). It is an exercise in mind control and brainwashing, primarily because of its assumption that Mormons are entitled to label anyone they want as anti-Mormon to protect their bigoted and biased opinions of other races, religions, gender, and two-valued thinking about leavers and disbelievers. This is not a race or religious freedom argument they have ever honored for others. The either "for us or against us" mindset is harbored by this anti-Mormon label, and the persecution complex unofficially serves Mormon propaganda to hate Exmormons and other Christians who dare to disagree with Mormon positions against them. Anon166 18:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Dlugar, you have successfully converted a wet pile of dung to a dry state. I congratulate you on this feat, because I don't think it was easy for you. Seriously. Anon166 19:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anon166, I'm not sure if that's intended as a compliment, but I'll gladly take it as one! :) --Dlugar 02:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV tag

message: :Official doctrine may lend itself to this controversy, which does not discourage labeling those who disagree, offer criticism, or portray Mormonism in less than a faith-promoting way as anti-Mormon, thus stigmatizing sources of information. This reflects an institutional bias that explicitly does not allow one to agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church, if a member is to obtain temple-going status.
I'm snipping this part temporarily because I don't think it belongs in the "Mormon Views" section, but I think it's good material and deserves its own section.
(later) I've added the section Latter Day Saint avoidance of Anti-Mormonism. Hopefully that addresses most of your concerns, Anon166! --Dlugar 04:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article gives the impression that you can't be a good Mormon and read anti-Mormon literature, which I don't think is true.  I've given church firesides on anti-Mormon literature, and have waded through tons of it sent by my brother.  Some leaders may have discouraged people from reading such material, but I don't think you could call it church doctrine.  The temple interview question basically asks if we *agree* with any apostate and/or anti-mormon organization, not if we are familiar with them. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 14:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, although some people definitely think that it is true that you can't be a good Mormon and read anti-Mormon literature. (Not saying that's doctrinal; just saying that some people believe it.) On the one hand, I think all the Mormon apologist links on this page make it somewhat clear that Mormons are allowed to read anti-Mormon literature (how could you be an apologist otherwise?), but maybe we should try and find a quote/reference (preferably given from a talk from a 70 or higher) that basically says "you can be a good Mormon and read anti-Mormon literature"? --Dlugar 16:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, anti-mormon literature helped convert me to the church.  I also remember reading in "No More Strangers"(?) about another person who was converted after reading anti-mormon literature.  Essentially, if you take to time to check their claims, it becomes very clear that they are using a lot of deception in their materials.  If the church wasn't true, and they had some legitimate criticisms against the church, then why would they use such deceptive approaches?  It seemed to me that was a good argument that the church might be true.  That is basically how I finally got my brother to quit reading anti-mormon material.  I challenged him to prove one of the claims, and when he couldn't, he realized that the material couldn't be trusted. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 18:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church Discipline and Anti-Mormonism 

message: After reformatting the article, I realize that many of the references are of poor quality.  Although this is a topic oft debated on the Internet, your average internet blog or debate doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.  I removed a couple of the obvious places, but I think (for example) comments on LDS church doctrine shouldn't be referenced to unofficial sites - even if they are FARMS or FAIR. uriah923(talk) 21:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On that note, I find Jeff Lindsay's self-published site quoting his own opinion on his reason for existence to be a triple no-no, almost a self-parody here. If he were quoting his own statistics it might still be original research, but that would be at least a good faith entry and not a desperate attempt to justify demonizing the skepticism or debunking of Mormon claims. Anon166 22:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that the content can usually stay, but the references just need to be upgraded in general.  The first step, though, is to organize the site. Then we can concentrate on a section at a time and upgrade/add references as needed. uriah923(talk) 05:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Our capitalization is a bit haphazard. Some places it's anti-Mormon, other places it's Anti-Mormon. Should we pick one and stick to it? --Dlugar 04:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "anti-Mormon" is the proper capitalization. Let's stick to that. uriah923(talk) 05:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: While we're talking about capitalization, I'd like to standardize on "Exmormon," as that seems to be the usage on exmormonism. Any objections? uriah923(talk) 22:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a quick Google search and found "Exmormon", "exmormon", "Ex-Mormon", and "ExMormon" all in relatively equal numbers. There doesn't seem to be any sort of standard, so I'm fine with "Exmormon". --Dlugar 22:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  anti-Mormon or Anti-Mormon? 

message: :"as well as engaging in low-level physical annoyances, offensive language and actions."
:"or by carrying signs intended to poke fun at the anti-Mormons in order to defuse provocation."
What are "low-level physical annoyances"? Seems too vague to put in an encyclopedia article. I'm not really sure this sentence adds anything at all--"harass conference-goers" seems plenty.
"carrying signs"--I removed this in my earlier rewrite because I couldn't find references--are there any now? Also the judgment calls "intended to poke fun" and "in order to defuse provocation" seem to be assuming the intent; without references that explicitly say that's what they're for, I think it's going a little far. --Dlugar 18:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Unless we have references for the information, it shouldn't be included. uriah923(talk) 20:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the two portions in question. What's with all this agreement on the talk page?! It seems like everyone's getting along and coming to reasonable compromises rather than having heated arguments and endless edit-wars! What's Wikipedia coming to?!! --Dlugar 22:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conference Protesters 

message: :"Anti-mormon material often implies that the claims made have never been countered by Mormons"
I can't find how the referenced page supports this statement. I'm not particularly sure it's true, either--most of the anti-Mormon material I've seen acknowledges the existence of FARMS, FAIR, etc., but either doesn't accept their explanations or believes the apologists' arguments are flawed in some way. I don't think it's particularly useful to have statements in the article like, "Mormon apologists claim that anti-Mormon material implies that the claims have never been countered by Mormons, while anti-Mormons believe that the claims have never been adequately addressed by Mormons." I mean, it's pretty self-evident that a Mormon apologist thinks anti-Mormon claims are bunk and that an anti-Mormon thinks that apologist writings are bunk. In addition, I think Lindsay's "Questions for Anti-Mormons" belongs more in the "criticisms of Mormonism" article than in a (what I think should be a primarily descriptive) article about anti-Mormons. Thoughts? --Dlugar 19:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was trying to counter the suggestion that Mormons don't read anti-Mormon materials (since good mormons can read anti-mormon materials ;^).  I've reworded the paragraph and changed the section to "attitudes" instead of "avoidance".  Does this make more sense now? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 03:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  avoidance of anti-Mormonism 

message: First off, as I mentioned in the edit summary, this article is vastly improved lately. Excellent work, everyone who has helped bring this about.
I am offering this explanation (nearly) contemporaneously with this edit, since I think some people may question how it furthers NPOV. It was in the interests of furthering NPOV by presenting an explanation for the sentiments of the non-Mormons, in replacement of a previous, not-very-NPOV explanation that was edited out here.
Only mentioning that "Critics of Mormonism believe that opposition to Mormonism that was labeled anti-Mormon has been politically responsible for the pressures that led to overturning the Mormon practices of polygamy and priesthood racial discrimination", without explaining any rationale for that belief, leaves the uninformed reader unable to tell whether those critics had any justification for their belief, or whether it simply illustrates their hubris and irrationality.
Explaining that there was a justification, which was "since these doctrines were abandoned after substantial political pressure, and without their former practice being officially repudiated", removes the onus from the critics to have some rationale other than hubris or cynicism; and these statements are objectively factual; both abandonments took place after substantial political pressure in opposition to the doctrines; and both were abandoned without the church authorities explicitly repudiating their former practice. In the case of polygamy, President Woodruff specifically said the Lord's motivation for revealing that the doctrine should be abandoned included the overwhelming practical difficulties that would be imposed on the church by continuing the practice (someone around here has that reference I'm sure), and the Official Declaration 1 is specifically worded in terms of not practicing polygamy out of respect for the laws of the land. With the former racial restrictions on priesthood, as my past discussions with Visorstuff covered, it is generally believed in the church that the restrictions were right at the time they were practiced, so that this doctrine also was not repudiated.
Concerning one other little tweak, from "These original Mormon doctrines..." to "These former Mormon doctrines...", it is attested to by all sides of the issues that the LDS church did not practice either polygamy or racial restrictions on priesthood as "original doctrines" of the Church, i.e. on April 6, 1830 or for at least a significant passage of time thereafter. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 04:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your changes are OK, but not perfect.  We can come back to them later.  As of now, we seem to be just wrapping up an article reorganization/restructuring after which my plan (at least) was to suggest the group start looking at one section at a time. uriah923(talk) 04:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In regards to the editing of non-Mormon belief of political pressure influencing abandonment of polygamy and racial priesthood restrictions 

message: Since we seem to have a group of concerned editors working together on the article, is the NPOV tag necessary?  I'm sure there is something in the article that could be improved in the way of NPOV, but the article as a whole is reasonable.  What does everyone think about removing it? uriah923(talk) 04:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone doesn't describe themselves as anti-, OR if some quote doesn't specify their opponent as anti-Mormon in this case, then it is a POV label that is not agreed upon. The casual reader is induced to believe that people mentioned here are objectively "anti-Mormon" or refer to themselves as anti-Mormon when they may only object to Mormon claims of supremacy, or Mormon anti-Catholicism, or  former Mormon racism or polygamy. It also seems this article tacitly assumes that Exmormons are anti-Mormon if or when they intellectually justify their reason to leave to defend against the character smear offered by Mormons who typically label them as a digruntled sinner. In my view, this article doesn't have the proper explanatory warnings to the reader that steer it clear of a pure form of religious bigotry. The editors here seem to apologetical and biased to Mormonism, while very few of us here regard it as just another religion no better or worse than any other--I was even assumed to be anti- the day I dared edit it. Regardless, lacking any explanatory warning, I would go to the next level of POV warning, POV-check, for the interim. Having said that, I worry that the official LDS part to come will be a barn stuffer and bury the article in Mormon POV, which, by the way, this article is becoming a dumping ground for. Apologia is the flip side of polemics. Anon166 20:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is not whether the LDS Church is NPOV, but rather if the article is NPOV.  This article is about the term "Anti-Mormon".  It should be discussing how most / some LDS members use the term, as well as how non-LDS perceive and/or use (or not use) the term.  That is not POV in and of itself.  If the article were to present the information in a biased way, making prejudicial statements about one side or the other, then you could make a case about the article being POV.  Your complaint, it appears, is more about the fact that you don't agree with the content of the article than the way the article is presented.  The goal of an NPOV article is to present the facts in a manner that readers can understand both (all) sides of the issue.  If it achieves that, then it is NPOV.  wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 15:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't share your dim outlook on the ability of this article or LDS editors to be objective, but I'll take the suggested compromise for now. uriah923(talk) 20:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You say that as if you aren't LDS. Either way, I'm more interested in balancing the article to prevent it from serving as persecution propaganda with Wikipedia's blessing. The LDS church does not live by its "live and let live" policies in regards to anyone else, especially leavers. Missionaries knocking on Christian doors and informing them of their error in belief is offensive to them and provokes the non-Christian accusation, by way of common sense. Another example: LDS Inc. just issued an anti-gay-marriage political platform calling on members to get involved whether they agree or not. So, if and when a gay person objects to this tax-free politicizing against their equal rights, they are listed as anti-Mormon, or so we suppose. Hopefully not because of Wikipedia, and I'm sure others who aren't sworn to build the kingdom would agree. Mormons obtain their morals from LDS culture, so they don't register the hypocrisy in attacking and crying foul at the same time. Anon166 01:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't really matter what religion I am; I'm just as dedicated to preventing the article from "serving as persecution propaganda" as you are. It does seem odd to me, however, that you seem to have such an axe to grind ... in the name of NPOV.  Kind of ironic. In any case, I'm sure that given our motives, we should have no problem putting together a quality article. uriah923(talk) 02:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uriah, my axe to grind is NPOV itself, not ironic at all, funny you should see it that way.Anon166 06:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it appears I misread you, although I'm having difficulty putting together what you are actually saying.  I guess it doesn't really make much of a difference if I understand your overall philosophy, though.  We can just address specific additions/deletions as they come along. uriah923(talk) 13:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: I moved a section from "Latter-day Saint Views" to a new top-level section "Rejection of the term", because I think the material is important and even central to the topic, but as Anon166 was pointing out it was getting swallowed in Mormon apologia. I would prefer that apologist content remain in the "Latter-day Saint Views" section rather than attempting to drown out the voice of those who reject the term itself. --Dlugar 02:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point and good addition. uriah923(talk) 05:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rejection of the term 

message: Nibley's mindreading ad hominem quote condemning the speaking of one's conscience is in the wrong section. The quote attributed to Smith which demonizes apostates seems to be in error, and is not an official view either. It is taken from The Evening and Morning Star edited by Cowdery and F.G.Williams, probably lifted from a Neal Maxwell speech as a secondary source. I would be interested to know if Smith actually wrote it because the source lists "we" as author pronoun and is unsigned. http://www.centerplace.org/history/ems/v2n19.htm Anon166 23:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do you want to move Nibley's quote? To Views of Latter-day Saints? I guess I'd be OK with that. Joseph Smith's quote is said to be from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Although you've found the text elsewhere online, you'd have to actually look in a copy of the book to prove it's invalid. uriah923(talk) 04:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so, the text it is cited from includes many other authors. Anon166 04:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't advocate Nibley's quote at all. It is libelous and stupid, but others here probably fell asleep as children listening to it on tape, they are that devoted, so they are trying to dress it up as valid. Speaking of Nibley, he probably taught, by example, all of the other would-be apologists on how to argue using bogus footnotes for lack of a proper presentation. As a result, apologists today write stilted and pompous pieces that begin with the footnotes, citing them as authority when they should be representative, and then taking something ordinary and common sense, and leaving it out for lack of a citation in order to believe it. It is a strange phenomenon, but Nibley should be credited with it more widely beyond the Sunstone and Dialogue crowd. I think that poor writing is pretentious writing, and it doesn't surprise when those authors admit they don't care for its validity so long as they were fooled by it. Anon166 18:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The quote, in the book, is officially titled: "Excerpts from an Epistle of the Elders of the Church in Kirtland to Their Brethren Abroad" (assuming a faithful internet rendition). Nowhere does it imply Joseph Smith wrote it, and I would add that it may not matter to Mormons who wrote anything in Mormonism, but it does to Wikipedia and unsuspecting readers when people believe it represents Mormonism's founder. Included in the the JFS book are assorted testimonies of witnesses and scriptures, and things written by Smith and Cowdery, etc. It does not mean Smith wrote it, nor does it mean J.Smith wrote it if J.F.Smith believed he did by copying from a later tract. This requires an expert to say who did write it, but the quote is NOT attributed to Smith in the book and was first published in the newspaper account under Cowdery's and Williams collaboration. http://www.boap.org/LDS/Joseph-Smith/Teachings/T2.html Anon166 18:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem cites

message: Wayne Cowdery's book is professionally critiqued by the FARMS review, cited here listing it as anti-Mormon, but I couldn't find a search word to "anti-Mormon" concerning the book itself--which would be the only reason to cite this source, not because it disagrees with it. Another book cited which lists Cowdery's latest book as anti-Mormon is dated in the 1980's well before publication. Even if one argues that Cowdery is Satan and that it doesn't matter, there were other authors involved. Yet another website listing the book as anti-Mormon is anonymous and has no criterion listed, and is completely uncitable as an authority source. In fairness, this book must be deleted from the list or else a factual tag is warranted. Anon166 02:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: List the sources here individually numbered and we can discuss them.  uriah923(talk) 04:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure I have probably heard people refer to Brodie's book as anti-Mormon, but the only real critique is that she was polemic; she ignored factual research that she knew existed, but left them out becuase it conflicted with her thesis.  Though there is a caveat, her work is still important.  This area would be good for Visor to comment; he has far more experience with this than me.  Storm Rider (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It doesn't seem like you care if your sources are bogus or not. Anon166 23:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bogus citations found in notes section?

message: I replaced this link. I agree that it displays a POV, but I think that's OK on this article.  It would be good to have external links from all perspectives on anti-Mormonism. uriah923(talk) 14:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links (1) 

message: Having pretentious grammar tacked onto a redundant phrase (to the word Exmormon) is a laughing matter to me. My first instinct was to cut the sentence in half, but then I realized that some people would think their message had been shortened. Anon166 04:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard you shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition, but that is one rule up with which I will not put. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 04:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: For Uriah

message: What happened to the Jeff Lindsay article?  It was there when I added that "See Also" link a while ago, but it now appears to have been deleted.  If you search for "Jeff Lindsay", an entry is found, but points to an empty page: "Relevance: 100.0% - 3.5 kB (524 words) - 20:02, 20 June 2006"  It looks like it was deleted very recently.  The Grant Palmer article is still there, however.  Conspiracy theories, anyone? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 20:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was deleted as a "vanity site" as per the rules, after a vote. What does Lindsay have to do with Grant Palmer? Anon166 22:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I the only person that didn't know about the vote?  I'm surprised that nobody mentioned it on this talk page, since this article references him and contains a link to the now deleted page.  (Only the "See Also" entry was deleted.)  How does one nominate a page as a "vanity site"? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 23:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't vote myself. I think Lindsay is a joke, so I'm torn between suppressing his disinformation and fundamentalist self-promotion and letting it speak for the state of Mormon apologetics. Anon166 23:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There were only four votes; three for delete.  I copied the voting and comments to the Lindsay discussion page.  This was not an article I used and I never edited, but it does seem odd that it only took two days to get rid of an article by people who also never edited the article.  When you Google Jeff Lindsay, Mormon you get 180,000 hits; it is not like he is unknown.  The moral; you snooze, you lose.  I suppose there is a way to bring it back, but I do not know the process off the top of my head.  Storm Rider (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The best thing is to create a good 5-10 paragraph article in a new sandbox (userspace) (with cites) - move the sandbox to the page that was deleted before (that way the history is preserved and in compliance with the GFDL) - then when someone lists it for deletion - or even in a preemption on the talk page - explain that it is a new article, acknowledge the prior debate on deletion and make it clear it is not a recreation but a new article on a public figure, etc. Trödel 19:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jeff Lindsay

message: I removed the section added on this topic, as it is out of place in this article. The information should likely go in Criticism of Mormonism. uriah923(talk) 22:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mormons speaking out against other faiths 

message: I have mixed feelings about the links in the "critical" section. We need to be sure this remains an article about anti-Mormonism and not a summary of criticisms. Right now, the links under "apologist" are actually about anti-Mormonism, while the links under "critical" are just sites that many consider anti-Mormon. I think things should be modified so only articles about anti-Mormonism (from all viewpoints) are included in the external links section. The sites commonly considered anti-Mormon should probably be included in the Modern section, but not simply as a list.  A short paragraph about the Internet being a very common local for what is deemed anti-Mormon activities, along with a couple of the most prominent examples and then perhaps a footnote with more. What does everyone think? uriah923(talk) 15:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. --Dlugar 16:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree --Trödel 17:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: There is so much considered anti-Mormon out there, we should be able to get some good modern photos. There is a really good one here - does anyone know of a way to use it?  I also have an anti-Mormon pamphlet at home that I'll try and get a quality photo of for the article. uriah923(talk) 22:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: The official Mormon collaboration on this article has ended, and I think the improvements that have been made are significant.  Thanks, everyone, for your help - even if it had nothing to do with the collaboration. uriah923(talk) 15:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of collaboration 

message: === Who will read ===
From Dlugar:
What do you (each of you) see as the primary point of this article? Who will come to Wikipedia looking for this article? What will that person want information on? What will that person not want information on? What will they be most interested in finding out about? 
"Focusing on that will help us gain a new focus for the article and a more coherent vision for its contents." 
* Reader looking for an explanation of what the term means? Why did my friend call that comment "anti-Mormon", 
* Reader looking for explanation of why there is so much vitriolic literature/websites about Mormonism
* Reader looking for a reference to find criticisms of Mormons (specifically) The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS
=== Why is there opposition ===
Objections/justifications on why there is opposition 
* They claim exclusively to be the "true church" (like Catholics)
* The actively try to convert other christians (like Jehovah's Witnesses)
* Their beliefs are radically different than traditional christianity. (Perceived lessening the status of Jesus and Heavenly Father)
* Additional scriptures (and perceived treatment of Bible as "second class" scripture)
* Rapid growth in membership and the tendency to stay and act together (like Nauvoo)
* Tendency to break previous ties - early converts leaving home and travelling west; modern converts tend to not associate with former friends.
=== Discussion ===
I have copied some of the good questions/comments into an area that I hope will allow us to focus on the suggestions that Dlugar made - first in identifying our audience, and secondly explaining why there even needs to be an article about this. --Trödel 13:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Purpose Discussion 

message: I have copied some of the good questions/comments into an area that I hope will allow us to focus on the suggestions that Dlugar made - first in identifying our audience, and secondly explaining why there even needs to be an article about this. --Trödel 13:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion