Talk:Concerned Women for America

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

align="left" This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
??? This article has not yet received a rating.
Archive
Archives
About archives • Edit this box

Contents

[edit] National Sovereignty header

If you check their web site under the "National Sovereignty" header at [1], you'll see that most of the issues there relate to things like the Convention to End Discrimination Against Women, etc. Meelar 21:46, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The anti statements

portraying statements in terms of what they are against and not what they are for is the oldest rhetorical trick in the book for making people think negativly on an orginization's terms. They are also ways to twist opponents ideas. This group along with other fundimentalists have a more conservative definition of "hate crime." It is therefore inappropriate to call one of their agenda "Anti hate-crime legeslation" since they are in fact only against legeslation for things which they do not view (whether right or wrong) as hate crimes. This artical is tremendously POV oriented and written with markedly liberal termenology, which, right or wrong, is regardless inappropriate in NPOV articals. Thanatosimii 17:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

So change it. Maybe you'd like to change the statement that they are "opposed to cervical cancer vacination" to read that they are "proponents of cervical cancer". Serioulsy, if they are against something they are against it. To change statements to make them look more positive is also not NPOV. They are clearly anti-gay. You can't dance around that. They are clearly anti-pornography. They are also clearly anti-stem cell research. If you want to make them look rosy, donate to them, but don't slant the article here. nut-meg 06:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
CWA is not "anti-gay", those are "weasel words". One may not simply use whichever words one wishes, for example: calling the pro-choice movement "pro-abortion", no one would be allowed to replace the moniker "Pro-Choice" on the abortion debate page to "Pro-Abortion". Similarly, using the term "anti-gay" is irresponsible and incorrect according to the CWA, and the page we are editing is the CWA page. The CWA very clearly and constantly states that they do not "hate" gay persons, but rather they believe that the *act* of homosexuality is against God's law and therefore is a sin. They use the statement, "love the sinner, hate the sin" over and over, which clearly states that they do not hate homosexuals, but rather the practice of homosexual sex.
"Anti-gay" is not a "weasel word." CWA is stridently anti-gay and has been at least since 1996 when I used to listen to Beverly LaHaye and Robert Knight defend gaybashing as a "normal and natural reaction to the perversion of homosexuality," and mis-quote San Francisco gay-themed newsletters as endorsing paedophilia as the basis for homosexuality. (They were quoting an editorial that condemned NAMBLA, by quoting the same NAMBLA material the editorial was quoting and saying that the newspaper was endorsing NAMBLA. _Very_ slimy. I have these transcribed somewhere on CD-ROM, still.) Also, you can be stridently anti-gay without using the word "hate" anywhere, or even without hating GBLT people. And I wouldn't use the word "hate" myself - you'll note my cleanup areas do not use the word "hate" - but, in my personal opinion, actions speak much, much louder than words. Oh, and as someone who has been monitoring them for a decade, I would not at all agree that "They use the statement, 'love the sinner, hate the sin' over and over." They have used it, and I'm sure it's in their position papers somewhere, but it pales in comparison to the more common words such as "perversion," "unnatural," "immoral," and so on. Solarbird 08:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
If a page can be referenced from the CWA referring a gay-rights group as having a "pro-gay" agenda and they disagree with it, doesn't that by definition make them anti-gay? Vaughnstull (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
As far as changing "opposed to cervical cancer vaccination" to "proponents of cervical cancer", that is a good example of the kind of underhanded vandalism that is being attempted on the page, resulting in the "weasel wording" that exists there. The CWA is *not* opposed to cervical cancer vaccination, they oppose *government mandated* cervical cancer vaccinations, this fact is well-known. It is surprising that this would be so difficult to comprehend, resulting in ridiculous suggestions like "proponents of cervical cancer". It is almost as if critics are pretending to be confused so they might vandalize the CWA page, but that would never happen surely, because the individuals who are doing this are so skilled at editing other pages. Strange.Supertheman 18:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, they're kind of against it. They're not quite willing to go so far as to oppose it outright, but they've been inching closer to that over the last several months. (No, I don't think they'll quite get there - but they really, really do think it's icky, on the basis that HPV is an STD. They're also opposed to including it on standard vaccination lists, even when those lists are not manditory, though they often refer to the standard school lists as "mandatory" vaccination lists even when they aren't. (E.g., when they have opt-out provisions, as the Texas list did.)
And yes, I can source every statement here with original source material from CWA itself. I know a lot about this group. Solarbird 08:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I stated *fact* about their position on vaccination and you respond with flippant untruths... You said: "...they really, really do think it's icky..." that kind of statement is patently false, and CLEARLY indicates the vehement bias of Solarbird. They CLEARLY state that they are NOT anti-homosexual, and then you come along and say they are, with no sources for evidence.
Yes, "anti-gay" IS A WEASEL WORD - from the Wiki page on weasel words: "A weasel word is a word that is intended to, or has the effect of, softening the force of a potentially loaded or otherwise controversial statement..." "Anti-gay" has no real definition, but use of the word "anti" is clearly *negative*. Pro-choice advocates would hardly call themselves "anti-pregnancy" or "anti-baby". Likewise Pro-life advocates also reject the term "anti-choice" because it is negative (and, according to them, false). Also, you keep saying there is evidence for your terms, but you don't provide it, answering that you "have it somewhere"... From the Wiki page on "Weasel words", an example of the beginning of a "Weasel" sentence: "There is evidence that..." (What evidence? Where is it? What are the details?)
Point being, CWA is vehemently against the term "anti-gay" and very clearly, on many occasions, has stated the remark I mentioned about "loving the sinner, hating the sin". This has been documented by me (hearing the broadcast), and I'm in the process of getting transcripts from CWA with this actual phrase in it. I won't put it up there until I have the source and can provide a link to it. I still will hesitate editing the page because one person with a chip on their shoulder is all it takes to drain the motivation and concern from anyone willing to help edit.
Another example of your "weasel wording" exists right here on the talk page: "...I used to listen to Beverly LaHaye and Robert Knight defend gaybashing as a "normal and natural reaction to the perversion of homosexuality". "Gaybashing" is a "weasel word", what does it mean? They have never said it was ok to do any "gaybashing". Even if you could define the term, you still have to SOURCE links of some kind as EVIDENCE.
You wrote: "...but, in my personal opinion, actions speak much, much louder than words." This is a RADIO show, they only use WORDS, how are their "actions" speaking louder than their "words". Incomprehensible. Also, Wikipedia is not about your "personal opinion"! It is very obvious that you have an agenda, and a chip on your shoulder, but that should not be communicated on the Wiki page.
Also, you write: "I would not at all agree that "They use the statement, 'love the sinner, hate the sin' over and over." They have used it, and I'm sure it's in their position papers somewhere, but it pales in comparison to the more common words such as "perversion," "unnatural," "immoral," and so on." Many Christians consider the *act* of homosexuality to be a "perversion", believing this is not "gaybashing" or "anti-gay". One can have a real, compassionate love for a gay person and stand for said person to be fully protected under the law, yet still believe that engaging in homosexual sex is a sin and a perversion (of God's intention for sex). Plus, you are AGAIN making a *subjective* judgment, saying that even if they have said that, it "pales in comparison" to other words *YOU* believes indicates they are "gaybashing" and "anti-gay".
Until you SOURCE your EVIDENCE all the "anti-statements" need to be removed, and the "Weasel words" need to be removed. Supertheman 11:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Collecting my responses down here...
I will not accept the kind of sophistry that calls an organisation which actively supports legal injunction against GBLT people and then asserts they really aren't "anti-homosexual." They can "CLEARLY state" whatever they want; when a claim is bullshit, I do not feel any need to accept it. People lie. In particular, political groups lie. I take CWA's occasionally statement that they aren't really against gay people no more seriously than I take the Klan's statements that it isn't really against black people, and for similar reasons. It is easy to document their actual intentions through their propaganda and actual actions. I don't understand why you feel a need to deny their activities and/or statements, given that I have been sourcing all the encyclopedia article statements from their material.
I similarly do not accept the sophistry of claiming that one can support the illegality of the defining characteristic of a group and claim that you are not actually against that group. (They're against the ruling Lawrence v. Texas (2003), and supported the "sodomy" laws before that.) I do not believe that you can declare that defining characteristic to be a "perversion" and then declare that you are not actually speaking against that group and/or its members. That is silly, or, put another way, severely disingenuous.
I don't bother sourcing, in general, conversations on a talk page, except occasionally to make a point. If you want to see my sourcing, please check the main article, where I have added a plethora of footnotes pointing to original CWA source material to many of the statements you seem to find objectionable. Note that I am not defending the current quality of this article; I didn't write most of it; I think it's rather bad. I have noted my intentions to make it not suck. I have, however, sourced a variety of the claims to the gills, again using original CWA source material.
CWA is against the term "anti-gay" because they're against the term gay, preferring the more clinical and alien-sounding "homosexual." And, as I said above, I acknowledge that they have used the term "hate the sin, love the sinner." I heard Robert Knight deliver that line himself, once. That they have used that phrase is not in contention. That it accurately and honestly presents their actual position, and the frequency with which they use terms like that in comparison to the frequency with which they use other, much harsher terms, is in contention.
By "gaybashing," I mean the physical assault of GBLT people on the basis that they are gay. I haven't put that in the article because my source for it is not online at this point; it's backed up on CD-ROM somewhere. They proceeded to say that of course they don't really want to support assault on the streets, but that this kind of thing perfectly understandable and reasonable when zomg t3h qu33rs are involved, even if it shouldn't be supported. (And again, note that this is a talk page, not an article; that's not a quote, it's my interpretation; here, lo, I am chatting.) Gaybashing is a reasonably well-understood term, despite your position otherwise. And also, by their "actions," I mean the political actions they support, and the action of propogandising, which is one of their main purposes. Those are both actions.
Finally, I don't need to remove a single thing from a talk page, including my opinion about the contents of an article. You certainly aren't, after all. The key point is that talk pages are not encyclopedia articles. Some of my comments are about what appears to me to be your rather strange whitewashing of CWFA's anti-gay activities. I don't know why you'd do that. I have extensively sourced the small number of adds I have made to this article, and also extensively sourced material I found here already when I got here, as you could tell if you checked the change logs. So please do not accuse me of adding false and/or unsourced data to this article; that claim is false on its face. Solarbird 15:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] criticism of Concerned Women of America

The Biggest are, they are a Hate Group, and they are ran by men. Its something else when an Organization says they are for Women, but all their Boardmembers and top staff are Men.

Also, many of my FBI Friends do not like the fact that they are being forced to drop important cases against Mobsters and Kingpins in order to applease the Fundamentalist in their attacks on legal Porn.

Many Say that they have better things to do than babyset the Moral Majorities Views. (From a personal interview with a Cousin in the Boston FBI force) Magnum Serpentine 8-26-06

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and this discussion is about improving the article not a debate on hate groups. The chairperson of the board of trustees is a woman (as of 11/2006). Xxyzzy

[edit] NPOV banner removed

I have removed the NPOV banner, as of Feb/5/2007, because it does not apply to this article. No matter what, no written work is ever totally unbiased. Even if the author is attempting to be fair-minded, the article is biased by definition unless it mentions every fact, in equal light, and uses words and phrasing which are 100% neutral to 100% of the readers. Since we all have different word-associations, that's not possible. ANYHOW, my point is the fact that NO article is ever totally neutral. Therefore, the NPOV banner needs to be used wisely. If an article contains opinion statements ("I think..."/"As far as I'm concerned...") and/or value judgments ("...worthless cause..."/"...worthy cause..."/"These crazy bastards..."/etc.), it's blatantly non-neutral. That would be a good time to hoist the NPOV flag. The author of this article did not use weasel-words, did not state personal opinions, and did not make value judgments. The article strikes me as being purely factual. All of the author's text is verifiable, thereby making it appropriate for Wikipedia. He/she spent most of the article stating the views of the group in question, and detailing legal actions which the group has taken. After reading the article, I strongly dislike CWA. But that's not because the author lied or used weasel-words or in any other way manipulated me. The author didn't make CWA look bad. CWA made ITSELF look bad. The article quotes the mission statement and value/belief statements which CWA has on their own website. It also mentions several legal battles spearheaded by CWA, and all of those are documented by the media. If you read this article and think that CWA looks like a group of irrational, anti-social, unfriendly, right-wing freaks, then you got that impression from CWA's very own words...which is what the author makes great use of. Conversely, if you read this article and find CWA to be very appealing because it's in-line with your political/religious/social beliefs, then you got that impression from CWA...again, not from the author. The author is neutral. Here, let me say this one last way: if the leader of a group did something which most people find to be morally wrong, and a reporter bluntly and concisely stated the facts, then most people who read the report would say "that group leader screwed up". If you're an objective party, you either respectfully agree or disagree with that judgment. If, however, you're the wife or lawyer or friend of that group leader, you get pissy and go blame the reporter and say he's being biased. An article isn't overtly biased because it doesn't convey the POV that you want people to see. The fact that it leaves a bad taste in most folks' mouths doesn't make it a bad or one-sided article. All this article did was quote CWA. If you don't like how it sounds, then you probably don't fully agree with CWA's agenda. - Piercetheorganist

I disagree. There are ways of formulating sentences that virtually eliminate the feeling of 'bias' and this article does not carry a lot of those. I am a big fat liberal and a gay one at that, but even I can see that this article isn't up to Wikipedia standards. This part is especially untransparent in author's intentions:
They support their position by claiming that homosexuals do not "suffer from a history of discrimination," and therefore should not qualify for protection as a minority group. This they say in spite of the fact that 10,000–25,000 homosexual men were killed in concentration camps during the Holocaust. Furthermore, today in many countries around the world homosexuality is a crime punishable by jail time or death.
I agree with that sentence wholeheartedly and yet realize it's got to change. It should simply carry a citation from CWA with a nice source attached and not be followed by "this they say in spite of" etc. SergioGeorgini 10:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
That line has been changed to fix the problems in this discussion. Tag removed nut-meg 06:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opposition to Cervical Cancer Vaccination

CWA is heavily active in opposing vaccination against the cervical cancer causing virus HPV, because HPV is frequently transmitted through sexual activity. Instead, CWA suggests that all humans should remain abstinent outside of marriage, imagining that married heterosexual adults will not get sexually transmitted diseases. CWA ignores the fact that 1/3 of American women have HPV, and the likelihood to get the virus is alarmingly high in sexually active individuals, particularly women aged 14-28. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.171.214.1 (talk • contribs) 22:44, February 27, 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Cleanup

Seriously, this reads like a freshman polemic. It is so one-sided I can't believe it resides on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tjbphx (talk • contribs) 08:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Absolutely true...the whole article needs a cleanup - not only the bias but also the references. Exemplum gratia in the part where it says 'CWA advocates:
  1. anal sex, particularly within a family or with a peer group member
  2. the mandatory smoking of crack-cocaine by all pre-school children"
This is either a sick prank or a terrible truth...I don't mean to go on a rant here but seriously, I see why they should be 'concerned women' if they advocate *asforementioned* examples. Dagari 15:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The big about sex and crack was, of course, someone's idea of a joke. I've gone through and referenced out the specific statements about CWA's position on various items. I've been monitoring this group (and others) for a decade; they're as as anti-gay, anti-abortion, and even anti-birth-control as you could possibly want. Back when Beverly LaHaye had a radio show in the late 1990s, I used to sit there and listen to her defend violent gaybashing as a "normal and natural reaction to the perversion of homosexuality." I seriously need to dig that transcription back up.
And the thing is, you can't call listing a group's actual positions and actions as being biased against them. All this stuff is there and prominent because it really is most of what they do. It's not everything. They've been involved in anti-human-trafficing efforts; I support that effort, despite it being by a group who wants me off the planet. Someone may wish to add that. Solarbird 00:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV-section tag for Controversy and criticism section

Folks, I'm adding the POV-section tag to the "Controversy and criticism" section.

First, typical for a conservation and/or Christian group, the "controversy" section is gigantic in proportion to the remainder of the article. Just on sheer size alone, the section is overwheming and gives the appearance that controversy and criticism is all there is. Really. Be honest.

Second, some of the subparagraphs do not include any controversy or criticism -- just the title in and of itself creates the controversy or criticism. So either material has to be added, or these paragraphs need to be used elsewhere.

Third, some of the subsections are just who cares moments. Who cares about controversy over telemarketing? This is CWA, not the Telemarketers of America. It just seems to me that someone was digging to find controversy to add that. And the detail it goes into, even providing numbers to call. Really, that cannot possibly be encyclopedic. And that's the first controversy mentioned--usually the first argument should be the strongest. Someone clearly had a field day digging for bad things to say about the CWA.

Fourth, bad language throughout (for a writing style point of view) gives a general appearance that this was more of something written by someone angry with the CWA than by someone attempting to write a good wiki article. Like they just had to spew then, satified with the spewage, they stepped away without the need for good writing.

Fifth, there are more subsections in the section that there are noncontroversy sections in the article. Is the CWA really known only for controversy and little else?

Sixth, the positive material written appears more like a listing of bullets just to pass the smell test while the dominant negative material is written in full sentences and paragraphs.

Seventh - weasle words - heavily active? Come on.

Really, this entire article looks biased and not well written. But I'll just put up the section bias tag now. Hopefully what I have said here will spur people to fix the entire thing. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 07:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Are they mostly known for controversy? Kinda. It depends upon what you mean by controversy. I mean, I've been following this group for years; they're a political group, theocratic in nature and inclination and with Dominionist ties - they have full-bore Dominionists writing for them at times - and specifically reject concepts like church-state separation. If that's not controversy, I'm not sure what is.
Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "positive" material and "negative" material. Most of their political activity is pretty negative, in a sense of being against people (GBLT people, in particular; they want Lawrence v. Texas (2003) overturned so that states can make GBLT people illegal again) and against the right of people to do things (getting abortions, watching media CWA finds offensive, and so on). Honestly, go watch their front page (cwfa.org) for a few months - it speaks for itself.
I rewrote the advocacy section (well - partly, it needs a bunch more work) a couple of days ago. You'll notice it's sourced to the gills. I sourced it so heavily specifically because if you list what they actually do, say, and work for, it sounds like you're writing a screed. But that's what they're really like. For every source I have up there, I can - with some work - add five or ten more to show the same things. But that would look silly.
BTW, this is not to indicate that I think the article is good as it stands. It's a mess and if I have time I'm going to give it a serious workover. (And one thing I should do right away is change the opening paragraph, which does not adequately note that they are a political group, founded as such.) But it's not going to make them look particularly different than the picture given in the Advocacy section.
Solarbird 04:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The only Dominion I know is the one in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine: Dominion (Star Trek). And based on your statements, could you write anything about the CWA in an unbiased fashion? But who am I to complain. I don't have the time to do it. I should be happy you are willing. Are CWA opponents rewarding you with Ketracel White? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 04:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow! In the section above Solarbird says the CWA is "a group who wants me off the planet." I think that statement helps people to understand Solarbird's edits on this CWA page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Dominionism, an article that also needs a lot of work. You might also check out Christian Reconstructionism. CWA have had Chalcedon Foundation writers writing for them in the recent past.
I'm a dyke; as such, CWFA do want me off the planet, or, less flippantly, they think I should be illegal, by which I mean, they want Lawrence v. Texas (2003) overturned so that state "sodomy" laws can be reinstated and enforced. I am speaking very clearly and forthrightly about my interactions with and study of them; this is also why I'm so heavily sourcing every edit I've made. These two facts in combination should provide some degree of reassurance as to my honesty. If you have an issue with my sources, please say so. If you feel my outlining of their advocacy positions is not supported or is misrepresentative, say so, and please be specific. Jokey accusations and outright insinuations that I cannot write an article about CWFA that is legitimate do not make this article better.
Meanwhile, I still don't know what you mean by "positive" material and "negative" material in this context. Solarbird 05:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Plus, if I wanted to do a hack job? I could do a real good hack job. Note that I haven't included any references in their article to their defenses of gaybashing (back in the radio show days, not easily obtainable online) and their obsession with Harry Potter being a gateway drug to paganism and the occult. [2] If I wanted to make them look like crackpots, believe me - I could. Solarbird 05:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, isn't there some kind of wiki policy that says when someone is saying what you are saying there's a serious problem? Sure you are adding well sourced material, but your obvious bias may guide you to select some material and not others, and perhaps to word it a certain way. Wiki policy is what I'm interested in. I'm not an expert in it, but you sure look biased to me regarding this issue. If you wrote a lot of this article, I can fully understand why it's in the current shape it's in. I'm not trying to say anything about you, rather I'm concerned for the article's adherence to wiki policy, and if you did the majority of the editing, I can get a better understanding of why things are the way they are. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't write a lot of this article. I wrote none of the article portions that you have explicitly tagged and/or criticised. If you're going to accuse me of actuated bias, pull up an actual example before tossing out implications about my work. I mean, check the edit logs, that's what they're for. What I've actually done is expand the opening paragraph and quote, and source out (and in some cases elucidated upon) the Advocacy section, which I also renamed "Advocacy," because the previous section header was poor. And, IMO, not at all NOPV.
So now, what, you've posted a warning about me (above, this conversation) and my biases based on material I didn't write but you just kind of assumed I had? Is that what's going on? Solarbird 06:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot; I also expanded the principle-actors section, adding Kleider, Barber, and, um, whatshisname. The head of the Culture and Family Institute subgroup within CWA. I always forget his name. Solarbird 06:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I said if. Now I know you didn't. So you are off the hook. And I struck out, per policy, the sentence that appears to concern you. Have a nice day. You know what? I like your feistyness! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 06:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
And the best part is, even now, I still don't know what you mean by "positive" and "negative" material. AGH Solarbird 06:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps favorable and unfavorable would have been a better choice of words? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 07:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I see a problem. In one place CWA says it is concerned about, "The attempt to eliminate natural distinctions between men and women." Yet in another it says, "The vision of CWA is for women and like-minded men...." So they are against eliminating distinctions between the sexes, but the men have to be "like-minded." So are they for eliminating distinctions or against it? Definitely add this to the controversy section. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 07:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
That's even less clear. They'd say everything they say is favourable, I'm sure. They don't mix religion and politics and campaign against people like me because they think it's a bad thing to be doing - at least, I presume. Since all my material except one bit about the history of their founding is original source, which is to say, them talking about themselves, and not commentary provided by others, I don't know how you even talk about "favourable" vs. "unfavourable." If you're stridently anti-LBGT and anti-birth control and anti-abortion, I would think all this material would sound just fine. If you're not, on the other hand, I think it would sound pretty awful.
I wouldn't put that in the controversy section by itself. I might consider it as part of a section discussing how many men there seem to be speaking for Concerned Women for America, particularly in anti-LGBT campaigns, maybe. But since that hasn't really caused much of a stir as far as I can tell, I don't know that it's worth a subsection. Solarbird 14:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that after reading the majority of the CWA webiste myself, I honestly can't see any biased references on this page. The author has clearly stated what the group honestly believes, their intentions, and has used primary sources in all cases. "Weasel words" are not found here, as all words used are those which the CWA themselves use. If they are being seen as such, a visit to the CWA website or a read through a few of their articles should be enough to prove otherwise. Stephanie. June 14, 2007. 15:59 EDT.

[edit] Intent to clean up

Hi, I've recently found this page and am just announcing that I do in fact intend to clean it up properly and reference it to the nines. I'm doing bits of it in little fits and starts right now as I have time between major class assignments and research projects, but I do not consider it close to being a good article yet. Solarbird 07:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree, and thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 01:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
As a note: I haven't abandoned this project, I've just been being swamped by Zoology. (And the rest of my class schedule, but mostly Zoology.) I'll get to it after things get sane at school. Solarbird 05:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't let the elasmobranchii bite! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 11:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)