Talk:Focus on the Family

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To-do list for Focus on the Family: edit · history · watch · refresh

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, which collaborates on articles related to abortion, abortion law, the abortion debate, and the history of abortion. For more information, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Creationism Portal
This article is supported by the Intelligent design WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Intelligent design-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Creationism

I removed the statement that Focus advocates creationism. While it is technically true, in the sense that Focus (like most Christians) believe that God created the universe, it is not true that Focus promotes young-earth creationism, which is the sense the it is usually meant. DJ Clayworth 15:17, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC) Good point! -Probably could also fine tune the others too, such as the difference between homosexual feelings and homosexual behavior. But I'm not going to tackle that now... Pollinator 15:39, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)-

I believe that it would be helpful to clarify, rather than remove, the statement that 'Focus on the Family advocates creationism.' I know relatively little about focus on the family, but it seems non-trivial if an organization denies a widely accepted scientific theory. 67.189.92.236 (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History

Thought I'd add a bit on leadership, organizational history, and public touring. The intent is to be constructive and useful to those who don't know Focus well. 209.221.222.92 23:54, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC) avnative

[edit] Family values

While I understand Rose's (and others) frame of reference and intent in the previous edit, I hope I have reworded the two passages in perhaps an even better way. If you notice, I mentioned "the historic Christian faith." Those not holding to Christian faith will most likely have another understanding on what constitutes "family values." These kind people are of course free to hold beliefs outside of historic Christianity - what the church has believed for centuries. And professing Christians have the same freedom to hold their own belief.

I put out an "olive branch" of sorts by rewording the second passage to say "their understanding." It may not be a non-Christian's understanding, but it is Focus' understanding. And that's who the article is about, right?

My intent here is to improve the article in a fair, evenhanded way, being constructive to whomever may read it. Not interested in getting into the underlying moral relativism debate. . . or a shouting match. Thanks! 209.221.221.146 13:20, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)avnative

[edit] Wodfamchocsod

The following paragraph caught my eye.

Focus' facilities are open for tours by the public Monday through Saturdays, excepting certain holidays. A bookstore and cafeteria are onsite, as is the child-oriented Whit's End Soda Shoppe which serves ice cream and "Wodfamchocsod" (world famous chocolate soda) made famous by the Adventures in Odyssey children's radio theatre show produced by Focus.

Wodfamchocsod, eh? Why does this sound like Newspeak to me? ;-) Anville 19:36, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the evil forces of darkness are renaming our chocolate sodas. DJ Clayworth 22:01, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

They start with the chocolate sodas, yes, but pretty soon we'll have provisions in federal law stating that every little transcript ever kept on you by any organization can be examined and archived after being administered by a secret court and then passing by unanimous consent.....oh no, wait..that's already happened, nevermind.~~Paul

[edit] NPOV

I don't believe that FotF officially endorses the Republican Party, so to say that it supports Republican candidates is POV. Vacuum c 18:03, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. As a non-profit organization they can't endorse a political party and keep their tax-exempt status. However, they are certainly very Republican. There's no doubt about that. Is there anyway to show this connection without it being POV? Jayc 04:01, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
How about something like "endorses policies that often coincide with the platform of the Republican party"? I have, however, heard Dr. Dobson critisize the Bush administration from time to time for being what Dobson feels is insufficiently attentive to his organization's goals, but I do certainly agree that the fact that the FotF does often implicitly (although usually not explicitly) support the republicans in a vast range of cases does need to be discussed. I'm certainly open to others ways of saying it though. Just pointing out policy similarity and letting readers draw their own conclusions seems like an okay way to me. (Also good: Isn't there a guiding principle set down by Jimbo that says "Don't spoon feed conclusions" or something too?) Anyway, good work. -SocratesJedi | Talk 04:12, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It's inaccurate to say that FotF endorses policies similar to the Republican party. More and more Republicans are becoming tolerant or supportive of abortion, and that is one policy which FotF takes a strong stance against. There is no denial that Focus advocates conservative policies. Also, the “goal” of the orginisation is not to get right-wing politicians elected. Focus deals with moral issues. Although it does advocate citizens to vote wisely in regards to moral issues, they don't exist just to infiltrate the government. Dobson has clearly said that Focus on the Family is not a political orginisation. D. Wo. 05:12, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
Apologies. I was confusing Focus on the Family with the Family Research Council, for which my statements are probably more or less accurate (or at least so I think). Having taken a look at FotF, I now feel like my comments are more or less not-applicable to FotF. -SocratesJedi | Talk 21:51, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


"It [...] supports child abuse, homophobia, and sexual repression. Is it just me or is that maybe not so neutral? V35322 01:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quasi-addiction?

What does Quasi-addiction mean? I mean, I can see that there may be dispute as to whether or not gambling or pornography is addicting in a psychopharmacological way, but is inserting "quasi-addiction" the best way to get this point across? Maybe something like "struggles with what they view as addictions" or if you wanted to be be quite simple about it just drop it and let the assertion that addictions to those 4 things exist and just say "struggles with addiction"? I like the commitment to being NPOV and I think that adding something there might probably be a good idea, but quasi-addiction is just odd. Anyway, I didn't want to change it directly in case I was stepping on some toes or others disagree with me so I thought I'd open it up for comments before I do anything. Please comment! -SocratesJedi | Talk 04:12, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This article comes across not so much as not neutral as not focussed on the right place. If you listen to any of FotF's broadcasts discussion of the contentious issues mentioned in the article are few and far between. It's much more likely that you will have a talk aimed at helping a couple improve their marriage, dealing with problem children, and such like. Homosexuality isn't going to come up frequently. The article gives the impression that the contentious issues are the main focus. DJ Clayworth 21:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel words

"are regarded as a major voice in the Christian right" Any citation available for that?

[edit] This is not really a stub anymore

Want to remove the tag at the end? TheKillerAngel 19:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Messy References section

The references section is quite messy and contains HTML. Anyone want to clean that up? --148.87.1.171 00:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Patriotism

I changed the reference to FotF promoting "American Patriotism" because I thought it was both incorrect and non-neutral. If you look at the link itself, it actually seems directed at the opposite of patriotism. Rather than focusing on promoting shared national pride and identity, the suggestions seem all directed towards the divisive goal of engaging in ideological battle to exclude other Americans. Writing that FotF seems to be replicating this particular faction's framing of what patriotism is. I think it was be more accurate and neutral to write that FotF is directed towards a particular vision of American identity. --JamesAM 02:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dobson on Gibson

How is this pertinent? The founder commented on an alcohol-fueled event which will be largely forgotten in five years. Will each of his controversial statements be catalogued on the organization's article (rather than his)? Rkevins82 15:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The news article's first sentence is "Focus on the Family ministry founder James Dobson spoke in support Thursday of Mel Gibson and his film..." which makes it relevant. The first 4 words in the whole article is "Focus on the Family." Your claim that it will "Largely [be] forgotten in five years" is your personal opinion. Jews and FF critics may disagree. C56C 04:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
How many of Dobson's statements should be included here? All that receive media attention? My personal opinion about the likelihood of remembering this event is that it is not notable over the next five years or so. The comments seemed relatively innocuous, but that is my point of view. Do you find it notable that a Christian leader forgave Gibson after he apologized, as have a few, more, actors, comedians, producers, conservative commentators, and many Americans. And yes, noted Pink came to his defense. Part of his attempts to rehabilitate himself are meeting with Jewish leaders. Now, how notable is this for Focus on the Family. Rkevins82 06:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Reverting is not exactly "copy editing". Rkevins82 06:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I did not fully revert because someone made grammar changes, but I did write to see talk where my reasons for that edit were given. 1) The first four words in the article about Dobson and Gibson's comments are "FOCUS ON THE FAMILY." How often does the AP write an article with Focus on the Family as the lead sentence? 2) Such a controversial event in the media with Dobson fogiving while others don't is notable. At least it was for the AP. C56C 08:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The article has Focus on the Family in the first sentence because it is providing context for who Dobson is. The article is about Dobson, not Focus on the Family. As I've noted, there are a number of people who have forgiven Gibson. The fact that not everyone has is an absurd point to make. Also, AP publication may be a sign of notability, but for Dobson, not FotF. Rkevins82 19:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The news article is about Focus on the Family, note Dobson says "Our endorsement of it stands as originally stated. We did not believe it was anti-Semitic in 2004, and our views have not changed," Dobson said." This is about a group who endorsed Gibson's movie against the claim it is anti-Semimitic (original focus on the fmaily endorsement:[1]).
If Dobson were speaking for himself, the words "Focus on the Family," "our endorsement," "we don't believe..." and others would not have appeared. Clearly, he is referring to his organization's take on it. C56C 20:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Nice Red Herring. Are you talking about the Focus on the Family's defense of Passion of the Christ or Gibson's DUI? Rkevins82 05:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Its about the comments made, which Dobson and FF forgave. C56C 07:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
FotF did not forgive anything that I can find; Dobson did (and they did not forgive the comments, but Gibson for the comments). You provide an old link that shows FotF did not think the movie anti-semitic. You are supposing that Dobson is speaking ex cathedra because of his verbiage, but you offer no evidence beyond supposition. I do think that we can agree on the most recent edits. I notice that you have done minimal rewrites from the sources. It may need more work if it is to stay, but I would like some outside opinions. Rkevins82 17:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep backpedaling... as I have shown Dobson wasn't speaking about himself, and clearly this is controversial. He clearly forgave Gibson in that "Mel has apologized profusely for the incident and there the matter should rest." If Mel wasn't forigiven then the matter "shouldn't" be put to rest. As for you recent edits calling them "NPOV"[2] is rather interesting considering you removed quotations from the Associated Press. C56C
The removal of quotes was due to the fact that the language was copied in whole from an AP report, which is illegal. If you have problems with specific changes, post them here or go ahead and revert as necessary, rather than sly accusations. In total, I changed the wording for flow, removed what looked like copyrighted material, moved/changed "drunken tirade" earlier in the section as the more clinical "during a DUI traffic stop" As to your comment, I have said all along that Dobson forgave Gibson, which seemed uncontroversial. You are correct that Dobson was speaking for FotF, as verified by the press release, in full. I don't think I'm backpeddling (though I readily admit when I see facts point in another direction), nor do I think that is helpful in finding agreement here. Rkevins82 00:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International (outside USA)?

Where should that be in the Netherlands or in Belgium or in Singapore. I´m from europe and never read or heard that.GLGerman 19:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)GLGErman

You must be a very important person, if you know everything in Europe.... See http://www.family.org/welcome/intl/. --84.160.80.130 12:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Let's assume good faith, please. GLGerman's edits weren't vandalism, they were simply efforts to ensure that this article is verifiable. You may disagree with the methods, but I see no problem with the underlying motives. -- SwissCelt 14:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kathy Roever story

I have removed it from the to-do list. I could find only one source on Lexis-Nexis and it was from 2001-12-31 ("Women able to forgive man who murdered her daughter," by Lou Gonzalez The Gazette). It was written after she was fired and makes no mention of it. The original link is from a small independent paper that speaks very little about the firing. Focus on the Family has no response in the article (they may have been asked and refused or not asked at all). It is largely a non-notable incident. There is no lawsuit for employment discrimination, suggesting to me that she probably has no case. The firing took place two years and seven months after the rape/murder and 18 months after the conviction. Some sort of argument needs to be made that Focus on the Family acted improperly. None is offered. Rkevins 18:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits by 24.116.191.146

  • edit 1: Whether or not some other article has a "Controversy" section is irrelevant. The section in this article has sources and merely reports on what others have said about the organization; it does not make any claims of its own.
  • edit 2: "The agenda of people who identify themselves primarily by their sexual practices" is a ridiculous description and highly biased. If that's what Focus on the Family calls it, then put it in quotes and source it. Meanwhile I've replaced it with "homosexuality". ... discospinster talk 18:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Focus on the Family logo.png

Image:Focus on the Family logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I added and filled out a fair-use rationale template. Langelgjm 01:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline

Are there any objections to moving the timeline to its own article? It's so long that it overwhelms the content here, and it's of sufficient size to merit its own fork. Tijuana Brass (talk) 08:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Love Won Out"

This section reads like an advertisement, in fact as far as I can tell it is, an advertisement, thinly veiled with weasel words. I have curbed my urge to just delete it all as POV, since I do believe there are parts that can be salvaged. Ideas (or, if you're from the Eastern US Coast, Idears)? l'aqùatique talk 19:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I am the writer of this section of the article...I did it to reference what Love Won Out stands for. It represents Focus On The Famliys views; certainly not my own. It is important for people to understand their claims because they often try to distort and hide them. I wanted the truth of what Love Won Out to "come out" that is why I used many citations from the Love Won Out Guide book. It certainly isn't advertising the Love Won Out conference rather explaining the foundational arguments they use in conversion therapy and and the need to respond to homosexuality. Fyi I myself am a homosexual and attended the conference in order to better convey the ideology's they express. I wrote the article in a neutral tone while at the same time citeing Focus on the Familys opinions which is after all important if it is going to appear on an article about Focus on the Family.

If you have suggestions on parts that you believe can be edited better then please share that with me. ~nycutiepi~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.18.12 (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see your point, but I think less direct quotations with plenty of citations would probably help to eliminate the "advertisement" feel that I think it gives off currently. I'm actually writing this (having hocked internet from a fish cannery across the street) while I'm waiting in line to board a ferry that will not have internet service until Monday. I'll set it so I can see that section offline and think about it this weekend, try to mull over some improvements, then when I get back in range I'll write again. Thanks for your quick reply, and sorry if my op was snappy- l'aqùatique talk 00:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That is fine just remember in order to settle a dispute the guidelines are: "How can neutrality be achieved?

Talking with other contributors is a great way to find out why there is a dispute over an article's neutrality. Ideas and POV's can be shared and ultimately the disputed fact or point can be fixed if it is incorrect or, when dealing with a controversial issue, various legitimate sources can be cited in the article.'

Each of my citations are crucial to maintain fairness in representation the truth of the viewpoints of Focus on the Family, although I strongly disagree with them; I want it to be clear what their conference stands for. I did that by quoting them from their direct resource's so that there could not be a dispute of their opinions. To be honest I wasn't sure how to make citations so I would love it if you were to edit it appropriately for me. I am more concerned at keeping it factual and poignant.

Again thank you for reviewing it before deleting it. I look forward to working with you to settle the dispute. ~nycutiepi~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.18.12 (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

On Jan 13 2008, I have added the section Controversy and Criticism of the Love Won Out Conference to add balance towards all the Pro-Ex Gay movement theology expressed in the Love Won Out section. It now reads to first show the stance and affiliations of Focus on The Family and then continues to site sources on those who offer opposing ideology's and criticisms of Focus on the Family and the Religious Right movement on the "sin" of homosexuality.

[edit] Love Won Out Moved

I ~nycutiepi~ the original creator of Love Won Out section of this article have moved the majority of the Article after many edits to a more formal page Love Won Out, leaving only a summary of basic points still backed up with references directly out of the Love Won Out Conference Guide copyright 2005-2006. For more details on this conference please now refer to the Love Won Out Article. Nycutiepi (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have an active url for the conference guide which is frequently cited?Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Homophobic category

Joshuajohanson removed this category with the edit summary "Many gays find this organization helpful. It is POV to say it is homophobic." I would like for someone to find 10 gays or lesbians (ones that don't hate themselves by following Love Won Out's dogma) that actually agree with this statement. The reasons I exclude the gays and lesbians that have been sucked into LWO is because by LWO's own reasoning...these people are no longer gay or lesbian...they're "straight." So I guess they don't count. It is extremely POV to say "many gays" find FOTF to be helpful. As someone who is an active reader of LGBT media, I don't recall reading anyone saying FOTF is helpful. The exact opposite is said...that they're homophobic. That's why the category should remain. That is your own view that FOTF is not homophobic, but the vast majority of people that it actually deals with would surely differ from your opinion. LegitimateAndEvenCompelling asked me to use the talk page and so I have. I'll wait for a response today, but I'm going to add it back unless someone has a compelling reason it shouldn't be included. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Using the "homophobia" category for specific people or organisations is problematic because "homophobic" is a pejorative label (and therefore POV) rather than a simple factual assertion. It's comparable to adding "Category:Perversion" to an article on some particular sexual behaviour. Categories aren't particularly good for this sort of thing; rather, we should (and do) discuss this issue in the article text. — Matt Crypto 15:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
What about reliable sources that agree with the homophobic description? Also, "Many gays find this organization helpful" is probably not the best edit summary to use if one wants to avoid POV edit disputes. The reason I feel so strongly about this is because, as my user name suggests, I am a fundamentalist Baptist preacher's kid and have dealt with the Exodus International crowd and know what it's like to have your family and childhood friends shun you for being gay...telling your nieces and nephew that their uncle is a child molestor since he's gay. It's sickening. Ok, I vented. (steps off soapbox) AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Sad to hear about your experiences. My view here is simply that it is better to deal with a person or organisation's views on this topic -- and the criticism that it attracts -- in the text itself. That way, you can cite sources and word it appropriately etc. Just my two pennies... — Matt Crypto 15:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, categories are used to organize the entire project. To learn about how this works, see Help:Category and Wikipedia:Categorization FAQ.
For an overview of categorization guidelines, see Wikipedia:Categorization. To browse the existing categories, see Wikipedia:Categorical index.

Added above cat info. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You know what, I'm sorry you had a bad experience with your fundamentalist Baptist background. That is wrong and I think that is an example of homophobia. Regardless of your personal opinions, that has not been my experience. There is homophobia in the Christian Church, and most Christians turn a blind eye to it. There are many people in the Christian Church who I do not feel safe around, who judge me based on my feelings. The Love Won Out conference at least addresses the issue openly, and gives conservative Christians with an affinity towards their own gender a framework in which they can live their religion as they understand it. Now I do not agree with everything Love Won Out teaches, but at least they are trying to understand us and reach out to us, as opposed to many other Christians. I like the way one journalist recorded it "I came away from the Love Won Out conference with a renewed sense of Christ's love for the gay community. I was encouraged to reach out with more love and less judgment, more tolerance and understanding, and less fear."
However, your assertion that my opinion, and the opinion of many of my colleagues "doesn't count", because we have been "sucked into LWO" is just as close-minded and bigoted as your family's reaction to your sexuality. Who are you to judge us? You cannot discount a whole group of people because they disagree with you. I mean, seriously, talk about close-minded. The prejudice against us is so blatant that our very existence is considered a POV dispute. Furthermore, my opinion isn't based on being "sucked into LWO", but through my relationship with Jesus Christ. He lives and he loves me. His word is supreme and I will follow him all the days of my life. I really don't care what you have to say about that because that is what I believe, and I am entitled to my belief just as you are to yours. Billions of people hold the same belief, and I guarantee it isn't because of some Love Won Out conference. Do you have any other reasoning besides your own bigotry for excluding our opinions?
Anyway, you asked for 10 gays who agree with me and don't hate themselves. I'm one, and I don't hate myself. But that isn't what you meant, now was it? You meant to say anyone who isn't trying to diminish same sex desires, implying that anyone whose expression of their sexuality doesn't meet your narrow approval must hate themselves. I take offense to that. But you know what, I'll give you three people who express their sexuality through homosexual sex, though I must admit I am not aware of whether or not they hate themselves.
  • Simon LeVay said "I believe that we should as far as possible, respect people's personal autonomy, even if that includes what I would call misguided desires such as the desire to change one's sexual orientation."
  • Camille Paglia said "Is the gay identity so fragile that it cannot bear the thought that some people may not wish to be gay? Sexuality is highly fluid, and reversals are theoretically possible. ... helping gays to learn to function heterosexually, if they wish, is a perfectly worthy aim."
  • Douglas Haldeman said "we must respect the choices of all who seek to live life in accordance with their own identities; and if there are those who seek to resolve the conflict between sexual orientation and spirituality with conversion therapy, they must not be discouraged." Joshuajohanson (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Copy and paste this discussion onto my talk page if you want to further this debate. The talk page isn't the appropriate place. WP:TOPIC Trust me, I have an opinion on this...but I won't discuss it any further here. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline

The timeline at the bottom of the page is lifted straight from the FOTF site. It is not neutral. For example, what evidence is there that they helped out during Hurricane Katrina? --Lionheart Omega (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be reduced or taken out completely. There is no need for such a long list since the timeline can be accessed through the website. If it is necessary in the article, then only important events should be kept. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I see the timeline has been discussed before. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Timeline has been removed. As pointed out in the first post by Lionheart Omega, this is lifted off of a webpage,[3] i.e. is a clear copyvio. -Andrew c [talk] 18:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)