Talk:Anglican realignment/Archive 1

Oops, sorry, I see the article still growing
I will refrain from retagging for a while since I see the original editor is expanding the article and addressing my concerns. -- IslandGyrl 04:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

theologically "conservative" to theologically "biblical"
User 66.32.14.214 made the edit theologically "conservative" to theologically "biblical". This is un-helpful in the debate as both sides centre their respective arguments from "biblical" sources and perspectives. Conservative seems to me to better describe the anglican realignment position as it is commomly understood: conservative does carry quite a bit of baggage though so perhaps there is an even better word that does not denigrate either side. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 14:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that "conservative" describes the situation quite well, and believe also that it does not denigrate either side - it is merely a neutral term used to describe the situation. (This comment was made by a user who is proud to be a theological conservative.  :-D ) --Tim4christ17 talk 13:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As a liberal Episcopalian I agree with Tim4christ17 that the term "theologically conservative" as used in the article accurately describes the parishes that are seeking realignment, without being unduly pejorative. I agree with Wassupwestcoast that calling those parishes "theologically biblical" would not be constructive as I believe both sides of the controversy honestly believe their position to be biblical.  I don't, however, think we need to worry much about the "baggage" if indeed we are talking about conservative theology only. - Mark Dixon 23:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How about "theologically traditional?" This sounds more "neutral" to me than "conservative" does, and more accurate. Prost!Hectard (talk) 03:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Realignment only within ECUSA?
Does Anglican realignment also affect Canada or other Anglican provinces?--Bhuck 00:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Not at this time. Realignment remains an American phenomenon.129.74.228.121 16:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

History section
This section is problematic in that none of the examples cited are actually instances of realignment. Conflict, yes. Departures from the Communion, yes. Organizations within the Communion, yes. But, not one of these is an example of realignment as defined in the article which is alternative primatial oversight. So, this needs to be re-written or moved down in the article as it blurrs the topic for the reader before actually arriving at a discussion of the present realignment.129.74.228.121 16:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Homosexual ordination and realignment of the Communion to Anglican realignment
The home for this info is best here to avoid repetition. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 17:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There has been no interest at all for 48 hours so assume that the proposal is uncontroversial. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 04:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC

I disagree. The present situation in the Anglican Communion is essential to understanding the Communion. A summarizing section is indispensable with a reference to the main article. Why is there such passion to shunt off this material from principal articles? Look at the Catholic Church page and you will see all kinds of information that is uncomfortable but needs to be there. One does not have a right to present their own rosy version of a topic. That material stays there.129.74.165.42 03:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

History Section
Okay, I am going to ask you all nicely to actually discuss major changes to this article here on the talk page. It seems that if anyone were interested in this topic it would be quite difficult to find info. on it here on WP. First, while "Realignment" is probably the best article title and is used in some inner circles, there is no easily identifiable name to look under for this topic. The papers use schism a lot, but I dont think that is acurate if some parishes are moving from one province to another. The best term for this kind of movement is realignment. But most readers wont know that and will be looking at either the TEC page or the Anglican Communion page. Recent editing efforts have had the effect of obscuring any information about the subject on these pages. Most readers know the topic has something to do with ordination of gay bishops and shism. At TEC, the heading has been changed to "Recent controversies," which is a rediculously obscuring title and is possibly the most unhelpful title one could conjure up. Then on the Anglican Communion page the topic has been removed entirely. This is very problematic in that someone looking there would find no hint of information on this topic.

The current crisis is not a sideshow in the Anglican Communion but is likely the most important development since the Oxford Movement. So, please let's stop trying to bury this topic.

Lastly, if one does finally get to this page there is a huge "history" section which brings in so much information that it again has the effect of obscuring what is currently at issue. I am not opposed to all this background, but the article is principally about the events of 2003 to the present. It also ought to highlight the centrality of the gay bishop issue in the current crisis. The Communique essentially only addressed 3 topics:

1. New Primatial Vicar 2. Hiatus on new gay bishops 3. Hiatus on Same-sex union blessings.

This material needs to be in the headings if only in subheadings.

So my question is why the impulse to bury the facts? Please. Please. Please cooperate in editing these articles so that people who want to know what is going on can find the material quickly and well presented along with all the context they want. But too much "context" makes for a confusing and difficult article to wade through.

129.74.165.42 04:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As the principal author of the History section, I feel the need to pop in from my Wikibreak to say a word in its defence.
 * Anglican realignment is not about events since 2003. Anglican realignment has been a fact of life since the Church of England declared its autonomy from the authority of foreign bishops. The fact that the current debate involves the re-insertion of the authority of foreign bishops into independent provinces is truly ironic, but it is scarcely novel.
 * It is strange to me to read objections to "too much context" on such a complex issue, with such a long history. I never thought comprehensiveness was a shortcoming; or that providing the background to current events somehow constitutes their burial.  In an earlier colloquoy with Wassupwestcoast, you acknowledged the helpfulness of context, and when it is provided you complain that the article should be - well, a series of news briefs, one supposes, divorced from the reality of Anglican doctrine, history, and ecclesiology.
 * To my thinking, that approach doesn't make an encyclopedia. It makes an almanac. Fishhead64 06:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Objective POV
I would like to work together with some of you editors on a presentation of the issues in a more objective fashion. Could we try to have some subsections which outline each "sides" point of view. I hate "liberal" and "conservative" when referring to religious topics, "fundamentalist" is worse. But for lack of better terms at the moment could we outline each point of view briefly? I will give it a try and let me know what you think.

"Liberal"
 * Modern scripture scholarship applied to a variety of modern issues:
 * WO
 * Inclusion of LGBT
 * Provincial autonomy extends to matters of doctrinal development.

"Conservative"
 * Belief in the immutability of doctrine
 * Divided over WO both in TEC and the AC
 * Disapproving of SSB and Ordination of LGB bishops
 * Belief that Provincial autonomy does not extend to changes in doctrine.

Present Position of the Anglican Communion: Windsor and Communique


 * Current teaching of the AC is Lambeth 1998 1.10, though opinion vary widely throughout the communion and the teaching is subject to change at any future Lambeth Conference.
 * The AC does not recognize as legitimate the crossing of Provincial boundaries.

Folks, I am not trying to disrespect your work here, but we have to keep the reader in mind. This is a hot topic these days and WP ought to make good information readily available.129.74.165.42 04:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi user 129.74.165.42, where were you in February when Anglican realignment was the Anglican project of the month? No one who edits and is interested in Anglicanism is ignoring this issue. But please keep it in perspective. It is a bit exteme to say that this issue is "likely the most important development since the Oxford Movement." Perhaps you have forgotten the entire Ordination of women debate - a debate still on-going and which also can quite easily lead to schism. And, then there are the esoteric prayer book debates and so on. Anglicanism has been 500 years of outrage and door slamming :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 13:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I can live with this point. Why have you ignored all of the stated above and arbitrarily reverted edits withouth discussion on the talk page. That is hostile.129.74.165.42 13:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ordination of women and Bishop Schori
The issue of Bishop's Schori's gender and the ordination of women is far more central to the Anglican realignment debate than several editors seem to think. If Bishop Robinson were suddenly to say "this gay thing was a fun lark while it lasted but I think I'll go straight now", the raison d'etre for Anglican realignment would not disappear. The issues are bigger than a single gay bishop. And, one of those issues is 30 years old. Much of the Anglican Communion sees the ordination of a female bishop a greater stumbling block because gender can not be changed. The U.S., U.K, Canada and New Zealand (as far as I know) are the only Provinces where a bishop may be a woman. Many of the Provinces who see a gay bishop as anathema, don't see a woman bishop as a lesser problem.

One of the odd things about the Anglican realignment movement are some non-traditional parishes trying to align themselves with conservative Provinces. My jaw dropped when I recently read in The Seattle Times about two dissident parishes:

In Washington state, one other parish — St. Charles in Poulsbo — also has aligned with the same Brazilian bishop as St. Stephen's. They affiliated with the Rt. Rev. Robinson Cavalcanti, who, unlike some other conservative bishops, was willing to take on those parishes headed by a woman — as St. Stephen's was at the time — or by a divorced and remarried man — as St. Charles is.

Thirty years ago, a female priest or a divorced (and re-married !) priest would have been anathema in ECUSA. Impossible and scandalous if known. I can not think of a better example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Of course, it is not surprising such parishes would find it difficult to affliate with a conservative Province.

Another Seattle Times article also reports on the significance of the woman priest debate within the recent votes in Virginia.

Parishioners there weren't upset only by Bishop Peter James Lee's vote in 2003 to accept an openly gay bishop in New Hampshire; many of the members still object to female priests and the new female bishop who leads the U.S. church.

The old debates linger. Gender is still a big issue to some in ECUSA. And, those who don't understand the history of the Episcopalian/Anglican church are going to realign themselves right out of the Communion. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 20:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In an Anglo-catholic blog, there is an interesting analysis about women's ordination, the AMiA and the Anglican realignment movement. Very much written from an Anglo-catholic perspective but revealing on the internal tensions within the Anglican realignment movement itself.


 * The blog article is AMiA: A Backdoor Entrance for Women's 'Ordination'?. The blog article was posted Sunday, January 28, 2007. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 17:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Unity amongst disunity
This news report Unity Among Orthodox Anglicans: How Do We Get There From Here? provides some interesting background reading about attempts at uniting a centuries worth of extra-mural Anglican groups. The conference was "The Affirmation of St. Louis: Seeking a Path to Reconciliation and Unity" held at All Saints Episcopal Church, Wynnewood, Pennsylvania September 30-October 1, 2005.

Christian history, Ousley continued, is full of splits—“some necessary, some benign, some sinful.” Likewise, while most of the splits undertaken by groups of orthodox Anglicans since 1976 have been regarded by those who effected them as necessary to the integrity of the Gospel, he said, some of them were rooted instead in "some form of human selfishness,” e.g., personality conflicts or objections to leadership style, “and are rightly termed `schism'". Complicating matters, Ousley noted, is that orthodox Anglicans might in a few cases disagree as to which are substantive or non-substantive issues, for instance the ordination of women deacons, or whether seeking reunion with Rome is a high priority.

The post-1976 Continuing Church has "split various times," Ousley noted. Additionally, others who left ECUSA since 1976 have formed separate bodies. "While that is not exactly `splitting it still contributes to the current state of disunity," he said.PDF version of Unity Among Orthodox Anglicans:How Do We Get There From Here?

Note: Ousley is described in the same article as "Rev. David Ousley, rector for 22 years of St. James the Less, Philadelphia, an Episcopal-turned-independent congregation (which now awaits an appellate court decision on whether or not it will lose its property to Bishop Bennison)".PDF version of Unity Among Orthodox Anglicans: How Do We Get There From Here?

The conference mostly focussed on trying to unite the Anglo-catholic extra-mural Anglican churches but they did include the recent Anglican realignment movement. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 18:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Episcopal Diocese of Olympia
That St. Stephen's Anglican Church, Oak Harbor and St. Charles Anglican Church, Poulsbo" are now affliated with the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of the Americas seems likely to be true. But, I can't verify it. St. Charles, Poulsbo is very coy about its affliation. You have to hover your cursor over the ACC coat of arms on the home page to be informed that it is a "Member of the AAC". No other statements of affiliation appear on its website. St.Stephen's website is "temporarily out of service". At the AAC website, under Non-ECUSA Affiliated Parishes it identifies both parishes as being affiliated with the "Diocese of Recife (Brazil)". I can not find an explicit statement by either parish or diocese about membership. Are they orphans? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 00:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I've found an AAC Press Release datelined December 06, 2005: "Recife Creates "North-American Archdeaconry" at its Synod". So the two parishes are affiliated with the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of the Americas. But, I've now learned more complications in this Anglican realignment thing. The Diocese of Recife in Brazil is a part of the Province of Brazil and whose bishop is the Rt. Rev. Sebastião Gameleira.  But, the former bishop of the Diocese of Recife in Brazil - Rt. Rev. Robinson Cavalcanti - left the Province of Brazil and became affiliated with the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of the Americas and formed the parallel "Anglican Diocese of Recife” which is not the same thing as the Diocese of Recife. So confusing. But, I'm learning. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 01:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Present crisis
This article began as a discussion of the present crisis arising from the ordination of Gene Robinson. Very cleverly it was filled with other material about other historical realignments, then all references to the present crisis and GR were removed completely.

I would suggest that there is room for a article on the present crisis and movement to realign. If it doesnt belong here, then what article title can we agree on to create a space for this material?129.74.116.199 19:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This article does discuss Gene Robinson; see Anglican realignment under 2003. However, the section "History" does need a section on the twentieth century, and the "Timeline of developments" needs to be rewritten as prose instead of lists and put into a section on the twenty-first century. The election of Gene Robinson was just a drop in the ocean of Anglican Realignment, and we don't want to give it undue weight. —Angr 20:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The ordination of Robinson is not the singular raison d'être of the Anglican realignment movement. If Robinson were to retire tomorrow, the movement wouldn't disperse after a wrap party like a movie shoot after its last day. The movement did not arise de novo in 2003: its most recent antecedents stretch back years. Notice the absence of a single Anglican realignment organization - there are numerous competing camps -  which is highly suggestive of competition or else the opponents of Robinson would have coalesced around a single identifiable organization. For example, the issues of divorce, and ordination of women placed some Anglican realigment proponents into the fold of the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of the Americas as either issue is problematical in either the Anglican Mission in America or CANA camps. There are also high church and low church issues dividing the movement. Bishop Schori is a very serious impediment to many in the movement. There are people in the movement who drew a line the sand 30 years ago over the prayer book.  And, there are simple - old-fashioned- personality conflicts that further divide the movement and the movement from the TEC. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * One thing I wonder about is what happened in the ECUSA during slavery. Slavery was an issue that split many churches (Baptists, Methodists) - were there Episcopal churches that were unhappy with their primatial oversight on the issue of slavery in the 19th century? —Angr 06:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Angr, apparently entire dioceses weren't happy over the issue of slavery. See this from an organization in the Diocese of South Carolina. I'm not certain which side the Diocese was on but there was a dispute: From its inception, our diocese has disagreed with The Episcopal Church over many issues, from slavery and civil rights, to revisions in the Book of Common Prayer and the role of female clergy. In each instance some people felt so strongly that the Church had violated the Will of God that they could no longer be a part of The Episcopal Church and left. Fortunately, most stayed. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 01:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Cursory research seems to indicate that ECUSA almost divided over slavery. For example, a New York Times article of Feb 25, 2007 "A Divide, and Maybe a Divorce: by Laurie Goodstein - see has some good quotes:


 * ."'Homosexuality is not the cause of the divide, just “the last straw,” said John L. Kater, a lecturer in Anglican Studies, at the Church Divinity School of the Pacific, in Berkeley, Calif.'"


 * . "'When the Episcopal Church elected a woman, Katharine Jefferts Schori, as presiding bishop last summer, it rubbed salt in the wound, Mr. Kater said. “The strength of the reaction by conservatives around homosexuality is partly because of a sense of offense around the ordination of women,” he said.'"


 * ."'The Episcopal Church is one of the few that did not split over slavery. Churches in the Confederate States did form a separate alliance, Mr. Kater said, but the national Episcopal Church met without them and “pretended they were out of the room,” calling out the dioceses’ names for a vote “as if they had just gone to the bathroom.” “After the war there was a simple reconciliation process, and they were all brought back in as if it had not happened,” he said. “I was taught in seminary that this was the great strength of the Episcopal Church, that when all the other churches divided, it stayed together and this was a sign of its great sense of unity. I think it was shameful, that the church considered that unity was more important than slavery.”'"

Also, this from the Global South Anglican website,Schori ("Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefforts Schori–A Season of Fasting" - see Reflections on the Primates Meeting) said:
 * ."'The struggle to end slavery has some parallel with our current controversy, and we can note the less than universal agreement about the moral duty of Christians over a lengthy period. The United States also experienced major division over slavery, even though the Episcopal Church did not fully divide. Some see that part of our history as shameful, while others see it as a sign of hope, and that, too, has current parallels.'"

And from the Documenting the American South website, a bio of a bishop of the Diocese of North Carolina - Thomas Atkinson - who "came to support southern moves to erect a Protestant Episcopal Church in the Confederate States of America". (A reference is given: J. B. Cheshire, The Church in the Confederate States (1912)). So, the TEC was almost divided over slavery with a minority group organized to leave and almost seceded. Of course, it took a war to bring it back. Perhaps not so hopeful. This info should be included in the main Anglican realignment article because of the parallels. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 02:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Present Crisis (Again)
Lets try talking about the present crisis again. And, this time lets try to stay on topic! If this is not the proper article for explaining the present crisis, then what article is?129.74.165.195 15:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a tricky place to talk about the present crisis, because Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought: no personal essays, no discussion forums and no journalism. And, Wikipedia is not a soapbox: no opinion pieces on current affairs or politics. And, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. So, the best thing for this page is background (historical, doctrinal, etc.) from both sides that is referenced to external and reliable (not blogs) sources. I'm not making any of this up. This is all Wikipedia policy. Be bold and add content. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way editor 129.74.165.195, we need help working on all Anglican articles. Please be bold and add content. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the present situation, the Introduction states that the move toward realignment arose a generation ago over the issue of the ordination of women (which is true), but fails to mention that the movement continues today primarily because of controversy regarding gay and lesbian believers in the church, particularly the church's role in marriages and ordinations of same. The present controversy is not mentioned until the 2006 historical section. I think the Introduction should indicate that this controversy is currently what is driving the realignment movement. It is impossible to understand the current realignment movement outside the context of the controversy that is driving it. - Mark Dixon 00:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Be bold. -- SECisek 17:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I was bold, but in an even-handed manner. Sadly, it will probably get reverted out soon and the debate will continue.  I think intellectual honesty demands that we make it clear that the issues of diocesan oversight and ownership of church property are fallout from the controversy, not the subject matter of it.  The realignment would not be occurring without the disagreement over gay and lesbian believers. - Mark Dixon 23:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I say be bolder and take the page to the GA level. see Good article candidates and What is a good article?. It would be a useful article if it were at the GA or better the FA level. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 02:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

lead
An article's lead should summarize the article. You should be able to read just the lead and know pretty much the whole story in summary. I've started on it, but I could use some help. Leadwind 04:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Might it be more correct to say the seceding churches are seeking other ecclesiastical arrangements, instead of ecclesiological arrangements? To my understanding, ecclesiological pertains more to the study of church polity as an academic subject, while ecclesiastical denotes more the actual practice of church polity. - Mark Dixon (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You would be correct, sir. I thought the same.  Also, there's a missing indefinite article in the first line of the lead.  Prost! Hectard (talk) 03:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

WHAT THEY CALL LIBERAL THEOLOGY?
Let me get this straight. The theology of those who currently control TEC's pro-gay union blessings is only considered "liberal" by those who are themselves, according to this Wiki entry, indisputably conservative? The partisanship and agenda-driven editing here is beyond belief. I went to an EC USA church for the first time today, and came to Wikipedia to find further information, and have found nothing but obfuscation as I try to learn about the current direction of the church. Those who are apparently reverting, re-editing, etc., are doing a great disservice to their cause. I'd say, actually, that such behavior is very George Bush-esque.

With my brief amount of research today, it is quite clear that some element in the church has much to hide from those who seek to learn more about the church. It seems to me to be a clear case of "if you don't acknowledge it, it's not happening." Sounds a lot like Woodberry Forest School's headmaster Dennis Campbell: head in the dirt, or elsewhere. Typical Yale grad. Hectard (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an all volunteer attempt to write an encyclopedia. This article is very far from being a 'good article'. Please, re-write it: see Writing better articles to get you started. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems as though some Wiki contributors, many of whom live to control content, do not abide by what Wikipedia prescribes as the definition of a good article. These contributors must have ridiculous amounts of time on their hands, no life, whatsoever, or both, in addition to an extremely partisan dedication to whichever topics they seek to wield control over.  They are not interested in 'good articles,' but in proselytizing their own warped view of reality. So dedicated are they to dissemination of their agenda that they copyright reality, so that their version cannot be disputed.  That said, I'm assuming a minor change such as the "traditional" versus "conservative" change will go un-reverted.  I'll check back though, to monitor the extent to which these editors will go to control which information makes it to the interested public.  Hectard (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed both adjectives 'conservative' and 'traditional' from the opening sentence. You are quite right in that it obfuscates the issue. Certainly, both conervative and traditional Episcopalians stand on both side of the debate. I've replace the word with 'dissenters' The Encarta dictionary defines dissent thus

[christianity] not support religious practices: to refuse to conform to the authority, doctrines, or practices of an established church.


 * and dissenter thus;

[... a] religious nonconformist: somebody who rejects the authority, doctrines, or practices of an established church, especially a Protestant who did not accept the Church of England in the 17th and 18th centuries.
 * I think it is a helpful noun as it avoids the polarization. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that the Wikipedia definition of a Good Article - see What is a good article? - makes no mention of subject choice but emphazises proper sourcing and attribution of the text. These are covered in points 2, 3, 4, and 5 in the Good Article critieria. The first point concerns the mechanics of writing and presentation. The last point is about illustrations. I don't think anyone is promoting an agenda other than the overarching agenda of Wikipedia to write good, neutral articles in an encyclopedic style. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Exhibit three thousand N of a certain someone hiding his agenda behind the ideal encyclopedic wikipedia article. You don't think that's happening though, so the rest of us will just let the truth-seeking public accept that as fact too, then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.72.58 (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please be bold and contribute to this article and other Anglican articles. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is starting to sound like a cult with the repetition of the same few mantras. One may make a worthwhile change, but someone will sit around long enough, revert, of course rationalizing their revert with incontrovertible wikispeak supporting said revert, and all invested time will have been for naught.  Perhaps some should try being bold and should join reality rather than reading fantasy books and attempting to create their own version of reality in Wikiworld. Continued avoidance of realitytm is easier, however. Prost!Hectard (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I sometimes suspect the same myself. Some parts of Wikipedia do seem 'cult-like and others seem far too obsessively concerned with 'in-universe' fantasy. I'm doing my best to insert reality into Wikipedia. Please join in rather than waxing philosophically. Skol! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hectard, I hear a lot of moaning, but not much in the way of a substantive critique of what you feel is inaccurate in the entry. fishhead64 (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It isn't very clear what Hectard feels is incorrect here. -- SECisek (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)