Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Japan/GA1

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

---

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham (talk · contribs) 17:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I will be doing this review.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Introduction and limitations

I don't know much about the Latter Day Saints, I have to admit that. Neither do I know much about Christianity. Moreover, I am not even American. On the positive side, I did most of my GA reviews on philosophy or religion, and I can offer you an outsider's perspective.

The article needs some rewriting in terms of grammar and prose, but nothing serious. Non-LDS sources might have to be added to improve on an outsider's perspective.

Overview

I have assessed the article at C now.

1. Prose:

• No copyright infringements detected.
• The article reads well, but the grammar is often off, and some words are used in the wrong way. More detail follows in the review per section below..

• The structure of the article needs revision:

• I think it makes more sense if you merge the sections on missions and temples.
• The recent challenges section would better function as the main header of that section (level 2 header), and Cultural challenges should be the single subsection. You can cut out the Challenges to Missionary Work header. And while you are at it, reword the euphemism challenges: replace by problems or a similar word per WP:WTW.

• Merged. I completely understand your concern with the euphemism and I agree. Because of the respect I have for the country and the culture, I couldn't really bring myself to use the word "problem" in regards to discussing their culture and the main religions of the country, because I feel like "problem" has an underlying connotation that there is something wrong with it. I decided the word "obstacles" has a more neutral connotation. It's still probably a little "euphemism-y", but I just felt like "problem" was a little harsh. What do you think? Skyes(BYU) (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Both problems and obstacles are fine.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• The Membership section can easily be merged with the Recent developments section, and the isolated Slang section should be merged into a history section, unless you expand on it.

• Done. I've wanted to removed the slang section since I began expanding the page, so I went ahead and removed it. There's no real extra information to expand on and it's already included in Missionary (LDS Church), so I don't really feel like it belongs on the page. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

2. MOS:

• There is a citation in the lead, which should be moved to the body of the article.

Done. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• The lead does not adequately summarize the contents entirely.
• You should add short descriptions to the external links and the further reading entries.
• Though not part of GA review, I felt I should mention that you are using d-m-y format dates, which is unusual for an article related to the USA. You should add a template to inform other users at the top of the article's code.

• Am I? I just went through the article and didn't notice any dates in that format, except the temple info boxes, which I didn't make. Could you let me know where I did this? I would like to change them if I did in order to be consistent. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• I have seen some dates in the references which are in d-m-y style, y-m-d, and in m-d-y. It is not important for GA though.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

3. References layout:

• A number of shortened footnotes are incorrectly formatted and do not link to any sources. Install this script to detect them.

• Added the script. Will get to this later. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• I fixed the ones that had typos. I don't know how to fix the LDS Church News ones that don't have an author. I tried to use just the publications name with the year, but it still doesn't link it to the source. Do you know what I should do? Skyes(BYU) (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• I fixed most of them. The ones remaining are either not specific enough for me to figure out which source it is supposed to refer to, or the foonote is placed in the see also section, which is highly unusual. I'd suggest to specify the former, and remove the latter.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• Please note that there are two Deseret News sources from 1970, and you would have to specify which citation refers to which source. If you want to use a shortened footnote, you can use 1970a and 1970b in the harv id.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• I think I was able to fix all the citations. I see no more error messages. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Nice!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• The Neilson, Hoffman and Mori references have an access-date, but no url.

• These are print sources. I removed the access date because they don't have urls. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• The references are not in alphabetical order.

4. Reliable sources: though mostly LDS sources, sources used are almost entirely news and scholarly publications

5. Original research: None found.

6. Broadness: Will check later. I will try to find more sources that are not LDS. We will have to consider to include more of such sources to meet encyclopedic standards.

7. Focus: The historical sections contain too much detail. Cut down what is essential to understanding the subject of the article. E.g., why is it necessary to know that one of the first Japanese Mormons married a Hawaiian woman and was a cook and a taro farmer?

• Thanks for the suggestion. I typically write my articles with an enormous amount of detail and then cut down later if necessary. I'll work on this right now. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• I deleted some information, but I'm guessing it's not enough. I would appreciate any suggestions if you feel there is more I should cut. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• I will look at the entire article again at the end, but your edits look good.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

8. Neutral: The article is based on a majority of in-group sources, but mentions less flattering information such as polygamy and Gibson's excommunication. This indicates a considerable level of neutrality, despite not many independent sources.

9. Stable: article is stable.

10-11. Pics: Pictures are all pictures of buildings, which is no problem under Japanese freedom of panorama. You could include more pictures of people involved in the missionary activities, though not essential for GA.

Detailed review per section

I will continue with a detailed review per section. Feel free to insert replies or inquiries.

• I may correct some details myself, as I go along the per section review. Revert or discuss as appropriate.

Lead

• Wikilinked terms that are unclear at first sight, should be briefly defined inline, especially if they are important for the narrative. E.g. Stake
• ... without working in Japan. Meaning: without being subject to Japan's laws and regulations? Please shortly explain in article.
• The first temple in Japan was built and dedicated in Tokyo in 1980. Use of wikilinks is unusual. Better cut out the link to the LDS temple, and use temple in Japan instead.
• I will get back to the lead later.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Iwakura Mission

I hate to say this, but I don't know if this section is relevant enough to be included. What have been the long-term effects of these events?

This is really the first time that Japanese people were introduced to Mormons, and both the Salt Lake City Mormons and the Japanese travelers had pretty good impressions of each other, which may have helped influence the introduction of the LDS religion in Japan through missionary work. As far as long-term effects, I don't know that there are any. Don't feel bad, I've been wondering whether I should keep this section in since I started writing this. I think it's interesting and relevant enough, considering there was an entire scholarly essay written on the subject, but if you really think it should be deleted, merged with another section, or lightly expanded to better explain relevance, let me know. I appreciate your input. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Normally I would say delete, but the fact that an essay was written especially about this topic makes me reconsider. What are the premises of the essay? How does the author relate the events in this period to later events? Any conclusions that are omitted in the wiki article here?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Reading through the essay again, I feel like I am bordering on original research in my assumptions. While it is possible that the Iwakura Mission influenced the missionary work in Japan, the article doesn't explicitly state that. The Iwkaura Mission was more prominent for its effects on Utah history, not Mormon history. It would probably belong better somewhere in an article about Utah history than here. I'm going to delete it. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Alright.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Missionary efforts

• ... later 7th President of the Church was called to establish the first LDS Church mission, ... at the time of his call ...: though I understand this is a LDS technical term, it sounds too devotional for an encyclopedia, and not required in this context. Please rephrase, though you can of course still wikilink to Calling (LDS Church).
• ... the anti-Mormon articles that had been coming out in the newspapers ...: this is confusing, because these developments have not yet been introduced.
• ... preach the gospel ... (several places in article): if the word preaching alone is sufficient, I'd suggest this instead, since it is more neutral.
• ... particularly Grant, had great difficulties learning the language ...: but you just wrote he wrote articles in Japanese newspapers, or have I misunderstood?
• However, after the arrest of Nakazawa ...: Why was he arrested?

Thanks for the explanation. To keep a neutral encyclopedic tone, you may want mention why the church did not pay him.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• ... for refusing to pay Nazakawa. Refusing to pay a salary?
• ... general missionary approach ...: please specify or give an example.
• ... had difficulty obtaining property. Why?
• ... the general sense of defeatism affected the attitudes ...: an attitude affecting an attitude. Maybe simplify this sentence a bit.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Made the changes. A couple of the clarifications you asked for didn't really have clear answers in the sources such as the difficulty in obtaining property. As well as some contradiction about the anti-Mormons writings and Grant's response to them but he didn't understand the language...I just removed all of that. It wasn't particularly clear in the source either and the section is too long anyway. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Mm. Perhaps Japanese newspapers and magazines were (partly) in English language at the time? Would explain Grant's responses and it wouldn't be implausible, historically speaking. Not sure what the sources say though.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• In this edit, ChristensenMJ defends the use of the word teaching gospel in the article and has reverted some of the changes suggested above. Gospel, as far as I have learnt it, means 'good news' and is a Christian devotional term that should not be used in a neutral, scholarly encyclopedia. Neutral alternatives like teaching Christianity, teaching Mormon Christianity, preaching, giving sermons can also be used.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• I completely agree with you. I changed teaching the gospel to teaching Mormon Christianity. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

First Japanese Mormons

• Though well-written, this section may be too detailed. Try focusing on details which are really required for an understanding of the Japanese LDS Church.

• Better? Skyes(BYU) (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Better.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Portrayal of the Church in Japan

• Not only did missionaries in Japan have to teach the Bible, they also had to counter the assumptions the Japanese people had about the church and polygamy. Reads a bit odd. Try: When the missionaries...

Translation of the Book of Mormon

• The translation was made by Tatsui Sato, a member of the first baptized family in Japan after the closure of the mission in 1924. You mean, this family was the first family to be baptized after the mission was closed in 1924? How is that relevant?

• Maybe it's not relevant. Deleted it. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

* Sorry, I think I have rushed and overlooked something here. You should just rephrase the sentence to make it more understandable, but it should not be deleted, because the person is notable. You should also redlink him, I suppose, to prevent confusion with other Tatsui Satos.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• The most recent translation of the Book of Mormon was published in 1995 in a more colloquial style that became more widely used after World War II. Was the style more widely used or the translation?

1924–1945: Closed Japan Mission

• ... by Joseph H. Stimpson, the current Japan mission president. The then mission president, I suppose?
• Sometimes you use Mission with capital letter, sometimes not. If it is a proper noun, then it should have a capital letter. If it is not, it shouldn't.

• As far as I understand, mission is lowercase if it is referring to missions in general. When referring to a specific mission, such as Japan Mission, it is capitalized. I'll check to make sure I was consistent with that. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Presiding Elder: not explained, nor wikilinked.

Explained. No wikilink exists.

Reestablishment of the Japan Mission

• ... Near-Day Saints ...: if this is a translation error, you might want to mark it with [sic]
• The Mutual Improvement Association needs disambiguation.

• Done Skyes(BYU) (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Great, but disambiguation pages are normally not wikilinked in articles. So I delinked the term, if you don't mind.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Relief Society

• ... wash their bedding ...: You mean, of the Sunday School families, or of the missionaries?
• From 1965 to 1966, materials for instruction came in Seito-No-Michi ...: Do you mean they taught Christianity as well, or do you mean instructions for setting up charity work?

So the lesson plansin the magazine were for inspiration and instruction of the charity workers, or to help them teach others?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Farang Rak Tham: A normal LDS Church meeting has 3 blocks or 3 different meetings (we meet for about 3 hours instead of the usual 1 for other Christian denominations): Sacrament meeting, Sunday School, and Relief Society for the women and Elders Quorum for the men. In Relief Society meetings, teachers teach lessons about various topics concerning Jesus Christ (the lesson plans in the magazines were to help the teachers do this), so it's kind of like a Sunday School for only women that is also a charity organization and will often do charity projects outside of normal Sunday church. I can add something in the article to make it a little more clear what the Relief Society is if you want. From an outside perspective, I can see how that wouldn't be clear. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, just explain the part on for what purpose the lessons are. Not all religious charity organizations also teach, so it maybe confusing for some readers.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

1968–1980: Church expansion

• Again, this section is too detailed.

• Do you have any suggestions for deletion? Skyes(BYU) (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Walter Bills was named the new mission president of the renamed Japan Mission. The second part of the Japan Mission was named the Japan-Okinawa Mission and was presided over by Edward Okazaki. Let me get this straight: the Japan Mission was renamed the Japan-Okinawa Mission, and this was run by both Walter Bills and Okazaki, correct?
• ... missionary service was reduced to two years ...: in the States, in Japan, or everywhere?
• ... Mormon Pavilion ...: Which is?
• By the time of his release in 1971 ...: What do you mean by release?

• Along with "call", "release" is a technical Mormon term to mean relinquished from your service in your calling. I can change the world to make it more clear. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• I agree that sometimes we just have to change the world... ;-)

• Two new mission presidents were called ...: Please rephrase per discussion above. There are several instances in the article.

• Got rid of every instance of "call"

1980–Present: Recent developments

* Please note that the technical scholarly term for modern non-traditional Japanese cults is Japanese new religions. I have now corrected this.

• ... people had a hard time distinguishing between proselytizing LDS missionaries and New Religions, "The door to door proselytizing and street corner proselytizing are often associated with Christian missionaries". I understand the entire paragraph, but I cannot connect it with the last quote.

• I didn't like the quote anyway, I only put it in because I was concerned that my previous statement would be contested. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Alright, up to you. I was not opposed to the quote, but I just could not understand it in the context.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Cultural obstacles

• ... western notion of deity ...: Confusing. Why don't you write God?

• Considering Shinto and Buddhism, Japanese doctrines do not concern themselves with morality and ethics and rather attempt to give the individual an opportunity to attain an inner peace. Thus, the ideas of sin, God, hell, and punishment are foreign to the Japanese. These are extraordinary claims, that significantly impact scholarship with regard to Buddhist Studies or Japanese Studies. You need better sources than this, per WP:EXTRAORDINARY, sources more independent of the LDS Church. It is my understanding of Japanese Buddhism that there are two major schools, that is Zen and Pure Land Buddhism. The latter has been known to be less interested in ethical questions than the former, but this only holds for some subschools or temples. See also Faith in Buddhism#Japan, and search for morality.

• I know from your user page that your are knowledgeable about Buddhism...I am not. I don't want to make mistakes or write something incorrect. I think that it might be better to just delete this part, it was only a couple sentences. I do agree the claims are extraordinary and it probably wasn't great to include it considering the source I used. At some point, I might expand the section with some independent sources, but I'm not sure it's necessary right now. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Okay, it might come as a relief to you that I have made similar mistakes in GA review of the article i mentioned above, as I compared Buddhist doctrine with the Christian concept of Salvation of Sinners. I misquoted the source, and had to rewrite. I guess it is the nature of Wikipedia that we tend to write on things we don't know much about about half of the time, haha.
• You can leave the sentence Another challenge to missionary work is the cultural differences in ethics and morality ..., which is fair enough, as it does not violate WP:EXTRAORDINARY.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

These statements might have to be rewritten and made more general.

• ... investigator of the church ...: Which is?

• "Investigator" is another Mormon term of somebody who is speaking to missionaries and is considering getting baptized. Changed it.

• I am learning every day.Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Present-day

• It is good you merged these paragraphs here, but Present-day may be problematic as a header per WP:WTW, section WP:REALTIME. Trying not to be legalistic, but WP:WTW is specifically mentioned in the GA criteria. Perhaps statistics and other information is sufficient?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Temples

• (Closed for Renovation): Please add an {{As of}} statement, as I presume the renovation won't last for that long.

• I tried changing it, but my revision was deleted. The reasoning was to keep it consistent with other temple info boxes where they state being closed for renovation. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Never mind that, then. It is not part of GA anyway.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

See also

• As stated before, adding footnotes in a see also section is highly unusual.

• I changed the section to "notable Japanese Latter-day Saints" and made a see also section with Christianity in Japan. Is that better? Skyes(BYU) (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Mm. I would not do that, as this is not usually part of the footer, but it can't be part of the body of the article either. It looks like it should be a separate article/list. You could put the sources cited in the external links section, and just keep a see also section without citations.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

References

You have one Master thesis as a source. Master theses are generally not considered reliable enough for Wikipedia, but you are using it to back up slightly controversial information, i.e. the first paragraph of the Missionary Efforts section. If you have other sources to back up this information, it would be better. Otherwise, you might have to remove this first paragraph.

• I found three different sources and changed the section a little bit to better fit the information included in the new sources. I removed the master's thesis. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Impressive.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

April, 18

Will continue tomorrow, after I get a response.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help. You are an invaluable asset to this article. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

April, 20

• With this edit and several other edits, ChristensenMJ has reverted some of the changes suggested here in this review. Though these are minor matters, and most of Christensen's edits have been very useful, I would ask him to discuss any changes suggested here first. (see Missionary efforts)--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• I have finished the detailed review for now. I will give you the time to make corrections. Let me know if you have any questions.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Farang Rak Tham:, I believe I made all the edits you suggested. Is there more condensing I need to do? Also, would you like me to expand the lead more? Thanks for your help, I have learned so much from this GA review. I used your tips on ref-layout to improve one of my other articles. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • There are a few loose ends, but nothing serious. Just look at the table of contents to see which section has not been crossed off the list. I will now check for broadness before we wrap it up.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Broadness

There are a few omissions which need to be included for this review to pass, but apart from that, the sources I found include only optional content you might add in a later stage. In case you are in a place you cannot access Sci-Hub due to legal issues, I have also included the original JSTOR links. You might have to use several JSTOR accounts if you are going to read it all.

I have moved the sources not required for GA to the main talk page of the article.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Will check a few more sources tomorrow. The topic has been written about a lot.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• In this review of Neilson, Van Sant argues that there may have been internal reasons why initial missions in Japan failed, rather than external.[1] or [2] Likewise, in a review of Hoffman[3] or [4] Anderson argues that the American nature of Mormonism is an important factor in understanding why the missions failed, as opposed to Japanese culture. This is not cherry-picking: these are just some sources I downloaded through a Google Scholar search on "LDS Japan". Though these are reviews, not articles in themselves, I believe they should be cited, to increase the outsider's perspective in the article.
• ... it was not until 1892 a year before the hawaiian kingdom became a republic that the first japanese brother Toko then 43 years of age was baptized ...: This information does not match with that in the article.[5]

I presume this is the same person as Tokujiro. Never mind then.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

April, 21

I should add that some of the sources above may be slightly critical about the Mormon missions in Japan. But in general, they are positive or neutral about it.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 06:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

April, 22

I have finished my search for additional content. There are two point of improvement, as indicated above. Apart from that, there are a few loose ends with regard to prose in the sections that don't have strikethrough.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

April, 26

Just one comment remaining, with regard to the tasks of the Relief Society, see above. The rest I have already fixed myself. Please fix this last issue, and we can wrap this up.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Got it done. I went ahead and added a small piece of information that would better explain the function of the Relief Society. I apologize for taking so long to get back to you. I had final exams. Thank you for all of the time and effort you put into the article. It has improved so much! You were very pleasant to work with; I appreciate that. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Great! I am passing for GA. You were an easy nominator to work with. You could have told me about those exams--no problem. Three more things:

1. Let me know if you do a Did You Know...-nomination,
2. and if you are available, you can also assess one of my articles at WP:GAN, section Religion and philosophy (so you can take revenge, lol).
3. Or else, I am looking for someone to work together on the article Temperance movement. Noticed that the article does not mention LDS and Buddhism yet, even though the temperance movement affected both the LDS and Sri Lankan Buddhism. Might be interesting to work on this article and get it to GA.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Farang Rak Tham: I did nominate for DYK, just so you know. Considering how much time you put in this page, it seems justified that I review one your articles. As far as the temperance movement article goes, I would be interested in working on the page. Thanks so much, you are awesome! Skyes(BYU) (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Skyes(BYU), thanks, trying to be. Good luck with the rest of your exams.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

GA progress

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

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