Talk:Polygamy/Archive 2

message: by Researcher 00:57, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Ghostintheshell Situation 

message: With all that explained, I now present an understanding of what happened prior to Ghostintheshell's   arrival at the polygamy wiki.
After much discussion in TALK about how to best present 2Wives.com, Visorstuff (who is an Admin) offered guidance as to how I should approach adding that content. Visorstuff's last guidance to me about that was on 28 Jan 2005.
Grateful for the guidance, I took my time to do a good job.  More than five weeks later, on March 7, 2005, I posted the result of my work, How Polygamists Find More Spouses.
The purpose of this entirely new section of the polygamy article was to both show readers that there really are serious individuals who actively DO seek polygamy as well as to help answer other questions that polygamy investigators also seek and/or need answered.
Most polygamy investigators are more familiar with reports of Mormon polygamists living in somewhat rural communities.  And others have encountered communities of Muslims (even in Western countries) where the women do walk around covered up from head to toe.  (Legal challenges over things such as driver's licenses and face/head coverings have also been raised because of such difference in value-systems.)  Of course, while this is not to suggest that just because some Mormons may gather in a community, or some Muslims might live near each other in their own community, that that somehow means they are all polygamists.  Rather, people often choose to gather into such communities simply as a means of having the bond of their commonality and to live their lives with less hassle from those (as in Western countries) who do not accept everything about their value-system.
That explains why Mormon polygamists and Muslim polygamists tend to gather in their own communities.  It makes life easier for them to share the community bond with like-minded believers and to find women amenable to their particular religious basis for polygamy.  They know that Western society does not accept their other religious views, so it becomes easier for them to be quiet about it and live among other like-minded individuals.  That's a pure NPOV fact.  It's human nature.  Besides anyway, (from what I next will admit is my POV) I think there there is nothing wrong with wanting to be in one's own community, no matter who you are.
For most polygamy investigators, those examples are mostly all they ever heard about polygamy.
Anti-polygamists want people to think just that.  If they can keep people thinking that their opposition to the other issues related to Mormon polygamy or Muslim polygamy "justifies" opposing all polygamy, anti-polygamists can keep people ignorant and uninformed about polygamy in general.
But I sought to educate wiki readers with a deeper understanding that other models of polygamy do exist too.  That's where Christian polygamists and Secular polygamists come into play. In direct contrast to Mormon or Muslim polygamy, these other two models of polygamy have a completely different basis and values-system. Not only do they not live in their own forms of polygamous communities, but their values-systems are actually very Western culture-oriented.
Because of these two different situations, the subsection I  created, How Polygamists Find More Spouses, provided readers with these important insights and differentiations.  It does so in the context of helping the reader understand how various types of polygamists really are genuinely able to really find spouses who really are willing to be involved in polygamy.
Following that, I further assisted the reader with understanding how various polygamists from any of these polygamy models might find more spouses on the internet.
For writing technique, I composed that new subsection with a specifically academic outline format.  The opening paragraph introduces & summarizes the subsequent paragraphs, etc.
After someone else made a quick edit, that subsection of the article stood pretty much as it is.  A month and half later, it appears that the polygamy article was professionally written enough that, as posted by Lotsofissues on 29 Apr 2005, the polygamy article had received a Notable Citation by the Berkeley Journal of International Law.
Please provide a citation for the citation.  What issue.  Please provide a link, if it exists.  If not, provide an issue number, preferably with a quote of how it is cited.  I can't find a reference in the web page of the
Berkeley International Journal, but newer issues do not appear to be online.Nereocystis 18:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Begins with Subsection, ''"How Polygamists Find More Spouses"'' 

message: Ghostintheshell did not come to this polgamy wiki to get those issues resolved, though.  As they openly admitted, they wanted the entire subsection eliminated.  Their actions sought to cause misinformation and to deprive wiki readers from learning actual information about polygamy.
To repeat, Ghostintheshell had
#Acted Reckless
#Sneaky Vandalism  - (How to spot Sneaky Vandalism)
# TWICE, Self-declared here and here to have an Edit War
#WP:3RR - The No 3 Revert Rule
#After being BLOCKED, openly evaded their block (and admitted it), creating a new username, TheRedandtheBlack.
#After insisting on "show proof," when proof-links were provided, obfuscated the obvious proof here and here.
Throughout this ordeal, all I had ever sought was to start from the STATUS QUO so that we could then address those specific issues together without sabotaging the subsection and article.  Even before I got blocked, I had only been Rv'ing back to Trödel's original Rv's.   Those Rv's were affirming Trödel's original Rv's.   My actions were always about seeking to get the STATUS QUO in order to talk first, as per Wiki Guidelines.
I also sought the STATUS QUO as the starting point for possible subsequent discussion in TALK because of my lengthy experience with anti-polygamists and their tactics.  I know that such saboteurs will try to step-by-step incrementally destroy one thing, in order to then come back and make the next sabotage.  If this sneaky- vandalism/sabotage here had succeeded, the groundwork would have been laid for the next incremental sabotage.  Then this would continue until the wiki becomes intellectually useless or gibberish, with valid contributors such as myself prevented from stopping it.
Ghostintheshell showed that they did not know much at all about ral Muslim polygamous families.  They also acted with nothing but over-the-top, unceasing hostility toward me in everything they said and did.  They disregarded numerous wiki guidelines.  Those three facts show that this "Ghostintheshell" was not a serious contributor to this polygamy wiki.
Lastly, they even concluded they had no interested in polygamy past this ordeal anyway. 
We have no need to take their Reckless Sneaky Vandalism or input seriously.
We have no need to formulate any new proposal.
We can simply Rv the article back to the STATUS QUO and correct any other properly-made edits afterward.
Plus, we can use this whole experience for how to deal with future "Sneaky Vandals" like this in this polkygamy wiki.
But we do not need to concern ourselves any further with Ghostintheshell.
The most intersting clue that this anti-polygamist saboteur, Ghostintheshell, was not a real contributor to this polygamy wiki turns out to have been right in front of us all the time.  The clue is in their name. "Ghostintheshell" is a shadow without substance, wrapped in nothing but a protective layer, something that is not real.
I believe that we do not need to concern ourselves further.  As far as being a serious polygamy wiki contributor, that anti-polygamist was not real, not really interested in polygamy at all.
Their name says it all.  By their own name, Ghostintheshell was a ...
... "ghost-in-the-shell."
Researcher 00:57, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ghostintheshell was a "Ghost - in - the - shell" -- NOT REAL 

message: :Thank you, Nereocystis, for declaring your POV.  I think it might be helpful if we understood Researcher's POV also.  My own POV as a generational Mormon is somewhat permissible toward polygamy, and yet I am at the same time quite aware of the mathematical impossibility of polygamy as a peacetime community duty, with severe community ills attending the ignorance of that mathematical impossibility. Tom Haws 22:33, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
:: Tom Haws, I finally had the time to get back and here share the whole comprehensive situation as it really has been happening here.  I hope it is helpful for you.   Thanks again. - Researcher 00:05, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  PING Tom Haws. I just got back looking to see if you had returned yet.  Seeing nothing from you just yet, I made some quick edits, although more are needed.  I look forward to hearing from you.  Thanks.  Researcher 20:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Thank you again.  This helps in understanding where we are each coming from so we don't get red-faced in trying to understand the comments of one another.  I would probably essentially disagree with every POV you expressed above, and that is good for an effort to write an NPOV article.  It keeps us all honest.  More specifically, I don't believe homosexual behavior--it never produces offspring--needs licensing and regulation as marriage.  More pointedly, I don't recognize homosexual behavior as marriage.  In my mind, if an ancient document says men married women, it means they commenced procreating with them with committed intent.  And I view legal marriage as a necessary regulation of such arrangements for the protection of offspring (I would say spouses, but that could be accomplished with normal contract law).  I believe polygamous marriages should be regulated carefully with laws that promote family health, such as for example, laws prohibiting polygamous marriages without the consent of all existing spouses and prohibiting entering a polygamous marriage under the age of majority.  Now I wonder what are Researcher99's biases.  You imply he may be a practicing polygamist.  It would be nice to know his full biases.  Tom Haws 18:23, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Good.  I appreciate a description of your POV as well.  But polygamy (and marriage) is not about sex. 1/2 :), half real.  Marriage is not just about about procreation, though these issues should be covered.  Part of me wants the law to stay out of marriage entirely, but I admit that having standard laws with an easy understanding of contracts associated with the relationship. Most of the marriage law can be duplicated using contracts, but Nolo Press's Living Together Handbook is a big book.  A marriage license is short, but has a lot of supporting law.  I don't know Researcher99's practices; I'm just guessing that he might be a polygamist.  If he is, I don't blame him for keeping this secret, even in the quasi-anonymous wikipedia forum.  Unfortunately, in many jurisdictions, admission of polygamy could result in prosecution, though the risk isn't high. Regulating marriage, including polygamy, is probably a good idea. Throwing people in jail for violating standard practices, excepting age of consent issues, is a bad idea.  See, we actually agree more than one would initially guess. Nereocystis 20:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POVs

message: by Researcher 23:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are sections of the main article you wish to dispute, please use Talk:Polygamy#Disputed.  This is the standard Wikipedia method, as described in Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute.  Please also read Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute.  When you mention items under dispute, please discuss the text of the disputed items.  Do not use ad hominem attacks. Stop talking about sneaky vandals and discuss the text and the facts.  We can discuss the issues one at a time under the Disputed section. Nereocystis 22:16, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sneaky Vandals' Anti-Polygamy Destruction of Polygamy Wiki 

message: I have donated all this time of mine to write out all this here because I believe it is critically important for the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole.  It is essential that we stop the sneaky vandals.
==== Foxtrot Comic Equally Notes Wikipedia's "Sneaky Vandal Problem" ====
I am not the only one who realizes this serious problem.
On Saturday morning, May 7, 2005, I saw the following very applicable comic cartoon.   The Foxtrot comic cartoon shows a person sneakily vandalizing a wiki in Wikipedia.
(At the time I write this, that comic cartoon even appears in the Foxtrot wiki.)
That comic appeared in the newspaper the very next morning after I had posted the lengthy The Ghostintheshell Situation timeline to this TALK page.  While I do find the amazing co-incidence of that timing as somewhat humorous, the comic itself reveals a sad issue.  Wikipedia's credibility could eventually be destroyed, and the entire wiki concept could fade away as a temporary fad, if the problem of sneaky vandals is not solved.  Seeing that comic, I immediately realize that I am not alone in that realization.
Truly, that Foxtrot comic applies quite well to what the anti-polygamy sneaky vandals have done to this polygamy wiki.
==== So, I share my Intellectual Assets to Protect Wikipedia ====
It is my hope that the wealth of my demonstrated experience, topical research, and thoroughness repeatedly shown here in the polygamy wiki can eventually restore this wiki to factual NPOV information.
I tried to accommodate and work with the sneaky vandals while they never once reciprocated, both deliberately seeking only to completely obliterate important NPOV content I had written.  I brought many years of research while the sneaky vandals openly admit to not knowing critically important NPOV facts.  I have tried to follow the Wiki guidelines of getting the article back to STATUS QUO so that discussion could proceed from there, but the sneaky vandals only sought to ensure that the wiki is destroyed (as it has rcently so become).  I have patiently taken my time to present well-thought-out explanations here in TALK while the sneaky vandals have caused so much distraction with numerous arguing and purported "disputes" all over the place.  I have cited sources, while the sneaky vandals have tried to deny or obfuscate them.  I have presented comprehensive timelines with supportive wiki-links to prove all things noted, while the sneaky vandals have filled many words with unsupported accusations.
I came to Wikipedia as a long-time researcher from among serious intellectuals, willing to share information and talk with any reasonable person.  However, the sneaky vandals have acted with so identical a modus operbndi that they are problably the same person or group of anti-polygamsts working together, deliberately trying to destroy the wiki.
As I have said before, what has happened to me and the information I have shared here in the polygamy wiki is very metaphorically similar to a professor being attacked by juvenile delinquents.  A wealth of researched information having been shared by a topic-educated professor is destroyed and sabotaged by the grafitti of juvenile delinquents, such graffiti-ists who have no intention of letting anyone read actual qualitative information.
For that reason, it is clear that, just as one can never (and must never) "negotiate with terrorists," or deal with anti-polygamists pretending to be "pro-polygamy," it is just as useless to waste one's time trying to accommodate the unaccommodating and proven sneaky vandals. 
I have shared my demonstrated intellectual assets in hope of helping Wikipedia.
==== Intellectual Researchers must not be Sabotaged by Sneaky Vandals ====
What now happens, though, will reveal the kind of editing posters that Wikipedia wants to attract, intellectual researchers or sneaky vandals.
For the sake of Wikipedia, intellectual researchers must not be sabotaged and sneaky vandals must be banned.
==== Let's Solve This and Protect Wikipedia's Future ====
It is my hope that the intellectualism and experiential insights which I have shared here might work forward in a positive direction for Wikipedia.  By solving this sneaky vandalism problem, we can overcome Wikipedia's potential diminishing-credibility problem that would consequently arise otherwise (as indirectly observed and lesson-learned by the Foxtrot comic).
Maybe one day, we can all look back and see that both this situation in the polygamy wiki (amd perhaps any other wikis where this has happened) and the Foxtrot comic combined to make a simple wake-up call to fix and improve things.
So let's solve this once and for all.  Let's make sure that Wikipedia is not some fad that is on its way out because no one can trust its information.
Instead, let's solve this sneaky vandalism problem and make Wikipedia stronger!
Researcher 23:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  For Wikipedia's Sake, We Must Stop the Sneaky Vandals 

message: It is my hope that the intellectualism and experiential insights which I have shared here might work forward in a positive direction for Wikipedia.  By solving this sneaky vandalism problem, we can overcome Wikipedia's potential diminishing-credibility problem that would consequently arise otherwise (as indirectly observed and lesson-learned by the Foxtrot comic).
Maybe one day, we can all look back and see that both this situation in the polygamy wiki (amd perhaps any other wikis where this has happened) and the Foxtrot comic combined to make a simple wake-up call to fix and improve things.
So let's solve this once and for all.  Let's make sure that Wikipedia is not some fad that is on its way out because no one can trust its information.
Instead, let's solve this sneaky vandalism problem and make Wikipedia stronger!
Researcher 23:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's Solve This and Protect Wikipedia's Future 

message: :If there are sections of the main article you wish to dispute, please use Talk:Polygamy#Disputed.  This is the standard Wikipedia method, as described in Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute.  Please also read Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute.  When you mention items under dispute, please discuss the text of the disputed items.  Do not use ad hominem attacks. Stop talking about sneaky vandals and discuss the text and the facts.  We can discuss the issues one at a time under the Disputed section. Nereocystis 22:16, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Use [[Talk:Polygamy#Disputed]], please

message: "Although Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon sect denied he was practicing it, he was in fact "married" to more than 20 women, including several of the wives and daughters of his most loyal followers. He married at least two wives of followers that he personally dispatched on missions for the church while they were away. He also "married" several of his foster daughters, servants, and two girls that were 14."
: the number of marriages is disputed as well as the nature of the marital relationship for some of these - need to be fully explained. Trödel|talk 18:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right.  It is very POV to add that speculative anti-polygamy POV to this article.  It doesn't even really belong.  -- Researcher99 3 Mar 2005
Please explain how it is POV to state that most (or many) people believe that Joseph Smith introduced the practive of polygamy.  The Mormon church teaches it.  The wording needs to change, but the facts should be there.  Other LDS spinoffs do not teach it. In fact, claims of his teaching of polygamy was strongly linked to his death.Nereocystis 21:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I think the speculative anti-polygamy is refering to presenting the details in such a way that 1) presents only one historical claim, and 2) introduces age as a factor when marriages of 14 year olds was more common then. No serious scholars claim that JS did not introduce polygamy; however The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not teach this practice having abandoned it about a century ago. I object to the one-sided presentation of this issue - we need to summarize better and reference the Plural marriage article about LDS polygamy. Trödel|talk 22:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Marriages 

message: "Mormon fundamentalists claim that they are merely following the example of Joseph Smith who, as a middle aged man, took several 14, 15 and 16 year old girls as "wives."
:If we include this need to put in context as marriages at that age were more common in the early 1800s
:: Again, only a hostile anti-polygamy POV would try to include this irelevant addition.   For NPOV, it is not necessary to include, because it is no different than the age at which  most "monogamists" of the era also used to marry.  --  Researcher99 3 Mar 2005
However, in the US, it is uncommon to marry 14-16 year olds today.  Some of the polygamists do it.  Therefore, it should be mentioned.  Tom Green's prosecution was in part due to his marriage of one young girl.  Do you include fundamentalists excuses for these actions.  I would say so, because it gives their POV as well as the implicit POV of the general public which disapproves of the actions.Nereocystis 21:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that it is uncommon now - but the way this is worded would be the same as saying "Murphy Brown claims she is merely following the example of Benjamin Franklin, who as 22 year old man, fathered a son out of wedlock." Though this is true - there is no context for the remark. I am not asking that a comment about the abhorent practices like Tom Green's be removed but merely that it be presented in a more NPOV way. Trödel|talk 22:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Young Marriages 

message: Please see my other comments at []
I have included a couple thoughts below from that page about accuracy:
::I don't get teh 1906 date this person is fixated with (similar changes at Polygamy) that was the date that the twelve released Apostles John W. Taylor and Matthias F. Cowley for continuing to teach and practice, and when JFS was convicted of unlawful co-habitation (although he was granted amnesty from U.S. President Benjamin Harrison in September 1891). Teh second manifesto was 1904 but at the october conference in 1910, the Church sustained an initiative for stake presidents to ecommunicate those who performed plural marriages after 1904 (and husbands). Even Quinn who is rather naturalistic agrees with this. Upon further research, the church did not saction or authorize any plural marriages under the administration of Lorenzo Snow, but did authorize them in mexico under JFS during 1901-2, but that then ceased. 
This editor is using an outdated anti-mormon work typically used during the 80s for the basis of information, and is inaccurate. You'd think people would check facts for themselves on controversial subjects, but they don't. Instead they walk in blind obedience to men who think that the ends justify the means. Too funny for me. -Visorstuff 16:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  other wrong historical facts 

message: Muslim polygamy, in practice and law, differs greatly throughout the Islamic world.  Whereas, in some Muslim countries, polygamy may be fairly common, in most others, it is often rare or non-existent.   While Muslim polygamy may be mainly found in traditionalist Arab cultures such as Saudia Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, it is either extremely rare or even banned outright in secular Arab states like Lebanon and non-Arab Muslim countries such as Turkey and Malaysia.
In Muslim countries where polygamy does occur, there are certain core fundamentals found in common among most of them.  According to traditional Islamic law, a man may take up to four wives, and each of those wives must have her own property, assets, and dowry.  Usually the wives have little to no contact with each other and lead separate, individual lives in their own houses, and sometimes in different cities, though they all share the same husband.  Thus, Muslim polygamy is traditionally restricted to wealthy men, and in some countries it is illegal for a man to marry multiple wives if he is unable to afford to take care of each of them properly.  In such Muslim countries where polygamy is still commonplace and legal, Muslim polygamists live openly among the rest of their society at large.
This section is disputed. The extra detail does not seem to be pushing a POV to me - please propose alternative language here. Trödel|talk 03:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this is not in dispute. I have no problem with it either.  When Ghostintheshell added the information of that input to the "How Polygamists Find More Spouses" section of the polgamy Wiki, I moved that information to the main "Islam" section because it was more appropriate there.  The only "dispute" is Ghostintheshell's vandalism to the "How Polygamists Find More Spouses" section.  Ghostintheshell is trying to hide information from Wiki readers because of Ghostintheshell's over-reacting POV. So, the purpose of Ghostintheshell's "disputing" is not about this information, but about vandalizing the hard work put into the "How Polygamists Find More Spouses" section of the polygamy Wiki. For more clarity, please see my comments on this TALK page in the section above here and in the section below here too.   You may also note that Ghostintheshell repeated their vandalism even after you asked for it to stop too. Researcher99  11:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detail on Islamic Polygamy 

message: Polygamy, and laws concerning polygamy, differ greatly throughout the Islamic world and form a very complex and diverse background from nation to nation. Whereas in some Muslim countries it may be fairly common, in most others it is often rare or non-existent. However, there are certain core fundamentals which are found in most Muslim countries where the practice occurs. According to traditional Islamic law, a man may take up to four wives, and each of those wives must have her own property, assets, and dowry. Usually the wives have little to no contact with each other and lead separate, individual lives in their own houses, and sometimes in different cities, though they all share the same husband. Thus, polygamy is traditionally restricted to wealthy men, and in some countries it is illegal for a man to marry multiple wives if he is unable to afford to take care of each of them properly.
In the modern Islamic world, polygamy is mainly found in traditionalist Arab cultures, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates for instance, whereas in secular Arab states like Lebanon and non-Arab Muslim countries, Turkey and Malaysia for example, it is either extremely rare or even banned outright. In traditionalist cultures where polygamy is still commonplace and legal, Muslim polygamists do not separate themselves from the society at large, since there would be no need as each spouse leads a separate life from the others.
This section is also disputed. It seems to me that Muslims and Mormons do not share alot of common ground in how they identify potential partners so I would put them under different sections; however, I am open to proposed modifications to the above. Trödel|talk 03:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It must be stated, as I have done before, that Researcher99's original entry on 'Muslims' in his original section on 'finding spouses,' states, quite falsely, that there are fundamentalist Muslims in Western countries practice polygamy in their own closed communities, which is devoid of any factual sources to back up this contentious claim. If users wish to delete the entire section as pertains to Muslims in this particular section, that would be perfectly alright. If Researcher99 is emphatic about including Muslims under this particular heading, then the facts must be stated that Islamic polygamy is entirely different from Mormon/Christian/secular polygamy, and that there is no precedent for Muslim polygamy anywhere in the West, be it North America or Europe. Furthermore, his section concerning Mormons seems a bit biased to me, and the section on Christian/secular polygamy is blatantly POV and promotes specific polygamist 'romance' websites, which is not in accord with Wikipedia policy. However, I have not touched those sections as I don't know enough about those two groups (Mormon/Christian polygamists) to be able to properly comment. If you are emphatic about NPOV, you cannot subscribe to a double-standard in promoting falsehoods about Muslim polygamy, while ignoring POV paragraphs concerning Christian/secular polygamy. Ghostintheshell 03:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, it seems quite clear that Researcher99 does not want anyone editing his own specific additions, which is not in accordance with the spirit of Wikipedia as being an open source knowledge base. Double standards are not appreciated. As I've stated, his entire section is in dispute as it stands, while my additions attempt to balance the picture as far as Muslim polygamy is concerned, and the differences with Mormon/Christian polygamy. I am not able to properly edit the Christian/secular or Mormon sections, and thus it would be advisable for those who do know the facts to balance those sections out accordingly. Ghostintheshell 03:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article never said closed communities. It never said that.  referring to "networks of communities" is nothing hostile.  You are overreacting.  As well, there is no double standard.  On two occassions, I was glad to add your input, placing it in a more appropriate location in the article.  As for "romance sites," 2Wives.com is a non-religious site that is for Muslims too.  Your grabbing at straws to accuse me of things I haven't done.  Your only dispute, truthfully, is that your agenda here is to hide another paragraph altogether, the one which helps readers understand why the West responds to Muslim polygamy in a not-so-positive way. I went out of my way to make that as gentle as possible, but your bias causes you to misinterpret that NPOV explanation as if it is "bigoted anti-Muslim" even though it is only explaining the "why" for readers.  That's the real reason why you are vandalizing the hard work of the "How Polygamists Find More Spouses" Section.  Otherwise, you would not have continued your repeated vandalismto the Wiki, and perhaps we would have been TALKING here instead. Researcher99 11:11, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The West responds negatively to Muslim polygamy? That's laughable, considering the West, as a whole, responds negatively to polygamy in general, no matter what the faith might be. Fact is, you don't want anyone editing that particular section since you originated it, and you feel you own it, and no one should have the right to modify except yourself. Despite being against Wikipedia spirit of being open source knowledge, I have no problem with whatever you'd like to say about Mormon polygamy or Christian/secular polygamy, since I have little interest in those areas. However, when you state that there are Muslim fundamentalists in Western countries openly practicing polygamy, well, then we have a problem since not only can you not substantiate these claims, but they are just absurdly false and incendiary. As my NPOV edits have tried to illustrate, Muslim polygamy differs greatly in each Muslim society, however, there are certain legal standards which are common to most Muslim nations, which adhere strictly to Islamic Sharia jurisprudence. And yet you continue to attack and accuse me of being POV, when it is far less POV than your own edits concerning 'Christian/secular' polygamy. You also accuse me of being a vandal. You, sir, have problems, and I do not have the time nor the inclination to engage you in a lame, senseless edit war. But I will continue to revert your edits as far as snything having to do with 'Muslim polygamy' until you decide to stop spreading falsehoods. I have said all that I'm going to say, and your continued accusations against me of being a vandal or abusive will help your case, but hinder it. Ghostintheshell 15:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If I read that correctly, you just declared, "However, when you state that there are Muslim fundamentalists in Western countries openly practicing polygamy, well, then we have a problem since not only can you not substantiate these claims, but they are just absurdly false and incendiary."  Are you serious?  Is it really your assertion that there are no Muslim polygamous families anywhere in the world except in Muslim countries?  Honestly, am I really supposed to take that assertion seriously?</b>  Researcher99 17:53, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are honestly supposed to take that seriously. Read my comments further above for detail. Can you provide evidence that Muslim polygamy in the West exists, or is widespread? Showing evidence that there are Muslims who wish to legalise polygamy is not enough and does not conform to Wikipedia standards. People are supposed to come to this resource to get *factual*, *legitimate* information - NOT mere speculation or theories or opinions. Just because a group of people want to legalise polygamy doesn't mean they are practicing it, unless you can back that up with real world sources. If you want to include information that there are Muslims who wish to legalise polygamy, and include the two links you quoted above, that's fine. If you want to say that these same Muslims who wish to legalise polygamy are also practicing it and depriving their wives of legal protection or rights, then we have a problem unless you can back that up with more than just mere speculation. My own edits ('Muslims & traditionalist cultures') presents an NPOV perspective on the state of polygamy in traditionalist Muslim countries where it is still practiced. You can consult Islamic Sharia (jurisprudence) texts if you want to be absolutely clear about things. Furthermore, aside from the core standards outlined in my section, there are major differences differences between Muslim countries in the way polygamy is perceived and practiced, and also the legal issues therein, which are beyond the scope of this article - that would probably require a separate article, 'Polygamy in Muslim countries' or 'Polygamy in Islam' or something, which I am not interested in pursuing as the research would be immensely time consuming for me at the moment, and I am not particularly interested in any further research into polygamy as I've already spent far too much time with this as it is. My main concern, which most Wikipedians share, is that inaccurate and false information and speculation do not make their way into any entry. TheRedandtheBlack 09:09, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text:  To: Trödel|talk, the comments in this above-quoted paragraph are duplicative with the other one you just edited [10:08, 29 Apr 2005]. (Your edit there did not appear when I made my previous post on this thread here.)  The contents of the one you just edited/posted there are not disputed. (Indeed, the contents of this above-quoted paragraph are not disputed because it says the same - duplicative content.)  That content really just only needs to appear once.  It does not need to appear in the "How Polygamists Find More Spouses" section. Accordingly, I will restore that section, keeping your edit untouched.  Researcher99 13:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text:  Thanks - I realized they were duplicative - but put them in both places for now. I am going to sleep on this after reading the comments above and hopefully be able to propose something in the way of a compromise. Trödel|talk 01:56, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I appreciate your comments.  I am preparing a response which I think will clarify "everythng of everything."   So I ask for your patience with me and that you please wait for me to get that out before taking any action or proposal.  Thanks again!  Researcher99  18:16, 02 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just wanted to quickly let you know that I am almost ready with my response.  I hope to be finished and ready to post it by tomorrow, Friday at the latest (short of any personal emergency, of course).  I very much appreciate your patience wiht me in this.  I believe that when you see what I am able to present, you may feel confident in knowing there really is no real pressure to come up with any hard-to-formulate compromise.  Researcher99  23:25, 02 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslims & traditionalist cultures 

message: I emphatically deny most of Researcher99's pretentious accusations against me. All I wanted to do was balance the section which he originated, which anyone with a mind could see was not NPOV. I made valid contributions, and those contributions were immediately deleted by Researcher99, which initiated the edit war. I did not vandalize the page, and to accuse me of vandalism is a blatant personal attack, so I am not the only guilty party here.
I admit that I don't know everything about any particular subject, and I don't think anyone cnn claim to have such an all-encompassing grasp of a subject. But I certainly know enough to be able to state that Researcher99's original section was not NPOV, and there were no sources to back up his contentious claims about "fundamentalist" Muslims "oppressing" and "depriving" their wives of legal rights (in Western countries, no less). Those claims, made in his original contributions, were not NPOV and certainly were not valid.
I stated again and again that if he wants to discuss alleged Muslim polygamy in the West, since this is a contentious and sensitive issue, to cite real-world examples and references. He did not do so. Instead he cited two sources from the web which do not prove that there are "fundamentalist" Muslims "oppressing" and "depriving" their wives of legal rights in Western countries. This is all very simple and easy to understand, and it's not asking for much. Vague generalizations and outright speculation do not add to Wikipedia - they deface it. I believe I made my point long ago, and I firmly and staunchly stand by my contributions and requests for neutrality and valid references. Thank you. Ghostintheshell 18:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your defense would look much better had you not openly flaunted the rules and created another account to get around your block for violatting WP:3RR. However, I am happy to do what I can to help work out a comprimise between you and Researcher99 as well as do some reference checking. Trödel|talk 18:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If creating another account is 'illegal' then why haven't I been blocked or banned? I created another account, so what? Did the world end all of a sudden? Did I even edit the actual page itself using that account? No, I only responded to Researcher99 on the talk page. I did nothing wrong to begin with - I didn't vandalize anything. If my creating another account is flaunting the rules, then you can go right ahead and ban me. I really couldn't care less - I have a life beyond the computer and this Wikipedia business is too racy and hectic for me anyway. It's not my cup of tea. ;) Personally there isn't much more I can contribute to this page since what I contributed was the extent of my knowledge on this topic. I've posted a request on the Islam talk page for others to provide some knowledgeable balance to this article if they are so inclined, which is what I should have done in the first place after Researcher99 deleted my edits, rather than play into his game of edit war. Thanks. Ghostintheshell 19:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm here (strangely enough) from Islam.  I will hang out here for a while, though my knowledge would be about Mormon polygamy.  :-) Tom Haws 19:43, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Researcher99, assuming that he is the same person as Researcher, is impossible to deal with.  When I added references to facts, he claimed that references were POV, without explaining himself.  Someone should calm him down and intervene in this edit war. Superficially, it looks like ghostintheshell is correct.  Researcher99 is attacking the username, claiming POV, without providing evidence, claiming anti-polygamy prejudice, but not really addressing the facts. I eventually gave up in correcting this article, because fighting researcher was too difficult.  Can anyone control him?  Of course, Ghostintheshell should not have created another account in order to continue editing (though researcher appears to have 2 accounts himself).  However, User:Researcher99's behavior and refusal to provide reference's could drive anyone to considering such actions. References should be provided about fundamentalist polygamist Musims in the West.  I wouldn't be surprised if there is at least one person meeting that description, but I expect to see a reference to justify using that information in an article.Nereocystis 21:57, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ghostintheshell responds to Researcher99's accusations

message: As a new guy here, I have some questions: Tom Haws 19:53, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
* Why is the Mormon polygamy section outside the Christianity section of the polygamy and religion section?
* How has the statement that polygamy originated w/ Brigham Young managed to stay in the article?
User::Research99 deletes anything he doesn't like.  He calls it POV. See Talk:Polygamy#Number_of_Marriages, for example.  His attitude has allowed a large amount of inaccurate information to stay in the article.  It's difficult to fight him.Nereocystis 21:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mormon polygamy

message: The Multiple divorce and marriage for polygamy section is a description of a legal aspect of polygamy, how to marry multiple partners sequentially and possibly fall within the law.  As such, it should be placed under Legal situation.  Does anyone object to this move?Nereocystis 00:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Multiple divorce and marriage for polygamy'' should be under ''Legal situation''

message: Until recently, this article claims that Brigham Young introduced Mormon polygamy.  The article has recently been changed.  I hope that Joseph Smith's introduction is not removed, though someone could add an alternate viewpoint of Joseph Smith not introducing polygamy.
:There is no longer to my knowledge a significant viewpoint against Joseph Smith's introducing plural marriage.  Community of Christ historians now acknowledge the fact, as is stated at the CofC web site. However, to keep the article intact, it may be necessary to nod toward a small minority of followers of Smith who still dispute it. Tom Haws 23:08, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Except, apparently, to some of the authors of this article.  Hence the long period where Brigham Young was given credit for introducing polygamy to the Mormons.  Let's hope that if this claim comes back, it is considered an alternative view, and not the one true view.Nereocystis 17:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Polygamy#Mormon_polygamy]] - Resolved