Talk:Polygamy/Archive 4

message: By Researcher 01:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Nereocystis|Nereocystis]] acted recklessly aggressive - 2 Examples of Proof

message: In a separate attempt to find a way for achieving resolution, admin Tom Haws offered one possible way.  It was an understandable attempt.  From my persective, though, as good an attempt as it may have tried to be, the particulars were not able to address the real problem of the ongoing dispute.  When I finally voiced my honest reasonings, however, Nereocystis immediately jumped on it.  Falsely mis-applying what Tom Haws had suggested, Nereocystis aggressively exploited it to wrongly self-justify "moving forward" to do whatever they wanted to do in the situation.
Here is the sequence of events showing that extreme aggressiveness.
====What Tom Haws actually called for in his possible resolution poll====
When Tom Haws first suggested the poll on June 18, 2005, he only called for a "roll call to be sure there are seven or more editors present and alert, including Researcher, Ghostintheshell, and Nereocystis."
Besides the fact that I now seriously believe that Nereocystis actually is Ghostintheshell (based on Ghostintheshell's disappearance at the same time Nereocystis returned to the scene, with both using identical obfuscatory tactics, etc.), the more visible issue here is that Tom Haws had actually called for a poll of seven or more poll votes, not three.
On June 20, 2005, Tom Haws explained, "Help was requested here, and it's hard to understand exactly what the problem is without seeing it in action. 7 is optimistic, but I want to get all the key players plus two or three outside observers watching before we start this up again. There is no use in trying to resolve this with only three unless two adversaries agree that the third is impartial."
====The 3 Important facts about what Tom Haws addressed there====
Three important facts are clear about all.
First, Tom Haws  was talking about my request for help, as I am the one who asked for the help in dealing with the sneaky vandals.  It was not Nereocystis.
Second, Tom Haws called for seven or more to be polled and active, not just the three.
Third, Tom Haws  added that, without agreement among the adversaries from there, the resolution would not be ready to begin.
====Yet, Nereocystis aggressively responded by "Moving Forward"====
Yet, only an hour and half after I finally posted why I oppose the specific possibility offered there as one possible way for resolution, right away Nereocystis jumped on it.  Instead of waiting for the seven or more total poll votes, Nereocystis aggressively called it a "2-1 poll failure" as justification to "move forward" and to do whatever they want to do anyway.
====But without my agreement, Tom Haws had said it was not a resolution====
As well, with the third point, Tom Haws had  clarified that, without agreement among the adversaries, his particular offered way for possible resolution would not be successful.  Without support for the poll from all, including myself, another means would have to occur.
Since I had to Oppose the specifics of the offered proposal there, Tom Haws had already indicated that the offered resolution possibility that he was making was therefore NOT a resolution.
====Nereocystis had no justification to act so aggressively====
All of this shows that there was no justification for Nereocystis (or anyone) to act on the poll results (even if seven or more had voted).  That is because I had voted to "Oppose" that particular proposal for specific reasons.
So, clearly, for Nereocystis's instantanous reaction to "move forward" and do whatever they want to do anyway is another example of how truly hostile and aggressive they are.
====Proof #2 of Nereocystis's Aggressiveness====
As the example of this section section (of this post) proves, Nereocystis quite evidently has again acted extremely aggressively to find ways to immediately destroy anything I do and for them to do anything they want in infesting the polygamy article with their hostile anti-polygamy POV.
All of this aggressiveness is yet another proof of how Nereocystis has truly never really been willing to TALK anyway.
Above posted by Researcher 01:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Nereocystis|Nereocystis]] immediately misused [[User:Hawstom|Tom Haws's]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy&diff=15403373&oldid=15403318 Poll] to instead do whatever they want

message: As the example of this section section (of this post) proves, Nereocystis quite evidently has again acted extremely aggressively to find ways to immediately destroy anything I do and for them to do anything they want in infesting the polygamy article with their hostile anti-polygamy POV.
All of this aggressiveness is yet another proof of how Nereocystis has truly never really been willing to TALK anyway.
Above posted by Researcher 01:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proof #2 of Nereocystis's Aggressiveness

message: By Researcher 15:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I am being oppressed by Anti-Polygamists

message: By Researcher 8 July 2005 16:11 (UTC)
===ADMINS PLEASE HELP!===
As I have been asking for over two months now, this wiki desparately needs assistance in preventing the sneaky vandals from destroying it and from rv'ing valid edits from being made.
I have repeatedly asked that we follow the Wiki Guidelines of starting from STATUS QUO for such controversial topics. Yet every time I try to get the wiki back to that point so that a real conversation can THEN begin, the sneaky vandal Nereocystis comes in and destroys the work, as an outed anti-polygamist who has been admitted to not even knowing fundamental elements of this subject.  THEN, they advance the proven-disingenuous claim of wanting to TALK, when they are the ones refusing to TALK from within the Wiki Guidelines.  As I have repeatedly said, if they want to TALK, they should follow the Wiki Guidelines and let us TALK from the STATUS QUO position, not after their sneaky vandalism.  (Numerous evidence has been provided about all this.)  But Nereocystis has never even once been willing to work or TALK about anything I have done, instead only destroying my work at every single opportunity to a complete destruction, no matter how many times I even tried to accommodate their additions.  They are a one-way POV anti-polygamy agenda, intent on using sneaky vandalism to deliberately mis-inform wiki readers about the neutral term of polygamy.
===Nereocystis caught breaking word===
Now there is even further proof right here on the TALK pages of Nereocystis's total dishonesty in presenting falsehoods.  One need only look to how quickly Nereocystis broke their word.
On 09:02, 20 June 2005, Nereocystis said, "Without Researcher99's support, we will end in big edit wars, constant reversions, and calls for blocking editors. With Researcher99's support, polygamy may look better. I'll try to avoid major edits for a while, while waiting for Researcher99's support. I may continue to make less controversial changes, if I can figure out what those are."  But no sooner had I returned 10 days later to make the valid corrective edits again, Nereocystis outright broke that word to hold off.  While I might not know about elsewhere, but where I come from, that's called lying, plain and simple.
===TWICE now, Nereocystis has wiped out entire valid work===
Once again, the repeatedly outed sneaky vandal Nereocystis has destroyed all the valid work I have done.  Twice, now, they have completely removed all the valid work I did.
1. All the completely valid edits I made from 19:09, 6 June 2005 through 20:20, 6 June 2005 were wiped immediately wiped out by the outed sneaky vandal, Nereocystis.
2.  When I made those important edits again, providing full explanations of their undenmable validity, the sneaky vandal did it again.  Every edit I made from 14:24, 30 June 2005 through 16:38, 30 June 2005 was again wiped out by Nereocystis. 
===Look at each of my 18 valid edits being wiped out===
In that second attempt of those edits, I made the reasonings even clearer as I made them.  Here is the list of thos last edits that were wrongly wiped out by Nereocystis.
# 14:24, 30 June 2005 (→Forms of polygamy - Again, Polygamy is not group marriage.)
# 14:45, 30 June 2005 (→Group marriage - Created subsection with greater accuracy and brevity)
# 14:54, 30 June 2005 (→External links - Remove ANON commercial SPAM ad for book previously online for free from other site. ANON posted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polygamy&diff=13530246&oldid=13529954)
# 14:59, 30 June 2005 (→Bibliography - Removing SPAM ads also posted by the same ANON. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polygamy&diff=next&oldid=13530246 NOTE: tiny inapplicable self-pub books not valid Biblio)
# 15:02, 30 June 2005 (→External links - Joseph Smith is NOT the "founder" of MODERN polygamy - he was only that for MORMON Polygamy.)
# 15:04, 30 June 2005 (→External links - Remove link here so as to then move it to the Mormon section as it is more specific and should be there.)
# 15:05, 30 June 2005 (→Mormon polygamy - Moved WivesOfJosephSmith.org to this more applicable Mormon section)
# 15:10, 30 June 2005 (→External links - ANON not really Jewish Polygamy. When some other site is about this, tho, THAT would then apply. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polygamy&diff=13735676&oldid=13735596)
# 15:15, 30 June 2005 (→External links - Per TALK, Removed link due to Scope & Scale SEE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polygamy/Archive_2#Tapestry_Against_Polygamy)
# 15:17, 30 June 2005 (→External links - Removed link due to Inflammatory Generalization & Self-admitted Irrelevance. SEE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polygamy/Archive_2#Hope_for_the_Child_Brides)
# 15:21, 30 June 2005 (→Patterns of occurrence - Corrected false & hostile-implication over-generalization)
# 15:28, 30 June 2005 (→Mormon polygamy - Clarifying that most modern polygamists oppose anecdotal "connections" and that "all" polygamy is not necessarily Mormon polygamy.)
# 15:39, 30 June 2005 (→Multiple divorce and marriage for polygamy - To keep this paragraph on-topic with its subheading)
# 15:42, 30 June 2005 (→Multiple divorce and marriage for polygamy - Removed content not applicable to the subheading title, as prep for move of applicable portion to another section)
# 15:44, 30 June 2005 (→Multiple divorce and marriage for polygamy)
# 15:54, 30 June 2005 (→Mormon polygamy - Relocate appropriate segment that was removed from "Multiple divorce and marriage for polygamy" section)
# 15:59, 30 June 2005 (→Multiple divorce and marriage for polygamy - Removed unnecessary sentences, for simplicity of this Subsection's actual CONTEXT. This is not a "Tom Green case" wiki.)
# 16:38, 30 June 2005 (→Definitions - Anti-polygamy is a non-neutral agenda. Started this simple way to bring readers to THAT new resource if that is what they seek. Now, anti-polygamy should refrain from this wiki.)
===I tried to accomodate by creating a new wiki: "Anti-polygamy"===
That last edit was a new idea of mine, sincerely attempting to provide a place for anti-polygamists to present their agenda debates, yet including pro-polygamist responses in order to keep it NPOV.  It does not take a genius to realize that polygamy is a neutral anthropological term while anti-polygamy is a decidedly non-neutral agenda.  For that reason, it is clear that the polygamy term needs its own wiki as the anti-polygamy agenda and debate needs its own wiki.  So, with that last new edit, I was trying to provide a solution even for the agenda items of anti-polygamists to be presented along with the actual "anti-polygamy debate."
===Nereocystis wiped it all out===
I ask one and all to look at each of those edits and to follow the details/explanations/urls included.  There is definitely no legitimate basis whatsoever for summarily wiping out all of that valid work.  But Nereocystis has done that to me, not once, but twice!
Only one day after I had re-made those demonstrably valid corrective edits,  Nereocystis then, at 17:05, 1 July 2005, wiped out all that work yet again.  They added the falsehood, "rv Researcher99's changes, which he refuses to discuss on talk page."  (I never refused to TALK. I had asked for it from the very beginning, but that sneaky vandal has never been willing to accommodate any of my work whatsoever except only to totally destroy my work.  It is only now that I will only TALK according to the Wiki Guidelines of STATUS QUO position for controversial topics, with anyone who is honest and proves they will work with me, not only destroy all valid work and destroy the wiki with mis-information.)
===Just 3 Minutes later, The_Anome "appeared"=== 
Then, just three minutes later, a new person suspiciously showed up on the scene, The_Anome. and then makes an edit to the "Definitions" header of the polygamy wiki. About that section, The_Anome asserted, "good, this appears to be a stable-ish version, rm-ing top hdr so first section is above TOC." The heading change is not a big deal, but to claim that section is "stable-ish" three minutes after Nereocystis had wiped out my work, which included that section being corrected (by me) on the "group marriage" issue, that is a problem, and it makes that edit suspicious (especially after seeing what happened next).
 
At first glance, one might suspect that The_Anome may not have realized that so fresh an Rv had just occurred. But if that were the case, The_Anome's edit would have been made based on my last edited version prior to it being Rv'ed again. Additionally, The_Anome's anti-polygamy POV becomes obvious by what The_Anome did next. 
After making that edit in the polygamy wiki along with the the "stable-ish" claim, The_Anome next went over to the new Wiki I had created, Anti-polygamy. (If The_Anome had only seen the Rv'ed version, they would not have seen the link to that new wiki I had made. So, to have seen that link is to have known about it outright.)
As the evidence shows, it was only one minute later that The_Anome went to the other new wiki and changed the name in order to limit and reduce the purpose of that new wiki. Instead of Anti-polygamy, they changed it to Opposition to polygamy. As the TALK page at that new wiki and the introduction section of the article explained, the purpose of that new wiki was to report on how "Anti-polygamy" is a non-neutral agenda (as opposed to the neutral anthropological term of polygamy) and to have a place for reporting issues relevant to the "anti-polygamy debate."
Two minutes after that, The_Anome then further sought to minimize that by removing the important explanatory section of the difference between polygamy and anti-polygamy. Another two minutes later, The_Anome made a post to the TALK page there, saying, "This is seriously POV: I've reworded the intro, and added an NPOV header."
Three more minutes after that, Nereocystis showed up there on that same TALK page, saying, "I don't understand this article. Is there any value to the article at all. I'm tempted to think that it should be deleted. It is extremely POV and mostly incoherent."
===The_Anome and Nereocystis proven as Anti-Polygamous POV===
Only deliberate POV anti-polygamists seeking to prevent wiki readers from knowing that polygamy is a neutral anthropological concept while anti-polygamy is a non-neutral agenda would make those obviously false claims.  The point had very clearly been made in the original version I had made in creating that new wiki, but the POV anti-polygamists were trying to change the name and hide all that so to then then "pretend to act innocent" in asking "what is the point" of the wiki.
The timing of those two obvious anti-polygamist POV posters (Nereocystis and The_Anome working together at the very same moments) is highly suspicious, much in the same way that it appears that the now-gone Ghostintheshell is probably the same person/group as Nereocystis.
Once again, Nereocystis is here being outed for the hostile anti-polygamy POV agenda on this wiki.  Even after I tried to provide a place to provide such anti-polygamy ideas (with that new wiki), because those agenda-ideas do not belong in the polygamy wiki itself, Nereocystis is still trying to make sure that wiki readers do not get to know the true issues. As their last quote shows, Nereocystis's intent for all that is to try to get it or keep it removed, so that wiki readers are not so informed.
===These 2 very serious evidences call for Nereocystis's removal===
Anyway, that outed sneaky vandal has now been clearly proven
# to have lied about not editing so the discussion could proceed
# to have twice Rv'ed very valid and explained edits to the polgamy wiki.
I continue to ask the ADMINS to please remove the proven outed POV anti-polygamist sneaky vandal, Nereocystis,  so that the wiki can be edited by serious NPOV researchers.
===Near STATUS QUO, my re-made edits should be kept intact. THEN, we can have an honest discussion about any/each issue===
I am putting these edits back in place once again. If any serious discussion is to occur here at TALK, the edits I make must be kept intact while we discuss each of the issues.  With those kept intact, then we can TALK first about which ever of the above-listed 18 edits needed to be discussed for subsequent revision.  But we must start any TALK from the STATUS QUO position, not after sneaky vandalism.
I am hopeful that when I check back here in a bit that the Admins will have had an opportunity to have finally solved this very serious problem.
Thank you.
Researcher 8 July 2005 16:11 (UTC)
===Please consider Talk:Polygamy#Proposal_for_moving_forward_and_roll_call_of_present===
Please consider joining the roll call and poll in Talk:Polygamy#Proposal_for_moving_forward_and_roll_call_of_present.   Voting either for or against the proposal could move us forward in resolving the conflict. Nereocystis 17:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Sneaky Vandal Attacked This Wiki AGAIN

message: Please consider joining the roll call and poll in Talk:Polygamy#Proposal_for_moving_forward_and_roll_call_of_present.   Voting either for or against the proposal could move us forward in resolving the conflict. Nereocystis 17:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Please consider [[Talk:Polygamy#Proposal_for_moving_forward_and_roll_call_of_present]]

message: OK.  I have now read much of the history.  Here are my recommendations:
* Forget all personal issues and allegations of past misconduct so we can focus anew on content.
* Do a roll call to be sure there are seven or more editors present and alert, including Researcher, Ghostintheshell, and Nereocystis.
* After roll call, start again to Be Bold within the 3RR rule and Discussion context.  All seven editors agree to pay attention and evaluate each edit carefully.
* If editing gets hot, all seven editors agree to give weigh in on their preferred content.
* As always, seek to build and defer to consensus.
- Tom Haws 17:29, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
 
Roll call and poll (7 supporters needed).
* Support Even if I do say so myself.  Tom Haws 17:29, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
* Support. Please.  GhostintheShell hasn't been around since early May, It is worth trying to get him/her involved again, but it may not happen. Researcher is sometimes quiet for a few days.  I suggest allowing at least a week for him to respond. Nereocystis 18:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There does come a point when you have to start regarding an editor as a troll. If all an editor wants to do is kick up a fuss on the Talk page without putting forward suggestions or attempting to compromise with others, there's no point in feeding him. Serious editors must continue edit the article as they see fit and revert the troll. Dan100 (Talk) 10:45, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Help was requested here, and it's hard to understand exactly what the problem is without seeing it in action.  7 is optimistic, but I want to get all the key players plus two or three outside observers watching before we start this up again.  There is no use in trying to resolve this with only three unless two adversaries agree that the third is impartial.  I agree, we'll take what we can get, and there is no hurry at all.  I have a page dispute (Human) that has been going on for 8 months and I haven't even viewed the page for over a month.  Patience and faith.  Tom Haws 15:04, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Researcher99 isn't a short-lived troll, it if is a troll at all.  S/he has been active on polygamy since November 2004, a few days after my first edit, though s/he probably started anonymously a few days earlier.  If s/he is willing to talk, life will be easier.  Without agreement, there will be edit wars, people giving up in frustration, or banning.  Sooner or later, I will start editing again.  Nereocystis 19:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Readers should note the falsehood being made in that above post here.  Nereocystis posted that here on July 18. They imply that "after a couple days off" they were rv'ing my "changes" (knowing that I am not making changes, but am only trying to get back to TRUE SATUS QUO in order to THEN be able to TALK).  As Nereocystis knows though, I had not made any edits since July 08, which is 10 days prior to that above post by Nereocystis.  So, Nereocystis is here trying to imply their supposed "need" to rv my supposed "changes" when they know I had not even re-attempted any edits at all (trying to get the article back toward TRUE STATUS QUO) for 10 DAYS.  It appears we have yet another lie from Nereocystis. This kind of repeated lie-telling proves yet again why it is impossible to have an honest discussion with them. Researcher 13:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Readers may observe here how Nereocystis has lied yet again.   The STATUS QUO is not per the edits made by the sneaky vandal!  Instead, the true STATUS QUO goes back to BEFORE the sneaky vandal made their destructions, back before I first made my appeal for help on this matter months ago, and even before that in the Ghostintheshell Situation.  It is Nereocystis who is refusing the TRUE STATUS QUO and who is wiping out every truly-valid edit I make.  The fact that Nereocystis  would not even wait here for Tom Haws to see my various input in this poll today before going back on an editing rampage is further proof of how aggressive Nereocystis is in all this.  Nereocystis had previously claimed that I was not willing to answer the poll and then the instant I did, they took it on their own to do whatever they wanted anyway.  A total set-up, intended only to falsely self-justify their fursther abuse of me.   Once again, I have been abused, proving that there is never any act of good faith with Nereocystis whatsoever.  This all simply amounts to more personal persecution from a clear anti-polygamist trying to destroy the polygamy article.  Admins, Please help! Researcher 19:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Readers may note the false implication Nereocystis made there about not making changes since my vote.  As they very well know, I had not attempted any new edits during that time anyway!  In fact, as of ths writing, I had not made an edit since my last attempt on 8 July 2005.  So, making the implication of their supposed "not making changes" is another lie.  It is not a personal attack to point out when someone is making a known lie. As I have always been calling for as the easy solution from the beginning, when we can get the article back to the TRUE STATUS QUO, which is pre-sneaky-vandalism by Nereocystis and by what I believe is their alter-name Ghostintheshell, then this TALK page is the place for discussing whatever disputes are real after that.  Until the TRUE STATUS QUO is restored without interference from the sneaky vandal Nereocystis, we are still left with an article filled with anti-polygamy POV of sneaky vandalisms and no legitimate TALK can occur.  I might consider re-attempting some edits again later to start to move the article back to TRUE STATUS QUO.  If I do and if the sneaky vandal so much as touches any of them afterward, it will prove even more that their above false claim to "not make changes" was an outright lie - another one. Researcher 11:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for moving forward and roll call of present and alert editors

message: I have 3 options for the next step in the resolution.  The first 3 require the agreement of Researcher99; the third does not.  Other suggestions are welcome:
#Researcher99 could find a member advocate from Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates. This is probably the best solution.  The advocate can assist Researcher99 in expressing his preferences, and perhaps direct the discussion a bit.  This option requires Researcher99's participation.
#Researcher99 and I, along with any other interested parties can participate in Wikipedia:Mediation.  Mediation requires that all of us are interested in find a positive solution. This option requires Researcher99's participation.
#Researcher99 and I, along with any other interested parties can participate in Wikipedia:Arbitration.  Arbitration requires that all of us are interested in find a positive solution. This option requires Researcher99's participation.
#Researcher99 could request that I be banned.  Please ask an advocate for help on this.  I would object.  Waiting for administrators to act won't work. If your attempt to ban me fails, please stop threatening this action. This option requires Researcher99's participation. 
#I could ask that Researcher99 be banned.  I probably won't unless he hits the 3R limit. His personal attacks on me are tiresome, but I'll ignore them for a bit longer.  This option does not require Researcher99's participation.
#I will continue to edit and explain my edits.  I will revert when the edits don't meet my standards.  I'm willing to discuss the text of edits, but will try to avoid responding to or participating in personal edits. This option does not require Researcher99's participation, but could benefit from his participation.
My challenge to Researcher99 is to choose one of the above, or make another suggestion. Nereocystis 21:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New suggestions

message: The legal section Polygamy#Legal_situation refers to the legality of polygamy.  Some Christians opposition to polygamy does not effect the legality of polygamy.  The best place for the opposition of some Christians opposition to polygamy is under Polygamy#Current_proponents_and_critics.  Yes, you're right, it is difficult to figure out what goes where.  We're working on organization now.  Also, it is very important to remember that not all Christians oppose polygamy, even where it is illegal.  We have to work on NPOV here, which has been a real problem in the past.  It would be helpful if you provide a reference for Christian opposition to polygamy.  What type of Christians follow these rules?  Is it primarily the fundamentalists?  I previously removed a section for proponents and critics because it claimed that Christian fundamentalists are opposed to polygamy, but didn't provide a reference. This changes make it easier to understand why some Christians oppose polygamy, but a reference would be very nice. Nereocystis 7 July 2005 17:27 (UTC)
====Bible-believing====
Hi, Timandkids! Welcome to Wikipedia. I apologize for reverting your edit. But it was kinda biased, though I can see your point. What might work better is to say something like "some Christians, based on XYZ statement in the Bible, feel a duty to avoid polygamy regardless of their personal beliefs about it." I'm sure you can do better that that, but hopefully you get the idea. If this is confusing, you might try reading WP:NPOV. It's really a great article. Tom Haws July 8, 2005 04:20 (UTC)
Hi, Timandkids.  The point is okay to make.  But we have to use unloaded language.  Many Christians would be offended to be excluded from the description Bible-believing, but wouldn't agree with your conclusion.  Therefore we have to modify the phrasing to reflect that point of view.  Tom Haws
:: This is the very type of exmaple of anti-polygamy argument paragraph (being made by Timandkids) that was in my mind when I had first first created the new Anti-polygamy wiki.  Their paragraph is not rally abot polygamy the neutral term of polygamy, but rather it is about the non-neutral agenda and debate of anti-polygamy.  Because of that, that kind of anti-polygamy argument paragraph really would be more appropriately moved to that other wiki there, Anti-polygamy.  Then, the pro-polygamy response to that  "anti-polygamy debate" (such as found at the "Law of the Land" page at BiblicalPolygamy.com) could also be presented.  Doing that also simplifies the two wikis ("polygamy the neutral term" vs. "anti-polygamy the non-neutral agenda and debate") as it separates the issues into more concise and readable chunks. - Researcher 8 July 2005 16:33 (UTC)
We have a section for proponents and critics.  It's very reasonable to state opposition to polygamy here.  I prefer quoting a specific critic, rather than saying "some Christians" oppose polygamy.  Timandkids tends to use POV language, but we can try to correct that.  Similarly, Researcher99 tends to use POV language.  I don't see any advantage to the Anti-polygamy article. There isn't a coherent topic there yet. Nereocystis 8 July 2005 17:16 (UTC)
:: For all readers: With all the vast amounts of evidence and pure NPOV I have provided, it is no surprise that an outed anti-polygamist would attempt to falsely accuse me of things I have not done (e.g., POV) and to seek to discredit the Anti-polygamy wiki as supposedly "incoherent."  Any intelligent brain can easily understand what that other wiki is truthfully about. And such an intelligent brain can also easily see that the anti-polygamy agenda and debate is far too distracting to be used on the main polygamy wiki.  All readers here should realize that it is a matter of course that a hostile POV anti-polygamist like Nereocystis would seek to prevent their hostile non-neutral agenda from being moved to its own wiki to present the anti-polygamy debate on its own.  Such a hostile anti-polygamy POV wants only to continue to distort the true neutral term of polygamy, rather than be exposed for the non-neutral agenda which their anti-polygamy really is. This is just more proof that this proven sneaky vandal, Nereocystis, needs to be removed from further destroying the wiki.  I hope the Admins can solve this very serious problem.  - Researcher 8 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)
A few points to consider:
* I have lately noticed that some newer users tend to use the term "wiki" to refer to articles or areas of Wikipedia.  I have heard "Mormon wiki" previously, and here I am hearing "Anti-polygamy wiki".  In my mind this diminishes the gravitas associated with the project of building an encyclopedia.  To help us maintain the proper attitude toward our work, I respectfully request that we refer to articles  as such, and to Wikipedia as such, or as the Encyclopedia.
* Splitting articles on POV lines is discouraged.  Breaking out an anti-polygamy article, if done with a proper understanding of Wikipedia policies and objectives, can be useful if there is enough content to discuss the anti-polygamy movement.  But creating an anti-polygamy article as a holding tank for antagonistic views is inappropriate.  We are encouraged to seek to represent all views fairly in NPOV articles rather than keeping parallel POV articles.
* Personal attacks are not appropriate at Wikipedia, and we are admonished to assume good faith.  I urge all editors present to focus their attention away from each other and toward the article in their comments.
* Finally, I agree with Nereo's comments about the two articles and I appreciate his efforts to follow Wikipedia standards.  I also appreciate R99's dedication to this subject and his willingness to invest significant time and effort toward improving this corner of Wikipedia.  We can find ways to represent all views fairly in a single article.  We must do it.  Let's keep trying.
--Tom Haws July 8, 2005 18:19 (UTC)
: Tom Haws, above, you wrote, "* Splitting articles on POV lines is discouraged.  Breaking out an anti-polygamy article, if done with a proper understanding of Wikipedia policies and objectives, can be useful if there is enough content to discuss the anti-polygamy movement.  But creating an anti-polygamy article as a holding tank for antagonistic views is inappropriate.  We are encouraged to seek to represent all views fairly in NPOV articles rather than keeping parallel POV articles."
: It appears that you did not understand what I did in creating tha anti-polygamy article.  It also appears that Nereocystis hastily jumped on your misunderstanding to delete the link to that new article for what you otherwise seem to be approving.
: To assist your understanding here, I was not dividing into two articles on POV lines. Rather, I was dividing between the neutral anthropological polygamy and the non-neutral agenda and debate of anti-polygamy.  Information about polygamy/polygamists is not a POV, it is neutral anthropological information.  Anti-polygamy is pure POV, as is the POV response of pro-polygamy.  For two articles, the first (polygamy article) would be completely NPOV by having no POV for such an obvious neutral term.  The second (anti-polygamy article) would also be completely NPOV by having both POV sides of the debate presented.  
: Accordingly, I see your next quoted sentence therefore as actually showing your approval for what I was seeking to get started.  An anti-polygamy article could very much become a sizable article of its own, and it would be very relevant too. For example,  if you analyze it directly, TimandKids edit did not actually inform the Wikipedia reader about anything about polygamy itself.  Rather, all the edit did was show one argument in the anti-polygamy debate.  But that still does not actually inform about polygamy itself.  So, that edit should not really be in a neutral anthropological polygamy article.  However (and further showing that I have always been dedicated to true NPOV), I do see a valid place for Wikipedia readers who choose to investigate "why" some people disagree with polygamy: the anti-polygamy article I created. In that kind of anti-polygamy article, TimandKids anti-polygamy POV argument could be presented and the resulting pro-polygamy argument/response (as the edit I tried to make about it) could also be presented.  That would be both POVs presented in the non-neutral anti-polygamy agenda/debate article, while the neutral NPOV anthropoligical polygamy article only informs about polygamy/polygamists itself.
: When searching to understand about polygamy, people want to know about polygamy and polygamists.  People already know there are anti-polygamists. So when they are looking for information about polygamy, they do not need to be distracted with the anti-polygamy agenda and debate at that point.  But if they want that information too, then they can proceed to the anti-polygamy article too.  Because that would allow both sides of POV, the Wikipedia reader, who chooses to research that extra anti-polygamy information too, would also be educated about both sides of the debate.  But until they seek that out, the non-neutral anti-polygamy POV distraction has no real valid place in the neutral anthropological polygamy article itself.
: Your concern about article size is also not a problem in any way.  (Currently, the single polygamy article is so long, filled with anti-polygamy agenda POV, that when you edit the entire page, a red-font warning tells you that it is already too large.)  As well, the "Proponents & Critics" section in the polygamy article can not sufficiently address or identify the complete anti-polygamy agenda and debate.  Even if it could (which it cannot), it would have to be so much volume that it would overdominate the polygamy article in general, making the article even longer than it already excessively is.
: An anti-polygamy article would also not be too short.  For an example of Bible arguments alone, take a look at BiblicalPolygamy.com. At one point or another, anti-polygamists would post the anti-polygamists  arguments they present (just as TimandKids recently did).  And all the pro-polygamist responses to the specific arguments (as you can see there are many of them at that above web-site) could be added too.  Considering the many pages of response arguments at that above web-site, for just one example for my point here, the anti-polygamy article will not be short of content, at all.  There are that many pro-polygamy responses because they are responding to that many attempted anti-polygamy arguments.  Plus, there are other arguments that are not even Bible-related too, so you know the anti-polygamy article will eventually attain quite a size of its own.
: So I was not creating parallel POV articles at all. It is not accurate to think of it as polygamy vs. anti-polygamy.  Rather, polygamy is neutral and the anti-polygamy debate is the non-neutral Anti POV vs Pro POV.
: For these reasons, I was genuinely providing a valid solution for all concerned with this second article creation.  (Well, it would be received as valid for all except by the purposely hostile anti-polygamists who want to hide their agenda and therefore make up deceptive excuses to not allow the second article.)
: Since this solution I offered falls within the parameters to which you yourself were here approving, it is my hope that you can stop the hastily-made "call for deletion" of the anti-polygamy article. I also hope that you will also stop the anti-polygamists from continuing all their personal attacks, including the summary-deletion of every edit I make to the polygamy article.
: I really would like to be able to edit without the never-valid rv's coming from hostile anti-polygamists who openly do not even know this subject matter.  Despite how many times my edits have tried to accommodate even the anti-polygamists, I have never received such a good faith act back to me from them.  (While Nereocystis's "apology" below is the very first time they have ever indicated something postive toward me, their "words" mean little until a true good faith action supports positivity toward me.  As long as my multiple edits are not restored and THEN we TALK, as according to Wiki Guidelines, such "words" remain empty and do not qualify as "good faith acts." While the "apology" is a good start, it is still a start without substance, at this point.)  But no, I have never received any accomodation or good faith act from the anti-polygamists.  This all proves that it is they, not me, who are the personal attackers, the ones violating Wiki Ettiquette, refusing the Guidelines of STATUS QUO for controversial topics, and refusing to allow me to edit anything.
: So, no, anti-polygamists have made it impossible to present polygamy in a single article fairly without their hostile POV agendas infesting it.  As such, the only true NPOV solution is to have the two articles as I have proposed. It's the truest NPOV method available, and everyone can have a valid voice. 
: If the anti-polygamists had followed Wiki Guidelines and actually TALKED with me instead of destroying or deleting everything I do, this intent for the newly-created anti-polygamy article would have been immediately realized.  But then again, their hostile POV and personal attacks against me never wanted to TALK or act in good faith with me in the first place, because their outed agenda is to sneakily mis-inform Wikipedia readers about polygamy.  My solution of two articles moves to preventing that and yet still allows even anti-polygamists a voice too.  True fairness and NPOV for everyone.
: I am hopeful, Tom Haws, that you will begin to free me from the oppression of the POV anti-polygamists.  There is nothing "fairly represented" about having all my truly-valid edits summarily wiped out and no one protecting me from such obvious personal attacks. It would be nice to be allowed to actually provide my wealth of knowledge here again. 
: If you can help, I truly thank you.
: Researcher 16:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian opposition to polygamy

message: Hi, Timandkids! Welcome to Wikipedia. I apologize for reverting your edit. But it was kinda biased, though I can see your point. What might work better is to say something like "some Christians, based on XYZ statement in the Bible, feel a duty to avoid polygamy regardless of their personal beliefs about it." I'm sure you can do better that that, but hopefully you get the idea. If this is confusing, you might try reading WP:NPOV. It's really a great article. Tom Haws July 8, 2005 04:20 (UTC)
Hi, Timandkids.  The point is okay to make.  But we have to use unloaded language.  Many Christians would be offended to be excluded from the description Bible-believing, but wouldn't agree with your conclusion.  Therefore we have to modify the phrasing to reflect that point of view.  Tom Haws
:: This is the very type of exmaple of anti-polygamy argument paragraph (being made by Timandkids) that was in my mind when I had first first created the new Anti-polygamy wiki.  Their paragraph is not rally abot polygamy the neutral term of polygamy, but rather it is about the non-neutral agenda and debate of anti-polygamy.  Because of that, that kind of anti-polygamy argument paragraph really would be more appropriately moved to that other wiki there, Anti-polygamy.  Then, the pro-polygamy response to that  "anti-polygamy debate" (such as found at the "Law of the Land" page at BiblicalPolygamy.com) could also be presented.  Doing that also simplifies the two wikis ("polygamy the neutral term" vs. "anti-polygamy the non-neutral agenda and debate") as it separates the issues into more concise and readable chunks. - Researcher 8 July 2005 16:33 (UTC)
We have a section for proponents and critics.  It's very reasonable to state opposition to polygamy here.  I prefer quoting a specific critic, rather than saying "some Christians" oppose polygamy.  Timandkids tends to use POV language, but we can try to correct that.  Similarly, Researcher99 tends to use POV language.  I don't see any advantage to the Anti-polygamy article. There isn't a coherent topic there yet. Nereocystis 8 July 2005 17:16 (UTC)
:: For all readers: With all the vast amounts of evidence and pure NPOV I have provided, it is no surprise that an outed anti-polygamist would attempt to falsely accuse me of things I have not done (e.g., POV) and to seek to discredit the Anti-polygamy wiki as supposedly "incoherent."  Any intelligent brain can easily understand what that other wiki is truthfully about. And such an intelligent brain can also easily see that the anti-polygamy agenda and debate is far too distracting to be used on the main polygamy wiki.  All readers here should realize that it is a matter of course that a hostile POV anti-polygamist like Nereocystis would seek to prevent their hostile non-neutral agenda from being moved to its own wiki to present the anti-polygamy debate on its own.  Such a hostile anti-polygamy POV wants only to continue to distort the true neutral term of polygamy, rather than be exposed for the non-neutral agenda which their anti-polygamy really is. This is just more proof that this proven sneaky vandal, Nereocystis, needs to be removed from further destroying the wiki.  I hope the Admins can solve this very serious problem.  - Researcher 8 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)
A few points to consider:
* I have lately noticed that some newer users tend to use the term "wiki" to refer to articles or areas of Wikipedia.  I have heard "Mormon wiki" previously, and here I am hearing "Anti-polygamy wiki".  In my mind this diminishes the gravitas associated with the project of building an encyclopedia.  To help us maintain the proper attitude toward our work, I respectfully request that we refer to articles  as such, and to Wikipedia as such, or as the Encyclopedia.
* Splitting articles on POV lines is discouraged.  Breaking out an anti-polygamy article, if done with a proper understanding of Wikipedia policies and objectives, can be useful if there is enough content to discuss the anti-polygamy movement.  But creating an anti-polygamy article as a holding tank for antagonistic views is inappropriate.  We are encouraged to seek to represent all views fairly in NPOV articles rather than keeping parallel POV articles.
* Personal attacks are not appropriate at Wikipedia, and we are admonished to assume good faith.  I urge all editors present to focus their attention away from each other and toward the article in their comments.
* Finally, I agree with Nereo's comments about the two articles and I appreciate his efforts to follow Wikipedia standards.  I also appreciate R99's dedication to this subject and his willingness to invest significant time and effort toward improving this corner of Wikipedia.  We can find ways to represent all views fairly in a single article.  We must do it.  Let's keep trying.
--Tom Haws July 8, 2005 18:19 (UTC)
: Tom Haws, above, you wrote, "* Splitting articles on POV lines is discouraged.  Breaking out an anti-polygamy article, if done with a proper understanding of Wikipedia policies and objectives, can be useful if there is enough content to discuss the anti-polygamy movement.  But creating an anti-polygamy article as a holding tank for antagonistic views is inappropriate.  We are encouraged to seek to represent all views fairly in NPOV articles rather than keeping parallel POV articles."
: It appears that you did not understand what I did in creating tha anti-polygamy article.  It also appears that Nereocystis hastily jumped on your misunderstanding to delete the link to that new article for what you otherwise seem to be approving.
: To assist your understanding here, I was not dividing into two articles on POV lines. Rather, I was dividing between the neutral anthropological polygamy and the non-neutral agenda and debate of anti-polygamy.  Information about polygamy/polygamists is not a POV, it is neutral anthropological information.  Anti-polygamy is pure POV, as is the POV response of pro-polygamy.  For two articles, the first (polygamy article) would be completely NPOV by having no POV for such an obvious neutral term.  The second (anti-polygamy article) would also be completely NPOV by having both POV sides of the debate presented.  
: Accordingly, I see your next quoted sentence therefore as actually showing your approval for what I was seeking to get started.  An anti-polygamy article could very much become a sizable article of its own, and it would be very relevant too. For example,  if you analyze it directly, TimandKids edit did not actually inform the Wikipedia reader about anything about polygamy itself.  Rather, all the edit did was show one argument in the anti-polygamy debate.  But that still does not actually inform about polygamy itself.  So, that edit should not really be in a neutral anthropological polygamy article.  However (and further showing that I have always been dedicated to true NPOV), I do see a valid place for Wikipedia readers who choose to investigate "why" some people disagree with polygamy: the anti-polygamy article I created. In that kind of anti-polygamy article, TimandKids anti-polygamy POV argument could be presented and the resulting pro-polygamy argument/response (as the edit I tried to make about it) could also be presented.  That would be both POVs presented in the non-neutral anti-polygamy agenda/debate article, while the neutral NPOV anthropoligical polygamy article only informs about polygamy/polygamists itself.
: When searching to understand about polygamy, people want to know about polygamy and polygamists.  People already know there are anti-polygamists. So when they are looking for information about polygamy, they do not need to be distracted with the anti-polygamy agenda and debate at that point.  But if they want that information too, then they can proceed to the anti-polygamy article too.  Because that would allow both sides of POV, the Wikipedia reader, who chooses to research that extra anti-polygamy information too, would also be educated about both sides of the debate.  But until they seek that out, the non-neutral anti-polygamy POV distraction has no real valid place in the neutral anthropological polygamy article itself.
: Your concern about article size is also not a problem in any way.  (Currently, the single polygamy article is so long, filled with anti-polygamy agenda POV, that when you edit the entire page, a red-font warning tells you that it is already too large.)  As well, the "Proponents & Critics" section in the polygamy article can not sufficiently address or identify the complete anti-polygamy agenda and debate.  Even if it could (which it cannot), it would have to be so much volume that it would overdominate the polygamy article in general, making the article even longer than it already excessively is.
: An anti-polygamy article would also not be too short.  For an example of Bible arguments alone, take a look at BiblicalPolygamy.com. At one point or another, anti-polygamists would post the anti-polygamists  arguments they present (just as TimandKids recently did).  And all the pro-polygamist responses to the specific arguments (as you can see there are many of them at that above web-site) could be added too.  Considering the many pages of response arguments at that above web-site, for just one example for my point here, the anti-polygamy article will not be short of content, at all.  There are that many pro-polygamy responses because they are responding to that many attempted anti-polygamy arguments.  Plus, there are other arguments that are not even Bible-related too, so you know the anti-polygamy article will eventually attain quite a size of its own.
: So I was not creating parallel POV articles at all. It is not accurate to think of it as polygamy vs. anti-polygamy.  Rather, polygamy is neutral and the anti-polygamy debate is the non-neutral Anti POV vs Pro POV.
: For these reasons, I was genuinely providing a valid solution for all concerned with this second article creation.  (Well, it would be received as valid for all except by the purposely hostile anti-polygamists who want to hide their agenda and therefore make up deceptive excuses to not allow the second article.)
: Since this solution I offered falls within the parameters to which you yourself were here approving, it is my hope that you can stop the hastily-made "call for deletion" of the anti-polygamy article. I also hope that you will also stop the anti-polygamists from continuing all their personal attacks, including the summary-deletion of every edit I make to the polygamy article.
: I really would like to be able to edit without the never-valid rv's coming from hostile anti-polygamists who openly do not even know this subject matter.  Despite how many times my edits have tried to accommodate even the anti-polygamists, I have never received such a good faith act back to me from them.  (While Nereocystis's "apology" below is the very first time they have ever indicated something postive toward me, their "words" mean little until a true good faith action supports positivity toward me.  As long as my multiple edits are not restored and THEN we TALK, as according to Wiki Guidelines, such "words" remain empty and do not qualify as "good faith acts." While the "apology" is a good start, it is still a start without substance, at this point.)  But no, I have never received any accomodation or good faith act from the anti-polygamists.  This all proves that it is they, not me, who are the personal attackers, the ones violating Wiki Ettiquette, refusing the Guidelines of STATUS QUO for controversial topics, and refusing to allow me to edit anything.
: So, no, anti-polygamists have made it impossible to present polygamy in a single article fairly without their hostile POV agendas infesting it.  As such, the only true NPOV solution is to have the two articles as I have proposed. It's the truest NPOV method available, and everyone can have a valid voice. 
: If the anti-polygamists had followed Wiki Guidelines and actually TALKED with me instead of destroying or deleting everything I do, this intent for the newly-created anti-polygamy article would have been immediately realized.  But then again, their hostile POV and personal attacks against me never wanted to TALK or act in good faith with me in the first place, because their outed agenda is to sneakily mis-inform Wikipedia readers about polygamy.  My solution of two articles moves to preventing that and yet still allows even anti-polygamists a voice too.  True fairness and NPOV for everyone.
: I am hopeful, Tom Haws, that you will begin to free me from the oppression of the POV anti-polygamists.  There is nothing "fairly represented" about having all my truly-valid edits summarily wiped out and no one protecting me from such obvious personal attacks. It would be nice to be allowed to actually provide my wealth of knowledge here again. 
: If you can help, I truly thank you.
: Researcher 16:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bible-believing

message: I reverted this paragraph:
:Since only one wife is married to the husband at any one time, no law was being broken and so this type of polygamous family unit could be overt about their relationship. In 2001, however, the state of Utah in the United States convicted Tom Green of criminal non-support and four counts of bigamy for having 5 serially monogomous marriages, while living with previous legally divorced wives. Having used that system of multiple divorce and marriage to defraud the state's welfare system, his cohabitation was considered evidence of a common-law marriage to the wives he had divorced while still living with them. As that case applies only to Utah, it is therefore not a nationwide precedent on common-law marriage and polygamy. However, it does show the risks in using the system of multiple divorce and legal marriage and why many polygamists avoid it.
to this:
:Since only one wife is married to the husband at any one time, no law was being broken and so this type of polygamous family unit could be overt about their relationship. In 2001, however, the state of Utah in the United States convicted Tom Green of criminal non-support and four counts of bigamy for having 5 serially monogomous marriages, while living with previous legally divorced wives. His cohabitation was considered evidence of a common-law marriage to the wives he had divorced while still living with them. That premise was subsequently affirmed by the Utah Supreme Court in State v. Green, as applicable only in the State of Utah. Green was also convicted of child rape and criminal non-support. In 2005, the state attorneys-general of Utah and Arizona issued a primer on helping victims of domestic violence and child abuse in polygamous communities. These states are emphasizing enforcement of crimes of child abuse, domestic violence, and fraud over the enforcement of the crime of polygamy. The priorities of local prosecuters are not covered by this statement.
:Deseret News article about Tom Green
The reverted version was listed under disputes for quite a few weeks without comment.  If change is desired, please discuss it on the talk page.
This clause is incorrect and does not have any trustworthy citation:
:It was Green's crime of criminal non-support which initiated the case in that one state. 
Researcher99 provides a reference of an interview with Mark the Founder of a ministry, perhaps truthbearer.org, where the founder says that Green was prosecuted because of criminal non-support.  It is not clear who "Mark the Founder" is, or why one should trust his view on this issue.  I don't consider this a valid reference for resolving the question of why Tom Green was prosecuted.  However, I am willing to listen to a reason why I should trust Mark the Founder, and why this should be believed over the word of the prosecutor in the case. 
David O. Leavitt was the prosecutor in the Tom Green bigamy and child-rape cases. He is no longer the  Juab County Prosecutor, but he states the reasons for his prosecution of Green.  While Leavitt mentions government support, he claims that it is not the reason for the prosecution.  Look at this ReligionNewsBlog article:
:I agree that not all polygamists, sexually or otherwise, abuse children. I understand that some don't scam the government. But the harm to society and to innocent individuals is so great that even the exceptions cannot be justified. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1879 rejected polygamy, stating that monogamy is the only acceptable form of marriage because it preserves our culture and our families.
In another page which claims to be from a Reuter's article, Leavitt says:
:whenever someone confesses to commission of a felony on national television in my jurisdiction I'm going to prosecute him
These two quotes provide evidence that Green's prosecution was not because of criminal non-support, but because:
# Green publicly talked about his polygamy
# Anyone guilty of polygamy should be prosecuted.
Can Researcher99 provide evidence which support his view?
Nereocystis 9 July 2005 03:25 (UTC)
See pro-polygamy web site http://www.mormonpolygamy.com/Fundamentalist_Mormons.html question "Isn't polygamy against the law?" for a discussion of the legality of polygamy.  It is not POV to point out that polygamy is against the law.  My great-grandfather spent time in jail due to his polygamy.  Stating this does not make me or him an anti-polygamist. It is a silly and dangerous law, but it is the law. Nereocystis 18:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple divorce and marriage for polygamy

message: I deleted the following section:
:Due to the Mormon revered texts of Doctrine & Covenants 132 and subsequent pronouncements making polygamy an "appointment" for obtaining religious rewards in heaven (D&C 132:40), women in such fundamentalist Mormon communities often marry polygamously as a requirement for their path toward becoming better off in the afterlife.
:Historically, it was this implicit lack of choice for women in the specifically fundamentalist Mormon polygamous situations, that caused many anti-polygamists to inaccurately equate all polygamy in general as somehow being against women. With such added hostility from Western society for such "no-choice-for-women" premises, Mormon polygamists find it simply easier to aggregate into their own private separated communities and retain their privacy.
D&C132:40 does not require all women to submit to polygamy, though parts of D&C 132 do require Emma Smith to submit to polygamy.  While some of the Mormon fundamentalists seem to force polygamy upon the women, not all of them do.  Many Mormon polygamists, past and present, oppose such forcing of polygamy upon women, so let's not list it here. The second paragraph is particularly POV and opposed to Mormon fundamentalist polygamy.
If these sentences were reworded to say that some Mormon fundamentalist women are pushed into polygamy, with references, I would accept the sentences.  In fact, a section on polygamists finding more spouses should probably mention forced polygamy as one method, but only if it fairly treats all Mormon fundamentalists. Nereocystis 01:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mormon fundamentalists - aggregate in communities

message: I moved this section from Polygamy#Non-Mormon_polygamy to Polygamy#Current_proponents_and_opponents:
:Today, the Catholic Church clearly condemns polygamy; the Catechism of the Catholic Church lists it in paragraph 2387 under the head "Other offenses against the dignity of marriage" and states that it "is not in accord with the moral law." Also in paragraph 1645 under the head "The Goods and Requirements of Conjugal Love" states "The unity of marriage, distinctly recognized by our Lord, is made clear in the equal personal dignity which must be accorded to man and wife in mutual and unreserved affection. Polygamy is contrary to conjugal love which is undivided and exclusive."
My image of the article is that the Polygamy#Polygamy_and_religion section mentions religions which practice polygamy, and the Polygamy#Current_proponents_and_opponents section mentions opponents.  However, this division may be artificial.  Perhaps "Polygamy and religion" should be changed to "Practicing polygamists".  If "Polygamy and religion" includes sections on opposition to polygamy, then "Proponents and opponents" should have a pointer to the former section. Help is welcome here. Nereocystis 01:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved Catholic opposition to "Proponents and opponents" section

message: I moved "Patterns of occurence" and "Polygamy and religion" under the section "Polygamy worldwide".  I don't know if this really makes sense.  There may be too much under one heading.  "Polygamy worldwide" really should be rewritten a bit, with a reference to the original work which includes the report of 850 of 1170 societies practice polygamy.  I perused this article once, and thought it was interesting.  Religions definitely should be included under societies. Please comment if this seems odd, or even if it doesn't.  Nereocystis 01:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Polygamy#Polygamy_and_religion]]

message: I found a more direct reference to Murdock's Ethnographic Atlas, and took data derived directly from the Ethnographic Atlas, about monogamous and polygamous societies. I also split out societies with occasional polygyny from societies with more frequent polygyny, which gives a more accurate indicationof the frequency of polygany. Nereocystis 14:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Polygamous societies & ''Ethnographic Atlas''

message: I deleted this sentence:
:Polygamy is considered sinful by most Christian denominations; second marriages are considered unlawful and cohabitation between a man and a second wife is adultery. 
Opposition to polygamy should be in Polygamy#Current_proponents_and_opponents. However, it needs a citation.  Name at least one Christian denomination which has this belief, along with a supporting citation. This area is very controversial.  Some Christians support polygamy, some oppose it, some are neutral. Well-documented opinions about polygamy are welcome. 
I think that this is already covered in the following paragraph:
:The illegality of polygamy in certain areas creates, according to certain Bible passages, additional arguments against it. Paul of Tarsus writes "submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience" (Romans 13:5), for "the authorities that exist have been established by God." (Romans 13:1) St Peter concurs when he says to "submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right." (1 Peter 2:13,14)  Pro-polygamists argue that, as long as polygamists currently do not obtain legal marriage licenses for additional spouses, no enforced laws are being broken any more than when monogamous couples who similarly co-habitate without a marriage license.  The "Law of the Land" page at BiblicalPolygamy.com provides and addresses more details on that specific issue.
Nereocystis 20:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Christians consider polygamy sinful

message: I tried to split the external links into groups, depending upon primary topic.  Four of the sites listed are owned by standardbearer.com.  I placed those together so that it is clear that the sites are owned by one source, rather than being independently operated web sites. I hope that I organized the links correctly.  Please mention here if my organization is mistaken. Nereocystis 20:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I did make a number of TALK posts yesterday which explained my rv.  I am glad to see the assertion that I had somehow not explained it has been corrected. Researcher 13:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: There is no Wikipedia Guideline that suggests the absurd idea of organizing links based on their webhost.  Websites can change their hosting providers at any time.  That is just too variable.  So it is just ridiculous and not NPOV to organize links that way.  It is good to see the attempted possible good faith act here to allow a correction to be made without yet another aggressive act to follow it.  While I still await restoration to TRUE STATUS QUO in order to THEN start having a legitimate TALK, I will offer the following accommodation and make some changes to this latest re-organization instead of rv'ing it.  This can be considered my offer of a good faith act.  However, after that, this matter needs to be left alone until we get to resolving the overall issues.  So, Nereocystis should equally do a good faith act here and accept this good faith accommodation until the matters are resolved.  They have just offered to do that here, so now I await to see if they told the truth or lied in making that offer.  If the accommodation I am about to make to the article is still changed by Nereocystis, however, then that bad faith act will motivate complete rv'ing again.  Such a bad faith act will fully prove that Nereocystis is only out to destroy the polygamy article, to be a bully, and is never willing to TALK or follow Wikipedia:Wikiquette.  I hope they spoke truthfully.  Researcher 13:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Returning back here a day later, I am glad to see the good faith act by Nereocystis of not destroying the section.   Such a good faith act was necessary in order to proceed. While Nereocystis has mistakenly added two invalid links, I am still now very willing to (after I remove those links in order to start fresh) offer more opportunities for mutual good faith acts between us so that we can get these issues resolved.  If such good faith acts can continue, I would be glad to TALK directly with Nereocystis and address their questions (as best I can) whenever they come up with them.  It is my hope that this process can continue this curtently positive path that has just started.  Researcher 12:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External links organization

message: In this section, I plan to suggest changes and gather responses.  After a week or so, I will free to make these changes if there are no responses.  Please follow dispute resolutions guidelines. Discuss the text, not the editor. Nereocystis 22:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Readers should note that all actions by Nereocystis have been under dispute since they arrived, destroying the polygamy article with numerous sneaky vandalisms. So now Nereocystis seeks to destroy this particular subsection, having this subsection as their latest target for their sneaky vandalism.  That would seem to provide further evidence that Nereocystis is highly likely the same person as the previous sneaky vandal Ghostintheshell who had originally started all the sneaky vandalisms (as followed by Nereocystis) with destruction of that particlar subsection.  Also, nothing Nereocystis has done here in that time since has ever been "fair."  Until the article is restored back to TRUE STATUS QUO and the overall problem itself may then be resolved (as I have been calling for since the "Ghostintheshell situation"), all edits by Nereocystis are disputed and should be halted, particularly this one.  So now we're full circle back to Ghostintheshell, just as I had always thought from the beginning.   Researcher 10:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested changes

message: Both of these sections are related to how people practice polygamy.  The Polygamy#How_polygamists_find_more_spouses section includes quite a bit of information beyond finding spouses.  Does anyone object to merging these sections.  If not, I will create a suggested rewrite.  I suspect that the combined sections will be shorter, removing some repetition and POV.  I hope that I can be fair, but would like other people's input to my rewrite. Nereocystis 22:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Readers should note that all actions by Nereocystis have been under dispute since they arrived, destroying the polygamy article with numerous sneaky vandalisms. So now Nereocystis seeks to destroy this particular subsection, having this subsection as their latest target for their sneaky vandalism.  That would seem to provide further evidence that Nereocystis is highly likely the same person as the previous sneaky vandal Ghostintheshell who had originally started all the sneaky vandalisms (as followed by Nereocystis) with destruction of that particlar subsection.  Also, nothing Nereocystis has done here in that time since has ever been "fair."  Until the article is restored back to TRUE STATUS QUO and the overall problem itself may then be resolved (as I have been calling for since the "Ghostintheshell situation"), all edits by Nereocystis are disputed and should be halted, particularly this one.  So now we're full circle back to Ghostintheshell, just as I had always thought from the beginning.   Researcher 10:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge [[Polygamy#Polygamy_worldwide]] and [[Polygamy#How_polygamists_find_more_spouses]]

message: I plan on updating  Polygamy#Recent_polygamy_prosections_and_convictions. I will concentrate on US cases, because I know how to find them.  There have been a number of recent prosecutions.  I want to emphasize cases where people are being charged with bigamy, though perhaps with other crimes added as well.  This prosecutions are interested for many reasons:
*To a polygamist, it is important to keep track of prosecutions to understand the risk of prosecutions for one's own crimes.
*To a civil libertarian, it is important to follow laws which reduce civil liberties.
*To neutral parties, it is interesting to understand the legal state of a fairly umcommon practice.
*To people strongly opposed to polygamy, I'm sure it's important for some reason.
Nereocystis 21:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Prosecutions of polygamists

message: The anti-polygamy article is being considered for deletion.  If you have an opinion on the deletion of the article, vote soon. I'm skipping  a vote, but want people interested in polygamy to be aware of the vote for deletion.  The vote ends soon. Nereocystis 17:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Anti-polygamy]] article considered for deletion

message: Reposted to this TALK page here by Researcher 17:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  For NPOV, the difference between neutral term vs. non-neutral POV agenda/debate MUST be Separated 

message: Please, Researcher99, let's discuss the text, and not my motives.  Let's choose one topic, Polygamy#Christians_.26_seculars_-_geographically_separated.  Tell us what you want, in exact words.  What is your TRUE STATUS QUO for this topic.  Talking will allow us to move forward. 
If you don't like this suggestion, please make another, specific suggestion.  Include text, and an explanation.  Nereocystis 00:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In controversial topics, Wikipedia Guidelines do not say that TRUE STATUS QUO is supposed to be debated before being restored.  Rather, the TRUE STATUS QUO is to be restored first and THEN those seeking to make the changes to that TRUE STATUS QUO in the controversial topic have to justify what changes THEY seek to make.  It is NOT the other way around, as Nereocystis is deceptively trying to imply here. Researcher 17:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A challenge, what is TRUE STATUS QUO of [[Polygamy#Christians_.26_seculars_-_geographically_separated]]

message: Despite their propaganda, the Tapestry Against Polygamy website is little more than a handful of ex-Fundamentalist Mormon Polygamous wives in the Utah area.  Their only real experience and actions are about the specific Fundamentalist Mormon groups from which they left.  They have no experience or actions with real Christian Polygamy, Muslim Polygamy, Secular Polygamy, etc.  So, the disqualifier for not including their link pertains to both scope and scale.
Mormon Fundamentalist polygamists practice polygamy, therefore the topic is appropriate for the scope of this article.  Mormon Fundamentalists are, I believe, the majority of the polygamists in the US, therefore they are far a minor footnote.  References do not need to cover every type of polygamist.  In fact, I expect most references to cover a small part of polygamy.  This article is a synthesis of a variety of polygamous sources.  Just as a truthbearer.org emphasizes Christian polygamy, this site emphasizes Mormon fundamentalist polygamy. Nereocystis 20:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A person's POV about what they "believe" supposedly comprises more population does not constitute NPOV - especially by one who has repeatedly proven to not know the topic of polygamy.  Actually, worldwide, there are probably more Muslim polygamists, but that also would not qualify turning the polygamy article into a Muslim-only POV article.  Because this "anti-polygamy" site's POV and experience only apply to specfic fundamentalist Mormon polygamous situations, they are a sub-sub-topical POV of the Mormon polygamy sub-topic.  (Polygamy is topic.  Mormon polygamy is sub-topic.  The "anti-polygamy" POV is a sub-sub-topic, i.e., a sub-topic of the sub-topic Mormon polygamy.) If there is any place for them in the article at all, it is not in a more generalized listing of External Links (by which they wrongly then appear as if they apply to all polygamy when they do not), but only as a means of describing their unique POV with regard to their specific experience with specific fundamentalist Mormon polygamous groups.  But neither their experience nor their excessively broad name applies to all of polygamy. Being such a sub-sub-topic means that, at best, they should only be in the parent sub-topic of Mormon polygamy - if at all. Researcher 19:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good we agree that having the URL primarily about Mormon polygamy does not limit it.  I'm investigating the numbers of polygamists, primarily Mormon, and hope to update article soon. Even this site does not seem to be completely against polygamy.   http://www.polygamy.org/faq.shtml says that they do not advocate raids, for example.  A brief neutral mention of Christian polygamy is on this URL as well.  http://www.polygamy.org/dangersigns.shtml mentions the danger signs of abuse within a polygamous relationship, suggesting that polygamous relationships need not include abuse. Anti-polygamy really isn't a subtopic. Over time, we should examine the links, and possibly split up the article. Some of the split may include a reference split. In the meantime, would you agree to have a better description of these sites and the information they provide. Nereocystis 21:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The supposed mention on that URL about Christian Polygamy is unsubstantiated and invented propaganda.  It is not neutral at all but is imaginary fiction, designed to make it look like they know what they are talking about when they only know about specific Mormon polygamous situations.  That URL merely claims the following absurd statement.  "Christian polygamists, is there such a thing? Yes, they claim to have over 14,000 participants worldwide and many of them are moving to the western United States, particularly Utah. Their main purpose in coming to Utah and surrounding areas is to convert the Mormon polygamists to Christian polygamy (since they don't believe Mormon fundamentalists to be Christians). " The only thing truthful about that small claim is in the parantheses. (That's because most evangelical Christians hold that POV about Mormons, of course).  Christian polygamists are not focused on targeting Mormons in Utah or anywhere else, but on bringing it to their own regular Christian churches.   See this page to see the real picture, especially the sections there titled, "Supporting Pastors" and "Supporting Bible-believing Christians."  This further proves that this "anti-polygamy" site is only a sub-sub-topic of Mormon polygamy issues and has no place being listed anywhere else.  The only thing I could consider possibly legitimate for link-placement in the polygamy article is as a mention in a Mormon polygamy subsection, and making specific reference to their coming out of those specific fundamentalist Mormon groups that they specifically left and know about.   They are not qualified as "anti-polygamy" itself (having no knowledge or experience with real Christian, Muslim, or secular polygamy, for example).  They are only as related as  a sub-sub-topic aspect of the Mormon polygamy sub-topical situations that they only know and apply.  They have no legitimacy being in the main Extended Links section, though. Researcher 15:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: That is a gross mis-application of what I said.  Since the "anti-polygamy" site's experience and application only applies to the local area of Utah (etc.) and to their POV with regard to specific fundamentalist Mormon polygamous groups, they are a sub-sub-topic concept.  It is in the same way as the previous issue with "The Wives of Joseph Smith" site was why I moved that link to the specific Mormon polygamy section.  That site and this "anti-polygamy" site are sub-sub-topical and therefore are not specific enough for anything but a possible mention in the Mormon polygamy section - if at all. Researcher 19:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Tapestry Against Polygamy'' 

message: The scope of Tapestry Against Polygamy is just too limited.  They deceptively use a name that implies all polygamy, but they are only about (if even capable of addressing) specific Fundamentalist Mormon Polygamous groups.  For comparison using a fictional but similar example, editing posters should consider the idea of a fictitious group of ex-Mormons calling themselves "Tapestry Against Religion."  Even though they only have any possible experience with specific offshoots of Mormonism, the small group uses grandiose language in propaganda saying that all religion is evil and that they supposedly fight for people's freedom to escape all religion.  Such a falsely named site, "Tapestry Against Religion," when it is only an anti-Mormon-religion site, would never be included as an external link on a "Religion" wiki.   In the same way, such a small-scoped site that should more accurately call itself "Tapestry Against Utah Fundamentlist Mormon Polygamy" does not have enough scope (or credibility) for inclusion as an external link.  The polygamy wiki is larger, encompassing all forms of polygamy.  Beyond the obvious reason of the site's misleading name, Tapestry Against Polygamy's scope is just too small and mis-representative for inclusion in the polygamy wiki.
The site should be well-described in the link on this article.  Your belief that the name is deceptive does not mean that the link should be removed.  Again, references are not required to cover the entire scope of polygamy. While you claim that this site does not have credibility, you don't introduce evidence to prove this claim.  There are more Mormon fundamentalist polygamists in the US than Christian polygamists.  By this argument, all references to Christian polygamy should be removed.  That would be wrong. Nereocystis 20:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a gross mis-application of what I said.  Since the "anti-polygamy" site's experience and application only applies to the local area of Utah (etc.) and to their POV with regard to specific fundamentalist Mormon polygamous groups, they are a sub-sub-topic concept.  It is in the same way as the previous issue with "The Wives of Joseph Smith" site was why I moved that link to the specific Mormon polygamy section.  That site and this "anti-polygamy" site are sub-sub-topical and therefore are not specific enough for anything but a possible mention in the Mormon polygamy section - if at all. Researcher 19:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope 

message: The scale of Tapestry Against Polygamy is just too small.  They are a handful of women out of Utah, dealing only with Utah (and vicinity) related issues of specific Fundamentalist Mormon Polygamous groups.  For that, they are just too small scale.  For comparison using a different topic, editing posters should consider what would apply in the following similiar situation.  Consider one single state's Democratic Party web-site.  Even though they oppose the Republican Party, their one-state site would be too small in scale for inclusion as an External Link on a wiki for the U.S. national Republican Party.  The polygamy wiki is larger, encompassing issues beyond Utah.  Tapestry Against Polygamy's scale is also too small for inclusion in the polygamy wiki.
When we have too many references, we can talk about deleting references.  Again, Mormon fundmentalist polygamists are a very large part of the US polygamists. Nereocystis 20:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scale 

message: With a name like Hope for the Child Brides, it is clearly a propaganda site.  Connecting the "child brides" issue to polygamy is the exclusive invention of anti-polygamist propaganda.  The very few examples of any alleged "connection" where polygamists are involved with that issue are as limited in scale as it would be in scale to any "connection" with monogamists.  As honest research of pro-polygamy perspectives proves, most polygamists oppose the "connection" and the issue.  The site makes no recognition of that fact.  It only generalizes the propaganda and implication that all polygamy in general somehow "involves child brides."   That generalization is outright fiction, being made from a website based in one small geographic area. It could even be called hate speech because the name and suggestion deliberately inflames people to violently hate polygamists for something that most polygamists actually never do or support.  For comparison using a fictional but similar example, editing posters should consider the idea of a fictitious group called "Hope for the Raped Little Boys" having a link placed on the "Homosexuality" wiki, with an extremely inflammatory domain name, called "RapedBoys.org."  That kind of a "hate speech" site, making that kind of offensive hostile suggested "connection" to all homosexuality would never be allowed in that wiki.   For the same reason, Hope for the Child Brides  is just too inflammatory and "hate speech" for inclusion in the polygamy wiki.
First you state that "Hope for the Child Brides" does not advocate the elimination of polygamy, then you claim that they are anti-polygamy.  I don't understand how you can use both arguments.  Please choose one, though both arguments are irrelevant. This site is devoted to helping victims and ending the abuse of women and children in polygamous lifestyles, which does not mean that all people are abused in polygamous lifestyles.  But again, a NPOV article includes all POV, including the POV of people opposed to polygamy.  Thus the article is relevant. Nereocystis 20:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is another example of unnecessary attack.  I point out how the site itself tried to "have its cake and eat it too" but then I am the one accused of trying to do that!  After clicking the "enter" link on the site's home-page, the second page openly states, "We are against child abuse, especially underage child marriage; we are not activists against polygamy.   Although polygamy is illegal, our purpose is not to eliminate it."  They are the ones trying to "have their cake and eat it too."  Anyone can throw up a web-site and claim a POV, but that does mean there is any validity to their claim.  Like the other "anti-polygamy" site, even if their claims are valid, they also are only involved with specific groups of specific fundamentalist Mormon polygamy.  This would be just another sub-sub-topic matter, if at all. They are certainly not sufficient for inclusion in the External Links. Researcher 19:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Inflammatory generalization'' 

message: Those 2 links must be removed from the article. 
Researcher 19:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Readers should note that it is, of course, always expected that a deliberately hostile anti-polygamist such as the outed Nereocystis would make the above kinds of assertions and obfuscations.  They pretend to know about WP:NPOV and arrogantly think they can instruct me about those principles when it is Nereocystis who is the one who is obfuscating with those very principles.  Not only has the anti-polygamist Nereocystis outrageously obfuscated in the past by falsely calling obvious NPOV as POV, here they are obfuscating in the reverse, falsely calling obvious POV as NPOV.  The sites do not teach the readers about polygamy, and the descriptions are pure POV advertisements.  The sites and the descriptions do not even clarify that they only deal with a very, very tiny proportion of global polygamy.  Utah is not the world and Polygamy does not equal Mormon Polygamy!  "Human rights" violations?  That hyperbole is way over-the-top POV, dealing only with side-issues and having nothing to do with polygamy itself.  Those side-issues occur with monogamists, too, but it would not be appropriate to smear all monogamists just because someone happens to create a web-site that implies all monogamists do that.  That's utterly ridiculous.  Since those "anti-polygamy" sites only deal with very specific situations with only very specific fundamentalist Mormon polygamous groups, and nothing else, it is completely hostile POV to place those links anywhere near any other forms.  The only closest possibility for even considering the minimalist of possibilities of allowing those sites to be listed might be only in the Mormon polygamy section, in possibly showing their responses only to those specific situations (such as the mention of underage issue with some of those very specific Mormon polygamous groups).  Also, polygamists have reached out to those sites to seek working together to stand against those other side-issue abuses, but those sites have refused, even further discrediting their sincerity of POV.  (For cited-proof examples, this page from Anti-Polygamy.org and  also the Anti-Polygamy (but actually only Anti-Mormon) section at this other page from ChristianPolygamy.INFO.) Even if those "Anti-polygamy" sites are instead listed in that Mormon polygamy section as a sub-topic mention, then NPOV would still equally require that it also be mentioned how those sites have refused such open arms from other polygamists to address the side issue abuses.  But those "anti-polygamy" sites do not belong anywhere near anything but the specific sub-sections to which they barely apply.  They clearly do not provide sufficient information for placement in an Extended Links section.  Other than that, though, the sites and particularly the excessive advertising hyperbole of the current descriptions in the Extended links section of this polygamy article do not actually inform the reader of anything but hostile POV propaganda.  They do not provide Wikipedia readers with accurate or NPOV information.   So, accuracy and NPOV in the article requires the sites' removal.  (Additional:  Readers should also note how, when I had genuinely tried to open up an anti-polygamy article to allow such anti-polygamy POV's to be "equally presented," the hostile anti-polygamist Nereocystis immediately sabotaged that sincere effort.  But now, suddenly they once again "believe" in supposedly providing balance?  Noting the same falsehood of that insincere new-found "belief," readers can also expect that, if the sites are kept, Nereocystis will likely also sabotage such "equal balance" of noting how pro-polygamists reached out but were refused!)  Basically, though, the sites do not belong at all.  Researcher 18:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Also: this is another example of proof that Nereocystis has always had no intention of TALKING ever, only aggressively acting and then telling. I laid out point by point here in solid outline format as to why those sites are not qualified.  Yet instead of dealing with all those points, Nereocystis walked right past them and continued on with their own hostile POV, as if the points had never been explained.  This is why I have not been able to ever have a real TALK with them, because Nereocystis will always slash and burn, and then instead of considerately seeking the wealth of knowledge I bring to this topic, they ignore and destroy just about everything and anything I do. Nereocystis really needs to learn Wikipedia Guidelines. Researcher 19:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Readers should note that nothing would make me happier here than to see Wikipedia:Wikiquette and the Wikipedia Guidelines followed.  But Nereocystis has never once followed the Guidelines or politeness to me.  Here's the problem.  Instead of following the Wikipedia Guidelines about not "acting reckless" in a controversial topic such as this one, and instead of allowing a restoration back to TRUE STATUS QUO in order to THEN talk (as Guidelines require), Nereocystis (who does not really even know this topic) destroys everything in the article and that I do, rejects all the accommodations I make for them and they return the favor by consistently wiping out about 98% of my NPOV edits, prevents every attempt I make to correct their destructions, obfuscates POV as NPOV and NPOV as POV, walks over and ignores every point I make in TALK as if I never made them, violates the Wikipedia Guidelines which require the ceasing of their edits until we resolve the issue, and then fakes their supposed "civility" expecting a TALK can happen when they have me under their gun-to-my-head these ways.  When I can restore to TRUE STATUS QUO (while trying to preserve some of the good edits by others that have also been made), and when TRUE Wikipedia:Wikiquette is treated toward me (and with respectfulness of the proven wealth of knowledge I am glad to volunteer here), there can be no real TALK. That is because all of thesse issues are why TALK does not happen in the first place.  (Notice how my points about the "anti-polygamy" sites are still being ignored, for example.)  I am glad to discuss wherever any of my edits may be improved for greater clarity and NPOV, but I am honestly fed up with everything being recklessly destroyed by an outed disrespectful hostile POV anti-polygamist who does not even know the topic.   No matter how many times I have genuinely tried to accommodate Nereocystis, they have never been willing to accommodate me.  Never. Always destruction and never justified.  That is the proof of who really needs to learn about Wikipedia:Wikiquette.  I so very much want to see TRUE Wikipedia:Wikiquette.  Readers may be assured of that!  It is my hope to see that, actually.   Researcher 19:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

text: This changed in 2001, with the conviction of Thomas Arthur Green
Unless this is explained, I will remove the dubious tag. If it is explained, then we can work on a wording which is agreeable to both of us.  See Talk:Polygamy#Multiple_divorce_and_marriage_for_polygamy for my discussion of the Tom Green case. Nereocystis 18:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Once again, readers may note how aggressive Nereocystis is here.  The issue has most definitely not been resolved.  It was never restored to TRUE STATUS QUO for THEN having discussion as according to Wikipedia Guidelines.  The dubious tag was added only so as not to fill up the article with numerous big "STOP" signs all over it.  Nereocystis continues to try to manufacture a mountain out of a molehill on this subtopic.  Utah is NOT going after polygamists for co-habitating. Plus, what happened in one state (Utah) is not a nationwide applicability, as Nereocystis keeps trying to leave as the implication.   No matter how many sources, I have provided, though,  Nereocystis keeps trying to create that illusion that they are.  Here is yet another recent proof: Symposium Tackles Modern Polygamy Problem.  They are working with the polygamists to address the real crimes.  It shows they are not going after co-habitating polygamy.   Researcher 17:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

text: On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of what their POV is.
These sites should stay. Dubious isn't really appropriate for a link, this tag is for an inaccurate statement. Nereocystis 20:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

text: For Wikipedia readers of the article, it is better for them that they see that it is disputed rather than have the article filled with numerous big "STOP" blocks.  As far as I am concerned, the links are very much dubious.  At best, they only might be placeable in the Mormon Polygamy section with appropriate responses, or not at all.  Until the issue is addressed, they should actually be removed (back to TRUE STATUS QUO) and THEN discussed.  Until those Wikipedia Guidelines are followed, the less-intrusive (for the reader) dubious tag more appropriately fits the bill.  Researcher 17:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Those 2 hostile POV links must be removed 

message: This article has had some posts by User:Researcher99 which I didn't really understand before.  I now have an hypothesis.  Will Researcher99 confirm, deny, or expand on these theories.
There are many groups of Christian polygamists.  http://www.nccg.org/fecpp/CPM051-History.html has a description of the world scene of Christian polygamy. Two of the groups are Truth Bearer, founded by Mark Henkel, and God's Free Men and Women, also known as BFree, founded by Stephen Butt. Butt was tutored by Henkel in Christian polygamy.  They had a falling out. The 2 groups now ignore each other.
: This is a humorous theory.  Nereocystis cites a one-man site that no other polygamy site links to, in order to create an amusing theory.  If there are all these "different groups," then why doesn't the BFree site have anything about polygamy from its front door on its site?  That is some group! They are so big that they don't even talk about polygamy.  If that site or the other cited "history description" site is so credible, then why aren't there all kinds of media interviews validating it?  Also, since no polygamy sites link to these two other sites, and they are not even recognized in Christian Polygamy, then what credibility do they have?  The answer is none, of course.  Obviously, there are no such "other groups" of Christian Polygamy.  Any crazy person with internet access and web code can make a web-site, but that does not mean they tell anything true or represent anything more than their own one-man imaginations.  The absence of any accountability invalidates them as uncredible.  At least the Truthbearer organization has numerous accountabiity with media interviews.  There are no "other groups." Researcher 17:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nereocystis really needs to do their homework on the history.  Here is what the online research shows.  There are no such "other groups."  See these two articles from two different websites:   The History of the "Movement" and July 4, 2004 - Christian Polygamy 'Movement' is 10 Years Old.  From the research, anyone can see that the movement began on July 4, 1994 when Mark Henkel began publishing the Bible arguments.  As those doctrinal explanations spread, the movement grew.  These were regular Christians in regular evangelical churches.  (See this page's explanations about supporting Pastors and Believers.)  As would happen anywhere with anything else, some lunatics with strange ideas arrived along the way and tried to claim what I've seen called a "me too" connection. Out comes the absurd, trying to claim ridiculous ideas. Knowing that anti-polygamists would wrongly try to exploit any lunatic's absurd claims or doctrines in order to wrongly mis-define Christian Polygamy, the movement itself made it clear that Christian Polygamy is not connected with lunatic fringe ideas.  After all, the original and true Christian Polygamists were normal regular Christians in regular churches.   Lunatic fringes were trying to piggy back on what the true Christian Polygamists had started.  Christian Polygamists certainly did not want to be wrongly connected with things they were never connected with.  They correctly also knew in advance that anti-polygamists (in the same way as Nereocystis has cleverly tried to do here!) would try to lie in propaganda about the definition of Christian Polygamy by citing the lunatic fringes' false attempts to also attach themselves to the movement.   For that reason, the movement appropriately clarified what is and is not "Christian Polygamy."  This can be specifically seen at the article What Christian Polygamy is NOT.  Fringe ideas apparently ranged from "British Israelite" racism to semi-mormonism to weird ideas such as "preterist doctrines" (the last one which I learned refers to a bizarre doctrine that thinks Christ already returned to earth a few decades after hanging on the cross ).  Among those fringe ideas was to attempt what was later called "force polygamy."  This was not some emergence of "other groups."   Instead, it was only lunatic idea that a small few tried to advance rather forcefully.  To put an end to it once and for all, the same man who had originated the doctrinal arguments that started the movement in the first place, Mark Henkel, came up with a set of principles to put an end to that attempted lunatic fringe re-definition.  Considering that he was the one whose rhetoric had started the movement, it was logical and credible that he also be the one to clarify what Christian Polygamy had always been from the first place: Love-not-force.  As that site shows, there was some opposition by a small few.  However, years later, Love-not-force has become the established "Standard of Christian Polygamy."  The opposition of lone lunatics have mostly "disappeared," finding no support from regular Christians in Christian Polygamy.  So, there are no "other groups."   Just as there are lunatic fringes who claim to be "Christian" in general, who would obviously not qualify as definitions of being Christian, any lunatic fringes trying to attach themselves to Christian Polygamy also do not qualify as definition of Christian Polygamists.   Just because someone can put up some webcode on a web-site, that does not mean they know anything about Christian Polygamy.  That makes it significant and explains why polygamy sites do not link to any lunatic fringe sites, even if one or more still remains online.  All of this homework was easily available for Nereocystis to investigate, but they apparently chose not to. Researcher 17:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: This is humorous too.  Now my writing style is being used to assert silly ideas about me.  I also did not mention by name the "anti-polygamy" sites in those particular TALK posts either, but that doesn't mean anything there either.  When I have answered an issue repeatedly,  I then reach a point that I refuse to keep repeating myself.  So, just because I refused to keep repeating my answers in my own style, now Nereocystis tries to imagine an absurd motive to attach to my writing style!  Researcher 17:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Seeking to remove the NPOV love-not-force reference is what proves the intended purpuse of this deceptive game being played by Nereocystis has been to prevent Wikipedia readers from learning the information and discovering that "all polygamy" is not as bad as that hostile anti-polygamist wants readers to perceive.   As expained previously, there are no such "other groups" of Christian Polygamy.  Actually, the movement is generalized.  Truthbearer is the organization that those who are activist advance their movement.  That is not a group, it is organizing activism.  It is humorous that it does not seem to occur to Nereocystis that the reason they can not find the claimed Stephen Butt book on a site that does not talk about polygamy at all is because it might not even exist.  Yet Nereocystis keeps it in their mind to want to list in the polygamy article as  a valid Bibliography.  They deliberately want to remove the proven Love-not-force "Standard" while equally trying to keep pushing a supposed "book" that cannot be found.  If they were serious about NPOV, they should spend their time on actual research. Researcher 17:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Once again, if Nereocystis would stop trying to be so deliberately destructive, would correctly accept and assist in getting the article back to TRUE STATUS QUO so that THEN a true TALK could go forth, and if they would enlist the wealth of knowledge and research I bring instead of trying to destroy everything I say and do, their "paranoia" would not be filling these TALK pages and wasting so much time. Researcher 17:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is definitely not NPOV to suggest that "other groups" exist when they do not.  It is reporting a falsehood with an anti-polygamy POV agenda to distort a definition.  A one-man fringe site such as Nereocystis likes to now suggest obviously is not a group.  Where are the links to it from other polygamy sites to it?  Where is the media accountability?   Where is the proof that the one-man has done anything?  Just having a web-site proves nothing.   The old Truthbearer links page only shows a list of a number of one-man types of sites.  That does not translate "one-man sites" into "groups."  For all Nereocystis knows, the truthbearer organization could have discovered some new things being claimed on that fringe site which clearly proved that the one-man site was not valid.  (I know I have found some weird things on it right away.) It even could mean that the truthbearer organization served a good purpose for Wikipedia by discovering that and changing accordingly.  Just because that correction occurs does not suddenly mean that a one-man site is somehow being honest when they make further bogus claims about themselves or even about the truthbearer organization.  It definitely does not mean that a one-man fringe site is some form of "group." Researcher 00:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here's something additional I just found from the link provided earlier by Nereocystis.  According to  another page at that one-man fringe site, it appears that that site was spotted as definitely not being "Christian" by another site which is listed in the External Links.  The one-man fringe site even quotes what the other site said.  The quotes there definitely do show that the one-man fringe site does not qualify to be recognized as "Christian" at all.  The other site had tried to be as gracious in its descrption toward that one-man fringe site, but the fringe site considered it a great offense, even as the fringe site admitted to accepting the very things which proved it is not really "Christian."  This further proves how the truthbearer organization was wise to  stop linking to such an obvious fringe site.  Researcher 00:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Infighting among Christian polygamy groups does not validate their links.  It's true that you and S. John Butt no longer get along, but that doesn't mean you have to deny his existence. Polygamy is not emphasized by his group as much as it used to be, but it is still taught. This link http://www.bfree.org/media/position.htm, which is available from the main page, links to the BFree's patriarchy site. http://www.christianpoly.org/numbered.html links to FICP. Both of them list different interpretations of Christian polygamy.  Both web sites have a following, though I don't know how big. Let the marketplace of ideas decide which form of Christian polygamy, if any, is best.  Wikipedia should list the sites. Both sites consider themselves Christian, even if you do not.  In Wikipedia, we don't we describe the situation, we don't offer judgement. Please quote the Wikipedia:Verifiability section which disallows these links. I believe that the sites stay. Nereocystis 14:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was just about to post my Offer for Resolution when I found this latest reply above.  Nereocystis seems to be suggesting that I am somebody else.  That's funny.  Whatever.  They have still not provided any proof that any of those invalid one-man sites are "groups."  They have not provided any valid proof that the supposed "in-fighting" they now suggest ever occurred.  Just because a lunatic fringe makes bizarre claims does not provide proof of anything.  Wikipedia:Verifiability policy even says so.  The sites Nereocystis lists do not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Verifiability policy.  Even the out-dated "position" page they cite doesn't call itself Christian polygamy.  On the other site, so what that another invalid race-based one-man site links to a lunatic fringe site's attempt at a "webring".  That proves nothing too.  Wikipedia articles are supposed to be factual and NPOV.  The Wikipedia:Verifiability policy is a necessary requirement.  Articles are definitely not for judgment.  Judgment is POV!  Christian Polygamy originated as one concept and continues as one concept.  Just because some unproven lunatic fringe sites want to put their "me too" stamp on something does not mean that they are qualified to change the original and actual ongoing definition of Christian Polygamy.  Obviously, these sites should not be added.  After I post this here, it is my plan to still post my Offer for Resolution.  As that offer will suggest, this latest issue here (about these one-man sites) needs to be back-burnered, if at all, so that we can resolve the issues in a good and positive fashion.  These other one-man sites will need to stay of the article in the meantime until it can be discussed later, if necessary at all.  With that in mind, I hope we can go forward. Researcher 17:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible theory about BFree, citation removal, and Love-not-Force URL

message: Nereocystis has added two invalid links which I will be removing.  I will be glad to discuss those here in TALK.  For now, I will simply point out that both of those links are both one-man sites.  As the post I made above (00:25, 4 August 2005) pointed out, one has already been proven to not be Christian at all by another site, as quoted on the site's own pages.  It also was a "johnny-come-lately" and lunatic fringe site claiming to be "first" when it was no such thing (and is not even Christian anyway).  The second site is also not Christian.  It also is not even current.  If one goes to the root page of the BFree site, and then tries to surf from there to anywhere else on the site, there is no link anywhere leading to anything about polygamy.  That says a lot.  A site that itself is not leading to polygamy is certainly not a valid site.  Wikipedia:Verifiability really applies in this situation with these two links.  Since polygamy sites are not currently linking to those sites, it demonstrates that, even if other sites might have previously extended graciousness to them in the past, they have fully rejected them currently.  Rejected one-man sites certainly do not meet the Wikipedia:Verifiability standards.  I will remove the links from the polygamy article.  As I will be offering a way for getting the overall various dispute issues resolved, I will be glad to further discuss these two links in TALK when the discussion is able to continue on this matter.  For now, I ask that another good faith act proceed, to not battle over this link issue for now, so that focus can first be put on solving the bigger issues for now.  I am hopeful that this process of resolution and good faith acts can continue. Researcher 13:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Infighting among Christian polygamy groups does not validate their links.  It's true that you and S. John Butt no longer get along, but that doesn't mean you have to deny his existence. Polygamy is not emphasized by his group as much as it used to be, but it is still taught. This link http://www.bfree.org/media/position.htm, which is available from the main page, links to the BFree's patriarchy site. http://www.christianpoly.org/numbered.html links to FICP. Both of them list different interpretations of Christian polygamy.  Both web sites have a following, though I don't know how big. Let the marketplace of ideas decide which form of Christian polygamy, if any, is best.  Wikipedia should list the sites. Both sites consider themselves Christian, even if you do not.  In Wikipedia, we don't we describe the situation, we don't offer judgement. Please quote the Wikipedia:Verifiability section which disallows these links. I believe that the sites stay. Nereocystis 14:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was just about to post my Offer for Resolution when I found this latest reply above.  Nereocystis seems to be suggesting that I am somebody else.  That's funny.  Whatever.  They have still not provided any proof that any of those invalid one-man sites are "groups."  They have not provided any valid proof that the supposed "in-fighting" they now suggest ever occurred.  Just because a lunatic fringe makes bizarre claims does not provide proof of anything.  Wikipedia:Verifiability policy even says so.  The sites Nereocystis lists do not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Verifiability policy.  Even the out-dated "position" page they cite doesn't call itself Christian polygamy.  On the other site, so what that another invalid race-based one-man site links to a lunatic fringe site's attempt at a "webring".  That proves nothing too.  Wikipedia articles are supposed to be factual and NPOV.  The Wikipedia:Verifiability policy is a necessary requirement.  Articles are definitely not for judgment.  Judgment is POV!  Christian Polygamy originated as one concept and continues as one concept.  Just because some unproven lunatic fringe sites want to put their "me too" stamp on something does not mean that they are qualified to change the original and actual ongoing definition of Christian Polygamy.  Obviously, these sites should not be added.  After I post this here, it is my plan to still post my Offer for Resolution.  As that offer will suggest, this latest issue here (about these one-man sites) needs to be back-burnered, if at all, so that we can resolve the issues in a good and positive fashion.  These other one-man sites will need to stay of the article in the meantime until it can be discussed later, if necessary at all.  With that in mind, I hope we can go forward. Researcher 17:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Invalid links

message: I am glad to be able to bring the wealth of long-researched knowledge on this topic to this polygamy article.  I am open to anyone respectfully working with me to build upon that information I bring, hopeful that we could now possibly see an end to any targeting or destruction of what I have tried to share in the past.  If others can also help me better clarify things in my sole intent of NPOV and accuracy at Wikipedia, I am fully glad and welcoming of that.
I am even glad to be able to teach Nereocystis the things I have shared and can share as we go forward.  I simply needed an easier, friendler way than the former pattern in which to share it with them.  I am now hopeful that this could be the beginning of that happening.
As I said at the beginning of this, I am grateful to see the beginning of good faith acts.  It has given me hope that we now have the opportunity to finally move forward in a positive way.  I hope that my offer here and mutual good faith acts can also help to get us there.
Signed, Researcher 17:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hope for this Positive Conclusion

message: :Let's just agree that we have a different interpretation of what happened in the past.  What's important is that we try to move forward.  I could write up my description of the past, attacking you in various ways.  Then you could attack me.  I think that it's all your fault, you think it's my fault.  This method wouldn't solve anything. Let's concentrate on moving forward.  It really doesn't matter who is right here.  Nereocystis 23:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am so glad we are TALKING.  I very much want to go forward in a positive way, because I am finding it tiresome and even de-motivating to have such a sense of dread before every time I come back and load the Wikipedia pages over these past few months only to see what new terrible issue has occurred that I am going to have to deal with here.  I want that to end so this can be an enjoyable experience helping Wikipedia.  What I was trying to communicate with you was the evidence of a "bad attitude" towards me.  You came with all your volumes of incorrect edits and aggressiveness.  I did not.  I tried to correct them, but I have not responded with aggressiveness.  The fact that the polygamy article now sits with numerous issues of changes which I now dispute is evidence that I am not and have not been the aggressor here. It also shows that I am the one who is the truly Wikpedia-patient  editor here seeking to peaceably get the article corrected appropriately.  For me, I have no battles of this kind anywhere else in my life.   I am not that kind of a confrontational person.  I am a facts-based kind of person.  So it has been disconcerting to see statements that my presentations of facts somehow represents extreme bias.  Then when I discover that such statements are mostly based on lack of information, I want to get that needed information forward to get the situation corrected.  The only real POV bias I bring, I suppose, is an opposition to proven false propaganda that causes honest people to get harmed by the mis-information, no matter what the topic.  I am a dedicated researcher and have been surprised and also baffled at the negativity brought toward me. So, I want to go forward with a confidence that I will no longer receive the kinds of treatments that has brought us to this point.  Denying the proven history (and making the denial without a single bit of proof to verify the denial's validity), shows me that the "bad attitude" is still sufficiently there.  That means to me that, when the discussion goes forward, that same approach of "just denying" the proven facts will recur.  I want to avoid that.  I want this to work, but if you still are capable of "just denying" the proven facts, that makes me very concerned that that "bad attitude" is going to sabotage our efforts before we even begin.   Honestly,  I really need you to shed that attitude against me if you are ever going to be able to genuinely treat me respectfully.  Your willingness to stop that will add great amounts of confidence that this is and can be a legitimate and fair discussion that we are about to undertake. Researcher 17:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would prefer not to say that you have extreme bias, but just to say that you have bias, as do we all.  Sometimes a person's bias and POV make it difficult to understand the arguments which another person has. Bias does not make you a bad person, but each of us has to discuss the perceived bias in the article, and try to find a way which both of us are comfortable with.  Nereocystis 17:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  In my opinion, denying your description of the past is a good attitude, if I followed a bad attitude, I would write up a description of every time you violated my perception of the rules.  I'm avoiding doing this. Nereocystis 17:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

text:  I'll give you a short version.  I wrote a description of many of by edits in the talk page before I made the edits in the article.  I waited for what I thought was a reasonable amount of time. For most of the rest of the changes, I described them in the talk page after I made the change. Again, there was no objection in the talk page.  You have an explanation for why you didn't respond.  While I understand your reasons somewhat, I don't agree with your actions of the past. However, I don't think we accomplish anything by deciding which of us is the purer wikipedian.  Nereocystis 17:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

text:  You think I violated the rules; I think you violated the rules.  The good news is that we don't have to decide who was worse, if we give it another try.  Nereocystis 17:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

text:  If I really had a bad attitude, I would continue my perceived list of your violations. But I will stop here. Nereocystis 17:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

text:  Let's continue talking and move forward.  Let's try to discuss the article itself soon. Nereocystis 17:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I appreciate much of what you say here, although I am not trying to bring up the past.  In order to go forward, I need to trust that the "bad attitude" against me that put us here is not going to recur.  As for when you overwhelmed the TALK page with numerous disputes, the article was already under a matter of serious problem.  To bring those up that way then was nothing more than flooding the situation with more problems all at once than could be handled. So, that was not a positive method to apply at all, and I did not ignore you.  Actually, it is specificially because of that method of overwhelming the TALK pages with so many issues that is why I required the "one-at-a-time" method in my offer for resolution.  Anyway, I do very much want us to move forward.  I am hopeful for that.  Researcher 19:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry if it seemed that I overwhelmed the talk page.  That wasn't my goal. My goal was to place the issues with the article as I saw them. Perhaps there were too many issues at once. Let's try one issue at a time. Nereocystis 21:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: DISCUSSION: Item 1

message: I'm going to assume that Researcher99 and I are close enough that we can start discussing the first item, Polygamy#Recent_polygamy_prosections_and_convictions.  Rather than bringing back previous arguments, let's look at what we really want in this article.
I want to a description of the legal status of polygamy and polygamous lifestyles worldwide.  Researcher99 has a valid complaint that Tom Green's case applies only to Utah.   With Tom Green being the only legal case mentioned, there is a suggestion, incorrect, of course, that the Utah decision applies everywhere.  If we had a list of the legal status of polygamy in various countries, Utah's Green case could be put in context.
Please take a look at same-sex marriage for another article which does this for a different type of marriage.  There is a section on Same-sex marriage#Current status of same-sex religious marriage and Same-sex marriage#Current status of same-sex civil_marriage.
You don't need to agree with the legalization of polygamy or same-sex marriage to see that the concept is useful. Polygamists may choose their home based upon the law, or perhaps decide where the lawsuits should be filed.  People opposed to polygamy can follow the latest laws and lawsuits about polygamy. It will take a while to fill in the information about different countries, but it can be started soon.
For polygamy, there are a few distinct issues:
#Is a polygamous couple allowed to marry?
#:This may include legal types of polygamous marriage, polygyny may be legal in some countries which outlaw polyandry, for example.
#Is a polygamous lifestyle legal?
#:Tom Green was convicted of polygamy even though he wasn't legally married.
#If it is illegal, is polygamy prosecuted?
#:In Utah, for example, most polygamous Mormon fundamentalists are left alone, though some are prosecuted.
The goal of this section is to describe current practices, not to suggest what the law should be.
As part of a long list of laws and prosecutions, the Tom Green case will take its proper role, as the law in one state, at one time.
Can we give this approach a try? Nereocystis 00:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tom Green and legal status of polygamy