| Revision as of 16:11, 8 July 2005 editResearcher99 (talk | contribs)511 edits →The Sneaky Vandal Attacked This Wiki AGAIN← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 03:48, 26 March 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,839,969 edits Reminder of an inactive anchor: Remove 1 non-defunct anchor |
| (869 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Template:Notable Citation|Berkeley Journal of International Law}} |
|
|
|
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes|search=no}} |
|
|
{{controversial}} |
|
|
{{Not a forum|personal beliefs, nor for engaging in ]/]s}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Anthropology|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Law|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Family and relationships}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement|importance=mid}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Notable Citation|Berkeley Journal of International Law}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==Archive== |
|
{{Archive box |
|
|
| auto = yes |
|
|
| search = yes |
|
|
| index = /Archive index |
|
|
| bot = MiszaBot |
|
|
| units = days |
|
|
| age = 180 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
|
| maxarchivesize = 50K |
|
|
| counter = 8 |
|
|
| minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|
| algo = old(180d) |
|
|
| archive = Talk:Polygamy/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
| target = Talk:Polygamy/Archive index |
|
|
| mask = Talk:Polygamy/Archive <#> |
|
|
| leading_zeros = 0 |
|
|
| indexhere = yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
== Polygamy in Indonesia == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why map say "Polygamy is legal in some regions (Indonesia)"? There is no national law than ban polygamy national wide. Even the latest law (the 2019 Marriage Law) does not prohibit it. (Poke {{ping|Pharexia}}) -- ] ] 09:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
] ] ] |
|
|
|
== "Bigamy (in Canon Law)" listed at ] == |
|
|
] |
|
|
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ] and has thus listed it ]. This discussion will occur at ] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 12:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
== "Bigamy (in Civil Law)" listed at ] == |
|
|
] |
|
|
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ] and has thus listed it ]. This discussion will occur at ] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 13:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Lack of research == |
|
==The Sneaky Vandal Attacked This Wiki AGAIN== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The prevalence section of the article says „Research into the prevalence of polyamory has been limited“ but then doesnt stick to it. I think we should be trimming this section, specifically the percentages. We should be grounded here and stick with the simple fact that there is not much solid research. |
|
===ADMINS PLEASE HELP!=== |
|
|
|
Also, Amy Moors specifically is not a good source. There is a lot of criiticism against her, like her messing around with samples and sample sizes. At the very least we shouldnt quote her. But generally I think the section should be smaller. ] (]) 13:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
As for over two months now, this wiki desparately needs assistance in preventing the from destroying it and from rv'ing valid edits from being made. |
|
|
|
|
|
I have repeatedly asked that we follow the Yet every time I try to get the wiki back to that point so that a real conversation can THEN begin, the sneaky vandal ] 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 ] 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 <i>their</i> 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 ] total dishonesty in presenting falsehoods. One need only look to how quickly ] broke their word. |
|
|
|
|
|
On , ] said, <i>"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."</i> But no sooner had I returned 10 days later to make the valid corrective edits again, ] outright broke that word to hold off. While I might not know about elsewhere, but where I come from, that's called <b>lying</b>, plain and simple. |
|
|
|
|
|
===TWICE now, Nereocystis has wiped out entire valid work=== |
|
|
|
|
|
Once again, the repeatedly outed sneaky vandal ] has destroyed all the valid work I have done. <b>Twice</b>, now, they have completely removed all the valid work I did. |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote> |
|
|
1. All the completely valid edits I made from through were wiped . |
|
|
<br><br> |
|
|
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 through was again |
|
|
</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
===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 ] |
|
|
|
|
|
# (→Forms of polygamy - Again, Polygamy is not group marriage.) |
|
|
# (→Group marriage - Created subsection with greater accuracy and brevity) |
|
|
# (→External links - Remove ANON commercial SPAM ad for book previously online for free from other site. ANON posted: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Polygamy&diff=13530246&oldid=13529954) |
|
|
# (→Bibliography - Removing SPAM ads also posted by the same ANON. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Polygamy&diff=next&oldid=13530246 NOTE: tiny inapplicable self-pub books not valid Biblio) |
|
|
# (→External links - Joseph Smith is NOT the "founder" of MODERN polygamy - he was only that for MORMON Polygamy.) |
|
|
# (→External links - Remove link here so as to then move it to the Mormon section as it is more specific and should be there.)<br> |
|
|
# (→Mormon polygamy - Moved WivesOfJosephSmith.org to this more applicable Mormon section) |
|
|
# (→External links - ANON not really Jewish Polygamy. When some other site is about this, tho, THAT would then apply. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Polygamy&diff=13735676&oldid=13735596) |
|
|
# (→External links - Per TALK, Removed link due to Scope & Scale SEE: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Polygamy/Archive_2#Tapestry_Against_Polygamy) |
|
|
# (→External links - Removed link due to Inflammatory Generalization & Self-admitted Irrelevance. SEE: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Polygamy/Archive_2#Hope_for_the_Child_Brides) |
|
|
# (→Patterns of occurrence - Corrected false & hostile-implication over-generalization) |
|
|
# (→Mormon polygamy - Clarifying that most modern polygamists oppose anecdotal "connections" and that "all" polygamy is not necessarily Mormon polygamy.) |
|
|
# (→Multiple divorce and marriage for polygamy - To keep this paragraph on-topic with its subheading) |
|
|
# (→Multiple divorce and marriage for polygamy - Removed content not applicable to the subheading title, as prep for move of applicable portion to another section) |
|
|
# (→Multiple divorce and marriage for polygamy) |
|
|
# (→Mormon polygamy - Relocate appropriate segment that was removed from "Multiple divorce and marriage for polygamy" section) |
|
|
# (→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.) |
|
|
# (→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 <i>agenda</i> 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 <i>agenda</i>. 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 ] has done that to me, not once, but <b><i>twice</i></b>! |
|
|
|
|
|
Only one day after I had re-made those demonstrably valid corrective edits, They added the falsehood, "<i>rv Researcher99's changes, which he refuses to discuss on talk page</i>." (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 <i>three minutes later</i>, a new person suspiciously showed up on the scene, ] and then About that section, ] asserted, <i>"good, this appears to be a stable-ish version, rm-ing top hdr so first section is above TOC."</i> The heading change is not a big deal, but to claim that section is "stable-ish" three minutes after , which included that section being corrected (by me) on the "group marriage" issue, that <b><i>is</i></b> a problem, and it makes that edit suspicious (especially after seeing what happened next). |
|
|
|
|
|
At first glance, one might suspect that ] may not have realized that so fresh an Rv had just occurred. But if that were the case, ] edit would have been made based on my last edited version prior to it being Rv'ed again. Additionally, ] anti-polygamy POV becomes obvious by what ] did next. |
|
|
|
|
|
After making that edit in the polygamy wiki along with the the "stable-ish" claim, ] next went over to the new Wiki I had created, ]. (If ] 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 <i>only one minute</i> later that ] went to the other new wiki and in order to limit and reduce the purpose of that new wiki. Instead of ], they changed it to ]. As the 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." |
|
|
|
|
|
<i>Two minutes after that</i>, ] then further sought to minimize that of the difference between polygamy and anti-polygamy. Another two minutes later, ] made a , saying, <i>"This is seriously POV: I've reworded the intro, and added an NPOV header."</i> |
|
|
|
|
|
<i>Three more minutes after that,</i> ] showed up there on that same TALK page, <i>"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."</i> |
|
|
|
|
|
===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 <i>agenda</i> 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 (] and ] working together at the very same moments) is highly suspicious, much in the same way that it appears that the now-gone ] is probably the same person/group as ] |
|
|
|
|
|
Once again, ] 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, ] is still trying to make sure that wiki readers do not get to know the true issues. As their last quote shows, ] 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 <b><i>twice</i></b> 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, ] 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
] 8 July 2005 16:11 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== 3rd Opinion == |
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, first thing I want to say is that this Talk page as I found it frightened me. It was very, very, long! I've archived most of it as it was a mangled mess and took ''forever'' to load. So from now on I ''beg'' for brevity! |
|
|
|
|
|
I'd really like to hear from Researcher what it is he wants to change, and then from other folk why they resist these changes. Please, stay cool, don't start replying to each other, just make your cases and let them speak for themselves! ] 22:30, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Thanks, Dan. I, too, will love to see that. ] 23:07, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Thanks, Dan. It does seem to have calmed down for a while. I hope that the calm remains. I put the disputed tag back into the main article, because the text of the article is still disputed, even if the disputes have been resolved. I'll start making the changes to the main article soon. It may take me a few days to a week to make all of the necessary changes, then remove the disputed sectionl. After that, I will try editing for style. Thanks, Dan. ] 17:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
By moving the important warnings and proofs of the numerous sneaky vandalisms done to this wiki by ] and ] over to the , everyone is now less informed of seeing the real problem and the numerous itemized destructions they have caused. As this keeps going without correction back to STATUS QUO, ] has continued to make even more and more destructions. How many times do I have to list out the numerous destructions and wait in what seems to vain for someone to stop their vandalism, only to hear someone to ask me agin to list out all the numerous problems again? And even when I do, we hear that reading all the problems is too much to read and it is removed from public reading? Truthfully, there is no real or legitimate dispute here. ] is an anti-polygamist who does not follow the Wiki Guideines, who has manufactured the supposed "Dispute" by creating all their I have also repeatedly pointed out the ], but instead ] keeps being allowed devastate the wiki with their numerous Those big sections I posted really need to come back here to TALK, otherwise it is proverbially like giving credibility to the terrorist, while the honest citizen has to waste time over and over repeating the proven crimes the terrorist committed. What do I want? 1.) The critically important wanrings moved back to the top of this TALK page. 2.) The article back to STATUS QUO as according to the Guidelines. THEN and only then can a real and factual discussion about the supposed "disputes" can be made. Please help. Thank you. ] 11:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: I sincerly regret it, but after lurking for a few weeks, I am still clueless about this big conflict you are taking about. I am going to have to carefully read the essentials, I guess. Please tell me if I am correct that the Sneaky Vandalism section is what I need to read. ] 16:35, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Dear ], I very much appreciate your attempts to help here. Yes, the EVIDENCE needs to be read. There is no legitimate basis for discussion with ] who has made it clear that they are not here to make a positive contribution. Please read on this TALK page, the . That will also outline three very important evidence-pieces which ] has subsequently hidden by archiving. (Due to his allegations of "troll" and other comments here, I now also distrust ] obvious partiality, unwilling to actually address the evidence of the destructions that ]/] has done.) The other three pieces (now-hidden in Archive) that need to be read as evidence are: |
|
|
:: # |
|
|
:: # |
|
|
:: # |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Those three are outlined and then linked in the section on this TALK page here. So, you will want to read that first, and then, when finished, click the links there to read the three now-hidden evidence-pieces (in the Archives). |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Over and over, ] has made it clear that they are out to destroy anything I do, while adding non-applicable propaganda to the polygamy wiki. As I mentioned in the subsection of the section on this TALK page here, ] even recently wiped out every edit I made yet again. |
|
|
|
|
|
:: <blockquote><i>All of my edits made from through were once again attacked by the Less than 2 hours later, ] proved my point and utterly at that time. ] then used that false premise they concocted of suggesting the need to "TALK" first, even though it was ] who had been the one to ignore that very call <b>from me</b> in the first place!</i></blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Over and over, I have shown how ] does not even know the topic. This is someone who tries to assert that group marriage is polygamy, tried to push "gay polygamy," does not know who the national polygamy advocate is, tries to push the specifically-anti-polygamy-only propaganda of trying to connect polygamy to underage marriage, insists on making the polygamy wiki about Tom Green, and has been outed by the evidence as a clearly POV hostile anti-polygamist seeking to pervert the wiki from accurately informing the readers. |
|
|
:: There is SO much evidence, yet when I post it all, ] comes in and tries to hide it by archiving it and then asking me to list out the evidence '''yet again!''' The problem is I have been repeatedly abused by ]/] (probably one and the same person/group) who does not know this topic and is outright trying to sabotage it, and I have been awaiting ADMINS to remove the abusers so the wiki can be restored. |
|
|
:: I understand the need for Admins to take time in their actions. For that reason, I am not willing to be here everyday like I used to. Otherwise, until this is solved by the ADMINS and the abuser(s) ]/] (probably the same person/group) stopped, they will only continue to abuse me here. I am not willing to put up with abuse. So, for now, I only come back every week or two, looking with hope to see if the ADMINS have solved this yet so that I can be free from abuse to bring my wealth of research on this topic to the benefit of the wiki. So, please, I earnestly ask you, please read all the evidences. (To not do so says that all that a sneaky vandal has to do is commit numerous attacks that are too many list so that, when they ARE listed, the one listing them can be falsely accused of being "too voluminous" in listing out the evidence! Also, for others to attack me for putting all that linked EVIDENCE together without their even reading the EVIDENCE is like attacking a material witness and their overwhelming evidence while choosing to deliberately ignore all the evidence presented.) So, please, DO read the evidence. It IS important. I would very much appreciate that. When an Intellectual Researcher such as myself can be valued instead of abused by those who do not know the topic, I will be glad to be here frequently again. I look to the ADMINS to solve this very serious problem. Thank you, truly. ] 30 June 2005 14:07 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have been participating, and I don't understand the conflict. I have asked for another Third Opinion. Researcher99's editing frequency is low enough that some people thought that the conflict was resolved. It isn't, obviously. I would like to discuss the disputes, topic by topic, under ]. So far, there has been little discussion there. Please. I'm willing to back my most recent edits out and discuss the changes, but they have to be discussed. I made the latest round of changes after Dan100 encouraged me to make the changes after a lengthy quiet period. Like Dan100, I would like to see a list of proposed changes, and a reason for each of these changes. ] 18:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Short analysis. Researcher99 and I disagree on the text of ]. Furthermore, we disagree on how to resolve this dispute. This is where outside help is needed. How should we resolve our disagreement? ] 19:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:And there was me, thinking this had settled down nicely... ] (] 17:00, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Proposal for moving forward and roll call of present and alert editors=== |
|
|
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. |
|
|
- ] 17:29, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Roll call and poll (7 supporters needed). |
|
|
* '''Support''' Even if I do say so myself. ] 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. ] 18:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Seven editors? Where'd that come from? You won't find seven editors active on one page anywhere on WP. |
|
|
|
|
|
Nereocystis is free to edit the article as he sees fit within WP policies and guidelines. Researcher is free to object if he feels Nerec is breaking those rules - that's what I've invited him to do below. ] (] 21:37, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
7 editors is a bit optimistic, but we'll take what we can get. ], which has some relationship to polygamy, sometimes gets 7 votes. 3 votes would be good, including Researcher99. 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. However, it has been nearly 2 weeks since Dan100 requested a description of the changes which Researcher99 wants to make. I still haven't seen the description. ] 09:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: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. ] (] 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 (]) that has been going on for 8 months and I haven't even viewed the page for over a month. Patience and faith. ] 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. ] 19:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Fair enough. I've just checked Researcher's contributions - he seems to edit at roughly ten day intervals. I don't think that should stop the progress of an article. So I urge Nere to continue his work, and if Researcher objects, he'll have to present a more coherent argument (as I have invited him to below) and also stick around for more than just one day! Other than that, what is there to say? ] (] 20:56, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Researcher99 made massive changes on the article page again. He has also written an ] article which doesn't really make sense. Since Researcher99 refused to discuss the changes on the talk page, and since I disagree with a large number of the changes, I reverted all of his changes. Strangely enough, the latest polygamy changes don't show up in my watchlist. Are there bugs afoot. Where do we go from here? ] 1 July 2005 17:12 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Sneaky Vandals Have Destroyed This Wiki == |
|
|
By ] 16:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As I had , my fears and concerns about futher destroying the polygamy wiki has only continued to come to pass and even worsen. After one named, ] committed , they were soon followed, like a tag team, by another and more destructive , named, ] committing numerous destructions to the polygamy wiki. (On a side note, that tag team might very well be the same person, but that's not the point of this post here.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Through the process of this situation, I have presented extensive evidence, here in TALK, demonstrating their Without seeing all that evidence first, one cannot possibly understand what has really happened here in this wiki. Unfortunately, though, all of that crucial evidence was by ], who thought the entire TALK page was getting too lengthy. What ] may not have realized was that, by doing so, the most important proofs and warnings about the was thereby inadvertently hidden, while keeping a manufactured and false set of supposed "Disputes" by the named ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
=== The so-called "Dispute" was manufactured after Sneaky Vandalism === |
|
|
|
|
|
When reading the crucially important evidence, it becomes clear that the supposed "Disputes" manufactured by ] came after ] had sabotaged the wiki with an editing rampage. As the crucial evidence shows, (I have said it numerously, frequently re-iterating this point that so that it can be TALKED first.) But instead, ] came in with an editing rampage, destroying the wiki further with exhaustingly numerous After causing so much destruction, that was when ] manufactured the idea of there being supposed "Disputes" here and so concocted the subsequent false notion that they supposedly want to follow the Wiki Guideines to TALK about the "Disputes." Rather than follow the actual Wiki Guidelines of getting back to STATUS QUO before TALKing, as I had long been calling for, ] was "suddenly" willing to TALK only after they had committed all their destruction and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
=== To understand this situation, the Evidence MUST be Read First === |
|
|
|
|
|
So, the has created a false premise, in order to justify preventing corrections to their My fears about that were proven yet again after I had sought to even make a few more corrective edits, knowing that there were numerous more edits to eventually make. All of my edits made from through were once again attacked by the Less than 2 hours later, ] proved my point and utterly at that time. ] then used that false premise they concocted of suggesting the need to "TALK" first, even though it was ] who had been the one to ignore that very call <b>''from me''</b> in the first place! |
|
|
|
|
|
So, to really understand the situation here fully, the evidence which has previously been posted here in TALK really MUST be read first. |
|
|
|
|
|
For simplicity, I will simply provide the outline and applicable links to each of three archived postings of all of that crucially important evidence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==== 1. The Ghostintheshell Situation (outlined) ==== |
|
|
|
|
|
This first section of evidence was posted 00:57, 7 May 2005. It provides the full story and timeline of the first of the tag team, ] (who most likely is the same person or group as ] To understand ] recent actions, it is crucial to understand how ] "returned" to the wiki at the end of the situation with ] |
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the outline of that first section of evidence. |
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
|
** Why this timeline |
|
|
** Throughout, I sought Wiki Guidelines: STATUS QUO until TALKed. |
|
|
** Ghostintheshell breached MANY Wiki guidelines |
|
|
** Unknowledgable & Short-Term vs. Knowledgable & Long-Term |
|
|
*** --> Ghostintheshell |
|
|
*** --> Researcher99 |
|
|
** Begins with Subsection, "How Polygamists Find More Spouses" |
|
|
** Ghostintheshell Arrives & Declares Intent for Edit War |
|
|
** Trödel Arrives, Rv's to STATUS QUO, says NPOV |
|
|
** Trödel Returns, Again Rv's to STATUS QUO |
|
|
** Trödel Returns, Makes Rv's but with duplicative content |
|
|
** Ghostintheshell AGAIN Declares Intent for Edit War |
|
|
** Trödel Rv's to duplicative version and 3RR-block occurs |
|
|
** Final Posts |
|
|
*** Evading the "Block," Ghostintheshell Becomes "TheRedandtheBlack" |
|
|
*** 2 days later, I ask for patience to prepare this outline |
|
|
*** Admin Visorstuff affirms Muslim polygamous families in West exist ("Issue#2") |
|
|
** All 3 of Ghostintheshell's "Issues" Already Resolved |
|
|
** Ghostintheshell was a "Ghost - in - the - shell" -- NOT REAL |
|
|
|
|
|
'''' to read that entire section in Archive2. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==== 2. Solution Needed for Gangs of Sneaky Vandals (outlined) ==== |
|
|
|
|
|
This second section of evidence was posted 14:42, 16 May 2005. It points out ] "return" to the wiki, as a tag team to follow ] (who most likely is the same person or group as ] It shows the editing rampage that ] had begun. It points out the real problem and need for a solution that will now prevent any intellectual researcher such as myself from making edits, as they will simply destroy any legitimate work people like myself would do for the polygamy wiki. |
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link and outline of that second section of evidence. |
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
|
** (We should not reward bad behavior or allow misinformation) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==== 3. Sneaky Vandals' Anti-Polygamy Destruction of Polygamy Wiki (outlined) ==== |
|
|
|
|
|
This third section of evidence was posted 23:54, 27 May 2005. This comprehensive section provides a crucially important warning for all wiki contributors to understand the tactics of anti-polygamists. It provides the detailed evidence completely "outing" ] as an actual hostile POV anti-polygamist, pretending to be for polygamy only as a disguise so as to fully destroy the wiki with erroneous information, i.e., (Hostile anti-polygamists and ] obviously do not want this crucially important warning and "outing" to be readily visible to polygamy wiki contributors. Yet it is imperative that it be visible and understood.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link and outline of that third section of evidence. |
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
|
** Setting this Warning to Help this Controversial Wiki |
|
|
** "Polygamy Imposters" - Anti-Polygamists Often Pretend to be "Pro-Polygamy" |
|
|
** Forcing "Underage" issue "Outs" the "Polygamy Imposters" as Anti-Polygamists |
|
|
*** Normal Polygamists oppose "underage" issue |
|
|
*** Normal Polygamists try to be heard by media |
|
|
*** Media Bias denies Normal Polygamists from being heard |
|
|
*** "Underage" issue is only Anti-Polygamy Propaganda |
|
|
** Unqualified "Anti-Polygamy" Sites Sneaked in to the Polygamy Wiki |
|
|
*** "Anti-polygamy" links first appeared |
|
|
*** Sneaky Vandals Sneaked the removed "anti-polygamy" links back in |
|
|
**** Ghostintheshell |
|
|
**** Nereocystis |
|
|
**** Anti-polygamy "tag team" successfully destroyed polygamy wiki |
|
|
*** Why those "Anti-polygamy" sites are not qualified |
|
|
**** Tapestry Against Polygamy |
|
|
***** Scope |
|
|
***** Scale |
|
|
**** Hope for the Child Brides |
|
|
***** Inflammatory generalization |
|
|
***** Self-admitted Irrelevance |
|
|
*** Pushing these "Anti-polygamy" Sites promotes "Underage" Propaganda |
|
|
** All the Sneaky Vandalism should be Rv'd back to STATUS QUO |
|
|
*** Ghostintheshell's supposed "issues" were Resolved anyway |
|
|
*** Nereocystis's Edit-Rampage Manufactured "Disputes" to Falsely Justify STOPPING the Wiki |
|
|
*** Wiki Guidelines call for STATUS QUO anyway |
|
|
** For Misplaced Pages's Sake, We Must Stop the Sneaky Vandals |
|
|
*** Foxtrot Comic Equally Notes Misplaced Pages's "Sneaky Vandal Problem" |
|
|
*** So, I share my Intellectual Assets to Protect Misplaced Pages |
|
|
*** Intellectual Researchers must not be Sabotaged by Sneaky Vandals |
|
|
*** Let's Solve This and Protect Misplaced Pages's Future |
|
|
|
|
|
'''' to read that entire section in Archive2. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
=== Sneaky Vandals Preventing Legitimate Edits and Don't Really Want to TALK === |
|
|
|
|
|
One subsection of that last section repeated what really needs to occur. It also shows why. |
|
|
* |
|
|
** Ghostintheshell's supposed "issues" were Resolved anyway |
|
|
** Nereocystis's Edit-Rampage Manufactured "Disputes" to Falsely Justify STOPPING the Wiki |
|
|
** Wiki Guidelines call for STATUS QUO anyway |
|
|
* For Misplaced Pages's Sake, We Must Stop the Sneaky Vandals |
|
|
|
|
|
As I have long been saying, allowing the to continue, it makes it impossible for intellectual researchers like myself to stop their sabotage and to help the wiki be valuable. As I warned, any edit that someone like myself will make will be sabotaged. ] proved my very point on that yet again after my last activities here two weeks ago, when they once again to the wiki, immediately after I had done it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==== Nereocystis Proven Disingenuous about "TALKING" ==== |
|
|
|
|
|
] has no intention of actually wanting to follow the Wiki Guidelines, despite their "suddenly" new and absolutely disingenuous calls for wanting to TALK about their manufactured "Disputes" first. |
|
|
|
|
|
# ] has not once stopped in their outrageous editing rampage of destruction to the wiki, continuing on week after week with more and more edits throughout all of this. |
|
|
# If ] truly believed in wanting to TALK first, they would be advocating that we follow what I have been calling for in the first place: to get back to the STATUS QUO that existed '''before''' their editing rampages of rather than afterward, as they now "suddenly" demand. |
|
|
|
|
|
That second item there really proves the heart of the matter here. |
|
|
|
|
|
If ] genuinely wanted to follow the Wiki Guidelines and TALK first, then they would be fighting FOR what I called for originally: that we should return the wiki back to the REAL STATUS QUO before all their tag team and then we can honestly start TALKING from there. But because ] only wants to do that ''after'' all their while trying to act as if I am somehow not wanting to follow the Guidelines, it proves their disingenuousness completely. |
|
|
|
|
|
Because of all this, it is useless to TALK with such an "outed" hostile anti-polygamist POV such as ]. (Besides, their supposed "Disputes" were only manufactured after the fact, anyway!) So, time has proven that TALKING has proven to be useless with them. I've tried before and it has only yielded this overwhelming consumption of my time as they play these sneaky anti-polygamist tactics. For me, to do so now is like trying to negotiate with a terrorist. It simply cannot be done. They have made it clear that they will accept nothing short of continued destruction of the polygamy wiki. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==== Mentally Unhealthy and De-Motivating to TALK with Unapologetic Abusers ==== |
|
|
|
|
|
Also, it is mentally and emotionally unhealthy for anyone to let others cause such a constant state of abuse as these have caused, as in my experience here recently. Once an abuser is absolutely proven to be an unapologetic abuser, they are never worth my time. I am too healthy for that. Truly, intellectual researchers such as myself are not motivated to put up with it or to want to return to the wiki if that is all that can be expected to occur. So this is not only about me. This is about how all other mature, emotionally healthy intellectual researchers such as myself will ultimately decide whether it's really even worth their time to offer any quality help to Misplaced Pages. If allowing abuse to continue is the policy, Misplaced Pages loses. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
=== For Wiki Sake, These Solutions Need to Happen === |
|
|
|
|
|
Truly, if nothing is done, then more and more of us mature intellectual researchers will instead start choosing to avoid Misplaced Pages. After all, mature and healthy people have no desire to sustain protracted periods of abuse. |
|
|
|
|
|
So, for the sake of the polygamy wiki, therefore, the following really needs to happen. |
|
|
|
|
|
# The Wiki Guidelines about must be followed. That requires TALK discussions to start from the STATUS QUO position - not after someone else has committed |
|
|
# The original STATUS QUO of the polygamy article needs to be restored without attack from |
|
|
# The entire section should be restored to a prominent position in this TALK page, so as to warn and educate all contrubutors on how to spot anti-polygamists with hostile POV trying to edit the wiki destructively. |
|
|
# such as ] need to be removed from contributing further. |
|
|
# Then the rest of us who want to make honest legitimate contributions may be glad to do so, without having to deal with much more mentally-unhealthy abuse. |
|
|
|
|
|
It is my sincere hope that this situation can be resolved and that Misplaced Pages will once again be the great value I had once thought it to be! |
|
|
|
|
|
] 16:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Well, the first thing that linking to 'sneaky vandalism' a dozen times is not going to help your case. It just looks... a little odd. Keep cool and calm. |
|
|
|
|
|
:The second seems to be that the issue you are upset about here is that someone edited this page. Well, that happens on wikis. "Be bold" is not a suicide pact. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Finally, if you have a content related dispute here, please concentrate on that and that alone. You can only object to edits or existing content if they break the core content rules of ], ] and ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
:If you do wish to make objections under those policies, please keep them brief and clear. Writing vast reams of text does you no favours. ] (] 17:31, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I support all that Dan100 has said. ] 03:39, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Changes== |
|
|
I will list changes which I make here, along with an explanation. This might make editing the polygamy article easier. |
|
|
|
|
|
===Reverting Researcher99's changes=== |
|
|
Researcher99 recently make a large number of changes. For months, I have been trying to engage Researcher99 in discussion about these changes. It has refused. I disagreed with many of the changes, and reverted. I am willing to provide more details for the reversions, if anyone wants the details. |
|
|
|
|
|
===Current proponents and critics=== |
|
|
I removed references to opinion of Christian fundamentalists and Human |
|
|
Rights Activists. I want specific examples of the people who fall into these categories along with their opinions. I left in LDS opposition, and will try to find a reference to justify leaving it in. I know that this isn't 100% consistent. I also removed the line: |
|
|
|
|
|
:Compare ] and ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know what it means; it doesn't seem to belong here, and probably doesn't belong anywhere. ] 1 July 2005 18:03 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Christian opposition to polygamy=== |
|
|
The legal section ] 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 ]. 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? It is 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. ] 7 July 2005 17:27 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====Bible-believing==== |
|
|
Hi, Timandkids! Welcome to Misplaced Pages. 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 . 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. ] |
|
Why map say "Polygamy is legal in some regions (Indonesia)"? There is no national law than ban polygamy national wide. Even the latest law (the 2019 Marriage Law) does not prohibit it. (Poke @Pharexia:) -- BayuAH 09:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
The prevalence section of the article says „Research into the prevalence of polyamory has been limited“ but then doesnt stick to it. I think we should be trimming this section, specifically the percentages. We should be grounded here and stick with the simple fact that there is not much solid research.
Also, Amy Moors specifically is not a good source. There is a lot of criiticism against her, like her messing around with samples and sample sizes. At the very least we shouldnt quote her. But generally I think the section should be smaller. 141.15.24.32 (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Bigamy (in Canon Law) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 12#Bigamy (in Canon Law) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)