Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:17, 13 January 2005

Archive

/Archive 1

Polygamy is about marriage, not sex

When making edits on the polygamy article, it is important that the post understand that polygamy is about marriage, not sex. Only those who do not know about polygamy are the ones who think it is about sex. Those who do know what polyyamy is about, know it is not about the sex.

Also, many things which actually apply to polyamory are being posted as if it is about polygamy. Doing so is incorrect. Before posting such things to the polygamy article, posters should make sure that it is only about polygamy.

Lastly, for NPOV, it is irrelevant to make any reference to group sex. To say that polygamy "may or may not" involve that is as irrelevant as it would be to say that monogamy may or may not involve that. It would also be as biased as saying "Christianity may or may not involve devil worship." To even imply that hint is to display a bias toward thinking that polygamy supposedly does mean "group sex," when it does not. Again, only those who do not really know anything about polygamy would assert that polygamy has anything to do with that.

Misplaced Pages posts are supposed to be NPOV. Please make sure such posts stay that way.

That's fine, but what I wrote in "Bisexuality and polyamory" was no more sex-oriented than the version that preceded it, to which you then reverted. My interest was not in adding or removing information from the article, but to remove the mistaken claim that such relationships are novel and to improve on some awkward phrasing.

For instance, "this uncommon form is simply the means to an end for individuals seeking this kind of polyamory relationship" is pretty much meaningless. *Any* relationship could be described as "the means to an end for individuals seeking this kind of relationship".

If sex is irrelevant to this article, then it seems to me that the whole section is superfluous; ignoring sexual arrangements, all it says is "some people have multiple spouses", which adds nothing to what's already been written. Why not remove it entirely? --Calair 02:26, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You did a good job of simplifying, Calair -- especially given that you were working with what was already there. If the segment is indeed to even be kept, then, for clarity, the paragraph needed to begin with the opening clause and to close with the last sentence. (Like you reasonably ask, I am not sure if it will indeed stay, but we'll see.)

For it to stay, though, readers need to be informed right off the bat that what then follows is not what most polygamists do. The concluding sentence explains the polyamorists' motivation in that situtaion so as to help the reader further understand why it is not typical of actual polygamy. Frankly, I am with you, as I am inclined to think that the topic of this section may be more appropriate only for the polyamory listing instead.

Finally, the point of my talk-post here was also for preceding a removal of another sentence elsewhere in the article -- where someone was trying to suggest that polygamy may possibly involve group sex. That one and other similar posts in the article have been suggesting things about polygamy which are only steroetypical misinformation. So, this talk-post was not saying that about your post.

I generally liked the simplification you made (such as in grammar), and I only corrected the portions where necessary. But you did fine. Thanks. -- Researcher99

Ah, right. Misunderstanding was my fault - I looked at your two edits combined, and only saw the explanation for the second. I still feel the final sentence is superfluous, though - the point that this isn't typical of polyamory has already been made, and doesn't need to be made again. The repetition seems unnecessarily defensive.

There are some grammatical issues, but honestly, polyamory already covers much of this, and I think it's easier to shift the rest there. Will replace with a little bit on the distinction between polyamory and polygamy. --Calair 23:55, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I understand. I had actually solved your last concen by adding, "polyamory relationship." However, the issue is moot now that it is all removed anyway. Good job. -- Researcher99

Why was the section on the Oneida Community removed? It might not have been a typical form of polygamy, but each member of the community certainly had multiple spouses; as such, it fits the definition of 'polygamy' rather better than it fits 'polyamory'.

Also, rather than directing 'group sex' examples to polyamory, please point them instead to group sex. There is some overlap between the two terms, but they're not interchangeable. --Calair 13:17, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can understand why and how someone might make that simple mistake. "Group marriage" does not meet the definition of polygamy, as it is neither polygyny nor polyandry. Instead, it is a unique concept completely on its own and separate from polygamy. Just as monogamy means one with one, polygamy means one with many. Hence, in polygamy, there is either one husband with many wives (polygyny) or one wife with many husbands (polyandry). On top of that, just as one would not start listing off Jim Jones' group or David Koresh's group as examples for defining Christianity, listing off very rare and fluke isolated examples of off-topic possibilities is similarly not applicable in a definition for polygamy. But it doesn't matter anyway because "group marriage" is not polygamy; the point is moot. Again, though, I do understand how one can make that mistake. Your help is very much appreciated.

On your recommendation about not referring 'group sex' examples to polyamory, but to group sex instead, I agree. Thank you for the very good idea on that. -- Researcher99

As it stands, the article defines polygamy as "a marital practice in which a person has more than one spouse simultaneously". Merriam-Webster similarly defines it as "marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time". Neither of those definitions require or even suggest that only *one* person within the marriage may have multiple spouses.

The rarity of group marriages in comparison to "one-to-several" marriages inevitably means that 'polygamy' is most commonly used for the latter, but Googling shows that it is also used for the former. For instance, the | Columbia Electronic Encyclopaedia describes the OC's complex marriage as 'a form of polygamy'.

Misplaced Pages's role is to reflect usage, not dictate it. If dictionary definitions, usage, and even the article's own definition encompass "several-to-several" forms of marriage, then it seems that the article should acknowledge group marriages as a form of polygamy.

I think I see a possible compromise, though - will have a stab at this on the main page and see whether it's mutually acceptable. --Calair 23:17, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The more apt reason that that link might say a "form of polygamy" is because polyamory is not in most dictionaries. Anthropologists, when speaking of polygamy, usually only refer to either polygyny or polyandry. When the circumstance is any other configuration, they usually identify it individually.

Maybe I can explain myself better with a biological parallel. Biologists, when speaking of mammals, usually only refer to either placental mammals or marsupials. When speaking about any other form (i.e. monotremes) they usually identify it individually.

But this doesn't mean monotremes aren't mammals. It's because they are rare (so 99% of mammal-related discussion is about placentals and/or marsupials) and they're unusual (so when monotremes *are* under consideration, biologists prefer to use the narrower and much more informative term). The label 'mammal' is quite correct when applied to monotremes; it's just that there's rarely an occasion when it's the most useful word.

IMHO, group marriage is a similar thing. It's rare enough and atypical enough that it's usually identified individually, but that shouldn't make the broader label invalid. However, I've tried to word that bit to explain how it differs from 'conventional' polygamy without actually declaring whether it is or isn't polygamy. --Calair 06:08, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

When looking for a word to give a reader a closer understanding of such individual configurations, perhaps one might say other configurations are a "form of polygamy," but that's only to try to help the reader try to get a grasp of it using a word they might recognize -- but they do not use the circumstance to to define polygamy itself. And again, many are not familiar with the word, polyamory, and it is not in many dictionaries.

Where you wrote, "'polygamy' is more often used to refer to codified forms of multiple marriage (especially those with a traditional/religious basis)," I think it might be better to make the distinction that polygamy refers to either polygyny or polyandry -- making it much clearer.

For the most part, though, I like most of what you've done on this. Please give me a day or so to figure out what I think further about it. Thanks for a good job though! -- Researcher99

I'm not sure that substituting in 'polyamory' does much to resolve things. It's not much better than 'polygamy' or 'group sex' as a catch-all term; each of them takes in some of that "everything other than standard monogamy", but none of them covers it all. Sex, love, and marriage are closely related phenomena, but any of them can exist without the others. --Calair 06:08, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think I understand your point and you make an excellent example with the biology anecdote. I find, however, I still am unable to agree that the comparison is the same. It is more likely that polyamory would be more comparable to the "mammals" in your example. It could probably even be said that polygamy is the "subset of polyamory," even though polygamy makes up a larger portion than all other subsets "in polyamory" combined. (This would also explain why the rarity of polyandry is also welcomed in the online polyamory community than in polygamy in general.)

That 'larger portion than all other subsets' may be true, but it seems to me that it'd be very hard to confirm. Counting polyamorous relationships is a very tricky thing; I'm not sure if anybody's even given it a serious try. --Calair 00:20, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I can agree with your point. I was thinking more that it is more likely from a historical, cultural perspective (per all known history) that polygamy is the "larger subset."

On the internet, when I read through the many communications and articles in the polyamory community, I find that they do intend to be the "catchall" to be everything else that polygamy is not. They do hold themselves out that way and they openly seek to accept other non-standard forms.

(I'd like to distinguish between 'accept' in the 'That's OK' sense and the 'recognise as a form of polyamory' sense. I agree that most polyamorists are very accepting of non-standard forms in the former sense; the latter sense, not quite so much, and that's the one we're debating here. --Calair 00:09, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC))

I understand your differentiation. In the latter sense, I think it is important to remember that polyamory is a put-together word that means "multiple loves" -- specifically because they did not want the definition to be too limited, as polygamy limits to marriage. They let the cat out of the bag with that definition and word-creation and they really can not put it back. As it is said, they can't have their cake and eat it too. Ideas other than polygyny or polyandry fall within that broad definition of polyamory far more easily than such things ever could be "recognizable" as polygamy.

"Polyamory" is not in most dictionaries. Polygamy does not offer -- nor do polygamists welcome it as being -- the "catchall" answer (by polygamy being only polygyny or polyandry). Anthropologists use "polygamy" as either being polygyny or polyandry. Now that there is such a word, "polyamory" (which still needs to enter dictionaries), it gives anthropologists and everyone else a term that they are now able to use when they need to label other "poly" configurations. Those in the online polyamory community very much view and encourage its use (i.e., polamory) this way as the "catchall," as well. Because of these reasons, it makes sense to me to use it that way, too. -- Researcher99

What you describe doesn't match my experience. If you've been following polyamorous discussions, you've probably already encountered the usually-derogatory term 'polyfuckery', which almost always occurs in a "things polyamory isn't" context. Many polyamorists who might see nothing wrong with 'polyfuckery' (and even some who practice it) do not recognise it as polyamory. Many others do accept the catch-all usage, but it's certainly not a consensus.

You've probably also noticed that polyamorists place a very high premium on the principle of free and informed consent. This is unfortunately *not* found in all the practices one would like to fit into a catch-all. For instance, descriptions of the Oneida Community use words like "compelled to accept" in describing the arrangement whereby senior community members initiated virgins. I suspect most modern polyamorists would deplore such an arrangement and be very reluctant to recognise it as true polyamory. Ditto, practices like concubinage.

Naturally, there's a degree of image control in this. Nobody wants to share a pigeonhole with David Koresh ;-) But since 'polyamory' seems to have been coined largely for purposes of self-description, the self-described polyamorists do have a lot of say in what it means. For that reason, a broader meaning encompassing practices that most self-described polyamorists find deeply objectionable is unlikely to achieve general acceptance any time soon. --Calair 00:09, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Despite what some polyamorists may prefer, the word itself implies itself as the "catchall" -- "multiple loves," which is far more "inclusive" than polygamy's meaning of "multiple marriage." That's why "multiple marriage" can reasonably be thought of as a subset of "multiple loves" but not vice versa. Hence polygamy can only be thought of as a subset of polyamory and definitely not vice versa. (I am hoping we can both avoid semantics in my use of "multiple" here, as I was only trying to be brief in my explanation here, rather than digress into re-explaining the "multiple" part again.) :)

Its role as a catchall extends as far as 'loves' (at least, the 'eros'/'amor' version; as the alt.polyamory FAQ says, "you needn't wear yourself out trying to figure out ways to fit fondness for apple pie, or filial piety, or a passion for the Saint Paul Saints baseball club into it.") I agree that it's a *broader* category than polygamy, but neither is entirely a subset of the other. There are many reasons why people get married, and love isn't always one of them. --Calair 23:51, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As a group, polyamorists tend to also be far more inclusive themselves than polygamists would ever be on these issues, specifically because polyamory is indeed more of an inclusive "catchall" and less specific than polygamy. This is not to say I am voicing an opinion about the validity or invalidity of such inclusiveness or non-inclusiveness. It is just that polyamorists do rather tend to be quite politically liberal while polygamists tend to be politically conservative. (No judgement being passed, only observation.) That explains why those with a more liberal perspective tend to be more "inclusive" by their dogma anyway. It is only that, but their very definition and behaviors, polyamorists tend to be and promote that inclusiveness as part of their beliefs.

Agreed. I tried to get at this in the 'polygamy vs. polyamory' section - although the definitions of the words suggest a great deal of overlap, IRL they're usually attached to two quite different groups of people. --Calair 23:51, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of course, I understand that even polyamorists may have their limits too, as you rightly pointed out with the profane variation. Certainly, polygamists would exclude such things too, and likewise for the Oneida Community example you mention as well. But just because such things may be the point at which polyamorists "draw their line" in their definition, it still does not deny the end result that ultimately, it is probably much more accurate to view polygamy as being an (albeit unwilling :) ) subset of polyamory, and not vice versa.

If I had to choose between 'polygamy as a subset of polyamory' and 'polyamory as a subset of polygamy', I would choose the former. But given the third option, I would much rather pick 'neither'. Polyamory is the broader set and mostly contains polygamy, but not completely so. --Calair 23:51, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. It would seem that both polygamy and polyamory include impalatable things to both. For polygamy, the definer is either polygyny or polyandry. But that can be true whether or not love is involved, which is distasteful to most polygamists who very much define marriage by love. For polyamory, the definer seems to be the criterion of "love" of any number of individuals (regardless of marriage). But being such a more inclusive "catchall," it does also include forms which are distasteful to polyamorists, as well. The common denominator simply appears to be the "poly." -- Researcher99 - 2 Dec 2004

If not, though, then perhaps we need a third term to be equally on par with polyamory and polygamy, all as parallel but individually separate (none being a subset of the other two). That would certainly be acceptable to me. Any ideas?

Missed something here. What group would this third term be describing? --Calair 23:51, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps something like "poly alternatives." These could include those other forms which do not fit into either polygamy or polyamory. Or, perhaps, we could just create a "poly" article as the hierarchical "parent" of polygamy and polyamory, with the other alternatives listed as miscelleneous items of that "parent." I am only putting this out as a possible idea for discussion on possible ways to address the issue. -- Researcher99 - 2 Dec 2004

A parent page to distinguish between various forms of relationship and point people to the right articles would be useful. IME, "poly" is usually used specifically for polyamory, but that may just be what I pay more attention to; if it's also used for polygamy, that would work. Otherwise, "nonmonogamy" is a possibility, since despite the etymology it seems to be used to describe poly- forms of marriage, love, and sex. --Calair 23:23, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

While, yes, I have also seen polyamorists describe themselves as "poly," I have also seen many polygamists use that same shorthand term to describe themselves too. It is interesting to observe how polyamorists and polygamists both refer to their "poly lifestyle," while certainly meaning very, very different things in their use of the word. If you're satisfied with using it as a "parent," I think I can be too. -- Researcher99 - 3 Dec 2004

Works for me. Although, looking at poly, I'm reminded that it has several other unrelated usages that have as much claim to be on that page as polygamy/polyamory/etc. Perhaps 'poly relationships'? --Calair 21:58, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's funny. Yes, "polypropylene" is quite different from polygamy. I agree with you on using "poly relationships." Works for me too. -- Researcher99 - 8 Dec 2004

The most key point about polygamy itself, though, is that it is really only polygyny or polyandry.

Polygamy and Islam

I've expanded a little bit on the paragraph relating to Polygamy and Islam. On the verse that was referred to, I've actually quoted the verse from my English translated Qur'an and have provided an explanation as in the the book that I have.

I've included the names of the people providing the translation, however I don't have an actual reference number for the book itself.

Tom Green precedent for commom-law bigamy conviction

The reason for a prosecution is not relevant for establishing precedence. However, the Utah Supreme Court's upholding of Tom Green's does establish precedence for conviction of common-law bigamy. If anyone claims otherwise, please provide a reference for claiming lack of precedence. Nereocystis 09:56, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You misunderstood the original segment here. It's an easy mistake to make. I do understand. A single statewide precedent does not make a nationwide precedent. Besides, a new marriage amendment to the Utah Constitution was approved by Utah voters in November, 2004. Even anti-polygamists in Utah have acknowledged that that new Utah State Constitutional Amendment on marriage effectively nullifies the "common law marriage" concept in Utah altogether. So, we probably should not even be including this added part about the Utah Supreme Court's affirmation of Green's conviction anyway because the "common law" premise was likely so nullified anyway. -- Researcher, 29 Dec 2004

Of course, it is a statewide precedent only. Common-law marriage is a state by state law. Most states do not recognize common-law marriage, so the issue would be irrelevant. However, polygamy of the type described in this section is common in Utah, and therefore relevant. This sentence seems unlikely:

Because he had 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.

Please provide evidence that defrauding the welfare system had anything to do with his conviction of polygamy. It may have been relevant for deciding whether to prosecute him, but welfare fraud doesn't prove common-law marriage. The revised paragraph says that the Utah Supreme Court upheld a connection between common-law polygamy and welfare fraud. I can't find that in the decision. Welfare fraud is irrelevant for the polygamy conviction. My understanding of the case is that Green's public appearances as a polygamist led to his prosecutions more than his welfare fraud. Why are you removing the reference to the Deseret news article? References for wikipedia articles are useful to provide further information. Replace this reference with a better reference, but don't delete it. A single prosecution does not provide precedence at all, until it is upheld in appeals. Your references to precedence suggests a misunderstanding of law. The Tom Green paragraph is relevant to this page because it establishes the current state of multiple marriage and divorce for polygamists in Utah, where this practice is often used. I plan on changing this page to remove any connection between welfare fraud and proof of common-law marriage, unless you can provide references for your claims. Please do not revert, unless you provide references.

You are unfortunately missing the context of this subsection. It is about legal remarriage and multiple divorce in the context of polygamy. Previously, someone tried to falsely change this subtopic by citing the Green case as a supposed nationwide precedent that supposedly criminalizes all use of this process used by some polygamists. However if Green had not committed the other crimes of welfare fraud and statutory rape, the case would never have occurred. Even after the case, it still would not happen. That's what is important to realize for context of this subsection. The context of this subsection is about legal remarriage and multiple divorce used by some polygamists. So arguing about legal precedence and all that are not applicable here. There is not a prosecutor alive in the US who would pursue any polygamist for only doing the legal remarriage and multiple divorce process involving no other crimes. (But citing that case here tries to imply that they would.) In the first trial, Green was only sentenced actual time for the criminal welfare fraud -- the four bigamy counts were only to be served concurrently, at the same time of the welfare sentencing. In the second trial, he was sentenced for child rape, but it is also not bigamy for which he serves time. In reality, therefore, Green is serving no actual time for bigamy whatsoever and he would not have even been sought for prosecution if he did not have the other criminal issues (welfare fraud and child rape). So, you see, his case would never apply to this subsection if he had not had the other crimes involved. Without those other crimes invllved, it simply would not have happened, and it still would not happen. As such, again, the issue of Green's CONVICTION is not all that relevant to the subtopic here, except mildly in how the case turned out. Yes, the precedeent in the one state of Utah was set. But even with that one case in one state, even with that one precedent, no prosecutor is going to pursue a non-criminal polygamist if all they did was the legal remarriage and multiple divorce process. Why? They know that by itself, it would fail in court and would actually end up causing an uproar by non-polygamists which would surprisingly overturn all anti-polygamy laws, which they do not want. The context of this subsection does not require an analysis of conviction of the Green case. What happened to Green does not automatically mean that the legal remarriage and multiple divorce process used by some polygamists is now some kind of a nationwide crime that will put all such polygamists to jail. It is not and it will not. While his case has a little application in back-handed way only, the bigamy convictions (for which he is actually serving no real actual time) is not all that much of an issue to this subsection. If you want to start a wiki about Tom Green, all the power to you. But going deeper into his case in this subsection is not applicable to this polygamy wiki. To try to force the Tom Green issue further in this subsection would demonstrate bias and violate NPOV in this polygamy wiki. -- Researcher, 02 Jan 2005

Please cite your sources. I never claimed that the Green case was a US or international precedent, but it changes the environment in Utah. I should have written the paragraphs more clearly to show that the prosecution only effects Utah. However, Utah is the state where a large percentage of this type of marriage take place. Paragraphs 46-52 of the Utah Supreme Court case State v. Green upholds common-law polygamy, without mentioning welfare fraud. Remember that you brought up the issue of precedence. I have provided evidence that the Utah Supreme Court would uphold future convictions. Any Utah prosecuter could try any other similar polygamist. Will it happen again? I don't know, but it could. A better attorney may get a conviction reversed. You are showing a lack of understanding of law by claiming that Tom Green is irrelevant. All similar polygamists are in danger of similar prosecutions. Tom Green was convicted, and the conviction was upheld. No extra time was served, but if the polygamy conviction had been the only conviction, Green may have served time. Tom Green is relevant here because it is an example of multiple divorce and marriage, which is the topic of this section, leading to a conviction of polygamy. Please explain how the facts of State v Green show POV. I haven't stated my opinions in the main article (I thought the conviction would have been overturned, and should have been overturned. I also think polygamy should be legal, but my opinions don't make law and don't belong in the main article).

I would like to see the main article rewritten to state the polygamy conviction and supreme court decision, showing its relevance to Utah alone, but deemphasizing the welfare fraud (perhaps mentioning it), unless you find independent evidence of your claims. Perhaps, we could mention that no other polygamy prosecution has happened since Green, but we can't suggest that other divorce and marry polygamists are safe in Utah or that lack of welfare fraud would prevent a successful prosecution.Nereocystis 20:05, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Polygamists are not in peril. The welfare crime and child rape are the only reasons the case ever went to trial. To try to suggest otherwise is to advance an agenda. Truly, you are trying to create a chapter out of a footnote here. Tom Green is but one man in one state in a big world. This wiki on polygamy is bigger and more global than one little local issue about a man who would never have faced conviction if not for the other crimes. Even in Utah, the very state in which Green was convicted, I just learned that today the same Attorney General has just said that he will not prosecute polygamy itself, so any point you are trying to make is moot. If even he views the laws and convictions in his own State that way, we certainly do not need to start going off in a different direction. But it still doesn't matter. The Tom Green case is but a mere localized footnote and does not necessitate the full-blown attention your agenda seems to be trying to advance here. The subsection is sufficient as it is and does not need any major edit further. Let's move on to more important issues, please. -- Researcher, 03 Jan 2005 Msg#2

Please discuss the article, and not your guess of my motives. Ad hominem attacks on the article really don't work well in wikipedia. My goal, when I started this, was to add a brief comment to this section stating that serial marriage and divorce is no longer guaranteed to be safe from prosecution, as Green's prosecution and the Utah Supreme courts decision proves. This does not mean that all such people will be prosecuted, merely that the law allows it. You have turned this into a major issue, adding your claims that further prosecutions will not happen. Yes, the Utah AG may say that he will prosecute further cases, but he, and future attorneys general are allowed by law to do so. Similarly, the county prosecuters may prosecute a case. In fact, Green was not prosecuted by the AG, he was prosecuted by the Juab county prosecuter, David O. Leavitt. No need for panic, no conspiracy, no prediction about future prosecutions, just acknowledgement of a law which allows prosecution where it wasn't currently obvious that prosecution was allowed. You may add your predictions about the unlikeliness of future prosecution, but only if they are well documented, use newspapers rather than someone who thinks he has read a newspaper describing the situation. Without documentation, your comment are only your point of view, not irrefutable facts. Likewise, you may add your explanation of why Green was prosecuted, but only with documentation. I think it is likely that he was prosecuted because he created publicity for himself, but I don't think that this needs to be in the article. Here's a reference for that view. Nereocystis 05:56, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

State v. Green was only about Green's appeal on the bigamy convictions, so of course it is not going to mention the criminal non-support. That was simply not being appealed, so the Court did not have to say anything about it. Green and his supporters like to say that Green's publicity got him into trouble, but it is his other crimes which got him into trouble. Even the openly biased Rick Ross website you cited, the specific citation opens with the references to the other crimes. The fact that Tom Green was sentenced time for the criminal non-support and then the four counts of bigamy were sentences of time served concurrently shows that the criminal non-support issue is very important to understanding that case. Lastly, now that Utah voters passed a marriage amendment which even the Utah AG believes could end "common law bigamy" charges from being possible, we really do not need to make a mountain out of a molehill here. I have made a minor edit to add the point about continued risk, so as to accommodate your point here. So now please, let's just move on. -- Researcher, 07 Jan 2005

Sure. I'll make another small edit. I have asked many times, can you provide any reference for your claim that the prosecution was due to non-support. You have repeatedly claimed this, but haven't provided any reference. If you can't find a reference, then I will assume that this is incorrect.Nereocystis 07:42, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please Stop. Any such edit will be reversed afterward. The answer here has been given to you repeatedly and you have chosen to ignore it, obfuscatingly asking for an irrelevant straw man as your would-be justification. The sentence of real time for criminal non-support and yet only concurrently-served sentences for the bigamy is but one of the proofs indicating what initiated the case. The bigamy charges were "add-on" charges (added to the prosecution of the blatant criminal non-support). Not one of the bigamy charges incurred a stand-alone sentence. They were only "add-on" sentences to be served concurrently (at the very same time) with the real and actual time being served for the criminal non-support. It is so obvious but you are purposely refusing to see it. Please notice that the article says that the criminal non-support is only what "initiated the case" -- it does not say what you try to say it says. No matter how kind I try to be to you, though, you seem only to be here for a fight -- which shows you are operating here without NPOV. Please move on, because your posting is now coming across as abuse. -- Researcher, 12 Jan 2005

Give me a reference. Give me a reference. Give me a reference. No matter how patient I try to be, you have not provided a single reference for your claims. Once again, the bigamy conviction stands, whether there is a separate sentence or not. Please tell me why my insistence on facts and references is POV. Nereocystis 09:27, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Even if I do, you are unwilling to see anything. When I tried to accommodate you, you refused to even be satisfied. When I cited evidence of how even the Utah AG does not take your view anymore, especially now after the voters of Utah passed a new marriage amendment which makes the whole debate moot, you refused to see it. Still, it does not take a reference to see that the sky is blue, for example. The facts together all prove the point I have made -- the sentences of what is the time actually being served, proves it. You use only half-references which do not fully support your point, and then incorrectly think you are in some kind of catbird seat to "demand references" when they are not necessary for so little a footnote issue. You cite the State v. Green as you refuse to see the obviousness of the criminal non-support issue, but your half-reference is irrelevant to support your point because the link is only about Green's appeal for only the bigamy charges -- so of course, it does not address the criminal non-support. It is examples like that which show you do not make relevant full-references yourself. Even the Rick Ross reference you made proved my point, but you refuse to see it. The fact is, you have proven nothing and only harrass me with half-complete references and failed logic attampts. While I do not have time to chase down unnecessary links for what is only a footnote matter in this situation, here is one report made after Tom Green's sentences were handed down. Even though your abusive behavior can be expected to show that you will not allow yourself to see even the obviousness from that reference, it doesn't matter. Your irrelevant demands for unnecessary "references" (in this footnote matter) are but a straw man, in your trying to make a chapter out of a mere footnote. I am done wasting time with someone whose only interest here is to harass. Please stop trolling this wiki. -- Researcher99, 13 Jan 2005