Talk:Polygamy/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Copyright Violation

The text in the reference to Illinois state law in the 1830s was taken directly from http://www.mormonismi.info/jamesdavid/dcandlaw.htm with no accompanying citation. That page has the following notice: "Copyright © 1997, All Rights Reserved. Created by James David." I removed it to make the point that when citing a source, you cite the source from which you obtain the material, not just the source from which your source claims to have taken the material (although that source may indeed be correct). --TrustTruth 02:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Mormons and polygamy

Who said Joseph Smith had more than one wife(Emma Smith)? Wasn't he accused of polygamy and therefore thrown into Liberty Jail-from which he was released? And guys, I want that citation of Wilford Woodruff marrying a person on the high seas after his Manifesto because I see it as very unlikely. I happen to be quite aquainted with Mormon history and while I am not embarassed at the other church leaders, Wilford Woodruff is where I draw the line. This sounds a lot like anti-Mormon folklore. The Mormons officially declared in the Doctrine and Covenants page 292 that plural marriage was not to happen after it had been proposed by Joseph F. Smith in 1890-to "follow the law of the land", probably because the practise of polygamy would make many unwilling to join the LDS Church because of polygamy (although it was practised in the bible). Starhood` 22:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)(someone else edited this-not all this is starhood's writing or opinion)

I looked up the reference to the 1886 revelation to John Taylor and after reading it and doing a bit of research it seems that the revelation used by the fundamentalists is actually ambiguous rather than disputed. I am very interested in Mormon studies and can see why they are using the revelation, but the problem is the concept of the revelation has no preface - I cannot find any reason as to the purpose of the revelation, ie what was the question that brought about the revelation. I could not find any evidence this revelation was disputed and so I will change that word to ambiguous. Redrok84 (talk) 02:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Secular Oppositions to Polygamy?

I find it hard to believe that all secular social groups are perfectly fine with polygamy. Arent there some feminist, or hell, romantic opposing voices?

Good point. Given that some high-profile FCLDS leaders seem to indulge in domestic violence and child sexual abuse, shouldn't there be a seperate section on Feminism and Polygamy? Calibanu (talk) 06:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)User Calibanu

Polygamy in the Bible

New Testament - What do all the references people use from the bible say? Theres ones where God orders a man to marry a woman when he already has a wife. What thereferences God is against Polygamy? Im sure the bible permits and disallows it else where as it does for most things.

Does the bible say how Polygamy compaeres in sinfullness to sex before marriage or even after remarrying (After Divorce), As these are very common for christians to do!--Polygamyx4 12:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any Bible verse, old or new testament, that disagrees with polygamy. Quite the contrary. Which is why it's ridiculous when the fundamentalists, who claim that the Bible should be our only moral guide, then attack Mormons for having been polygamous over a century ago, or the Muslims for being allowed several wives. At least the Qur'an limits it to four wives and has the common courtesy to specify "if you can't treat them all equally, then don't have more than one." As far as the Bible's concerned, men can fuck as many women as they want.

Apparently you do not know your Bible well enough then.

One can even see that Jesus sided with the monogamists. Matthew 19:1-12 is primarily about adultery and divorce, but many people fallaciously argue that this means we cannot say it also advocates monogamy. We must look at what verses Jesus chose to cite from the Old Testament. In Matthew 19:4-5, he said "MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE" and "FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH" (citing Genesis 1:27 and 2:24). Notice that he emphasizes two once again in 19:6.

In addition, no polygamous act was ever blessed by God in the Bible. In fact, all of them ended in misery or were a result of misery. The only exception would perhaps be Onan, in which God required him to take his relative's wife as his own, per custom. But even if we take the only Old Testament regulation on polygamy, Exodus 21:10, as a sanction of it, one would note that it is apart of the law of ordinances (or simply, regulations), which are clearly abolished in Ephesians 2:14-15; note the distinction between Law and law, as evidenced in Matthew 5:17-20, with "Law" being the commandments and moral law and "law" being the regulations such as sacrifices, unclean foods, etc. Therefore, even if it were allowed in the Old Testament, it would not be any longer, superceded by the monogamy of the New Testament; in fact, polygamy can be implicitly seen as adultery by the way Jesus described marriage. Some argue that Titus 1:6 and Timothy 3:1-5 allow for polygamy so long as they do not take up church leadership, but they fail to recognize that the church was in its first generation at the time and had many polygamists among them.

As for your statements regarding what Christians do, there are many so-called Christians who will not end up in Heaven, as they do not accept Jesus as Lord AND Savior. There is no Christian Lite, you're either onboard the Sanctification Express or you're not. Heed the dire warning given by Jesus in Matthew 7:21-23: "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'." Still, Christians acknowledge that the reason why we need Jesus is because we are sinful and depraved.

Finally, regarding the Quran. Until Islamic scholars allow the Quran to be dissected and criticized, its credibility remains in doubt. Honestly, if it was perfect, given by the hand of Allah, why did it need to be revised and codified by the Caliph Uthman? Why do the oldest versions have huge structural differences? I mean, perfect books do not need to be changed at all. Also, why does it have a massive Judeo-Christian substrate? Because he was a successful merchant beforehand, and Christianity was the fastest growing religion in his geographical area. Christianity does not share this lack of scholarly study. We have thousands of manuscripts dating from the actual ministry of the Apostles that are nearly identical to the modern translations.!--Taishaku 21:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I am certain this is an oversight - I would never suggest that the fundamentalists aren't strictly Biblical in everything they do. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Muslim Polygamy Section

For example, polygamy is prohibited by law in Turkey, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Syria, and Lebanon.

This statement is wrong, polygamy is allowed in both Syria and Lebanon. Also, this statement:

In the modern Islamic world, polygamy is mainly found in traditionalist Arab cultures, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates for instance

Is POV, there is nothing to prove that. I would genuinely be interested in seeing any statistics that proove that polygamy is more widespread in Saudi Arabia than it is in Morocco, Egypt or Syria as an example (not to mention other countries such as India or Indonesea). Countries where it is against the law (such as Turkey) don't count because people do not have the same freedom. --Maha Odeh 10:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Baalthazaq (talk) 09:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC) The entire section on Muslim Polygamy needs a revamp. Tagging together the UAE and Saudi Arabia as traditionalist is bizarre and misleading at worst and subjective at best, not to mention using that as a reason why polygamy would be allowed. Calling Turkey a Muslim country is arguable considering how strongly they favour secularism when it comes to government. There is no consistency in the terms traditional, Arab, or Muslim, yet these are the defintions by which Islamic polygamy is being categorized, seemingly in an attempt to push a point of view (Polygamy must be bad as only "traditionalist" "Arab" "Islamic" countries allow it, where these three are defined at a whim of the writer). There's also no mention of Iran (which is not Arab) and acts as a massive counter to the point being (IMO erroneously) made.

What I would advise is a rewrite of the section, possibly dividing it into two. 1) Modern Arab Polygamy, giving a breakdown of which countries allow it/disallow it, and any other relevant information to the countries that use it. 2) Polygamy in Islam, giving a breakdown of the conditions under which it is allowed (They must be provided for equally, consent, etc), and when it is not (You cannot marry two sisters, etc). Both of these topics should be enough to fill out a little section of their own, and it will likely clear up confusion between say what Iran does, what the UAE does, what Turkey does, and what is Islamic, all of which are different and all of which are currently bunched together.

Request for Bibliographic Inclusion

Cool Hand has requested that I petition the user community to evaluate our newly published book, Polygamy: The Mormon Enigma, to determine whether or not it sufficiently adds to the discussion of this and other articles. If it is found to be of value, the book would be added to the bibliography. The reason for his request is that because I am the publisher and my father is the author, our submission of the book to the bibliography violates WP:COI. Interested reviewers can request a galley copy of the book by contacting me Howick. The book specifically discusses the legal and religious history of polygamy, its political impact, the LDS perspective, and its future. Tou can view an excerpt (including the table of contents) via this link: EXCERPT. WindRiver Publishing (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I oppose. No sources mention this book, and it doesn't even appear to be released. The "bibliography" section is not pre-release publicity for new title. I would favor including only when the book is released with reviews which suggest it's a valuable addition to the field. It's listed under "politics" rather than "history" or "sociology," so I have my doubts. Cool Hand Luke 20:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Response: The book is new (publication date: Dec 8, 2007). The book's printed and published genre is BISG REL084000, Religion/Religion, Politics, and State. Despite offering a galley of the book free of charge to any interested party, no one (including Cool Hand Luke) has asked for one. Judging a book about polygamy to be valueless because it hasn't had substantial review (see example, below) or focuses on the legal and political aspects of the practice (especially when the article has a section about legal issues) seems disingenuous. However, we're happy to submit to the criteria determined by this group, so long as it is applied fairly to everyone in the Bibliography.

For example, the first book listed in the Bibliography, Modern Polygamy and Mormon Fundamentalism... by Brian Hales, has had no discussion on this talk page or in any of the archives. It was published March 29 of this year and, after searching through *all* of its Google entries, has had one article in the Deseret News (seven months before its publication date), one podcast (published Nov 12, 2007 — two months after the title was posted in the Bibliography), and a couple of blog entries. I can't find any sources that mention the book. The book doesn't seem to meet Cool Hand Luke's criteria, but it was added on 9 September 2007 by 71.219.132.70 apparently without complaint.

If this forum is to do the thing that Tori said to use our book as a test case for establishing policies for bibliographic inclusion, that's fine, so long as the forum remains unbiased until making its decision, and then applies that decision fairly. Meaning, incidentally, that either all of the books in the Bibliography that don't meet the forum's current policy be removed, or that all submitted books (including ours) be included until a decision is made.WindRiver Publishing (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip regarding the non-notable Hales book. It's now removed from this article's bibliography. Binksternet (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Polyamory

I have removed the following, it is unreferenced and poorly written. A polygamous marriage doesn't have to involve romance or love at all, so the definition is inaccurate. I will add a link at "see also".

• Polyamory refers to romantic or sexual relationships involving multiple partners at once, regardless of whether they involve marriage. Any polygamous relationship is polyamorous, and some polyamorous relationships involve multiple spouses. "Polygamy" is usually used to refer to multiple marriage, while "polyamory" implies a relationship defined by negotiation between its members rather than cultural norms. It is also seen as a modern euphemism (replacing the older term "swinging") to attempt to avoid the social stigma attached to polygamy. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 20:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

'rampant extramarital affairs'

I think we need a quotation for that. What does 'rampant' mean here? Is it more than in other countries? 'rampant' is an unscientific term. Please rephrase the paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.87.235.91 (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

New Testement view on polygamy

I added to the "Christianity" section, the chapters and verse that promote monogamy.

Also, is there a term for a marriage where both the husband and wife in a marriage, are leagally or illegally married to multiple spouses? Or does that just fall under bigamy and polygamy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivify (talk • contribs) 22:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

MORE ABOUT THE CHINESE/HONG KONG SECTION

1. It was not clear why beginning from Han Dynasty, the Chinese could only take one wife. Chinese could take a wife and numerous concubines as long as he could, and that was BEFORE Han Dynasty, during Han Dynasty and after Han Dynasty.

2. If I remember correctly, Repulic of China banned polygamy (not to mention Taipeng Rebellion), but this was not enforced.

3. In Hong Kong, the former British Colonial Government did not really allow polygamy. What the 1973 law did was to grant legality to former polygamous marriages (under traditional Chinese context), and after that date, all polygamyous marriages, Chinese style or not, were to be illegal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.246.124.11 (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is it illegal?

It doesn't explain anywhere in the article why polygamy is illegal in modern countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bothtotally (talk • contribs) 01:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What's to explain? Laws don't need reasons. -- Zsero (talk) 05:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Some secular arguments against polygamy

1. The various complications in dissolution of the marriage such as determining community property and child custody.

Mediating divorce is generally the province of the legal system and is frequently very contentious. Legal marriage in a largely secular society such as the US is the province of the legal system. Similar for inheritance upon death of a spouse, particularly the husband in a polygynous relationship.

2. Although one can imagine happy, balanced, polygamous marriages in practice, the oddball small tribe excepted, the practice tends towards male dominated societies and polygyny exclusively (Islam, fundamentalist LDS.) One could argue that this is no accident.

3. As seen in the recently publicized case (FLDS) polygamy seems to be reasonably associated with sexual predation particularly of children. The reasoning is that tearing down the simple boundaries of monogamous marriage leads to a blurring of other sexual norms (if you'll admit that not forcing young girls into sexual marriages is a "norm".) One could argue that this doesn't have to be a result of polygamy, but it's difficult to argue against actual incidents which may involve thousands of complicit adults with hypotheticals.

4. Polygamy by its nature restricts the gene pool. The FLDS and other related polygamous communities have a startling incidence of fumarase deficiency, a genetic defect which seems to have been present in the founding two families. Fumarase deficiency is essentially fatal. Victims are almost always profoundly mentally retarded, can't care for themselves or even sit up, have up to half of their brain mass missing, and don't live very long after birth. One could argue that a polygamous relationship makes such children easier to care for (multiple caregivers in a household) but that seems rather cynical if that's also the cause. So one can argue that laws against polygamy are related, pragmatically, to laws against incest.

5. Polygamy is often organized around a notion of a first wife being special or in charge of the other wives, or a favorite wife (chosen by the husband for personal reasons) with that role.

Some might find this acceptable while others might view the marital discord potential with some trepidation. Perhaps it shouldn't be up to the state to use its powers to enforce what it sees as propitious marriage pairings; consider the history of the miscegenation laws as a terrible example of the state meddling in this area. But as described above at some point if it's a legally recognized marriage then mediating its dissolution or more severe disputes often falls to the state.

One could counter-argue that by this reasoning the state should prohibit marriages where one or both partners are unrehabilitated habitual substance abusers or have failed in several other serial marriages or a myriad of other preconditions which might make the proposed marriage likely to fail.

Divorce and serious marital discord (e.g., requiring legal intervention) should be investigated in polygamous vs. monogamous marriages.

6. The FLDS community may not be representative but it is interesting that the mothers have refused to identify the fathers of the children they claim are theirs (do they even know?) and the children don't seem to know who their fathers are either. Perhaps this is acceptable to some, but again here we have this real life example to study and there seems to be tremendous social and role confusion. Is it inherent? Or just their particular choice? It certainly would be difficult to confuse parentage so thoroughly in a purely monogamous society. I said purely, extra-marital affairs notwithstanding.

P.S. I don't represent the above as research quality. It's completely devoid of references for one thing. But I thought it might be useful to list some secular arguments against polygamy which try to stay within reasonable bounds of discourse.

Bshein (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be sources for anything added. Point 2 seems speculation and dubious - there are plenty of people who practice happy balanced multiple relationships (e.g., see polyamory, it's just that the laws of the land prevent them from marrying, i.e., practicing polygamy), and on the other hand, there are plenty of examples of dysfunctional monogamous marriages (from divorce, to forced arranged marriages). Similarly for point 3 - the same flawed argument that doing one thing outside of the norm means accepting other things outside of the norm is used against same sex marriages. Points 2-6 all seem specific to the FLDS, and are not inherent properties of polygamy.

If there are notable people who make these criticisms, I'd say they can be added, but it should not be done in a way that presents these criticisms as true, and ideally we should find opposing points of view. Mdwh (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Big Love

The article states: Big Love is an HBO series about a polygamous family in Utah in the first decade of the 21st century. In the series, Bill Henrickson has three wives and seven children, who belong to a fundamentalist Mormon splinter group.

To the best of my knowledge, this family, in fact, does not "belong" to any organized group as stated by the father figure (Bill Paxton) in both the pilot and episode 1 Season 1. They appear to adhere to some of their teachings (i.e. polygamy and sometimes prayer), but don't actually belong to either "The Brotherhood" or to the mainstream Mormon church. Felinity (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

cite mess

Something wierd is going on after Benefits of polygamy Bachcell (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Polygamy

Polygamy was started in utah by the mormons because the lord told Brigham Young (The prophet of the LDS Church) to take care of their people because most of the men were killed off when lived in Missouri and Nauvoo. The LDS church stopped doing polygamy when the U.S. wanted them to stop so they could make utah a state. The people who still believed that polygamy was the right thing to do are the people in the FLDS religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.208.47 (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There are several factual errors in the above paragraph. Foremost, polygamy was instituted by Joseph Smith Jr. in Illinois, not by Brigham Young in Utah. The "revelation" establishing polygamy is recorded in LDS scripture as being given to Joseph Smith Jr in 1843. Joseph Smith Jr. is known to have had multiple wives in secrecy. Also, it is incorrect that the women significantly outnumbered the men in early Utah. Additionally, members of the LDS church continued to live in polygamous marriages after Utah statehood, including the next two new church presidents following statehood (Smith and Grant). Smith was charged with "unlawful cohabitation" and pled guilty in 1906.--CraniumHand (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Same-Sex Marriage and Polygamy

I was just curious about this, as i just thought up about this, that if Same-Sex polygamy ever has happen. I'd like to know about that as i think in some way its kinda interesting but maybe probably to some of you, Morbid. But i don't mean to gross anybody out, really. And to tell you a example about this, like a man having two husbands and so on. So please answer as you can and as i might have told you earlier, that i think it'd interesting to talk about in some form or another.Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.40.125 (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it has been legal anywhere, at least not in modern times. The areas where the two are legal tend not to overlap. But surely there are people out there living in same-sex polyamorous relationships (though I don't know any examples personally). NisJorgensen (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

FLDS not Mormons or LDS Church

The Associated Press Guide of Style instructs journalists to use the term "Mormon" to refer to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and those who claim official membership. Early Mormon leaders ended the practice among its members and members are sanctioned with excommunication if they practice polygamy. The term "Mormon offshoot" is a misleading term for the FLDS church, even if some members of this organization claim affiliation with the LDS church in any form. See http:\\www.lds.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.104.225 (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone just deleted this comment and I've undeleted it. Personally, I find it odd that LDS get to bar other groups from calling themselves Mormon, but still get to call themselves xtian, but if the AP has really made this style than I think it should be respected. "Mormon offshoot" on the other hand, makes perfect sense. FiveRings (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage proponents and pedophilia

I find this bit from the article a little problematic:

Many proponents of same-sex marriage are also in favour of maintaining current statutory prohibitions against polygamy, arguing that while same-sex marriages do not involve toleration of pedophilia amongst practitioners, the same is not true of most polygamists in the United States.

The problems are multiple: - Akward wording, "do not involve toleration ..." - Unsubstantiated claim that most polygamists in the US _do_ "involve toleration of pedophilia" - or rather that some ssm-proponents claim this. - "Many proponents ..., arguing ..." I consider weasel words, since not all people mentioned in the first half subscribe to the argument. Also, "many" is vague in itself.

Since I have a feeling that the first half of the sentence is correct, I have just changed the linking of the two parts, and added a "citation needed" for the claim made in the second half. If I had better knowledge of the different positions in the US debate, I might have rewritten the second half completely. NisJorgensen (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources

What is the source for stating that Lovell, Wyoming, has a small group of FLDS? I looked at footnote 66, which is used as the citation, but I couldn't find anything in that that stated there were FLDS in Lovell. I'm doing research on the subject. Tlinse (talk) 02:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

External Links - Christian Polygamy section

I have just made two edits to the External Links - Christian Polygamy section.

1. In this first edit, I removed the link to a yahoo group. It seemed ridiculous to have a little yahoo group listed so prominently. The free group has such a little membership. There are also many yahoo groups. Should we have all yahoo groups listed? Does anyone else disagree?
2. In this second edit, I moved the biblicalfamilies.org link to the bottom of the list. That's all I did for that link for now. I am not sure it should even be listed. The whois for biblicalfamilies.org says that the new site was created this year. The web-site even brags about putting itself into Wikipedia. Also, I can't find any links going to that site on any of the older polygamy web-sites. I question whether it is authoritative yet. Am I wrong? Should it really even be listed? If no one disagrees with me, I would be willing to remove it completely. Or someone else can if they want.

Lookbeyond (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The Lookbeyond has been vandalizing the Polygamy entry for the purpose of promoting the organization TruthBearer. This is beyond suspicious.

Please realize that just because you make an accusation, it does mean it is true. There is no evidence that I have been pushing anyone of any sort. Lookbeyond (talk) 02:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The Yahoo Group link which Lookbeyond deleted, and which I restored (and which I am the moderator of), is the largest single group on the subject of Christian polygamy on the Internet. Whether a Yahoo talk group or not, it provides a lot of information on this subject, and should be listed.

I explained why I deleted the link to your yahoo group and I asked for input here. That is not vandalism. It is the proper way. I do not believe that a mere yahoo group qualifies for wikipedia entries. Just becuase I believe that doesnot mean I am promoting anyone. You say your yahoo groups provides a lot of information but you deleted many well-established sites that have been linked here for years. From what I can see, they have always provided lots of information. I only deleted the one link to your yahoo group becuase I doubt value with yahoo groups. You have deleted manmy links. I don't think I can honestly be the one who is the vandal here. Lookbeyond (talk) 02:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

User Lookbeyond did not just move the link for BiblicalFamilies.org, but also defaced the link description. I restored that description, and placed all the site links in that area in alphabetical order beginning with their primary site name for fairness and impartiality. The age of a website has no bearing on its applicability to the link section on Wikipedia. JohnBoyTheGreat (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I explained my questioning the value of the site that was only started this year. Because the site is so new and unknown by any established site, that does make it questonable. I simplfied the description and kept the link. I asked what others thought here. That is also proper way. It is not evidence of defacing or vandalism. Lookbeyond (talk) 02:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

A user JohnBoyTheGreat has vandalized the External Links section of the article. In his vandalizing edit, he removed links that have been there for years. He replaced them with the same two questionable links I was concerned about when I started this discussion here several days ago. It looks to me that JohnBoyTheGreat has a self-promotion interest here. Replacing well established links from years ago with a new site and a mere yahoo group looks very suspicious. He probably owns one or both of the new ones. His vandalism needs to be undone. Lookbeyond (talk) 15:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone viewing the activities of Lookbeyond will easily be able to tell who is promoting. The "links that have been their for years" which he notes, are links belonging to the one organization, TruthBearer. Since having multiple links to the same organization can be considered link spam, these links were removed in the interests of fairness and accuracy.

I repeat, just because you make an accusation or say something is true, that does not mean it is. Except once, I have not posted any links that were not already here. I have cleaned up links. For example, I re-located one link from an anti-polygamist writer and made a complete quote from them. I also re-located a Mormon polygamy link to the Mormon polygamy section and cleaned up its advertising wording. The only edit I made with new links were from within sources already provided here, plus one from a Christian news source, the 700 Club. In that case, I cleaned up the post where someone had posted links to two sites by the same man. One was of the same new site I question here. I explained that edit here for discussion. I provided the proof and evidence that biblicalfamiles is owned by the exact same man. In the article, I only tried to provide proven authoritative support for what the sentence was stating about conservative Christians supporting polygamy. Originally, the statement had said "groups," but I made it more accurate and cited media proof. I fully explained what I was doing here. Citing from the 700 Club media site hardly means I am promoting links that belong to TruthBearer. Please remember that just because you say something, it does not mean it is true. You have back up what you say. Just because you say all the links I moved belong to TruthBearer, you have to prove it. From what I can see, each site is quite unique and its content clearly stands on its own. Just because TruthBearer links to them, that does not make it spam. If anything, because the media has proven TruthBearer, it makes the links all that more credible too. That is not spam by any definition. Lookbeyond (talk) 02:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, the previous changes made to the links by Lookbeyond were undone, repaired, and placed in alphabetical order for fairness.

You deleted links that do not even relate to Christian polygamy. I believe that what is important is quality to help the user reading the article. Alphabetical order has value sometimes, but not always. In the Christian Polygamy section, the order was fine as it was. The order of original sites listed, before you vandalized it, first explained the Christian polygamy movement and its history. It was followed by TruthBearer. Then by the site that answers all biblical arguments. Then a site that defends it, followed by the new site which I still question but did not delete. That order seems to help the user better than some alphabetical order. It doesn't matter though, because you have deleted those established sites to place your own sites in alphabetical order. I believe that that is [WP:VANDALISM|vandalism]. Lookbeyond (talk) 02:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

As for the new sites, I have no personal bias towards them, except that I recently joined one, but haven't been active on it. These are all important links, and they should all get equal time. JohnBoyTheGreat (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You are clearly connected to the only two links I questioned. I still kept one and only deleted the one that leads to the yahoo group you own. You obviously have no NPOV here. Please remember that I have only deleted one link. That was your yahoo group. I properly explained why and I asked for discussion here. If a consensus from from other NPOV wikipedians agreed to add all yahoo groups to wikipedia articles, then maybe it could be added. That would not include anyone from your yahoo group. You mention equal time but you are deleting many, many well established links. From your comments here, you seem to have anger about TruthBearer. I don't know why. It doesn't matter. I don't care to know really. I am not a head doctor. Your anger does show you do not have NPOV. I was able to search and find many media news reports about that organization. Those news reports tell me TruthBearer has been vetted and proven. It says that what the people at that organization say have credibility on the issue. If they link to other sites, they must have a reason. Those other sites are also considered valuable too if they are different in content. You seem to think other sites are owned by the organization. Please remember, just because you believe or say something, that does not mean it is true. You have no proof. I trust all the media reports I found about them. I could not find even one news report for your yahoo group or the new site I question. That's why I question it. That does not mean I have bias or lack NPOV. It does not mean I am promoting TruthBearer. I believe it shows I have NPOV. So I think your bias is evident. You are upset that I do not believe your yahoo group or any yahoo group is qualified to be in a wikipedia article. You do not like that I question the new site you like too. You also do not like TruthBearer for some reason. So you deleted many links based on your anger and bias. Lookbeyond (talk) 02:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I just took a look at the contibs of JohnBoyTheGreat. I found that he has admitted he owns the yahoo list after someone called him out on it. It seems he and his yahoo list are trying to create a new wikipedia word Christian Plural Marriage. This shows that the vandal is definitely a self-interest promoter. Lookbeyond (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This is manifestly untrue, and smacks of libel. I have never denied that I am the moderator of the Yahoo group which is listed in the link section on in the Polygamy article. As noted on the page in question, Hareydog has been doing some suspicious things himself. It almost seems like Lookbeyond and Hareydog might be involved in a conspiracy to promote their site and get rid of competition.

What is untrue? I only noted that you openly admitted it. I did not say you ever denied it. I was doing what is necessary. Please remember, just because someone says something is true, it does not mean it is. You have to prove it. That is what I was doing. I found the evidence to prove that you are the owner of the yahoo group. That is proper ways for wikipedia. I was not libelling you. You are now saying you never denied it. That further confirms that I was right to provide the evidence to prove it. I do not know where you get that I am promoting what you say is "my site" with some other wikipedian. What site do you think I have? Please remember, just because you make an accusation, it does not mean it is true. Lookbeyond (talk) 02:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Be honest about your motives, and let's edit this Wikipedia for the good of all, not for shameless self-promotion. JohnBoyTheGreat (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly my point. I believe that it is you and your yahoo group are doing the shameless promotion. You have not been doing so for the good of all. You are angry. You accuse me of things I have not done. I have only deleted the link to your yahoo group, but you have deleted well established credible sites. I think it is a never-ending precedent to start letting yahoo groups listed. Then anyone can create a group and demand the same equal time you want. I also question whether a new site started this year is credible enough yet for inclusion, but I have not deleted that. I left that open for discussion, which is the proper way. Frankly, I believe that as the link section gets restored to before your vandalizing deletions, that any site afterward should have to stand to qualification before being posted. Just because someone makes a site, that doesn't mean it is authoritative enough for inclusion. That doesn't make me biased. It shows my NPOV and desire for quality in the page. Lookbeyond (talk) 02:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It seemed very suspicious to me why JohnBoyTheGreat made this edit about Christian Plural Marriage after vandalizing the External Links section with this vandalizing edit first. Now, that I understand he and his yahoo group are trying to make a new wikipedia word Christian Plural Marriage, I understand why he would make this edit about Christian Plural Marriage. That leaves me with another question though. Why remove long standing quality links that you would think support his view? I think I figured it out. Googling "Christian Polygamy" gets 7200 hits. Googling "Christian Plural Marriage" only gets 33 hits. He and his yahoo group are trying to sap wikipedia to make up a word that does not really exist. He seems to be trying to re-define everything so he can control it. It would make everything point to his yahoo group instead of resources that have already been proven. While a section for Christian Polygamy might be appropriate, both of his edits are evidently self-interest. They are not WP:NPOV. Wikipedia articles should be about quality. Resources should be provable and legitimate. A man with a simple yahoo group creating a word that has only 33 google hits does not qualify. That's why I am undoing his vandalism. Maybe a more accurately titled "Christian Polygamy" section could be started afterward, though. If so, then the resources that are already proven should not be removed. Lookbeyond (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be a new Wikipedia entry, not a new Wikipedia word. Anyone familiar with Christian polygamy would know that Christian plural marriage has been around as a term for years.

Please remember, just because you say something, that doesn't mean it is true. If it was so common, it would have shown up in more than 33 google hits. Lookbeyond (talk) 02:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

However, that said, I am in favor of changing it to "Christian polygamy", which is the more common term.

I am glad we agree. It is the only correct term, as it shows in google searches and the well established links. Lookbeyond (talk) 02:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

As for the lie that we are attempting to point things to our Yahoo group, the falseness of this claim is self-evident. There is one link on the Polygamy article to our Yahoo group, and two links on the Christian plural marriage entry--one in context and the other as an external link. This seems reasonable and appropriate.

It is clearly not false. That entire article is being created by your yahoo group. Your anger and false accusations against me are because you want to get your yahoo group listed. I question that entire new wikipedia entry, word, whatever, that your yahoo group is creating. Just as you have vandalized this polygamy article here by deleting many links, I see that your yahoo group of posters at that other article are not listing the well established sites either. Your group created a word "christian plural marriage" that only gets 33 google hits. You also deleted the links to the well established sites. You show your anger is somehow based against TruthBearer. You seem angry at me too because I found that the media has proven TruthBearer to be authoritative. All these things show me your yahoo group is being deceptive at Wikipedia. Lookbeyond (talk) 02:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, Lookbeyond has consistently edit the Polygamy entry to the benefit of the TruthBearer organization. Hmmmm.... JohnBoyTheGreat (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Please remember, just because you say something, that doesn't mean it is true. Whatever your anger about TruthBearer is, please take it elsewhere. Just because I value media authority for validity, that does not mean I am promoting anyone or any organization. Now that you have vandalized the piece a second time, I expect this matter will have to get other wikipedians to look at what you are doing. To avoid that, I recommend you undo your latest vandalism of deletions to get them back to the original position they were in before you made the deletions. That is the best position for re-starting neutrally. So the sooner you do that before anyone else acts, the more of a good faith act it will be on your part. You say you want want to do good for all and you think sites should equal time. I invite you to do that by restoring the well established links exactly as they were before you vandalized them. I am giving you my own act of good faith here by giving you that opportunity to do it yourself. Lookbeyond (talk) 02:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Now who is assuming what? I have no anger at TruthBearer. It is simply not appropriate for an encyclopedia article to have multiple links to the same organization, with substantially the same material. Again, this appears to be a promotive effort, not a neutral contribution.

I would be happy to return this entire section to the point it was at before you started making the changes that do not appear to be neutral, and then let everyone come to a consensus concerning the article. However, things have changed so much that it will not allow me to revert back that far. I suppose we can simply come to an agreement at this point about content, and move on from there.

Please understand that I am interested in a Neutral point of view and I am going to assume good faith on your part from here on out, as we are all supposed to be doing. I apologize for letting things get out of hand. My comments were only based upon your accusations of vandalism and conspiracy towards myself and others. In the future, let's avoid personal attacks and work together to make this an excellent article. JohnBoyTheGreat (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I realized I had forgotten one thing. So I am glad to admit it. When I said I only deleted one link, I was thinking only of the External Links section. I had forgotten about the one edit I made to the Polygamy and religion section. As my explanation there shows, I had replaced two references with three references that were more provably authoritative. The original statement in the article spoke plurally of "groups" of conservative Christians. The two references were not of two "groups" because they were both simple web-sites of one man. One of those replaced was the new biblicalfamiles site which I question, but which I did still keep in the Links section. The other was that site owner's other subdomain site of "dukeofmarshall." That is other site I now remember that I also deleted. It hardly changes anything in this isssue of vandalzing the well-established links and creating a word that only has 33 google hits. It also doesn't prove I have done anything that is not NPOV. Everything else still remains the same but I did not want my forgotten mistake here to distract us from resolving this in good faith. I still invite you to make the good faith act here. Lookbeyond (talk) 03:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I am deleting every single non-neutral external link. This is an encyclopedia, not a battleground. Any reader who wants to find a website with a slant is perfectly able to on his or her own. Binksternet (talk) 04:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet. I have undone your deletions so that these links will not be lost until we can come to a consensus on whether they should exist or not.

According to the Neutral point of view and External links guidelines, these "pro" and "con" links are appropriate if they are reasonably balanced between each other. While Wikipedia is not designed to be a link farm, it is also appropriate to add links that provide further information--particularly upon issues with diverging viewpoints. This has been done on many Wikipedia articles, and helps the user to find valuable resources for further research. While they may be able to search it out themselves, the point of Wikipedia is to help them find information. JohnBoyTheGreat (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

JohnBoyTheGreat, you don't appear to me to have a neutral position on this issue—as one of the people operating one of the external links you have a conflict of interest here. You need to recuse yourself from the issue of which links are listed. See WP:COI Binksternet (talk) 02:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Binksternet, these links have existed for several years now. Your change is inappropriate, given the nature of the subject matter and the points I've made above. We should seek a group consensus before making such a large deletion. You shouldn't continue to make this decision by yourself.

Given the appearance of a conflict of interest, I will be happy to remove the link to the Yahoo group from the list. However, I'm going to restore these other external links until a consensus is reached. In a case like this it is more important to keep the status quo. The link to the Yahoo group will be removed, which removes any conflict of interest you may think I have. JohnBoyTheGreat (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Polygamy and religion - Christianity section

I have just made another edit involving the biblicalfamilies.org site. In the edit to the wiki that I just made, I thought the original citations were not authoritative. Also, the two sites are the same person.

As I noticed before, the whois for biblicalfamilies.org says it was created this year. It also shows that new site is owned by Todd W. of Marshall, NC. His whois contact email is listed as dukeofmarshall at a gmail address. The second cited web-site, polygyny.dukeofmarshall.com, is also owned by him too. The whois for dukeofmarshall.com shows the identical whois name, address, and email. On his polygyny.dukeofmarshall.com site, the counter says he has not even had 10,000 hits since 2005. On his biblicalfamilies.org site where it brags about putting itself into Wikipedia, one of the pictured posters is named, DukeOfMarshall. He is listed as the Site Admin. The lower level of webdesign of the two sites makes it obvious that he is not a webhosting service. He is just one man with two sites.

Actually, the two sites were registered by the same person. However, BiblicalFamilies.org was donated the domain name by Todd Marshall. He doesn't own both sites. He works as the Site Admin for the owner of the site and helped him set it up. This is pretty common knowledge in the world of Christian polygamy.

Also, it is untrue that BiblicalFamilies.org brags about putting itself into Wikipedia. A careful reading shows that they just mentioned that they were in Wikipedia. Please be careful about how you characterize the activities of others here on Wikipedia.

You are supposed to assume good faith on the part of others, according to the guidelines. For instance, your comment "The lower level of webdesign of the two sites..." indicates that you are belittling the two sites for no appropriate reason. Other people may reach the conclusion that you are unilaterally attacking this group for unknown reasons, and we wouldn't want to not assume good faith on your part. So, please be careful what you say about others. We will try to do the same. JohnBoyTheGreat (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The original two citations went to that same person's two sites. It is not "two different groups" as the original citation implied. Neither site seems authoritative to qualify for the citation. I can't find other sites linking to the two sites and they have had no media reports about them. So I went looking to see if something else could be found, at least.

I must disagree. BiblicalFamilies is one of the most authoritative organizations on the issue of Christian polygamy today. There are few media reports about any Christian polygamy organization. Christian polygamy is considered illegal, and most of its proponents are not in the eye of the media. The only organization that might be more authoritative on the subject of Christian polygamy is the ChristianPolygamy2 Yahoo group, which is the largest organization supporting Christian polygamy on the Internet. JohnBoyTheGreat (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

From the older links in the External Links - Christian Polygamy section of this wiki, I saw that the listed truthbearer.org site was for an organization that has done many news-reported interviews with the media about polygamy. Near the top of that site's pages, there is a link that mentions the "700 Club." Because that is Pat Robertson's media for evangelical Christians, it made sense to use that as a citation. Searching for that news report, I found the link for that August, 2005 report at CBN.com. I also found another report about that "700 Club" report that notes how significant it was that the "700 Club" made that "historic" report calling them evangelical Christians. These three citations make a strong authoritative case that there are some evangelical conservative Christians today who still believe that polygamy is biblical and valid. So I edited the citation to say that and I replaced the previous two citations with these three new ones.

These are the reasons for my most recent edit to the wiki. I hope I am doing a good job here. Lookbeyond (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lookbeyond. From the nature of your changes, while still assuming good faith, I would suggest that you may have a conflict of interest. The number of links that you added previously to the link section, and the additional links to news articles on the TruthBearer site, suggests to me that you have a strong connection to that organization.

While it is certainly appropriate to provide news links, we should try not to advertise a particular site. We need to maintain a neutral point of view. I think that this is not entirely neutral, so I vote to remove the links and find neutral replacements for them. JohnBoyTheGreat (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Biblical sources

It appears that I'm sharing an IP with someone being called out for trivial changes. I have, nevertheless, made a trivial change in this section. The word "of" is now "to" in the sentence, "This practice also provided a means to provide for widows." I only mention it because of the other contributor. 64.229.239.38 (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sex Ratios

"Secondly, that the remaining women have a better market for finding a spouse themselves. Say that 20% of women are married to 10% of men, that leaves 90% of men to compete over the remaining 80% of women."

But this advantage is based on the assumption that the numbers of men and women are roughly equal. If, instead, there are 9 women for every 8 men, then (using the same figure of 20% of women being married to 10% of men) the number of single men and single women will be equal. Or if there are 3 women for every 2 men, then there will be 4 single women for every 3 single men, and perhaps then it would be the women competing over the men.

This leads me to ask two questions: (1) Do certain societies have a significant surplus of women, perhaps due to large numbers of men being killed in warfare? (2) If so, is this why polygyny is accepted? DanBishop (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No, a tiny majority of rich men just get a harem. The effect on the wider society, if significant, is not considered. ---DavidJErskine (talk) 11:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Standards for Links: Proven Authority

Introduction to what started this

JohnBoyTheGreat first began vandalizing the article by deleting many links that have been on the page for years. He has also been proven that he is directly connected to two of the links he tried to add. When Binksternet took it too far and deleted all links, JohnBoyTheGreat used the defense of links being around "for years." At the same time, JohnBoyTheGreat refuses to recognize the actual links that have been listed on the page for years. For neutrality, I called for restoring the links as they were, but that request for good faith has still not occurred.

Binksternet has correctly called for the yahoo group owner, JohnBoyTheGreat, to not be allowed to post links on this article. I concur. However, I do not agree with Binksternet's belief that all non-neutral links should be deleted.

In this recent statement, JohnBoyTheGreat makes the claim, "BiblicalFamilies is one of the most authoritative organizations on the issue of Christian polygamy today. There are few media reports about any Christian polygamy organization. Christian polygamy is considered illegal, and most of its proponents are not in the eye of the media. The only organization that might be more authoritative on the subject of Christian polygamy is the ChristianPolygamy2 Yahoo group, which is the largest organization supporting Christian polygamy on the Internet."

Actually, JohnBoyTheGreat has the Burden of evidence to prove such claims about his two sites and about the media. As I have repeatedly said to him, just because you say something, that does not mean it is true. Just because I say that sentence to him, that does not mean that I am somehow a supporter of "the TruthBearer organization," as (he, in his own words, uses the word, organization, to describe them. By using those words, he admits that the organization involves many people.

Yet JohnBoyTheGreat makes the claim that the previous links that have been in this article for years are somehow link-spam. He makes the claim that they are "multiple links to the same organization" of TruthBearer. (Again, he is admitting it is a source of many people.) Again, JohnBoyTheGreat has the Burden of evidence to prove the claim that links are all to the one organization, as his reasoning for the claim the links are link spam.

Ironically, when I proved that two unauthoritative sites were owned by the same one man, JohnBoyTheGreat then made the following "insider" statement, "Actually, the two sites were registered by the same person. However, BiblicalFamilies.org was donated the domain name by Todd Marshall. He doesn't own both sites. He works as the Site Admin for the owner of the site and helped him set it up. This is pretty common knowledge in the world of Christian polygamy."

So he calls an organization with many people (TruthBearer) as supposedly having multiple sites. Even though he cannot prove that claim, he calls the multiple links as link spam. But he calls proven evidence of one man owning two sites (BiblicalFamilies.org) as not being link spam. JohnBoyTheGreat has the Burden of evidence to prove his claims.

Principles to apply

The principles to apply here are External Links, Sources, and Verify.

When a reader comes to the article, they are looking for information. Just like myself, when reading that there is actually something called Christian Polygamy, they want to know more. I was surprised and wanted to know.

Academics, media, students, and so forth all want to know the WWWWW and H. Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How.

So how does Wikipedia help the reader get that information?

We have to find established Reliable Sources. That's the WHO question. Who is established? Who is proven? Who is Verified as the authoritative "explainer" of the subject?

Anyone can make a web-site but that doesn't make them a Verified authority on the subject. At Wikipedia, reliable sources are defined as "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is."

So, that means to find the WHO answer, we have to go looking for those who have been scrutinized by others who are legitimate or authoritative too. The more the better.

In the case of Christian Polygamy, the only thing I can find is numerous media reports about the TruthBearer organization. That does not make me a supporter. If there are others, I can't find them. If someone else can find them, please do.

Here is just a small sample of what I have found.

A couple Christian-based media

• 700 Club called them "evangelical Christians"
• Traditional Values Coalition quotes TruthBearer's founder, also lists biblicalpolygamy.com site too.

Regular mainstream media

• USA Today even shows picture of Henkell
• Newsweek describes Henkel as "founder of the Christian evangelical polygamy organization TruthBearer.org, is at the forefront of the movement" of nationwide polygamy rights activism.
• CourtTV where Henkel was on their TV programs many times
• MCNBC-TV where Henkel has been a talking head guest
• The Michael Medved Show where Henkel was radio guest
• WGAN morning radio where you can hear his brief interview online right now

By Wikipedia standards, Mark Henkel is the "go to guy" for this subject of Christian Polygamy. Many, many outside media sources have Verified him as the authoritative "explainer" of the subject. I could find no one else with such proven verification.

JohnBoyTheGreat tried to ignore the facts when he made this wild claim: "BiblicalFamilies is one of the most authoritative organizations on the issue of Christian polygamy today. There are few media reports about any Christian polygamy organization. Christian polygamy is considered illegal, and most of its proponents are not in the eye of the media. The only organization that might be more authoritative on the subject of Christian polygamy is the ChristianPolygamy2 Yahoo group, which is the largest organization supporting Christian polygamy on the Internet." I could not find even one outside source to verify the claim about his yahoo group or the biblicalfamilies.org site he is connected to.

So, with so much extensive media verification, the TruthBearer organization is the "WHO" that readers are looking for. Because of such media verification, wikipedia readers can have confidence that they have the correct source or authority on the subject. (Because I found those facts that does not mean I am supporter or TruthBearer.)

As well, that also means that when the TruthBearer organization makes references to others, those references have credibility as well. (That is, when a school teacher looks for a job, references from a respected school authority carries far more verified credibility than references from 100 janitors.)

That then leads to the other questions. Next is, the WHAT. WHAT is Christian Polygamy?

One link that has been in this Wikipedia article for years is christianpolygamy.info. I found it to be a site that is unique in content and explains the definitions of terms. It is not like the TruthBearer web-site at all. Each page answers its relevant issue without spamming off to another site instead. Before the vandalism, this article informed the reader this way: "Christian Polygamy Info - Presents definitions and the history of the new, modern social movement which has no connection to Mormon polygamy." When I was searching to find out more about this new movement I had never heard of before, that site was very helpful. Seeing it linked here at wikipedia immediately helped me with the specific questions I had.

It answers the WHAT question. It also answers the WHEN as it provides the history of the movement. In its explanations of the WHAT, it also answers the WHERE.

I still had the question of WHY and HOW. Then I saw the link to biblicalpolygamy.com. The WHY is because they believe it is biblical, and the biblicalpolygamy.com site shows HOW it is biblical. Before the vandalism, this article informed the reader: "Biblical Polygamy - Presents biblical exegesis of arguments to support polygamy and lists out all the polygamists in the Bible." Every one of the pages on that site do answer the arguments. It does not spam off to another site like a link-spam site. The content and purpose are not like TruthBearer either. When I was first learning about this, the first question I had was how can Christians say polygamy is supported by the Bible. That site answered that HOW question for me. Seeing it linked at wikipedia was very helpful to me in very quickly answering those questions.

JohnBoyTheGreat calls those unique and informative sites as link spam. Without any proof, he says they are owned by the truthbearer organization. I do not see any proof of that. I do see that the TruthBearer organization does recommend those sites.

Because the Truthbearer organization is Verified as the authoritative "explainer" of the subject, then its references to those sites for answers to their respective questions make those others sites as credible too.

That does not make them link-spam. Link-spam is when multiple sites invent pages about a subject, but when you go to them, they do not answer the issue. Instead, they only lead back (spam off) to the primary spamming site. That is not happening here at all.

Because I found all this evidence, it does not mean I am a supporter of anyone. I am only trying to have a standard that helps wikipedia's readers be able to quickly find the most Verified and authorized answers to the questions they have when discovering this new subject.

That is why I do not believe that Binksternet is correct about deleting all non-neutral sites. Then wikipedia readers would be deprived of knowing the information they would want to know. I think that would harm Wikipedia.

I just don't think that becaise someone creates a new web-site in 2008 that that means they are automatically qualified to be listed as a credible source. This is especially true when that new site has no Verification of its authority to speak on the subject. (If there are any media reports about biblicafamilies.org or the yahoo group, I have not found any. Can anyone else find any?)

That's why I questioned the links listed by JohnBoyTheGreat and why I oppose the vandalism of all the sites he wrongly deleted.

I believe that Wikipedia had the order of links right before the vandalism by the yahoo group owner, JohnBoyTheGreat.

I call for a standard of quality links that specifically serve the Wikipedia readers with answers they would have about the subject. That does not make me a supporter of anyone but Wikipedia and the readers.

To close, I believe the original order of links must be restored to the order they were in. Also, I believe new future links should pass the standard of proven authority. Otherwise, every time that someone builds a new site or a yahoo group, people like JohnBoyTheGreat will come here and repeat this same problem over and over.

Lookbeyond (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Christianpolygamy.info used as a reference

I deleted any mention of www.christianpolygamy.info when used as a reference. The source is not verifiable, so it fails WP:V. If the website, or an agent of the website, is quoted in, say, the NY Times or Christian Science Monitor, that's a source we can use. Binksternet (talk) 02:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Just like I said about your other deletion, you are deleting while ignoring past discussion and standards. In Standards for Links: Proven Authority, I already explained all this. Wikipedia readers need information. Truthbearer has totally been verified as the "go to" source for information about Christian polygamy. On truthbearer's links page, they recommend the christianpolygamy.info site. This is one verified source verifying another by making a recommended peer review of the other. That christianpolygamy.info site also helps the wikipedia reader learn about the history of that surprising movement. Your deleting it is intentionally depriving the wikipedia reader of verified information. I see that as vandalism. We are supposed to be helping the Wikipedia reader, not deprive them. Lookbeyond (talk) 12:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Reporters go to Christianpolygamy and Truthbearer, we don't. We can use mainstream verifiable sources only. Binksternet (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Lookbeyond, I see you as a single purpose account created to champion a point of view. Your contributions to Wikipedia appear only to make sure that truthbearer.org's non-peer-reviewed website is well-represented on the Polygamy page. In doing so, you've deleted a bunch of other websites of a similar nature. You say the reader needs information, but you want to make sure they are funneled into your champion's website. I don't know your connection to truthbearer but I suspect you have a WP:COI in the matter. I don't; I edit a very wide range of articles and I have no horse in THIS race. Binksternet (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I came to wikipedia. After awhile, i found this page. It was a new subject. I learned a new subject. I saw the links as they were presented for years. I found that by looking back in its history. Those links survived over the years because they are valid and helpful. I was helped by them myself. Learning this new subject motivated me to finally participate at wikipedia. Those links were valuable in learning the new subject. That does not make me having a horse in the race. I am completely NPOV. I even expanded an anti-polygamy link quote. I see only two people causing problems wiith their own horse in the race. JohnBoyTheGreat was promoting a yahoo group and a new site begun in 2008. He was the one trying to replace long time verified links with his two new links that no one has ever verified. I still kept one of those links, while I fully questioned the validity of ever using a yahoo group as a source. The only other link I deleted was a duplicate site of the one I kept. It was JohnBoyTheGreat who was trying to delete a number of sites in order to replace them with his own unverified links. You Binksternet have a different horse in the race. It's still you having a horse in the race though. You committed major vandalism with mass deletions of already proven and verified links. Your horse in the race is to deprive readers from finding out the subject from those already verified sources. You disguised it as NPOV, but as I have already shown, NPOV does not mean "NO point of view." I put myself in the place of future wikipedia readers. If your vandalism was allowed to stand, you would be depriving future readers from finding the verified information about the subject. That is what bothers me about your actions. You are totally trying to deprive readers from information. You obviously have the horse in this race to deny wikipedia readers from finding the information they need. Opposing your interference with readers' ability to find such information is my only issue. I would rather get back to exploring this interesting subject and editing more. Your wrong accusations and vandalism are taking the fun out of this for me. Lookbeyond (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Binksternet, please take a closer at the original helpful edit I made versus your vandalism of deleting what I did (on line 224). In past discussion with JohnBoyTheGreat, I showed that "christian plural marriage" was not a word for the term. There were only 33 google hits for that term. Even JohnBoyTheGreat acknowledged that "christian polygamy" is the better term. In the helpful edit I made, I corrected that. I also noticed how the text there was unsourced. So, I went to work to find source citations. In my edit, I provided those source citations after each sentence. That is good wikipedia ways to make footnotes like that. That does not make me biased. All I was doing was giving verified sources that footnote the claims. But your vandalism of deleting what I did (on line 224) turns the whole section into unsourced claims. I say the section should be restored back to the helpful edit I made. It's ironic. When I first thought of making my original edit thetre, I almost was going to delete that entire unsourced section. I was concerned someone like JohnBoyTheGreat would accuse me of POV or something like that. So instead, I tried to improve it with verified sourcing footnotes. Then you, Binksternet, vandalize my effort and accuse me of bias instead. I am only trying to help wikipedia readers find the valid information they would want and need. You are really taking the fun out of this wikipedia experience. Lookbeyond (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Truthbearer.org used as a reference

I deleted a single instance of Truthbearer.org used as a reference. Truthbearer is not verifiable, yet it has been used as a source by other news organizations. The news organizations themselves are the source, not Truthbearer. The ref I deleted was followed immediately by the CBN article that was noted in the Truthbearer cite: an additional layer of unnecessary redundancy. Only the CBN article is valid or needed. Binksternet (talk) 02:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You are deleting important information while ignoring past discussion and standards of links. In Standards for Links: Proven Authority, I already explained how the truthbearer organization has been verified many times. I just saw their organization's head guy, Mark Henkel, on 20/20 last night about polygamy. In this particular citation you deleted, the additional reference was informing the reader of extra information. It helps the Wikipedia reader learn about that history moment when the 700 Club called them evangelical Christians. Your deletion is trying to intentionally deprive the reader of information. I see that as vandalism. Lookbeyond (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Binksternet is committing wholesale vandalism with mass deletions

Binksternet is wrongly applying the NPOV principle to intentionally deprive wikipedia readers of verified information. Binksternet keeps deleting PRO and CON links under the false pretense of NPOV. But the princples of NPOV are not to be used to deny both sides of an issue from even being presented. The Neutral point of view guidance currently says, "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly." It also says, "The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it 'POV'." Even though discussion has occurred explaining matters of links, verified, etc., Binksternet is ignoring them completely and is making mass deletions to deprive the Wikipedia readers from obtaining information they would not otherwise know. That is wholesale vandalism. Lookbeyond (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You're talking only about "External links", I take it. I've restored the editing changes I made that are not about External links; the ones that you deleted apparently without examination. We can certainly look at the External links section in detail: What I have been reacting to is the seemingly endless conflict surrounding the external links. Yes, I would like to throw the baby out with the bathwater... I don't see that yours and JohnBoy's arguments about whose website is more ascendant will ever stop if such PRO and CON entries continue to exist. Even when/if you guys tire of jousting a new crew will find this page and start up. Binksternet (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The standards have already been offered for discussion and remain uncontested. The VERIFY principles apply. Days ago, I began the Standards for Links: Proven Authority section for discussion. That sat for days and you ignored it. Then you came in and committed your POV vandalism without using the standards at all. With those standards, there never has to be "new crews" arguing their position for ascendancy. That issue seemed already resolved until you committed this latest act of mass vandalism again. Truthbearer is fully verified by external mainstream media. It was even on ABC last night. The Verify principles say in the Reliable Sources section, "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is." It further says, "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications." In both of those statements, the use of mainstream media is valid as a non-academic source. So, the organization of truthbearer is externally verified. As the externally verified organization, when it recommends a source for additional information, that is internal veriifcation, called a peer review. That applies in the Verify principles too. That means a site like christianpolygamy.info is verified by a verified authority, truthbearer. I am glad that you have abandoned your mass vandalism of all the proven links. You are still showing your POV bias though. You are still trying to deprive wikipedia readers from finding that information out from a verified proven source of christianpolygamy.info. Lookbeyond (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Mormonism treated co-equal with Christianity

At the Mormonism page, the belief system of LDS members is called "Christianity". Here on this page, we have two separate entries for both, an architecture that assumes Mormons are not Christians. I think we need to present Mormon polygamy as a subset of Judeo-Christian polygamy, along with polygamy in Judaism and in Christianity. All the above-mentioned belief systems come from a common source — the Old Testament of the Bible. This is how I imagine the level of headers and sections should look:

# 2 Polygamy worldwide
    * 2.1 Patterns of occurrence
    * 2.2 Polygamy in African societies
          o 2.2.1 South Africa and Sudan
    * 2.3 Polygamy in Chinese culture
          o 2.3.1 Situation in East Asia
    * 2.4 Polygamy and religion
          o 2.4.1 Biblical sources
          o : 2.4.1.1 Judaism
          o : 2.4.1.2 Christianity
          o : 2.4.1.3 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Mormon fundamentalists
          o 2.4.2 Islam
          o 2.4.3 Hinduism
          o 2.4.4 Buddhism
# 3 Legal situation
# 4 Current proponents and opponents
    * 4.1 Secular
    * 4.2 Religious
# 5 Polygamy today
    * 5.1 Christian Plural Marriage
    * 5.2 Mormon fundamentalism
# 6 Muslims and traditionalist cultures
# 7 Polygamy in fiction
# 8 See also
# 9 References
# 10 Bibliography
# 11 External links
    * 11.1 African Polygamy
    * 11.2 Judeo-Christian polygamy
    ** 11.2.1 Christian polygamy
    ** 11.2.2 Mormon polygamy
    ** 11.2.3 Jewish polygamy
    * 11.3 Muslim perspective
    * 11.4 Greater China Region

Note that 2.4.1 and 11.2 each split into three subsections. If nobody objects, I'll rearrange the sections and implement this layout. Binksternet (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand that the idea of Mormonism being thought of a subset of Christianity. If that was the case, this argument could apply. This here is not about Christianity and Mormonism. This is about "Christian Polygamy" versus "Mormon Polygamy" as separate paradigms. The issue is that "Christian Polygamy" and "Mormon Polygamy" are two separate beliefs and movements which did not come from each other. In their cases, "Christian" works as an adjective of polygamy differentiating it from the adjective "Mormon." The POLYGAMY belief systems do not come from the same sources. Mormon Polygamy includes other reasons that Christian Polygamy does not. They are not subsets of each other. This link explains it better. So, in this case, it is hierarchically inaccurate to place "Mormon Polygamy" as a subset of "Christian Polygamy." In this case, they are equals and separate. The same for Jewish polygamy. While I understand the idea here, I do not think it is needed or accurate to re-order them into a combined subcategory. Lookbeyond (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point: that the various Western polygamy beliefs all come from a common Judeo-Christian beginning. I didn't propose that Mormon polygamy be a subset of Christian polygamy. I didn't say that one polygamy belief came from the other, though, of course, Judaism precedes and acts as a formative basis for Christianity which, in turn, colors and precedes Mormonism. I'd like to see the three (Mormon polygamy, Christian polygamy, Jewish polygamy) presented as stemming from a common tree. Binksternet (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The christianpolygamy.info link you provided that supposedly explains "christian-polygamy-is-not-mormon-polygamy" is a complete loss as a reference. It reads like a rant or a blog, with capitalized words that shout out from the page and an obvious shortfall of supporting facts. It doesn't quote or compare historic sources and it doesn't discuss where the two belief systems actually did come from or how they developed into what they are today. What stands out in the rant is the strong avowal that Christian polygamy is NOT Mormon polygamy. Okay, right, but how about some facts a guy can hang his hat on? Binksternet (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I am glad that we can agree that Christian Polygamy and Mormon Polygamy do not come from each other. That's what the facts show. Your biased POV about a verified site's stylistics as a "rant" is not relevant to the discussion though. The externally verified Truthbearer organization's site says on its front page it has nothing to do with any form of Mormonism. That organization's referral to christianpolygamy.info as authorized to define terms makes it verified too. The peer review verified christianpolygamy.info site then also explains that Christian polygamy is not Mormon polygamy. Other links at the site also confirm the difference too. In addition to the first link I mentioned here, I found two others that have helped me understand the difference. "What Christian Polygamy is Not" explains that Christian Polygamy is "NOT Mormon (also known as "Latter Days Saints") -- NOT referring to the exclusively Mormon term, "the principle" -- NOT ever involving the exclusively Mormon doctrines of "celestial" or "eternal" marriages -- NOT ever involving the exclusively Mormon doctrines of "pre-existence of souls". Another page at that site, "Polygamy does not equal Mormon Polygamy," gives even more specific details on a couple of those Mormon only doctrines. It shows Doctrine & Covenants 132, the pre-existence of souls doctrine, and the view that those doctrines seem to obligate women to polygamy religiously, as doctrines that compel Mormon polygamy. Christian polygamy has no such doctrines or religious compulsions though. That's what the verified sites on this subject are explaining. The difference is stated so loudly. For the sake of accuracy for wikipedia readers, I am glad you do see the two are not subsets of each other though. It is just not necessary to subdivide the two with Jewish polygamy as three subsegments. That would be an unnecessary redundent effort. Lookbeyond (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you please fix your vandalism on Line 224 back to my original helpful edit before you spend time worrying about changing hierarchies? (Your other little changes to "polygyny" etc are ok, though.) It is more helpful to give wikipedia readers verified source citations (as I did there) than to start looking for new was to order things. It would be a nice act of good faith on your part if you would do that. It is my act of good faith here to give you the opportunity to do that yourself. Then we can to work together if you would like. Lookbeyond (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I just took a long look at the editing I did in the section about Christian Plural Marriage and it looks like only a couple of touchups were needed. I trimmed some red links and put your fact tag back in, as no good, verifiable references were at hand. Binksternet (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Abuse

I find it very interesting that this article talks not at all about the sexual, physical and emotional abuse occurrences that have been reported in association with certain polygamous sects in the USA. From time to time, there's an extended flurry of coverage in the news. Here? Not a peep. What's the deal?

• CNN. Girl, 14, fled abuse, 'mind control' of polygamy
• CNN. Polygamy or abuse? Utah case stirs controversy
• The Daily Utah Chronicle. Author discusses abuse in polygamist families
• Utah Attorney General. The Primer: Helping Victims of Domestic Violence and Child Abuse in Polygamous Communities
• NY Times. Polygamist Convicted Of Rape
• NY Times. The Persistence of Polygamy

etc... Binksternet (talk) 07:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

These issues are covered in the relevant article: Polygamy in the United States Mdwh (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

From what I have found, abuse is a separate issue. The reports of abuse have been about sects. Every one of your links is about Mormon polygamists. The reports you cited seem to fail to make that difference. From what I have found, Non-Normon consenting adult polygamists have been opposing the abuses like the rest of us. The secular site for the media, Pro-polygamy.com has many archived articles proving this point. I also found that the truthbearer organization has issued press releases opposing abuse too. "Polygamy Movement Opposes Warren Jeffs, Says National Polygamy Rights Leader"' (9/8/2007) and "National Polygamy Rights Movement for Consenting Adults Disavows FLDS, Says National Polygamy Rights Leader" (4/19/2008). Lookbeyond (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Split

On May 5, information from this article was split to Polygamy in the United States, here to here. Links have been added to edit summaries of both articles in compliance with WP:Split to ensure that authorship credit is retained. This note is added to help ensure that this article is not deleted so long as its edit history is needed for proper attribution in that one. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding {{censor}}

Should the talk page have {{censor}} on it? Or should the article just have {{not-censored}}? --Frogger3140 likes wikipedia (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

External Links Sections Restored

I think the "Standards for Links: Proven Authority" set on this discussion page are good and valid. I agree that this posted link was commercial and this other posted link (the "righteouswarriors.com" link there) was unverified. I agree that they were both spam. It was right to remove those two links.

After they were removed, though, I believe that this and this mass-deletion of links was so excessive that it borders on vandalism. It is obvious that polygamy is a very multi-faceted concept. It has many sections.

We are supposed to make edits that help readers of Wikipedia. We do not help them by depriving them from learning the differences and verified authorities. It is valid to use the remedy of removing commercial or promotional links. However, Wikipedia readers really need the sectional differences. It helps reeaders learn the information accurately. I will be restoring the External Links section back to its original Revision as of 21:40, 4 September 2008. - Tahgof (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Jesus

A recent edit added Jesus to the list of polygamists in the Hebrew scripture. I removed the name because I was not aware of any such documentation. If there is such documentation, please cite it upon reinserting Jesus into the list. Gandalf (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit war in progress

There is a dispute in progress (see this diff) over whether certain material should or should not be added to the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Mormon fundamentalists" subsection of the "Patterns of occurrence across religions" section. We need input from more people here in order to break the current game of edit-war ping-pong. Any comments? Richwales (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect there is no edit war in progress, nor is there a game happening - there is a new IP user making POV edits that have been reverted, with proper warnings by no less than three credible editors. This IP user has also been flagged at the admin page. If you read the IP user's work, you'll discover the POV - you'll also see the user can't distinguish between an academic/professional journal and Wikipedia, and continues to place their own opinion or view in the place of sourced referencing. I have suggested discussing his edits at the talk page but the user refuses. Thus, reverting vandalism is justified. Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I just took a look at the diff, and I tend to agree with A Sniper - not sure I would call this an "edit war". On a general note, this section on the LDS is getting pretty lengthy - perhaps we should discuss how much we need to go into the nitty gritty details of the history of polygamy when it is covered in a very comprehensive manner in several other articles? --Descartes1979 (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Not an edit war, but a new editor, a published expert in foot and mouth disease, who apparently thinks that by simply typing out his recollections, experiences and impressions, can effectively edit a Wikipedia page. That may have been true for early wikis, but clearly is not suitable in 2008, nor is it suitable for a contentious article such as this one. The new editor's a smart guy; he will doubtlessly learn to use verifiable sources to back his additions and changes. Until that happens, his actions will continue to get reverted. Binksternet (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Although there's clearly a consensus that this new IP user's editing style leaves a lot to be desired, it seems to me that there may be some useful bits in the material he was (albeit clumsily) trying to add. Should we find some way to add further references relating to the LDS church's early public statements against polygamy? Or (as Descartes1979 suggested) should the LDS material on this page be trimmed back and some of it moved into the LDS-specific articles? Richwales (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I must agree with Descartes. This whole LDS section is out-of-proportion to what is discussed in other sections. Given the fact that there is a whole series of articles on the Origin of LDS Polygamy, this section needs (cries out, begs) to be cut at least in half. There is way too much detail for this article. It needs a general summary--PERIOD. (Taivo (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC))

Those who know my editing would think it odd that I would back down from adding material on the church's anti-poolygamy stance from 1830-1844 (public statements, 1835 D & C, etc.), but with this article I agree with my colleagueDescartes1979 that, if anything, the LDS section needs to be trimmed. As for our English vet IP user friend, he was given every opportunity to come to this page to discuss his edits and he instead chose to continue the POV - first it brought about a block, and then to his (according to his last edit summaries) 'goodbye' to Wikipedia. Pity. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The interesting bit worth incorporating is the conflict we have between the belief that early Mormon anti-polygamy texts were intended as a defense against outside interference as well as a sop to the uninitiated and the belief that such writings are critical insights to Smith's seemingly conflicted view on the subject. It would be nice to have an expert opinion brought in from a verifiable source. Otherwise, I'm with Descartes1979 in that I think the subject is better expanded within its more focused main articles. Here, we need only establish that polygamy became a central tenet which soon broke the church into schisms, contributed to the death of its founder and which caused a great deal of friction with non-Mormons wherever it appeared. Regarding the size of the LDS section: it's not much bigger than that of the Christian section above it, though it appears to be longer since it is narrowed by the Polygamy-in-LDS infobox. I'm definitely against the section growing larger and I feel that a good trimming might serve to distill and focus the information for the rushed reader who just wants the Cliff's Notes version and doesn't care that Heber J. Grant died in 1945. Binksternet (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I trimmed the whole Mormonism section back sharply without (I hope) reducing its ability to let the reader pick and choose where he or she might go next in order to gain more information about the subject. Let's collectively try and keep the section from growing larger due to incremental additions. Binksternet (talk) 02:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that the length of the section as just edited is quite appropriate. It sounds good to me. (Taivo (talk) 04:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC))