Talk:Lost boys (Mormon fundamentalism)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Just created this new article

Just created this new article. Anxious to see what those who have studied the issue more are able to contribute. Greenw47 19:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Being from Utah, many people ask me where I now live if I am a polygamist. Since there is much confusion about the difference between the LDS and FLDS churches, I decided to include the disclaimer that they are different churches. Greenw47 12:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you document that this exact phrase "lost boys of polygamy" is well known? And shouldn't it be "Lost boys of polygyny"? — ciphergoth 09:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point, ciphergoth. I looked up the phrase. I believe I orginally got it from an article about Dr. Dan Fischer. But here are other references. The "Lost Boys of Polygamy" title seemed apropos because there are other uses of "Lost Boys." The movie with Kiefer Sutherland and the Lost Boys of Sudan. Adding polygamy at the end seemed like a good way to distinguish them.

Anyway, here are some sites and stories that use "Lost Boys" and "Polygamy" together.

Also, have you heard the talk by Troy Bowles (one of the Lost Boys) at the SLC library? http://users.gobigwest.com/markh/troybowles.wav He talked about polgamy, polygyny, and polyandry. He is gaining a lot of attention because he grew up in an FLDS household and he really knows his stuff. I'm thinking of making a page for him. I'm contacting him by email and asking him if he would agree. Greenw47 15:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Good article. I was just wondering about this after seeing the problem referenced a few times in the program _Big Love_. The main character is a man who was expelled from a polygamous Mormon community when he was 14, so "The old men could have all the pretty wives".

Simply using "lost boys" and "polygamy" together in a sentence or article headline doesn't make "Lost Boys of Polygamy" a proper noun. Unless it is the name of a formal organization or a widely known and used term (as demonstrated by numerous references of it as such), it should not be used in this way as an article title. For that matter, based on the information here, I'm not even sure this is even a valid topic for a Wikipedia article, any more than "unwed mothers from broken homes" or "abused children of hippies" would be. This looks like more of a news/feature story, not an encyclopedia article. - JasonAQuest (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Article topic, name

Is this a valid topic for a Wikipedia article, and if so is the name Lost Boys of Polygamy appropriate?

Yes it is, and i see nothing wrong with the title, "more appropriate" alternatives should be discussed and proposed here, a drastic change does not seem pertinent nor obvious.71.142.81.232 (talk) 09:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

  • As I said above, the title is not a proper noun in common independent use; it's a little-used, POV-promoting term. I certainly can't imagine members of the FLDS agreeing that it's NPOV. "Young men excommunicated from polygamous communities" is the best objective description I can come up with. The reason that's hard to do is because this isn't an objective encyclopedic topic; it's a one-sided feature story, using Wikipedia as a soapbox to draw attention to this social issue, and bordering on original research. We have an article about the Lost Boys of Sudan because that is a widely reported, verifiable, and clearly notable subject (e.g. the subject of numerous books and movies). This subject (at least currently) merely strives to be. - JasonAQuest (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't promote any POV. It's a factual article about something that's really happening, nothing more. If you want to label anything in the article POV, ask the person who created the article, me! If something is POV on it's face (prima facie POV) I'll gladly agree to edits. If it's POV unintentionally (de facto POV) then we can discuss it. But labeling something POV does not make it so. Any time somebody rushes out on a limb to label something POV, it calls their motives into question, and reveals that they might be promoting their own POV. Be careful not to get yourself labeled as "the boy who cried POV." Greenw47 (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
This insinuation of ulterior motives for my observation of POV is offensive. Your POV in creatiing this article is very clear. It's admirable – a desire to draw attention to the plight of people who have been mistreated – but it is an agenda nonetheless. Pretending that you have no such agenda is disingenous, and calls your very credibility into question. Wikipedia is required to set aside POV and simply state facts which readers from all sides of the topic would agree to. That is my only motive. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I flagged this article for a POV check. The tone of this article is quite negative and one-sided. Terms such as "removed", "banished", "thrown out" and "ejected" color the article POV. I am unaware of any spokesperson for the FLDS using any of these terms in an official capacity. Besides, how is one "banished" by an ecclesiastical authority anyway? (This power is retained solely by the United States.) Usually the extended mormon community applies the term "excommunicated" to former members. Furthermore, the expression "many are ostensibly banished for misbehavior such as watching a movie, ..." imparts a sarcastic tenor to the article because few readers are likely to relate to this view in a genuine way, culturally speaking; more explanation is at least in order. I also checked the references and sources; each one also follows a negative (sometimes bordering on sensational) tack. I also question the argument that polygamy is demographically unsustainable. Most Asian, African and Middle Eastern countries embrace polygamy in one form or another and have for thousands of years. Furthermore, religions such as Islam, Hinduism and Judaism have practiced it in various forms for thousands of years. Interestingly, the article does not reference the "Critics" that employ this demographic argument. Even though it's true that there are roughly equal numbers of males and females born, this doesn't tell the who demographic story. There is a significant margin of females over males in the US population, especially over the age of 25. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uspop.svg) Achswelle (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the second question is easier. This is probably the most widely understood name (WP:NAME) for the otherwise-lengthy concept of "young men excommunicated from polygamous communities." If an article is appropriate, I think this is the correct title—except, why the hell is it capitalized like this? There's a Canadian documentary called Polygamy's Lost Boys, so the caps might be confusing. I would suggest "Lost Boys (polygamy)" or "Lost boys (polygamy)." Sources sometimes don't capitalizes "lost boys." Sometimes they do, but "Lost Boys of Polygamy" is never used as far as I can tell.
    Whether this article should exist is a closer call to me, but it probably passes. Doing a lexisnexis news search for "lost boys and polygamy" I get 195 articles, including a passing mention in today's Economist[1] and several national articles from the New York Times[2], CNN,[3] Newsweek[4], and others. Most mentions seem to be from the major Utah dailies, the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News. Readers of these papers (like myself) are very familiar with the term, but it's close to being a neologism to most of the English-speaking world. National articles usually use the term in quotation marks. Few articles are focused on the lost boys: they're mostly mentioned in passing in articles about Warren Jeffs, but this is probably enough coverage to pass. AfD it if you're in doubt. Cool Hand Luke 23:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • "Lost boys" is a commonly-used term for this subject. Adding "polygamy" in parentheses or not is needed to distinguish this topic from others. — Val42 (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Cool Hand Luke's assessment of the name. I don't know of any other name that has been applied to these people as commonly as "lost boys". I support Lost boys (polygamy). As to whether the article should exist; yes, I think so. It has received substantial coverage in secondary sources. Snocrates 01:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be a consensus supporting this article under the title Lost boys (polygamy). Thanks for helping to make the call; I'll rename it. - JasonAQuest (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The only thing wrong with this name change is that it makes the article more difficult to find. Otherwise, with the recent events, and the links this article has received, it has seen activity. Greenw47 (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Name changes don't make the article more difficult to find: moving an article automatically redirects from the original article to the new article in its new location. This creates double-redirects in some cases, Wikipedia custom is that the editor who performs the move assumes the responsibility for correcting links. The earlier the article is moved, the less double-redirects there will be to fix, so we would do well to make the move sooner rather than later. I support moving this page to Lost Boys (polygamy) or better: Lost boys (polygamy)... User:Pedant (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Critics say weasel

The phrase "Critics say" is a definitive weaselly expression, if it is a commonly held viewpoint, it should be easy to find references about who says or to actually quote a notable individual if it is a significant viewpoint, even if it is not widely believed. Otherwise, that phrase (critics say) and the text it supports should be removed. I have no familiarity with the material which would make it possible for me to readily supply an attribution for the "critics say X" portion, so I intend to remove it when I come back to the article a few days hence. Any opposition to that?. User:Pedant (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

3 wives

The article claims that every FLDS man is required to marry at least three wives. Such an absolute statement is logically inconsistent with the article. Either every male is born married to three wives (which is not the case) or he gradually marries them throughout his life. If he were fundamentally required to have three wives, he would be "ejected" (as the article states) for non-compliance prior to being able to marry them. Perhaps it might be restated that "FLDS men seek to marry at least three wives." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achswelle (talk • contribs) 00:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Logic is pretty close to Original Research, isn't it? I would dispute the "every FLDS man is required to marry at least three wives" statement on the basis of it being unreferenced and unverifiable, or even -- if possible to find a reference -- that it is simply untrue. I support removal of that text at any rate, unless sourced with a reliable reference. User:Pedant (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

2008 activity

Gilgamesh, hello and thanks for contributing. I like the part about marrying 3 wives each not being demographically unsustainable. I am an Exmo and I am not a big fan of polygamy, the YFZ Ranch, or the FLDS. However, I can see how the part about this being child abandonment might be considered a bit POV. Maybe we can change it to something like "which critics point to as child abandonment." I agree, to me it is child abuse or child abandonment. I just think we can find a more neutral way of saying it. I wanted to mention it here before making changes to your edits. Nobody likes to invest time into an article only to see their work undone without explanation. The reason I say this is that I work on a lot of articles, such as Exmormon and supporters of Mormonism frequently attack the articles claiming that there is not enough research to support the article. It gets petty, but we fend them off until the next round comes. Also, if you're interested, we could use a fresh pair of eyes on the Exmormon article. Greenw47 (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

re: "I like the part about marrying 3 wives each not being demographically unsustainable."
What you like is irrelevant. Without a source it is at best original research to include it. User:Pedant (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we can change it to something like "which critics point to as child abandonment.""
Maybe we can not put any more weaselly expressions into the article and remove the ones already there. User:Pedant (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
"Also, if you're interested, we could use a fresh pair of eyes on the Exmormon article."
...and if you are going to be soliciting people because you "like" what they say, please read Wikipedia:Canvassing#Votestacking User:Pedant (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Pedant, you might want to read Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. Greenw47 (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Pot... kettle... black. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Ad hominem. Greenw47 (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Move proposal

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Consensus was to move ~~ GB fan ~~ 14:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Lost boys (polygamy) → Lost boys (Mormonism) — Relisted. harej 08:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This topic does not appear to be relevant for polygamy outside Mormonism so the article title should be specific to reflect this. Munci (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Relister's Note -- Normally, the page would be moved, since it is assumed that no discussion means silent consensus. However, I have a feeling that such is not the case here. harej 08:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the page should be moved and I agree with the reason, but not to Lost boys (Mormonism). This does not seem to apply to "mainstream" Mormons, so I think a better choice would be Lost boys (Fundamentalist Mormonism). It looks like there are about 50 pages that link to this one, and the move will create about 5 double redirects that are not to user or talk pages. Let me know when the move is done and I will be happy to fix the links. --cbdorsett (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The replacement target of Lost boys (Fundamentalist Mormonism) seems good to me. Munci (talk) 10:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lost_boys_(Mormon_fundamentalism)/Archive_1&oldid=1074305258"