Talk:Sister Wives/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Religion Dispatches review

There is a very odd summary of the review written for Religion Dispatches in the entry. Here's the text -

Religion Dispatches writer Joanna Brooks was strongly critical of Sister Wives which she found uninteresting and argued raised nothing about fundamentalist polygamy that wasn't already publicly known. Raised in a conservative Mormon home, Brooks also took exception to Brown's comparison of the differences between fundamentalist and mainstream Mormonism to that of Catholicism and Protestantism, which she said is "untrue and screens out a whole world of social history and nuance".

One claim here does not appear in her review as far as I can see -- raised nothing about fundamentalist polygamy that wasn't already publicly known. Besides that fact Brooks' main point is that the show is as uninteresting to her as other reality shows are. She then goes on to point out that it is particularly uninteresting because it doesn't go into the theological aspects of plural marriage, or "the principle", and is therefore, once again about as interesting as any other reality show. Why is this not communicated in what we summarize? It appears that, instead, we're left with a tantalizing one liner without much context about the differences between the fundamentalist sects and the LDS. That one liner has little to nothing to do with her criticism of the show. What gives?Griswaldo (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

- I think everything from "Perhaps I’m not so impressed because as a Mormon woman, I’ve lived in close quarters with the idea of polygamy since I was a wee girl." to "An idea, apparently, that is supposed to be news to the show’s viewers and reviewers", as well as the sarcastic paragraph after that making fun of reviewers who are reacting to Sister Wives as if it is something new and original, are all indicative that she feels this series presents nothing new that hasn't already been publicly known. That being said, you're right, the summary of the review as it stands in the article now probably can be improved. Have at it! :) — Hun ter Ka hn 11:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm ... I just noticed that this Religion Dispatches outfit is pretty much a blog, where anybody can contribute. Magazine ? Not really. Online discussion board ? More like it.

I'd be very, very surprised if Religion Dispatches qualifies as a reputable source here at Wikipedia. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 08:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree. Looking over the staff in their about page, they seem to be made up of people with a great deal of scholarly and journalistic experience and education. The author of this particular article, Joanna Brooks, is likewise extremely qualified to write on this subject, much more so than most of the authors of the news articles. It seems to me Religion Dispatches is a legit RS, which is probably why it has its own Wikipedia page too... — Hun ter Ka hn 11:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Some of the other writers are college professors with PhDs in religious studies and related fields. That said, I think the source works for opinion more than news, but that's OK in this case since its a review of a TV series. I don't mean to disparage the site, by the way, I mean only that it contains commentary on the news and not news itself, which, once again, isn't an issue in this case.Griswaldo (talk) 11:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Past Tense?

Why is this paragraph in the past tense? "Sister Wives was first broadcast during a time when polygamy was a prevalent topic in American pop culture... Big Love...had already been on the air for several years...And when Sister Wives first aired, actress Katherine Heigl was in the process of developing a film about Carolyn Jessop, a woman who fled from a polygamist sect." I'm not sure what we should do with that paragraph--attempt to grammatically correct it or just delete it as optionally relevant anyway.--Mrcolj (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Why should it not be in past tense? We are talking about when it first broadcast, which would be September 26, which is the past. — Hun ter Ka hn 21:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Sister wives is being broadcast during a time when polygamy is a prevalent topic in American pop culture. Yes the first broadcast of the first episode already happened, but the second part of the sentence misleads as it is currently written. It also sounds awkward, like it's being written for a time capsule to be opened in 20 years, during a time when these things are no longer current. I concur with Mrcolj.Griswaldo (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

See wp:TENSE?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Bigamy and Polygamy

Regarding this edit, polygamy and bigamy are not equivalent in most ways one might consider them -- certainly not anthropologically or sociologically. The law might treat them similarly, but bigamy is almost exclusively a form of marriage where one person has married two or more individuals without divorce and without their knowledge of the situation. Polygamy refers to a marital institution where all individuals knowingly enter into the marital arrangement. Lone Star's "bigamy" situation is not comparable to plural marriage, or any other form of polygamy and keeping this in is not informative or meaningful here. I think it ought to be removed again.Griswaldo (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I still feel that it's worth including. What if we changed the reference regarding Lone Star from "polygamy" to "multiple marriages"? We could also change "comes at a time that polygamy is a prevalent topic" to "comes at a time that polygamy and multiple marriages is a prevalent topic" is necessary... — Hun ter Ka hn 21:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

"Multiple marriages" is what they probably meant when the incorrectly used "polygamy". I would not object to that language. However, Lone Star was already cancelled I believe, so I'm not sure its a great example, even if its in the source. Though like I said I would not object to multiple marriages.Griswaldo (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- For now, then, I've restored it with the new wording added. I know Lone Star didn't last anyway, but I just want to demonstrate that there are a multitude of pop culture products coming out at this time related to this subject. We could even add a note with a new citation, I suppose, that Lone Star was canceled after only a few episodes, if we feel that's a good idea? — Hun ter Ka hn 04:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  - I would think the fact that Under the Banner of Heaven was a best seller for a long time very recently would be a more meaningful fact in that regard, but I guess if another source doesn't make that point we can't add it in.Griswaldo (talk) 05:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

As the individual who made the initial removal, I did so not out of any concerns about the sourcing, but because the example isn't really in line with the others. Leaving all questions of the definitions of bigamy vs. polygamy aside, all of the other examples, and the subject of the article itself, are about the complexities in a large familial unit that includes multiple wives. From a thematic standpoint, then, Lone Star doesn't really seem to be a contextual fit. Including it with the others actually makes it seem as if Lone Star was part of a rash of recent interest in the very specific concept of plural marriage, which is really more misleading about the content of that show than it is about Sister Wives.Grandpallama (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's precisely why I changed the wording of "The broadcast of Sister Wives comes at a time that polygamy is a prevalent topic in American pop culture" to "The broadcast of Sister Wives comes at a time that polygamy and multiple marriages are a prevalent topic in American pop culture." This seemed to satisfy at least one of the objectors in this case. Do you still believe this doesn't address the problem? — Hun ter Ka hn 18:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Episodes list page

So, I was thinking that if Sister Wives gets renewed for a second season (which seems like an almost certainty at this point, but remains unconfirmed), then the episode descriptions in the "Episode" section would make this main article grow far too long. To that end, I was kicking around the idea of creating a List of Sister Wives episodes page. Basically, I would propose moving everything currently under the "Episodes" section of this page (including the episode descriptions) to that new page, and then reducing the main page's "Episodes" section to a list without the descriptions along with a link to the main article. (For an example of what I'm talking about, please see this edit I made to illustrate it, which I then immediately reverted.) I don't plan on doing this until it's announced whether there will be a second season, since if there is only one season for the show, I think the "Episodes" section will not be unreasonably long and should stay as is. But I do plan on making the change when a second season is announced, so I figured I'd check here to see if there were any objections or comments in anticipation of that move. Thoughts? — Hun ter Ka hn 01:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there most likely will be new episodes in a new 'season' (new seasons are now started throughout the year) unless someone ends up in jail ... on second thought that might make new episodes more desirable.

I think your idea is a good one and feel that it will make this a better article in the long run. Nice work. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Now that the second season renewal has been announced, I've gone ahead with this. Thanks! — Hun ter Ka hn 05:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

How many children?

At one point the article mentions 16 children, and at another, 13 children. Lemurbaby (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

There are originally 13 children, but Robyn's addition to the family along with her three kids brings it to 16. I believe this is clear in the article as it stands, but if not let me know what language is unclear and I'll try to clarify. — Hun ter Ka hn 05:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sister Wives/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Images The lead image of the title card is fair use. The other one is not working, it may have been deleted from commons.

Second image box deleted. --Ktlynch (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Structure there appears to be overlap in the description of the series between the 1st and 3rd sections.

Minor fixes (Here I intend to post a list of snags.)

1. The first section needs to be re-titled. "Conception" is too close to "development". I think "Concept" is what was intended, but some other term, analogous to "plot synopsis" in the article of a fictional work would be preferred.

For now I've changed it to "Concept", although I'm open to other names. I'm not a big fan of "Plot synopsis" because that to me sounds like a scripted show, not a reality show, but if you feel strongly about it I could go with it. — Hun ter Ka hn 00:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
2. From the "Legal Issues" section, the first sentence: As polygamy is illegal in the United States, attorneys and legal experts have claimed even before the show debuted that the Browns could potentially have opened themselves up to criminal prosecution through their involvement in the series
It is unclear whether the lawyers claimed this before the series was broadcast or that the family was already at risk of prosecution.
Although it also came later, here I meant to convey that it was expressed before the show debuted. I reworded it a bit to try to make it more clear, let me know if that works. — Hun ter Ka hn 00:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

~~It works fine now. --Ktlynch (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)~~

Stability - no vandalism or edit wars are apparent. Intelligent discussion of issues on the talk page.

Scope. The article strikes a good balance between description of the content, the broadcast dates, and both legal and critical reaction.

NPOV, to my reading the article is not blatantly biased, and this is a sensitive topic to write about. An issue here is avoidance using smaller, partisan website and sources, and strict adherence to WP:RS. However, the article, in tone and opinion, seems to be in line with most reviews and mainstream coverage of the series.

Future issues/Current event. In two months' time the second series will be broadcast so the scope and content of this article is likely to change significantly. Editors should be sure to follow WP:Summary style, and allow this article to turn into an overview of both series, with links to episode lists for seasons one and two which describe their content in greater detail. Secondly, if there is a swing in opinion for or against the programme be sure to separate it by episode.

Overrall this article is very impressive and clear. A big congratulations to all involved.

Reviewer: Ktlynch (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on the review! Yes, the second image was recently deleted, so I've removed the photo box. As far as your other comment, are you saying that all the letter "L"'s have been replaced by explanation points? Because I'm not seeing that here. Are you sure it isn't your browser? (I'll try to get on another computer to take a look at it soon, to make sure it's not on my end...) — Hun ter Ka hn 22:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

~~The problem was on my browser, I've deleted that comment now. --Ktlynch (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)~~

Season Count

I know this is a major article so I thought I'd just put it in discussion that the number of seasons is now three since the third season premiere in September. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.255.26 (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"Patriarch" and "are considered spiritual unions'

a) is it necessary to call Kody Brown "patriarch"? That word has lots of meanings in both the history of the LDS movement and feminist studies. When a word with such particular meanings is used, I wonder if a more neutral word could be found. b) To write "The only legal marriage is between Kody and his first wife, Meri, while the others' marriages are considered spiritual unions" begs the question of the nature of the subsequent relationships. In law they are, or as the article says elsewhere might be, considered polygamous, or common-law marriage. This raises the question "considered" by whom? The word "married" is used of all the relationships, so someone considers them marriage, not just 'spiritual union'. Is this sentence a term used by TLC? Kody? The law? etc. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hearing of January 17, 2013

The article ends with "A hearing was set for January 2013." That hearing was reported by the Salt Lake Tribune: [1]. Sorry I don't have time to update the article... --Blanchette (talk) 07:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Janelle as a Mormon

Unless it can be documented that she has either quit the lds church, or that she has been excommunicated by them, that she should be identified as she herself says. She did say it herself on the first episode. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 19:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

"She should be identified", why? Of what encyclopedic value is this identification? She was/is part of a religion that does not practice polygamy, the others are part of one that does. Also, bare in mind that the wording I deleted was suggestive in a sense that "Mormons", as in LDS mainstream Mormons, do sometimes practice polygamy. That type of language certainly does not belong.Griswaldo (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

"Why ? " Because she is evidentially an lds member who is controverting her church's teachings and regulations; to many that is a VERY big deal indeed. How many more 'mainstream mormons' are doing the same thing, or at least are in agreement with it ? We don't (and won't ever) know but the fact that she self-identifies as a 'mormon' is very pertinent to this topic. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If you what you say is correct about how serious this is to her religious community then its a WP:BLP concern and should not be bandied about lightly.Griswaldo (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, that's quite a stretch. She claims to be mormon; it's not as if anyone is accusing her of being something else. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't. I didn't say the information should be kept out because of BLP, I said it shouldn't be bandied about lightly. It definitely should not go back in the same manner.Griswaldo (talk) 03:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You've lost me here; you raise the BLP issue and then say that the info shouldn't be kept out because of BLP ? This lady self-identifies as a Mormon ... that info will be included somewhere in the article. You decide where, okay, or leave it be if I choose the spot. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Biographical material needs to be treated with more sensitivity than other material. Is there something unclear about that? She self-identifies as a Mormon and you think this is important to the entry. I say its not important enough given the BLP concerns, given what you wrote yourself about plural marriage and the mainstream LDS church. If you insist on putting it back, I'm also saying that you need to do so in a way that is NPOV. It was not presented in that way when I removed it.Griswaldo (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't matter to me if she was a Catholic, a Hindu, an Atheist, a Jain, a Buddhist or a Baptist or a Jew, the other two ladies were raised in a polygamous environment ... this lady chose to be part of one. I haven't read anything about her quitting the lds church or having been ex-communicated by the lds church. Unless one of the above events occurred she is still lds.

I've got to say that I'm not wild about your method of 'picking apart' a source; either it can be used or it can't. Period. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP because there are much stricter standards for what to include and how to source it. These are not my methods they are the encyclopedia's. I also don't think you're being honest above. You'd really care if a source called her Jain and it wasn't included? Give me a break. Please respond to the BLP issue in the subsection below.Griswaldo (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you even know what a Jain is ? Yes, I'd care, but what I'm really not caring for is your 'good faith' shown here. You doubting my honesty is annoying, to say the least ... consider this a warning about[AGF], okay ? As for your BLP argument, I already told you ... it doesn't hold water. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes I do know what I Jain is Duke. I have a general interest in religion, not a personal interest in one religion, but that's immaterial. We do not broadcast information about someone's religion unless it is 1) related to the entry content 2) and well sourced. Leaving #1 aside, this fails #2 -- please see below. One Canadian news article refers to her as "Mormon", by which they may very well mean Mormon fundamentalists (or something broader that includes them) and not LDS. Can you really verify that "Mormon" in this case means LDS and not Fundamentalists, because if you can't then this should not go into the entry. Most people think LDS when they hear "Mormon" on its own, but when the family clearly identifies as Fundamentalist there is good reason to question this one news source and what it is implying with the statement. Should we take this to the BLP/N because I'd be glad to do that if you want me to.Griswaldo (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You can take it anywhere that you'd like; you're now cherry picking parts of sources and 'interpreting' things to fit your personal POV. Janelle herself said on the show that she was raised Mormon, but not in a polygamous setting. I can verify from that newspaper article that Janelle is a Mormon. According to WP rules that source is sufficient; you don't have the right to discard parts of it. Unless you somehow discredit that source I will be using it to show that Janelle was / is a Mormon. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

And I'm telling you that it is not sufficient to say that she is a Mormon. There are discrepancies. You say on the show she said she was "raised a Mormon", and Kody says that they are a Fundamentalist family but the newspaper article, which again was, and still is being plagiarized in the entry, says that she is a Mormon. Only the newspaper article makes the claim that currently she is a Mormon. That's very shoddy for this information. I asked about the BLP/N because it is a noticeboard to get advice about WP:BLP issues.Griswaldo (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do it then; I don't care what you're 'telling me', I'm going by what WP says we can and should do ... I can't for the life of me find anything that says parts of sources can be used and other parts of those same sources can be discounted because one editor doesn't like them. Since that Vancouver newspaper says that she is a Mormon it is enough to satisfy WP's requirement of verification.

Your personal insults and condescending behavior ("I also don't think you're being honest", "Look in the mirror buddy ... you're a single purpose account ... editing only pages about Mormonism and it takes 3 seconds to discern your POV ... AGF what?") will be scrutinized also. Do you fully understand what a single purpose account is ? Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you fully understand what the BLP/N is for? It is not a place where editor behavior is discussed, and I've raised no behavioral issues about you. If you think there are issues to raise concerning me then take it somewhere like AN/I. This talk page is also not the place to discuss the behavioral issue, nor to quote edit summaries from my own talk page as you have above. I do understand what a single purpose account is. It "is a user account or IP editor whose editing is broadly limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose." Like, for instance, editing articles related to one religion almost exclusively and doing so from a very obvious POV. That said, this isn't the place to discuss such matters. If you want to discuss my behavior do so on my talk page, or at a behavior related noticeboard. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Source doesn't meet WP:BLP requirements

Please also note that the source for this statement is not self-published by the subject as you suggested above. It is not clear what "though a Mormon" actually means in the Vancouver sun article and they are not quoting her using this term. The entire sentence that I removed the "though a Mormon" segment from was also, word for word, plagiarized from the Vancouver Sun article. How much more plagiarism is there in this entry I wonder.Griswaldo (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at the BLP/N. It can be found here - Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Sister_Wives_and_claims_about_religious_affiliation. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The name Mormon should not be used for anyone or any article without permission from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Use of this name without permission is copyright infringement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxanne Peterson (talk • contribs) 00:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hahahahaha. Hahahahahah. Use of the term 'Mormon' without LDS permission is in no way copyright infringement. Hahahahaha you crack me up. 78.86.29.107 (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you look at the Wiki article on Mormons - it includes other groups. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose that Kody Brown and family be merged into this article. Since their notability derives from the show, this article can easily include the information contained in the other one. - Presidentman talk·contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 19:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:1E: "[...W]hen an individual plays a major role in a minor event[...]it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. [...] For example, Steve Bartman redirects to Steve Bartman incident. In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved."

Another example I can think of where a person is known but for one event is Shirley Sherrod. Note that her name redirects to Resignation of Shirley Sherrod. Furthermore, Sherrod's United States civil suit againt Andrew Breitbart and Breitbart's editor in cheif is arguably wholly related to the topic of this event. Yet, in the polygamous Brown family's case, their notable federal suit against the governor and the attorney general of Utah are only tangential to the topic of the reality show, necessitating the subjects' being covered separately, IMO.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Support! Mistakefinder (talk) 07:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I've merged Kody Brown and family into this article, since the notability of the former is totally dependent on the latter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Cmt - I've gone ahead and split off the portion of the article w concern the now extremely notable litigation, per both wp:BOLD and esp. pertinent wiki practice @ wp:N, etc.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Verify birthday of children?

Two children of Janelle and Kody show birth date just 3 months apart. Madison has a Nov 1995 birthday and Hunter has a Feb 1996 birthday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.241.120 (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM

Want General Information...Please take a moment to read and answer.

My name is Jennifer. I would like to find a sister wife for my husband and myself but I don't know how to go about it. Do you have any suggestions? Thank you for your time.

Jennifer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.105.104 (talk) 08:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

(1) Suggested: Convert to a religion that accepts polygamy. (2) Optional: Move to a place such as Utah and hang out with polygamists. (3) Propose to someone.

(By the way, apparently there is at least one family of "quasi-Buddhist" polygamists in Utah; see a HuffPo article about reality TV family of My Five Wives here -- hmmm -- and also this interesting scholarly article that references the practice of polygamy among some Buddhists in Indonesia).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
And here is an article in the LATimes about another non-Mormon polygamist family in Utah.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Scare quotes

As mentioned in the article, the "husband" is legally wed to only one woman. In the name of accuracy, then, would not the use of "married ," instead of simply married, better represent his other, "spiritual," unions? Orthotox (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sister Wives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101005043849/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/09/28/sunday-cable-ratings-boardwalk-empire-falls-rubicon-stays-low-the-glades-mad-men-kardashians-lots-more/65626 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/09/28/sunday-cable-ratings-boardwalk-empire-falls-rubicon-stays-low-the-glades-mad-men-kardashians-lots-more/65626

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Sister Wives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

christine

   Hello I watch your tv show all the wifes are very strong and increadable women  my questions is for Christine what was the name of the spine clinic you and kody took your daughter to in Michigan also when is your tv show going to be back on tv again  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GOINGOUTTOLUNCH (talk • contribs) 16:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

help!

I was trying to fix the wedding dates for Kody and the four wives and for Aspyn and Mitch. Somehow the dates were edited to show someone's age rather than length of marriage. I tried to change "birth date and year" to "wedding date and year" but it didn't work. I'm not geeky enough to know what I did wrong and how to fix it.

````rach0581 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rach0581 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Vaccine

Do they not believe in vaccinations? No mention of this at any time 66.172.228.167 (talk) 07:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)