Talk:Big Love

Template:Television needs response section

Future Plans

Great job on the show main page. I see ther are links set up the in the main page to planned individual episode guides. I hope to contribute to them one day soon. Are there plans to create character pages for anyone other than Bill, or a list of characters? --Opark 77 07:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

possible merge

I don't think it's a good idea to merge Bill Henrickson with this article. We've only had one season so far, but if the show continues to multiple seasons as expected, then there will likely be much more info about the main characters (see Category:The Sopranos characters). So I'm suggesting that we will have to split them up again if we merge them now.--Mike Selinker 20:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I tentatively agree. So my question is, why is Bill Henrickson the only character so far to get his own page? Surely his other family members (as well as the secondary characters) warrant articles as well; even if its info gleaned from HBO's site? Then again, it is only the first season, and not a lot of information (apart from on the HBO site) has been fleshed out on the other wives, kids, Don Hendrickson, Roman, etc. --Micahbrwn 03:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, the character pages should be merged with the entry for the show. —Qit el-Remel (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

HBO’s “Big Love” rears its ugly, un-American, head with their deliberate, disrespectful, and distorted TV show’s agenda to undermine, mock, disregard, and insult members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) and their most sacred religious practices. Tom Hanks, “Big Love” Executive Producer, has come up with his own twisted version of “jumping the shark” by his not-so-subtle vendetta-driven affront on the Mormon faith (see article http://www.lonsberry.com/writings.cfm?story=2585&go=4), a shallow and hate-filled approach to gain attention for the TV show by insolence.

Even as the bigoted views of Tom Hanks’ team try their “Big Lie” by blurring the distinction between their non-Mormon polygamist characters and pseudo-Mormon stereotypes in their storylines, real Americans understand the standard of accountability associated with the rights of freedom of religion and the real responsibility to exhibit respect and regard for other citizens beliefs and practices.

Certainly Mormons are offended when their most sacred practices are misrepresented or presented without context or understanding. Clearly, members of the church will continue to speak out (by way of legal, social and economical means) and request actions of all Americans against such blatant bigotry in the name of mock-entertainment.

Perhaps, one day, the intolerant practices of Tom Hanks, and his team of exploiters will see the error of their un-American ways and take the advice that George Washington gave to Benedict Arnold, “Avoid all disrespect to or contempt of the religion of the country and its ceremonies.” (George Washington’s letter to Benedict Arnold, Sep. 14, 1775)

Some LDS Temple Resources: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tGuM_P1_7I&feature=PlayList&p=8DF84EB9BE8345BD&index=0&playnext=1 http://www.mormon.org/ http://www.fairlds.org/ http://www.lonsberry.com/writings.cfm?story=2585&go=4

1. 1. 1. 1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.101.217.35 (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no criticism, but does there exist criticism about the accuracy of the show? I ask because 2 LDS types came to my door, and claimed the show was false. Mathiastck 21:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Since I've seen the show on television, I can guarantee you that it does in fact exist! Toward which criticism are you referring? It doesn't portray members of the LDS church; rather, the cast are adherents to a splinter group following the same basic principles.

The aspects of the Mormon religion it does depict though, are amazing accurate - including shaking the dust off one's shoes, etc.148.177.1.219 20:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Really? Do you even have any idea what that means or where it comes from? I haven't seen the show, so I don't know how they include that, but if they show it at all then it's not an accurate portrayal of the LDS Church (yes, I know the show is supposedly not about the LDS Church). In the LDS Church, shaking the dust of your shoes is not something you will likely ever see any member doing, unless they were literally trying to get their shoes cleaner. The Bible can tell you everything you need to know about this subject as it relates to the doctrine of the LDS Church; look it up.

As I understand it, the Henricksons are at variance with community norms of both the LDS community and the fundamentalist UEB group, which makes interesting plot dynamics. My Mormon friend is not terribly knowledgeable, and I suspect there are several levels of teaching.

The fact that three women can barely raise 7 kids seems pretty pathetic.Djgranados

Episode synopses

Can someone please expand the episode plot guides so they include the entire plot?

• That's what individual episodes are for. The table is just an abridged summary of the plot which leads into the full article if it is already written. I plan on writing a few episode articles soon. If someone would like to get started that would be great too. Sfufan2005 23:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • A separate article for each episode really is unnecessary. I think putting them all in Episodes of Big Love would work better. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 23:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I truly think individual pages are necessary because (1) individual pages cut down on the article size whereas a season page contains more memory (I do grasp the concept that Wikipedia is not paper though), (2) each episode has different plot lines and events unlike Lost which is a continuation or chapter of the previous episode, (3) I understand a season page keeps things more "organized" and easier to "maintain" however most television articles on this site with the exception of a few have individual articles for their episodes and most people seem fine with it. I'm not saying all of them are fantastic or well written but I would much rather have individual pages then season pages if everything is done right and correctly. Sfufan2005 02:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Douglas Smith

Please, pretty please write an article about Douglas Smith. He is very cute and he made a series in Australia too. Ramseystreet 21:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Request: Lock Edit

Hello, I am co-owner of the BIG LOVE LOVERS website <http://biglovelovers.proboards49.com> and we are very pleased and honoured to have the opportunity to link to our site here at the Wikipedia. However, the vandal/owner of the other Big Love Fan Forum, which I believe is at www.biglovefans.com or something or other, continues to remove our link and replace it with ONLY their own. I hope that perhaps editing of the Links section may be locked or perhaps moderated so that everyone has an equal opportunity to get exposure for their site. It's unfortunate that some trolls cannot handle a competiting board.

Thank you so much, Ian Owner, Big Love Lovers

I have removed all fansites per Wikipedia's external link policy. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 20:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Response to "Request Lock Edit"

Here's the REAL story.

People can check the history to see evidence.

You anonymously removed my established Big Love forum/message board link & replaced it with your own. That is a fact and is in the Wiki history for this page. If you had simply added yours below mine, I would not have done anything.

I would recommend that your forum NOT be added because it does not even have its own domain name. U actually PAY for my hosting & domain name to run my BigLoveForum.com website

Also, Wiki rules states that exceptions can be made to Fansites and Forum listings. I have had no complaints about my BigLoveForum being listed.

The main issue is your anonymous REMOVAL of my external link and your replacing it with your own new free ProBoards message board.

--EmmSeeMusic 09:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not engage in an edit war. None of the fansites added to this article meet the external link policy. Paying for a domain and hosting does not make your website notable. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 11:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of links

Reading the RFC, I've removed the following two links:

• http://biglovelovers.proboards49.com
• http://www.bigloveforum.com/forum/ BigLoveForum.com

Both of these sites seem to be very minor and non-notable. That's judging by a variety of measures including usage, membership and google links from other sites. The conduct of both editors is also questionable, with several Wikipedia standards being relevant.

Edits such as this, by user:EmmSeeMusic:

• "You anonymously removed my established Big Love forum/message board link & replaced it with your own. That is a fact and is in the Wiki history for this page. If you had simply added yours below mine, I would not have done anything."

are in breach of WP:POINT ("Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point")

Edits such as this, by user:Aurora1979:

• "the vandal/owner of the other Big Love Fan Forum, which I believe is at www.biglovefans.com or something or other, continues to remove our link... It's unfortunate that some trolls cannot handle a competiting board."

are in breach of the Wikipedia policies WP:CIVIL ("civility") and WP:NPA ("no personal attacks")

Finally, the writer of this post:

• "I hope that perhaps editing of the Links section may be locked or perhaps moderated so that everyone has an equal opportunity to get exposure for their site."

and indeed both writers, need to be aware that the purpose of Wikipedia is as an encyclopedia, and not as an advertizing or exposure medium. Would your site be considered for inclusion by an academic thesis on the subject? Would it be cited as a credible and noteworthy place for information by Encyclopedia Brittanica? Probably not, for either. That is why other editors have referred to WP:EL and removed such links. This is not critical of either site, since obviously everyone hopes both sites do well. It's a reflection on the purpose of Wikipedia, and that it is WP:NOT not a collection of advertising or other links.

Last thought: as fans who both care that much about the series, if you have useful material on "Big Love", why don't you both contribute to the topic so that others can learn more, instead of both equally seeing an article on the series as an opportunity to market and promote yourselves and your websites?

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC).

While I agree with your general reasoning, it would have probably been better to add a note in each user's talk page as well. They have few edits, and are probably not used to the concept of "Talk pages". By posting in their talk pages, there will be a better chance at reaching them before the exchange becomes too harsh to go without punishment. With a small exchange I have found EmmSeeMusic a good faithed contributor. Maybe contacting Aurora1979 (talk · contribs) at her talk page will get an answer and a change of her behaviour. If she does not respond there after several attempts, and continues to modify the article trying to make a point, other measures could be agreed upon. Remember, we are not talking about long-term wikipedians, but people who just joined, willing to help, and still not "wet" with Wikipedia policies, style guides and guidelines. -- ReyBrujo 06:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point and advice, I'll remember it for future. Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright... I think that this may be a potential candidate for the Lame Edit Wars page, hehehe. --Prezboy1 11:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Other fansites

Found this fansite too: http://www.biglovinit.net/ signed: Travb (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

User Breaking Rules... again.

Aurora still can't play by the rules... --EmmSeeMusic 06:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Then folks here'll deal with it. It's not something to worry over. Right now probably a few dozen people are watching how this article's going, and will step in if they feel the need. And yes, the revert was a fair one... because its likely to be the consensus on the subject. But no need to say "One user doesnt get it".. that's unnecessary since some people may wonder if its an attack (however mild). So just say something like "revert - ad link, see talk page" explains it cl;early for anyone reading the page history. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted sections

Going through the edits, I noticed some interesting edits, which I agree do not belong in the article, but I think should be on the talk page, for those in the future who read this article:

The theme tune is unique in the sense that it matches the show's plot in certain ways. For instance, the line 'I may not always love you' reflects the Bill's shift in affection between wives. Also, 'If you should ever leave me, life would still go on believe me' highlights the fact that even if both wives, let alone one were to leave Bill he would still be married.

Signed: Travb (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Family Tree

Inspired by Kennedy_family#Fourth_generation, I made a family tree for Big Love, hope everyone likes it. (It was very hard to format this section). Travb (talk) 02:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought this was great, but there is a problem: One would assume that Nikki's kids have the last name "Grant" (and Margie's kids have the last name "Heffman"). You have all the kids listed as Henrickson. I'm editing it. --technogypsy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Technogypsy (talk • contribs) 07:41, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Jtrost if you are going to delete one fansite

RE: [1]

To be fair to those who have interests in this site, Jtrost if you are going to delete one fansite, you have to delete them all (except for the official HBO one).

As a third party neutral, with no big love site of my own, I think that http://www.biglovinit.net/ should stay. Thus I reverted.Travb (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That is the only fansite currently listed. Please read #Removal_of_links. There was already a discussion about this. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 21:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Kewl, thanks for your hard work. Travb (talk) 01:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Big Love - Australia

It says in the International broadcasting area that Big Love has been shown in Australia on SBS on Wednesday 8:30.

Is this a future broadcast? I don't remember it being shown or advertised and I can't find any reference of it on the SBS site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.245.207.188 (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Season 2 - Canada

Season 2 will debut in Canada on The Movie Network and Movie Channel on June 11 at 10 PM

Family Tree Update

Would it be a spoiler if someone revised the family tree to include others introduced/explained by the end of the first season? Or else, is it noteworthy that Orville was the Prophet, if I understand correctly?

24.90.138.194 07:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers are not a concern of Wikipedia. 204.17.31.126 (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Cast vs. Recurring

Hey, a question maybe for those who have spent more time on this article than I have. A number of people listed under "recurring" are now listed in the opening credits as, it seems, regular cast members. Shouldn't they be moved up here also? I'd do it myself but a) I wasn't sure if opening credits is the only qualification, though it seems reasonable; and b) I was especially concerned about moving Don Embry into the main cast, since his wives are listed with him under recurring (but legitimately, they are just recurring, while Don is a regular). Any thoughts or does anybody feel comfortable taking care of this? --SuperNova |T|C| 20:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Plot

The plot section for Big Love is more of a summary of the show's portrayal in relation to LDS and the actual LDS's response to that. Doesn't really fit here, this info should be in another section, and the plot should include a few more important aspects of the show. Agreed? Gwynand 15:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

OK... I made major changes to the plot section, taking out the "outside world" angles of the previous one. I tried my best to pick up the major points of season 1 and then lead that into what we have so far with season 2. I encourage others to edit with formatting and grammar where neccesary, but I think this is an improvement on the previous section and should not be reverted.Gwynand 18:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I did one pass at a copyedit, but the section could stand a good bit of improvement still. Rray 18:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed it needs improvements... I don't think separating the plot points with spacing is neccesary. Check out Sopranos Wiki as an example. This spreads it out too much. Gwynand 18:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Children's Ages

Are the birthdates given in the family tree correct? As of now (June 2007), Sarah would be 16 but in last night's episode clearly said she was 18, though still in high school. Ben seems way older than 14. And Wayne is 6? Nikki and Bill (and Barb) just celebrated their 6th anniversary, and Nikki hardly seems the type to be popping out the babies before marriage. Mapjc 02:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Better question: What is the source for the family tree at all? It's interesting but does it have any basis? We should probably remove at least the birthdates without some background. --SuperNova |T|C| 07:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was a nice/encyclopedic type addition to the page... but most of the information is impossible to verify at this point. I say we have to ditch it. There are quite possibly some errors in the show that don’t add up… but won’t matter to 99% of the viewing public. For example, it is said earlier in season 1 that Ben played last year on JV baseball, when he was a sophomore. So in Season 1 he would be finishing up his junior year. Since Sarah is the eldest, that would mean she is finishing up her senior year, but there have been no indications that this is her last year in highschool… they have just started talking about college. Is it true that Teeny and Wayne’s bday are just 1 day apart? -- Gwynand 13:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Family tree again

The family tree is very interesting but it needs to be sourced, and that sourcing must be placed in the article. Is it from the Big Love website? If it can be sourced I am going to have to delete it. For all I know it is a figment of someone's imagination.--Mantanmoreland 15:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think people are getting overly worked up in regards to original research. The tree is no more original research than the table stating who plays what part. It's common sense for anybody who has ever seen the show, and the website's cast index states explicitly the relationship between each character; simply click the character's image. Also, note that each child's age is stated within their minibio. - auburnpilot talk 16:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with constructing a family tree chart based on information given on the Big Love site. But the ages and birth dates need to be obtained from the site (or some other reliable source). If the date of birth is mentioned in an episode, that is fine but the episode needs to be mentioned. I just want to be sure that all this information is accurate.--Mantanmoreland 16:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The first thing I checked on was wrong. You somehow have a specific birthdate and age of Margene, saying she is 24 now. HBO's minibio has her as currently being 21. I think this alone is enough to ditch the ages... the rest of the tree I think is fine in terms of relationships.Gwynand 16:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done All nice and sourced. I've also removed the birth date and age templates. - auburnpilot talk 16:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice job. I think the tree fits well into this page and this type of show. As an afterthought, I think it is hard in general to start listing official birthdays for characters on TV shows. For example... 3 seasons from now, Wayne's bday might all of a sudden be happening right around xmas. This happens on shows all the time in TV... continuity errors that exist but make very little or no difference to the quality/content of the show. I can't believe Ben and Sarah are supposed to be 14 and 16... I'm definitely gonna keep an eye out on the show for something that contradicts that. Has Ben ever driven on the show?

Yes, in the very last episode Ben drove his father to work. I agree that the family tree looks fine, but I am still unclear about why some of the characters have birth years and some do not. Originally there was a full birthday for Bill Hendrickson. It would be nice to add those birth dates (and others) if they are from a reliable source.--Mantanmoreland 17:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added Margie's year of birth as 1986. That's because at the episode last night (episode #2) she says that she is "five years older" than Ben, who has just celebrated his sixteenth birthday. In fact, I'll add Ben's birth date on that basis too. I think this is adequate sourcing.--Mantanmoreland 16:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

She also said she was 23 more than once in the past. Most of the ages on HBO's web site are how old they were when the series started, not how old they are now. "Five years" could have been a figure of speech, or a mistake, or they could be trying to retcon her age so that Bill has also married someone too young. If she is 21 now, how old was she when she first dated Bill, got married, had her first child, etc. Except for that one line, all evidence points to older than 21. —MJBurrage • TALK • 07:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Having just read some of her official blog on the HBO site, as of April 2003 (four years ago), Margene was living on her own, going out drinking with friends, and working at Home Plus. It looks to me like some ages are as of the start of the show, and some have been updated, but not consistently, which makes comparative references even more prone to error.
Does anyone know how much time has officially passed since the show started? It does not have to be one for one, Grey's Anatomy for example only covered one year in its first three seasons, and other shows sometimes skip many months or even years between episodes. (Rome for example) —MJBurrage • TALK • 10:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not to sure she ever said her actual age ever on the show. At one point this page stated she was 23. After looking at everything, we really need to not use her birth year. First of all, the two pieces of evidence are first the hbo site, which contradicts itself with actual facts of the show, and secondly an offhand statement on the show. Saying you are five years older than someone can actually imply 4 or 6, or just that general amount. Plus, this doesn't mean she she must have been born in 1986. Also, the two seasons of this show came over a year apart on TV, but it is clearly stated in the first episode of season 2 that only 2 weeks have passed between seasons. It might be the case that the show "aged" all the children, and possibly Margene, to make their ages more believable. The HBO site originally stated that Ben and Sarah were 14 and 16. Ben has just turned 16 on the show, and Sarah has stated she is 18 (which I am pretty sure is an accurate statement). If this is the case that the writers are doing this, then birthdates should not be included in the wiki. It would be interesting to have this explanation on the page, but there is really no verifiability of it and should stay within the talk page. Also... have they ever stated what year it is on the show? Gwynand 11:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Gwynand 13:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)== Vote on keeping/elminating all birth years in Family Tree ==

I feel we should get rid of all the birthyears. There is no real sourcing stating the exact years, but rather HBO's inconsistent website which states their ages (which fluctuates on the whim of whoever edits that page).

Some points,

First, as an example, if my child is "1 years old" right now, he may have been born in 2006 or 2005. If his birthday was November 2005, he is 1. If it is March 2006 he is 1. Overall point... just because hbo.com says Bill's father is 65, that doesn't mean we know he was born in 1941.... its not a straigtforward 2007 - x years.

Second, since the show premiered in 2006, and the timeline has stayed within that year (as shown by the storyline), then this year (on the show), must be 2006, right? No... it could be 2007, because, hey, that's TV.

Lastly, and most importantly, there is NO real verifiability to any of these years. They really should be removed on that point alone. HBO.com, while informational, really appears to function as more of a fan site than absolute fact about the show. If you look on the site now, the 'cast' section shows Margene as "Margene Henrickson" which we know from the show not to be her name, rather Margene Heffman. The show itself cannot be used as a source since the year in the show is shifting without a year actually passing in the story.

Post here, stating either to KEEP or ELIMINATE the birthdates, with any points you want to make.Gwynand 12:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but I do think that the show itself and the website are reliable sources. To deal with the uncertainties you mention is to simply put "circa" before each birth year. I think the abbreviation is the letter "c."--Mantanmoreland 13:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The show and the website have contradicted themselves. How can we have years of birth when it is not established on the show what the current year is?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwynand (talk • contribs)

Can you cite an example of a contradiction? For example, someone just posted, in removing an age for Margene, that she said on the show she was 23. What was the episode in which she said that? The website says 21, which is consistent with her statement in the last episode (No.3, second season) that she was "five years older" than Ben, who just turned sixteen. Can someone cite in what episode she said she was 23?

I think one solution might be to make a neutral mention of the age inconsistencies somewhere in the article, perhaps a footnote. I think it is useful information and I don't think it's OR to simply report what is said on a show or stated on a website. The family tree could say for Margene "21 or 23"--Mantanmoreland 15:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Example of contradiction... Sarah has stated on show she is 18. On website it says she is 16. Ben, her younger brother has turned 16 on the show. A few weeks ago, hbo.com stated Ben was 14 and Sarah was 16. Now hbo.com says ben is 15 (not 16... another contradiction) and still says Sarah is 16. It is all very unreliable and inconsistent.Gwynand 16:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem here. We are not arbiters of such things. If in describing a fictional character HBO provides inconsistent information, we should simply say so. However, we should state specifics episode numbers and website URLs. I think that what matters is what the website currently says, not what it said in the past. For Ben, we can say that the website says "15" (at URL X) and "16" at episode three. The family tree can give age as "c. 1991" and the footnote would explain why.--Mantanmoreland 16:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is not up to us to make the decision on their ages. The overall point is birthyears for fictional characters are barely notable, and unnecesary. Check other shows... if their birthdate was clearly stated somewhere, it is included. Most of the time, it is never stated. Because of this, an overwhelming majority of the WP:Television project does not include birth years for characters. There is no need to state what two different sources state, if anything it suggests they are both unreliable. Also, this is clearly against WP:SOURCE. Why are we stretching on this article to include birth years?Gwynand 16:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Right now we have birth years for some characters and not others. I'd suggest either eliminating for all or trying to insert for all. I think this is a kind of interesting detail, particularly since someone went to the trouble of drafting a family tree.--Mantanmoreland 16:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the Family Tree is great, and for a show like such it adds good quality to the page. When I say the detail of birth year is barely notable, I'm not suggesting it wouldn't be interesting detail. We just can't source it properly, and we only know a few... it could take years, or never, for us to learn all of them, making the page look permanently half-finished. I agree with removing all for the time-being.Gwynand 17:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, then just yank 'em out, then. I don't think it is a big deal. Some of the birth years are unsourced anyway.--Mantanmoreland 17:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

One other minor note on the family tree (and as a professional genealogist, I love family trees): it seems to show that Rhonda is married to Roman, but she has not. She was only placed to live in his household, and since then she has bolted. Mapjc 06:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point... I was going to just remove it... but on that note, technically he isn't married to Adaleen either. I'll remove Rhonda. Unfortunately she doesn't have any other place on the family tree despite being a main player in the show.Gwynand 17:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Family tree is neat, but hard to figure out how to edit it if you're not familiar with similar trees. Not sure what the solution is, but it's a bit of a problem. Meanwhile, could someone more awake than I add Joey & Wanda's son Joey Jr? Also, what is Bill's uncle (Lois's brother)'s name and shouldn't he be included in the cast listings? 07:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Tvoz |talk

I added them in the text but not in the tree which I can't figure how to edit, and it appears we are including only Bill's principals, yes?Tvoz |talk 19:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are all of Bill's children Henricksons? I thought only the children of the first wife got the father's surname, and others, like Bill, got their mothers' names. Obviously not a hard and fast rule, since Nikki and Alby are both Grants despite their mother only being sixth wife. But how does Bill explain that all the kids on the block have his last name?? Mapjc 00:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

We aren't 100% sure on this one. In the last episode, Wayne had the last name Henrickson at his school, with the assumption that this is his legal last name. I think the assumption is that their legal names are Henrickson, but they go by their mothers last name in some situations for secrecy purposes. HBO.com has Wayne listed as a Henrickson as well. Gwynand 13:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Mormons

After reverting a user who removed mentions of the family being Mormon, I did a bit of searching and it seems the issue is a bit ambiguous. There are definitely sources that state the family is Mormon, such as the Boston Globe's recent article "Romney gets mention on 'Big Love,' will be part of documentary" [2]. The article refers to Big Love as "the HBO drama about a Mormon family". Other articles do the same, but the issue still seems to be a bit ambiguous on HBO's side (or so I've found). Anybody have any links confirming Mormon/not Mormon? - auburnpilot talk 04:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's some information indicating that the characters in Big Love are not Mormon. The LDS Church (Mormons) further assert that there is no such thing as Mormon Fundamentalist and HBO never refers to its characters as such indicating that they are in no way Mormon.

In this article it quotes HBO president Chris Albrecht saying:

"...we were careful to distinguish in the show between polygamists, people in the compounds, even our main families in the show, and mainstream Mormons."

-Controversy? Not for HBO, Deseret News

The following is taken from an official Press Release from the LDS Church which address the use of the term Mormon and includes a reference from the Associated Press Stylebook:

"Some may debate what the definition of a Mormon is, but terms like "Mormon Tabernacle Choir," "Mormon Temple" and "Mormon missionaries" are universally understood to refer to the 12-million member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Quite simply, calling Warren Jeffs a Mormon is misleading and confusing to the vast majority of audiences who rightfully associate the term "Mormon" with members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

"In 1998, President Gordon B. Hinckley said: "I wish to state categorically that this Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church."

"Associated Press- The Associated Press Stylebook states, "The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other Latter Day Saints churches that resulted from the split after [Joseph] Smith's death."

-LDS Press Release

- Prosper and Bo 05:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If only it were this simple. Read the Mormon article for more information on the ambiguity. — Val42 02:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

True the term "Mormon" is used by other religious groups as stated in the Mormon article however it has been made clear that the characters of Big Love are members of a fictional religious polygamous group. They are never identified as being members of one of the specific religious groups that refer to themselves as "Mormon". So regardless of which religious groups the term is correctly or incorrectly applied to the characters of Big Love should not be confused as Mormons of any kind. - Prosper and Bo 19:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

True, however, "Mormon" is used in the openning paragraph of this article, this article is in two "Mormon" categories, and the Boston Globe article says, '"Big Love," the HBO drama about a Mormon family'. If HBO is being so clear about separating this show from Mormons, then this should be made clear in this article, with references. — Val42 02:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should be made clear in this article that this show never deems it's characters "Mormons" of any variety. Which is why we're discussing it. Because the assumption has been made and published by several outside sources I think it is appropriate to address the confusion by removing instances calling the family Mormon or Mormon Fundamentalist but to include a section explaining that the Mormon Fundamentalist movement is likely where the inspiration came from. And although HBO has never specified a certain religious group the characters have been labeled such by outside sources due to there sharp resemblance. I do believe it is inappropriate to have any reference to the official Mormon church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) because any instances calling the family "Mormon" is clearly alluding to Mormon Fundamentalists (whether correctly or incorrectly) not the LDS Church. Linking the LDS Church to this article is what perpetuates the most confusion. Prosper and Bo 15:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Tensions with the Mormons is a continuing motif in the show. When Bill has dinner with that waitress lady he is considering for fourth wife, she asks if he is a Mormon and he responds "I do my own thing." Care needs to be taken to not confuse the Mormon church with the Henrickson family and other polygamists on the show. It's a bit like referring to Messianic Jews as Jews.--Mantanmoreland 18:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

So long as reliable sources refer to the family as Mormon, it is entirely appropriate to do the same. Unless sources can be provided stating they are not Mormons, doing so would be original research. Verifiability, not truth. - auburnpilot talk 02:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

So... if one "reliable source" makes an assumption, that assumption automatically becomes truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.161.83 (talk) 07:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

HBO should be the most reliable source in this case and they have never called them Mormons. It greatly misrepresents the characters and the show to label them based on information never confirmed by their creators. Including a section about this unconfirmed information would be appropriate but simply including it in the article as if it is fact is highly inaccurate. Prosper and Bo 22:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland and Prosper and Bo have it right. The show repeatedly shows the Henricksons' distance from the LDS church. For example, in a Season One episode, Barb notes that she and Bill once had Temple Recommends, but no longer have them. In another, Bill notes that part of the reason the family doesn't attend any prayer groups is because Barb "still misses LDS." There are plenty of Mormon characters on the show, and LDS plays a role, but to refer to the Henricksons as "a Mormon family" would be misleading at best; at worst, inaccurate. Bcarlson33 (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

As to whether they are Mormons, clearly the LDS would not consider them Mormon. But don't they try to 'pass' as Mormons? Clearly the Mormons they meet in the show do not consider them Gentiles. 128.100.110.88 (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No Nicki in season 2?

I haven't watched the full series yet, but is Nicki doing NOTHING in season 2? It sure seems that way by looking at the plot-synopsis. 90.224.120.208 (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Family Tree formatting

Is it possible to reformat the Family Tree so that the Nicki Grant branch is underneath the rest of the tree instead of beside it? - dcljr (talk) 06:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Mormon fundamentalism

An anon editor has objected to the use of the term Mormon fundamentalist to describe the family. However, a reading of the M.F. article suggests to me that it's an apt descriptor. Nothing in the show ever says directly they are members of the FLDS Church. The more general term for people in this religious movement is "Mormon fundamentalist". It's a commonly used phrase and I don't understand the editor's objection to it on "political correctness" grounds, unless s/he is just referring to their own political or religious views. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to raise the same objection. I don't think you've really addressed the issue. Obviously the Henricksons are not members of the FLDS (or its thinly-disguised surrogate on the show). The question is, do their beliefs qualify as "fundamentalism" in the general sense? A fundamentalist is somebody who believes in the literal truth of religious scripture, and rejects all beliefs that they see as inconsistent with their reading of scripture. I don't know enough about the Book of Mormon to venture an opinion, but he seems to me that the Henricksons's lifestyle is too casual and tolerant to be consistent with that kind of fundamentalism.

The fact that they practice polygamy proves nothing. Lots of religious groups have practices that seem a little strange to outsiders. Does Joe Lieberman rate as a "Jewish fundamentalist" because he doesn't drive his car on the sabbath? Isaac R (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the article Mormon fundamentalism? The meaning of "fundamentalist" that you provide is not its meaning when used in this particular phrase. It certainly has little to do with belief in literal truth of the Book of Mormon. (The Book of Mormon condemns polygamy!) For people who do know enough about the Latter Day Saint movement, the fictional Hendricksons are textbook Mormon fundamentalists. I see this is an issue for which citations should be provided; I will do so. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, "Mormon fundamentalist" is a term that Latter-day Saints (commonly "Mormons") almost universally despise. The LDS Church suggests instead "polygamist sect," which virtually no source uses. The LDS Church excommunicates Mormon fundamentalists, so its members especially dislike being associated with polygamists. However, this term is so well-understood in the literature, that we use it here. It confuses people unfamiliar with the term by a false analogy to "Christian fundamentalist," but we don't choose the terms, WP:NAME does, and the Mormon fundamentalist article does a good job of explaining the difference. Cool Hand Luke 22:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Your criticism of my definition of "fundamentalism" seems well-taken, but the article also seems to absolve the Henricksons of being Mormon fundamentalists. They clearly don't believe in the Law of consecration, for one thing. Isaac R (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that's a fair comment. Mormon fundamentalism is not at all monolithic, which is perhaps something that the article doesn't emphasize enough. Not all MFs believe in the LofC. I would guess that the only real "requirement" to be considered a MF would be belief in plural marriage, though I could probably even be proven wrong if someone provided an example of MFs who don't believe in it. :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

So any Mormon who believes in plural marriage is a fundamentalist? That doesn't make sense. Mormon fundamentalism, like any other belief system, represents a complex world view with many ideas and assumptions. You can't pull out one or two of those ideas and say that anybody who believes in them deserves the same label as somebody who buys the whole system. It's like saying that anybody who's a racist is a Nazi, or anybody who isn't racist is a liberal.Isaac R (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That's how the word is actually used though. If an LDS Mormon, for example, confesses a belief in polygamy, they will be excommunicated. LDS Mormons will call them "apostate," but the media covering such events (the NPOV coverage) will call them "Mormon fundamentalist." This meaning is overwhelmingly accepted among reporters and scholars in this area. In fact, the meaning of "Mormon fundamentalist" (= Mormon polygamist) is less ambiguous than the term "Christian fundamentalist." Cool Hand Luke 18:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what Cool Hand Luke has said. It doesn't make a lot of logical sense once you begin to parse it, true, but that is exactly how the word is used by both the media and academics. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

By that logic, then, it's OK for me to edit Barack Obama and add the word "nigger". Never mind that many people would find that deeply offensive (just as many Mormon and other religious people are offended at being labelled "fundamentalist"), there are millions of people who use the word that way.

But thoughtful people don't use that word, despite its popularity. And why? Because it reflects ignorance and bigotry. And I'm afraid I see some of that in this careless use of the term "Mormon fundamentalist". It suggests ignorance and even prejudice. You take a prosperous, white-collar, middle class family and stick a label because they happen to have a couple of beliefs in common with others who wear that label, people whose beliefs and lifestyles are completely different. I'm sorry, but that's sloppy, bigoted thinking, and coming up with a lot of citations of journalists who are guilty of that kind of mental laziness doesn't change that. Citations are about showing where you got your facts, not about numbers games. Isaac R (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No. To compare this to the "n-word" is ridiculous. Neither the mainstream media nor academic sources would refer to B.O. as an "n-word". WP doesn't try to blaze trails for new or revised usages. We reflect what is in the popular and academic uses, both of which use "Mormon fundamentalism". You need to show some sort of consensus for your position before having the term removed. Right now I see none, and you have no evidence that "thoughtful people don't use that word". You admitted yourself that you had little knowledge of the subject area, so your interpretations probably shouldn't be "controlling" in this area.

And to change it as you are doing—to just say they are a "Mormon family", is even worse, because "Mormon" usually means "member of the LDS Church", which they clearly are not. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's get your point about "Mormon family" out of the way. I have to admit that you have a point there, and in fact a third party has already removed that term.

As for your point about "nigger" (I dislike euphemisms, apologies to any people of color who read this) it's true that this is too informal a usage to ever make it into the MSM. But many other usages that African Americans find demeaning and offensive used to be pretty standard. ("Darky" is the main one I remember from my youth.) They only disappeared after much protest. You also often see terms like "redneck" frequently in the MSM, even though many of the rural white people it applies to find it deeply offensive. Clearly, you can't regard a term as either logical or inoffensive just because some sloppy reporter racing to meet a deadline is sloppy enough to use it.

Ask yourself, would the Henricksons (if they weren't fictional characters) find your characterization of them as "Mormon fundamentalist" as either accurate or inoffensive? I think the answer is no and no. Well, maybe Nicky.... Isaac R (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

These are not real people, but Mormon fundamentalists typically embrace the term. I'm not sure where you're coming from regarding the term being "offensive". It's generally offensive to no one, except sometimes to LDS Church members who think the term "Mormon" should be reserved exclusively for members of the LDS Church. But that issue has been resolved on WP via the principles of WP:NAME, and it's been decided that this is the term that will be used. So the only question then becomes if the fictional characters are in this category of people, and I don't think there's any real dispute that they do. Your efforts seem to be more suited to getting the name of the article Mormon fundamentalism changed. There's no reason to simply delete the fact that this is a fictional example of that class of believers. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

So Isaac R—why, in light of this information and in light of the citations that have been provided, are you still deleting the information stating they are "Mormon fundamentalists"? There's clearly no consensus to remove that designation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't hear from you for a while, and I thought you had lost interest in the discussion.Isaac R (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

As an outsider to this discussion (and to Mormonism), but someone who is a viewer of the Big Love series, I have to say that I'm amazed to find that (on the present edit) there is no mention of the word "Mormon" until the categories at the end of the article. The Henrickson family come from what most impartial observers will perceive as a "Mormon" background - indeed, in Bill's case, from a Mormon polygamist (aka fundamentalist) splinter-group. The Wikipedia article "Mormon" rejects the LDS's appropriation (monopolisation?) of the term, and hence the argument that they aren't Mormon because they aren't LDS doesn't wash. The same article similarly equates Mormon Fundamentalism with Mormon groups which practice plural marriage. In conclusion, I think to fail to mention the term Mormon or (better) Mormon Fundamentalism is to fail to explain the background of the Henrickson family's belief and practices to readers of the article. They are not simply random stand-alone polygamists - they have the basis of a Mormon (Fundamentalist) belief structure underlying their polygamy.MarkyMarkD (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I certainly agree with you. Right now Isaac Rabinovitch has been removing the (cited) reference to the fact that they are Mormon fundamentalists. I'm not sure what his rationale for doing so is, since he is still the only user objecting to its usage. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to initiate some more 3rd party comments on this issue. I'm not sure what more could convince you, Isaac Rabinovitch, but I find it interesting that you are being so doctrinaire in an area you said you know little about. Perhaps looking up the citations that have been provided in the text would help you. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"Mormon fundamentalist" is not offensive to Mormon fundamentalists

I am completely baffled about why this conversation is happening here, but not at Mormon fundamentalism. Just to echo Good Ol’factory, Mormon fundamentalists do not find the term offensive. Mainstream Mormons often do, but that just because they reject Mormon fundamentalists as "Mormon" altogether. The N-word is a crazy, off-the-rails example.

The closest analog I can think of off the top of my head is Republic of China. People in the Republic of China are not offended by the term, but the PRC is. Thus, you could label people as citizens of the RoC, and the only conceivably offended people are those in the PRC. Were the Hendrickson's real living people, they would almost certainly call themselves "Mormon fundamentalists"—as three references do—only the LDS Church would not. Cool Hand Luke 23:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it comes down to just a simple, fundamental (har har) misunderstanding of the term "Mormon fundamentalist" by Isaac R. From my viewpoint, he seems to be breaking the term down into its constituent words "Mormon + fundamentalist", and thinking that the term must refer to Mormons who are fundamentalist in their Mormon beliefs, but that's not how the term is used. Rather, it is used in the media and in academia as a unifed noun—"Mormon fundamentalist"—to refer to groups within the Latter Day Saint movement that practice polygamy or plural marriage. Apart from some vague (and inaccurate) suggestions that the term is offensive or that it should mean something different that what it does, there has been no good reason provided as to why the term does not apply to the fictional family Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I am knowligeable about this area of the Latter Day Movement, and Mormon fundamentalism is not a "bad term" in any regards, in fact, the Hendricksons would be "Independent" Mormon fundamentalists, and those who follow this faith would call themselves this. In the movement there are a number of groups, each with there own outlook on the what is the basics of Mormonism, there is the FLDS which has made the news, but also many other groups, such as the AUB, TLC, Kingstons, Lebarons, and so on. About half of the Mormon Fundamentlists are "Independent" in that the father as the head of household is the preisthood holder and ministers to the rest of the family. The only people who are upset by the term is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints based in Salt Lake, as they feel that that the term "Mormon" only relates to themselves, while other groups in the latter day movement think anyone who uses the book of mormon as a holy book is Mormon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drgong (talk • contribs) 14:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion on MF

I am responding to a request for a third opinion. As Cool Hand Luke and MarkyMarkD both provided third opinions here, the dispute will be removed from the project page. — Athaenara ✉ 00:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Please explain your opinion. I don't think it's at all helpful for you to take a side without explaining why. Isaac R (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the editor was taking a side; they were saying that others have appeared who have given "third-party" opinions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The dispute was between two users, Isaac Rabinovitch and Good Olfactory. Two uninvolved editors offered reasonable and neutral opinions of the sort WP:3O aims to provide. (I myself have no opinion at all :-) — Athaenara ✉ 05:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Family tree problems, second row

The second row is missing two pivotal characters, Lois Henrickson and especially Roman Grant, and needs to be fixed. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Endowment controversy

Reportedly, the upcoming episode will portray an Endowment ceremony, which has Mormons up in arms. This is getting a lot of coverage and should be mentioned in the article. Mike R (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. Until this upcoming episode has become historically notable, it does not qualify for coverage in this article, as per What Wikipedia Is Not standards. nomoreink 13:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This article should probably be protected short term. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen any out-and-out vandalism that would justify short-term protection. I'll keep an eye on it as the episode approaches, but so far there have been a lot of (probably well-meaning) attempts to remove the word phrase "fundamentalist Mormon" (since the LDS Church rejects the phrase) and a lot of additions of LDS Church press releases, but nothing bad-spirited that shows we need to protect the page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, just as soon as I say I haven't seen any vandalism, we get a spate of it. I'll likely semi-protect this page if the vandalism does keep up. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible solution for 'fundamentalist' controversy

For those unfamiliar with Mormon fundamentalists, it may prove helpful to include some descriptors to the term when first mentioned in the article. For example, instead of just 'Mormon fundamentalist', it could be 'the breakoff Mormon fundamentalists'. Or, since much of the show revolves around the tension that occurs between the fundamentalist family and the surrounding Mormons, this could be mentioned in the opening paragraph. This kind of clarification and explanation is at least as important and informative as the sentence "The second season aired in 2007[4] and the third season began airing January 18, 2009 in the U.S. and Canada." that is currently in the opening paragraph of the article. nomoreink 13:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"about a family in Utah who practice polygamy surrounded by Mormons who don't" is a more accurate description of the situation.

--Archf 1 (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

For those unfamiliar with terminology, that's why inter-WP links exist. We link to Mormon fundamentalist—anyone wanting to know more just needs to click on the link. There's no need to reinvent the wheel, especially in a lead sentence. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You are of course wrong. Using the term Mormon fundamentalist as the lead in to the article is wrong. (Having lived in Utah for many decades and at one time worked next to a polygamist sect for over 4 years). See below.

When referring to people or organizations that practice polygamy, the terms “Mormons,” “Mormon fundamentalist,” “Mormon dissidents,” etc. are incorrect. The Associated Press Stylebook notes: “The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other ... churches that resulted from the split after [Joseph] Smith’s death.” Style Guide --Archf 1 (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a POV, and it has been discussed extensively on this page before (see above). We don't abide by the AP Stylebook; besides, that section of the guidebook only applies to headlines, as far as I am aware. To suggest that any one church has a monopoly on the word "Mormon" is a bit extreme, especially when the people themselves use the word to refer to themselves. WP:NAME suggests we would use "Mormon fundamentalists", which is why the article exists at Mormon fundamentalism. Any attempts to change this naming should be directed there, not here.

In any case, one of the fictional persons in the show that practices polygamy is in fact a member of the LDS Church, so the entire controversy of "Mormon or not?" is a bit irrelevant. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Your argument is POV. My suggested sentence is more accurate, ignoring AP stylebook, what is offensive to one group or not, etc. They are a family practicing polygamy surrounded by others that do not. I kept the term "Mormon" in the sentence in a place that would not offend. Why use a term which obviously offends when a better description works? It is obvious that there are other articles that could be corrected, but your argument to assume that all definitions in Wikipedia are correct or should be corrected is also just a POV. Allow me or someone else to change the intro paragraph back to what I had. Fix any links you want.

WP:NAME under Latter Day Saint movement, specifically states not to use the term you are defending. Your argument for using an offensive term still doesn't hold water. --Archf 1 (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have modified the sentence again with only the term deleted. The links are still there. As mentioned above. WP:NAME refers to the Latter-day saint movement for naming, which agrees with my argument (unless you have changed that, I didn't touch it). --Archf 1 (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but your analysis of what is and is not appropriate is just not right. You should examine the discussion above on this issue, and not remove the term "fundamentalist Mormons" unless there is a consensus to do so, which at this point there is not. For one, the naming conventions for Latter Day Saint topics explicitly state that "Mormon fundamentalism" is an accepted usage: see here. We follow these, not the AP Stylebook. (I dispute your interpretation of the AP Stylebook statement in any case, but that's another matter, which is irrelevant anyway.) Secondly—outside, third-party opinions have decided that "Mormon fundamentalists" is appropriate, and since it is well-sourced, the only opposition to the term seems to be ones based on personal biases, beliefs, or preferences. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You obviously are defending what the article currently says. You refer to Wiki naming conventions, which refers to [3] for naming conventions for the entire movement. Based on what Wiki has under naming conventions for members of the latter-day saint movement, you are defending a stand that isn't correct and is offensive to obviously more than me. Unless you own Wikipedia, [4] says it is to be discussed. In this case, you have assumed that anyone disagreeing was wrong. You referenced WP:NAME which defends my change. --Archf 1 (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Then you need to change what the naming conventions say, and not try to enforce a back-door change through this one article. WP:NAME refers you to the Latter Day Saint naming conventions, and those uses the term as an acceptable use, so you're obviously misinterpreting what it says there. We can discuss it if you want, I just don't think working out proper terminology in the WP-wide context is appropriate here. Take it to the Latter Day Saint movement naming conventions page if you want the words to be changed. (I forewarn you though, this has been discussed numerous times and in many different contexts, and each time the the result has been the same.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a perennial dispute. Mormon fundamentalists themselves use the term, as do scholars and newspapers like the L.A. Times and Salt Lake Tribune. I'm not opposed to adding an explaination on first mention that they're non-LDS polygamists, but "Mormon fundamentalist" is the best term for the concept per WP:NAME. Cool Hand Luke 00:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to think of how we could elegantly state that these are non-LDS Church polygamists, but then I discovered that one of the main characters is indeed a member of the LDS Church, and part of the drama is her membership status in the church, etc. So I'm not exactly sure how to approach this. I think it's clear they are Mormon fundamentalists, though, which is why I think in this case it's easiest to define them by what they are and not by what they are not (or at least by what they are not a good example of, i.e., an LDS Church member, even if one of the fictional persons is LDS). It gets a bit complicated, which is why it's nice to have MF as a shorthand term that really tells us what we need to know. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

[5] says it is No [or Not] correct to connect the term Mormon to the polygamist sects. That page has been relatively stable for a year or two. The term Mormon fundamentalist, while used in several other articles including this one currently, does not fit the wikipedia naming convention for the latter-day saint movement. I wasn't trying to change all the current mistakes, only correct the confusion in one place, this one. Anyone defending Big Love's recent moves is no friend of any Church. --Archf 1 (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You may have to be more explicit in what you are referencing to come to the conclusions you draw, because the naming conventions as I read them do not say that at all. On the contrary, they state: "The term Mormon or its derivatives such as Mormonism are appropriate when referring to doctrines and practices that have a historical connection to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but no historical connection to other denominations within the Latter Day Saint movement. For example: Mormonism, Mormon fundamentalism, Mormon pioneers."

So it's OK to use Mormonism, Mormon fundamentalism, and Mormon pioneers. The reason it's OK for MF is because there is a historical connection between the LDS Church and the MFs, and there is no corresponding historical connection between the MFs and other Latter Day Saint churches. That connection is: the MFs split from the LDS Church because they believed that the LDS Church had inappropriately abandoned certain teachings or practices and thereby watered down the religion, etc. Mormon fundamentalists call themselves MFs; the media uses the term; sources use the term in referring to the fictional characters in Big Love. So I'm not sure what the problem is, really.

I'm unsure what you mean by your last sentence and what it's relevance is here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-LDS Church disclaimer

I can understand the desire by some editors to place a disclaimer in the lead of the article that Big Love does not portray LDS Church members. But the problem with doing so is that we generally describe a subject by what it is, not by what it is not. The fictional family are described in the lead as fundamentalist Mormons, and if that link is followed you can learn quite easily that fundamentalist Mormons are not affiliated with the LDS Church, but they believe in certain teachings and practices that the LDS Church has abandoned. And will anyone really think that an HBO show is affiliated with the LDS Church? Probably not, so I'm not sure why that phrase in the disclaimer was thought necessary. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

See section below for what's been added in this regard. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Mention of criticism

I see there is a continuous problem with cut and paste insertion of the church's press release on the program. Would a passage like the following, under 'critical reception', be appropriate and proportional? 99.184.128.247 (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

In March 2006 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a public statement citing its concerns over the program's depiction of polygamy, use of stereotypes, and television's depiction of moral and civic values in general.[6] News release, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

It would be fine with me, assuming we have some sort of non-primary source that's reporting on the church's criticism of it. I'm pretty sure I saw something at least on the Huffington Post website about this a few days ago, so I'm quite sure such a source would exist, but I suspect we need something more than just the church's statement as a source, since alone it's existence wouldn't necessarily justify inclusion. It's certainly better than a wholesale reproduction of the entire church statement, which is what has been added in the past. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added a section based on your suggestions, and added the 2009 criticism as well, with citations. We can see how this goes and decide to keep it or remove it depending on how others feel about it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well done. I know very little about either the church or the show; the addition of the press release, verbatim, was way POV, but the church's reaction seemed worth noting, especially given the media attention to the latest brouhaha. It looks okay to me, succinct and well-sourced. JNW (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Graphical Family Tree

FYI I uploaded a family tree created using Visio at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Big_love_familytree.jpg . I'm new to Wikipedia, rather than trying to edit the page thought I'd just alert the primary author of the page.

Shan22303 (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Television: Start-Class and Low importance?

The WikiProject Television list this article as being a Start-Class article of Low Importance. This may have been true when the article was first started, but I suggest this should be updated. The article seems to be relatively well written with a lot of information about the show and several citations. The show itself is controversial , noteworthy , and entertaining. AJseagull1 (talk) 04:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Roman Grant deceased?

Roman Grant is a very tricky man, and we've thought him a goner at least twice before. Can we really call him deceased just because he was strangled at the end of the season finale? I think in the least, there should be a footnote noting that it's possible he's alive. --Crushti (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)