Talk:Edmunds Act

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:Latter Day Saint movement Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Major restructuring proposal

A major restructuring proposal for all polygamy articles related to Mormonism has been made at Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr. and polygamy#Series and Restructuring proposal. Please visit and give your two cents. --Descartes1979 (talk) 04:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Disputed Tag

The statement that the Edmunds Act was applied in "apparently ex-post facto" manner is contrary to the ruling of the court. The assertion was a claim that it was ex-post facto, that claim was found not to have merit. A more appropriate, neutral approach would be to report that the claim was made but denied, rather than to couch it in terms that give rise to the inference that those convicted of violating the law were being persecuted. GregJackP (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

With no comments after 8 days, I changed the statement to a neutral POV and removed the tag. (GregJackP (talk) 02:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC))

Please Add David John

Please add David John as one of the people convicted under the Edmunds Act 1887. The Wikipedia page for David John discusses this conviction near the end of the article. This would be a good addition as it is clearly discussed on his Wiki Page Wiki page. Thank you. Exiepuppy (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Cheryl Uhl 29 Jan 2017

these are the same thing. The Edmunds tucker act listen on Wikipedia

The Edmunds tucker act listen on Wikipedia I have pasted the the URL to below are far more accurate and the title "Edmunds Tucker Act is in far better keeping with scholarly work where the co-authors or co-sponsors of each house have their names affixed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds%E2%80%93Tucker_Act