:I would strongly encourage you to avoid speculation on anothers perceved agenda no matter how much evidance you may have, it makes your argument appear to be a personal despute rather than a content despute.   
 :Right now you are claiming that Polygamy is not a sexual exploitive practice (I agree) that was used historically  to procreate (I agree) and to form aliances and help support women (I agree)and you argue that these principals where the foundation for the decision of David Koresh to state that he could have 140 wives, while his followers where not allowed to practice polygamy (I strongly disagree).  I personaly think that it does belong in the article because the practice by David Koresh was seperate from the origional precepts of the Branch Davidians and somthing reserved for him and him alone.  this follows the introduction of this section as an explotive practice because it wasn't used for either material or emotional support (they lived in a comune, thus the practice of a man defending women is null unless the comune breaks apart) and I don't buy it was to produce more children.  it needs a citation, but I think it belongs.