Talk:YFZ Ranch/Archive 1

Archive 1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Previous discussions without headers

New article to fulfill the need created by internal links on FLDS page. Greenw47 13:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"prophet Warren Jeffs"??? maybe we need to clarify that. somebody call god and ask if warren's been doing some errands for him.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.87.40 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 31 August 2006

It is simply what his followers call him, and what he calls himself. I certainly don't think he's a prophet of God. If "president" seems more fitting, that works, too. Greenw47 (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Capital P is apparently appropriate as the title he has. Lower case p implies foretelling the future, delivering messages from supernatural beings, or (if Tom Paine's exegesis can be trusted) playing a musical instrument. If his followers think one of the first two applies, then the lower case cannot be used without attributing that assessment to the followers. (Refactor sentences whose first word would be "Prophet", to avoid ambiguity.)
--Jerzy•t 20:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I would rather use a phrase like "self-declared Prophet Warren Jeffs". Haryadoon (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed graffiti

This article looks awfully like a copy paste from news media... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.88.130 (talk) 06:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This article has been edited carefully by many good wiki members over a period of time. When the news story broke, somebody pasted an entire article from a news web site. I removed it and pasted a link to the news article at the bottom. There is no need to add entire news stories to the text of an article when a link will do. Greenw47 (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Paper45tee for adding the raid section. Hopefully as events develop, cool heads will prevail and the article will not suffer constant editing. Greenw47 (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, before adding 'breaking news' or making comparisons to the Branch Davidians, please make sure that you have some research to back you up. Greenw47 (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with sections like this is that they get stale as news reporting tapers off -- it's no longer "news". The events described in this section appear not to have been updated for quite some time. Without closure, readers are left wondering ... Can we assume the situation has changed ? Has the CPS returned the children and mothers based on the court rulings ? Haryadoon (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Carolyn Jessop

The article stated: "A noted former member of the FLDS church, Carolyn Jessop, arrived on-site 6 April and stated that the actions in Texas are unlike the infamous 1953 Short Creek raid." Yet, in the source linked, there is utterly no mention of Short Creek. So I revised the reference accordingly to match the source. 71.175.28.121 (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the SLT article says exactly this (direct quote):

Jessop and Price argue the Texas action is unlike a 1953 raid on FLDS families in Arizona, when officials "were ripping families apart."[1]

It is clear that the Short Creek raid is being referred to, given the context of the quote. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

When mentioning Jessop, is this really necessary? "She stated that the actions in Texas are unlike the 1953 Short Creek raid in Arizona." The article is about the property, with a sub-section about the raid. This factoid does not go to the main point of the article. I think it should be deleted, though I will leave it there while we attempt to reach a concensus. Greenw47 (talk) 03:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Since I haven't got a response, I'm going to take it out. I don't think it's relevant. Greenw47 (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The Carolyn Jessop info is very relevant, given that news reports credit her as one of three people the Texas officials relied on for 'cultural sensitivity' training,[2] and after her 6 April statement the FLDS (and others) countered what she said about the (dis)similarities with Short Creek raid.[3][4] The month prior to the raid, she was in Texas for a lecture on the FLDS, where she seems to have foreshadowed (or predicted?) the raid.[5] -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If the Short Creek Raid is mentioned by one party in a quote here, shouldn't a counter-statement regarding that incident also be included ? Haryadoon (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

As news rolls in

As more and more information becomes available, I am adding to the article. For example, an article from April 10, 2008 reports that there were beds found in the temple. Rather than repeat the article's speculation about what the beds were used for, I simply added the only fact I can verify - that the beds were found. Greenw47 (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, if anybody is interested in developing a timeline, I'm not the best at that. Greenw47 (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, just watched the mothers on Larry King asking for their children back -- awful stuff. They are confused and distraught, frantic. It's hard to imagine why the children cannot be with the mothers, who are not abusing them. And it must be extremely traumatic for the children. It's hard to read an article so devoid of the tragedy that this is, no matter who is at fault. 67.164.76.73 (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

All this because of a prank call by an African American woman. If these children were black, then the govt would have thought twice before kidnapping them. Now 400+ children are herded like cattle into the Fort Concho concentration camp. Axxn (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is her race important? Greenw47 (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Swinton was effectively accusing the religion as being racist ("black people will hurt me") and fits into a previous history of minorities allegedly faking incidents (Tawana Brawley). Mormon scripture does contain unfavorable statements about people who could be identified as being African in origin. She needs a section in this article if she cannot have her own entry. There should also be some of pictures released by the FLDS of the actual raid and children being taken as used by the media with the usual rules being followed for historical event pictures. Bachcell (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"Mormon scripture does contain unfavorable statements about people who could be identified as being African in origin" Oh yeah???? What about Nation of Islam and Black Panthers.... Their scriptures I think glorify Non-Black people... If Mormon scriptures contain anything unfavourable, it have more to do with high crime rate and lawlessness as well as racism exhibited by some minority communities. Anyway I am Asian... You cant accuse me of racism. Axxn (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

To Anandks007: Anyone can be a racist regardless of his/her race. Even a person of mixed race (or without a race) can be a racist. Racism is an ideology, not a racial characteristic. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Anandks007, please keep in mind that this is not a forum for personal opinions. Comments about Nation of Islam, Black Panthers, crime rates, and your race are really quite extraneous to the topic at hand. But if you have suggestions as to how the article can be improved, then please don't hesitate to share them. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I was just saying that Mormon scriptures cannot be used to justify the raid. Simply because there is no relation between the two issues. (Child abuse and racism). Axxn (talk) 11:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, regardless of what Swinton believes about anything justifying anything else, and regardless of whether her beliefs are defensible, she warrants mention in the article due to her alleged connection with the phone call that started the whole thing. Surely you agree? Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Iteresting how this discussion about the timeliness of news and the update process has degenerated into a discussion about racism. Stick to the point, please. Haryadoon (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"Compound"?

I saw an interview with two of the mothers in which the reporter kept referring to "the compound", and one of the mothers said: "Compound? That's our ranch!" It got me to thinking. Is the word "compound" a biased term? When I think of "compound" I think of a place where crazy people can sequester themselves from the world to ferment their crazy ideas. Maybe it's just all in my head, but it kind of seems like the news media have been using the word "compound" to express the idea that these FLDS people are the same kinds of crazies as the ones in the Branch Davidian compound. In the interest of fairness, should we use the word "ranch" instead of "compound" in this article? Or is "compound" the most fair term to be used? - Brian Kendig (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem saying you live on a Ranch implies a farm with one family or extended family running it. The definition of a compound from Merriam Webster =

Main Entry: 4com·pound

Pronunciation: \ˈkäm-ˌpau̇nd\

Function: noun

Etymology: by folk etymology from Malay kampung group of buildings, village

Date: 1679

a fenced or walled-in area containing a group of buildings and especially residences

When you are talking about multiple buildings dormitory stile residences and the ability to function off the grid power etc. compound I believe fits.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.74.24.2 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 21 April 2008

Perhaps a review of what is found at Compound (enclosure) and Compound (fortification) is pertinent to this discussion. -- 63.224.135.113 (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

How about enclave? -- 63.224.135.113 (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I say keep it as neutral as possible and call it a ranch -- the evidence of what was going on there speaks for itself, so no reason to use a potentially loaded word when it's not necessary. I think ranch is the npov way to go. --TrustTruth (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Community works as well. Greenw47 (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"Ranch" focuses attention improperly on livestock production, or riding services. Compound, as in the Kennedy compound (Google:

about 31,000 for "Kennedy compound".

and note hit # 2, the [www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/presidents/site30.htm National Parks Service page] our article is at least in part based on.) focuses on the clear and intentional demarcation of this community's physical space from that of other communities, as opposed to the community of people that occupies that space. If there's anything loaded here, it's the situation, not any connotation of the word that objectively describes the situation. Stop being defensive: that's injecting a sympathetic PoV, not NPoV.
--Jerzy•t 20:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The following contrib was reverted without explanation after about 28 hours, and now restored in an appropriate spot, by Jerzy•t 03:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC).

From http://fieldnotes.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/23/935617.aspx :

“ They absolutely hate having the ranch called a "compound." "Do you see any walls here?" they asked. They call it a ranch. There are cattle (dairy) to prove it, and they hope to get a few horses someday. ”

--Chin Chill-A Eat Mor Rodents (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

New article?

someone should make a separate article about the April 2008 raid. I think that the story is already important enough to get its own article. Unfortunately, I do not know, nor do I have the skills, to do this. Any help? Marshie71 (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it warrants another article. It can be its own section with a timeline. The present form is very nice. Thanks, folks, for contributing. Greenw47 (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I take that back. The controversy about the raid has taken over the article. This article started out being about the ranch itself, not about the raid. If I had time, I would create a new article. Greenw47 (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is a problem here. The article feels like it was written by someone against the YFZ ranch and then heavily edited by someone who supports the ranch and is really anti CPS. I don't even know where to begin editing this to be neutral and just state facts. It's just too poorly written with too many uncited facts (once cite for an entire paragraph speaking against CPS is not sufficient.) With a topic this controversial, it is really important for the article to be impartial and just state facts that can be referenced, and that generally can be found in more than one publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plantfood (talk • contribs) 05:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

True, there is a problem, but the solution is not to separate the raid from the rest of the article. Although the raid does not define the ranch, it is vitally important when discussing the ranch's history. I feel the article draws too much from media reports, which all seem to be quite emotive and biased one way or another. Some report as if this is a group of "crazies", and others report how badly they have been treated. I note that there are very few quotes from "the authorities" (particularly CPS), and none of the evidence presented to the courts has been detailed here. Presumably, CPS and the police have issued press statements regarding this issue. Haryadoon (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking back, the reason I started this article was to talk about the YFZ Ranch and how it was a home/compound/facility/enclave for the FLDS Church. Then the raid took place much later. It might be a good idea to create a separate article about the raid. Greenw47 (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Precipitating call

Call that tipped off raid was a prank?

See this article:

http://kjct8.com/Global/story.asp?S=8192184 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.42.176.201 (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I made a note about this in the article. I've also cited the following article which describes this in similar detail. (http://www.9news.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=90138)

She was arrested on a separate charge - something that happened in February. The link is still unclear. However, if the link becomes indisputable, I'm all for adding the content. Greenw47 (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I edited the main article to add this phrase: "and investigators now suspect that the call was a hoax." This from the May 23, 2008 New York Times, "Court Says Texas Illegally Seized Sect’s Children " (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/us/23raid.html?ref=us) PeterRRobinson (talk) 03:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Also (and this discussion point needs to be somewhere else) I added a new section called 'Court Documents' with a link to the Appeals Court decision. I have more links to earlier court documents. Could someone give me some feedback as to whether I should add more links? PeterRRobinson (talk) 04:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I love the way "hoax" is now used in the article. A "hoax" implies wilful deceit with possibly some malice intended, while a "prank" implies harmless fun. The initiating phone call cannot by any view be seen as a prank, especially with the suspect's history. Haryadoon (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Prank Calls by Rozita Swinton

Many sources have already published the connection between Rozita Swinton's practice of using her girlish voice to make prank calls to various authorities. It is already more than noteworthy that a prank call (or rather nearly 40 hours of calls) can trigger a mass arrest of people who are technically innocent, no matter how much we dislike them. So please don't delete the details about Swinton - they are the most interesting and informative part of the story. 140.109.169.84 (talk) 03:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Therefore, please do not remove (or unnecessarily extend, when it comes to it) the section on the Swinton's calls which triggered the raid. 140.129.151.35 (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Revealing Details About Swinton

It seems at least interesting to me that Swinton is 33 years old unmarried, childless woman with suspected multiple personality disorder. This has been written in several press sources, and I don't think there is any propaganda machine at work here. It is surely not very nice to describe Swinton by these adjectives, but Swinton herself didn't think twice before making her accusing phone calls, and the judge Barbara Walther also apparently didn't think twice before ordering the raid. What do you think, should we protect Swinton by not writing the "negative" facts about her? 140.109.169.84 (talk) 03:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and reveal. Viewed from another perspective, they could be viewed as mitigating factors (e.g., she's had a hard life, she was not in control of her faculties, etc.) 129.174.110.153 (talk) 04:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

WP is not abt protecting people per se, but WP:BLP is among the most stringent requirements. Whether or not an editor splits hairs abt whether a subject is entitled to consider something as negative, or positive via mitigation, anything that can be construed negatively, such as the assertions above, must be verifed by reference to accessible and reliable sources. (Note Well: no point in offering blog entries.)
--Jerzy•t 19:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Fruit of a poisonous tree?

Legal question -- If the raid was prompted by a false tip, was the seized evidence the "fruit of a poisonous tree?" Do the possible cases against any perpetrators hinge on the admissibility of evidence from this raid. Could you argue that the scope of the crimes, statements by defectors, or the state's "undercover agent" create a compelling, legal grounds for seizure and search? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.104.225 (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Presumably that argument was addressed in the initial family-court decision, on the claim that all custodies affected by the raid should be restored without bothering to evaluate individual circumstances. IANALB it seems clear that the poisonous fruit doctrine never applies when the police were acting on good faith: if you're smoking hand-rolled MJ-scented tobacco, and the guys in the police cruiser at the stoplight get a whiff of it, there's probably going to be a conviction involving the lid or weapon or kiddy-porn in your trunk. In fact, i think there's a significant rebuttable presumption of good faith on the part of the police.
--Jerzy•t 19:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Silly, careless me: the questions about the basis for the raid may have been discussed in family court, but not as to their impact on use of evidence in criminal cases. I picture some of the mothers' lawyers (probably few of the fathers would have been represented separately, or maybe even at all) making claims that the CPS workers' testimony was unreliable on grounds like "they conspired with the fake caller" or "they've revealed reckless negligence in not ruling out a fake". These benighted mothers might even believe such claims, but they amount to conspiracy theories that would find no traction. The ability of criminal defendants to raise exclusionary arguments would be significantly greater but not IMO significant.
--Jerzy•t 04:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Rereading yet again, the final question involves another misunderstanding, IIRC: if, as likely, the police were probably there not specifically to investigate crimes, but for fear that the CPS workers' safety was in question, and/or to enforce a warrant to search not for evidence of crime but for a person entitled to protection under civil (family and minors) law, anything apparently criminal that comes within plain sight of them in the course of those duties is probably subject to seizure without warrant, just as it would be if they encountered it on the street. I can't recall what the circumstances are that then justify searching without warrant, tho IIRC an arrest and maybe other situations justify the searches (pat-down, opening the trunk of a vehicle) reasonably needed to ensure the officer's safety. So my guess is that "the extent of the crimes" would enter into justifying a warrant before the raid, only per sufficient evidence of it, provided by a credible informant, whether sent in undercover or an internal whistleblower or victim. But IMO the problem with committing the crimes in question is not their criminal status but the fact of unreasonable danger, criminal or not, intended or not, to a minor. Whether the degree of certainty of danger required might be less than the degree of certainty of a crime (or how you put them on the same "certainty" scale) is beyond my willingness to guess.
--Jerzy•t 04:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge of former article Rozita Swinton

1. There was an article entitled Rozita Swinton (now a Rdr) from 03:22, 21 April to 22:00, 2 May 2008.
2. That article was nominated for AfD, and the deletion discussion appearing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rozita Swinton resulted in a decision to merge with the accompanying article YFZ Ranch.
3. The former article was (don't worry about the order of events) converted to a Rdr to YFZ Ranch#April 2008 raid, with the article-content revisions being renamed to Talk:YFZ Ranch/Rozita Swinton, where its text (along with the "edit history" record of old versions, changes between versions, and attribution of those changes) remains available.
4. The talk page Talk:Rozita Swinton, associated with the former article, continues to exist on that talk page, but its discussion content has been added below, at #Obama delegate, where the discussion can be continued if desired. (There is no point to consulting the original -- in the absence of a desire to verify the attributions that have been copied to this talk page -- and new discussion there is likely to go unnoticed, and thus of course unanswered.)

--Jerzy•t 04:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Obama delegate

All contribs in this section thru 01:47, 27 April 2008 are copied from Talk:Rozita Swinton, and their history is reflected in the history of this talk page only by the single history entry attributed to me and dated 04:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC). --Jerzy•t 04:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed

Swinton is also a 2008 [[Barack Obama]] delegate from the El Paso County Democratic Party of Colorado. <ref>http://www.peakdems.org/obama_state_del.asp</ref>

because no evidence is offered that they are the same person. The source cited gives a name (with a middle initial not shown to match hers) and a code for a location. To make an assertion that they are the same person requires the OR of matching her and the delegate, presumably by putting together police and voter registration records that both include DoB and name, and explaining any address mismatch. We need a public source that has gives the details of that, not having it done in the article or on this talk page.
I'm not saying it's false, but it needs verification, and i think (tho candidates cannot be held responsible for who gets elected to be their delegates) that including unverified info like this in the midst of a growingly bitter nomination fight, leading into another presumably bitter presidential fight, has the potential of shaming WP as badly as the libel that led to BLP.
--Jerzy•t 19:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• That's ridiculous. This page is about a woman who made a hoax phone call. Don't try to make it about politics.

The page itself is slated for deletion anyway. A common criminal is not worthy of her own page.
Greenw47 (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think Jerzy was trying to make it not about politics, by removing some unsourced (dubious?) information per BLP.
  --Bfigura ^(talk) 13:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Will the information about her be included in the yfz ranch article then? This woman isn't just a 'common criminal'.. she is (allegedly) a person with a history of repeatedly filing false police reports (and who knows what other laws/crimes? is it wire fraud? etc.) Her alleged latest escapade launched the disruption of probably a thousand or more lives, and launched a nationally publicized scandal. There is currently barely a mention of her on the yfz page.
  Centerone (talk) 04:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've argued for Keep rather than Merge (see her AfD) but my reasoning is not finding support; IMO a Merge is the most likely outcome. My proposal to reduce Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints#April 2008 raid to lk and short summary, and merge most of its content into YFZ Ranch#April 2008 raid has what i'll spin as "an emerging consensus", so i expect the Swinton stuff to land in YFZ Ranch. In that event, you'll have to make a case for her significance in the case, in the face of a decision she doesn't rate her own article and of the largely speculative discussion of her so far.

What i'd emphasize is the fact that "common criminal" denotes a person who violates the law (on a small scale) either for profit or as an expression of person-to-person animus. The act or in question and attributed to this criminal makes her more like a hate-crime or political-crusader criminal, which if verifiable would make her something quite different, and perhaps notable.
--Jerzy•t 01:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Ridiculous" is vague and in any case irrelevant; as to the substantive content, i construe GW's thrust as "non-notable, but if kept, any role she has in electoral politics is irrelevant to our coverage of her."

GW is in any case mistaken: the AfD is chugging along strongly leaning away from deletion.
--Jerzy•t 01:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Merges into existing "April 2008 raid" section

Two decisions have been made affecting that section:

1. Rozita Swinton is on found on AfD to not presently rate a separate article, and is to be merged to the accompanying article -- presumably intended for the section in question, or (my initial plan) a new subsection of it, specific to

   the precipitating call and/or

   the pre-raid deliberations and/or

   litigation primarily premised on the call and/or initiating decision process

   Swinton and her suspected role.

2. FLDS#April 2008 raid is to be drastically reduced in size, with a lk to the section in question and the pre-merge content being merged into the section in question.

I hope to work fast enuf to accomplish both of those merges myself.
--Jerzy•t 20:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Conflicts in merged material

I've already noted a conflict between the date i came up with (in FLDS) for the precipitating call, based on my interpretation of a reference, and the one in the accompanying article's chronology. In general, i will defer to what seems to me the solider ref, and document the weaker version and/or ref in this subsection.
--Jerzy•t 20:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

fathersandfamiliesblog.org

Would the editor who keeps asserting that fathersandfamiliesblog.org is a valid citation please explain why they feel this is justified? Official WP policy found at WP:V specifically states blogs (as with most self-published material) are not allowed as a cite. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Why are there so many unregistered editors on this article? "fathersandfamiliesblog.org" is not a valid source and the whole section about Lost Boys is suspect and based on Weasel Words. Who exactly is it which are criticizing the Texas child-protection authorities? We need a cite from at least one neutral source on this. Rune X2 (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"Unregistered" editor, i.e. IP address is more transparent than registered - as transparent as the internet can be. The fact that you have a WP nick means nothing and leads nowhere, and doesn't make you more truth-loving editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.109.169.50 (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a simple solution to the Lost Boys section. Under "See Also" simply re-insert Lost boys (polygamy). Wasn't that part of the article at one point? I completely agree about the need for neutral criticism of the authorities. I'm sure it can be found in a newspaper article. The wisdom of the raid has been questioned in the media because 400 + children were removed. Some see it as protecting them from abuse, others see it as separating them from their parents. Sad situation all around. Greenw47 (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

For 140.109.169.50, unregistered editors have less credibility. Greenw47 (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Unproven material

There is a lot of unproved material bordering on the slanderous out there, which I don’t necessarily see it is as Wikipedia’s job to help spread.

For instance:

" Carey Cockerell representing Texas CPS investigators said they have identified 41 children with past diagnosis of fractured bones"

- so? Obviously this is presented as some sinister fact. But 41 out of 416 children, is that so out of the ordinary of the US population? And especially since some of the children have some inborn genetic defect which makes their bones weaker. And not counting those which had fractured bones in state custody. Two I think.

"CPS investigators also made new allegations of sexual abuse of boys"

- again, this seems to be just unproven allegations. Anybody can throw some slander out there. "I hear CPS is made up of Chinese communists." – but until this is something which is actually proven, it’s just noise in the media machine. CPS is the state representative and not actually a neutral part in this. Rune X2 (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Your solution here is doing the opposite: "without any evidence to back it up" and then without a citation. It's now biased the other direction. It is not slander if CPS investigators formally make the statement. You just site them. If it isn't formally stated anywhere then it is heresay and irrelevant. Plantfood (talk) 05:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)plantfood.

Unhelpful edits

Reverting repeated edits by User:Rune X2. Some of these are gramatically incoherent and are being removed by me for self-evident reasons (and re-added by the poster for incomprehensible ones). Others are just generally biased or unhelpful. For example:

+ Following the seizure of the children from the YFZ ranch the Texas authorities have been met with criticism for pursuing innocent people on flimsy and false ground, and the raid compared to religious persecution and liked to a traditional witch-hunt.

The first of these sources is being horribly distorted. Subjective judgments like "flimsy and false ground" are being inferred from an article that contains no such language, therefore bordering on original research. Additionally, phrases like "have been met with criticism" are vague, even weaselly. The second source is an op-ed. It is not a news item, as User:Rune X2 has already been informed.
--Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Rune X2 responded to the above by inserting responses following several points. Since nothing may be inserted by another editor's signed contributions without having the effect of forgery, those responses are here reformatted by quoting, instead of altering, the original.

• [Cosmic Latte said in part:]

Reverting repeated edits by User:Rune X2. Some of these are gramatically incoherent and are being removed by me for self-evident reasons (and re-added by the poster for incomprehensible ones).

If there are grammatical problems with the language, the correct thing to do, would be for you to edit the parts rather than just to resort to outright deletions of whole passages. Just indiscriminately deleting sections without prior debate on the talk pages is not helpful or conductive to working together to say the least.
--Rune X2 (talk) 09:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Here, folks, are the sorts of "contributions" I'm referring to:

_ _ After it has become known that it appears that it were lies of Rozita Swinton which prompted the initial action by the Texan authorities, members and supporters of the FLDS church have criticized the raid as being based on false allegations and the seizure of the children from their family for being religious persecution

_ _ Carey Cockerell representing Texas CPS investigators said they have identified 41 children with past diagnosis of fractured bones, which although seems to lie considerable below the national average and especially considering they come from a rural background and don't spend time in front of televisions or other modern day entertainment systems which requires you to sit still. CPS investigators also made new allegations of sexual abuse of boys, without giving any proof of that.

The majority of this "information" is not even sourced. And is it just me, or is the vast majority of it not even semi-close to coherent English? How can I "alter it accordingly" if I cannot, for the life of me, figure out what on Earth it is that you're trying to say?
--Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• It's sourced, so far with three cites, which is more than for many other sections of the article which you don't seem to object to – but I'm sure it'd be easy to find more if required. Anyway way to go Cosmic Latte, for "contributing" to working together on this article. *thumbs up* But if you cannot-for-the-life-of-you-figure-out-what-on-Earth-it-is-that-I'm-trying-to-say, then I guess you can't say that it's "generally biased" either.
  --Rune X2 (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• I could tell what you were trying to do (i.e., come to that church's defense), and I knew what various words meant, but that didn't make your passages the least bit coherent. (Check out those Wikilinks--they may come in handy someday.) Anyway, thankfully, User:JRSpriggs was patient enough to proofread that roughest of all rough drafts, so I'm more or less satisfied with the current structuring of the article. Cheers,
  --Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• [CL said in part:]

Others are just generally biased or unhelpful. For example:

+ Following the seizure of the children from the YFZ ranch the Texas authorities have been met with criticism for pursuing innocent people on flimsy and false ground, and the raid compared to religious persecution and liked to a traditional witch-hunt.

The first of these sources is being horribly distorted. Subjective judgments like "flimsy and false ground" are being inferred from an article that contains no such language, therefore bordering on original research. Additionally, phrases like "have been met with criticism" are vague, even weaselly.

I agree that it should be phrased more accurately, however you will notice the section just above starts with "The Texas child-protection authorities have been criticized", which I flagged for using Weasel words already the 2nd of May – but which you for some reason didn't feel the need to delete or comment on. The "false grounds" is evident since the women whom made the calls which prompted the initial action has been shown to have lied.
--Rune X2 (talk) 09:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• [CL said in part:]

The second source is an op-ed. It is not a news item, as User:Rune X2 has already been informed.

So you point to a two year old discussion which was resolved amiable, with prior talk and without revert wars? Ugh. While op-ed cannot be used to prove one thing or another, they can be used to show what some people think.
--Rune X2 (talk) 09:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• In addition, I have already raised concerns with the article under the section "Unproven material" on these debating pages several days ago, without getting a response. So I made some additions to the text to take address these concerns. If you feel the additions are incorrect, please alter them accordingly or even better try to reason it on the talk pages, instead of just resorting to deletion of material.
  It is clear that the members themselves feel they have been unfairly and grossly mistreated, a view shared by many outsiders. "persecuted", "an allegation that has no foundation", "prejudiced against us", "false allegations", "witch hunt", "hoax" are the exact words used in the cites. The article need to also present their point of view. You have now already reverted three times (and thus actually broken the 3VV rule). Please stop with these deletions until some kind of consensus has been reached on the talk pages.
  --Rune X2 (talk) 09:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have now made some changes to the parts, to try to address some of your objections.
  --Rune X2 (talk) 09:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• In retrospect, I think I might've responded a bit hastily in this section (the Swinton information does appear to be worth mentioning), but please understand that it's a bit overwhelming to be confronted with large new chunks of text that are both ungrammatical and unsourced (I still don't recall anything more than an op-ed piece or two in the original edits--although I see now that I could've found info in an earlier talk page entry, if not in the article itself when I saw it). ReferencesCitations provide not only verification of claims, but also reference points for confusing grammar. Since this is Wikipedia and not Wikinews or an almanac, I generally prefer to let the dust settle a bit before adding or updating recent events. In other words, I think that WP calls for a relatively exclusionist approach to new information. More precisely, you might say that it calls for a sort of compromise between eventualism and exclusionism: Consider the eventual value of brand-new information, but realize that this value is almost certain to be a lot less than it first appears. It's easy to confuse notability with freshness in memory. In any case, when dealing with completely new material, it's always a good rule of thumb to add information and (good) references simultaneously.
  --Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:45-03:16 (7 edits total), 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced statements deleted

The un-sourced sections on the conditions the mothers and children are kept in and the letter to President Bush are being deleted. No sources and worse, tracing reveals FLDS members placed them.Scryer_360 (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy

I've added the "conspiracy theory" template message. This article is starting to sound like a case against Rozita Swinton and the Texas Rangers, not an enclycopedia article about the target subject. Others (apart from me) need to check/edit this article with neutrality as the primary goal, and need to keep in mind that Wikpedia is not a news source. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed tag for the time being. Tone seems more balanced as of now. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at the article. As the person who started it, I was interested when the raid happened, and the article grew a lot. Unfortunately, the article has become something that it was not originally intended to be. It was intended to be about the ranch, not the raid. I would love to have the time to advocate for a second article about the raid itself, or the hoax. In that article, there can be a section on criticisms of the actions of the authorities in Texas. But, alas, I am working 60 hours a week and just can't. I should be working right now, as a matter of fact. Greenw47 (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of sourced edits on significant events

Somebody has been removing edits on the recent event that the pregnant mothers who were removed because they appeared to be underage have now been determined by CPS to be adults after their babies were born. These are evidently the same two "pregnant teens" cited as proof that underage women were bearing children. This event is certainly as significant as any previous event as it undermines the case of the CPS as two of their premises appear be false - the original call was a fraud, and the two "pregnant teens" were adults with birth certificates or drivers licences.

That person also removed the number of people housed at the ranch, and information about deaths, poisonings, rapes and pregnancies of children under the care of CPS. This is certainly relevant if the job of CPS is to remove children from a dangerous situation to a safer one. One of the mental health works summed up "the children entered happy and healthy, they left sick and crying."

If the children were at no risk of physical harm, and if FLDS is truthful that there are no underage rapes or pregnancies, then CPS is putting children into a more risky situation. Information which is sourced and relevant should not simply be reverted. NPOV does not require both sides to appear equally good. So far, FLDS statements that there have been no underage marriage or sexual contact have not been proven to be incorrect, and most CPS beliefs, assumptions and actions have ranged from incorrect to leading to comparisons with concentration camps and inhumane treatment. Bachcell (talk) 23:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like that section just needed some condensation and reorganization. Are we okay with it now? Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Also please note that the information about Texas CPS's struggles was not lost, it was instead moved to Texas Department of Family and Protective Services and was edited a bit for tone. While what was moved there is somewhat related to the YFZ Ranch raid, it is really about a broader topic and belonged on that article. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

low importance

Why is this a low importance article?? Bachcell (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Texas, as it is their rating.
  -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• because it makes texas look pretty bad... would have thought that was obvious —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.185.11.254 (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

At 10:43, 30 April 2008, 70.108.207.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
changed WProj-Texas importance to "high", and
(misplaced among the boxes at the top of this talk page) commented:

a. why is this low importance,
b. this is hardly npov "judge has unquestionable expertise, and many people think she's nice"...
come on wikipedia...

but the contrib was removed (AFAI can see) until now.
--Jerzy•t 03:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please avoid the word "believe"

In several places, the Article uses language such as "xxx believed". I highly recommend using words that accurately represent the facts in place of the word "believe", wherever possible. For example, replace "xxx believed that the children had been abused..." with "xxx claimed..." or "xxx stated..." or "xxx argued...", etc. This makes the statement much more factual and verifiable. "xxx believed' refers to somebody's state of mind (not verifiable), while "xxx claimed..." etc. refer to the person's actions (verifiable). Of course, it's OK to say that "xxx stated that he believed..." as this is about what xxx stated, which is verifiable. Rahul (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I support this. Saying what somebody believes without a source is unsupportable. It's speculation. Greenw47 (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

See Also

seems to me that the choice of links is not quite neutral... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.185.11.254 (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"Press coverage" Section

_ _ There is no chance we should retain the ref to "a staffer of Chief Justice Warren Burger", since Burger is long dead and no one is speaking on his behalf abt current events. In fact, the guy in question has GTest

205 for "Ronald L. Trowbridge" OR "Ronald Trowbridge" -wikipedia.

which i think implies his name is not worth mentioning; more recently he's been a high-ranking flack for Hillsdale College, which has 1,300 students and is "known for its refusal of government funding" and its publication with

about 12,200 for Imprimis hillsdale -wikipedia.

(of which 6% are from within hillsdale.edu)
_ _ On a larger scale, the section is troublesome in trying to summarize press reaction, i think in violation of OR and potentiially SYNTH. I assume that i have not fixed the section, but i'm suggesting that what i've left is an improved state from which to move toward a very rough description of the state of the coverage: what positions have the mainstream national press (Times, Post, WSJ, USA Today, maybe LA Times) taken, as editorial (not columnist) positions, and what is the most influential minority editorial position. (The Derbyshire piece is probably the most indispensable single one: a statement that only more obscure voices had criticized by then, and so probably the most influential criticism.) Also note that facts like

The initial raid and removals received heavy national press coverage. By May, local newspapers and news outlets in Utah and Texas were still giving frequent coverage.

still need citations: these observations by our editors are simply OR.
--Jerzy•t 07:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Revised discussion of "'CPS' vs. 'DFPS'"

A user has requested a specific exception in this section to the principles stated in the section #Accuracy of the record on this talk page below. While unsure what would be served by that, i am sympathetic with their desire at least to be heard more coherently and i think that desire can at least be accommodated, instead, to the extent of putting his revised version first, at the slight cost of disturbing chronological presentation of the versions of the discussion.

(This is what I want to say. I have deleted earlier versions which contained no persons material other than my own. I hope Jerzy will leave my comments alone.)

I was concerned that we should use 'DFPS' as a shorthand reference instead of 'CPS' but now that I have looked at the DFPS website I see that 'CPS' is fine. 'CPS' is correct and refers to:

The Child Protective Services Division of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/Child_Protection/About_Child_Protective_Services/

I found it confusing to click on CPS in the YFZ Ranch article and link to an article on DFPS. I think we should explain the relationship (division within the department) and link the phrase 'Department of Family and Protective Services' to the DFPS article'. PeterRRobinson (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The preceding is a post-hoc restatement of the following earlier discussion:

'CPS' vs. 'DFPS'

Thruout the following 2 boxes, Jerzy•t has supplemented misleading timestamps that fail to acknowledge edits subsequent to the one indicated by the editor -- adding times for trivial edits, and bolded times to indicate an edit where substantial changes were made. Where the subsequent substantial edit removed previous text, that text is shown struck through, and where it added text, that text is bolded. Editors may well prefer to refer to the most recent version in the preceding subsection, and ignore the following detailed evolution.

What's in the following green box was added PRR in three edits, with the changes added the 3rd shown in bold.

'CPS' vs. 'DFPS'

[CHANGED MY MIND ABOUT THIS] 'CPS' is incorrect. There is no Texas department of 'Child Protective Services.' The correct term is 'Department of Family and Protective Services.' I think we should change 'CPS' to 'DFPS' globally with a short explanation at the beginning of the article on the common use of 'CPS' in the media. OK, I have a clearer understanding now. 'CPS' is correct and refers to:

The Child Protective Services Division of Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/Child_Protection/About_Child_Protective_Services/

What is confusing is when you click on CPS in the YFZ Ranch article it takes you to an article on DFPS. We should explain the relationship and link the phrase Department of Family and Protective Services. It might be good to have a separate article on CPS. PeterRRobinson (talk) 02:15, :17, & :42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[Please someone -- explain to me how to start a new section. PeterRRobinson (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)]

What's in the following pink box reflects the result (at 02:42) of the 3 edits of the green box, and the changes in PRR's 04:11 edit. (The two intervening PRR edits, at 03:25 and 03:26, added and removed a misplaced heading, with no net change.)

'CPS' vs. 'DFPS'
== 'CPS' vs. 'DFPS' ==

[CHANGED MY MIND ABOUT THIS] 'CPS' is incorrect. There is no Texas department of 'Child Protective Services.' The correct term is 'Department of Family and Protective Services.' I think we should change 'CPS' to 'DFPS' globally with a short explanation at the beginning of the article on the common use of 'CPS' in the media.
There is confusion between 'CPS' and 'DFPS'.

OK, I have a clearer understanding now. I was concerned that we should use 'DFPS' as a shorthand reference but now that I have looked at the DFPS website I see that 'CPS' is fine. 'CPS' is correct and refers to:

The Child Protective Services Division of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/Child_Protection/About_Child_Protective_Services/

What is confusing is when you click on CPS in the YFZ Ranch article it takes you to an article on DFPS. I think we We should explain the relationship (division within the department) and link the phrase 'Department of Family and Protective Services' to the DFPS article. It might be good to have a separate article on CPS but that is beyond the scope of this discussion. PeterRRobinson (talk) 02:15, :17, & :42 & 03:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[Please someone -- explain to me how to start a new section. PeterRRobinson (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)]

The meta discussion

This contrib was inserted just above the pink and green boxes in the preceding section, and then removed by the same editor:

What is the point of these two boxes? PeterRRobinson (talk) 04:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I found, in the process of trying to accurately portray the stages of the development of the text, that there were too many levels of editing and re-editing to make them easily apparent by marking up a single copy of what is now a subsection. I chose the two most contrasting colors i was sure i could quickly code for, and used the boxes to mark off what you said near the start of the evolution from what you said near its end. If i had planned a little better, i'd have made the first pink and the second green, to suggest "Wait; bear in mind that the first box does not reflect the final state of the section.", but as it was, i doubt i had any intention other than a vanilla distinction, in my choice of colors.
  --Jerzy•t 07:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  

At 23:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC), PeterRRobinson (talk) said in part:

(This is what I want to say. I have deleted earlier versions which contained no persons material other than my own. I hope Jerzy will leave my comments alone.)

• I have to comment in a way that may sound sarcastic, tho i intend no pain: you'll grasp this quicker if you remember that they are no longer your words once they've been saved by the server, bcz you've given up all your rights to them except your right of attribution and your right to leave. We agree, as a matter of de facto and perhaps formal policy, to use them in the orderly way i've been defending. And as discussed in #Accuracy of the record on this talk page, on talk pages, the conditions under which anyone can change a contribution once made are very limited. If that seems legalistic, i have one hypothetical argument for such legalism, and one very practical one:

1. That evolution began at 02:15 and ended, after 7 edits all told, at 04:11. The server does not record how many users saw one of those 7 versions, nor could it have distinguished any of them that that recorded a version on a hard drive, or served it from another site. Anyone who wanted to comment on the version they saw and had a chance to think about that version, or who started, mentally or physical, a brief or extended response to that one, deserves to be able to place the fruit of that effort on the page, at 3 or at 4 or yesterday or next year, without having (in order to not look like they misquoted you) to first repair the damage you caused by failing to adhere to normal WP protocols. (Oh, and you deserved, at 02:55 and 03:03, to have your good faith judged (if necessary) in light of what you said at 2:42 rather than at 02:15 or 04:11; don't count avoiding accusations of bad faith by means of colleagues' checking your actual edit times in the page's edit history, or on your own realizing why they might be so bent out of shape by apparent inconsistencies that you may have forgotten about.)
2. Very practically, if editors routinely "edit their remarks" like members of Congress, our straightforward record becomes as useless a tool as is the Congressional Record for knowing what someone said when it's important to know. Every exception to the straightforward style is part of a forest for forgers and vandals to hide within.

--Jerzy•t 07:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Court Rulings

I agree with having a single section here.

We should perhaps start this section with a discussion of Walther's '14-day hearing.' That was the first of three court rulings.

'The children were to be returned to their families in 10 days' This was certainly stated as fact by the media but I believe it is inaccurate. I don't think there is a 10 day deadline. If no else gets to this, I will research it definitively and fix it if necessary. PRR PeterRRobinson (talk) 04:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to get the following edit into the "Court Rulings" section:

On February 4, 2010, Arizona prosecutor Matt Smith signed a stipulation of the defense that "1.) That defendant's motion to suppress evidence (from YFZ be) granted, 2.)That evidence obtained thereby (be) suppressed (and) 3.) That the raid was "unlawful." Judge Steven F. Conn accepted that agreement the following day stating that September 3rd, 2008 motion to suppress be granted. None of the evidence may be used "directly or indirectly" in Arizona. Jeffs is awaiting trial slated for November 2010 in Arizona on four counts of being an accomplice to sexual conduct with a minor, charges filed in 2007.

I seem to have the template for footnotes incorrect, but the changes are documented. The article is wrong, implying that Matt Smith "agreed not to use" evidence from YFZ. In fact Arizona has suppressed the evidence which is documented at the Mohave County Courts site. Please note that I have all the URL's that document the information as footnotes, but I seem to have formatted them incorrectly. I could use some help with formatting.

The problem with stating the raid was "unlawful" is that those words are wholly unfactual. If you look at the stipulation and the order adopting the stipulation no reference was made to whether the raid wsa lawful or unlawful. It simply states that he evidence is suppressed and will not be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RonLawHouston (talk • contribs) 14:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of factual inaccuracies in this article. The actions in the Texas Third Court of Appeals and the Texas Supreme Court only covered the children of 38 women from the ranch. It never covered "all" the children or made any orders as to any children other than those of the 38 women. The most heavily impacted section of the article is the 3rd paragraph of the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RonLawHouston (talk • contribs) 21:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The word "Unlawful" is used several times in motions and referred to by the order. It is on page 26 ( http://www.mohavecourts.com/highprofile/743%20-%20Motion%20to%20suppress%2009-03-08.pdf ) of the order that was GRANTED by Judge Conn on February 5, 2010. ( http://www.mohavecourts.com/highprofile/743-Order%2002-05-10.pdf ) Judge Conn grants the order by agreeing to the second stipulation entered into the record on February 4th, 2010, a stipulation that also uses the word "UNLAWFUL." ( http://www.mohavecourts.com/highprofile/743-Stipulation%2002-04-10.pdf ) Judge Conn in GRANTING that order does not agree with the entry as it now reads, instead of saying that Matt Smith "agreed" not to use the evidence, he instead AGREES with the second stipulation, written by Warren's attorneys, that the raid was "UNLAWFUL" and consenting to the motion of September 3rd, 2008 on the part of the defense.

Judge Conn goes on to state in his February 5th 2010 ORDER that (and I quote) : "The evidence obtained thereby is suppressed..." Not laid aside informally by mutual agreement, but SUPPRESSED by order of the court.

Thus the dates in the article are wrong. It was not February 10th, but February 5th, 2010 and evidence is SUPPRESSED in accordance with the motion made by Warren's attorneys on 9/3/2008 and by mutual consent of the prosecution on 2/4/2010, the Evidentiary hearing is made unnecessary by Matt Smith's capitulation to the 9/3/2008 motion. Judge Conn rubber stamps the 2/4/2010 agreement to grant the motion of 9/3/2008 on 2/5/2010. The evidence is suppressed. It is termed UNLAWFUL in the process of that suppression by the Judge, by the defense and by the prosecution.

This analysis is agreed to by the popular Texas legal blog "GritsForBreakfast" in "AZ court suppresses evidence from search of TX polygamist ranch" ( http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2010/02/az-judge-suppresses-evidence-from.html )and by Brooke Adams, reporter for the Salt Lake Tribune, who titles her article on the topic "Conn grants suppression order" ( http://166.70.44.68/blogs/plurallife/2010/02/conn-grants-suppression-order/ )

The article is wrong on this point, and despite your title (whoever you are), you are not a lawyer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugh McBryde (talk • contribs) 17:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The facts are the facts. There is simply nothing in the documents you link where the Judge (who is the only one who counts in the case)says the raid was "unlawful." That is your interpretation of it and is not supported by the facts. It matters not if one lawyer says it was unlawful or some blogger or reporter says it was unlawful. The judge has never signed any document that says the raid was unlawful and unless and until you post something that says that the language as presently stated should remain. 66.60.241.11 (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The motion of the defense made on 9/3/08 was accepted without modification. Steven Conn defined which motion of the defense which I later cite in this paragraph on (2/1/10). Page 26 of that motion as linked to says "unlawful." Point three, page two, stipulation written by the defense, 2/4/10, the raid was "unlawful." The "stipulation" was a mutual agreement to grant the motion of 9/3/08. The reader may read for themselves. I have been hyper specific. These are the literal words used agreed to by Defendant, Prosecutor and Judge. The Judge, Steven Conn, agreed to the 9/3/08 order on 2/5/10, citing the prior day's agreement of the Defense and Prosecution of 2/4/10. He had previously rejected a "unilateral" offer not to use the evidence by the defense and had insisted on either ruling after a hearing, or a mutual agreement that was binding on the prosecution. 2/1/10 ( http://www.mohavecourts.com/highprofile/743%20-%20Court%20Notice%2002-01-10.pdf ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugh McBryde (talk • contribs) 22:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The only use of the word "unlawful" in the 2/4/10 Stipulation is this paragraph: "That, in light of the foregoing, the hearing on Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained In Unlawful Searches of FLDS Property, currently set for February 17 and 18, 2010, is hereby vacated." Saying that a hearing is vacated is not saying that anything was "unlawful."

Note to the above talk comments: Mr. McBryde is a proponent of polygamy and a registered lobbyist for polygamy in Vermont. He seems committed to undermining the Wiki concept. He made the following comment in his blog: "Those who know how Wikipedia works know that such reference material is largely a "substantiated perception" of an event, not a historical record." Apparently he wants to substitute his "substantiated perception" of events for actual facts. RonLawHouston (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

We have agreement then that the significant event is the 2/4/2010 stipulation. Let us examine then what the stipulation is, for it is brief. The prosecution agrees to language without objection terming the raid "unlawful." The prosecution signs onto the 9/3/08 motion to suppress which uses on page 26, the word "unlawful." The Judge accepts the order on 2/5/10 and states the 9/3 motion is granted and the evidence is suppressed. Go to the linked order, read it. Matt Smith agrees to the word UNLAWFUL once in writing, Judge Conn agrees to it twice. The evidence is suppressed, the state of Arizona regards the raid at the present time, as "unlawful." My edit should be restored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugh McBryde (talk • contribs) 20:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said, the documents you link contain no stipulation by Matt Smith that the raid was "unlawful." That is simply your spin as a polygamy proponent and one who feels you must control the "substantiated perception." This page is on my watch list and every time you change to try to add "the raid was unlawful" I will revert the page. RonLawHouston (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The word "unlawful" is contained on page 26 of the motion granted by Judge Steven Conn. The Judge made no negative comment as to content in the motion. Additionally the word "Unlawful" appears on the "Counter-Stipulation" of the defense, that Prosecutor Matt Smith signed without comment. The Judge accepted the this "Counter-Stipulation," while refusing rather pointedly the prior "Stipulation" of the prosecution, characterizing it instead as an "offering" and that Court didn't know what to make of said offering. "Unlawful" is part of the language of the accepted agreement by Judge Conn on February 5th, 2010. The prior edit did not say that the raid was "Unlawful," but said instead, that the Court accepted that language. It is accurate and descriptive of the actions of the Court. The prior language accurately reported point 3 of the Stipulation signed by Matt Smith. Accurately and precisely I might add. The judge says this, precisely, about the Stipulation of 2/4/10: "The court signs the stipulation and adopts the terms thereof." I'm sorry Ron, point three of the Stipulation that Matt Smith signed, says "UNLAWFUL" http://www.mohavecourts.com/highprofile/743-Court%20Notice%20Ruling%2002-05-10.pdf Hugh McBryde (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The word Unlawful is used in the Stipulation only as part of the title of the defendant's pleading. The defense attorney called his motion "Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained in Unlawful Searches of FLDS Property" -- this, after the searches had been ruled lawful by the court in Texas after a several-day hearing. Calling the search unlawful by the defense attorney is advocacy, not fact. There has been only one court that has considered evidence about the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the search, and that is the Texas court which ruled that the search was lawful. Notably, when the Arizona judge wrote his order, he specifically left off the word "unlawful", and he never says that he adopts the motion to suppress or the terms of it -- he can't, he hasn't heard any evidence. He suppressed the evidence because both parties agreed to suppress it, not because it was unlawful. Wikipedia is for encyclopedic information that is verifiable from reliable sources. Hugh McBryde appears to be using Wikipedia as a soapbox in violation of the philosophy. It is simply inaccurate that Matt Smith agreed that the search was unlawful or that the judge agreed that it was unlawful. Hugh McBryde's edit should not be restored. Hope4Kids (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The Court declared the Following, linked to in a simple order above, that "The court signs the stipulation and adopts the terms thereof." This is straight on and simple. The stipulation itself has only three points, one of which reads as follows: "Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained in Unlawful Searches of FLDS Property..." That motion is the lengthy motion of September 3rd, 2008, which nevertheless also uses the term "unlawful" as the TITLE of the motion recognized as the TITLE of the hearing to be held, and the language of page 26 of that motion. The Judge adopts the terms of the stipulation, which examination reveals was written by defense attorneys and signed without comment by Matt Smith, the prosecutor. That stipulation grants a motion referred to by both Court and Defense. These are simple logic dominoes.

This is in essence agreed to by the preceding contributor who states: "The word 'Unlawful' is used in the Stipulation only as part of the title of the defendant's pleading." How does a Court adopt a motion and the terms thereof without modification or comment that uses a declaration of "Unlawful" in both title and language which refers to a hearing title with the same word, that grants a motion titled with the same word which contains in it's language the same word "Unlawful," without the Court declaring that for the purposes of Arizona's legal system, the raid was "Unlawful?" How does a prosecutor also sign such documents without comment and not in so doing, give tacit approval to such language?

Hugh McBryde 11:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugh McBryde (talk • contribs)

Hugh McBryde, your edits are POV and not neutral edits. In effect you are advocating as if you are the defense attorney, attempting to sway perception by including the title of the motion that itself is non-neutral and intended to advocate a particular POV. There has never been a court finding or an agreement by prosecutors that the evidence was unlawfully seized. Just the opposite, there has been a court order ruling that the warrants and the search were legal. You are also making unhelpful edits by adding phrases like "the day before" -- this does not clarify anything or bring new or different information than was already included. It makes the wording more cumbersome, and although I would like to assume good faith on your part, I cannot after having read your blog entries. You are on the internet publicly pushing your own point of view in favor of the FLDS and against law enforcement. Have you disclosed your conflict of interest or bias in making your edits? Your underlining and bolding of the title of the motion is also improper per the Manual of Style, and it appears that you are attempting to bring particular attention to your misrepresentations that there was ever an order that the evidence was seized unlawfully. Hope4Kids (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

How is the precise exact title of a motion granted prejudicial? The judge granted the motion and "all it's terms." I have sought to make concessions to your sensibilities by not including the word "Unlawful" in any discussion, but only as the title of an actual motion made by the defense, conceded to by the prosecution and granted, like I said, in all it's terms, by the Court. You may follow the link and read the title of the motion yourself. As to who I am, I do not hide, this is my name: --Hugh McBryde 19:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not care to continue to engage with you. If this remains an issue, I think it is time to make a request for comments from an expert in the field. I will tag the appropriate page and put a notice on your talk page. Hope4Kids (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Removing "At the time of the conviction, the victim was an adult." since it's irrelevant and the facts speak for themselves. This edit was done to push a particular POV. RonLawHouston (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I think a request for comment is appropriate. McBryde came here with a soapbox and a POV. He has made public comments about undermining the spirit of Wikipedia. He is not content to simply state the facts but must try to spin them to try to manipulate them to his POV. RonLawHouston (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• I have tagged the talk page with a RfC and posted it in the appropriate section. I have also notified all parties via TB tags - Please do not make edits in this area until the RfC process has had a chance to run its course. All parties are receiving the same notice. Thank you. BlueSooner (talk) 03:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you BlueSooner. Hope4Kids (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that "BlueSooner," "RonLawHouston" and "Hope4Kids" all hail from the same "blog" as regular contributers there, or at least they are making a convincing imitation of persons who regularly appear there. There is no guarantee that the are in fact, separate entities. Nothing changes the fact that the Motion to Suppress was granted, by Judge Conn, in "all it's terms." Obscuring that fact by insisting on the overemphasis of the word "Stipulation," or by using the pretense that at least two of the above contributors might be lawyers. The succession of court motions and orders is quite simple. A motion was made on 9/3/08 that stated as part of the title that the raid was "unlawful." 17 months pass and a flurry of activity occurs at the court, an offering termed a "stipulation" is dismissed by the Judge. The Judge INSISTS on the evidentiary hearing necessitated by the "Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained in Unlawful Searches of FLDS Property." The defense, not the prosecution, authors another stipulation that directs ACCEPTANCE of the aforementioned motion. The defense and prosecution then sign that stipulation. The Judge ADOPTS that stipulation, the terms of which are the granting of the aforementioned motion. The judge bluntly states in later orders that the aforementioned motion is granted using the phrasing: "The court signs the stipulation and adopts all the terms thereof." You then must backtrack to the stipulation, and whatever you call it, you must obey it's terms, which direct the adoption of the motion to suppress, which terms the raid "Unlawful" on it's FACE.

Removal of links to the Mohave County Court site, the initial and most reliable repository of completely accurate copies of court orders to document these simple facts because they are cited as "news sources" is wrong. If the contributer has a better category for citing original court documents at the most official and reliable of sources for such documents, the contributer should make that minor edit, not a deletion, which is vandalism.

Adding the fact that one of the victims is and was an adult at the time of conviction is relevant. The entries are constructed to give the impression that a child, who may still be a child, was the victim. This is not the case. There are many other cases of sexual assault of a child in recent Texas trials where convictions were obtained, where the victim is still a child. This gives perspective that was not present before. Without the date of the offense (not present until my edit) and the information that the child is now an adult, a vague impression is created. A more specific one was created with my edit. There is no attempt to describe the crime as anything other than "sexual assault of a child," but the context of present age gives depth to the picture in terms of time frame.--Hugh McBryde 05:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugh McBryde (talk • contribs)

I don't think anyone disagrees with adding links to documents or actual factual dates. Those enhance the value of Wikipedia and allow the reader as you say to decide for themselves. It is irrelevant to the crime of sexual assault of a child that the victim is an adult when the actual prosecution takes place. That sort of addition is just the sort of POV from a soapbox that makes us edit your additions.

As to your continued assertions that the stipulation and order create some stipulation that the raid was "unalwful," that is simply not true. The stipulation only grants the relief of suppression. If you notice in the stipulation, the part the grants the suppression does not contain the word "unlawful." As you have been told repeatedly, the only use of the word "unlawful" in the stipulation/order is in the title of the document that Jeffs' attorney chose for the document. RonLawHouston (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you read your own documents? [6] does not grant the motion it only adopts the terms of the stipulation. The [7] stipulation only grants the motion as to suppression. It doesn't adopt the terms of the motion or anything contained therein. The relief requested was suppression and the Mohave County attorney's office agreed to that. RonLawHouston (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Adopting the stipulation adopts the motion, you're equivocating Ron. You're claiming that because the stipulation was adopted, it was the only thing adopted. However, the "stipulation" (judicial admission, condition, precondition) is to grant the 9/3/08 motion. Over time and in various places, you and several other contributors have insisted because there was a prior document called a "stipulation" that the Judge rejected as an "Offering" (not a judicial admission, condition, precondition) that "he didn't know what to do with" that the purpose of that prior supposed stipulation is the same as the one authored on 2/4/10 by the defense. This is NOT a matter of interpretation. The stipulation of the defense agreed to by the prosecution proposes the Court adopt the 9/3/08 motion. The 2/4/10 stipulation itself uses the term "Unlawful" in point three and is adopted wholly by the court on 2/5/10. The prosecution and defense cannot bind the court to anything, it must be accepted by the court. The court accepts the stipulation, but what does it stipulate? It stipulates the adoption of the 9/3/08 motion. Both 2/4/10 & 9/3/08 use the word "unlawful," 9/3/08 in the title.

Ron, you are merely making declaratory statements. I quoted in the past from the motions, orders and stipulations, word for word. I use the titles. I post to discussion to telegraph the proposed changes, you do not interact. When the change comes, you quickly make new changes and propose bias. You're not working with anyone here. Hugh McBryde 15:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)--Hugh McBryde 15:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugh McBryde (talk • contribs)

Well, the point is rather to make declaratory statements. Apparently you have a problem letting your documents speak for themselves. The order by Conn DOES NOT grant the motion to suppress. It adopts the terms of the stipulation. Period. That is the fact from the documents you posted. You saying that it "grants" the motion is editorializing on your part. The edit I'm making reflects what is in the documents you posted. You're trying to get the name of the underlying motion into the record for the very purpose that you're trying to make the case that somehow the raid was "unlawful." That was your stated purpose prior to editing any page on Wikipedia. That is bias on your part. RonLawHouston (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You point was taken about "unlawful" Ron, which is why in future edits, I included the language of the order that was adopted, as it is TITLED. If you are saying the 09/03/2008 motion was not adopted by the court on 2/5/2010, we need to hear that, and see your proof of same. If the 9/3/2008 motion was adopted, the Phrase "Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained in Unlawful Searches of FLDS Property," is it's Proper Name. You are simply saying that because I choose to call George Bush, "George Herbert Walker Bush" that I am being biased. That might be, but it's petty to hang on that issue. If George's mama didn't want him to be called that, she should have named him something else. The 2/4/2010 Stipulation refers to that using the word "unlawful" in point #3, the motion of 9/3/2008 again uses that word at least once on page 26. If that motion is adopted, it is the opinion (that rules in Arizona) that the raid was "unlawful." No one is saying that will ever bleed over into Texas in the article. If the defendants of YFZ convicted already in Texas were tried in Arizona for something, none of the evidence from YFZ would be used there, in all likelihood. Hugh McBryde 15:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)--Hugh McBryde 15:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugh McBryde (talk • contribs)

First of all a motion is not an order - it is a request for relief. In this case the requested relief was suppression. Granting the relief as was done in this case says nothing about the grounds for granting that relief. There is nothing in the stipulation that says any reason why they granted the requested relief other than the fact that they did. The order signed by Judge Conn does not grant the motion. It only adopts the stipulation. You saying that it grants the motion is editorializing. The document you posted speaks for itself. As has been said over and over, you came here to editorialize. You made changes when a request for comment was pending and I reverted them. At this stage I'll wait for some other editor to chime in on the dispute and make whatever edits they feel are appropriate given the documents you posted. RonLawHouston (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Barbara Walther

Can Barbara Walther be added to Category:Holocaust_perpetrators?? Axxn (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh.. explain? Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

As the multiple tags on Barbara Walther indicate, there is major problems with that article. I propose that for the reasons listed there, that the article be merged to this one, just like was done with Swinton. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there is insufficient biographical info in that article to justify separation from this one. Synergisticalism (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it really true she has done or presided over nothing else of note ? Ever ?Haryadoon (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy of the record on this talk page

There are two practices going on that i regard as being exercised in good faith, but nevertheless unhealthy for the tone of the discussion and the cultivation of collegial attitudes among us. It is not my intention to criticize editors, in criticizing these practices, but to mend the record to avoid occasion for one editor feeling ill-treated -- whether by mis-characterization, censorship, or concealment of a statement by a second which the first may have reacted to before the statement was changed by the second, or before the whole contrib was removed by a third. In summary, a rigorously faithful record here is neither necessary nor sufficient for a good process, but is far too small a burden to outweigh its reasonably expectable benefits. These are the two practices i speak of:

1. Removal of a contribution on this page by another editor (let alone editing of another's remarks, which is plain forgery and too egregious an offense to treat this gently)
2. Revision of one's own contribution, after it has been saved to the server (and thus presumably displayed without the knowledge of others to colleagues who happened to view the page at the right time), without making a record on the page of the fact of revision.

The first of these amounts to censorship; the second, technically, to forgery (when done in the most frequent way, namely leaving the old timestamp in place), and to sowing confusion (in any case) when a colleague who read the original version either

misses completely the revision that others are implicitly reacting to,
assumes they had misread the original contribution, or
ends up scratching their head and weighing whether to dive into the morass of the edit history of the talk page for clarification.

As it happens, i have a personality that is soothed rather than ruffled by playing Laocoön to the history's serpent, and i am therefore undertaking the task of repairing the deviations from the principles for which i am here advocating.
My practice will be this:

Reinstating deleted contribs, while converting their content to struck-thru text like this; it may well be that the critique implied speaks for itself and that the remover's judgment that the contrib was out of place here will be shared by colleagues, so i leave it to others to endorse or criticize that judgment, and to the remover to decide whether to state their identity as well as whether with or without a defense of the judgment.
Converting the time stamp on a "silently revised" contrib to a compound timestamp (with at least two times), and using typographic style (usually bolding) to indicate the subsequent time and new material, and striking thru the removed material that i restore. (I may decide to ignore a correction of an obvious typo, on the expectation that, as i think is most often the case, no one will care about "warts" on the "portrait" that are concealed thereby; on the other hand, please do not infer that i think offense-giving or serious error, let alone bad faith, has been concealed, when my native overcaution leads me to reveal changes that seem to you to offer nothing but tedium: i intend to err in that direction to avoid doing so in the other one.

--Jerzy•t 01:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable. Although there are things you can do on an article's talk page, like move something placed at the very top to put it in its chronological order, you should rarely delete anyone's contribution and certainly should not edit it, even to correct typos or grammar. If you no longer feel what you have written earlier is correct, you should not delete it but should strike through it as above. WP:TALK gives the guidelines on all of this. Doug Weller (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Tanks and SWAT police

Why is there no mention in the article, and why is it always removed when there is mention of the SWAT police and tank / APC that everybody saw in the press and talks about? Isn't this trying to enforce a point of view that such things can't be in the WP? Why would somebody remove the first things that people know about the raid? Bachcell (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Instead of "always", let's get down to cases. Here's what seems to be the most recent one:

* Bachcell added at 00:40 on the 5th

The FLDS released photographs of police armed with rifles and an armored personell carrier who were prepared for an armed confrontation.

without adding a citation but with the edit summary

Added armed SWAT police and tank, remarkable that it was not mentioned and even removed from the article. Needs picture actually.

* CosmicLatte reverted at 13:30 on the 6th,

summarizing

→April 2008 raid: _actually_, what it needs is a source

In court, they like to say "asked and answered", which translates roughly into "You already asked that question, and it was answered, so sit down and shut up." If you didn't know enough about WP to anticipate that a reliable source would be needed, you know it now. (If you don't understand that FLDS-provided photos are not reliable sources, you know that now too.)

BTW, they also say in court "res ipsa loquitur" meaning in effect "the thing speaks for itself". I have no idea whether there was an APC there, but i'd be shocked if the police had brought no rifles. You sound as if you imagine an APC speaks for itself something devastating, but you've made no hint of what you imagine it would show if verified. Don't put that opinion in the article (unless you're angling to be able to run off saying "Oh, they silenced me from editing"), but your opinion is relevant here on this talk page, to the extent that i helps your colleagues understand what belief is motivating your behavior in this section. So how about a little hint: APC, so what?
--Jerzy•t 05:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• PS: Since i quoted those passages, i would be remiss if i failed to say

1. APC ≠ tank
2. armed with rifles ≠ SWAT
3. Editors must keep such distinctions clear.

--Jerzy•t 05:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

What has happened since June 08 ?

This is a fascinating article and has piqued my interest. The section "Post-raid Events" stops at a very odd point; there is no information as to what has happened to all these people (children and mothers). What has happened since May 13 2008 ? I cannot find any articles on CNN or other news sites. Surely something has happened since at least two courts have ordered the children to go back to the ranch. Is anyone able to add more information to the article ? Haryadoon (talk) 08:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

CPS Side of the Story

Where is the CPS side of the story reported ? I understand they issued a report in December 08, but I cannot find it. Have they not had spokespersons quoted in any news media ? Has there been any public statement regarding the state's apparent abuse (confirmed by two courts) of these families ? Haryadoon (talk) 09:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of blogs on this topic, but most of the people are reluctant to post much here because it will be erased by people who disagree. In short, there was a report that says nothing about abuses committed BY CPS other than they did what was neccesary and they treated them as well as possible under the circumstances. The gist of the headlines were that CPS find find likely cases of underage marriage and sexual activity, and largely on the logic that any child exposed to such marriages was at risk of abuse, they concluded that most children were and still are at risk of abuse. How that "risk" compares with the trauma of being taken away from their families, given SANE abuse examinations, living conditions in many respects worse than purpose-built internment camps or prisons, and treated with less respect than we would expect of American citizens who were supposedly victims rather than perpetrators of crimes has simply not been studied by authorities. Those of you who have the interest and energy to research the topic could certainly contribute to this article. FLDS lawyers currently believe that that authorities deliberately did not investigate an obviously fradulent phone call and used it to plan an extensive raid involving several state and local agencies, a SWAT team, and setting up mass shelters to handle removing of every child on the ranch for questioning and possible protective custody, and to gather evidence for law enforcement to find as many possible cases to prosecute, though the first search warrant specified the removal of one girl who was never found. (actually was found to be a fraud, and has not been prosecuted by Texas authorities) To document and non-POV that sufficiently to survive editors will indeed be a challenge. Bachcell (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I put a footnote containing the link the the CPS report as well as a quote from the report under the section entitled: "Post Raid Events." —Preceding unsigned comment added by RonLawHouston (talk • contribs) 21:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

See Also...LDS Church in Texas

The link to The Church of Jesus of Latter-day Saints in Texas article is a little unclear. I wasn't exactly sure what it was referring to by reading the short description attached to it and when I did realize what it was, I was confused, failing to see the relevance. Perhaps this promotes unnecessary confusion while trying to keep the mainstream LDS church distinct from the FLDS church. Deletion of link...or clarification? Blossomonte (talk) 10:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see the relationship between the FLDS and the LDS church in Texas. Greenw47 (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The question is whether the Latter-day Saint (the way they want it spelled and capped) movement in Texas (whatever "movement" means here) includes the FLDS or not. Pretty clearly, it isn't useful to include Christianity under the Jewish movement, even if it did start out as a wildly heretical sect of that faith. It just as clearly is useful to include a declaredly heretical theologian at a Catholic university as part of the Catholic movement. Me, I think the FLDS/LDS split comes a little closer to the latter ... but not by much. GeorgeTSLC (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC).

The Latter Day Saint movement is an academic label within Mormon studies for a collection of churches that stem from the teaching of Joseph Smith. A Latter Day Saint is an adherent of one of those churches. A Latter-day Saint is a description specific to adherents of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), the largest denomination in this movement; the LDS Church is currently led by Thomas S. Monson, and is based in Salt Lake City at Temple Square and it's surrounds. The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS Church) is one of the larger "offshoots" of the LDS Church, and is a part of a distinct segment of the Latter Day Saint movement called Mormon fundamentalism. As institutions, both the LDS and FLDS Churches see the other as apostates, and neither recognize the other as legitimate heirs to the original organization founded by Joseph Smith in 1830. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Paragraph in intro about abuse call and CPS unsourced

This paragraph in the intro is completely outsourced and and also contains claims that differ from other reliable sources listed elsewhere in the article:

In 2008, state authorities entered the community after Texas Child Protective Services (CPS) and other authorities received several hoax calls impersonating abused juveniles, among them a 16-year-old Sarah from the ranch. Officers removed nearly every child to state custody after determining that they were actual or potential victims of abuse. The state determined that the minors had to be protected from force or socialization into underage marriages. Since CPS considered the children to be residents of a single household, all the children had to be removed. Residents and critics questioned if the raid violated the civil rights of the families, due to their religious beliefs about marriage. Those who believe that the families have been separated and housed in substandard shelters criticize the raid as unnecessarily putting the children at risk, and residents asked that the children be returned.

Everything I've read said that the hoax call came from one person.

Bachcell (talk) 04:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The several calls are detailed in the arrest warrant for Rosita Swinton, and everybody except CPS admists Swinton is certainly the only person who could have made the calls. FLDS believes that Swinton was used as an excuse for a fraudulent search warrant, which explains why authorities never investigated the possibility of fraud until after the raid had been done and the judge gave orders to take all of the children away.

Also, I haven't seen an article laying out the CPS rational as stated above. If we can find it listed in a reliable source we should definitely include it. But their rational shouldn't be stated as fact, as in: "all the children had to be removed". Especially, given that the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the children never should have been removed in the first place. Hoping To Help (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

CPS made several statements to the press that in their judgement the children were abused or in danger of abuse, though they were never very specific in what that meant, and appeal courts later ruled that CPS judgements were simply wrong.Bachcell (talk) 04:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As of June 2009, FLDS lawyers are painting a picture that law enforcement consistenly ignored or declined to pursue any course that lead to finding that the call was fradulent. Nothing in the original fradulent report which prompted the raid and was widely publicized in headlines as fact ever occured. Nothing in the planning of the massive raid would be inconsistent with a plan to do a massive search and questioning and removal of every child since the SWAT team and hundreds of officials were assembled days in advance, shelters sufficient to hold every child and their mothers were prepared the day before. Authorities knew that Barlow was not at the ranch when they entered. They were told there was no Sarah matching the description. A decision by Angie Voss to remove and question every child was made within two hours of questioning a handful of girls after midnight on the basis of answering only a few very general questions. The authorities claim that it was a only to remove one girl and her baby daughter and one man, but nothing in the planning is consistent with this. The massive force was only there in case "something went wrong", but it is hard to believe that such a massive raid was not planned to be of that scale from the start just to remove one woman to safety. It is pretty clear that the bad guys got away. It is less clear which side were the bad guys in this incident. Bachcell (talk) 04:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Nature of Judge Conn's Order in State v. Warren S. Jeffs

Is an agreed stipulation in this case the equivalent of a finding that the evidence from the YFZ Ranch search in Texas was unlawful, unconstitutional, or illegal? (BlueSooner (talk) 03:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC))

Should we invoke page protection until the RFC process is complete? RonLawHouston (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Due to continued reversions on both sides of this issue, I have initiated a request that YFZ Ranch#Court rulings be protected from changes on a temporary basis until the RfC process has had an opportunity to run. To all parties - please try to stay within Wikipedia policies - please review WP:DE and WP:DR. BlueSooner (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment - The dispute in this case is on the meaning of the order on the motion to suppress filed on behalf of the defendant. The defendant filed a motion entitled "Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained in Unlawful Searches of FLDS Property" (emphasis added). Hugh McBryde believes that when the prosecutor stipulated that he would not use the evidence (because it was not germane to his case in chief) and the judge signed off on the stipulation, the judge was ruling that the search was in fact unlawful. RonLawHouston, Hope4Kids and I believe that the order suppressing the evidence merely acknowledged the stipulation. No hearing was heard on the motion to suppress, nor did Judge Conn's order indicate in any manner that he was ruling on the legality or illegality of the search under warrant in another state. (BlueSooner (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC))

• Comment - Here is how the controversial text of the article reads now:

On February 5, 2010, Arizona Judge Steven F. Conn approved a stipulation from the previous day between Mohave County prosecutor Matt Smith and Warren Jeffs' defense attorney, Michael Piccarreta, that evidence seized from the YFZ Ranch in Texas would not be used in any manner in Warren Jeffs' two criminal trials in Arizona. ^{[57] [58]}Based on the agreement of the attorneys, Judge Conn issued an order adopting the stipulation.^[59]. Jeffs' first of two trials on charges of being an accomplice to sexual conduct with a minor is scheduled to begin November 2, 2010. ^[60]

Let's look at the history of court proceedings leading to this controversy. The complete directory of documents filed in the case can be found here:

• On 9-3-08 The defense filed Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained in Unlawful Searches of FLDS Property, seeking to suppress evidence seized by Texas law enforcement pursuant to warrants executed at the YFZ Ranch in April 2008
• On 9-26-08 The State filed Response to Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained in Searches of FLDS Property where the State first indicated that it did not need to use the Texas evidence and did not intend to use that evidence
• On 9-30-08 The State filed an Addendum to its response and included evidence that Warren Jeffs was not the owner of the YFZ Ranch and that Warren Jeffs had relinquished his leadership position in the church. This evidence relates to whether or not Warren Jeffs had standing to challenge the Texas search warrants
• On 10-24-08 the defense filed a Reply to Response to Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained in Searches of FLDS Property arguing that potential witnesses may have been tainted by viewing evidence seized in Texas
• On 10-28-08 Prosecutor Matt Smith indicated that he would not use any evidence seized in Texas, but the Judge was not convinced that the issue did not need to be addressed at some point. See Court Notice/Ruling/Order of December 9, 2008

• On 1-13-09 The defense filed Reply to Response to Request for Evidentiary Hearing on Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained in Unlawful Searches of FLDS Property seeking to prevent a preliminary hearing that had been requested by the State.

• On 1-23-09 the court denied the State's request for a preliminary hearing, stating that it would conduct all proceedings related to the motion to suppress in a single evidentiary hearing. In it's ruling, the court refernced the State's prior representations that it would not use evidence seized in Texas, but commented that the State had not committed itself to that position in a binding manner.See here

• On 2-13-09 the defense filed a Motion to Strike Response to Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained in Unlawful Searches of FLDS Property based on the defense's inability to obtain any useful information from interviews with Texas law enforcement officers.
• On 3-26-09 the court entered a ruling stating: the Court will defer ruling on the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized in the Texas search until a similar motion is ruled on by the appropriate Texas judicial officer.
• NOTE: To this point, every pleading filed by the defense includes the word Unlawful when referencing evidence seized in Texas. Each pleading by the State omits the word Unlawful, and the court's own references omit the word Unlawful as well. At this point in proceedings, there had not yet been any ruling in any court regarding the legality or illegality of the warrants and searches in Texas.
• On 4-3-09 the court entered an Order denying the defense motion to strike the State's response to its motion to suppress. Interestingly, the Court also said: the Court will eventually rule on the defense motion to suppress by determining what the facts are based on the evidence presented, not based on counsels' pleadings ... I mention this only because of Hugh McBryde's argument that Judge Conn "adopted" the defense motion, and here is language that indicates something contrary. More on this later. The court also expresses frustration that the State has not made up its mind or committed to a position on whether it will use evidence seized in Texas.
• On 4-20-09 the defense filed Supplemental Authority in Support of Motion to Suppress

• On 5-4-09 the court issued a ruling affirming its prior order that it would defer ruling on the defense motion to suppress until after the Texas court had ruled.
• On 5-12-09 the Texas court began hearing a similar motion to suppress evidence seized at the YFZ Ranch. The hearing concluded on 5-15-09
• On 5-25-09 the defense filed a Motion to Withdraw Exhibit seeking to withdraw a photograph submitted as supplemental authority on the basis that the photo was not taken at the YFZ Ranch as had been indicated.
• On 6-4-09 the court issued a ruling granting the defense motion to withdraw its exhibit and stated that it would ignore it but not remove it from the court files
• On 10-2-09 the Texas judge entered an order denying the defendants' motions to suppress evidence seized at the YFZ Ranch
• On 11-19-09 the defense filed a Request for Evidentiary Hearing on Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained in Unlawful Searches of FLDS Property
• On 11-24-09 the State filed its Response to Request for Evidentiary Hearing on Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained in Lawful Searches of FLDS Property asking also for an evidentiary hearing on the defense motion to suppress. The State notes: The Texas Court, which is obviously in the best position to determine the validity of the search, has already upheld the constitutionality and lawfulness of the search of the FLDS Ranch in Texas.

• On 1-21-10 the State filed its Stipulation Offered by the State in which it agreed not to use in Warren Jeffs' two pending criminal cases any evidence seized by Texas law enforcement from the YFZ Ranch in the April 2008 raid. The stated purpose of the agreement to stipulate was to avoid having an evidentiary hearing in February. Note that this was not a stipulation because it was not an agreement of both the State and the defense. It was an offer to stipulate and could not be binding unless agreed to by both sides.
• On 1-28-10 the defense filed its Response to Stipulation Offered by the State Regarding Use of Illegally Seized Evidence requesting that the court enter an order granting the defense motion to suppress, but also requesting that the February hearing go forward to determine whether Arizona law enforcement and potential witnesses had been tainted by the Texas evidence.
• On 2-1-10 the court issued a ruling stating that it could only vacate the February hearing upon mutual consent of the parties. The court noted that it could not force the parties to stipulate to anything.
• On 2-4-10 the State and defense jointly filed a Stipulation agreeing that the motion to suppress would be granted, that the State would agree not to use any evidence seized in Texas, and the February hearing would be vacated.
• On 2-4-10 the court signed an Order based on the stipulation of the parties. The order is a verbatim recitation of the Stipulation except that the title of the defense motion containing the word Unlawful is removed from the order, referring to the pleading only as defendant's motion to suppress.
• On 2-5-10 the court issued a Court Order/Notice/Ruling reciting: The Court signs the Stipulation and adopts the terms thereof. The court further ordered the parties to advise the court what hearing would be needed next.

That's the complete history with links to the documents. Whoever is interested in having this issue resolved, please familiarize yourselves with the history and summaries. I will provide a legal analysis later this evening or tomorrow morning. I was told this was a request for comments from experts in the legal field. I am a lawyer and can address the issues upon which comments were requested.Loquitor (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Follow-Up. The first thing that stands out is the Order was actually signed on February 4, not February 5. That needs to be corrected. Regarding the word Unlawful , the defense is the only one who uses the word, and it can be thought of as hopeful thinking, as the purpose of the defense motion to suppress is to hopefully obtain a ruling that the Texas searches were illegal. Titles of pleadings are in no way dispositive of anything. A court does not adopt the defense motion by granting the relief requested in the motion, and it is not a tacit approval of the colorful words in the title of the pleading or argument or allegation in the pleading itself. In this particular case, it is clear throughout the history that the prosecutor holds firm to the position that the searches were legal and even references Evidence Lawfully Obtained in one of his later pleadings. The judge never takes a position one way or the other because he has never been presented with any evidence.

Importantly, in his order approving the stipulation he recites the Stipulation verbatim with the exception of the title of the defense motion. Nowhere in the order does the word unlawful appear. The argument that the judge approves of everything said in the defense motion to suppress or that he tacitly approves of the word unlawful is legally incorrect. The judge agreed that the Texas evidence would not be used based solely on the agreement of the parties that the State would not use the evidence - suppression is the legal term of art for that concept. It does not imply anything about the lawfulness of the searches. It simply means that the State is ordered not to try to introduce any of the evidence.

Hugh McBryde has admitted that he is trying to advance his point of view that the Texas searches were unlawful. This section of the article is accurate and neutral as wriiten (except for the date). Inserting the title of the defense motion is misleading and misrepresents the actual order of the court. Indeed it appears that Hugh McBryde wishes to insert the title of the motion for that very reason: to leave an impression that is not accurate. The wording should remain as it is. The date of the order should be corrected for accuracy. Loquitor (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment -The current text is correct because the judge never ruled on the legality or illegality of the search. The stipulation is merely an agreement between the parties about the presentation certain evidence at trial, and the judge merely approved the stipulation. The search may have been illegal or unlawful or in violation of the U.S. Constitution, but those questions cannot and should not be resolved in this wikipedia article. This is not the proper forum for speculation as to why the district attorney would sign a stipulation agreeing that the evidence would be ordered supressed if the search were legal. Vampyrecat (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Archive?

The talk page is getting long, with most material dating back 2+ years; isn't it time to archive some of this yet? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Me, I think not. I find the early material quite relevant to understanding the difficulties of keeping this article accurate and objective, and a useful counterweight for someone coming new to it, perhaps w/ an agenda based on one or more less objective articles. The headings are clear, the dates on the material are visble, so why not keep everything out in the open where it's easy to scan thru it? GeorgeTSLC (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

To answer your questions, please see: Help:Using talk pages#Subpages and archiving, and Help:Archiving a talk page. Archiving doesn't delete anything, just moves older material to a sub-page to make a talk page more manageable, and it is actually a common feature here at WP. However this talk page doesn't yet show up on Wikipedia:Database reports/Long pages, so it's not extraordinarily large it this point, hence my interest in gaining a consensus here about when to do the archive. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

YFZ Ranch Referenced in Dollhouse Episode

It should be mentioned that the "True Believer" episode of Dollhouse very blatantly referenced YFZ Ranch. The cultists that they are dealing with call their home Zion Ranch, the cop mentions that "last time" the cult leader had a bunch of underage girls, and they say they're from Texas. Bmtphoenix (talk) 07:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

So why is that important to this encyclopedia article? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

In a shorter article, especially one that needed such a citation to show the subject's wider relevance, such a mention would make sense. But here, I agree with 208.81.184.4's implied position that it would be inappropriate. GeorgeTSLC (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

"The buildings in question"

At 23:43, 13 February 2012‎, 208.81.184.4 reverted an addition of mine. I thank him or her for in fact increasing our accuracy. Upon reading more in the Chronicle article, I conclude that its "Soon" is more elastic than I had assumed, and I let myself be misled. GeorgeTSLC (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Why Judge Walther's credentials?

Under http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Yearning_for_Zion#Walther.27s_conduct, we read: "Judge Walther is a May 1977 graduate of Southern Methodist University School of Law."

I've no quarrel with the factuality of the sentence, but I utterly fail to see the relevance. In any less controversial area of a less controversial article, I'd just go ahead and delete it. But in this case, I think I ought to beg for whoever sees any relevance to make that relevance explicit. For instance, adding when she was appointed to the 51st, what previous positions she'd held, what awards she'd won by that time, could all lead to saying "So she was clearly experienced and yet ..." or "and so ..."--but either would be inappropriate to the context as making an independent evaluation. And I can't imagine where else this would go.

So bottom line: Why shouldn't the sentence just be deleted? GeorgeTSLC (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That appears to be a leftover from Walther's previous bio article, which was merged here after being deemed a WP:BLP1E. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

So if this is the only bio she's going to get, we can just let it stand, I suppose. But it remains very odd in its current context. GeorgeTSLC (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.