Talk:YFZ Ranch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the YFZ Ranch article.
Article policies
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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 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)

[edit] Precipitating call

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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[1] and liked to a traditional witch-hunt[2].

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.
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[3] and liked to a traditional witch-hunt[4].
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] low importance

Why is this a low importance article?? Bachcell (talk) 23:54, 16 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 • info • 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 'CPS' vs. 'DFPS'

(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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)