Talk:Warren Jeffs

POV

This page is full of POV-leaning inclusions. Compare this page to the page on Joseph Smith, and you'll see a vast difference. Both were polygamists, both arrested, both religious leaders with significant followings, both claimed to be prophet. And yet Smith's page is rather positive, while this page on Jeffs paints him as a common criminal. This is very inconsistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.230.111 (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The word "controversial" is biased. The word "denomination" rather than "sect" should be used. The FLDS should not be described as a "polygamist" sect, because that is not the main basis of the group. These are just some of the many examples of POV on this page, that should, to be fair, be eliminated. 142.161.230.111 (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Born in San Francisco

Jeffs is a San Francisco native wanted in Arizona on criminal charges of sexual conduct with a minor...
Source: cbs5.com/this link: http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_129015909.html

Nuetrality

Though I disagree with this man thoroughly I thought I'd clean up the neutrality of the page. I also mentioned his retraction of his claim to prophethood was only heard by is brother Nephi, Jeffs denies the conversation ever happened. I tried to use more neutral language and prevent "poisoning the well" so to speak. However I by no means approves of his crimes or recognize him as a prophet.

For this reason it appears to me Nephi may be attempting to seize power since the church needs a free prophet to perform marraiges so rather then post my speculation i have requested a page for Nephi Jeffs as I believe he will be a man of interest later on. I changed "cult" to "controversial sect" On a seperate note made mention of the practice of inbreeding within his sect to preserve his bloodline which the FLDS church believes they are descendent of Jesus Christ, as this sect is also exclusivly made of descendents of Joseph Smith whom they claim is a blood relative of Jesus of Nazareth. This is sourced in "Under the banner of heaven" and many other books which erroneously claim all mormons believe this when in reality only FLDS holds this doctrine that I know of.

I'd also like to request an update, where is he now? How has his trial been going? Has the church performed any new plural marriages as only HE is allowed to perform marraiges in their denomination. 69.29.97.154 00:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You should register with wikipedia to get a username. I do not think that a separate page is warranted for Nephi Jeffs at this time, but should be made a part of the FLDS article when appropriate. Updates to the article are made by contributors like yourself as they happen and someone gets around to it. Nodekeeper 07:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why the word "cult" should be changed to "controversial sect". The word "cult" by definition does not carry a non-neutral meaning. Religious studies, books, classes, articles, etc., use the term "cult" as a matter of course. Even wiki's article has various definitions for "cult", because it is a relatively vague term. However, the use of "controversial sect" seems just as vague and seems to be just a wordy way of saying ... "cult". To not use the term suggested seems to be a case of over political correctness. That's not to say that "controversial sect" is an inaccurate term, but rather just an unnecessary one, when "cult" works just fine. Trippz 09:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

69.232.43.239 14:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)but you are obviously a mormon.

In reading this article, there are certainly more places of problematic neutrality. A woman who was found by a court of law to have been raped at fourteen is mentioned to be pregnant with another man's baby who she later marries. {Within paragraph 2 of Sex crime allegations...Specifically the sentence: She eventually left her husband and married another man, whose baby she was carrying.[23]}

Firstly, the timeline of this presentation is very confusing: at what time did which part of the events happen? In this context, it is presented as motivation for her leaving.

Following the link for this comment leads to the article {citation 23} at TIME that is pretty questionable itself: "...And while the headlines referred to it as the POLYGAMY TRIAL, that was not the charge either, though attitudes about polygamy are clearly being put to the test." ? Polygamy IS illegal here. And this case is revealing the abuse it enables to occur. It presents itself as fair and balanced in "support of relligion", but actually, mainstream Mormons DON'T belive in polygamy, this is a breakaway group.

Later: "So this was really a case about what happens when the state's interest in protecting children runs up against a church's right to practice its beliefs, however repugnant others may find them." Child abuse should not have the protection of ANYTHING, including religion. It's not an issue of fair and balanced to give a child molestor a chance to justify what they do. It's been very disturbing to hear people of this group slandering a child abuse victim out of 'loyalty to their faith'. I don't think this comment about her pregancy is appropriate here and I haven't been able to find any other corraborating evidence, either because the timeline of events is not appropriate or perhaps other news outlets did not find it germaine to the story. The line and its placement smack of slandering the victim. Van Sice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.68.53 (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

unsourced

I removed the following sentence:

"In relation, when several black men raped 5 of his wives and they conceived byracial children he assigned those children to other black families under his control."

It's a bit inflammatory to stand without citation, and a cursory google/news search didn't find any support.

It also reeks of bullshit. The FLDS believes that blacks are the spawn of the devil. There would not be black FLDS members or "black families under [Jeffs'] control." Sounds like the author of that sentence was some sort of troll/vandal.

Are you an expert on the FDLS? Maybe there are black members. Look at the al Saud family in Saudi Arabia. Ibn Saud the founder of Saudi Arabia had also black wives. The FDLS can then also have a mixed community. The branch davidians had one too.

Nice try, dipshit, but both the Southern Poverty Law Center and the documentary expose "Banking on Heaven" explicitly make clear that the FLDS teaches that blacks are inferior.

How about we try to stay on topic and not flame one another with anonymous insults? Aml830 10:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you, there are not, nor is it likely there ever will be black in the FLDS. They are considered an inferior race. No I am not a member. But I live near their towns of Hildale and Colorado city. If you would like to HEAR proof of this and other nonsense this wacko preaches go to www.myeldorado.com

Cult category

The term "cult" carries definite negative conotations in modern usage. Use of the term can be a form of ritual defamation, calculated to demean and discredit groups, perhaps deservedly in cases, perhaps not. Clearly many experts and "laypeople" consider FLDS to be a cult. However, not everyone is in agreement on this. To not acknowledge, within the text of the article, that many consider FLDS to be a cult would be disingenuous. However, to place the [Category:Cult leaders] tag on the article is to render a judgement for the reader that the group is in fact a cult, even though it is a matter upon which reasonable people can disagree (even if less than 20% of the population would disagree). It is also a subtle way of hanging an offensive epithet on the article. A close analogy would be to place the [Category:Queers] tag on articles about gay/lesbian people. Not all gays or lesbians would be offended, some might even describe themselves as queer, though the majority would probably take some offense. That a dictionary definition for "queer" is met is still no justifaction for doing that. [Category:Homosexuals] would be fine. Many FLDS take offense to their religion being branded a cult. Because the term is considered offensive, and because there is not universal agreement that they meet the definition, it is wrong, at least in the context of a NPOV encyclopedia to place the [Category:Cult leaders] tag on this article. Dr U 05:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

My sociology of religion professor would probably used the term, "sect." -Northridge00:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the word "cult", by definition, carries a negative connotation. While it is true that the word "cult" as used in popular media has been attached to some well known tragedies (Jonestown, Heaven's Gate), it may not be correct to compare the term "cult" in religious studies, to "queer" in homosexual studies. "Cult" is just a term to describe a group, the negative connotation comes from the individual's experience with the term. Sure, you may ask someone what they think of when you say "cult", and the response may (or may not) be Jonestown, but if you ask those same people if any of the world's major religions were a "cult" at one time or another, they would likely agree. I refer to the wikipedia article Cult where several definitions are present, none seem to be negative to me. Seems to be a case of over political correctness. Trippz 09:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that a large portion of the "homosexual community" has embraced (reclaimed?) the term "queer" and has used it to self-identify. I don't see the same trend in religions—not many groups are embracing and reclaiming the use of the word "cult". I agree that in popular modern usage it carries negative connotations, regardless of the technical definition of the word. It should not be attached to this article if it is a term the members of the organization oppose as a description of their group. That's not "political correctness", it's common sense. –SESmith 10:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, and again I admit that the word "cult" has become negatively associated and sensationalized by media culture. However, I don't think it is correct to redefine the meaning of a word because those people, who dislike the term (perhaps not knowing the actual definition) may disagree with it being applied to them. Sense Wikipedia is designed to broaden our understanding and general knowledge about topics, I cannot see why we should not use a word that even by Wikipedia's own definition(s), has no negative connotation (as far as I can tell). To continue with the previous comparison, it would be like using the word "homosexual" and a person who practices same-sex relationships being offended that they were called "homosexual". The word by itself is designed to categorize behavior, and does not place a positive or negative connotation. It is true that groups who disapprove of homosexuality may use the word "homosexual" negatively, just as the word "cult" may be used negatively by those who do not share the same beliefs as a particular religious group, but it does not change the meaning. The pejorative, if any, is in the context of its use. Additionally, there are many uses of the term "cult" throughout the world that are not generally considered bad by everyone and therefore do not represent a World View, perhaps, "The Cult Of The Virgin" is a good example. Generally the term Destructive_cults (or sometimes Death Cult) is used when describing negative cults. From my own readings on religious studies, the term "cult" is used frequently to describe religious groups without any negative spin placed on its usage. Sometimes "sect" is used, but this apparently may depend on the part of the world the material comes from, and in some cases the terms are interchangeable. Strangely, there are parts of the world where "sect" is considered a pejorative, and other places where it is not, so does this mean we should not use the word "sect" as well? If so, then what word should we use since "cult" and "sect" both may (or may not) offend a particular person? However, personally I would agree that some arguments can be made to distinguish a "sect" from a "cult", but that is another topic. Certainly, I'm not seeking to offend anyone, but at the same time, I cannot change the meaning of a word because they don't like it. So yes, perhaps you can argue that it is "common sense" to believe "cult" means something bad, but I would argue that it seems like over political correctness to say "cult" is a negative term in an "academic sense". Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, designed to advance academic pursuits, I cannot agree that "cult" should be removed. To remain on topic, I think the real question (in regard to this article) is if FLDS fits the definition of a "cult" according to the definition set forth. If so, then I don't see why it should not be used. Feedback appreciated. Trippz 13:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Society in general—not experts or specialists—ultimately define the meaning of words, and meanings change over time through changes in popular usage. Calling a religion a "cult" would be more akin to calling a homosexual a "faggot". It is, quite simply, no longer a neutral term. That appears to be quite self-evident. Find me a church that self-identifies as a "cult", and maybe your viewpoint might have legs. Not only should POV be avoided, but even the appearance of POV. "Cult" has the appearance of POV, probably to a huge percentage of the population. WP should not use "specialist" terminology. ("Gay" also means happy and carefree, according to my dictionary, but you won't see it used much in that sense anymore because another meaning has become more common.)

Besides, just look at some of the articles that are in Category:Cults right now: Brainwashing, Coercive persuasion, Cult suicide, Personality alteration, Satanic ritual abuse, Spiritual abuse, Stockholm syndrome. Should any religious denomination really be put in same category as these without solid references that it is engaging in what is popularly known as these "cult-like" practices and behaviors? I don't think so. That goes for the FLDS Church as much as any other. Otherwise, we will have to put all Christian denominations in the same cult categories. –SESmith 12:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I was really hoping to avoid a lengthy discussion on this point, but that doesn't seem possible. Yes, you are correct! Word definitions change over time and it would certainly be foolish to argue otherwise, however, you as an individual cannot define a word by yourself, and neither can I. As you said, "society ultimately defines the meaning of words", I agree. That is ultimately the reason for dictionaries and by extension, encyclopedias. They are designed so that we all may have a common point of reference when conversing in dialogue . In this case we are not, as you put it, discussing a "technical" or even "specialist" definition of the word "cult" ...it IS the definition of the word "cult", as cited by various common resources, including Wikipedia. That seems quite self-evident. Find me a definition of the word cult, that implicitly states (without a preceding descriptive word, i.e. "Destructive Cult", "UFO Cult", "Death Cult") that the word "cult" is a pejorative term, and perhaps then YOUR argument might have legs. You are in essence redefining a word (or at the least excluding its usage) because your experience suggests to you that "cult" means something bad. My experience is not the same, nor is it proper for you to claim that "probably a huge percentage of the population" would agree with your viewpoint, particularly since every source readily available does not define a "cult" as ... "a funky, hooded group of really weird scary guys who don't fit in", or some other supposed "popular" definition that you may agree with. In this instance, YOU are actually projecting the POV with your argument that the word "cult" is bad because of your experience with its media associations. However, true journalistic accounts of these incident often include a prefix word when applying the term "cult", but sadly most sensationalized trash news reports do not. Though I have already agreed that the word has become sensationalized by pop culture (notice the root-word, cult?), it doesn't change the meaning. In a related, though perhaps sad example, segments of pop culture have also sensationalized words such as "pimp", but that does not change the meaning of that word. Again, it is the context in which it is used. A young man may call himself a "pimp", believing that this description somehow validates his illegal activities (and probably emboldens his frail ego), but I can assure you that when the judge uses it in the proper context, the true meaning is made all too clear. Perhaps in your immediate circle of people, everyone thinks "cult means bad", or more likely "cult might mean bad", but how can YOU claim the implied definition of a word which is consistently defined otherwise by various reputable and citable sources, particularly when that definition has never changed? Just because someone may be ignorant of a word's meaning ("specialized"? or otherwise) does not mean that their own "personal" definition is correct. In fact, in this case, its not! To apply "personal" definitions to words in Wikipedia implies POV, not the other way around.

On your second point, your argument that "cult" is akin to "faggot" or "gay" is unfounded. "Faggot" and "gay" are, and always have been, epithets. They are metaphorical terms used as a pejorative. "Cult" in the English language is, and always has been, a word to describe an often numerically small religious or philosophical group that is separate, or exists in tension with outsiders. This admittedly abridged definition has existed in English all the way back to the original Latin word "cultus", meaning adoration (or veneration, according to some sources). Since you made a point of it, the "Cult of Dionysus" is a good example of a functioning cult (and some people still practice this form of neo-pagan worship and may in fact refer to themselves as a cult). What about "The Cult of Caesar", who has practitioners even today who place flowers on Caesar's grave in Rome every year, usually on the Ides of March? This cult is often associated with Monarchical, or Imperial beliefs, which itself can be construed as a religious belief system. They are still active today. What about "The Cult of The Goddess", a growing neo-pagan belief system, are they all evil cult worshipers too? There is nothing negative, positive, or POV about the word "cult" when used in proper context. Again, "cult" in our example is more akin to "homosexual" (or perhaps more accurately, a sub-group thereof) not "faggot", this is because "cult" is simply a classification of a group of people and not a metaphorical pejorative term.

This brings me to the assertion which you have twice made that a group MUST self-identify with a term in order for it to be valid and applied to them. I find that to be an extremely odd, but interesting assertion. Why do you believe this way, and what are you basing your assertion on? If only it were true! Classifications are made all the time, by everyone, whether we like them or not. Its true that classifications can be tragically destructive as history has shown all too brutally, but at the same time they can be quite beneficial as well. For some, they help to establish a social (and by extension, personal) identity. Whether we like it or not, each of us categorize, and are categorized even if we don't agree with the category someone may place us into. In fact, categorization is often necessary to aid in understanding, and perhaps sanity. Of course luckily, simply being a member of a classification, or group, does not in itself define an individual, but we are talking group classification for purposes of this topic.

Additionally, an argument can be made that many groups will likely not self-identify as a cult, not necessarily always because of a negative connotation as you suggest, but because the term may suggest a limited scope. Generally, "cult" refers to a small following and most practitioners of any religion, denomination, sect, or yes ... cult, may not wish to be considered somehow inferior in magnitude, numbers, or importance when compared to competing groups. They all want to be the biggest, baddest, most righteous, religious group on the block, and poor little one syllable "cult", just denotes "small following". Even if "cult" is an entirely accurate term for describing a particular group, they may opt for a more progressive word such as "movement", "following", "practitioners", "brotherhood", "society", or the more flamboyant "revival"! My point is, they may (and do) choose a multitude of other terms to describe themselves, and often groups (like people) will identify themselves differently than outsiders may describe them. Can you really suggest otherwise? However, the old saying of "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, then ... it's a duck!" still applies, that is, unless you want to redefine "duck" too. If so, I'd like to suggest the term, Web Enhanced Flat Footed Feathered Flying Frisky Waterborne Evolved Archaeopteryx! But if that's too cumbersome, then perhaps just "Quacky Thingy" might work. Of course, as long as it doesn't offend the duck's politically correct sensibilities.

On your final point about Wikipedia's articles in the Category:Cults, I concede that you may have a point in that some negative aspects of cults are linked, but aren't such links required to provide a comprehensive exploration of any topic? Category:Christianity has links to articles about The Devil - that's certainly considered by some to be a negative topic, isn't it? Maybe the Cult category itself needs more links (perhaps like this one, which is being denied), or maybe it requires division, or re-organization. Also, by following the Category:Cults link you can easily find List of groups referred to as cults which has an entirely amusing section entitled "Groups Referred to as 'Cult' in the Media", with citations no-less! According to your "popular" definition of "cult", Wikipedia itself has been defined as a cult! Apparently, we are all members of this horrifying "Wiki Cult"! Oh no! Though I don't remember ever agreeing to be categorized within a "cult", I personally will gladly proclaim my membership and I don't feel insulted even in the slightest. Do you? Why should any group be offended when called a cult? Its just a categorical term. But still, I would like to know where I can get one of those cool Wiki hoods, and while I'm on the topic, can someone tell me how come I haven't been invited to any of the secret mid-summer campfire meetings?!

Finally, it again ultimately really boils down to if Jeffs (as leader) and FLDS do in fact fit the actual (what you are strangely calling "specialized") definition of a cult. As for the other links in the Category:Cults it shouldn't really matter. However, if you wish to continue with the argument that this article should not be linked to Category:Cults because of the other articles in that category, such as Coercive persuasion, that doesn't make much sense because sadly there are ample reports of such things from former members of FLDS as cited in this and the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints article. If, for whatever personal reason, you really want to block this article from being a part of Category:Cult, then make an argument that disputes it as meeting the actual definition of the word "cult", not your POV definition. You'll make more headway in your goal than you are by basing your argument on a POV and personal feeling toward the term. However, even if you make such an argument, you really can't change the meaning of a word because you don't like it being applied to a particular group. I'm sorry, but the word "Cult" is not a POV, any more than the word denomination, ecclesia, or any other word describing a religious group is a POV. You have also used somewhat telling language in your response, by indicating that you believe FLDS is a "denomination". Did you misuse the term or do you believe FLDS is, in fact, a denomination? Though this would be an entirely different (all be it, interesting) discussion, is this the real reason that you don't like "cult" being applied in this instance? Respectfully, perhaps you are are using a POV in this belief. "Cults" are not of less value, or in all cases subordinate to any particular denomination or sect, its just a classification. In this regard you may be abusing political correctness and consequently may actually be adding to the ignorance regarding the term, and thereby defeating the purpose of an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. Sorry for the long post, and again I am not seeking to offend you or anyone else, but regarding your viewpoint on this topic, to me you seem clearly wrong and I'd respectfully suggest that you may need to reevaluate your POV to remain consistent with WP guidelines. Thanks for your input and the interesting discussion. Trippz 07:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Pseudo-intellectual narrow-mindedness. There is not just one authorized and "approved" definition for "cult." Nor is there only one definition of "denomination". WP does not cater to specialists' terminology, which is clearly what you are trying to apply. –SESmith 09:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I can easily make the same statement about your viewpoint. I've never indicated that there is only one definition of any word, in fact, I've tried to illustrate the importance of context. I dispute that my use of the word is somehow "specialized", and therefore requires exclusion from use. Wikipedia does not pander to colloquialism either, which is clearly how you are trying to apply the term. Perhaps ultimately a new word may need to find its way into the language (though I'm sure many would disagree), but sadly it has yet to arrive as far as I know. In the meantime, I'd like to know how else somebody would refer to this concept. Trippz 05:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

And you are? Sign your comments, pls. By the way, it's easier to have a meaningful discussion when you avoid long-winded posts like the one above. Your points could have been reduced to about one sentence per paragraph. With such a long entry, readers lose interest in what you have to say, frankly. –SESmith 05:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, forgot to sign. Agreed, already noted the length. However, when did you become the authority on how somebody expresses themselves? I was attempting to address each of the points you previously raised, something which you have yet to do. Be careful ... your Troll ears are starting to show.Trippz 05:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"when did you become the authority on how somebody expresses themselves?" About half-way through reading your diatribe...booooring... "I was attempting to address each of the points you previously raised, something which you have yet to do." I have yet to address each of the points I have previously raised? OK, that's a new one ... Incidentally, future users will be less put off by you if you avoid accusing them of trying to "block" the way you want something to turn out in WP because of "personal feelings"—better to stick to the topic at hand and avoid trying to psychoanalyze someone over the internet. Anyway, good luck on your mission to convince the other 99.999% of the modern world that "cult" is a NPOV term to use when referring to a belief system (as they say, you're gonna need it). SESmith 08:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd consider Warren Jeffs' actions "brainwashing", as would any rational individual, you loony fuck. But hey, if you want to defend the band of child molesters in Utah then hey, feel free. By the way, where are the gold tablets? 68.118.255.104 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

From Merriam-Webster online: "Main Entry: cult

Usage: often attributive

Etymology: French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate -- more at WHEEL

1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP

2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents

3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents

4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>

5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : the object of such devotion c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion "

Not to say that they are the final arbiters of language, but nothing in that definition is inherently NPOV. Three seems to come closest to having negative connotations, although it's hard to argue that most sects that we would call cults are indeed regarded as unorthodox. You can argue about it all you like, but this seems pretty straightforward. Jsnbase 19:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Timestamp accurate to the second of guilty verdict

I'm taking out the timestamp nonsense in the top summary. I took it out once before, and it was added back in. In 2 years, no one will care, or need to know, that it was at FOUR TWENTY-FIVE AND THIRTY-FIVE SECONDS PM, especially if the article says "in the afternoon of such and such date". Wikipedia is not a FIRSTPOSTLOL competition, it's non-encyclopediaic, it's trivial, and it looks childish. Please to be not putting it back without a really, really good reason. If it needs to be said, it could be said later in the article. -- Will 20:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Infobox FBI Ten Most Wanted TfD

{{Infobox FBI Ten Most Wanted}} has been nominated for deletion. As this template is transcluded here, contributors to the "Warren Jeffs" article may want comment in the discussion here. I propose that if the template is deleted, then most transclusions would be changed to {{Infobox Criminal}}. -- Mark Chovain 01:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that even {{Infobox Criminal}} is appropriate here. Jeffs was notable as a religious leader before criminal charges were filed against him. The infobox reduces his notability to the criminal issue, and I don't know that that's appropriate. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Jeffs was notable before the criminal issue. Maybe we should go back to the usual {{Infobox Person}}. -- Diletante (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Warren jeffs sentenced

This article needs to be updated because there has been a sentencing for Warren jeffs. RYAN 3000 (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Update incarceration status

The top sidebar indicates Jeffs is in Utah State Prison. The presumably obsolete section on his Aug. 2006 arrest says he's in Washington County UT jail pending an April 2007 trial. Davelic (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I was considering about deleting Seth Steed Jeffs article because he just seems not to be notable enough. But then again, merging would be better. After all, he aided his big brother while he was a fugitive, so that's why he should be mentioned in this article more specifically.

Reverend X (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the merge since its been two months and no discussion. Seems notable with sources and a fair amount of google hits. Paper45tee (talk) 04:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Mention of the America Most Wanted

This article needs to add the fact that he was featured on America's Most Wanted. 75.179.153.39 (talk) 06:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Biography section

The biography section seems a bit odd - I was expecting content about where Jeffs was born, went to school, and so on. Instead, it seems like a chronology of his leading his group and then being on the run from the law.

I would appreciate it if someone could fill in some biographical information in this section. --Zippy (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

How many wives?

Shouldn't an item about a polygamist say clearly somewhere how many wives he has/had? Estimate? Maximum? Children? --Hugh7 (talk) 07:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Kissing His 12-Year-Old Bride

Smoking Gun has some very damaging pictures of Jeffs smooching his 12-year-old bride, as well as another who's 14. If you can't call this a cult, there's no such thing. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0527081flds1.html 216.231.46.147 (talk) 03:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)