Talk:Vallow–Daybell doomsday murders

sources

• https://www.fox5dc.com/news/idaho-police-searching-for-children-discovered-missing-after-suspicious-death-reported
• https://www.eastidahonews.com/2019/12/despite-hundreds-of-tips-investigators-say-theyre-no-closer-to-finding-missing-rexburg-kids/
• http://cdaybell.com/
• https://www.fox10phoenix.com/video/641147
• https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/documents-lori-vallow-claims-she-was-god-preparing-for-second-coming-of-christ
• https://www.fox5ny.com/news/former-friend-of-missing-woman-kids-speaks-of-her-complicated-marital-past-with-two-husbands-dead
• https://www.eastidahonews.com/2020/01/exclusive-daybells-served-with-search-warrants-in-hawaii/
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CI7LMVj7qQ
• https://heavy.com/news/2019/12/chad-daybell/
• https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-breaking/2019/12/27/2-children-missing-idaho-tied-ongoing-investigations-arizona-joshua-vallow-tylee-ryan/2760105001/
• https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/chandler-breaking/2019/07/11/police-chandler-man-called-911-say-he-shot-family-member-fight/1704107001/ — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Boudreaux shooting connection

This section was removed by Schazjmd (talk · contribs):

Brandon Boudreaux, Lori Vallow's nephew-in-law in Gilbert, Arizona, was the target of a drive-by shooting on October 2, 2019. The vehicle involved was a Jeep registered to the late Charles Vallow. Boudreaux had recently accused Lori Vallow of inducting his wife (Melani Boudreaux) into a cult. Melani Boudreaux left home for "Boise" in mid-October. On November 14, she was arrested by police for trespassing on her in-laws' American Fork, Utah property. When the Boudreaux's divorce was finalized in late November, Brandon received custody of their four children. On November 30 in Las Vegas, Melani Boudreaux married Ian Pawlowski, a Rexburg divorcee of four months. [1]

Edit summary: "removed section on Boudreaux, not relevant to topic of article, they're not mentioned anywhere else as connected in any way to the children's disappearance"

Oh, they're connected.

• "How a Gilbert drive-by shooting is tied to the Idaho missing children" -AZ Central.
• "‘Doomsday cult’ mom of missing kids is linked to recent attempted murder" -NY Post
• "Relative of missing children was targeted in drive-by shooting after their mother joined a doomsday cult with her new husband - and believes the group could also be behind the kids' disappearance and three suspicious family deaths" -Daily Mail
• "Shortly after 2 kids disappeared, someone shot at their family member" 12 news
• "Relative of missing children believes attempt on his life is connected to a religious group" Fox10 Phoenix

I think it should be restored, perhaps expanding on it to better explain the connection based on these sources. --В²C ☎ 20:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The only connection seems to be Boudreaux saying he thinks they're connected. It could be written that way in the article, that Boudreaux makes the claim that what happened to him is connected to the disappearance (although certainly not citing Daily Mail, and I'd avoid the NY Post as well). Schazjmd (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

This wasn't a random shooting. The shooter was verified by police to be in a vehicle registered to Charles Vallow, the father of the missing children. The wife of the shooting target is a friend of Lori Vallow, and reportedly into the eccentric beliefs of Lori and Daybell. How is that not a bonafide factual connection? If I had just heard of this crazy case and went to WP to learn about it, I'd certainly want to know about this shooting. --В²C ☎ 20:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Born2cycle, if you start the section with "Brandon Boudreaux, Lori Vallow's nephew-in-law, claims that the children's disappearance is related to an incident in October 2019 when he was the target of a drive-by shooting. The vehicle...(etc)", then it makes a connection for the reader and gives context for why it's even mentioned. Schazjmd (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

J. J.'s dog

Could be used in the timeline.

Sources: - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv3qzy0V9Mk: An Arizona dog trainer says he may have been one of the last people to see 7-year-old JJ Vallow before he and his sister Tylee Ryan, 17, went missing last September. Neal Mestas, of Gilbert, told Inside Edition that he trained a service dog, a Goldendoodle puppy named Bailey, for JJ, who has autism. He says he knew the family when they lived in Arizona and was "puzzled" when the dog was returned to him prior to their move to Idaho. - -https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/dog-trainer-lori-vallow-gave-up-jjs-service-dog-just-before-idaho-move: About a month following the shooting death of Vallow, Bailey was put up for sale for $2,500. Mestas says he received a phone call from Lori in August. "I'm picking up the dog, trying to help them out," said Mestas. "[Lori] said this tragedy happened, and she needed to move. She told me they were moving up north. I think she said Idaho or something like that. One of her daughters was in school in Idaho. She said they were moving up there to be with her, and so I said 'OK, let me see if I can find a home.' She said 'I need you to come get him right now.'" --Japarthur (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Lead length

Usedtobecool has added a lead too long tag to this article. I don’t agree that it’s too long. This story has several key elements that have to be mentioned in any useful summary. That’s pretty much all that’s in this summary.

That said, there is of course room for improvement in the lead. There might be too much detail about some of it. And anything removed from the lead needs to be ensured to be in the body. But there is no problem with length. The WP:LEADLENGTH guidance specifically allows four lead paragraphs for an article of this length (>30k; we have 37k). And that’s what we have: four paragraphs. —В²C ☎ 19:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Born2cycle, The length of the lead should conform to readers' expectations of a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic. It did not conform to mine, and that's the only reason I tagged it. On the technical side, the article is 11K of prose, for which one paragraph summary is sufficient. Sometimes, it may be broken into two if needed. The four paragraph limit is the maximum, and is justified for topics like History of the world or Russia; here, the lead should give a straightforward 5W1H, around seven sentences are usually sufficient, maybe 10-12 if the topic is complicated. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Remains identified as JJ Vallow

One of the sets of remains have been identified as seven-year-old JJ Vallow here cookie monster (2020) 755 17:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Is the timeline really necessary?

At the best, the timeline needs extensive edits to make it more concise, readable and grammatically correct. At worst, it possibly introduces a myriad of irrelevant details and dates that only adds confusion to the whole article. Your thoughts? MundaneIndigoMan (talk) 06:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

While there is room for improvement, I think in general for this particularly complex story with so many inter-related events and incidents, a timeline is very useful. —В²C ☎ 19:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the style of the whole article needs improving, but the timeline does help to understand the chain of bizarre events. Salopian (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree, the events are too bizarre to really understand without a timeline. Kwallet (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

GA

I would really like to make this article GA in memory of the kids. It is very depressing that their remains were found, so I hope to honor them by making this article Ga in the future. DarklyShadows (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a memorial - it's one of the core policies. That aside, every article should be made the best it can be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.50.200 (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Location

Should the coordinates of Daybell's property where the human remains were found be put into the article? If anybody wants to, it is here: 43°54′48″N 111°46′36″W. Abductive (reasoning) 00:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

“[Summer] 2019 to February 2020” policy on using seasons for timelines?

For events that occur in the Northern Hemisphere, is it Wikipedia policy to use seasons for dating those events? This could be a momentary confusion and complicated for people reading it in the Southern Hemisphere. If there is such a policy, then events in the Southern Hemisphere likely follow a similar policy, causing confusion for people in the Northern Hemisphere. I consider it best to use months instead of seasons in the timeline, avoiding whatever the policy on seasons is.Rich (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree - I changed those headers to be more precise. Some1 (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Lori Vallow or Lori Daybell?

Should she be referred to as Lori Vallow or Lori Daybell? cookie monster (2020) 755 04:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Lori Vallow Daybell Seems to be most common in sources right now. —В²C ☎ 04:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Birth names are the most stable ones, iMHO. --Japarthur (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Reader confusion on charges

I read the article and one thing is not clear to me... Why is the mother being held on $1 million bail for a couple of misdemeanor charges? And why is the husband being tried for the four felony counts? It seems like the mother should be held responsible for her children's deaths and have the more severe charges. And who is being charged with the murders (assuming the kids were murdered)? I'm suffering some sort of disconnect...

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 06:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Question again about her legal name

East Idaho News recently published a court motion filed by Lori's attorney regarding Lori's legal name. Her Hawaii marriage certificate is also attached to the motion. Her lawyer says her legal name is Lori Norene Ryan Vallow Daybell but her marriage certificate says her new legal name is Lori Ryan Daybell. How should we describe the discrepancy? [2] cookie monster (2020) 755 00:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

JJ's birthname pre adoption should be in infobox right?

In the timeline it says Joshua Jaxon was born Canaan Todd Trahan. If this is true shouldnt it be in the inbox? Is it okay for me to correct this information? 174.216.132.59 (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

This whole article is a terrible mess

It contains a myriad of irrelevant details and dates and is all over the place. It's extremely difficult to follow along when reading it. It's completely unstructured and convoluted, I feel a major rewrite is required. 185.68.78.1 (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd never head of this case before and came here to get a quick summary. No luck! I gave up. Will need to find a different source to learn more. If I want ultra-levels of detail in a sort of info-dump format I know where to look. -- GreenC 21:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I also agree though I lack the time right now, it is terribly written and hard to follow, major rewrite is needed Conway jon (talk) 08:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Identification of remains section.

This section currently reads "they are no longer considered missing and the investigation is now focused on determining the circumstances surrounding their deaths". Is the investigation ongoing? Cleblutie (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 16 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 17:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Murders of Tylee Ryan and J. J. Vallow → Murders of Tylee Ryan, J. J. Vallow, and Tammy Daybell – Since Lori Vallow has now been convicted of conspiracy to murder Tammy Daybell, as well as the murders of her children, Tammy Daybell should be included in the descriptive title of this article. В²C ☎ 05:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Support as while the events occurred at different times, they were all part of a larger scheme and ultimately part of the same trial. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Is this victim also bundled together with the other two in press coverage? Aaron Liu (talk) 10:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Of course. The trial was about the murder of all three. For example: "In addition to being convicted of first-degree murder in the deaths of the children, and of grand theft, Ms. Vallow Daybell was also found guilty of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder in the death of Tammy Daybell, Mr. Daybell’s former wife." [3] В²C ☎ 04:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not doubting that she was murdered, what I'm saying is I don't see any press coverage that bundles the three together. In fact the one you linked also treats it separately by including it in the sentence you quoted instead of including it in the paragraph before. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that's a criteria that matters. We're not using a COMMONNAME title here; it's a descriptive title in this case. --В²C ☎ 02:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it matters because the coverage I mentioned shows that the event is mainly about the two children and Tammy was only related but not part of the main event. Such a title also decreases the chance of being able to search for it. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

the event is mainly about the two children and Tammy was only related but not part of the main event It was all part of one larger scheme, which is covered by the trial. From WP:DESCRIPDIS: Where there is no acceptable set name for a topic, such that a title of our own conception is necessary, more latitude is allowed to form descriptive and unique titles. Examples: List of birds of Nicaragua, Campaign history of the Roman military, Pontius Pilate's wife (see WP:NCP#Descriptive titles) This is not a name used by our sources, but rather one describing the overall event, which includes the murder of Tammy Daybell. Such a title also decreases the chance of being able to search for it. Not sure what you specifically mean here, but the old title will continue to exist as a redirect, which can be searched. Redirects are also WP:CHEAP, so if necessary additional redirects to whatever title is ultimately decided upon can be created to address that as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

We still don't know the motive of Tammy Daybell's murder, nor do we know who murdered her. Should we also include Charles Vallow and Brandon Boudreaux in the title? These aren't part of the main event, so they shouldn't be part of the descriptive title. At the end of the day, article titles still need naturalness and concision per WP:CRITERIA. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Turn this around: what makes the children's names more relevant? At least for this trial and conviction it was for the three named individuals proposed in this RM, those other people were not part of the initial charges/trial, so their connection to the event is not as concrete. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

They are more relevant because they were the prime event and in the initial disappearance, and the main focus of the media. Tammy Daybell was just among the "Complicating circumstances around the disappearances was a string of suspicious deaths". There isn't much reason to include Tammy Daybell in the title just because Lori Vallow was also convicted of murdering her. Just because this is a descriptive title doesn't mean the principles of COMMONNAME don't apply, in addition to the CRITERIA I mentioned above. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per what I said above. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose While Daybell's death has arguably played the primary role in Chad's side of this event, as User:Aaron Liu points out, it's the two children who were the main focus of the story when it first began circulating. In addition, Google searches of Tylee Ryan's and J. J. Vallow's names both turned up nearly double the amount of results of searching Tammy Daybell's name. Even beyond feeling like an unwieldy article name, Daybell is not nearly as central to this article as Ryan or Vallow. That said, I have nothing against this and/or a title like Killings of Tylee Ryan, J. J. Vallow, and Tammy Daybell redirecting here. JeffSpaceman (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. I'll also note that there are two murder convictions, not three [4], which makes the proposed title even less intuitive. 162 etc. (talk) 05:47, 26 May 2023 (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.

Alex Cox

Do we have information on why Alex Cox seemingly obeyed his sister’s every command? Don’t see it in the article here or in any news articles, but seems very relevant. It’s also just so strange. Monsieur Mercury (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, very strange, but I've seen only speculation about this; nothing solid in reliable sources. В²C ☎ 04:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Is the Timeline really necessary?

I've been heavily cutting down and shortening this article due to the sheer amount of excessive and unnecessary information it has, and personally I feel as if the timeline is not even necessary because almost all of the important details on the case have already been mentioned earlier in the article. Instead of there being a timeline, I think there could be a section documenting important, more recent developments, or improvements done to the writing on the entire investigation. B3251 (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The timeline is critical to understanding this incredible story. The timing of when the kids disappeared, when Daybell's wife was killed, when the Vallow-Daybell marriage occurred, when Alex got married, when he died, etc. etc., it's all very helpful to see these events in order with dates in compact form, exactly as presented in this section. --В²C ☎ 04:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I feel like the article could be improved to better highlight the important details whilst also staying clear from unnecessary information (which is what i had cleaned) in order to remove the excess detail tag. The article may have to be somewhat restructured in some areas to achieve this and when reading it I noticed repeating information, as well as the introductory paragraphs, which should cover more of a summary of the important bits, being far too long and detailed and would repeat later in the article. B3251 (talk) 05:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:PROSE. The prose already explains the timeline well and only explains it’s key points. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

But the timeline makes the critical order of events much more obvious than does gleaning it from the prose. --В²C ☎ 02:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

By including a lot of tangential details and not having headers I'd say the opposite is true. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anything that's tangential and there are headers... specifying the dates. Are we looking at the same section of the same article? --В²C ☎ 23:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

To readers who don't know much just giving dates as headers is not a good navigational aid, especially compared to the text headers. Let's say I want to know more and want to see a list. I see that they disappeared in Sept 2019 and go down to the corresponding timeline section, and I am instantly bombarded with like 20 items, with the longest and middle-ist and to me most eye-catching one being something about 2 Lori-something people reported by someone's something's private investigator bla bla discarded child items on the curb. How is this related to the incident enough to warrant such a long paragraph? How do these headers provide good navigational aids for someone who wants to know about the subject? How does it make the critical order of events more obvious by drowning everything? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe a much better critical order of events is already included in the lede, the timeline's just a chronological assortment of slightly-related information. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree, I feel like the timeline is currently the biggest drawback keeping the ‘extensive details’ tag on this article. B3251 (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Remove the tag. It’s wrong. Countless articles have far more “extensive details” and there is no such tag on them (and no good reason for it). A timeline is somewhat unusual but this story has so many different facets it’s really the only way to present how they’re related chronologically succinctly. The lede is very good, but it necessarily presents the facets in a non-chronological order, starting of course with the killings of the two children. This has been discussed before, at #Is the timeline really necessary?. В²C ☎ 09:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Firstly it definitely wasn't wrong before this all was removed. Just that certain articles with excessive details are untagged is not a good argument, as it is basically impossible to tag all of them.
The only parts out of chronological order in the lede is paragraph 3. Other than that, it's pretty succint. Every facet of the story is covered in there. The rest is just marriages, births, unrelated deaths, evidence of the children's disappearance, details which aren't needed for an at-a-glance. The detailed coverage is already covered in the other sections. The timeline is just an unnavigatable repeat of information already in the article. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

So, what do we think? Remove the timeline? Either way the timeline is excessive to the article and needs to be dealt with. B3251 (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I would concur with removing it in favor of the lede Aaron Liu (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. B3251 (talk) 11:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I also agree. Mooonswimmer 23:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

How about putting it in a separate sub-article? В²C ☎ 21:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I don’t see how it would be of importance or what criteria warrants such an article. Aaron Liu (talk) 04:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, I find the timeline far more useful and informative than the article narrative text. That’s what I’ve been checking for years to keep apprised about this case. Maybe I’m the only one, but I doubt it. In any case, the only way to kniw for sure either way is to create it and then check page view counts in a few months. В²C ☎ 06:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure then. I've created a draft at Draft:Timeline of the murders of Tylee Ryan and J. J. Vallow. I've also done some hunting and found out that Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists exists. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I too found the timeline page you wrote to be FAR more informative than the current layout of the main article. I haven't really followed this case until the last few weeks and wondered what Lori Vallow was charged with in AZ, when the Lori/Chad trials were severed, when and why the death penalty was removed for Lori, and a few other things I didn't know. After reading your timeline and the attached sources, I found out all of these things in about five minutes without having to wade through a wall of text. Good job! Thank you. SteverB (talk) 02:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Firstly I didn't write that, Born2cycle (B2C) did. Secondly I believe the entire section named "Arrests and criminal charges" should serve that purpose. The only thing that wasn't there was the death penalty (I've now added that) and the severing dates which I don't see why people will seek. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that. I just came back to the article after many months and find the wall of text difficult to follow, and I know the story. To someone unfamiliar with it, it’s much more challenging, I’m sure.

There are so many facets to this particular story that it really needs a compact timeline of events to understand. —В²C ☎ 13:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Title and layout

I am not understanding the format of this article, particularly as there has been a tendency in recent past to downplay the killers. I know the vote was a year ago, but the input does not seem to be decided to me.

It seems like the article was written based upon what was the most notorious at the time: the weird Daybell-Vallow relationship... and the strange secrets, lies, and happenings around Tylee and J.J. A year of reflections gives us a bit more perspective on what the key issues are: serial killings, orchestrated with some unusual mindsets and motivations.

The article now

How would one know from the title about:

1.5 Killing of Charles Vallow

1.6 Shooting of Brandon Boudreaux... perhaps attempted killing

1.7 Murder of Tammy Daybell

1.8 Death of Alex Cox... and is this a crime like the others? should it be in this grouping?

Downplaying of the murder and mixture of Chad and Lori background info when it could be grouped in their section

2 Disappearance of Tylee and J.J.

2.1 Chad Daybell and Lori Vallow's marriage and flight

2.2 Investigations

Added "perhaps attempted killing" in underline.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion and title

My suggestion, based on the objective of downplaying the killers is to:

Have an initial section for the crimes and include all the victims. And, Tylee and J.J. didn't disappear, they were murdered. Four people were killed, not two. And, another was lucky not to be killed.

Have a section for the criminals: mostly Lori and Chad with their current subsection, also Alex and mention his role as a contributor and his death, and subsections for Arrests and criminal charges and Trials.

Perhaps the title could be something like Doomsday cult killings.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Added, clarified thoughts about the criminals sections. I could make the section changes quickly and easily.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello there,

Maybe that's because I have been adding content to the article these past few weeks but I tend to think that the current structure is pretty clear. It's relatively chronological, with 1) who the perpetrators are, their backgrounds, how they met, what made them "click" 2) their crimes 3) the trials. Also, I'm not sure how the article is downplaying anything. On the contrary (and taking into account the fact that Chad Daybell is still currently on trial) it explains in a factual manner what we know about the crimes and their perpetrators.

I'm not sure how putting the crimes before the "background" section would make the article more clear or readable, since the background helps understand the murders. IMHO it would make the article more confusing, if anything.

Also, I'd say it is crucial to highlight the disappearance of Tylee and J.J. : they did disappear (before it turned out that they had been murdered) and it was precisely their disappearance (and the extremely suspicious behavior of Chad and Lori while they were missing) that set the case in motion.

I agree that the subsection about Alex Cox's death could be moved elsewhere. Maybe it was put there because this death is included among the "suspicious events" (which it is) listed in the introduction ? Perhaps we could move that subsection in the "background" section and turn into into a subsection called simply "Alex Cox" if we add some biographical content about him.

Maybe laying out precisely how you envision the article structure would make it easier to understand what you'd like to do ?

As for the title, I'm not sure. The current title is about the most notorious aspect of the Chad/Lori case, which I find appropriate. Is "Doomsday cult killings" (or Doomsday cult murders, or something to that effect) widely used in the media ? Psychloppos (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I think I have taken into consideration most of your points. The children disappeared, but they were killed within a day or so of going missing. I agree about the suspicious behavior. That might be better than "dramatic events" that were occurring during the investigations.

The Doomsday cult killings is used for this case... and Doomsday cult is used in the intro... but I just saw that Doomsday cult killings is a title used for other cases as well (Uganda, Kenya, somewhere in the states). Who knew? Since the Doomsday cult, assigning dark, etc. started with Daybell, perhaps the Daybell Doomsday cult killings? I don't know, but Tammy and Charles sure lost their lives.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposed layout

Psychloppos You've made some good points. I've put together this outline and dropped in the dates just to help sort out the timing, not to be in the headings.

1 Background

1.1 Chad Daybell

1.1.1 Writing and publishing career

1.1.2 Religious radicalization

1.2 Lori Vallow Daybell

1.2.1 First marriages

1.2.2 Marriage with Charles Vallow

1.3 Lori Vallow and Chad Daybell meet

1.4 Lori and Chad's beliefs

2 Deaths and shooting

2.1 Killing of Charles Vallow - July 11, 2019

2.2 Prepare by moving to Rexburg - August 2019 - not needed, but kind of pivotal

2.3 Disappearance and murder of Tylee Ryan - c. September 9, 2019 - separate the two children or

2.4 Disappearance and murder of J.J. Vallow - c. September 23, 2019 - keep them combined

2.5 Shooting of Brandon Boudreaux - October 2019

2.6 Murder of Tammy Daybell - October 19, 2019

3. Investigations and suspicious events - Starts in September or October?

3.1 Chad Daybell and Lori Vallow's marriage and flight - November 2019

3.2 Death of Alex Cox - December 2019

4 Arrests and criminal charges

4.1 Lori's arrest - February 2020

4.2 Discovery of the children's remains and Chad's arrest - June 2020

4.3 Charges

5 Trials

6 In popular culture

7 See also

8 Notes

9 References

10 External links

How does that look? I would be happy to piece it together in a draft.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Color coded to make it easier to sort out the differences.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I had an edit conflict, so I am just pasting this in for the moment and will reply to the previous posting.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit to add "Disappearance" to the section(s) for the children.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I understand better. There wouldn't be any major changes besides making the structure completely chronological.

I have to say that "Killings and attempted killing" and "dramatic events" seem a little odd to me, though. It might be useful to have other opinions. Psychloppos (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

We could change attempted killing back to shooting... and I mentioned that I liked your "suspicious behavior" instead of "dramatic events". I made the changes and underlined them in the layout. How does that look?

The intention wasn't to make it completely chronological, but hearing what you said, my new layout ideas were able to work out that way.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know, "suspicious behavior" seems a bit odd too (does dying count as "behavior" ?). Note that I used the phrase "suspicious events" (not behavior) but I wasn't suggesting we use this as a title. We might use "Investigations and developments" for lack of a better idea...

What I am thinking about is: the cat-and-mouse game about where the children were supposed to be, Daybell and Vallow going to Hawaii, getting married, all the crazy things that happened simultaneously with the investigations (the kids, and after realizing something was up, about Tammy, too. I guess Brandon as well.)

I think "suspicious events" is better than "developments". But either works.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

About the use of the word "killing": my understanding is that it is currently used in the title of the subsection about Charles Vallow's death because this death has not been ruled a murder yet (Lori Vallow has yet to stand trial for this). So I'm not sure it would be appropriate to use it everywhere.

Good point. I think of it that way, too. How about Deaths and shooting?–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

As for the title of the article, I don't know if it would be useful to change it or if we should stick to the current one. The children's murders are arguably the most famous aspect of the case, first because of their horrific nature (the idea of a man killing his wife of 30 years is certainly horrible, but a mother killing her two children even more so) and second because they set the whole case in motion (if the children hadn't gone missing, the perpetrators may have gotten away with Charles and Tammy's deaths).

I see your point. I was horrified about everything that happened to the children, starting with moving and taking away JJ's service dog. But, trying to remove everyone inconvenient makes JJ's and Tylee's deaths worse to me in the big picture. There are four victims. This brings it into serial or multiple killer (I forget the latest terms). It is so utterly cruel, single-minded, and heartless for all four people, in my opinion.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I guess that the current structure of the article is determined by the fact that Tylee and JJ's murders are more notorious that the other crimes. This explains that Charles and Tammy's deaths, and Boudreaux's attempter murder, are included in the "Background" section. We may of course change that, but that may require a general consensus as the structure is currently consistent with the title. If we don't rename the article, changing the structure will make less sense.

I agree about consensus and it doesn't make sense to change the article structure without changing the name.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

If you wish to suggest a new title for the article, go ahead, but I'm not sure we can reach a consensus on that. Psychloppos (talk) Psychloppos (talk) 07:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know that mine are any better, but perhaps running the format change and new title for discussion might include these or trigger other options:

• Daybell doomsday deaths and shooting (all five)
• Vallows, Ryan, and Daybell deaths (four)
• Murder of Vallow, Ryan, and Daybell (three)
• Deaths and shooting involving Daybell and Vallow (five)
• Rexburg killings in 2019 - not sure if this is the geographic area for JJ, Tylee, and Tammy.

Right now, I don't know that I have anything new to say about why it's important to bring more attention to Charles and Tammy - or perhaps make separate articles for them. Maybe that's the solution - keep them where they are in this article but link to two separate articles that explore those deaths more fully. I would do that. And, I guess leave Brandon where he is, too. A con is it could bubble up as a merge discussion later.

My wanting to include them more fully doesn't mean that I think Tylee and JJ's stories are less important, less dramatic, and what pulled us into the stories to begin with.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I just thought of a distinction between the two formats. The current format explains the news cycles as they happened for JJ and Tylee. The new format focuses on what are all the deaths and shooting related to Daybell and Vallow.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

It was easier and I think clearer to drop in comments after each paragraph.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Four options

Thinking about this more, I think that there are four options:

1. Do nothing
2. Change the format as proposed
3. Create an article for Charles and one for Tammy
4. Create an article based on section 2 of the proposed layout, with links to this article for JJ and Tylee. Possible titles:

• Daybell doomsday deaths and shooting (all five)
• Deaths and shooting involving Daybell and Vallow (all five)

(I changed labels for two headings in the proposed layout based upon our discussion - to try them on for size). Added title possibilities.––CaroleHenson (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

For #4 with additional information to round out each topic. Not a copy and paste from here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure. None of these titles seem really satisfactory to me. Admittedly, it is tricky to find a perfect, comprehensive title for this case. But each one of these options has its problems and I don't see how they could be an improvement from the current one.

Maybe an input from other users could help us find additional options, but right now I'm not quite convinced that we need to rename this page. Psychloppos (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

There's no question that the biggest hurdle as far as getting consensus is #2. It needs approval of the layout and the title.

Of options 3 and 4, I like option 4. It just seems much cleaner with a fuller picture to me, and focuses on each of the affected individuals within the context of the entire master plan.

I am willing to draft the article - and then put it up for discussion and consensus-gathering on this talk page for the content and title. I am really excited about the 4th option and appreciate how you've provided focus for wording choices.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

New proposed titles:

• Daybell and Vallow doomsday plan
• Daybell and Vallow doomsday deaths
• Daybell and Vallow doomsday cult deaths

I am thinking about starting the draft with the last one. It can always be changed with input and on the move to article space.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Struck out one option - could mean different things - and take the article to different places.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's not rush things. We can afford to wait for opinions by other users.

After all, Chad Daybell's trial is still underway and Lori Vallow has yet to stand trial in Arizona so this page may evolve again. Psychloppos (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts:

• The issues are timely, I expect there will be more, at least a little more, about Charles and perhaps Brandon. As well as things that come to light about the others over time.
• I have a good outline and thought process and in my experience, it's good to go with inertia.
• I expect it will take a week or two and I can change course, if needed. I definitely expect this article to continue to grow.
• I anticipate a different objective, content, and approach - with all relevant info for a given person in their section - but threads that go through the background and other stories.

I have a draft to request input that I am about to post. I generally write articles in two to three days, I intend to take my time.

Thanks so much for all your input, we covered a lot of ground - and all the work on this article!–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Renaming the article

As I mention below, I agree that the article (and readers) would be better served by a different title. There's so much content that isn't directly related to Tylee and JJ's murders, yet it adds to the greater context. I don't think Daybell and Vallow doomsday cult deaths is perfect, but I think it better reflects the scope and framing of the article. Schazjmd (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't know; I am not necessarily against renaming the article, but I'm just not very excited about the proposed title.

Does Wikipedia have a clear policy on naming the articles about murders who do not have a widely-accepted name ? I saw for example that the article about Luka Rocco Magnotta had been renamed Murder of Jun Lin, even though Magnotta is much more famous than his victim.

Anyway, if we rename the article we'd have to find the right title and it should be addressed in a formal renaming request. Psychloppos (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Cool idea. I looked I couldn't figure out how to make the request so I posted this at Teahouse.

There was a recent title change to Bathtub Girls murder. I thought that was interesting.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The talk pages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography and WP:Title might be more appropriate to ask questions about title conventions. It would be better to ask about the policy on crime articles before starting a debate.

As for the formal renaming request, I was simply mentioning a move proposal, like the previous one here.

It seems normal that we settle for the most common name (as in Moors murders for example), but I'm not sure this case has one so far. Psychloppos (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The Teahouse response from Michael D. Turnbull was: "One possibility if you can't reach consensus with others in discussion is to alert editors from interested Projects via a neutrally-worded request on a Project Talk Page to come and comment (see WP:CANVASS). Don't forget that WP:Redirects can be used for article titles, so in the end it may not matter much which title is the one used if there are several nearly-equal options. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)"

Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography sounds like a great place to canvasrequest input, Psychloppos. Would you like to post something there? Or, I would be happy to do it if you like?–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It looks like I ran out of fresh brain cells before I ran out of day. I do my best, really, but I have a cognitive and memory problems that were the reasons I started writing here in 2011 to keep as many brain cells alive and vital as I can and it's nice when the synapses fire in some kind of order. Wikipedia has been very good and I am very thankful to be here with all of you. Hope it's not an overshare, and just trying to let you into my world for a second and myself slide past patterns of embarrassment.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Input: New article

@Aaron Liu, Born2cycle, Psychloppos, CookieMonster755, B3251, Noloader, Locke Cole, Shoot for the Stars, Schazjmd, and Japarthur:@162 etc.:

I have an idea for a new article to:

• Focus on all the deaths related to the Daybell and Vallow doomsday cult and how it fits their master plan
• Perhaps - very fluid - titled "Daybell and Vallow doomsday cult deaths"
• Within the context of the overall objective or plan - how each death was a puzzle piece towards their desired outcome

I am willing to draft an article upfront without expectations with this proposed layout

1 Background (A high level summary of Daybell and Vallow's objectives and plans as they relate to the deaths)

2 Deaths and shooting

2.1 Killing of Charles Vallow (July 11, 2019)

2.2 Prepare by moving to Rexburg (August 2019, pivotal step)

2.3 Disappearance and murder of Tylee Ryan (c. September 9, 2019)

2.4 Disappearance and murder of J.J. Vallow (c. September 23, 2019)

2.5 Shooting of Brandon Boudreaux (October 2019)

2.6 Murder of Tammy Daybell (October 19, 2019)

• Discuss relevant investigations, relevant charges, legal issues/suits in each section
• Dates and comments in small just for context, not meant for the headings.

It would not duplicate the Daybell and Vallow background sections of this article - and likely not the trial and other lower sections. They are covered quite well in the JJ and Tylee article and there's no need to replicate them.

Requested input - do you support me drafting this article, with no expectations, with the idea of presenting it to this talk page with potential article titles in a week or two?

I would put a link to the draft if I move ahead so people could weigh-in regarding content if they wanted to.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Missed a few pings @Nythar, Fourthords, Drown Soda, and Technetium 99m:. Sorry about that!–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

You mean you want to split the article ? Or do you want to create another one ? About what ? Psychloppos (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the need for this. The relevant sections are covered in detail here already. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I stopped watching this article long ago. Reading it now, I think it's best to pursue renaming this article (above discussion) rather than starting a new one that will cover much of the same information. The scope of the content in this article isn't properly captured by the current title. All of the various events/attacks/deaths/murders are related to the same context necessary for reader understanding, so it wouldn't make sense to try to span articles. Schazjmd (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

My original intention was to pull the deaths and shootings into one section and rename the article. See #Proposed layout. I got the impression that wasn't workable because the focus should be on JJ and Tylee. There are more victims and it's an inter-related web of deaths, is my point. I personally think it would be better to make the changes to this article and rename it. There is so much good here. If we could pull together the info about the deaths, that would help make it more cohesive than having Charles, Tammy, and Brandon handled one way and JJ and Tylee another.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, but how would splitting the article make anything more cohesive ? I still don't understand what you'd like to do. Psychloppos (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not talking about splitting the article.

I am only talking about making a cohesive Deaths and shooting section - Section 2 in both layouts. That's all we've talked about. There may not be any rewriting if the subsections just were grouped together in this article. That could be done in a couple of hours.

If the JJ and Tyle article remained and there was no expression of how the deaths were related, I thought of a separate article for Section 2 with a newm different background. I got that idea when you said that it didn't make sense to change the article or the title.

I could add more content about each of the deaths and more fully explore their master plan to be together and how the each of the deaths were like puzzle pieces towards that end.

So again, the point is a cohesive section about the deaths... Section 2.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Having a separate article for section 2 is basically splitting the article. I don't see the use for that. Psychloppos (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Cool. If we could group the deaths and shooting and rename the article to be more inclusive and have a more cohesive handling of the deaths, that would be wonderful!–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if it will be wonderful but it might improve the article's readability a little bit (not that I find it that hard to read). Then again, as I said above, we'd have to build consensus through a formal renaming discussion and keep in mind that renaming the article is a prerequisite for changing its structure.

IMHO the easiest thing to do would be to move the section about Alex Cox's death. We could do that without making major changes to the article's structure. I'll propose the move in a separate section on this talk page. Psychloppos (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

From what I am reading on this, it's best not to have an article that covers the deaths. It's better to rename this article and do a bit of regrouping (#Proposed layout). I am happy to withdraw this offer... unless further conversation is needed (I sometimes move too fast).–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

"Death of Alex Cox" subsection move proposal

I'm not sure that including the subsection about Cox's death in the "Background" section is completely appropriate. At first glance, one may get the impression that his death is part of the crimes attributed to Chad Daybell and Lori Vallow, which it isn't so far (though it can be included in the "suspicious events" surrounding the children's disappearance, and is mentioned that way in the lead section).

I'm thinking about moving the subsection in the "Disappearance of Tylee and J.J." section. IMHO it might make more sense there while making the article a little more chronological. Let me know if you're ok with this? Psychloppos (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It makes sense to move the "Death of Alex Cox". I don't understand why it would go under Tylee and J.J. It wasn't related to their death.

I had suggested:

• Grouping the deaths (except Alex) and shooting together (Section 2 in #Proposed layout), rather than having Charles Vallow's death, Tammy Daybell's murder, and Brandon's shooting in "Background".
• And grouping, from a chronological perspective, "Investigations and suspicious events" (Section 3 in #Proposed layout), in with the crazy things that happened during the investigations, like Daybell and Vallow going to Hawaii and getting married, the cat-and-mouse "J.J. is a safe and he's happy" kind of comment and Tylee is at college game when they had been dead since about the day they went missing. And, Alex's death might fit in there as a strange-and-suspicious kind of activity.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

As an aside, Psychloppos, I noticed yesterday that you have been doing the lion's share of the work on this article and it was a complicated story to tell. Really, when I think of how confused I was at the time, you've done an amazing job! I can see why the focus was on JJ and Tylee inititally because of the heated (and really confusing) news cycles. Thanks for that.

I think what could be some minor formatting and renaming to be more inclusive could add some nice polishing and make it easier for the reader to understand all the deaths (except Alex).

add pin and re-sign.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The idea would be to put the subsection about the death of Alex Cox after "Investigation". It happened after and in the context of the kids disappearance, just like Chad and Lori's marriage and flight, so it would make sense from a chronological point of view.

Then of course, we may also leave the article as it is. Psychloppos (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Just so I am understanding, it seems what you are saying is the sections would look like this:

2 Disappearance of Tylee and J.J.

2.1 Chad Daybell and Lori Vallow's marriage and flight

2.2 Investigations

2.3 Death of Alex Cox

This section has an investigations subsection - pretty much just about Tylee and J.J., which as it stands makes sense because that's the name of the section. Other than a bit about exhumation of Tammy's body, it would seem there have been no other investigations. How is Alex's death related specifically to the disappearance of Tylee and JJ?

It seems to me that out of everyone in this story's bad fate, Tammy's seems the most tied to Chad and Lori's escape to Hawaii and marriage... if that was to be grouped with someone's specific murder.

And this means the following subsections are still under Background

1.5 Killing of Charles Vallow

1.6 Shooting of Brandon Boudreaux

1.7 Murder of Tammy Daybell

How is the shooting of Brandon and murder of Tammy "background" when they occurred in the month after Tylee and J.J. were murdered?–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I think about how important this article is. How proud you should be about the work you have done on it... I really mean that. I feel a sense of protection that you have about Tylee and J.J. - that you need the article to be a certain way for them.

I like how you focused on making one change in a way that is safe. I wonder if pulling Charles, Brandon, Tammy, and Alex out of Background would be a nice change that helps the article but isn't too dramatic.

It's a strange kind of comment to make, I know.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

This is "background" in the sense that Tylee and JJ's murders are the main subject of this article. Per the lead section: "Amid the disappearances was a string of suspicious deaths and events".

As for Alex Cox's death, it happened in the context of Chad and Lori's marriage and flight, which in turn happened in the context of the disappearances. Psychloppos (talk) 06:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

But disappearance of Tylee and JJ did not happen "Amid the disappearances was a string of suspicious deaths and events" of Brandon, Tammy, and Alex. They didn't. Tylee and J.J. were dead before then. You and I may have been waiting, wondering, and biting our nails for them for months, but really, they were dead the day or one day after they went missing. They were missing because they were dead.

In the whole scheme of things, how important is it that they stay in "Background"?

I am feeling we are at an empasse, but I gave it one last try. I think we're ready for a third opinion or to reach out to the True Crime project / group you mentioned. You never answered whether you wanted to write up a request or have me do it, so I am happy to write it up today or tomorrow unless you feel differently now.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

This was not my idea so you may do it yourself if you like. Psychloppos (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 19 May 2024

The following discussion 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.

---

There has been some discussion for some time about renaming the article because it covers the deaths of Charles Vallow, Tylee Ryan, J.J. Vallow, and Tammy Daybell... as well as the shooting of Brandon Boudreau, but the title and sections are focused on Tylee and J.J.

Upon reluctance to change the title and layout of the article (#Proposed layout), I suggested a #Input: New article just about the deaths - but adding more information about why each person's death was part of the Daybell-Vallow plan and how they were interrelated (i.e., some duplicate info about the deaths, but none of the other sections). That option did not fly, but responders said that they thought it would be better to rename and made some adjustments to the article.

It would be nice to resolve this so that there was better reflection of the involved parties. One suggestion is "Daybell and Vallow doomsday cult deaths" Assistance is greatly appreciated. This is a summary for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• How about something more CONCISE? Idaho cult deaths, perhaps? —В²C ☎ 05:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Born2cycle and Psychloppos: I think this is viable enough to be considered in a list of options to vote on (to my point at the bottom of this discussion right now). It doesn't get Charles, that's true, but hopefully Charles' role becomes clearer within the article. Consise is good - and Arizona and Idaho cult dealths might be confusing.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

One problem is that one of the killings (not yet gone to trial) occurred in Arizona, not in Idaho.

Another thing is that while there was indeed some sort of a cult around Chad Daybell and Lori Vallow, and that it seems to have been instrumental in "grooming" their accomplice (Alex Cox) the murders appear to have been mostly related to the private lives of Daybell and Vallow and less to the "cult" itself. On Vallow's case, the court ruled that the religious stuff was a bizarre rabbit hole to justify her crimes, and not the cause of said crimes.

So while I'm not against renaming the page, I'm not sure we can find a 100% appropriate title.

At the end of the day, I'm not even even sure that it would be useful to rename. Psychloppos (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Additionally may be important to note that Tylee and J.J.'s disappearances and murders sparked the media attention towards the Daybell/Vallow case along with each death or misc. event surrounding it. Fundamentally, the kids' murders are the reason why the strange sequence of events leading up to it started receiving attention and investigation. B3251 (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, it's still by far the most notable aspect of the case. Which is why the current title and layout are not really a problem. It may not be perfect (I doubt that we can have a perfect title for this article anyway), but it's not confusing either. Psychloppos (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

If the focus of the article should remain on Tylee and J.J., then IMHO there should be a separate article for Tammy Daybell. It doesn't need to be a split, because there's not much focus about her and what's in the intro could be trimmed down and the section about her taken out all together, with her article linked in Chad's section. Splitting Pulling her out of this article seems to be the way to go, especially since the title of the article with Tammy's name was turned down.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Clarify.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Got it. How about simply Doomsday murders? If you Google for that, this article is first on the results, demonstrating this name is already commonly associated with this topic. — В²C ☎ 22:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, works sense to me.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

While I agree the case was certainly most notable for the two missing kids initially, as the title it implies a too narrow a scope. This is a complex story, but I don’t think it helps to tell it in separate articles. All these crazy elements are tied together and need to presented here. — В²C ☎ 05:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

"Doomsday murders" fails to convey what this article is about: unfortunately there are other cases involving "Doomsday cults". It may have been used by some media but IMHO it works only in context and not as the title of a Wikipedia article.

One option could be something like "Vallow-Daybell murder case" but I have no idea if that works.

Then again, I still think the kids' murders remain, even now, the most notorious aspect of the case so I'm not sure renaming the page would be beneficial in any way. Psychloppos (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Just because there are other cases that “Doomsday murders” could refer to does not preclude us from using it as the title of this article. I don’t see how it fails to convey what this article is about. It’s exactly about the murders commonly named the “doomsday murders” or “doomsday cult murders” or “doomsday prophet murders”. —В²C ☎ 16:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, precisely they don't seem to be most commonly named like that.

IMHO the names of the perpetrators and nature of the murders are more famous than the "Doomsday cults" concept. If anything the most notorious name is Lori Vallow's "Doomsday Mom" nickname. Psychloppos (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I think we agree there is no clear COMMONNAME for this topic and therefore a descriptive title of our own conception is necessary. We have more latitude because of that, though we must strive to meet WP:CRITERIA as best as we can. The current title conveys a scope more limited than the content. How about Vallow-Daybell doomsday murders? — В²C ☎ 17:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't know. Since the Daybells are not talking we're not even sure if those doomsday beliefs played that much of a role - other than providing them some weird justification - or if it was more about greed and lust.

We might just wait and see what other users more familiar with naming conventions will have to say about that. Psychloppos (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Isn't the point what will be recognizable by the readers? We're not going to come up with a perfect name, but a good name that is recognizable seems like a good way to go. It's easy to pick apart each name, but perhaps we can focus on what seems the best of the bunch? I don't think the analysis needs to go into what the Daybell Vallows are thinking right now - if nothing else, the world did not end - kind of bursts his conception of things.

Is this a matter to be solved by consensus? How can we come up with a couple of good options to vote on, rather than picking apart an option at a time and moving past what might meet common acceptance?

There are some viable options in red links here now. What about the goal see if we have enough options or to find 1 or 2 more options... and then put it for a vote?–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

RMs that offer a single alternative to the current title work best. I see the purpose here as choosing an alternative to offer in a formal RM. I agree with you that knowing how much of a role the doomsday beliefs actually played in the murders is irrelevant. What matters is making the topic recognizable from the title to readers who are familiar with the case. I think the current title implies a scope narrower than the actual scope. Vallow-Daybell doomsday murders has no such limitations, and certainly meets WP:RECOGNIZABLE. В²C ☎ 22:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Great, I like that one. Thanks for explaining the best approach.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:09, 23 May 2024 (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.

Requested move 23 May 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Polyamorph (talk) 07:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

---

Murders of Tylee Ryan and J. J. Vallow → Vallow–Daybell doomsday murders – The current title refers to only two victims which implies a narrower scope than is actually covered by this article. Since there is no clear COMMONNAME for this topic, per Wikipedia:Article_titles#Descriptive_title we must use a descriptive title of our own conception. With this proposed title we strive to meet WP:CRITERIA as best as we can, choosing one that would be very WP:RECOGNIZABLE to anyone familiar with the topic, and is more WP:PRECISE because it is not hampered by scope limitations like the current title is. В²C ☎ 05:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Support For all of the reasons stated in the original proposal.--–uncleben85 (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Support for the reasons stated in Born2cycle's summary.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Support Charles Vallow and Tammy Daybell were also murdered by these monsters so the change of the title makes total sense. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Support People will be searching those names. Matuko (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't we be renaming the page ?

It seems that a consensus has been reached. Could someone make the move ? I didn't vote but I did take part in the discussion that preceded so I don't know if I can do it myself. We should have a verdict in Chad Daybell's trial really soon and it would be a pity to still have the template on the page. Psychloppos (talk)

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.

Inaccurate Information

You have so many statements that are incorrect in this document that I suggest you review your sources, adopt needed information and re-write the entire article. This is an embarrassment to the truth and very disturbing. 72.107.70.63 (talk) 03:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

It's a big article and there have been many contributors. Since you are sure that there are inaccurate statements, would you please provide examples? In other words, to make a blanket statement without specific examples and sources, is a weak complaint for a well-cited article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Inaccurate infromation is generally based upon the sources. There are four sources that could be updated, like Twitter, imdb, etc. There's a new tool that identifies less than stellar sources (User:Headbomb/unreliable.js (script-installer)), I will work on that later today - and what content is associated to that source - and see if I can find reliable sources for it. Perhaps that will identify any inaccurate information or allow me to find better sources.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done here, except I did not make the edit to "undug". Edits made to the content of the article based upon the sources.

There are some "marginally reliable" sources remaining, but did not seem to warrant being removed (see User:Headbomb/unreliable): Insider, Daily Beast, and Fox News.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Added underlined part for clarity.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Reverted edits

Psychloppos, You removed the verbiage used in the source here and added the Woodcock's names.

After I added back the relationships, which was the only part used in the source, and added a source with the names, you reverted that edit here. I don't understand what is wrong with stating what the source says (which doesn't mention the Woodcocks) and adding a citation for the relationship and names.

I agree that it is better to have the Woodcock's names. That's why I found and added a source for them. I believe that it is clearer for anyone following the sources to have the relationships from the source that doesn't have their names. I properly cite content. If you don't, could that be how the user thought that there was inaccurate information (another theory might be that they got their information from very unreliable sources and believed it)?–CaroleHenson (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see the point in this. Saying that the characters are respectively Lori's sister-in-law and her sister-in-law's husband is just needlessly confusing to the reader. Anyone who has read the article will know who the Woodcocks are. And as far as we can tell, the actors were credited as playing Kay and Larry Woodcock so the real people's names were used. Anyway, in case there is any doubt, I added a source specifying that Linda Purl and Patricky Duffy play JJ Vallow's grandparents. Psychloppos (talk)

Yep, I see that the article already says Woodcock is Vallow's sister. If we've keep the source that makes the connection, I will remove the in-law relationship.–CaroleHenson (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I would really appreciate if you did not leave this kind of messages on my talk page again. Psychloppos (talk) 11:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Psychloppos

I see the edit is done. We're good.

I stated in the edit summary to "see talk page" and you still reverted the edit. To avoid getting the message, rather than reverting an edit twice (three times can end in a block), seek consensus and discuss, per WP:BRD. I rarely have to use this once I have added to the edit summary to "see the talk page" and posted a message there. In the rare cases that I have used it (haven't used it in several years), people turn to discussion.

In this case, you were right, the relationships weren't needed because the relationship to Charles Vallow was already in the article. We only got there, though, through discussion.–CaroleHenson (talk) 11:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see that you: "added a source specifying that Linda Purl and Patricky Duffy play JJ Vallow's grandparents." There had been a source that stated a relationship, but it was removed as an unreliable source. One of the edits stated in this section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 11:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I reverted you once and you leave a threatening message on my talk page. That was really uncalled for, so I'm done for now.

As for the sources, I suggest you look at the article's history. And indeed, I think we should avoid verbiage in this article or elsewhere. Psychloppos (talk) 11:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I see two edits this and this, but in looking that up, I see that I added "see the talk page" after the 2nd edit. I didn't revert it (to avoid an edit war), so you didn't revert it. I am sorry. In principle, it's best not to make the same edit twice (once typing, once reverting to typed edit), it's better to discuss. No one gets angry, things get resolved quickly. No edit warring. I could have done that, too, in this case. So, sorry again.

Of course, brevity is good. Once you explained what was going on, I understood we didn't need to add the relationship.–CaroleHenson (talk) 12:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

New section layout

Psychloppos I like the new section layout. Looks good!–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Much better. Amazing how the previous title stifled the narrative. — В²C ☎ 22:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Was Lori Vallow excommunicated from the LDS Church or is she still a member ?

Someone added that both Chad and Lori were excommunicated by the LDS Church. That is a fact for Chad but I haven't found anything about Lori (though I'd be shocked if that wasn't the case). Does anyone have a source for this ? Psychloppos (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Same question about a year ago on Reddit. Apparently not. — В²C ☎ 22:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

If we have nothing about Lori being excommunicated, we might as well remove this information from the lead section. Psychloppos (talk) 09:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Infoboxes for Charles Vallow and Tammy Daybell?

Just wondering, should we add infoboxes for Charles and Tammy? Perhaps in their sections?–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and maybe the killers should go first? With a special section for victim pics? — В²C ☎ 05:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Adding infoboxes for Tammy and Charles would make sense.

As for Chad and Lori's infoboxes they're in the sections about them, which seems normal. We should check how putting them first, and putting the infoboxes for the kids below, would impact the page's readability. Psychloppos (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I will add the ones for Charles and Tammy.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I added those two and found an infobox to summarize the crimes / events. I moved J. J. and Tylee down to their disappearance section. See what you think.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with this. If we could find a way to make the children's infoboxes a little smaller if would be better for readability but that's alright. Psychloppos (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I reduced the size of J. J.'s photo so it's the same width of Tylee's. And, I added <small></small> around the infoboxes for them. How does that look?–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd say it's a bit better. Psychloppos (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Tammy's place of death

I was initially confused about why Tammy was said to have died in Salem, Utah while I had always read that she died at her home, which was in Idaho. Per this obituary it appears that she died in Salem, Idaho which is not a city but a neighborhood in Rexburg, Idaho where the Daybells resided. This may have caused some confusion in the media. Psychloppos (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I see. Thanks so much!–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Police investigation section?

First, the article is excellent. Great job. Future candidate for Featured Article.

But I just learned from reading post-trial statements that the police in Idaho got involved because of the Boudreaux shooting. The search for the Jeep somehow led to the discovery of the kids being missing. This whole aspect, how it unraveled for law enforcement, is not really covered.

Should we have a section on that?

— В²C ☎ 23:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I had been thinking that we could use some additional info about when and how the police found that Tylee was missing. So far we had only the fact that it was while searching for JJ.

If the search for the jeep led to that discovery, it should definitely be included though perhaps not in a separate section (we already have this one about the investigations). Where did you find a source for this ? It would be interesting to know if they found about Tylee's disappearance in November or December.

By the way, if Boudreaux was shot at on October 2 and could give the license plate to law enforcement, they probably found out that it was registered to Charles Vallow in a matter of days. I wonder why it took so long to connect Tylee (who was known to use that vehicle) and Lori to that part of the investigations. If the source that you found explains that, it would be great. Psychloppos (talk) 06:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

“ Four and a half years ago, Detective Ray Hermisillo walked into our office needing a warrant for what started as a simple search for a Jeep to help an investigation in Chandler, Arizona. This soon turned into a search for two young children Tylee Ryan and JJ Vallow.“ source В²C ☎ 16:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok: I had misread your message and understood that it was connected with the discovery that Tylee was missing.

It would be best to have a more precise chronology but I think we could use that to source how prosecutors in Idaho got involved. I'll try to write something later today or maybe tomorrow. Psychloppos (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I had a few minutes to kill so I added this. Psychloppos (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Title changed

Why has the title been changed? RailwayFan12345 (talk) 08:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

See #Requested move 23 May 2024 --В²C ☎ 05:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

And why had the photos of the two victims being taken off the lead? RailwayFan12345 (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)sock strike

Infoboxes

I put back the infoboxes about the perpetrators and victims, that someone had removed. Do you think they should be kept ? Articles about crimes generally include infoboxes about the perpetrator(s) and/or victim(s). They may be useful for including some specific informations, such as the perpetrators' biographical details, nicknames given by the media, etc. Thanks. Psychloppos (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

That shouldn't be included - see WP:PSEUDO. The topic of this article is the murders, not the perpetrators and/or victims. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

They are crucial to the subject of this article - especially the perpetrators - so that page is not relevant here.

Also, infoboxes generally improve readability so this should not be a point of contention.Psychloppos (talk) 06:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Of course it's relevant. They are notable only in connection with these murders, so don't warrant a full biography. The templates are designed to summarize[] key facts about the page's subject - which in this case is the murders. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not relevant IMHO. The aim is not to create a "pseudo-biography" but to highlight some basic biographical facts about someone whose is central to the subject. Infoboxes also have the distinct advantage of improving articles' readability. Articles about notable crimes on Wikipedia commonly have biographical infoboxes about the perpetrators and/or victims. If you think that's wrong, you're welcome to adress the issue where it should be discussed and to try to find a consensus. Psychloppos (talk) 15:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

At the moment the guidelines don't support that practice. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

My position is that they do and that you read the guidelines too stricly. In cases like this one, the victims and/or perpetrators are also the article's subjects, as their actions and biographies are integral to what happened. But as I said, you're welcome to start a discussion about this practice, which is a very common one on WIkipedia. Psychloppos (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: please stop edit warring and try to build a consensus about your proposed changes, as they would impact a lot of articles on Wikipedia. Psychloppos (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@CookieMonster755, Born2cycle, Aaron Liu, Shoot for the Stars, and Nythar: do you have any thoughts about whether we should use these infoboxes or not ? Thanks. Psychloppos (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

While the cited page is an essay (@Nikkimaria see the banner on top), I find myself agreeing with its reasoning that including such material would invite padding out the events with unrelated biographical info.

The essay definitely applies: it's about covering individuals without independent notability in events they are notable for; it applies when the person is notable only in connection with a single event, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography Aaron Liu (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. If the page is just an essay then we don't necessarily have to comply to it. However, if you do think that in this case the infoboxes make the article too padded, then perhaps we may dispense with some of them. Specifically, I think that the infoboxes about the victims may not be indispensable (though we do need the children's photos) as they do not bring essential informations. On the other hand, I'd say we should keep the infoboxes about the perpetrators because we do have rather lengthy biographical sections about them, their biographies are central to the page, and to some extent they are also the subjects of the article (their names are even included in the title). So if we dispense with the infoboxes about the victims, I'd say we should keep those about Chad and Lori. They do contain some valuable basic info about them, they increase readability and they don't make the pages look too padded. What do you think ? Psychloppos (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The essential information is already in the article's infobox (which should probably be converted to {{infobox civilian attack}} someday). The infoboxes for the people invite information like the Miss Texas that are quite unrelated to the subject of the article; that the title includes their names isn't quite relevant as the perpetrators don't have independent notability.
If the page is just an essay then we don't necessarily have to comply to it. Nominally, yes. However, the page was a proposed guideline. It was scrutinized by the community and the biggest objection was just about enforcement; in fact, "do no harm" is a principle cemented by WP:BLP, a policy. Many essays under the Wikipedia namespace are ideas shared by many editors. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I have read this entire discussion, all of WP:PSEUDO, the link to info boxes, and the article. I fail to see a reason to remove the boxes, and fully agree they are appropriate and very helpful here. I note the comment associated with the first removal is simply “rm dup”, as if info in an info box duplicating information in the article is justification for removal. Umm, the MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE is explicitly “to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article.” That’s exactly what these boxes are doing in this article. Info about the perpetrators and victims are certainly “key facts” that appear in the article. Also, the whole point of PSEUDO is that people who are notable for one event usually don’t warrant a separate biography article; their bio is supposed to be covered in the article about the event. That exactly what we have here. Unless someone can produce sound reasoning to remove the info boxes I suggest this effort be dropped as it is disruptive. I for one would like the hour I spent on this back. — В²C ☎ 14:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I do feel much weaker in my stance on this; I'd be fine with either way now. However,

the whole point of PSEUDO is that people who are notable for one event usually don’t warrant a separate biography article; their bio is supposed to be covered in the article about the event.

No, the whole point is that people who don't warrant a separate biography article should not have their entire biography included in the event they were notable in. For example, stuff like how Lori was a hairdresser and pageant person once is unimportant and quite irrelevant to the topic. The key facts that are present in the perps & victims' infoboxes should be able to be covered by {{infobox civilian attack}}.

I for one would like the hour I spent on this back.

Well, you're on Wikipedia. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

About that PSEUDO says only this: “that person should be covered in an article regarding the event”. Per PSEUDO Lori Vallow should be covered in this article about the event she is notable for. Noting she used to be a hairdresser is part of covering her. A hairdresser. Not a doctor, teacher, engineer, or a scientist. A hairdresser. Sorry, but that’s notable. — В²C ☎ 14:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

In general, creating a pseudo-biography (on an individual who is only notable because of their participation in a single event) will mean that an editor creating the article will try to "pad out" the piece by including extraneous biographical material, e.g. their date and place of birth, family background, hobbies and employment, etc. Such information, in many cases, will fail the inclusion test, as it is unlikely to have been widely publicised in the media. When in doubt, concentrate on the notable event, rather than invading privacy for the sake of padding out an unnecessary biography.

Sorry, but that's notable. Notable how? Aaron Liu (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

That’s referring to filler in pseudo biographies. We’re not talking about a pseudo biography; this is about an example of the antidote to a PSEUDO: cover the bio material in the article about the one event for which the subject is notable. But even if it was a PSEUDO about Lori Vallow, her employment history would still be relevant (not filler) because she’s a murderer and that’s relevant material regarding any killer. It gives the reader factual information about the person who was capable of committing the crime(s) in question. I suspect employment information is found in the bios of most murderers. — В²C ☎ 16:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

But this article is not a bio of a murderer - it's an article about the murders. If you want to create a bio of Lori Vallow, then change Lori Vallow from a redirect to an article. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The bios of people notable for their association to one event belong in the article about the one event, not in separate articles. That’s the point of WP:PSEUDO. The killers and their victims—who they are and how they’re related—are essential components of this topic. — В²C ☎ 05:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Chad Daybell and Lori Vallow's biographies are essential to this topic and splitting the article to do separate pages about them would IMHO be pointless.

As I said before, I would be willing to find a middle ground and remove the infoboxes about the victims (keeping only the kids's photos) if people think that they make the article look too padded. In th~is case the infoboxes about the victims may be a little less important than the ones about the perpetrators. Then again, I think they also serve their purpose and don't pose much a problem to the reader so we might just as well leave the article as it is. Psychloppos (talk) 07:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

No, that is not the point of PSEUDO. That part's per WP:DUP. PSEUDO is about what to do in the case where a person is incorporated into another article, which explicitly includes excluding information irrelevant to the article's topic, as I have already quoted. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Per PSEUDO, "On the other hand, if the person themselves received substantial coverage under their own name, such as Madeleine McCann or Damilola Taylor, then they may merit a biography" Chad Daybell and Lori Vallow did receive substantial coverage under their own name. So did the children, because in the first months the media focused on their disappearances.

McCann is a typical example of one person who warrants a biographical infobox, though no separate article is justified outside of Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Likewise, we had a lot of information about the biographies of Chad Daybell and Lori Vallow, even though it would serve little purpose (at least for now) to make them the subject of a separate page. See Moors murders for another example. Psychloppos (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

That article also only includes details related to the greater subject. Notice how it includes nothing about their lives other than the disappearance and birth. And again, the part you quoted is only summarizing WP:DUP. After the part you quoted, PSEUDO explicitly recommends against including information irrelevant to the greater subject. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, the discussion is getting a little difficult to follow. I don't think the elements pertaining to the biographies of Chad Daybell and Lori Vallow are irrelevant to the greater subject. Others, like the names of Charles Vallow and Tammy Daybell's parents, we could probably do without, especially since we do not have those of Lori and Chad's parents. I'm not sure about the names of Charles' former wives (one of whom happens to be a little notable, although she has no connection to the murder case). But other than that, I see no major problems. Psychloppos (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

This seems like an agree-to-disagree moment. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu: WP:PSEUDO starts with “An article under the title of a person’s name should…” and never strays from that specific topic scope, except to say persons notable “only in connection with a single event” … “should be covered in an article regarding the event” (which is exactly what we’ve done here). The rest of PSEUDO is about determining whether a biography article is warranted for a given person, or whether such a bio article would be a “pseudo-biography”. It says nothing about limiting what is said about a person whose bio is covered in an article about an event. The part about “[padding out a piece] by including extraneous biographical material” is referring specifically to pseudo biography articles, not to biographical info within an article about an event. PSEUDO ends with “…a person who is notable for one event does not merit a full biography under their name”. PSEUDO is bookended by explicit references to what it’s about. None of it is relevant here since this article is not a biography, let alone an alleged pseudo biography. —- В²C ☎ 23:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Ugh, regardless of whatever you think that page actually says, you've heard our version of the arguments. I'm going to edit the page to clarify the antecedent for "pseudo-biography" and ping the creator Seraphim, who has strongly agreed with the essay and defended it, and should know its intentions. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually the perpetrator who had a notable job is Chad Daybell. From what I could sée Lori Vallow was only employed intermittently as a hairdresser and did not have a job when the crimes occurred. Which is why I included a mention of her employment in the text and not in the infobox. It's useful as it gives an idea of her background. Likewise, the fact that she competed for Miss Texas does not belong in the infobox, but it's notable because the media reported it. It's included in the Netflix series, etc. So it does deserve a quick mention. Psychloppos (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, especially as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I think that such information invited by a pseudo-biography has very shaky claims for inclusion. If some popular culture emphasizes it, the detail should be included in coverage of that popular culture. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOX indicates that the purpose of the box is to "summarizes key facts about the page's subject" - as Aaron Liu notes, the perpetrators are not the page's subject. Including these templates draws undue emphasis to facts that are not key to what this page is actually supposed to be about. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

They are this page's subjects because the article is also about them. Psychloppos (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

If you are unwilling to read beyond the lead sentence of MOS:INFOBOX, I respectfully request you not participate in discussions about it. — В²C ☎ 14:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The main concern IMHO should be about readability. If the infoboxes make the article less readable then there would be a reason to remove them. If on the contrary they improve readability - which I think they do, at least for the perpetrators - then they probably should stay. I would personally agree that this is time-consuming and not very useful. If someone thinks that infoboxes in crime article are a problem, then there should be a broader discussion about it, not just on this talk page. Psychloppos (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu: actually the stuff about Lori having been a hairdresser and having competed for Miss Texas is not included in her infobox. Psychloppos (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm saying that I sympathize with the argument that the infobox invites biographical events unrelated to the main subject of the article. That includes stuff in the text. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually the infoboxes can also include stuff that is useful to the subject of the article and would otherwise pad the text. One example is the nicknames given by the media to the perpetrators ("Doomsday mom" is very notable) which were nowhere to be found in the article before I put them in the infoboxes. So, yes, they're useful. Psychloppos (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Nicknames may be, but a bunch of stuff also included in the infobox chronicling exactly who she had married and divorced when is quite irrelevant (rather than, say, just saying that she married X times). Aaron Liu (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Not sure that's irrelevant. The name at least one of her previous husbands is quite notable since it was suspected that she had also killed him. Anyway, I don't see how any of the content currently in the infoboxes is problematic, or irrelevant for the reader who wants a quick summary of who the perpetrators are. Psychloppos (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Then only include the name of that person. For a quick summary, summarize. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The infobox already summarizes the text. It's pretty quick summary IMHO. As for the husbands, we have three whose names need to be mentioned. As for the first two, their names are public and already mentioned in the text, so I don't mind if we keep them. Psychloppos (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The children are important, but the husbands are not important except Charles Vallow. As for the first two, their names are public Again, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, especially since we have a policy of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, Charles Vallow and of course Chad Daybell are important, but Joseph Ryan is also somewhat important since that marriage was apparently traumatic and he was a suspected murder victim for a time. As for the first two, I don't care much about including them or not since they're not public figures, but their names are in the media and are already in the article so there's that.

Please note that it was not me who included them in the infobox or in the text. Ever since I started working on that page I concentrated on including more important infos, which were missing while the article devoted space to Lori's successive husbands and long list of legal names. Psychloppos (talk) 07:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, they distract from the article's subject by overemphasizing details that are not key to what the article is actually about. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion. Psychloppos (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Please stop doing this. The discussion above shows precisely that there is no consensus at all, so what you do is close to edit warring. I just put back the infoboxes pertaining to Chad Daybell and Lori Vallow precisely to avoid edit warring and because I find them the most useful ones. However, everybody would be best served if we avoided conflict on that issue. Thanks. Psychloppos (talk) 05:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Psychloppos, a lack of consensus for inclusion means that the content should be excluded, especially as it impacts on living people. Please stop doing this and don't restore such material without positive consensus. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I respectfully disagree, you also have to build consensus for removal especially when it regards content that has been there for several years. Anyway, I removed the content that may regard living, private citizens such as Lori's first two husbands, Tammy's parents and so on. There is nothing in the article or in the current infoboxes that is contentious, or not public. As I said before, I did my best to find a middle ground by not adding back the infoboxes about the victims. Aaron Liu has suggested that we may have reached an agree-to-disagree moment. Indeed it would be better for all - and for the article - if we left it at that. Psychloppos (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The killed children are not living people. And Lori and Charles are convicted murderers. — В²C ☎ 14:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Being convicted murders does not stop them from being living people. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

They certainly are still alive. But there is nothing problematic with the content or use of those infoboxes. If В²C or any other users wish to restore the infoboxes about the victims I will not oppose this but, once again, I'm ok with this "middle ground" version. Psychloppos (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

It would be better for the article if we focused on the murders, rather than highlighting Chad's middle name and throwing in what beauty pageant Lori entered; this remains problematic. And the length of time for which something has appeared doesn't change that. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be better because the current version of the article is mostly focused on the murders (as it should be) and does not pose any problems. IMHO the best thing to do would be to stop flogging a dead horse. Psychloppos (talk) 10:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that is your perspective, but at the moment you don't have consensus for the current version. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, you don't have consensus either. Can we just move on now ? I'm sure we all have more productive things to do. Psychloppos (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure, once the disputed material is removed - as noted, a lack of consensus for inclusion means it should be excluded. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no "disputed material" because nothing here is contentious. Exclusion needs consensus just like inclusion. In the present case, you want to make changes, so you build consensus. I did my best to find a happy medium. It would be nice of you to do the same and move on. Psychloppos (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no "disputed material" because nothing here is contentious. Dude, this whole conversation is people disputing material. I appreciate that you don't feel the material is contentious, but clearly that opinion is not universally shared. And unless you have a policy citation for "Exclusion needs consensus just like inclusion", if you want to declare the discussion over and move on, then that means it goes out. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

What I meant is that the material here is not contentious so there is no point in disputing it. You need consensus for any changes, and that includes removing things. You are the one who wants to make the changes, so you need consensus, which you don't have at the moment. It's as simple as that. I feel that we've hit a brick wall so we should just move on. Psychloppos (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Whether you feel there is a point in disputing it, it's clearly disputed. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, simple as that. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

If we read the guidelines like you seem to do, then the users who wish to remove material would always have an advantage over those who don't. I'm sure that some would find it convenient, but I don't interpret it that way. You just don't have a consensus for what you want to do. I have already made a case about keeping those two biographical infoboxes (you may remember that I agreed to leave out the other three as a gesture of goodwill) and about the other elements about the protagonists in this case : what should I do, repeat myself over and over ? I see no point in continuing this back and forth forever. В²C felt that you misread the guidelines, and I'm beginning to think the same way. Anyway, going on like that is just pointless. Psychloppos (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

What policies or guidelines do you feel support your interpretations? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

What policies or guidelines do you feel support yours ?

I have already explained why it was useful to keep this material in order to have a comprehensive article. I'd rather not do this over and over again. Please also read consensus on removal. You need consensus for inclusion and for removal. We do not have this, which is why a "middle ground" solution is best. Psychloppos (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

• WP:ONUS: "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."
• WP:BIO1E: "Editors are advised to be aware of issues of weight and to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people."
• WP:NOTEVERYTHING: "Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful. An article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject."
• WP:BALASP: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject".

To start with. You? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Countless articles in reliable sources on this article's topic discuss all the information you want to remove. The inclusion of this material in these articles demonstrates why it should be included here. If there is any information in the article that you feel is not supported for inclusion here by coverage of these murders in RS, please identify what that information is, and I, for one, will accept the burden to show how it is indeed supported, or concede to remove it. --В²C ☎ 01:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Please see the link I posted above about consensus for removal. The article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, some minor elements have been removed and nothing here is given undue weight. The links above do not support Nikkimaria's radical stance. I feel that this debate has just become pointless. The only way out would be indeed to discuss point by point which information should or should not be included here. I'm afraid this will be pretty tedious, however. I will gladly let В²C discuss if he wishes to. However, if someone feels that my opinion could be useful, they may notify me. Psychloppos (talk) 06:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Psychloppos, the essay you posted above does not support your assertion - it indicates that NPOV concerns (of which BALASP is a part) are an exception to a general preference to leave material in place pending consensus. If you do not wish to explain what policies or guidelines support your position that is of course your choice, but you should be aware declining to participate does not give you a veto on removal of the disputed content. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I am under the impression that you consistently misread guidelines and essays. Which part of this page, and in particular of "It is preferable that good-faith additions remain in the article pending consensus, unless (etc, etc)" do you find difficult to understand ?

Once again, I do not necessarily decline to participate. I just find this discussion pointless and time-consuming and have no wish to spend hours, days, or even weeks in a dialogue of the deaf. So, as I said before, if В²C, who has specified that he is willing to discuss issues point by point, asks for my opinion, I will gladly give one. Cheers. Psychloppos (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

One of those "etc etc" is "The neutrality of the material may be in question", as noted. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Which is not the case. Psychloppos (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

More than one editor has questioned it; the page doesn't require unanimity. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

":More than one editor has questioned it": who ? where ? how ? About wich version of the article ? Are you aware that the article is very different from how it was a few months back ? Or perhaps you confuse neutrality with relevance, inclusion, verifiability and other criteria. I'll give my opinion if I'm notified again, but for now what you say just feels irrelevant to me. Psychloppos (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

In this discussion, both myself and JoelleJay have raised the issue of BALASP (part of NPOV). I appreciate that you don't agree with these concerns, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. And per the essay you cite, that means there is not a preference for retaining material. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Instead of raising vague "concerns" and making even vaguer references to guidelines and essays, you should be making concrete proposals about what you'd like to change and why. As I said before, if В²C asks for my opinion, I'll give it. I'm sorry but for now, this discussion feels like a waste of time. Psychloppos (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Nikkimaria please stop doing this as if there was a consensus. What you're doing is seriously starting to look like vandalism. What is the point ? You're certainly not doing the article any favors.

В²C, what do you think should be done ? I don't want this to end in an edit war but I'm just puzzled by Nikkimaria's behavior. Thanks. Psychloppos (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, just passing by after attempting to remove the wikivoice description of Rowe as a "clairvoyant", among other things, only to be very confused that those changes had already been made in the ~20 minutes between my loading the page and clicking edit!

I think I agree with @Nikkimaria here. Infoboxes should only reflect what is already in the body of the article, but the kinds of details they generally include are largely not BALASP here, especially for all of the victims. We definitely don't need to highlight personal things like, e.g., JJ's biological parents' names or Lori's previous husbands or anyone's dumb media circus nicknames. JoelleJay (talk) 06:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: Hi, actually I did not put back the kids' infoboxes so we don't have the biological parents' names for now. Media nicknames, however, are notable and should be included, whether we find them dumb or not. Infoboxes are typically a place to include them without burdening the text Psychloppos (talk) 06:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Unless they are covered as key facts in the text they really should not be in the infobox, especially when the infobox subjects are not even the subject of the article. The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article. The names of Lori's first two ex-husbands are certainly not relevant to the murder case, and widely-used nicknames can be mentioned in the article without being emphasized in an infobox. JoelleJay (talk) 06:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't specifically mean to emphasize those nicknames, just to put them somewhere because they had to be included. On the contrary I felt that not including them in the text and just mentioning them in the infoboxes was a way to not give them undue weight.

As for the names of Lori's previous husbands I don't really care about exhaustivity except for the fact that someone wrote a long note about her successive legal names. We might just include the three who are really notable and leave out the first two. Psychloppos (talk) 07:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, the current state of the article corresponds to the middle ground that I had suggested. I put back the infoboxes about the perpetrators, because they are so notable and the case is so closely linked to their biographies, but lef the infoboxes about the victims. I will leave them out for now unless someone objects.

I also removed some elements from Lori and Chad's infoboxes, such as Chad's alma mater. Not because I found them uninteresting but because it will make the infoboxes look less padded.

Generally, it would be better to discuss before removing potentially useful text. For example, it may sound silly to say that Chad was born to a Mormon family, and that Lori also has a Mormon background, but I feel on the contrary that it's a very important element about their cultural environment. Likewise, the fact that Lori competed for Miss Texas may be seen as unnecessary trivia but it was widely reported in the media to the point that the Netflix series even included a clip of this. So people will expect to find a mention of this somewhere. Which is why I included one sentence about it, without any extra fluff.

I also tried to present the children's picture in a way that would improve readability. Psychloppos (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The relevance of Lori’s two earliest ex-husbands to this topic is that they exist and have not died by murder or under mysterious circumstances like two of her other husbands, her two children, her brother, and the previous wife of her latest husband did. It is natural, normal, and common for anyone following this story to wonder about that. Therefore mentioning who they are, when they were married, and that they’re alive, in the text and info box, is relevant. —-В²C ☎ 14:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

That's WP:OR. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Bullshit.

• East Idaho News
• The Independent
• People
• The Sun
• Court TV

As if you couldn’t find those yourself before making absurd claims. Anyone unfamiliar with this case and how it has been covered is advised to stop disrupting here with editorial demands based on ignorance. And just in case I have to spell it out, I’m not suggesting we state in the article why the information about her first two exes is relevant. It’s implied, just like it is in the sources. — В²C ☎ 19:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: I'm neutral regarding the inclusion of Lori's first two husbands. If you want to put their names back, I won't oppose it. Psychloppos (talk) 10:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Maintenance template

I wonder what justifies this. If this is about the infoboxes, this issue is being discussed above so the template is not helpful and should be removed IMHO.

If there are any other issues I would be happy to improve whatever I can, but no specific problem was identified. Psychloppos (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

You reverted several changes in addition to the specific issue discussed above - those would be a good start, but more broadly the article has a number of MOS problems, ranging from LINK to LEADLENGTH. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, I reverted one change. Your edit was not consensual so you shouldn't have put it back.

I see no specific problems with the links. The lead section may be a bit long, however. I had already noticed that and I could try to find a way to shorten it a bit. Since the case is a rather complex one this might prove a bit difficult, though. Psychloppos (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I also see no issue with the links and agree this is a special case about a complex topic where a long lead is appropriate. Unless a cogent argument for “maintenance” can be presented the tag needs to be removed. — В²C ☎ 14:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Born2cycle: I agree that we might as well remove the tag. Since the infobox issue (which is not a major one) is being discussed, it does not serve much purpose. I'll try to see what can be done to trim the lead section a bit. Psychloppos (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Born2cycle: I've been trying to trim down the lead, but without much success. The case being somewhat complex and intricate, it's hard to find much content that could be deleted without losing valuable info. Any thoughts ? Psychloppos (talk) 12:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I made another attempt to trim down the lead, but again without much result. As suggested by В²C, I think we may now remove the tag as it's not helpful. We can always try to find consensus about the infoboxes - not a major problem anyway - without that tag. Psychloppos (talk) 08:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Infobox civilian attack

I made this change to the infobox because the murder methods should not have been listed as "motives". I don't know if there is a better way to present this ? It would have been awkward to list the murder method as "attack type".

Is there another time of infobox ("crime", "murder" or something to that effect) that may be used for an article like this ?

I also wonder if Brandon Boudreaux should be listed in the parameter "injuries". Although the bullet came close, I thought he had been unharmed. I may be wrong about that, though. Does anyone know about this ? Thanks. Psychloppos (talk) 09:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, I think we may list affair under "motive", since besides religious fanaticism and money, Chad and Lori were motivated by their desire to continue their affair without any hindrances. Psychloppos (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

As an afterthought, I made this change because whether Brandon Boudreaux was injured or not, the most important thing is that he was a victim - in an attempted murder. Psychloppos (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu: do you know if Boudreaux was injured or not ? If so, it would be nice (so to speak) to have a source about that. Thanks. Psychloppos (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me, sorry that I didn't see this section. I see now that he wasn't injured, but it's a lot worse to shove everything under victims in the way you did. Accessibility is quite a big concern, and there's no accessible way I know to put headers in infoboxes other than the labels on the left each infobox has. Let's see if the targets parameter is good. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I was trying to find a solution since listing Boudreaux as "injured" felt a little odd but what I came up with was not ideal. I'd say the current version is fine. It's a pity that we don't have a specific infobox for crimes, though. Psychloppos (talk) 10:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Suggestions for change

@Nikkimaria: please let's not have an edit war (over two infoboxes, of all things). That would be idiotic. As proposed by В²C here, you should be explaining exactly what you want to change in the article and wait for other users' opinions.

For clarity's sake I suggest you make your proposals here as the infoboxes section is becoming unreadable. Please make concrete and cogent suggestions. Explain why the changes you want to make are necessary, don't limit yourself "I want to delete the infoboxes", nor "infoboxes are not neutral". Explain why they are not neutral. Thanks. Psychloppos (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

My concrete suggestion would be to revert these two changes. The discussion above demonstrates a lack of the consensus necessary for inclusion. They unnecessarily emphasize details which are extraneous to the topic of the article, which is especially problematic given that the material relates to living people. The essential information should be covered by the main template in the lead. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I can't believe you're serious. Details about the CONVICTED MURDERERS are unnecessary details in an article about the murders they are convicted of committing? This topic is largely all about the details about these two people, as demonstrated by countless RS articles about these murders. This is insane. And highly disruptive. The bottom line is that there is plenty of basis to create separate bio articles for these two, but it doesn't make sense to separate the bios from the article about the murders. The point is those details could be in standalone bios about these people, but since they're incorporated in this article, the details can be here. Please stop disrupting the good work being done here. I'd really rather not escalate, but if you persist I will take it to dispute resolution. --В²C ☎ 04:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Their names, arrests, and convictions are already in the main template. But details like middle names and current ages? No, those aren't key to an understanding of the murders, and don't need to be highlighted in this way. If we're not having standalone bios, then we shouldn't have pseudobios here as a substitute. Courtesy ping to the other participants from the discussion above: @Aaron Liu and JoelleJay: Nikkimaria (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

A pseudo bio is a separate bio article that should not exist as a separate article. To refer to a bio within an article as a pseudo bio is showing so much misunderstanding of WP:PSEUDO that I can’t see how communication is possible. OMG, you actually tried to redefine it!!! [5] (I just reverted that nonsense). The level of disruption here is out of control. —- В²C ☎ 06:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I reread WP:PSEUDO carefully and indeed it is about creating standalone biographical articles for people known only for their role in a specific event, not about the inclusion of infoboxes.

This guideline notwhistanding, you will find many articles - biographical or not - with muliple infoboxes. See for example Popeye which has two - one for the character and one for the "Timble Theatre" comic strip.

I concur with В²C that Nikkimaria's attitude is needlessly disruptive. Nikkimaria seems to think that consensus for inclusion is necessary but that consensus for removal is not (despite evidence of the contrary), which seems like a convenient way of saying "My opinion trumps yours because of the way I interpret the guidelines".

I am appalled that we could have such a dispute - let alone consider taking this to dispute resolution - about a pair of infoboxes that cover the biographies of people central to the article, but there we are. We should all be trying to make concessions - which I already did - for the benefit of all involved.

Also, it would be better not to attempt rewriting guidelines according to one's understanding and convenience. Psychloppos (talk) 07:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

While I agree that this isn't necessarily an NPOV issue, doesn't have enough grounds to revert war until we reach consensus (perhaps an RfC would be due at this point), and I also don't have enough energy to debate this whole issue anymore, I made that edit, c'mon. I see no reason why that part cannot be applied to being within other articles. Nowhere does it define pseudo-biographies as standalone articles only, and the part about material failing the inclusion test for the main subject still applies. As you can see, Seraphimblade, an admin heavily involved with that essay, did not object to my edit. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Who made that edit doesn't matter that much : it was a bad idea, especially in the context of this discussion.

The concept about "pseudo biographies" shouldn't be applied to being within other articles simply because these are two completely different things, with different scopes and implications. And nothing here "fails the inclusion test for the main subject".

I agree that it is completely pointless to go into an edit war, or even to get angy, about this. Which is why I created this section so it can - hopefully - be discussed more calmly. Psychloppos (talk) 14:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The part cautions against including extraneous biographical material into events, which would fail the inclusion test. I don't see how that has much different implications to make the argument for within articles invalid. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, since the biographies of Chad and Lori Daybell are central to the subject of this article, we don't have problems regarding "extraneous biographical material". Who and what they were, how they lived, what brought them where they are now, is integral to this article. It would be of course irrelevant to add what they like for breakfast, but the basic facts of their lives are essential.

We could argue that some details about Charles Vallow and Tammy Daybell, such as their alma maters, the names of Charles' first wives and possibly their ages at the time of their deaths, were not indispensable to the subject. Which is why I made a concession by agreeing to the removal of the victims' infoboxes. But Lori and Chad are so central and, as В²C reminded, have been the subject of so many articles in reliable sources, that the biographical infoboxes about them are useful to the reader and should not be removed.

I repeat myself, but this debate has been going on for far longer than it deserved. We should all agree to disagree and move on to more rewarding things. Psychloppos (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

There's a case to be made here that these details in this article aren't extraneous biographical material. However, I feel like in general, that paragraph should apply everywhere. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, you feel that way, I don't feel that way. That's fine and we don't have to butt heads over this matter. Generally, I concur with what В²C said above about coverage by reliable sources and the fact that their biographies are central to the subject of this article. Cheers. Psychloppos (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I continue to agree that these biographical details are not relevant to the topic and should be removed. The BIO1E guideline covers people who played a major role in a minor event and links Travis Walton incident as an example of how to cover such people. Note that there is no personal infobox, and in general biographical details are very limited despite this event being about Travis Walton. JoelleJay (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Though there are biographical elements, Travis Walton incident is much more about the incident than about the individual. That being said, Barney and Betty Hill incident, about a similar topic, does have a biographical infobox about the protagonists.

Overall, it appears that there are no rules about the use of infoboxes in articles about crimes or other incidents, and that it is decided case by case according to the article's needs.

Disappearance of Amy Billig has a biographical infobox, despite being more about the disappearance than about the person. As noted above, Moors murders has a double infobox about the perpetrators, which is normal since they are very notable. Murder of Stephen Lawrence has two infoboxes, one about the crime and one about the victim. Murder of Laci Peterson also has two, one about the crime and one about the perpetrator. Murder of Travis Alexander has one infobox about the crime and one about the trial. Murder of Jun Lin, despite the title being about the victim, has one about the perpetrator because he is so notorious. [update : I just added a infobox about the crime for coherence's sake and in order to improve the page's presentation. The infobox about Magnotta is still justified given his level of infamy, though.]

In the present case, this page is about a story more complex than the Travis Walton incident, with multiple protagonists and a somewhat intricate timeline. It is therefore necessary to lay out who are the people involved and who did what to whom, which is why the infoboxes help make the page more readable. Please also note that now we have only three infoboxes while we used to have six, so the article is arguably not too padded. Psychloppos (talk) 06:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The reason I specifically linked Travis Walton incident was because it is mentioned as an example in our PAGs. Anyone could point out any number of other articles that do or don't have infoboxes, but OSE is not the point. JoelleJay (talk) 00:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)