Talk:Court photos show FLDS leader Warren Jeffs with child brides

Notes

As noted in the article, multiple media sources are actually including the photos themselves in articles about this, some with the children's faces blurred out and some not. I didn't think the images of the photos themselves were really necessary, and in any event I was not sure on whether they were public domain and were released to the public, or not and just entered into court but not public domain. Cirt (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Written/marked as {{ready}} by Cirt (talk), reviewed/marked as {{publish}} by Brianmc (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 12:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if we could get and use the photos I think describing their content is more professional. We're not a tabloid and there is no need to go "ZOMG! Man kissing young girls!!11!!1!". These are pretty serious allegations and until the court accepts that the captions CPS attached to the photos match reality we must be cautious.

The interpretation I take from the report is that CPS is trying to establish that underage marriage and statutory rape are commonplace within the FLDS. This is obviously a case that will run for some time; who can we get analysis input from? I'm thinking a paragraph or few pithy quotes from people who are qualified to comment on this in future articles? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

By all means, if you know of some sort of expert or attorney qualified to speak to the material discussed in these various cases, that would be quite interesting. I have to respectfully disagree with the reference to tabloidism you refer to above, especially taking into account the multiple mainstream media sources that have included some form of the photos, whether blurred/obscured or not. Cirt (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

CPS

In Texas, Child Protective Services seem to be a subdivision of Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. However, they seem to be used interchangedly by the sources and this article. Can it be made more uniform to avoid confusion? --SVTCobra 13:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The wording in this article in each instance is as the sources used it in references in those particular instances in the source articles. I think the article reads fine and see no need to change it. Cirt (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Their website itself seems to use both terms interchangeably at times to refer to various points in the ongoing situation, so I really think the current wording is fine. Cirt (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ping and links

Listing below. Cirt (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ping
• Mister-Info