Talk:Vallow–Daybell doomsday murders

Boudreaux shooting connection
This section was removed by :

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. 

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)
 * , 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
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)
 * , 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: 43.91333°N, -111.77667°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? 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. --  Green  C  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) C LYDE 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." 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)
 * It was all part of one larger scheme, which is covered by the trial. From WP:DESCRIPDIS: This is not a name used by our sources, but rather one describing the overall event, which includes the murder of Tammy Daybell.  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, 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 . 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. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">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 Stand-alone lists exists. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">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. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">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
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 m urder of Tylee Ryan - c. September 9, 2019 - separate the two children or
 * 2.4 Disappearance and m urder 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 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 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)"


 * WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography sounds like a great place to canvas request input, . 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
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 . 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 . 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 . 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 ), 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 ), 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,, 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
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, I suggested a 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)
 * 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)

Requested move 23 May 2024
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * 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 Article_titles 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)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> 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)
 * ✅ 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
, 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)


 * 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)
 * 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
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 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 --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