Talk:Twelve Tribes communities

Cult
The 12 tribes is not an actual religion or a spirituality but it is a cult. Do a google search for 'twelve tribes cult' and you'll see how this group is actually a cult. The fact that this is a cult should be mentioned in the article.71.185.240.247 (talk) 05:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A cult is, by definition, a religious movement, the only difference being that the word "cult" carries negative connotations. Therefore, to maintain a neutral point of view in the article, the word "cult" should be avoided. The information in the "controversies" section should be satisfactory. &mdash;Will(B) 01:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It is a high control group, requiring absolute adherence to the groups belief system without compromise, and where questioning the group belief system is considered "a sin unto death", and will lead ultimately to expulsion from the group without support. This is the direct experience of nearly everyone who's lived in the community and since left or been "sent away". It's a cult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.199.144.175 (talk) 06:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "High control group" is a matter of opinion and is not included as the definition of "cult" by any key sources, such as Merriam Webster, Dictionary.com, the Cambridge Dictionary, Wikipedia, or New World Encyclopedia . There also doesn't seem to be a source that claims questioning the group is considered a "sin unto death" or that it will lead to members getting expelled without support. On the contrary, the community claims that a "sin unto death" is "go[ing] on sinning after coming to a knowledge of the truth".


 * The word "cult" is a derogatory term that suggests a personal bias, and there is no reason why the neutral academic term of "new religious movement" should not be used instead. Theobvioushero (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

By its own admission, the Twelve Tribes is a cult. They have publicly stated to the media that (a) definition of cult is a group following a central leader. They claim that all follow the messiah. Therefore classification as a cult should be a non-isssue, as both sides agree they are a cult, but just not on the definition of cult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thespecialistofshell (talk • contribs) 01:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Even if they did claim this, this definition of "cult" does not reflect the definition in common use, so the word "cult" should still be rejected, as it carries certain assumptions to the average reader that the community would disagree with.


 * However, it seems unlikely that the Twelve Tribes ever did admit to being a cult, since no source seems to confirm this claim. Instead, the community explicitly denies that they are a cult . In addition, they have, on numerous occasions, explicitly denounced being characterized as a cult by others  . Because of this, it is safe to say that not only is the term "cult" derogatory and unacademic, but is most likely a term that the community rejects as well. Theobvioushero (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2018/darkness 85.194.9.156 (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Someone has to be a cult. If this isn’t one then there’s no cults and we should remove the Wikipedia page for “cult” since they don’t exist. Just noticed that there was an edit war 20 hours ago, in which a user having a name starting with B and ending with G, and who has engaged in a lot of edits favorable to the group, removed the cult designation again.

160.20.230.23 (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Infobox
Per your recent edit here : I totally understand your logic, and I don't necessarily disagree in theory. If we were making correct of main_classification, the only possibilities are really Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or Restorationist. What's left in there now (Messianic Judaism and Chrisitan fundamentalism) is their theological orientation (orientation). Academics identify them as a NRM, so their main classification is somewhat "non-standard". If anything, they should be (ideally) NRM for main_classification or (alternatively) Restorationist, with Messianic Judaism and/or Christian fundamentalism as orientation. Any thoughts or input? Butler Blog  (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Messianic Judaism & Christian fundamentalism seem appropriate based on what I've read so far. "NRM" isn't a classification or an orientation. According to Template:Infobox Christian denomination's examples:
 * Keep in mind that the infobox's name is "Christian denomination", so I would expect Christian-ish labels to go here. "New Religious Movement" isn't in the same sort of category/ballpark.As for "academics", note that new religious movement scholars are often simply involved in researching how a group's doctrine fits or doesn't fit into their definition of what a religion is. Neither their lack of calling a group a cult, nor their calling a group an NRM, means a group isn't a cult. I don't see any need to put "NRM" in the infobox unless you're deliberately trying to push the viewpoint that Twelve Tribes is an NRM to the exclusion of being a cult. "Cult" and "NRM" are not mutually exclusive. The recent edit war over cult vs NRM has not escaped my notice. I don't think at this point we should be making any definitive statement on the matter in WP:WIKIVOICE, and definitely not in the infobox. Grorp (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that the infobox's name is "Christian denomination" Yes, it is, and this group is not a denomination. Therefore, you've got to give some leeway in how the infobox is used, since it is primarily set up for legitimate denominations, not NRMs (or cults).  But whatever... I'm not married to it.  I do, however, take strong exception to your suggestion of POV-pushing.   Butler Blog   (talk) 04:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that the infobox's name is "Christian denomination", so I would expect Christian-ish labels to go here. "New Religious Movement" isn't in the same sort of category/ballpark.As for "academics", note that new religious movement scholars are often simply involved in researching how a group's doctrine fits or doesn't fit into their definition of what a religion is. Neither their lack of calling a group a cult, nor their calling a group an NRM, means a group isn't a cult. I don't see any need to put "NRM" in the infobox unless you're deliberately trying to push the viewpoint that Twelve Tribes is an NRM to the exclusion of being a cult. "Cult" and "NRM" are not mutually exclusive. The recent edit war over cult vs NRM has not escaped my notice. I don't think at this point we should be making any definitive statement on the matter in WP:WIKIVOICE, and definitely not in the infobox. Grorp (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that the infobox's name is "Christian denomination" Yes, it is, and this group is not a denomination. Therefore, you've got to give some leeway in how the infobox is used, since it is primarily set up for legitimate denominations, not NRMs (or cults).  But whatever... I'm not married to it.  I do, however, take strong exception to your suggestion of POV-pushing.   Butler Blog   (talk) 04:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

POV issues
I have tagged the article with POV and Third-party, as a catch-all for all the others I really wanted to use.

Looking through the citations, there are 17 uses of twelvetribes.org (the subject's own website), and 43 uses of Susan Palmer writings (all glowing, supportive, and defensive of the subject group) — too much WP:ABOUTSELF and too much one-sided POV.

There is much content in the article on the order of "we're not a cult, they called us a cult, we're not a cult", but content that describes it as a cult and its associated reliable sources have been omitted or seriously downplayed. The article is instead full of WP:MANDY. The heavy emphasis on "defensiveness" language suggests there are numerous other reliable sources available, though I'm not seeing them in this article... yet. Grorp (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with your assessment; there is far too much reliance on primary-sourced material from the organisation itself. I wondered whether there are scholarly sources that characterise the group as a cult in authorial voice – the answer is yes e.g..
 * There are of course news organisations and other sources that use the same characterisation. There is a strong case for using this term alongside the term “NRM” in the opening. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Much of the defensive sources are from the 80s or 90s (Wright comes to mind), while there have been several serious incidents 20 and 30 years later. Thanks for pointing out the 2019 source.
 * I had found whitewashed language, like apprenticing "teenagers" to "trades" (letting the reader think 16-18 year olds learning carpentry or welding) when the source said they are apprenticed "by 13" for "crafts and specialized labor" (whatever that means). Or Swantko's wheelbarrow-and-lightbulb defensiveness (MANDY) in the face of an actual government sanction after inspection. We don't know the details; was the work being performed too late at night for a 15-yr-old? Surely it was just a ticket/fine and not a criminal charge; doesn't need a defense, just pay the fine and stop working kids after certain hours. Too much defensiveness is just icky. Such content spin/emphasis portends finding other serious POV problems. I haven't even read the whole thing yet. I suppose DUE/UNDUE should be considered when reading the article as a whole. Grorp (talk) 08:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's worth quoting from scholarship which discusses precisely this issue:
 * Cambial — foliar❧ 09:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have done some cleanup. I still think that based on and others we can call it a cult in Wiki voice or at least note in the lead that it is identified as a cult. "Some government and advocacy groups have labeled it a cult" really doesn't cut it when a major newspaper calls them a cult as a statement of fact. Or there's Twelve Tribes: A Black father’s struggle to pull his child from the racist cult" - no hedge or caveat there, no framing as opinion, this is something their lawyers said could be stated as fact without qualification or scare quotes.
 * I've heard that most of the younger members have left. Does anyone know if that's true?
 * Incidentally, there's a couple of episodes of Behind The Bastards on this lot. 82.21.177.66 (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, there's a couple of episodes of Behind The Bastards on this lot. 82.21.177.66 (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Some years ago this page was marked by Wikipedia as having issues. A user @Tim Kroelermade a lot of this article while being a member. It reads like a PR piece with some attempts at neutrality parsed on where a random editor attempted to fix something. Thanks for bringing this up here. 12.16.115.131 (talk) 09:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Struck through sock of Bagofscrews. Doug Weller  talk 07:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Some of these SPS were added by myself. These are however sources on their business operations and so are entirely different. Different subjects. I hope you don't intend to remove such unrelated material. Invasive Spices (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Archiving
You immediately swapped out the archival tool I set up  before it even had a chance to run a cycle. But your archiving bot isn't picking up the two old threads (2014 & 2016), whereas I know the archive bot I set up would have done so. I'm changing it back. Please let it run through its cycle at least once. Grorp (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * My apologies on the mixup. It was not intentional actually.  When I made my edit, I honestly did not even notice the edit history and that you had actually just implemented archiving.  I was looking at the wikimarkup alone and thinking that it wasn't archiving (which of course it wasn't because it was just set up).  A total snafu on my part and I can see from your perspective it may have seemed like I was trying to undo your bot setup, which was not the case at all.  So please completely ignore that mess and proceed as needed with your bot config.   Butler Blog   (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Holy cow, that bot is on the ball! I thought it would take 24 hours, but it just ran and archived those two old threads. Thanks for the explanation. How about we leave it as it is. Grorp (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's great! Well, if it ain't broke, don't fix it, right? (So I won't try to ;-) )   Butler Blog   (talk) 12:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Unverified tag
(Several times now?) you have reverted my "unverified" tag (with no explanation from you), so I looked even closer. This is what I found.

Although the source given (when translated from German to English) says "Sociologist of religion Susan Palmer showed that after the police raids in September 2013, the doctors found no evidence of ill-treatment," the source is from APA-OTS which is a distributor of press releases (like PR Newswire). See their impressum. So I went to the source (given by link at the bottom of original citation) which is a redirect (http://www.ots.at/redirect/foref2) to. Not currently available, but is available through wayback machine. That leads to the old website for FOREF Europe (foref.info). I see they have a new website https://foref-europe.org/ which fortunately is in English.

FOREF Europe is an advocacy group for freedom of religion. Per WP:PRSOURCE, I really don't think this press release is a reliable source for repeating verbatim the English-translation version "Sociologist of religion Susan Palmer pointed out that the doctors found no evidence of mistreatment in September 2013 following the police raids."

Also, since "the European Court of Human Rights upheld the German move to take away the children from the sect", then Palmer's statement hints of WP:MANDY and probably shouldn't be mentioned in the article at all. (This English FOREF document shows their activism and ideas on this incident in all its POV glory. Also not a reliable source to use in Wikipedia, but interesting all the same.) Though there may not have been "marks" on the children at the time of the raid, there were routine canings on the children prior, which is why they were picked up in the first place.

Analogy: If I smack you today and it makes a pink handprint on your cheek, but it's not there tomorrow, does that mean I cannot be arrested tomorrow for assault because you no longer have any remaining mark on your face?

Mentioning this "single point in time" statement from Palmer is WP:UNDUE and I don't think the wiki article would be lacking if the sentence were removed altogether. Grorp (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The tag you used is, and I did explain why I removed it in my edit summary - the source says verbatim what was being cited in the article.  Based on all the other things you noted, along with the fact that my edit summary was unclear to you, I think maybe you're using the wrong tag for your purpose.  You have to make sure you're using the right tags if you want other editors to know what you're intending to convey - whether that's that a better source is needed, that it's not a reliable source, etc.  As far as everything else you noted, while I would probably disagree that it is UNDUE, but I would agree that it probably doesn't matter one way or the other whether it's removed.  If it is in fact a press release, then it really should be, as that's not really a useable source.  I'll leave that up to you as to whether you want to remove it or retag it (with a more appropriate tag); but as far as marking it as failed verification, the source cited says what is in the article, so it should not be tagged (at least with that particular tag).   Butler Blog   (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes. It wasn't until after I'd drafted the above message, and then posted it, that I saw you'd made another edit which had an explanation. (Two ships passing in the night.) I didn't look back on earlier edits, but I could have sworn this was earlier cited to a book which just didn't mention it (hence unverif) and since today it wasn't a book that's why I went diving. No worries. Today's "deep dig" showed it was likely sourced to an unreliable source anyway, so I will remove the sentence and citation since I don't think it adds any value to the story. Grorp (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC) Argh. Sometimes I'm just blind. I just didn't see your edit summary, sorry. Grorp (talk) 01:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem!  Butler Blog   (talk) 03:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)