Talk:Twelve Tribes communities/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Twelve Tribes communities. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Needs cleaning

This wiki page is in need of some major editing to fix poor grammatical mistakes.

70.153.145.74 (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced, moved from article to talk page

Origins and History

The origins of the Twelve Tribes movement can be traced to small meetings held in the home of Elbert Eugene Spriggs and his wife Marsha in the early 1970s in Chattanooga, Tennessee. In 1972, the Spriggs began a ministry for teenagers called the "Light Brigade." Around this time, members of the "Light Brigade." THe Brigade began to live communally while operating the first Yellow Deli which served three primary functions: creating revenue for the group, evangelism, and mentoring new congregants. . Until this time, Spriggs' group had not been a separate denomination, instead affiliating itself with several different local churches and denominations. However, this changed after Spriggs went to church one Sunday only to find the service cancelled due to the Super Bowl. The group then began having their own meetings on Sunday in a park, began calling themselves the "Vine Community Church". The Church grew with several over churches started in Dalton and Trenton, Georgia, Mentone, Alabama, and Dayton, Tennessee as well as a second in downtown Chattanooga. The Areopagus, in 1978 opened with a stage, loft seating, offices, and a recording studio. Rewritten with sourcesWeaponbb7 (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

~~During this period, the church came under suspicion by mainstream Christian groups and anti-cult groups. This opposition resulted in a series of attempted deprogrammings of Twelve Tribes members.~~ expanded/rewritten with sources Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Around the time the climate turned negative in the South, Spriggs was invited by a group of disenchanted Christians in Vermont to bring a demonstration of the life they had seen down south to their northern township. The entire community in the south sold their businesses and homes and moved their base of operations to Island Pond, Vermont in 1978 through 79 calling themselves The Northeast Kingdom Community Church. (That area of Northeastern Vermont is called the Northeast Kingdom.) Rewritten with sourcesWeaponbb7 (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The community in Island Pond grew in size. Two German men joined the group, but their visas expired. In response, the group sent members to return to Europe and seek a place for a community. They wandered for a year, seeking a home, calling themselves the "Little Flock". Eventually, a woman named Tabitha offered a chateau, which became the first community in Europe. The chateau in Sus, France is called "Tabitha's Place". ~~The group continued to grow during the 1980s and 1990s, opening branches in several different countries, including Canada, Australia, Brazil, Spain, Germany, Argentina, and the United Kingdom.~~ Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Around the turn of the century, the communities in the United States spread from New England to the West Coast and to the South. Many of the original members from the Southern United States returned to their home states to begin communities in Chattanooga, Savannah, Georgia, Brunswick, Georgia, and Asheville, North Carolina. ~~Then in April, 2008, the community in Chattanooga opened a new Yellow Deli, nearly 30 years after leaving the city.~~Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Beliefs and practices

There are many distinctions between the Twelve Tribes and Christian fundamentalism. For example, the Twelve Tribes believe and teach that denominations or divisions remove a church's validity and insist that the true church will be undivided in reality. Christian fundamentalism allows for differences and denominations in the non-essentials, and believe that the unity of the church is mystical, unseen, and unassailable.

The Twelve Tribes do not consider themselves part of any organized religion as such they do not view themselves as belonging to Catholicism, or any of the Protestant denominations of Christianity. They believe that the church changed considerably over the first two hundred years of its life, lost its love, and ceased to be a true church. They believe that since apostolic times, Christianity never returned to its foundation, but became more and more corrupt. Separating themselves from all other organized religions, the Twelve Tribes consider themselves to be the beginning of the restoration of original pattern of the church.

~~The group believes that humans are living in the end times, and that a faithful and pure church must be restored before Christ returns.~~

The group's teachings extend to the family and society. Wives are to respect and to be submissive to their husbands, while husbands should love and cherish his wife above all earthly things. Children should honor and obey their parents as their supreme authority. Homosexuality, sodomy, divorce, adultery, fornication, child abuse, gambling, alcohol, drugs, and pornography are all viewed by the Group to be sinful activities, which are given up when a person becomes a disciple. Respect, hospitality, and hope are extended to all people, regardless of past incidents. Could'nt source anything here just rambling crap Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Controversies

The group has garnered controversy since their beginnings in the 1970s. Accusations by the anti-cult movement and Apostates have caused incidents of vandalism on property owned by the group and assaults on members.

The group first aroused controversy because of accusations of child abuse, and later, child labor in their cottage industries. The most notable event was the 1984 Island Pond Raid. Anti-cult workers, Galen Kelly and Priscilla Coates, collected information from ex-members and provided this information to media and government agencies. In 1984, Vermont State authorities executed a full-scale pre-dawn raid of the 13 Twelve Tribes houses in Island Pond, Vermont, seizing all of the children. The search warrants contained no names, but gave permission to the police to seize all children in the specified locations as evidence. The case was dismissed the same day as the raid was unconstitutional.

In England, a report from The Guardian accuses the Twelve Tribes of being racist and anti-Semitic, quoting an article published by the group. The article states that "murder is the very crime which the Jews are still cursed for" and that "multiculturalism increases murder, crime and prejudice".

The Twelve Tribes deny charges of racism or Anti-Semitism, stating that they "look back to the Semitic roots of our faith with gratitude". They also have members of many races and cultures in their community, and a number of African-American members are also leaders in their communities. The Twelve Tribes encourages use of the Hebrew language, as a large number of member were Jewish or of Jewish background.

Unsourced, moved from article to talk page. Cirt (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

can't find independent source for much of the third paragraph in history, but seems Written specifcally by the Tribes leaving out for now. Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

cant find anything for much of the fourth Paragraph Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

* Most Beliefs and practices easily verified needs expanding based on the outlineWeaponbb7 (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Reviving old talk page subject For Proposed Restructuring of Page Article

Revived by Weaponbb7 (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Neutral Introduction

 a. use logo of Crown with 12 stars, the TT would proably be happy to provide fair use
 b. Include estimated membership (why this is currently stuck in the middle of the page idk)

2. Undisputed History

  a. Spriggs moves to Chattanooga
  b. light brigade
  c. Yellow Deli
  d. sychism with local churches
  e. Anti-cult movement alleges brainwashing and conducts deprogramming 
  f. Move to Vermont.
  g. Island pond raid (Neutral three sentences expand in Controversy section )
  h. planting of world wide communities 
  i. Steve wooten (Neutral One liner expand in Controversy section )
  j 2001 Child labor controversy(Neutral One liner expand in Controversy section )
  k. Return to Chattanooga

3. Indisputable Beliefs/Practice/ (Focus on Verifiable Doctrine promoted, maybe criticism of doctrine)

 A. Beleifs 
   a. name of Yahshua ( sourced criticism of hebrew spelling and pronunciation permittable ) 
   b. Restored Isreael/ one true church (in just about every freepaper they publish)
   c. justification Communal living and common purse (Book of acts and Rich young ruler)
   d. end times belief 
   e. Shabbat and Sabbath on saturday 
 B. Practices
    a. Standard of Dress (Easily sourced in pratically every article ever written about them)
    b. taking of hebrew names
    c Kosher diet
    d. Israelli folk dancing
    e. Child rearing
    f. Rejection of negative influences (TV, Outside music, Perceived immorality )

4. Business/outreach

 A. Bussiness  
      a. Purpose To Provide income/serve as outreach
      c. List Notable operations (Boj Construction, Maté Factor, organic farms, Yellow deli, Commonsense Products,)
  B. Outreach
      a. Peacemaker bus
      b. Peacemaker Marine
      c. Events, (nicodemus by night, rap sessions, open forum, M night)

5. Criticism/controversy (Critical to remain sourced the only permitable acusation are sourced from credible article (not editorial) and repsonse to the critism can only come from official statement from TT such has found at http://www.twelvetribes.com/controversies/spoken-against.html

 a. Target of Anticult movemen/notable critics/Nierr
 b. ISland pond raid
 c. 2001 Cottage industry scandal
 d. Racism 
 e. Judaism
 f. homosexuality
 g. German Home Schooling
 h. Steve wooten incident

Suggestions are Welcome, need to Rewrite artilce is critical Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC) FWIW, there seems to be agreement to merge Yellow deli to this article. Will Beback talk 17:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey Guys Currently working on it at User:Weaponbb7/SandboxWorkshop welcome to join! Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

My improvements on hold for now (and have been for a while)

Hi guys my improvements are on hold (and have been for a while) I no longer have access to Newsbank so its on pause for now. will start impovements again when i get access Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Bummer that someone whose never actually lived in the Twelve Tribes cult should not be editing the opinions of those who have lived there for years. How shall we ever get a balanced opinion of this cult now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.199.139.237 (talk) 08:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Article title

is "Twelve Tribes Communities" a proper noun? I don't see it used anywhere in the article itself. How did we choose this title? Will Beback talk 00:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I made the move (admittedly unilaterally) as the former title "Twelve Tribes (new religious movement)" was probably the longest discombobulate in Wikipedia. Which some had previously just used "Twelve Tribes (movement)" which didn't go over well as it got moved back to "New Religious Movement."

Then I ran into WP:ON and it clicked i did a search Savahnna Now, Offical Site], PR article, North county times anti-cult site [1] another anitcult site all use the term so it seemed appropriate to get rid of the annoying discombobulate. Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for those sources. I see:

"Parents in the twelve tribes communities spank their children in love according to the word of God.[2]
He and his wife reportedly shuttle between estates near Twelve Tribes communities in the U.S., France and Brazil and live in considerably better conditions than do their flock. [3]
Former members of Twelve Tribes communities in other states have said child discipline can extend far beyond the light spankings officially endorsed by group leaders.
The Twelve Tribes Messianic Communities are approximately 25 communities ranging in size from 30 to 120, on four continents.[4]
Twelve Tribes communities around the world, roughly 45 in all, operate independently under the same beliefs and system of governance.[5]

So it does not appear to be used commonly as a proper noun ("Twelve Tribes Communities"). I suggest either moving it to "Twelve Tribes communities", or to "Twelve Tribes Messianic Communities". Both of those are supported. Will Beback talk 01:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

ah tricky Capitalization, I originally moved it to that but it bothered me (As I like uniformity) so I moved it to the capitol "C." I agree with you WP:MOS has alway been a tricky point for me Weaponbb7 (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

As for WP:ON, I never found this title in the official website you linked. Maybe it was in a subpage somewhere, but I didn't see it. Will Beback talk 19:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Got it! its an algorithm alteration because i when i google "Twelve Tribes Communities" and alters it when i do "Twelve tribes". Hmm. that murkies the case but it is worth noting "Jean "havah" Swantko Wiseman" of the PR article is their lawyer and married to the "allleged" second in command.(I say alleged because the totem poll purported by some sources contradict the Pyramid presented by scholars) So I still stand by the title on that alone. Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You lost me with that response. What title are you standing by, and why? Will Beback talk 20:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry kinda just started spewing raw thought Weaponbb7 (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If there's no objection, I'll move it (back) to "Twelve Tribes communities". Will Beback talk 10:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Weaponbb7 (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Will Beback talk 21:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Photo

Yahshua, is also clothed in white with a red sash symbolizing his blood In the photo is a man wearing a black sash. Typo or wrong photo?Overseer19XX (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

its been something I been getting around to fixing but right now is rather busy semester. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 22:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you clarify what way it should be?Overseer19XX (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed the inaccurate photo and caption, feel free to reinsert a photo matching the caption, or a caption that matches the photo. As i am unsure what one is incorrect.Overseer19XX (talk) 08:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

My mistake! Sorry. But maybe some more explanation?

Hi, everybody. This is the first time I've edited an article and I guess I've broken some rules. Sorry! I have a good deal of experience with this group and I thought the article would benefit by a link to an excellent website by former members:

http://www.twelvetribes-ex.com/

I read the reasons that this link was taken down, but I'm afraid I don't fully understand them since there are many links to propaganda pages written by members.

Anyway, I love Wiki, use it all the time, and want to abide by the rules, so if someone could help me out on why the link was taken down?

Thanks! Bruce JohnsonJohnsoba (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Review WP:ELNO Specifically #11 The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The information on the Twelvetribes-ex site is from a former member and is accurate. Since there is a growing population of former members of the TwelveTribes who can confirm that the information is factual how is that person then not regarded as a kind of "resident expert"? The article continues to rely heavily on what the group provides as a public image while disregarding information provided by those with extensive direct experience living within this group. The neutral point of view of the article is obviously invalidated and it continues to read more like one of their self published pamphlets. The link should be restored for the sake of balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.181.3.219 (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. A website published anonymously from a person who used to be in the group is not a reference, according to the standards of Wikipedia. It needs to be a published source. Granted, the twelvetribes.com website is only a self-testimony, but is a valid reference as such, of what the group officially believes. You can get a group of former members together and they can all say that "the leaders of the Twelve Tribes are tyrants," but that is not established as a fact and should be read "all of us former members believe that the leaders of the Twelve Tribes are tyrants." But even that doesn't establish that all former members believe that, or that it is even true. There is certainly no shortage of bona-fide published media articles to cite from, is there? Tim Kroehler (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The issue isn't one of opinion but of credible testimonials of individuals who've lived in the Twelve Tribes. I'm confident the "standards" apply to where there's credible testimony. It isn't a question of what "all former members" believe about the group since that is just opinion, but of what those members experienced while living as a part of the group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.199.132.75 (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Raid info

Being lazy here, does anyone have info related to the raid that could be added, the article details more about the reaction to the raid than the raid itself. 69.245.72.101 (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2011

Or is that all what's being talked about in the history section? Hmm.

When I wrote this awhile back I tried to separate out the commentary on the raid from the raid itself. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense.. it wasn't apparent on the first read if the two incidents were the same. Perhaps sub-categorization of the history? Or would that just add clutter? 69.245.72.101 (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It's difficult and kinda a judgment, I hope one day the raid can have its own article. I added most the bare bones of what sourcing is available on it. I talked with Susan J. Palmer a while back and she is publishing a book in 2012 (assuming its not pushed back) that would give enough material for it's own article. The raid is interesting on multiple levels mostly because the history post-raid. The masterminds behind it Priscilla Coates and Galen Kelly developed the model for the raid and the model has been used a number of times since most recently at the YFZ Ranch. Hopefully We can spin it out then. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Central Doctrine

Probably one of the most important and notable doctrines of this religion are that you must sell all your things, donate to them and move into one of their communes. Otherwise the plan of salvation is not available to you. I tried to add info to reflect some of this teaching. 69.245.72.101 (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

mm thats a incorrect though common misconception. Here at Wikipedia we require that material be verifiable and unsourced material may be removed.The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

How do we handle church doctrine then? If the church is not all that notable and thier doctrinal publications are sparse what is the president for citation? The teaching of Spriggs I'm working off it is this:

"The Bible is not sufficient to lead someone to God. They must have a sent one from the Twelve Tribes/Messianic Communities to proclaim the gospel to them. Also, there is no salvation outside the Messianic Communities." In a sermon called Ambassador, by Spriggs.69.245.72.101 (talk) 03:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Just as an aside I asked a TT member if you'd go to hell if you don't live on the commune. They didn't want to use the word hell but they affirmed that the doctrine was true that you have to live on the commune. 69.245.72.101 (talk) 03:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's another example http://www.twelvetribes.com/pdf/freepapers/it-takes-a-community-2nd.pdf this publication demonstrates that salvation is found living on one of their communes and can not be found in other churches that don't live on the commune. It's not a notable publication but it's another example of their own words of their doctrines. With that said, are we really waiting for their doctrines to be published in NewsWeek? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.72.101 (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Dress code is mentioned in this book published by a TT member: http://www.fictionwise.com/eBooks/eBook47471.htm?cache — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.72.101 (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's another book, detailing differences in religious movements, this author notes the distinct belief that the Twelve Tribes believe their communes to exclusively be the Body of Christ... this is important because it demonstrates thier belief that salvation is only offered to members of the communities. http://www.scribd.com/doc/47306901/Cu1ts 69.245.72.101 (talk) 04:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

http://www.twelvetribes-ex.org/whyileft.html I know that if the religions own site is not reliable than neither will the site of the person who lists the reason why he leaves... nevertheless, here are the doctrines that are all listed including dress code and salvation only to community members. 69.245.72.101 (talk) 04:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

http://www.boulderweekly.com/article-5583-father-son-holy-toast.html This article notes the website statment that new members get a new place to live, a new haircut , a new master, etc.. lots of church doctrine is repeated here as well. Hoodathunk? 69.245.72.101 (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"All of the men grow beards and none of the women are allowed to cut their hair." From a Boston University writer at http://blog.tonic.com/from-commune-to-college-one-young-womans-road-to-independence-samantha-brosseau/ 69.245.72.101 (talk) 04:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

http://yattt.blogspot.com/2008/01/i-would-like-to-share-story-of-brother.html Another site full of doctrine presented by ex-members, probably not notable but there it is. 69.245.72.101 (talk) 04:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is an article from their page on giving up personal property. In it is also claims that every church and pastor outside the communes has failed. http://www.twelvetribes.com/new/articles/come-together?page=1

Members must give up personal property http://www.gazette.com/articles/twelve-45677-tribes-springs.html

Members must literally give up possessions and live communally to follow Jesus. All money earned goes to the organization. http://coastalsenior.savannahnow.com/intown/2008-04-04/faith-communities-twelve-tribes 69.245.72.101 (talk) 06:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Members must relinquish personal possessions before joining. No church members may earn money but all money goes to the organization. Boston Globe "http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/10/23/the_doomsday_prophets_on_main_street/" 69.245.72.101 (talk) 06:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I have been away quite a bit lately, you are using variety of sourcing there. Let's sit down and work through it together. Wikipedia has it's guideline for sourcing "Identifying reliable sources" which we use in short hand as WP:IRS. So utilizing that guideline which would pass muster in your opinion? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Well off the top of my head, Identifying reliable sources mentions that reliability depends on context. When we are looking at church doctrine and teaching I think the most reliable source would be the teachings and writing of Spriggs who is the uncontested author of TT doctrine. Other than that, observations in major media and academic sources that observe how those doctrine are carried out practically... meaning I recognise that a teacher will say something crazy (like "God Damn America") and all of a sudden everyone assumes you are the anti-Christ. I'm not trying to do that. That being said, the article is noticeably silent on the things that are most taught and most observed so that's how I'd like to improve the article. How do you feel about using Sprigg's teachings as the basis for the doctrine section? Right out the horses mouth. 69.245.72.101 (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY here. If you want to create an account We could use the internal email feature and I can send you sourcing that discusses their doctrine at length. There has been a substantial amount written about it. The Citation list at the bottom of the page has number of them. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you've brought the conversation to the same point in two places. For official church doctrine, we should use official church doctrine. For interpretation of how that's practices, we should use secondary sources that describes it's practice. 69.245.72.101 (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Oh and also :) This user supports the right of anonymous users to edit Wikipedia 69.245.72.101 (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's continue the discussion of weather or not to use primary sources in the proceeding section if you don't mind. :) I'll continue to post relevant potential sources here in this one for individual analyses. 69.245.72.101 (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's another good one published by the church entitled "Is community a commandment?" necessity of community living is discussed as is the idea that TT IS the body of Christ and the restoration of Israel on Earth. http://www.twelvetribes.com/new/articles/community-a-commandment?page=show 69.245.72.101 (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Race issue

Moved discussion from User talk:ResidentAnthropologist#Twelve Tribes info removed Pemalink

Hiya, you removed some church doctrine on the Twelve Tribes article that I had just put up because is wasn't sourced. I added citations and sources to the discussion page of that article but don't want to edit war with you. Could you please restore the info you reverted and help with proper citation? Thanks! 69.245.72.101 (talk) 04:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

OK.. I added tons of stuff to discussion and one paragraph of stuff to the controversy section of the article. Please take a look. Some things I think are easily established 1. TT believes themsleves to be the restoration of Israel and the Christian Church. 2. Jesus' plan is for you to join a TT commune. 3. No personal property. 4. Income goes to the organization. 5. something about a strict dress code. .... I've provided articles from thier own site as well as articles from common media sources. Let me know what you think. :) 69.245.72.101 (talk) 06:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I have looked over there is some refining to do but General gist is there. I would like to contextualize some of that into their belief systems. Simple drive by accusations of racism are often poor substitutes for academic deconstructions. I tended to avoid the overly sensational in the article but layout balanced facts. I hope to discuss this more with you but right now I am traveling a bit and am only averaging a few edits a day. have you considered getting a user name to make it easier to communicate? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I have considered it. Also I agree that accusations of racism need to be handled with utmost care. If accusations are notable, for instance a major paper calling the group's position racist, that should be noted accordingly. More to the point though, I'd like to have a neutrally stated and accurate description of their core doctrinal beliefs as outlined above. An article about TT without mentioning the need to live on a TT commune is like an article on Mormonism without Joseph Smith. What I need help with is sifting through the articles I listed for the appropriate ones to use in the article and citation formats. I like the way you organized the article. I'm just picking at some details. :) 69.245.72.101 (talk) 06:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

IT's always a matter of WP:DUE of and WP:UNDUE weight. I have tended to leave it out as accusation that is a minority view point under the WP:WEIGHT clause. Compounding the issue is every time I begin is it all traces back to this site and interestingly enough the most damning document there as obviously been altered by a third party. "Elbert the weasel" is something that just would not be in a TT document. That same source you cited the article in the Guardian suggests they are part of the Christian Identity movement which if true would turn the state of scholarship on it's head. I threw out the material long ago because the more you look at it the stranger the accusations get. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for entertaining my suggestions. :) I have no idea what the weasel thing is and agree that anything abused on false accusations should absolutely not be tolerated. That being said, the teaching of Spriggs that races are not to intermix and that intermixing is what causes issues of poverty and inner-city turmoil is a currently held and taught belief as noted. So while we may debate on if this makes them racist, it is definately an interesting and notable stance on race. Also interesting are the language used against Jews and Gays. Suggestions of affiliation aside, what do you think about those two issues. 1. Teachings of Race 2. Blanket derogetory statements of the Jews from the highest office. Is it well cited? I believe yes. 69.245.72.101 (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC) EDIT - Oh, I just read the weasle thing. Yeah, NO. :) My source came right from the organizations website here: http://www.twelvetribes.com/new/node/168?page=1

The issues here that entire site is operated by a third party. Most of the stuff on there is probably legit but discerning which is and which isnt something we can't really do. Also the cherry picking of quotes is also serious issues as well from Wikipedian perspective per WP:PRIMARY. Leaving it to secondary sourcing is always the best avenue and giving things the due weight is the best avenue. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No I think you're wrong. twelvetribes.com is their official site. That should be our primary source for doctrine. The one you cited, twelvetribesteachings.com is ex members who have their own archive of sermon notes, letter and interviews. That's the one that needs extra discernment when citing. Under the beliefs section of the Orthodox Judaism article who do they quote? In beliefs and practices of the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints, official church teachings are quoted extensively. I think it would be foolish and also miss the mark if we did not mainly go with primary sources on doctrinal issues. 69.245.72.101 (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

On the topic of WP:Primary, it states: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source" which I believe supports the idea that some doctrine can be easily (common sense) demonstrated from church writings. (like a teaching from the website "We must be modest in dress") Others that involve an explanation or a matter of interpretation would require a secondary source interpreting or observing it. (like a reputable news source saying "None of those women were allowed to wear pants"). 69.245.72.101 (talk) 04:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Rejects the traditional Christian duality?

Just glancing through this article, I found the paragraph starting "The group rejects the traditional Christian duality of heaven and hell; instead believe in what they term the Three Eternal Destinies..."Twelve Tribes (2001-06). "Three eternal Destinies of Man" (PDF). The Three Eternal Destinies. Parchment Press. pp. 9–22. Retrieved 2009-12-07. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) to be rather strange. The first sentence makes it sound like they have an unusual belief, but the remainder makes it clear that their beliefs in this regard are fairly typical, at least among Protestants. Maybe the first sentence should be reworked to something less categorical, like "The group believes in what they term the Three Eternal Destinies, these being damnation, salvation, and holiness." Wnt (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Child abuse

Child abuse: Removed legal description that made no sense to the allegations of abuse that have been already confirmed as normal practice within this particular community. Pointing to a legal description isn't useful to a layman looking to understand a particular issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.199.139.79 (talk) 12:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Biography of Living Persons violations

I am removing the section "Criticisms from ex-members and families". It violates the WP:BLP policy which states: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." The footnotes are to an anonymous, uncredible, propaganda website, not verifiable sources. The information there is known to me to be false, quite possibly slanderous.

I have consistently and clearly disclosed by involvement with the group since the beginning. I was asked to stay out of edits, and let other moderators approve changes. But I have posted messages on Talk pages for several weeks, without response. The WP:BLP policy is clear that poorly sourced, questionable material should be removed immediately. If there are any moderators out there who can get involved, I will gladly take a back seat again and refrain from posting. It appears to me that user Riccochie also has some kind of COI as someone against this group and should submit changes on the Talk page instead of changing the article directly.Tim Kroehler (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

BLP policy applies to a person, not a group. However, I can see a lot of the sources have been climbed into to find controversy. Other sources are dubious. I may add material back when I climb through it all, but before I do that I will post what it is and my reasons here at the talk page first. That is to give others (like you) a change at scrutiny. I originally undid your edits, but restore them. I missed seeing your name on your talk page note due to that "Three eternal Destinies of Man" (PDF) showing at the bottom. Basileias (talk) 01:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Gene & Marsha Spriggs are people, who were mentioned in that section. Also, because the group is small, I would respectfully submit that WP:BLPGROUP would apply. Thanks for getting involved.Tim Kroehler (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Beliefs section

The beliefs section is poorly organized and poorly written. It doesn't really give an accurate or clear explanation of the group's beliefs. I would say it isn't neutral either, but carries over the tone of the Controversies section. Dr. Susan Palmer, Dr. Richard Robbins, and recently Torang Asadi are all scholars who have published. There are some newspaper reports, but not much substantial. I would like to suggest a revision to this section, based on these scholars and clearly-cited references to the group's digital and written publications. Would anyone like to help? I am a member, and I want to abide by NPOV and COI guidelines, while still working to improve the quality of the article.Tim Kroehler (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Anything that is not a quality third party source, referencing your point of an accurate or clear explanation, should probably be deleted. If you use primary sources to explain, I would not go into too much detail. If the primary sources start to conflict with third party sources, can run into problems. Basileias (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Looked at a few of the sources, some are already going to the Twelve Tribes website. Basileias (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Storming Zion

I wanted to let any writers or researchers know of a new book just published entitled "Storming Zion," which documents the increasing trend of government raids on religious communities. It includes a length section about the Twelve Tribes and the Raid of our community in Germany on Sept 5, 2015, where the children of all of the parents were separated from their parents. Many are still separated. I am a member.Tim Kroehler (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC) Aren't all of the documented "government attacks" on the Twelve Tribes related specifically to child abuse/child labor issues? I don't really see how trying to skirt the law of the land on not caning your children or using them as indentured servants qualifies as religious persecution. The title sounds good, assuming Zion isn't some isolated child labor factory operating clandestinely in some neighborhood community disguising itself as "just plain simple folk trying to live our beliefs" of totalitarianism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.214.52.218 (talk) 08:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, you would have to read the book to comment on Wright's conclusions, but he is just mentioning that the raids on religious groups is on the rise. We are talking about the unannounced operation of dozens of armed police officers on families. In light of the importance of human rights in our age, isn't this significant? We have submitted evidence to the European Court of Human Rights that the rights of the families in German were violated. There was no evidence of abuse from the examining doctors. We have this in writing. There was a statement from an official that the real issue was homeschooling, and the accusation of child abuse was a way to destroy the group. We don't cane our children, nor use them as indentured servants. We are not above the law of the land, but the law of German against spanking is a law against love, according to the Bible (Proverbs 13:24) which much of German claims to follow. It is a difficult situation, but I think you are oversimplifying it. Here is Susan Palmer's article about the German Crisis:

https://foref-europe.org/2015/01/01/germany-controversy-surrounding-twelve-tribes/ Tim Kroehler (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Stuart A Wright

I think this statement is irrelevant and is more of a propaganda piece anything else. Stuart A Wright does not appear to be anyone more than a private citizen who has an opinion like the rest of us. I wonder if this was placed by a member trying to shape the page to their liking. Thespecialistofshell (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Stuart A. Wright is an American Professor of Sociology and Director of Research in the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs at Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas who has served as a legal expert in several high profile trials in the United States. He has a page on Wikipedia which you could look up. He is a researcher, whose work could be a useful secondary source for studying the group and producing a high-quality article.Tim Kroehler (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Twelve Tribes communities. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

the article is deeply biased

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2018/darkness

it is a cult. please can someone edit this article to reflect this fact — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.194.9.156 (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Discipline, Race, lack of education

There is so much wrong with this entry in Wikipedia I hardly know where to start. There is a lot missing, here is brief list of some missing issues; the controversies with Yoneq; the way in which the children are disciplined and the age that this starts; the use, in some cases, of extreme discipline with scourging; The lack of medical care and the human costs associated, the lack of a real education, the lack of teachers with any training; the pro-slavery teachings, and the racism with the interpretation of the Biblical story of Noah. I know the group heavily monitors what is said online about them and will edit what they don't like, but if they are not ashamed of the stances they take then they should allow the information to be freely available. I have no way to cite these things but there are written teachings about them. Maybe if an ex-member could cite them that would be great.

Lozocollier415 (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Laurie Collier

Fined For Screwing In A Light Bulb

There’s a section in the controversies section claiming the NY Department of Labor fined them for a kid screwing in a light bulb. (I believe this was likely written there by a member). This statement then links to an article in an effort to legitimize the statement.

The problem is: this statement in the article was given by Jean Swantco, a full time member of the group who often acts as their attorney and spokesperson. It is not an objective statement. The reporter didn’t say that s/he believed that the state fined them for this. The reporter didn’t say that the state said they fined for this. The reporter simply put mrs Swantco’s statement in quotes and published it.

I think we ought to modify this section to just say MY State proposed a fine, rather than an unsubstantiated claim that the fine was trivial. Otherwise, any of us having an unsubstantiated opinion may make it Wikipedia worthy by simply calling into any talk show, saying what we wish on the air, then waiting for the transcript to be typed and posted online for our use! Talkpageviewer (talk) 04:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I also think that the reference to “cottage industries” is wrong by any objective standard. The soap facility in Cambridge NY is a full fledged factory, as was the woodworking shop in Coxackie NY. I think this was put there as part of a propaganda piece. Talkpageviewer (talk) 04:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Front End Back End

It seems that the whole section on Stewart A Wright saying front and back and syndrome, whatever that means, is irrelevant. This problem exists anytime someone is accused of something and is not necessarily convicted. I don’t understand the relevance Giphwiki (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Ancient unproven accusations

I noticed the addition of the FBI files on the Twelve Tribes. However, the summary in the article makes it sound like this is an active investigation with credible evidence. A reading of the FBI files shows that this is a collection of ancient and closed investigations. None of those investigations turned into charges. There was no evidence of anything actually done wrong, only various people making accusations. The paragraph gives a false impression that the group is in trouble with the FBI. The "credibility" of having an FBI source cited must have some substance behind it.

I think that this paragraph should be removed, as it casts only a negative aspersion. One of the situations mentioned involves a relative of mine who died, and I don't think any of the family members would appreciate it included in the way that it is. Tim Kroehler (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Some double negatives in this one. The OP is claiming that someone mentioned in the report is a relative of theirs. We don’t know if this is true but if this is true this would be the first public mention of it and yet they’re having a problem with it being publicized. The supposed relationship was redacted until publicized here. Smells like a fish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.20.230.33 (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Marshall Fire

I think the posting about the Marshall fire is premature and likely not correct. It is posted under the controversy section. All we know at this point is that multiple agencies are investigating the origin of this fire and reportedly a building was burning at their property around the same time. That’s all we know. At this point we don’t know if they are a victim of a crime, if they committed a crime, if the fire was a mistake, if it was an act of God, or if the fire actually started somewhere else. That multiple agencies including the FBI is involved is really not significant due to the fact it with the size of the fire it is in evitable that federal property was destroyed and so they would always be involved. Also the fact that sometimes the FBI provides investigation services to agencies for matters that may not ever be a federal criminal offense. For all we know the FBI could end up investigating something that is a building code violation. So the fact that the FBI is involved is not significant at this point.

Most of the coverage quickly points briefly to the story about a possible building burning on their property and then proceeds to just repeat other news coverage about previous unrelated events. I just don’t think that this being put here is helpful. At this point it is in no way a controversy. All we know is that there was a major forest fire, someone posted a video claiming a building was burning on their property, and that investigators are including this reported occurrence in what is most likely the many leads that they are following in the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagofscrews (talk • contribs) 22:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Support of Antisemitism

I saw that you removed the updates to the Christian sect "Twelve Tribes". The rollback may have been warranted per WP:EDITORIAL, however, the current state of the article is antisemitic as it appears to defend to Twelve Tribes opinion and has no mention that they are culturally appropriating indigenous jewish traditions, per the ADL (classified as a reliable source per WP rules). Also, claiming that Jews killed Jesus is Antisemitic, which the group claims. However there is no mention of this in the section. So the uninformed casual reader of WP might not be aware that view is actually universally characterized as extremist. However, there is a reference to a verse in the Book of Matthew which should not be there because that verse does NOT claim that Jews killed Jesus. If the only edit that is going to be left in place is one that only supports or explains the ideology of something as dangerously antisemitic as Jewish_deicide, there needs to be at least one non-editorial sentence explaining to the reader that the ideology is universally recognized by reliable sources that Jewish_deicide is Antisemitic. You will not find any reliable sources that state the opposite. It has even been the doctrine of the Catholic Church since the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), the Catholic Church under Pope Paul VI issued the declaration Nostra aetate that repudiated the previous doctrine of collective Jewish guilt for the crucifixion of Jesus.[1] It declared that the accusation could not be made "against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today". Pacificgov (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

You are reading POV into something where there should be none. We don't make an assertion one way or another. The article, and especially the section in question, does not defend their position. It simply states it. No more, no less.

However, there is a reference to a verse in the Book of Matthew which should not be there because that verse does NOT claim that Jews killed Jesus.

The reason that is there is because that's the verse the sect uses to support their claim in the cited source. We don't assert whether or not that's a valid interpretation - it's simply stating their position.

If the only edit that is going to be left in place is one that only supports or explains the ideology of something as dangerously antisemitic as Jewish_deicide, there needs to be at least one non-editorial sentence explaining to the reader that the ideology is universally recognized by reliable sources that Jewish_deicide is Antisemitic.

No, there does not. You're inferring that stating their position "supports" the ideology, which is not the case. It is specifically neutral per WP:NPOV - "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject." It should merely state the fact that this is their position. Any conclusions are for the reader to arrive at. Since we are essentially dealing with WP:BLP, you cannot make value-laden judgements without specific support (and I put heavy emphasis on "specific"). In the case of BLP, "less is more" for reasons that should be obvious if you bother to review BLP standards. To be clear, I am not opposed to expansion of this section. However, that needs to follow WP's standards for this type of article and so far, your edits have not met that standard. They inject a clear POV where there should be none. Also, on a related note - your edits are not "minor" and should not be marked as such. See WP:MINOR. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I am confused here Pacificgov. It seems you’re suggesting anyone thinking that a particular people at any particular time may have done something that some people may think was wrong is somehow prejudice against the descendants of those people today. Per that thinking, anyone who may be thinks that it was the Romans and not the Jews that killed Jesus is also having some kind of hateful prejudice against modern day Italians. Doesn’t check out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.20.230.33 (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Text source integrity

Hello @Butlerblog: please stop edit warring. You are currently engaged in an edit war over an obscure part of WP:REPCITE which itself at the top of the page says clearly it is not mandatory and does not have universal agreement. You are edit warring against WP:INTEGRITY#Keeping citations close which is a content guideline. It does say that it should either be followed or discussed if there is reason to not follow it. Please use this page instead of edit warring. Invasive Spices (talk) 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@Invasive Spices: I disagree. IMO, you are misapplying the guideline in this regard. If there were different sources for these consecutive sentences, then yes. But when it is the same source, REPCITE is certainly applicable and more tidy and, I would further suggest, not an obscure part of REPCITE. Belittling it as such is unnecessary and just further adds to making this come across as UNCIVIL. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@Butlerblog: That is a verbose reply but not a topical one. Let us return to the subject: Did you in fact edit war against a requirement of the guideline? Did you in fact do so relying upon one obscure sentence in an essay?

One major reason for INTEGRITY's requirement is that a common form of vandalism consists of inserting unrelated or incorrect text into a cited paragraph. Years later this is mistaken for a natural part of that paragraph and is unlikely to be removed or may result in the whole paragraph's removal if someone notices that it is not really supported by the source. It is more difficult to insert nonsense when INTEGRITY is followed. Invasive Spices (talk) 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Invasive Spices: That is a verbose reply but not a topical one. Let us return to the subject: Did you in fact edit war against a requirement of the guideline? Did you in fact do so relying upon one obscure sentence in an essay? - No, and no. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Butlerblog: I haven't seen that used before. Hopefully that works. Invasive Spices (talk) 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Legal Entity Organization

I’m posting here as I’m looking for acceptable sources before putting this in the article. I have doubtlessly multiple reliable sources on this but I’m trying to find sources that Wikipedia would consider proper:

In 2009 after a member driving a community owned vehicle while drunk killed a woman, the Twelve Tribes experienced significant liability exposure when businesses it owned all around the United States were sued under joint liability theories. Subsequent to this, the 12 tribes significantly rearranged its legal entity structure, creating not-for-profit religious entities that can accept donations and spend without public disclosure, and creating multiple limited liability organizations to own properties and businesses in an effort to avoid a repeat of the same exposure. Jessica-albatrosss (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jessica-albatrosss: How can anyone give feedback if you haven't actually listed any of your "doubtlessly" reliable sources? Start by referring to perennial sources at WP:RSP. That's a list of sources that have already discussed ad nauseum and the current consensus for each in terms of reliability. Note that some are "it depends" so read the detail carefully. The nature of some sources may require the statement be attributed rather than stated as matter-of-fact. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the keyword is my statement of sources that Wikipedia would consider proper. It’s not just that the source has to be reliable but it has to be what Wikipedia would consider proper and/or reliable. There are reliable sources that Wikipedia in it’s opinion doesn’t think are reliable and there are unreliable sources that Wikipedia does think are reliable. I agree that it is nauseating to study what’s considered reliable or not. Are court records that are behind a paywall considered reliable or proper sources? Or is it only a proper source if a reporter from an organization that Wikipedia endorses goes on and reads, court records and then makes a story and publishers it? Jessica-albatrosss (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jessica-albatrosss: Your example is the difference between a primary and secondary source, not a question of reliability. Primary sources are usually fine for statements of fact, but any statement that draws a conclusion based on a primary source is "original research", which you cannot do - and that's an important difference to understand. See WP:NOR (and specifically WP:SYNTH). (Also, Wikipedia does not "endorse" organizations) ButlerBlog (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Well I don’t want to get into a bunch of antics about semantics with whether it’s endorse, allow, approve, deprecate. I think anyone reading knows that what I meant was whether Wikipedia was considering it reliable/proper.

This obviously explains the nauseating experience of approved sources and explains why I posted here because I’m trying to figure out sources that would be considered acceptable, which is obviously a very complex matter and is a reason why most of the content on that page has been suspected by some here to have been added by members of the group themselves because so much else is considered not a proper source. Jessica-albatrosss (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

In the spirit of Wikipedia as a cooperative enterprise, perhaps post the links here. A section or a paragraph on the corporate structure of 12 Tribes seems like it would belong in this article, we can work on it. -- M.boli (talk) 14:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd go further and say that if it's sourced, just be WP:BOLD and see where it goes from there. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Clarify edit summary

Clarifying my edit summary I was trying to squeeze in too much: [6] The source says all were sent home, but 40 cases were dismissed and the rest received a continuance. The sentence as previously worded gave the impression that "released" equates to "case was dismissed". Ultimately, that may have been the case, but the cited source does not say that. The copy/edit alters this to the specific known fact from the source which is 40 cases dismissed the same day. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Say what, now? 50.235.76.170 (talk) 02:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Hostile Ex Members, Like Me

I'm a hostile ex-member of the Twelve Tribes Communities and in spite of repeated attempts at dialogue with my former group I've found them to be completely obdurate to any form of discussion apart from their demand for complete obsequious servility. There was at one time a very active open forum on factnet about the TwelveTribes, that has subsequently been hacked and all discussions deleted, but one that they also chose to never participate in, despite numerous invitations to defend themselves against 'former hostile ex-members'. To my knowledge neither Eddie Wiseman nor his wife ever attempted to have a discussion with any former member on that site. Nor have I ever heard of any invitation of myself or any other former member being asked to speak at any Twelve Tribes initiated forum, ever. And this isn't a big group. I've met Eddie Wiseman while living in the group. (And I've also been dumped out on the side of a highway, with only the clothes on my back, and at least 15 miles between me and the nearest town, by the Twelve Tribes. And not because I was causing a disruption, but because I was leaving, and the member who offered to give me a "ride home" declared that he'd "gone as far" as he could go, after trying to 'guilt' me into staying. [This information is for context. Unfortunately I didn't have a documentary film crew following me, or a stenographer to provide objective analysis to the dialogue as it took place.]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.199.134.48 (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Can someone help?

I was hoping to add some of the other side of the story to this article. To this end I added some information from a very well written article that uses testimony from children who grew up in the group. The article is by Julia Scheeres and is entitled "Children of the Tribes" I do not believe I cited the source correctly so my posting was removed however, I wish instead I could get help with cleaning it up because this (Wikipedia) article is very biased in favor of the group and lacks any viewpoint from the former members. I really dislike that the article says "hostile exmembers" for example. Many exmembers I have spoken to are not hostile at all. Where is the source for calling them hostile? How is this objective? I will not continue to push my edits, but am asking that a more experienced Wikipedia contributer consider adding more info from alternate sources. I have also drawn the attention of the editors of Wikipedia to the issues with this article as it seems to have history of any info not in favor of the group being deleted.I will add that I believe the section on child labor to be a heinous misrepresentation. The church had serious issues with child labor and many children who were raised there have testifies being forced to work long hours. I hope they have a valid source for saying they were fined for having children change light bulbs and push wheelbarrows, because I can not imagine the division of child labor would do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MorningDawn5564 (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 04:18, 5 April 2016‎ (UTC)

The case involved minors, so it is not a matter of public record. I have a copy of Department of Labor Memorandum which describes the actions above, with the one correction is that it was a dolly not a wheelbarrow. The degree of work is accurate. There is a reference here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/24/realestate/healing-buildings-and-healing-souls-in-the-catskills.html but it is a quote from Ms. Wiseman who is a member. Still it is the NY Times, a reputable paper, and it could assert that if Ms. Wiseman misrepresented the facts of the case, the NY Dept of Labor would seek a correction.Tim Kroehler (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

CESNUR source

I understand the question of reliability of CESNUR as a non-WP:RSP when being used to cite a statement about a new religious group, given that they are biased towards the positive view of groups that may be considered to be cults. However, in this instance, that's not what is being noted. It is being used to cite the fact that Swantko has presented at its conferences, not to source information within that text, nor support anything positive (nor negative) about the group. It's simply saying that she presented there. Removing that altogether is whitewashing the article, considering the fact that CESNUR is itself questionably "friendly" to groups that may be considered cults. Were it anything beyond that, such as being used to say something about the group, I'd support its removal. But that's not what this is. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from absurd and groundless accusations that my edit was an attempt to "whitewash" the article; that's no way to open an interaction. I have no interest in doing PR for a cult. I am concerned with ensuring the project uses reliable sources. As the source that I removed is considered generally unreliable, it ought not to be used, and if the information is noteworthy and relevant to the topic, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no secondary reliable sources mention this content, it almost certainly should not be included in an encyclopaedia. Please bear in mind that as per WP:V unsourced material (that is, material that lacks an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution) should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing: I'm simply stating what I see here, and I'll stand my assessment that it is whitewashing. To refer to that as absurd is unnecessary. RE: that's no way to open an interaction - That's not the opening of the interaction - the interaction was opened by you ignoring my request on the initial revert that you discuss it. Instead of doing that, you edit warred over it. ~~Clearly, I disagree with your assessment (per what I already stated above)~~. I disagreed with your assessment per what I stated above. However, I don't see it as worthy of an edit war to pursue further, so I'll leave it at that. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

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. —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, ^[1] Dictionary.com, ^[2] the Cambridge Dictionary, ^[3] Wikipedia, ^[4] or New World Encyclopedia ^[5]. 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"^[6].

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 ^[7]. In addition, they have, on numerous occasions, explicitly denounced being characterized as a cult by others ^[8] ^[9] ^[10]. 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

@Grorp: Per your recent edit here [7]: 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? ButlerBlog (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Butlerblog: 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:

10. main_classification = (Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, etc.)

11. orientation = (main theology, e.g. Calvinism, Arminianism, Baptist)

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. ButlerBlog (talk) 04:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

[1] ttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult

[2] ttps://www.dictionary.com/browse/cult

[3] ttps://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/cult

[4] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult#Definition

[5] ttps://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/cult

[6] ttps://twelvetribes.org/controversies/neirr-response/1-introduction-short-history-yoneqs-position-use-scripture

[7] ttp://twelvetribes.org/articles/what-is-a-cult

[8] ttp://twelvetribes.org/controversies/under-attack

[9] ttp://twelvetribes.org/articles/cult-scare-chattanooga

[10] ttp://twelvetribes.org/articles/cult-scare

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]