Talk:Twelve Tribes communities

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)

@Grorp: 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:

Not surprisingly, there are indications that many NRMs are involved in editing, censoring, and writing their own Wikipedia entries in an effort to correct or suppress negative information supplied by embittered ex-members or anti-cultists....When associates...see something embarassing on their Wikipedia page, they don't worry much about the truth content of the information, or about Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, they just remove the irksome entry and often put text more favourable to them in its place. Time to add another to the list of whitewashers....When will the Twelve Tribes organisation learn the Twelve Tribes Wikipedia pages doesn't belong to them?

All links and most in-text references to sources critical of TT beliefs and practices were removed from the Twelve Tribes Wikipedia page back in May...The nice thing about Wikipedia is that the history of all edits are preserved...many of the original external links to the Twelve Tribes' Wikipedia article have been restored. Among these was the link to the "twelve-tribesteachings" site that archives a collection of hundreds of "teachings" of [founder] Spriggs as well as the TT's Intertribal News. Trouble is, these documents were not meant for outsiders' eyes and are a public relations liability for the Tribes...Many are on points of doctrine [that] will stand the hair on your head.

Cambial — foliar❧ 09:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I have done some cleanup. I still think that based on [1] 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)

::::This has been an issue and it’s good it is becoming one again. 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)

References

Archiving

@Butlerblog: You immediately swapped out [2] the archival tool I set up [3] 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)

@Grorp: 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. ButlerBlog (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 ;-) ) ButlerBlog (talk) 12:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Unverified tag

@Butlerblog: (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 [4]. Not currently available, but is available through wayback machine. [5] 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. [6] 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 {{failed verification}}, 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). ButlerBlog (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! ButlerBlog (talk) 03:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Not B class

"Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher."

This article is not remotely close to B class. Way too much missing information. For example, nothing about the hostels the communities run. Nothing about the extramarital affairs of Marsha Spriggs or the fact that she was the de facto leader. 173.243.167.206 (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Way too much missing information is subjective. Encyclopedia articles by nature are not expected to cover every minute detail of a topic - that's what books are for - rather, it should summarize key points available in reliable sources; and it does that. Additionally, B-class does not mean "all encompassing". Carefully re-read what you quoted from the assessment guide: the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

"Oddities"

In the statement regarding "oddities" in spiritual rituals that was tagged for clarification, I simply removed it for now. Having looked at the page (p.2) in the cited source (the FBI document), it's describing drug use in their "ritual bread" and orgies during rituals. However, looking at the text, this is based on a witness statement of a group member that is unverifiable. Since the FBI document is redacted, it's impossible to determine if the witness is describing hearsay evidence (from another member) - which is what it seems like - or if it is their own statement. Either way, it's only alleged and never further investigated (that I can see). Secondly, this is all from a primary source and these types of documents (FBI investigations, court documents, etc) need to be used judiciously (no pun intended). Since this was rather flimsy, I removed it for now. If it could be better sourced or reworked, it could be returned, but it should be out until it can be addressed. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Butnerblog I don’t know why we needed to remove it. The entry didn’t say that they did these odd things. The statement is just that the report has allegations of said oddities. The entry stayed within the bounds of facts. It just mentioned it is a fact that the report has those allegations in it. Why would this be a problem?

Thanks 108.28.104.101 (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Hearsay allegations that are never investigated further don't add anything for article quality other than increase the word count. ButlerBlog (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)