Talk:Twelve Tribes communities/Archive 1

Vandalism personal biased opinion by Evangelical minister patrick burwell

all personal opinion no sourced facts not up to wiki standard Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Why entry moved to new title?

IZAK, it appears that you have moved the entire entry to a different name which is obsolete and inaccurate. The group no longer refers to themselves by that name, as there are many locations where there communities - brothers dwelling in unity. "The Twelve Tribes" is the name on all current publications and their website. Is there a reason why you felt that the entry should be moved to a new title?Timkroehler (t) 18:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I know from elsewhere that IZAK is strongly Jewish and might be offended by an article about this religion being called "The Twelve Tribes" without qualifiers. Still I'll move it again, but this time in a way that will avoid confusion.--T. Anthony 12:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Checking it IZAK does consider it offensive for this group to use the name "The Twelve Tribes." I'm worried this move will offend him, but The Twelve Tribes will still redirect to Israelite as that really is the main usage.--T. Anthony 12:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I can respect IZAK's concern that the primary usage of the term would go to the historical Twelve Tribes, the nation that came from Ya'akov's sons. The Twelve Tribes take its identity from Isaiah 49:6 and Deuteronomy 32:21. They wish him no harm, nor to any of the natural seed. They long, as he does, to see the promise to Abraham fulfilled in an enemy-free land. I did not think it proper to hijack an entry and redefine a group - especially because of a group's belief in and devotion to the promise made to Abraham. Such actions might be called anti-Semitic. But the way that the article and indexing stands now is fine with me, if IZAK has no objections.

Anti-catholicism

T. Anthony, you added a statement that the Twelve Tribes may be anti-catholic because of its condemnation of the pope's position on capital punishment, as described here [1]. I don't really see how disagreeing with the pope about capital punishment is necessarily anti-catholic. Would you please elaborate, because as it stands I don't really see that it's necessary to include this line in the article?--Kewp (t) 13:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Ooops, maybe I shouldn't have edited this. I'm new here and I don't know the protocol. T.Anthony, should I have asked you first before changing?

I think the point of the TT paper was to uphold capital punishment as part of natural law, and so to criticize the Pope for his opposition to capital punishment for murderers. In the Guardian paper, the writer wrote about the pope to strengthen his point about the anti-semitism, not so much to say they were anti-semitic.

I may be being subjective, but I am not aware of many people saying that the 12T are anti-catholic in papers, anti-cult places, etc. So maybe it should be removed? Timkroehler 04:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I think it's all right to edit something that doesn't seem right, there's no real protocol. I think if anyone else wants to change it, we can discuss it further. I just wanted to err on the side of caution, which is why I wrote here first. If there are other provable reasons that the 12Ts might be labelled anti-catholic, then we can discuss it first.--Kewp (t) 04:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The tone in the "who does the Pope think he is?" line seemed a bit hostile, if they actually said it, but there are in fact many many Catholics who disagree with the current Popes on the death penalty. In fact opposition to the death penalty is not, despite what people think, a required belief in Catholicism. I don't think any Pope put it in an encyclical, which is unlike opposition to gay marriage or abortion. I'll take that part out as I think I misread it.--T. Anthony 08:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Racism

The article touches on the cult and child abuse controversies of the Twelve Tribes, but it doesn't mention the racism/segregation controversy. The Twelve Tribes website even has a page up about this (http://www.twelvetribes.com/controversies/racist.html), and all the news articles I see about them mention it. --66.81.116.63 20:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I think they started in the South. I don't know much else. I just kind of started it, before I really knew much of anything of them, and didn't know quite what I was doing then. Others have improved it and there is a controversies section where you can mention this if it's not been dealt with yet.--T. Anthony 12:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking we should have a separate "History" or "Origins" section, some of which is described in the Elbert Yoneq Spriggs article. Should it go before or after "beliefs and practices?"--Kewp (t) 12:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I added a section called "Origins" and tried to provide a brief history of the group. Most of it is from the Twelve Tribes website [2] and [3]. I'm not sure I've got the facts straight, in particular the reason for moving to Island Pond, VT? Will someone else look this over for me? --Kewp (t) 13:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, the "racism" charge often found in the papers is grossly misstated, oft repeated, and misunderstood. We believe that there is a purpose for each of the races, that all are created in the image of God, that all should treat his fellow man with respect and dignity. We have people of all colors of skin in our communities, and they have an equal status and equal appreciation. It is hard to summarize. The article on the TT website is accurate, but I do not think that this forms a significant part of the group's main teachings. If you all want to include it, I suggest including it in "Controversies" and give a response from the TT website. I think that would be fair but still mention the controversy.Timkroehler 14:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the article makes it clear exactly why the 12Ts is accused of racism and anti-semitism. Can anyone provide a source outside the TT website that contains one of these accusations? or as another option, the original quote from the TT that has allegedly been misinterpreted? (I can't seem to find it on their website).--Kewp (t) 18:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Original Changes to Article

I reverted the most recent changes to the article [4], because they seemed to "whitewash" criticism of the group, and violated Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I think that the article as it stands may not be NPOV, but I think we should discuss any changes to the article here first, providing references for any information in the article. Thanks. --Kewp (t) 06:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow. I created this thread a long time back, before I signed in as a member. I think I partly signed in as a member because of you, but I could be mistaken. Anyway because I did it before membership I lost track of what happened to it. Interesting history to catch up on. As for neutrality I think that's likely going to be hard when it comes to many NRM's. Speaking of which I think I'll categorize it as such. (I didn't know how to categorize back then)--T. Anthony 14:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I read an article by Susan J. Palmer in a book The politics of religous apostasy edited by David G. Bromley with the main thrust that the accusation are exaggerated. I don't know whether this is true, but I have to admit that the article looked well researched. I have the impression though that Palmer talked and stayed with members of the group and did not talk with ex-members. Andries 20:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Looking through the history I think the objections on neutrality were in versions that seemed to indicate they are right in all things. That there are credible sources which deem the allegations unfair or exaggerated I think was in it early on and personally I'd think that view should be in. A mixture of defense and criticism seems fair as this is not an activist site for either side. Things like the idea they truly are "the restoration of first century Christianity and our only salvation" or are just "sharing and loving people beyond criticism" should also be left out.--T. Anthony 22:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your comments and changes, T. Anthony. I think the problem with writing an NPOV article about New Religious Movements is that the only information about the groups comes from the group itself or from the anti-cult movement which both have particular POVs, and that makes it difficult to be objective.--Kewp (t) 04:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

That is a problem. I think it might be far worse when the group has members under 18. I wrote a bit on the Aetherius Society months ago and finding fairly neutral stuff was surprisingly easy. (Especially considering they believe Jesus lives on Venus and other colorful notions) Part of that was that they've been around since the 1950s, but I think their rule against allowing anyone under 18 to join could be a factor. When kids are involved things get far more emotional. That may well be justified, or just is justified as kids are more malleable and dependent, but it's an observation I've noticed.--T. Anthony 06:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Kewp... which is exactly why I'm starting a website about the TT that will hopefully be objective and neutral. And it will be a wiki too, albeit with relatively less open access (necessarily). And though I can't elaborate at the moment, we've got a significant source of objective information. I'll definitely post here when the site goes public (several months?). Zach (wv) (t) 02:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Kemp. Yes, I am new here. Yes, I made some changes as an IP number before I signed up. Yes, I would like to work with you to make the entry good. I'll be upfront with you - I live in one of the Twelve Tribes communities. But I respect the necessity of having a NPOV, so I think we can do it. There are several concerns that I have: 1) In the first paragraph, your entry read, "The group is sometimes considered to be a cult for highly controlling its members." I have found that using the word "cult" usually says more about the person using the term than about the group being labelled as such. What is its definition? It is more of a derogatory name nowadays, used to arouse suspicion and fear. If there is actual evidence of a reason for fear, let's include that in the article. But let's dispense with the unmeaningful name-calling. Many social scientists who study NRM have abandoned the use of the term, because it is no longer meaningful. I think it violates NPOV because of its affect on people.

Although one writer mentioned that it was hard to find neutral research, there is actually a good bit available by those who have spent time in the Twelve Tribes communities. It is not the testimony of Susan Palmer or Richard Robbins, both social scientists who have spent much time in the group and written and presented articles. There is also the Knapp report from a court-appointed psychologist who investigated the communities. Here are a few links:

• http://www.twelvetribes.com/controversies/knapp-report.html
• http://www.religionnewsblog.com/archives/00003154.html
• http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=4038&sec=7&cont=all
• http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/tribes_arch.html

I think it would create a more-balanced article if the readers could read first the uncontested beliefs and practices of the group. Describe what we are and why we actually stay together in spite of the flack and controversy. Then proceed to the controversies and opinions on both sides, so that all sides have their say. I say this in the interest of objectivity and education. The misinformation and fear and suspicion has often caused violence and polarization between group members and non-group members. What do you think? Timkroehler 20:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your well-reasoned response. I agree that "cult" is a loaded term. The main problem, as you point out, is what is the definition of "cult"? In its original definition, "cult" is "a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents" [5], a relatively neutral term. However, the word in its modern form is, as you say, much more derogatory. If we look at Wikipedia's article Cult, the word "cult" has different meanings in both the Christian countercult movement and the more secular anti-cult movement. The Christian countercult movement generally characterizes groups as "cults" when they deviate from what they perceive to be "orthodox" or "mainstream" Christianity. The secular anti-cult movement generally characterizes "cults" for (what the anti-cult movement perceives to be) their high-control environments. (See Mind control). In these separate frameworks, The Twelve Tribes has been labelled a "cult." Is this necessarily correct? no. You say that the word "cult" is "used to arouse suspicion and fear." Well, yes, some people in the Christian countercult movement and the secular anti-cult movements believe the The Twelve Tribes should be suspected and feared (Again, this is not necessarily true). So, I think that to leave the word "cult" out of the the article altogether would violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, because it would ignore the position of the group's critics.

As regards the first definition, it is too neutral. All RC, Protestants, and Buddhists alike become members. The second definition, likewise, when applied consistently, fails to become significant. From the RC perspective, the "Lutheran heresy" is still active (called Protestantism) - they would perceive themselves as orthodox and all others as divergent. From the Protestant perspective, the "popery" of the RCs is divergent from the "truth". From the perspective of the 12T, the Religious Right and the RC are "cults" in that they "deviate from the perceived position of orthodoxy."  :) So that is why I say, it has much more to do with the person using the term than about the group being called "a cult". I actually like your third definition the most, as this is what people genuinely understand the word to mean - "a religious group that should be suspected and feared". Now I simply ask that we would present the factual basis for why the group should be suspected and feared, so that our entry here does not turn into heresay or a tabloid article. I have no objection to the facts being brought forward. But I think you will find that those who have investigated us closely have not observed any reason to fear, except for the "rumors" and reports from disgruntled members. Here was a recent article in the Boston Globe (although some of the overtones of the writer I wouldn't agree with, it is nonetheless relatively accurate in most points). [6]Timkroehler 14:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

just a quick question; you say the only people who believed that there was a "reason to fear" the 12T are "disgruntled members." You don't say in your comment whether these disgruntled ex-members are to be believed or not, their opinions to be respected and/or believed. I was wondering if you had any comments/opinions on that matter? (Or anyone else following this article for that matter--it seems like ex-members are often not seen as a legitimate source of information about a group, only so-called "outside observers." What do others think?). For example, could Twelve Tribes-EX be used a source in the article?--Kewp (t) 17:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Onto your second point, I agree with you that it might be better to begin the article by presenting the group's beliefs and practices in a uncontested manner. Having looked at some other Wikipedia articles about religious groups that are the targets of a lot of criticism, this is generally how it's done. We could then move on to the criticisms of the group. I agree we would have to tread carefully here. I think that criticisms of the group should be balanced with the group's response to such criticism, allowing the reader to make up his or her own mind.

Sounds great. I like how you set it up.Timkroehler 14:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry that my response is so long, I hope that it's somewhat coherent. Why don't we keep on discussing changes to the article on the talk page first, so we don't get in any unneeded conflicts. I think that maybe we should first rewrite the intro, describing the group's beliefs and practices in an "uncontested" manner, as you said. We could leave the criticism as it stands for the time being and then move onto that later. Does that sound all right?--Kewp (t) 17:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure, we must describe the beliefs and practices of the group/denomination/sect. I also saw pictures of male adherents on Germany who were arrested because they refused to send their children to school. Homeschooling is forbidden in Germany (like in my country). In spite of the arrest, the picture looked quite peaceful, almost gemütlich. (The arrest fits into a pattern that Susan Palmer described.) Andries 18:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It would be great if we could use information from this Susan Palmer book in the article. I live a foreign country right now, so it's difficult for me to obtain English language books, but it looks interesting.--Kewp (t) 19:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It is no problem to get English language books here in the Netherlands if you are willing to spend the money. I will cite Parker, but I believe her article is also available on line. (Not fair I paid a lot, a lot of money for the book). Andries 19:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Kewp, I like most of what you did with the article. I am making some minor edits in places, and adding to the beliefs section. I think we are close. Let me know what you think. Timkroehler 14:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I finished the edits, and I wouldn't say they were "minor edits" any more. I added a bunch. I hope I didn't write too much.Timkroehler 16:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I'm glad that this is working out well. I removed the phrase "not in guarded barbed-wire compounds," because it isn't in quotation marks and so I'm not sure if it's from the Twelve Tribes' official material or not. If it is a quotation from somewhere, let's put it back in, but otherwise it seems like editorializing: that "all dangerous cults are in guarded barbed-wire compounds," which isn't true, and also it doesn't seem as if anyone has accused the TT of having "guarded barbed-wire compounds." Is this all right? See my change here [7].--Kewp (t) 17:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Great, Kewp, I like it much better.Timkroehler 04:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Weighing in... Based on the article I added in the links section, I think the Wiki article as it stands may still be 'whitewashed' -- though that aricle itself is biased. Still, it points usefully to examples of several violations of child labor law, and examples of established, well-known businesses which refuse to do business with Twelve Tribes/Common Ground based on illegal practices and/or on some of their espoused philosophies. Certainly if only white male adults are paid for work at these business, that's something that should be in the article. Anyway, this is why I added the tag questioning the article's neutrality. Hopefully someone else will have the time to do further research on this angle... --The Jack 17:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jack. I'll add my two cents for what it's worth. The article you cited seems to be a letter to the editor, not so much a reputable article in a periodical or reference book. I would say that much of it is inaccurate, even from the perspective of non-members who know the Twelve Tribes well. Some of the quotes from teachings are accurate, although their presentation distorts their original meaning significantly. There were NYSDOL (Dept of Labor) citations for 2 home-industries. In one case, a 14-yr-old held a screwgun as as a 24-yr old installed a light in their new classroom. In another, a 14-yr old was pushing a dolly with a slab of wax outside a candle shop that was not operating that day. The problem is that NYS law classifies these home-industries as factories, and no one under age 18 may even be present in a "factory". Family-run businesses at home represent the majority of labor violations. This is a far cry from "child labor" as most people understand the term. Both citations are under appeal and both involve incidents that were very minor, fueled only by a virulent article from a tabloid. The whole controversy is addressed in a much more objective way from the original sources - the Cambridge Press Conference Page on one side and the original NY Post article (found on Rick Ross's site) on the other. Perhaps we should footnote the NY Post article better? Perhaps we should add more to the child labor section regarding the NYSDOL cases that are pending?? What do you want to do?

In regards to the statement "only white male adults are paid...", it is not accurate. As mentioned in the top of the article, members renounce all possessions and receive no income. Everyone works for the common good. My wife is working in our shoe store today :) and she did the layout for an ad this morning. She is a wonderful woman, but neither she nor I will get paid for our day's work today. We do see that society appears to be decaying as regards to marriage and family, from the perspective of our grandparent's and parent's generation. Some of those statements which alarmed the author of your article were commonplace in the 50s and 60s, even published in Good Housekeeping magazine. The time's they are a changin'.Timkroehler

Nivan's article

If no one else has anything to say about The Jack's addition of the POV check and Nivan's article, I would like to propose that we remove the POV check and remove the link to Nivan's articles because of its numerous factual errors and inflammatory bias. If anyone feels strongly that it should be included, change the subheading from "Business Practices" to "Editorials/Criticisms". Personally, I would rather remove it. In regards to The Jack's comments - there have been many accusations throughout the history of the group, but to be "illegal", there must be an official judgment in a court of law. Innocent until proven guilty is still the standard. There are no such judgments. The only exception could be the NYSDOL Child Labor violations, which are under appeal. It is covered thoroughly in the Cambridge Press Conference page. The burden of proof lies upon the person who says, "What about their illegal business practices?" 71.52.171.0 16:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yahshua, a Hebrew name ?

"(whom they call by his Hebrew name Yahshua)" This should be qualified, since Hebrew scholars and speakers use Yeshua or Yehoshua as His name, and there multiple reasons why Yahshua is not Hebrew. If you like I could supply references, but ultimately it should simply be changed to be more neutral without a false statement as is currently in the text. Since I am a newbie to this article, I will simply mention it here now. Thanks. 24.193.219.212 01:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Praxeus

Should anyone mention recruiting practices?

Hey I have encountered this group on many occasions while touring with the band Phish as well as going to many other "jam band" festivals. The twelve tribes always had a contingency here recruiting membership to their group... they had a really cool double decker bus that tended to draw people in and that enabled them to lay their spiel on you... I found the fact that they recruited from people on tour who by their nature would not be missed for a long time very cultish... new recruits who were picked up on tour were deposited at "communes" along the tour route.

Wouldn't this imply that Phish was a cult, since these people you mention would otherwise continue on the Phish tour?Timkroehler 22:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I added some information from an article in Buzzsaw Haircut which does mention this recruiting practice, as well as a link to it. I tried to make the addition of this information as neutral as possible, so hopefully it will stay on the page. Lukemol, 6 January 2008.

Please see the article "Truth in Advertising" at my site http://yattt.blogspot.com/2008/01/do-you-want-some-hips-and-thighs-with.html which describes the process this group follows to recruit new members. The double decker bus is mentioned as part of their practice of providing a mobile "experience" to draw people in. VOOCITD (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Documentation of nonstandard semantics?

Based on personal experience, I know that at least some members of the Twelve Tribes (all the members who I know) use nonstandard meanings for many words important to understanding some central issues related to the Twelve Tribes (such as love, discipline, submit, surrender, racist, authority, or faith). Also based on personal experience, I've seen all sorts of funny (but usually unfunny) misunderstand arise between members and nonmembers, due to a massive gap between the meanings they assigned to certain words. Yet again based on personal experience, I've seen people who have had a forewarning such as "Don't assume you have any idea what they mean when they use words that you're sure you understand, such as (insert above list)" engage in much more error-free (or, at least, less error-persistent) communication with Twelve Tribes folks.

So, based on my personal opinion, it seems like the Wikipedia article on the Twelve Tribes would be a very good place to put (and explain) such a warning, where 'good' is measured as a function of decreased misunderstanding, decreased false accusations, and possibly increased 'true accusations'.

Alas, I'm not a sociologist, I haven't collected and published my experiences in a peer-reviewed journal, and I haven't found anything of that nature yet which anyone else has said, either in support or against my conclusions. I certainly don't want to ignore WP:NOR, but I'd like to Do Good... so does anyone else know of anything cite-able on the subject of "Semantic assignments in the Twelve Tribes new religious movement"?

Bsradams 21:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Twelve Tribes members whitewashing this page!

It is clear that since the discussions below, the balance of this article has been severely compromised. David Derush, who made some of the edits, is well-known for being the TT's internet apologist. References to sources critical of TT were removed almost completely along with links to thier websites. I restored the link the "Ithacans Opposed to the Twelve Tribes Cult" but have changed nothing else. I am new to Wikipedia, but if there is any integrity to the editorial process here, these changes must be undone. Will you have Twelve Tribes write their own article? This article needs to present the point of view of TT as well as those of its critics and provide links to all relevant sites pro and con to allow the researcher to come to his/her own conclusions.

Most disturbing were the edits made by 70.181.222.24 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Twelve_Tribes_%28New_religious_movement%29&diff=prev&oldid=132664552

why were these allowed to stand?

128.253.207.87 20:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

it simply is true there are blacks in the communities and some are leaders Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

i submit this interview as a reference Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nabXmIYsHog&feature=related

restoring balance to this page

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a member of Ithacans Opposed to the Twelve Tribes Cult for which there is a link (now restored) on this page. I am obviously personally not neutral about the Twelve Tribes, however, this does not make me incapable of recognizing when a page of information on the group is balanced or biased. The job of this page is to provide the reader with the best information on Twelve Tribes. Embroiled as they are in controversies, this page must include all sides. As I look at the page as it stands, the external links are almost exclusively to the TT's own public website.

Partisans on all sides are going to have to work together to achieve balance on this page. Keep in mind that this page does not belong to Twelve Tribes, nor does it belong to its critics. There will be mention made and links to material on this page that each side will find objectionable. The alternative is a back and forth war of the edits that will be a waste of time and will ill serve the internet readership looking for information.

I suggest that edits to this page from anonymous IP addresses be discouraged. Most anyone interested in the content of this page is going to have an opinion on TT, pro or con. Step up and say who you are and and then defend any edits you make. This is what I am doing. If someone finds my changes inappropriate, please say how they are inappropriate if you overwrite them.

As an example, my first edit is to delete the last line of the Controversies section, highlighted in boldface below, which read:

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. This is difficult to reconcile with outsider's charges of racism.

reason: This line is clear editorializing and is thus inappropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jpsullivan65 (talk • contribs) 15:44, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

I am a student of religion with an emphasis on new religious movements with the hope of promoting religious tolerance and am not affiliated with the Twelve Tribes or any anti-cult groups. While I don't agree that anyone from the IOTTC web site can be objective about the subject, I do agree with the change made to the article. What we should be striving for is the kind of objectivity found on sites like ReligiousTolerance.org and the Religious Movements Homepage (already in the links).

I reorganized the links a few days ago and as it stands there are 4 links to sites run by the Twelve Tribes (two of which are only for their products/restaurants) and 6 by others, so I don't know where you got the idea that they are all by the Twelve Tribes. My reasons for reorganizing the links was so that viewers could easily know what type of site they would be visiting, so that they didn't take biased web site's words as fact.

I hope that as edits continue to this page editors will remember to cite credible sources in the article or they will be removed. Seldom4 16:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Seldom4: I will let stand your change to what I had written about their dress code pending a source for the statement. Your general point is good that sources must be given. I never said I am objective about Twelve Tribes (whatever that would mean) and I put it to you that you are not either. The New Religious Movements page is transparently contemptuous of TT criticism and has its own agenda. Hopefully, though, both of us (and others) can recognize bias and unsubstantiated claims in an article of this sort and work towards a balance.

Your reorganization of links was a good start, but more work needs to be done. In particular, the elimination of the twelvetribesteachings site by earlier editors is unjustified. While obviously and necessarily a site published by people presently outside TT, the authenticity of the documents on the site have never been challenged by TTers. This site is a valuable resource for anyone interested in learning more about Sprigg's theology, and TT beliefs and practices. Jpsullivan65 19:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to cite their own web site's article about modest dress or their entire page on their culture which is partly summarized in that paragraph? I assume we can agree that they are reputable source when it comes to their own dress habits. It is difficult to be completely objective about anything but I assure you my intent is to remain neutral. I agree that every web page made by one group or person is going to be biased, including the NRM site but it's still closer than the Twelve Tribes own site or yours to what we want this Wikipedia article to be. That's why (hopefully) with various sides participating this will work.

I am not opposed to replacing the link for the twelve tribes teachings site if it is noted that these teachings have not been confirmed or denied as of yet. I think it would be very helpful if the Twelve Tribes could confirm or deny the authenticity of the documents though and I hope any current members reading this will come forward with a response. That would answer a great many questions! Seldom4 19:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's unlikely anyone from TT will say anything definitive about the twelvetribesteachings documents, since IMO they are clearly authentic (some things are impossible to make up). I re-established the link on the page indicating an "anonymous source." I did not put the link in the list of sites critical of TT since there are no criticisms of TT of any kind on the page. 69.202.65.180 19:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is definitely unlikely but it doesn't hurt to ask. I agree that in all likelihood they are authentic but common sense prohibits me from believing everything I read on a web site from an anonymous source. I also agree with the placement of the link as you are in correct, the web site simply provides the teachings. Looking forward to further updates. Seldom4 18:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the link to Twelve Tribes Teachings. There is no basis for offering the information on this site as being authentic, since it is not independently verified. The lack of trustworthiness of the information can be clearly seen in the Twelve Tribes Teachings introduction on their home page, where this statement is made:

"This site is offered for educational purposes since none of this information seems to be available on the group's website: www.twelvetribes.com. All of the teachings, unless otherwise noted, are written by a man named Eugene Spriggs, also known as Yoneq. Curiously, he is never mentioned on the website either."

If you go to the Twelve Tribes website, ( http://www.TwelveTribes.com )and click on the link entitled "Our Beginnings", it is full of abundant information and much mention of "a man named Eugene Spriggs, also known as Yoneq"....and this has been the case ever since I stumbled upon their website many years ago and began reading it regularly. Here is one of many, many, many pages where there is much mention of Gene Spriggs:

http://www.twelvetribes.com/whoweare/our-beginningsfull.html

Here is another page with links to other pages where there is much, much mention of him, both as Gene Spriggs and also as Yoneq:

http://www.twelvetribes.com/controversies/neirr-response.html

This claim, that the Twelve Tribes website for some reason keeps Gene Spriggs "hidden", is slanderous and patently false. And they know it is, but they keep on lying about this.

In light of this, there is no basis for trusting the accuracy of this "Twelve Tribes Teachings" website.

The information on this site is in no way verified as coming from the Twelve Tribes. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Maybe some of it is, and some of it isn't. Just a little tampering in a document can go a long way to change it; a word here, a word there. For sure, someone who obviously hates the Twelve Tribes (the man above who restored the link) stating his opinion that "since IMO they are clearly authentic (some things are impossible to make up)" does not prove anything.

Legally speaking, the information on the site falls in the category of heresay. They say it is from the Twelve Tribes, and you can hear them say it is from the Twelve Tribes, but there is no evidence of that. It is just heresay.

That alone disqualifies it from being cited as a reliable source of information about the Twelve Tribes. This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip column or a forum for crusading against a group one happens to dislike.

And since in addition, in the very introduction on their website the Twelve Tribes Teachings people prove beyond any doubt that they are willing to completely misrepresent the truth, (by stating such a clear lie as to claim the Twelve Tribes website does not mention Gene Spriggs when it clearly does) it seems clear that it is folly to present their website as if it has trustworthy and reliable information.

They have spread this lie for a long time. Their hope is to unfairly brand the Twelve Tribes as somehow sinister and secretive and keep people from even reading their website, I guess. Of course, now they will no doubt change this false claim on the title page of their website, which is why I have taken a web archive of the page as proof. Because once they change it, the fact is their malice and untrustworthiness and willingness to misrepresent the truth remains. 69.224.237.101 23:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to assume the last poster is Mr. Derush or another Twelve Tribes member seeing as how the IP address come from parchmentpress.net. We have already agreed that the information on the Twelve Tribes Teachings website hasn't been authenticated and thus it hasn't been used as a basis for anything in the Wikipedia article itself (that I am aware of). However, this doesn't mean it cannot be listed in the links section especially when it is noted that the source of the website is anonymous. Mr. Derush or whoever you are, you have to give people all the information in order for them to draw their own conclusions, which is what this website is trying to do. If it's all lies then most people will be smart enough to recognize it. Also, there is no reason to edit out my talk page comments to please stop. Seldom4 17:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Seldom4, for your vigilance in maintaining the integrity of this article. Jpsullivan65 15:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I added back a bit of information on a Buzzsaw Haircut article/interview done with members of the Twelve Tribes. I'm not entirely sure why it was removed in the first place, but it's in the "Controversies" section and I tried to make the small bit I wrote about it as neutral as possible. Could someone please try to see that this article in some way stays on this page? If you need to edit what I wrote to make it more neutral, please do so in any way necessary. I think the article is worth noting though as they did actually interview Twelve Tribes members so it does offer the reader a view of them in their own words. Buzzsaw Haircut is a publication created by Ithaca College students. Just thought I'd let you know of this change to the page. Thanks. Lukemol, 6 January 2008. —Preceding comment was added at 09:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Lukemol. I liked the Buzzsaw article. It's amateur journalism, but the interviews are nice. However, I thought that your description of the article editoralized too much. It gives an opinion of the article, which the article doesn't give -- namely, that "which seem to show that they wish to distance themselves from homosexuals, transgender people, and African Americans". Neither the article nor the quotes really substantiates that conclusion, and I don't think it is really accurate. Could you work on it and give more of a summary than a commentary? I also wondered if it deserved such a major position in the controversies section, as it really is not about a specific controversy and is not from a reputable journalistic publication. I happen to know that there are some inaccuracies in the article, but a student-published newspaper doesn't receive much peer review or accountability. Maybe we could move it to the references section - just a thought.... Thanks for participating.Timkroehler (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, 165.228.169.28, removed the ref to "child molestation" in the article, for the reason that it is universally held to be immoral. However, I thought it should remain, because the Twelve Tribes has been accused in the past of allowing (or even promoting) child molestation, as strange as that seems. I thought it would be good to make it clear what we believe. Timkroehler (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

One other thing - I went back and reread comments about twelvetribesteachings.com: I'm not qualified to give "an official position", but I am a member of the Twelve Tribes. I appreciate working together with you all to write this article. There are rules of writing entries for wikipedia covered under the tutorial for NPOV. All significant points of view should be given a fair-handed, analytical treatment. From the article on NPOV, we read:

representing without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)

Wikipedia is not a gossip column or opinion blog. A point-of-view must have reliable sources to be included. Therefore, our legitimate source material can be: 1) authorized publications of the Twelve Tribes as a reliable source of our beliefs, 2) books, newspapers, publications of substantial size and credibility, 3) legal documents. Under these policies, I do not think that articles or opinions published in student newspapers or a group's website (such as IOTTC) qualifies as reliable. It does not receive the readership, peer-review, or criticism to guarantee its credibility as a source for research. The site twelvetribesteachings.com claims to be a "very abridged version of the hundreds of teachings of The Twelve Tribes". Who abridged it? Were they fair, or did they have a bias? Did they do any other editing? I do not know. The Twelve Tribes does not authorize, maintain, or claim responsibility for that site or its content. I looked at a few of the documents, and there are some similarities to names and situations, but they appear to be somone's notes of meetings from years ago than positions or statements. I could not vouch for their authenticity without reading through the whole site, which would take more time than I have, and even then, I cannot speak for the whole group and grant "official status" to something unofficial. This site, as well as the others, fail the criteria for reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. For official positions or statements, the twelvetribes.com website or official publications are the most appropriate to establish official statements of belief, although admittedly first-hand. Like I said, I am a happy member of the Twelve Tribes, and have been for 10 years. Comments?Timkroehler (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated this article for a POV check. Without appropriate discussion, there have been questionable additions to the external sources section. Are "anonymous" sources even allowed on Wikipedia? The standard is verifiability when it comes to sources. References to student newspapers (which have a smaller readership and no peer review) and anonymous ex-member sites (who won't even sign their name) posting slander are not information that is useful or appropriate for Wikipedia readers seeking to understand. I suggest that all references in this article (and there are many) that are not from verifiable sources be removed.

In my opinion, the article gives undue weight to the criticism and controversies of the group, and very little positive information about the group. There should be a section about about how they live, what they do, what life is like there, what their communities and cafes are like, who some of the main people are, what they have written? I think the controversies section has its place, and it should contain well-referenced factual statement. But the embittered ex-member testimonies that cannot be verified are at best, a minority view and at worst, slander. The wikipedia NPOV guidelines say that it should be balanced and that minority views should be verifiable and not given undue weight. You can read them at WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Timkroehler (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your insight and research on the NPOV, Tim. I agree that a section on the Twelve Tribes way of life would be an excellent addition but I think a Twelve Tribes member would be best suited to write it. If you have the time please write something up and then of course everyone else can check it for neutrality, so everyone is happy. Seldom4 (talk) 03:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Biased Censorship: While I'm classified by this group as an "embittered ex-member", that viewpoint in itself is a biased and broad generalization that his group takes towards anyone who's left and then publicly comments negatively on their experiences within the group. Having once lived within this group for a number of years and then having left doesn't automatically invalidate the description of those experiences as being "unverifiable" just as invalidating a source of information, be it a website or student newspaper, based on arbitrary criteria also isn't objective, and the motivation someone has for negating such information must be taken into consideration. It is my opinion that the argument made for restricting the information to be allowed is a tactic this Twelve Tribes group uses to censor any information that could publicly cast them in a negative light just as describing all former members who fail to give a glowing description of their experiences as "embittered ex-members" is a way of invalidating their testimony as unreliable and therefore unusable.--Jodymcgrody (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Independent Testimony: What greater source of direct research about this group exists than the independent descriptions of the former members who've lived within this group? While my description of the group is my subjective experience, when others whom I've never personally met, and who lived in the Twelve Tribes at different times and locations than myself describe similar experiences, it then becomes possible to create an objective viewpoint, albeit not necessarily one this group would want disseminated to the public. There is no secret cabal of "embittered ex-members" fabricating volumes of teachings and coordinating their diverse stories to be similar in an attempt to discredit or defame this group.--Jodymcgrody (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Twelve Tribes Teachings: The group fails to confirm or deny that the teachings posted on the Internet are in fact the groups teachings, while former members have already independently confirmed that those documents were indeed being taught while they were there. Yet the testimony of former members is being dismissed while the absence of any confirmation or denial by the group is then taken at face value as somehow discrediting the teachings authenticity.--Jodymcgrody (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Way of Life Section: If there is a section on the Twelve Tribes way of life written by someone representing the Twelve Tribes it would only be logical to include the testimonies of those who've left to give an objective balance to the article. And it should be noted that when someone has left this group and still has family members within it that the group has in the past deliberately cut off access to those family members if that person is viewed as being adversarial towards the group; thus the reason some former members feel the need to remain anonymous.--Jodymcgrody (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

My Opinion: It is my opinion that this article is unbalanced and that the editing shows a biased viewpoint advocating in favor of the Twelve Tribes with arguments being made not in the interest of objectivity but instead to limit and invalidate information that otherwise could provide provide the balance this article needs to maintain a disinterested viewpoint of its subject matter.--Jodymcgrody (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggest a re-write and shortening of the "Beliefs and Practices" section

I think this section needs a re-write. The language used seems to parot that on the groups website (If it is necessary to quote that website, make it clear that it is a quote). I also think things can be summarized and shortened. This may also help resolve some of "non-neutral tone" complaints.Blueboar (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me as well. John Carter (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Serious Neutrality Issues

I think this article can not be considered neutral in even the loosest definition of the word.

References to "kidnappings" of members of this NRC by deprogrammers as being "shocking" are some of the most egegious violations of POV. In addition references to "purity" and the massive section on beliefs that seems basically to be a recruitment drive.

Honestly I want to go through and edit this for POV content but the article is so NPOV that I don't even know where to start.

Suggest deletion.Simonm223 (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I think I managed to cut most of the POV material, material inappropriate for an encyclopedia and material that inacurately depicted other groups. If the edits aren't reverted I'll withdraw my suggested deletion. Simonm223 (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality cuts both ways. Let's not be putting weasel words in attacking the ARG, those are no less neutral than statements attacking their detractors.Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Article as it exists looks OK, if not perfect. Can you point toward any specific "weasel words" you want changed? One thing I would suggest changing is the phrasing of "Homosexuality, divorce, adultery, fornication, child abuse, and pornography are all viewed by the church to be sinful activities, which are given up when a person becomes a disciple." Maybe this is the cynic in me, but I have to question whether "given up" is the right phrasing here, as it's kind of like "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" in terms of the potentially false implications that members apparently did all these things before joining the group, and the possibly optimistic(?) belief that they are given up entirely after joining the group. Maybe changing it the last clause to "which members of the group acknowledge to be sinful when becoming a disciple" or something similar would be preferable. John Carter (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I already changed what I was concerned with, that was the switch of one instance of the word "disciple" to the word "dupe". I replaced this instance with the word "congregant" which is the most-neutral single word description for a member of a religious group I could think of.Simonm223 (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This line seems particularly non-neutral:

• They claim that living in community is the result of obeying the commands of "Jesus."

First, "claim" is a word to avoid, as it implies scepticism. And I can't see why "Jesus" should be in scare quotes. I'm afraid this is just a symptom of a larger problem.   Will Beback  talk  05:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Somebody has been going back and re-inserting POV stuff to this article. I've cleared out some of it but let's keep this neutral, ok?Simonm223 (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to have a consensus about how much information from the TT website can be used before it constitutes a POV violation. Much of what was reinserted is from the older version of the article, which was tagged for neutrality problems. As we all know, articles that draw heavily on one source or on a group of related, sympathetic sources are not considered legitimate. Referring this article to the WikiProject on Religion and Philosophy seems like a good idea to me. Thoughts? Jaybird vt (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Good sources on this topic are near impossible, the group is writes about itself extensively in positive manner, most people who do any extensive writing about them fall into three categories: reporters (who are hardly reliable on this charged topic), Ex-tt (who either have an ax to grind or still sympathetic) and Anti-cult activist (asking nazi about jew is like asking these guys about the twelve tribes) If we are going to limit what the TT says about themselves then all we have is their critics have to say, thus neutrality is lost. so balance is near impossible. (Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

We can probably take at face value much of what's on their webpage regarding their beliefs and practices; despite questions of whether the group believes in intentionally lying to/deceiving outsiders (something I'd like to see mentioned in the article, BTW), the info therein is pretty reliable as a base upon which to grow. Reports from reliable journalistic sources can also be used, and there are a lot of those floating around. Some bloggers and independent media sources have made first-hand reports of interactions with the group, both positive and negative; but my impression is that the larger WP community looks dimly upon such sources as far as reliability is concerned. Academic studies on the group are either many years out of date, or rely on interviews with group members and a review of available group literature, all of which essentially repeat the group's core beliefs and values, even down to the wording of certain phrases and statements (not to mention the TT's problem of "withholding the truth from those who don't deserve it"). In short, nothing that cannot be found on the website. Simonm223: I will make the referral if you are not already planning to do so. Thanks for your input and support. Jaybird vt (talk) 01:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jaybird vt. A referral to WikiProject on Religion and Philosophy is a very good idea.Simonm223 (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There are three unqualified articles of faith involved here:

• That the 12 Tribes is the road to eternal salvation.
• That the 12 Tribes is a cult that holds people against their will, abuses children, and has Nazi tendencies.
• That WikiPedia should strive for NPOV.

As long as all three of these absolute beliefs are blindly held by different editors on this article, there will not be a satisfactory resolution to this discussion.RevelationDirect (talk) 06:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well put. Wikipedia does not exist to decide the value of the first two articles of faith you mentioned above; the third article of faith is what we're dealing with here. If we can document and explicate the beliefs of this group accurately (faithfully? ;) and from a NPOV, I feel that will be satisfactory enough for me. I find it interesting that we haven't heard from any members of the TT in this debate, and I doubt we will. They are undoubtedly monitoring this debate; yet they choose not to voice their opinion. Obviously they believe the info on their webpage should be satisfactory for anyone looking for information about them; they would likely be more than happy if this article were deleted or reduced to a stub-with-links again, as there would no longer be an avenue for critical perspectives on the group to be shared and made available to a worldwide audience. Believe it or not, very few of them even know that Wikipedia exists. I want this article to exist mainly so that there can be a balanced repository of information on the TT somewhere on the internet -- and there's no better place than WP. Jaybird vt (talk) 02:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Title Change from "New Religious movement" to Movement

Editor "Jerzy" moved Twelve Tribes (New religious movement) to "The Twelve Tribes (movement)" with the logic the it is not "new" being around for 35 years. The Term "New religious movement" is academically accepted term for groups like this. this term is aplied to moonies and various other groups much older. Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That's correct - in fact one of the dividing lines for which groups are defined as a "new religlious movments} is Bahai, formed in the 19th century. However so far as the anme of this article goes, shorter is better so I think "movement" is sufficient. We can explain what kind of movement in the article text.   Will Beback  talk  18:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"New Religious Movement" is a widely accepted scholarly term for groups like the TT, as well as other religious and spiritual movements and groups formed within the last 100 or so years. The rationale for determining what's a NRM and what's a "religion/religious group" is linked to both the time of its founding as well as its widespread acceptance. For example: Scientology is not labelled as a NRM here on WP primarily because of its international recognition and acceptance (and also because of its heavy self-marketing practices; but that is another issue), despite being <50 years old; it is, however, labelled a "cult" by some because of its practices. NRM was devised as a more accurate and less pejorative term for groups previously labelled as "cults". I support moving the categorization back to New Religious Movement for this article, and undoing the redir; I feel there should be some consensus for this, however. Jaybird vt (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur, NRM seems appropriate.Simonm223 (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The "New Religious Movement" phrase was coined by academics as a neutral way of referencing emerging religions without using the more subjective term "cult". I'm surprised whether this organization is old enough to still have the "N" in NRM is much of a concern. Like in US presidential elections, there are only 2 viable choices: NRM or cult. But, if we want to agree that we call this group a "Tennessee religion which are not that old but too old to be considered "new" for use in Wikipedia but absolutely nowhere else in any documentation" (TRWNOONWANED), swell let's create a new cat. But keep in mind I voted for Ralph Nader so I'm used to rooting for the long shots!RevelationDirect (talk) 05:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Concensus Reached Moved the article back.RevelationDirect (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Reliability of Twelve Tribes website as source for article

An ongoing issue with the article The Twelve Tribes (movement) has been finding reliable sources of information about the group. The group maintains a website, [8] which has both easy-to-find information about the group's beliefs and practices, as well as an extensive PDF archive of more-detailed information, in-depth theological discussions, and position papers. However, the group also has a controversial backstory, which has been documented in journalistic sources, as well as by bloggers, independent and citizen media, and personal websites. There have been instances of vandalism of the article by disgruntled ex-members; as well as allegations of POV pushing and attempts at controlling the content of the article by current members. A review of the edit history [9] shows the ongoing difficulties at achieving NPOV. A dearth of reliable independent sources of information about the group has been noted among many editors, and this request for comment boils down to: can the information on the Twelve Tribes website be used as a reliable source of information for the article; can said information be incorporated into the article in an unbiased way; and, does using the group's website as the primary source of info for the article harm its integrity? Jaybird vt (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

For some sources - for instance - the beliefs of the religion I think that, yes, it can be used. So long as editors are careful to remain neutral. For issues regarding conflict with other faiths and with the law I'd advise reputable journalistic sources instead.Simonm223 (talk) 02:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The approach here should be to look at how we treat a more established religion and apply that same standard to the 12 Tribes. The Presbyterian article not only uses official church citations in the Sources, Further reading and External links section, it barely uses anything else. Official church sources are used without any qualification there. Ditto with the Assemblies of God and The Russian Orthodox Church where official church sources are clearly considered factual on their face. Based on that, I don't see any way to limit using official church sources for this religion and to do so without the qualifications Simonm223 suggests. But we face a larger issue here: just about all the sources either are from a pro-12-tribes perspective or a 12-tribes-is-a-cult perspective. Even most mainstream media accounts take one side or the other. Based on that, I would suggest balancing these opposing sources a la the much touted abortion article.RevelationDirect (talk) 05:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think policy is as Simon says. Actual observance of policy is another matter, & RD's refs suggest it's often ignored. RD's suggestion sounds like an appropriate one to produce a balanced article if there are no reliable sources, but in that case policy would probably be to delete the article as dealing with a non-notable subject. Peter jackson (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I love the requests for comments. It is often more interesting than the content of the articles. Here are my thoughts: 1) What is the point of the article? What is the big deal? Hippies + Baptists + a splash of idealism = 12 Tribes. This has been going on since the first Europeans came to North America. 2) What is the anti-cult movement anyway? Never mind I will go read that next) 3) It looks like members of the 12 tribes are different from the mainstream and looked upon with skepticism or in some cases fear. It looks like some activists are out to stop them. It looks like the main stream media doesn't really care so therefore the only people who are telling the story are bloggers. In reality who knows? 4) The article reads like a tug of war. One statement of fact, followed by an opinion presented as fact; over and over again. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

OK I just read some on the Anti-cult Movment. Whoa that is a rabbit hole! If the related Wikipedia article is be believed, then it seems that most of the authority in the Anti-Cult movement is self styled. According to the article they often run their own websites and blogs and publish their own content. I don't believe self published websites are considered reliable sources in Wikipedia. While I have no knowlege or interest in the 12 Tribes other than my current curiosity, I think that this article seems to be pushing toward a version that forwards some kinds of agenda of criticism, presumably by the anti-cult movement. I hope this is useful. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC comment:I would personally very much question inclusion of anything other than doctrinal matters, and perhaps the opinion of The Twelve Tribes on issues concerning it, based on material from The Twelve Tribes' website. Some churches, like Presbyterianism, are fairly non-controversial, and are significantly covered by outside sources, which makes inclusion of content regarding them based on their own word acceptable, if not optimal. Other churches, however, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, do have controversial claims and beliefs, and it has already been established elsewhere that on certain matters not specifically related exclusively to their own statements of their beliefs and other material which is not potentially controversial, their websites are not considered reliable sources. I tend to think that this group, which is comparatively new and small and thus hasn't yet had a chance to have its website gain a reputation for accuracy, should be treated like those of similar groups, and be used only for matters about its own beliefs and opinions. John Carter (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• RfC Reponse. While the group's own material is sufficient for basic descriptions of its opinions and beliefs, as well as small amounts of complementary material, the article should principally rely on independent reliable sources. The group's own material should not be the principal reference material for the article. If a shortage of independent reliable sources makes this approach difficult or impossible, the article should be considered for deletion or merging. If we do not have enough third-party reliable references to build a complete article, we should not have the article at this time. If it is simply a matter of sources being somewhat difficult to access, WikiProject talk pages and similar areas can be used to solicit assistance from other editors. --Vassyana (talk) 04:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Based on that standard, the Presbyterian and Russian Orthodox articles should also be considered for deletion since they almost entirely rely on internal church sources. Agreed?RevelationDirect (talk) 04:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Both of those articles need to be drastically chopped down and rewritten according to independent reliable sources, however there is no shortage of such sources for those topics. It all comes down what sources we have available to us. They determine what we cover and how we cover it. We do not cover topics that have limited or no sources available to us, as it makes it impossible to craft an article that complies with our most basic content rules. --Vassyana (talk) 05:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposing outline for restructured article

From the time this article appeared on wikipedia it was clearly written with incendiary intent (example "The Twelve Tribes-Name of a purported cult currently residing in Vermont"). ever since the wasy it has been a basically a flame war between the Anti-cult movement, TT Members, Ex-tt, Friends of the TT and editors. the need to Restructure the article is Critical to balance. The Current format is basically Anti-tt statement then Reply by TT (example: The anti-cult movement warns that the "Messianic Communities, under the leadership of Spriggs, has tended towards an extreme authoritarianism."The group responds that they are a "simple people who live on Main Street USA" and that "all members can leave at any time, but choose to remain daily."). this format does not work on any article and this petty fighting between these two sides result in the constant need for editors to intervene. i propose new stucture

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 
   b. ISland pond raid
   c. 2001 Cottage industry scandal
   d. Racism 
   e. Judaism
   f. homosexuality
   g. German Home Schooling
   h. Steve wooten incident

with this Revised format it will merges several poorly written articles (yellow Deli, Peace maker, Yoneq) and have them merged into the main article here. i am sure if this format is adhered to we can have at least an "A" class article here. Criticism and suggestions welcome! Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like an improvement to me. Especially the part about getting rid of my lousy Yellow Deli article! (Just be forewarned that your new article will continue to be pelted with non-productive edits.)RevelationDirect (talk) 04:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The article reads like flame war, acusing sentence then denial with spin. the yellow deli article is an ad. The article is largley irrealevant, there was never any interest in the deli itself it was the people behind the counter that got talked about. the Yoneq article is largley irrelevant too, pratically every thing you could put in it can be said hear. The peacemaker marine is fairly good article might merit keeping. The unproductive edits will happen on every wikipage till the end of time, most of those on this page are extremmeley easy to pick out so i am not too worried. Weaponbb7 (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Before getting into proposed outlines, I strongly recommend finding reliable independent sources that cover the faith. The structure and balance of an article should be based on the body of reliable sources. This article still has serious sourcing issues, to the point where it is questionable whether the subject is even appropriate for coverage in Wikipedia. --Vassyana (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • i beleive that almost all issues covered here are easily sourced, RFC found thir own writings are sufficent for some sources, i am firm beleive we stick to about this out line that we can have a decent article, cause even if we arent able to source everything in the outline we can leave it out until we can get a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weaponbb7 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of outway house link

The link does not lead any where but a random search page, not the website it professes to be. It looks like the website is now defunct. if some one has a link that leads to a real site then the addition is welcome Weaponbb7 (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It does appear the link is dead. I didn't bother to check it myself before reverting your previous edit - my apologies. Thanks as well for your article outline; it looks very good and I think it will go a long way towards bringing balance to this article, if vandals don't disrupt the process again. Jaybird vt (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yellow Deli merger

The article on Yellow Deli overlaps substantially with this one, and I propose merging that one into this one. Any objections?   Will Beback  talk  18:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No objections from me. Though the Yellow Deli article can technically stand on its own as an article about a popular Tennessee eatery, the overlap with this article (due to the fact that its sole owner and operator is the Twelve Tribes) is enough to justify a merge. Jaybird vt (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

the article is of such poor quality i dont know why its been allowed to standWeaponbb7 (talk) 00:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You need to get out more often if you think this one is even in the bottom 10th of articles on Wikipedia! That's not to defend it's low quality; only to put it into context :-)RevelationDirect (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Count me in favor of merger. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Odd reference formatting

What is with the odd reference formatting? Why is <ref></ref> not being used??? Cirt (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The article predates that system, editors like myself have preferred retaining it rather than messing with it... or have been to lazy to update it (me especially) Weaponbb7 (talk) 03:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I reformatted it. As a side note, the article is horribly in need of a cleanup, it suffers from POV, possible COI, and way, way way, too much use of primary sources and non-independent sources. Cirt (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Reviving old talk page subject For Proposed Restructuring of Page Article

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)

Reviving Yellow Deli Merger Discussion

The article on Yellow Deli overlaps substantially with this one, and I propose merging that one into this one. Any objections? Will Beback talk 18:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• No objections from me. Though the Yellow Deli article can technically stand on its own as an article about a popular Tennessee eatery, the overlap with this article (due to the fact that its sole owner and operator is the Twelve Tribes) is enough to justify a merge. Jaybird vt (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • the article is of such poor quality i dont know why its been allowed to standWeaponbb7 (talk) 00:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    • You need to get out more often if you think this one is even in the bottom 10th of articles on Wikipedia! That's not to defend it's low quality; only to put it into context :-)RevelationDirect (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
• Count me in favor of merger. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Article merged: See old talk-page here

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge Twelve Tribes (New religious movement) -- Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Question about history

Hello Cirt and WeaponBB7. My name is Tim Kroehler, known in the community as Mevaser. I'm so thankful for the cleanup you all have done. I'm a member, and it has been hard to write from NPOV, especially with some writers that seem to be embittered themselves. I like your tone, and appreciate all the research you have done. If I can be of any help with resources, please let me know. I did have a few comments:

1. The section about the history of moving from Chattanooga to Island Pond has two references to us being "bankrupt" as a significant factor in our moving. It quotes Gary Gilbreath's article on Rick Ross' website. I don't dispute Gary saying it, but I think the wikipedia articles makes more of this quote than is real. At many times, we have "had no money" as we tend to run our communities that way. I have never heard of us talking about financial reasons for our move from Chattanooga to Island Pond, and the economy of IP was *far worse*, in rural VT, so it really didn't help the bank account. You can leave the reference to Gary's article, if desired, but I would change the wording to remove the suggestion that bankruptcy was a motivating factor. I would think that you would need some financial documentation to support this claim.

2. It would be really nice to have more about the Peacemaker buses, as these have been written about in High Times magazine and were a significant part of the Grateful Dead/Phish tour scenes.

• you would not happen to have a link to that somewhere would you?Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I do not have a link nor a hardcopy of the HIgh Times magazine. Our copy was lost, unfortunately. There was another article by Relix magazine that had some pretty zany reporting of some of our beliefs, but had some other good things about the tour. I only have a hardcopy.

Again, I appreciate the work you've done. Tim Kroehler (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Tim nice of you to join us, i have been waiting for your input. I would like to put more in on the peacemakers busses and thanks for the tip on a source. that has been a real problem finding reliable sources. On some sources it has been largley conjecture with out fact checking or much facts really; so quite a few i took facts from very biased article and wove them in. While you have obivous Conflict of interest and it his highly recommend that you dont edit this article, however i do think you do have legitimate interest on how these are written. thank you for your points Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• I understand that this is a Wikipedia entry, not the Twelve Tribes website. I like NPOV and I've tried my best to present the good and the bad. Defining "neutral" hasn't been easy, because it has seemed to me that some people (not yourself) have wanted to make the entry read like a gossip column. It is not easy to find good third-party sources, I know. I'm glad for your work, and I'm happy to be a sideline resource. Feel free to reach out for resources.

Here's a few other news articles from significant publishers. I'm not necessarily saying that I agree with everything in them, but they are valuable, I think:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062702855.html http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20070715/FEATURES/707150305 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9503E5DA173FF937A15754C0A9639C8B63 http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/valley-center/article_a68bc3cf-981d-5250-9525-e064a002bf1d.html

Someone in our group, I have heard, has a file of media articles about us. If you're interested, or if you have a specific need, I could try to get some of them. I'll try to get some good images of the Peacemaker and upload them.

Peace-

Tim Kroehler (talk) 05:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)