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

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)

agreed Dickenseditor (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

there were some investigations in Germany that involved their children (I don't think anything got turned up), but perhaps adding in that, the FBI, and the general conclusions from those investigations could be interesting. Perhaps this goes on a different sub-heading, but just brining it up here since @Butlerblog mentioned "oddities" previously:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-23977577 Dickenseditor (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

"Cult"

Looks like some of this was discussed above, but I think it is worth discussing more now as this was years ago. I don't really want to get into the language of the article on the whole, just the label "cult". Per WP:ONUS, what is the case for retaining that, and more relevant, what is the case for retaining that in the LEAD per WP:DUE/WP:UNDUE weight for such a contentious and value laden MOS:LABEL. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @Cambial Yellowing Iljhgtn (talk) 07:29, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

There’s considerably more and higher quality sources for cult than for “new religious movement”. It’s probably time we looked at removing the poorly-supported term “new religious movement” and simply characterise it as a cult, as per Wp:SPADE. Due and undue weight are for the sources available. Falsely characterising six sources as one source is not a reason to change the article text. WP:ONUS is for new material. This has long been the status quo in the article. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:31, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Lets review them each, again per WP:ONUS, otherwise it should be removed as a value-laden term. "Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution."

So at best, it would need in-text attribution from each of those sources or the WP:BESTSOURCES, but most likely is UNDUE for the lead, though some of that could be due in body. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:35, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the proposal; we should retain the status quo until and unless such a consensus forms. Currently the term “cult” is cited to six sources, including much scholarship, and editors have previously referred to other news sources which use the same characterisation. The reason such sourcing exists is simple: this is a cult that abuses women and children, as documented in the academic literature cited. The sources use the term factually, in-text attribution is not appropriate. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:50, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Again, "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." per WP:ONUS. We can try the WP:3O option though. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:56, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I have posted over at Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements our dispute seeking a 3O to offer their thoughts. Iljhgtn (talk) 08:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Again, where there is WP:NOCONSENSUS, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. There are other page watchers of this page. You could also pursue other methods to garner wider community input. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

If other page watchers wish to comment, they are free to. If you have other suggestions, I am also open to hearing about them. Iljhgtn (talk) 08:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

But two people in disagreement is classic WP:3O, and not a case of real WP:NOCON. Also, when there are other WEIGHT aspects at play for both the lead and the fact that you are trying to include a "value-laden label" of "cult", and in wikivoice no less, then it would be best to likely seek outside involvement for more thoughts and opinions to settle the dispute. Iljhgtn (talk) 08:04, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

There’s prior discussion of the POV editing of the page, including the inappropriate and tendentious portrayal of the subject as simply a “religious movement”. Your OP indicates you have seen some of that discussion, in which multiple editors express opposition to a tendentious “new religious movement” framing, and support characterising the group as a cult based on the voluminous sourcing. So we already have more than one third opinion. They oppose a POV edit such as your proposal. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:22, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

This was years ago from what I can tell, and it looks like it might have been you and one other editor. Respectfully, I still believe that extraordinarily charged labels need more evidence to be used, and especially so when in wikivoice, and then finally in the lead so that they do not command WP:UNDUE weight. I will courtesy ping the other editor from that older discussion though now. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @Grorp Iljhgtn (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

The previous discussion was among Grorp, 82.21.177.66 and myself. Clear views expressed that Wikivoice for "cult" is appropriate. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:56, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Not sure where to insert my comments into this thread, so I'll just do it right here.

An organization can be both a cult and a new religious movement; the terms are not mutually exclusive.

While members of such groups often reject the label "cult" when applied to their own organization—and proponents of NRMs tend to object to the term more broadly—"cult" remains a widely recognized descriptor for organizations exhibiting certain sociological or behavioral characteristics.

The fact that the term carries value-laden connotations does not justify its exclusion from Wikipedia. The platform exists to document and describe reality as it is understood, not to serve as a promotional tool that sanitizes subjects for public relations purposes.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:17, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but what about MOS:LABEL? Iljhgtn (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Per MOS:LABEL... "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". Cambial has extensively pointed out that there are many reliable sources using the term "cult". A review of my very old posts on this talk page reminds me about how much of the content was defending against being called cult, which means there are even more sources calling this organization a cult. Thus MOS:LABEL is no barrier to using the word here.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:47, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

We do also need to factor though the date of these sources and geography. If a religion (potentially cult, as all religions were likely once cults, that eventually were later characterised as religions), we need to consider what is the best reporting and coverage currently say about the group. Maybe they once were a cult, or in some countries might be considered a cult, but MOS:LABEL forces us to use more consideration than to slap a label on a body of thousands of people and call it a day never to be revisited again. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't know why you think that; Wikipedia is not a newspaper and time is not an issue. We've already rehashed this extensively, and the consensus seems clear. Multiple editors have weighed in, and reliable sources support the use of the term cult in context. Wikipedia policy—including MOS:LABEL—requires us to reflect how reputable sources describe the subject, not to sanitize language based on personal discomfort. At this point, rehashing the same objections isn't productive. If you have new sources or policy-based arguments, bring them. Otherwise, please respect the consensus and move on (per WP:STICK).   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 23:59, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Procedural discussion moved to user talk. Xan747 (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn, I closed your 3O ticket since you are involving a third editor. Xan747 (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Was attempting to. Ideally we'd keep this open though until they comment? If we do not hear from them in a few days I'll reopen it. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

It's arguable that it should not have been opened in the first place due to it having already been discussed by multiple editors above, and I almost closed it for that reason. Though it doesn't explicitly say so in the 3O instructions, I generally see them as most appropriate for novel issues. Xan747 (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Even years apart from the discussion, and where maybe 2, possibly 3 editors were involved? I've used WP:3O before and it has been helpful to open new perspective on exactly cases similar to this. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

• Chiming in here with my two cents. See my disclosure at the top of the page. Enough sources label this as a cult to support adding something like "the group has been labeled as a cult by detractors of the organization, former members, and some scholars who have studied the group." Wikipedia reflects sources even if they are wrong. Still, it is frustrating to me to not be able to find reliable sources that cover the topic without embellishment. Coverage of the Tribes paints a picture that does not resemble today's Tribes. The media reports on abandoned 1980s practices as if they are still occurring (e.g. scouring, adults disciplining other parents children willy nilly, only allowed two squares of toilet paper). S. R. Lavin, a former member of the Tribes, writes, "Calling the Twelve Tribes a “hate group” or “dangerous cult” is really hyperbole, hyper-reactionary, and absolutely misleading. The group does not militate against any other group. They do not organize demonstrations against other groups or people they disagree with about sensitive social and political values." I have changed some parts of the article that referred to the group as a "movement". It is not a movement. You can be a kindred friend of the Tribes, but can't affiliate your church with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schierbecker (talk • contribs) 21:36, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
• Comment user:Schierbecker you forgot to sign your comment, and I forgot how to add signatures for people that forgot to sign their comments. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

  Handled. Xan747 (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

  How do you do that again? Iljhgtn (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

  {{unsigned|UserName|Time and date}}. Just copy the date as it appears in the edit history. Xan747 (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

The courts in both France and Germany have determined that the group's mistreatment and abuse of children represents a danger to children's safety and wellbeing, to the extent that they removed children from their birth parents' care. That's not something they do lightly. It's normally reserved for parents who are hard drug addicts or with serious mental health issues. This was as recently as 2013 and 2015, and was upheld by the European Court of Human Rights in 2018. The notion that they are now reformed and/or that media reports focus on abandoned practices from the 1980s is factually inaccurate and a canard that does not stand up to the tiniest scrutiny. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Are all branches of this group around the world the same? Jewish, Christian, Transgender, and groups of all kinds have been found to do awful things in all parts of the world. Do we then extend the labels of the problem groups to the whole? Do the groups around the world all have these same legal issues? Iljhgtn (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

That's a bizarre false equivalence. This is a single organisation, not a category. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:38, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Right, and does this "single organisation" have the same legal issues or problems all around the world? I was not comparing this org to those, other than to say that in those cases there are bad entities among all orgs, and do we have reporting that shows that this was a global problem? Wikipedia is a global project and the articles should reflect the global view and sources coverage of the Twelve Tribes Communities. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:46, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

France and Germany ban all forms of corporal punishment, so it is not surprising that the kind of child discipline going on there was grouped in with actual child abuse. I don't have knowledge of how things were in the French community (though I did live with a German couple whose children were taken in in the raid in Germany), though I would expect that that community approached child rearing in a similar way to American communities. Schierbecker (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

There is room for certain communities to have slightly different protocols from the whole group (and for certain groups to deviate from or misinterpret directions from on high). But I suspect that the reason the U.S. communities have had less trouble from authorities in this area is that this kind of discipline is not considered abuse in this jurisdiction. Schierbecker (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Plus in the U.S. the group only chooses to operate in those states where their violent behaviour is not criminalised. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:02, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Sources for these claims? Again the WP:ONUS for including the label is on those seeking to have it added. Prior participants in any consensus building can join in this new establishment of consensus, whether that be to retain the label, qualify it, or remove it altogether following policy of MOS:LABEL. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, we could post at the WP:NPOVN if it would be helpful to have more participants than just found here? IF we cannot settle on a clearly supported consensus in this discussion, we may have to. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

There's 7 sources cited for the use of the cult in the lead. Do you have a long list of reliable sources that don't describe the group that way? You'll need to present a compelling case for there to be a serious discussion about this topic. Nemov (talk) 12:21, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

When were those "7 sources" published and in which geographic regions were they referring to this group? Or were they referring to the "Twelve Tribes" globally? Iljhgtn (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to review the sources yourself. Nemov (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

"Variously"

I've seen many articles where "variously described" is the best way to describe multiple different labels. Here the labels were, "The Twelve Tribes, formerly known as the Vine Christian Community Church, the Northeast Kingdom Community Church, the Messianic Communities, and the Community Apostolic Order, is a movement which is variously described as either a cult or a new religious movement."

@Cambial Yellowing contests the addition of "variously" here. I think this is a pretty mellow addition for the yellow to protest, but here we are. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:50, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

This is a simple issue of grammar and phrasing. There are only two nouns, so the word “variously” is out of place, grammatically odd and unnecessary. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:52, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Variously cannot be used to describe the different labels because there are only two? Iljhgtn (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

What is the purpose of adding this word? How does it improve the article? Cambial — foliar❧ 19:38, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

To reflect the sources which show "varied" descriptors, which is often the wording used when this is the case. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Which source does it reflect that says "variously" or "varied"? Cambial — foliar❧ 19:43, 15 October 2025 (UTC)