Talk:Twelve Tribes communities

"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)

Marshall Fire

The section about the Marshall Fire under "Recent activity" duplicates the "Other issues" section. This newer addition has lots of unsupported information and is less clear than the preexisting text to the reader. How could this be remedied?

Please see my updated disclosure above. Schierbecker (talk) 04:09, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Tagging User:Iljhgtn, User:Cambial Yellowing, User:Xan747. Schierbecker (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

What specifically is there that is "unsupported information" or "less clear"? Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 03:21, 1 April 2026 (UTC) —  Blocked sockpuppet of PapaTakaro, see investigation.

• A week later, on December 30, the weather had become more dry, leading to embers reigniting. Not supported by the source. And how could weather become drastically more dry from one week to the next that embers would reignite? The primary cause of the fire, of course, was the high wind blowing buried embers onto combustible material.
• Videos were taken of a burning shed and field. Whose shed was burning? Why is this video considered important?
• High winds carried sparks from the fire towards a broken power line about 2,000 feet away, which caused an explosion, resulting in the Marshall Fire. This sentence is not supported at all by the citation. The news article merely preludes unannounced findings that were set to come out later that day.
• In the aftermath, the Twelve Tribes members were concluded to not be at fault for the fire. Concluded by whom? The report was only looking at criminal culpability, no?
• Initially, no charges were held against either the Twelve Tribes members or Xcel Energy, The word "initially" is unnecessary. No charges were ever filed. whose broken power line was investigated interrupts the flow. Why isn't this sentence written more naturally?
• However, a later report concluded that Xcel Energy was primarily at fault. Whose report? Was this really a later report? The source also does not say that Xcel was primarily at fault for the Marshall fire. The source says that Xcel most likely caused the Trailhead fire.

At one point this passage was even claiming that the fire originated at the Yellow Deli (which is six miles away??)

I'm not sure how to salvage this. I think the other section about the fire is much more acceptable. Schierbecker (talk) Schierbecker (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I wonder if the text pertaining to the fire in Twelve Tribes communities#Other issues could replace the text in the Marshall fire section? Schierbecker (talk) 03:12, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

It definitely should not be covered twice in the article, that's excessive weight. The "other issues" para on the fire is better written and sourced. I think replacing the "Marshall fire" section with the para from "other issues" is a good solution. Schazjmd (talk) 12:32, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that would be ideal. Much better than the current situation. Schierbecker (talk) 04:24, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done Schazjmd (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Lead says "is a cult," body attributes it — should probably match

I'm a member of the Twelve Tribes community, raising issues but not making edits directly. I'm also not trying to reopen the whole “cult/NRM” debate from a few months back. My question is narrower.

Right now the lead says the group "is a cult and new religious movement," in wiki-voice, no attribution. But down in the body, the article handles the same point the right way: "Based on the group's practices, scholars describe the group as a cult." That's the WP:MOSLABEL-compliant version. The lead doesn’t match. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is supposed to summarize the body, not go further.

While I was looking at this I went and checked a couple of the sources bundled into note 14, which is what's carrying the unattributed claim in the lead:

• Palmer's chapter in the Lewis encyclopedia (pp. 334–335) : You can read it on archive.org. She never uses the word "cult" anywhere in the actual text. It's only in the title of the book series, "Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects and New Religions."

• Wright 1997, pp. 107–108 — similar story. He discusses the group at length (this is the same source already cited elsewhere in the article for the "front-end/back-end disproportionality" point about media coverage) but he doesn’t call the group a “cult”. He calls it a "fundamentalist Christian communal organization."

• Worth noting too — the Denver Post pieces attribute the "cult" term to former members quoted in the story ("...10 former members told The Denver Post"), rather than stating it as the paper's own conclusion.

• Two are Swantko’s papers -- as a member of the group, she certainly does not call the group a ‘cult’.

Haven't gone through the rest of the bundle yet (SPLC, Whitsett & Rosow, Lalich & McLaren, the p.155 cite to Palmer's Children in New Religions) -- if anyone's got easy access to those and wants to check how each one actually uses the term, that'd help sort out which of the seven are really supporting an unattributed claim.

This word choice isn't a new dilemma in the field of NRMs -- James Richardson has a good article on this, tracing how the word "cult" went from a fairly neutral sociological category to what he calls a "popular-negative" one (Richardson, J.T. (1993). "Definitions of Cult: From Sociological-Technical to Popular-Negative." Review of Religious Research, 34(4), 348-356). Which is more or less the reason WP:MOSLABEL wants attribution for a word like this instead of just stating it outright.

So-- not asking to pull "cult" from the lead, just asking that it match how the body already handles it. And maybe we should take a look at sources using the word ‘cult’ and attribute the best ones. I think I should stay out of suggesting specific wording on this topic, but I did want to raise the issue. Thoughts?

Mevaser (talk) 01:38, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for clearly stating your association and for your detailed post. I'd be curious to hear your suggested wordings for consideration. Kodak11111 (talk) 01:54, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Following up as promised, with proposed wording:

"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 an international, millenarian, communal new religious movement.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Palmer |first=Susan J. |year=2010 |title=The Twelve Tribes: Preparing the Bride for Yahshua's Return |journal=[[Nova Religio]] |volume=13 |issue=3 |pages=59–80 |doi=10.1525/nr.2010.13.3.59 |publisher=[[University of California Press]]}}</ref>"

And in the term ‘cult’ moves to the third paragraph, attributed:

"The group has been described as a cult by some scholars, journalists, and former members, a characterization other scholars who study the group have not applied to it in their own work."

Palmer's article is specifically about this group (she's done fieldwork with them since 1986) and uses "international millenarian organization" and "communal NRM" in her own voice in the piece cited above. Seemed like solid footing for the lead's opening description rather than the current unattributed wording. Open to adjustments. Mevaser (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

As numerous scholars and journalists refer to the group as a cult, rather than a “new religious movement”, your proposal to position the term you like as definitional reality,and the one you dislike somewhere in the 3rd paragraph, fails to maintain a neutral point of view. Cambial — foliar❧ 01:35, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Revised proposal, keeping "cult" in the first paragraph but attributed, rather than moved to the third:

"The Twelve Tribes ... is an international, millenarian, communal new religious movement that has been described by some scholars, journalists, and former members as a cult."

Both terms stay in the same sentence. The word-to-watch is not stated unattributed in Wikipedia's voice.

On sourcing — note 14 currently bundles seven sources under one citation covering the whole phrase. Some support one term and not the other: Palmer and Wright use "new religious movement" and don't use "cult" anywhere in the cited text; Whitsett & Rosow, Lalich & McLaren, and SPLC do use "cult." Splitting the citation so each term points to the sources that actually support it would bring this in line with MOS:LABEL regardless of how the rest is resolved.

Submitting this for your judgment. Mevaser (talk) 02:15, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

NO, the lead is good as is. Also, every single scholarly source on this planet calls it a cult. Quetstar (talk) 10:40, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Mevaser (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

The sources to which you refer are cited for the claim it is a new religious movement. The scholarship cited and the SPLC article indicate explicitly and factually that the subject is a cult. The quotes are in the citations for the scholarly sources you haven’t gone through yet, the SPLC article is available by clicking the link. I’ve amended the body to follow the framing in the reliable sources. The scholarship was published long after the claimed changes in socio-linguistic meaning described by Richardson; the authors understand the use of the word. “Label” does not require attribution where multiple sources factually characterise a violent hate group involved in child abuse as a cult. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:04, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

The edit makes the unattributed label the subject of the sentence in the body – does that really resolve the issue?

I'd like to come back to the MOS:LABEL issue, because it's really what this all hinges on. The actual text of the policy says value-laden labels (such as "cult") are "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." So wide use is the thing that *triggers* attribution, not something that lets you skip it. Without wide use, you don’t use the term. If I'm misunderstanding the wording or missing some text somewhere that says otherwise, please point me to it — but as written it reads the opposite way from how it's being applied here.

And on "widely used" — how do we actually judge that? Palmer and Wright both write about this specific group at length and use the term "new religious movement" the whole time. Whitsett, Lalich, and SPLC use the term "cult." That's not one term winning out. That's an unresolved issue among the scholars. Feels like exactly the kind of situation where WP:YESPOV calls for attribution, whichever way a raw count would go.

Kodak11111, thanks for asking, and I don’t want to leave it hanging — I'll try to submit a wording suggestion in the next few days. Mevaser (talk) 03:19, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Not done: This topic is too sensitive and will only lead to more troublesome debate. Also, every news organisation on Earth calls it a cult. Quetstar (talk) 04:48, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the forum to mention this or not. But this has to be mentioned in some forum. “Mevaser” is known by me as a former member to be the name given to Tim Kreohler, who was nearly banned some time ago for such a significant amount of edits to the article in favor of the group. Is this sock puppetry or some other wrong? ~2026-50143-21 (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I have only one account, officially renamed through Wikipedia's standard process — it's in the public rename log if anyone wants to verify. No second account, no sockpuppetry. I'd also ask that my prior name not be repeated here going forward; I've made a separate request to have the old identifying material handled appropriately. Would rather keep this thread on the MOS:LABEL question above. Mevaser (talk) 01:44, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at NPOV noticeboard about the word cult

A participant at this page has opened a discussion at the neutrality noticeboard but has not notified this page. This notice remedies that. Cambial — foliar❧ 01:50, 28 September 2026 (UTC)