User talk:Butlerblog/Archives/2022/January

Striking sockpuppet comments

I saw that you struck FairNPOV's comments at Talk:Dollar coin (United States) per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. I was under the impression that SOCKSTRIKE was intended to remove invalid !votes, not general talk page comments. Am I mistaken? - ZLEA _T\^C 18:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

That's a legitimate question. It's my understanding that comments on talk pages are included, lest those comments be construed as contributing to an unofficial consensus. ("Removal is often the cleanest method when dealing with comments in RFCs, AFDs, !votes and article talk pages.") If you want to unstrike those comments on Talk:Dollar coin (United States), I'm not opposed to that, but keep in mind that this person was evading an indefinite siteban that was partially for how they used talk pages as a forum - essentially hitting talk pages seeking to stir up controversy (see [1]). The reason why I used strike on this talk page and not removal is that there were responding comments. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the striking, but I don't think they were trying to stir up controversy with that discussion. They did make a valid point with their first post. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

That makes sense. Since you're more intimately involved in that discussion, if you want to unstrike, please do so. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with the reverts and striking, I'm done checking the history. When to strike or not may be a detail, but if striking and marking, it helps future contributors to more easily identify new potential socks posting on the same talk pages. The goal of reverting and striking is also to discourage editing, it's one of the few actions that WP can resort to after a sockpuppet is discovered, to assert the fact that they have no right to edit... —PaleoNeonate – 23:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - hope I didn't make the process too messy for you! I primarily focused on talk pages, mostly where there were no responses (thus just reverting). ButlerBlog (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

It saved time, especially that it adds a "reverted" tag to the edit, —PaleoNeonate – 20:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Anti-semitism

@Butler, I am a member of the group, so I will contribute here only. I am aware that some people have labelled us "anti-semitic". This charge we deny as false and slanderous. We love Jewish people, and some of our members are of the natural seed, and are treated with respect and honor in our communities. We do no violence, and we make no laws against the Jews, nor advocate for any political force against them, nor persecute them in any way. In fact, we have separated from the Protestant Church, which has its roots in Martin Luther, who wrote a Treatise Against the Jews, advocating the burning of their synagogues. We have written about this extensively in our freepapers which can be well-documented. Martin Luther's words were used by Julius Streicher in the Nuremberg Trials to justify his evil deeds. We take no identity in the Protestant Church for this and many other reasons. The Roman Catholic Church also supported Hitler; we have written against this as well. We condemn the violence and killing done in the name of God over the centuries.

There has to be room for us to talk about Matthew 27:25, Matthew 23, and 1 Thess 2:15. These are important verses. They were written down because they were important. We have said that the Jews killed their long-awaited Messiah. 3000 Jews believed this on the day of Pentecost, being cut to the heart, and were forgiven and saved for eternity. Many of them were the ones there calling for Yahshua's death weeks before. Many were not present, but could take identity with those who were. Our hope in talking about these verses is the eternal forgiveness and salvation of all people.

We do not want to inspire hate. We are against hate. The topic is difficult to discuss, and it's very easy to turn it into a shallow war of words, where we are labelled as "anti-semitic" and people draw the wrong conclusion. Googling the word yields this definition - "hostile or prejudiced against the Jewish people". This we are not. In fact, our very identity as "Twelve Tribes" comes from Acts 26:7, which in the Williams translation says that we labor day and night "for them", meaning "for the Jews". Tim Kroehler (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Timkroehler I don't usually get into religion on Wikipedia, but after seeing your edit history, I feel that I must say something. Wikipedia tries to present all sides of the story in regard to religious topics. Just about every religion has its critics, and we can't just ignore them because a follower of said religion believes them to be wrong. The fact is that there are some people, even former members, who believe the Twelve Tribes movement to be anti-Semitic. Whether such claims are true is beside the point, since we do not present either side as wrong or right. The point of WP:NPOV is to present all sides of the story and let the reader decide what to believe. To quote the article, "They are often labelled antisemitic, although the group repeatedly denies this accusation." Notice how neither claim is presented as factual. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@ZLEA: Thanks for your comments. I think that renders some clarity. @Timkroehler: I'm not 100% certain as to your point; but based on what I suspect to be the case, you're referencing the line I returned to the article that @ZLEA noted above. If so, please note that WP:NPOV states "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject." We don't pick a side - we just present what the sources say. Also note that although I don't feel the need to justify it one way or the other, I was returning the section to NPOV from a previous series of inappropriately biased edits (see: Talk:Twelve_Tribes_communities#Support_of_Antisemitism). ButlerBlog (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

BLP

The policy about biographies of living persons also help us in our discussion: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

We don't expect everyone to agree. We don't need to silence critics. How does it helps the quality of the article to say - "these people are called antisemitic, but they deny it." It's not factual, not verifiable. How is that factual? Now, if you could produce some factual sources that are evidence of antisemitism, in the ways it was been demonstrated in history, then it should be presented. If there was evidence, you'd see us in court, or in jail, wouldn't you? Find an event where we stirred up violence, find a member arrested for plotting evil against Jews. You won't find any.

You will find our papers discussing the Bible and we try to be very clear and open about what we believe.

If an article is written about our beliefs, it should be accurate. Being labelled "anti-semitic" is just that - a label. It doesn't accurately represent our beliefs. It adds nothing to the quality of the article. Do you see the difference? It actually commits the same mistake as anti-semitism: prejudicial judgment of a group without evidence, stirring up hatred.

I would think the article could be improved by keeping to the facts: (1) verified sources of our beliefs, (2) verified sources of the "anti-semitic" citing factual sources, (3) a response of having no evidence of "hate", no crimes recorded, no mention on the ADL website of a 'hate group', no mention of inciting violence.

If my memory serves me correctly, the first time we were called Anti-Semitic was a Guardian article in 2000. The writer obviously confused our group with another "Twelve Tribes" group that is openly anti-semitic, but who believe Blacks are the true Jews and whites the imposters. But then every news article afterwards repeats "they have been called anti-semitic" but no facts presented. Tim Kroehler (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Has the group been referred to as being "antisemitic"? Yes, by your own admission. Therefore the statement "They are often labelled antisemitic, although the group repeatedly denies this accusation" is not an inaccurate representation. Or would you rather have had it read like what the previous editor was trying to insert? Because that's what I was reverting. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't catch the whole insertion and reverting. No, I don't think it's better the way previous editor had it... thanks. Tim Kroehler (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Timkroehler You seem to have a conflict of interest with this subject. I'm not just saying that because you are a follower, but because you don't seem to be able to suppress your own personal biases about the topic. A good editor is able to recognize their biases and either learns how to deal with them or contribute to unrelated topics on Wikipedia. Personally, I too am biased when it comes to religion and politics, which is why I try to stay away from those topics. Instead, I mainly contribute to articles on aviation and money. If you look, you will probably find other areas of Wikipedia that interest you too. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

@Butlerblog, I did as you said, and I wanted to let you know that I did not look closely at the edits and reverts being done. I just saw activity on the entry and wanted to participate. I'm glad when people are working on it. I realize some of the things, maybe many of the things we believe, are controversial, and I don't expect favorable reporting on all points. However, sometimes I wish the record could be improved. Anyway, I appreciate your concern, and I wanted you to know I didn't find fault with anything you had done, but just wanted to participate. @ZLEA, I'm not sure if something I said was offensive, but I meant no offense and I apologize if I've transgressed. As a member of the group, I realize there is a bias - I love what I'm doing and I wish everyone were part of the Twelve Tribes :) - but for this reason, I stay out of the editing of Wikipedia articles and help write our own literature. I'm one of the few members who is on Wikipedia and so if I can be of service confirming or supplying information, that's how I can best serve and let others edit. Tim Kroehler (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)