User talk:Timkroehler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] The Twelve Tribes and Welcome

Hello, I noticed that you've made some changes [1] to The Twelve Tribes page (I'm assuming that ip address User:64.246.158.239 is you) . I've reverted them for the time being, but that doesn't mean that your contributions aren't welcome. Basically, you changed what you perceive to be "minor inaccuracies" but they don't appear to be "minor" to me. We need to provide references for any information in the article (I know the current version doesn't really do that either). Let's discuss the changes that you would like to make on the article's talk page (Talk:The_Twelve_Tribes). We have to make sure that the article doesn't violate Wikipedia's policy of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. (Again, I know the current version isn't perfect either). I see that you are a new user to Wikipedia, so welcome and I hope that we can come to a "Common Ground" on this article. (pun intended)

Here are some links that are helpful if you are new to Wikipedia:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page.

Anyways, I hope this isn't too much information and I look forward to improving the article. Best, Kewp (t) 06:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Twelve Tribes, again

Hi. I responded to your post on Talk:The Twelve Tribes, if you want to take a look there. Best, Kewp (t) 17:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Comment on talk page

I wrote the following comment on Talk:The Twelve Tribes:
"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)"[2]
I'm not sure if you saw this comment, so I was wondering if you had any thoughts about the matter? Thanks, Kewp (t) 04:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Kewp. No I had not seen your comment. It seems like it would be good to include some of the testimony of twelvetribes-ex people; their story is part of the whole, I guess. To answer your question, in one way disgruntled ex-members have a more informed perspective of the group, having spent a significant amount of time in it. In another way, because they left after committing to a life-long covenant when they joined, it says something about their character. Like a husband who broke his covenant with his wife would have a keener perspective on his wife and her lacks, but we would understand it to be tainted by his own bitterness and personal failures to fulfill his part of the covenant. Susan Palmer wrote an article called "Apostates and their role in the construction of grievance claims." The most vocal ex-members have been those who have a case about the injustices done to them. So this makes them more easily used by those who may have an agenda to do harm. Every story has two sides, I guess, so we can include a link to the twelvetribes-Ex site. Timkroehler 00:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)