Talk:Twelve Tribes communities

message: You immediately swapped out  the archival tool I set up  before it even had a chance to run a cycle. But your archiving bot isn't picking up the two old threads (2014 & 2016), whereas I know the archive bot I set up would have done so. I'm changing it back. Please let it run through its cycle at least once. Grorp (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies on the mixup.  It was not intentional actually.  When I made my edit, I honestly did not even notice the edit history and that you had actually just implemented archiving.  I was looking at the wikimarkup alone and thinking that it wasn't archiving (which of course it wasn't because it was just set up).  A total snafu on my part and I can see from your perspective it may have seemed like I was trying to undo your bot setup, which was not the case at all.  So please completely ignore that mess and proceed as needed with your bot config. ButlerBlog (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Holy cow, that bot is on the ball! I thought it would take 24 hours, but it just ran and archived those two old threads. Thanks for the explanation. How about we leave it as it is. Grorp (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great!  Well, if it ain't broke, don't fix it, right? (So I won't try to ;-) ) ButlerBlog (talk) 12:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: (Several times now?) you have reverted my "unverified" tag (with no explanation from you), so I looked even closer. This is what I found.
Although the source given (when translated from German to English) says "Sociologist of religion Susan Palmer showed that after the police raids in September 2013, the doctors found no evidence of ill-treatment," the source is from APA-OTS which is a distributor of press releases (like PR Newswire). See their impressum. So I went to the source (given by link at the bottom of original citation) which is a redirect (http://www.ots.at/redirect/foref2) to . Not currently available, but is available through wayback machine.  That leads to the old website for FOREF Europe (foref.info). I see they have a new website https://foref-europe.org/ which fortunately is in English.
FOREF Europe is an advocacy group for freedom of religion.  Per WP:PRSOURCE, I really don't think this press release is a reliable source for repeating verbatim the English-translation version "Sociologist of religion Susan Palmer pointed out that the doctors found no evidence of mistreatment in September 2013 following the police raids."
Also, since "the European Court of Human Rights upheld the German move to take away the children from the sect", then Palmer's statement hints of WP:MANDY and probably shouldn't be mentioned in the article at all. (This English FOREF document shows their activism and ideas on this incident in all its POV glory. Also not a reliable source to use in Wikipedia, but interesting all the same.) Though there may not have been "marks" on the children at the time of the raid, there were routine canings on the children prior, which is why they were picked up in the first place. 
Analogy: If I smack you today and it makes a pink handprint on your cheek, but it's not there tomorrow, does that mean I cannot be arrested tomorrow for assault because you no longer have any remaining mark on your face?
Mentioning this "single point in time" statement from Palmer is WP:UNDUE and I don't think the wiki article would be lacking if the sentence were removed altogether. Grorp (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag you used is , and I did explain why I removed it in my edit summary - the source says verbatim what was being cited in the article.  Based on all the other things you noted, along with the fact that my edit summary was unclear to you, I think maybe you're using the wrong tag for your purpose.  You have to make sure you're using the right tags if you want other editors to know what you're intending to convey - whether that's that a better source is needed, that it's not a reliable source, etc.  As far as everything else you noted, while I would probably disagree that it is UNDUE, but I would agree that it probably doesn't matter one way or the other whether it's removed.  If it is in fact a press release, then it really should be, as that's not really a useable source.  I'll leave that up to you as to whether you want to remove it or retag it (with a more appropriate tag); but as far as marking it as failed verification, the source cited says what is in the article, so it should not be tagged (at least with that particular tag). ButlerBlog (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. It wasn't until after I'd drafted the above message, and then posted it, that I saw you'd made another edit which had an explanation. (Two ships passing in the night.) I didn't look back on earlier edits, but I could have sworn this was earlier cited to a book which just didn't mention it (hence unverif) and since today it wasn't a book that's why I went diving. No worries. Today's "deep dig" showed it was likely sourced to an unreliable source anyway, so I will remove the sentence and citation since I don't think it adds any value to the story. Grorp (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem! ButlerBlog (talk) 03:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unverified tag