Talk:Twin Oaks Community, Virginia

message: The worst criticism that can be made to Twin Oaks community is that the objective of the original community thought by Skinner, Walden Two, wasn't to achieve a good life for a hundred persons only, but global political change, a change in society as a whole, and it seems that Twin Oaks has ceased to search that objective. 
-Shevek.
I strongly disagree with your statement that Twin Oaks has ceased to seek large-scale political change. There is no consensus among the members about what the appropriate level of engagement with outside politics is, but the majority of members are politically active beyond simply living in the community. For example, one member sits on several boards of directors of non-profits, has been arrested for political activism a half-dozen times, has organized a campaign to prevent a nuclear power plant from being built in the region, is one of the Western hemisphere's most vocal promoters of polyamory, etc. Several others are active members of Food Not Bombs chapters in Richmond and Charlottesville. Though I not sure what the current status of this is, some of the members historically have been fairly prolific writers in activist publications. The community donates money and labor hours every year to nonprofit and activist groups dealing with women's rights, human rights, gay rights, racism, and other causes. It's true that being an activist is not a requirement for membership at Twin Oaks, but any fair reading of the community would admit that hardly any, or perhaps even no, members of the community think that Twin Oaks's purpose is merely to better its own members' lives. (For more on this, see Kat Kinkade's books' discussions of why people join, or see an article that I co-wrote entitled "A Better World is Possible!" that is available on Twin Oaks' website. If you read the Richmond Style Weekly article on Twin Oaks, take it with a VERY strong grain of salt - the article was written when I was there, and literally every member who read it was stunned by the author's virtually warrantless claim that Twin Oaks was no longer interested in politics.)
(Note: I lived at Twin Oaks for 1 year, about 5 years ago, have conducted formal interviews with a dozen members, have read almost everything ever published about the community, and visit the community about 2 or 3 times a year. These are the foundations for my point of view. Others may disagree, but unless they cite evidence supporting their opinions, are just making baseless assertions.)
-Chicken Soda
One criticism I have of Twin Oaks is that they make no attempt to integrate the youth of the community into their culture, often resulting in teenagers who won't eat community food and only attend parties so that they can laugh at the adults.  I've visited the community several times and only on my last visit was it obvious to me that teenagers inhabited the place (and this is because my sister, a member, now lives in a residence with two parent-and-children style families).  They go to school, return home, and retreat to their rooms for the most part.  I think the idea is to allow the children the freedom to express themselves however they want, but when kids are attending public schools and making friends with townies that think communes are weird, then OF COURSE it encourages rebellion against the lifestyle that they know.  It's amazing to meet young people raised at Twin Oaks since they were babies, and these same young people ridicule the culture they were raised in.  I'm not saying that the young people need censorship or steering in a certain direction, but that perhaps the founders of the community did not consider youth's tendency to rebel when planning their culture.  I'm also not suggesting that I have a solution to youth rebellion, either - it seems to be inherent to western culture to rebel during the teenage years, no matter what social class or sub/counterculture you were raised in.  I know of "grown-up punks" whose children are so square, it hurts. - Rashaun 00:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms of Twin Oaks 

message: To me, this whole thing reads like an advert and a POV nightmare.  Would anyone else happen to agree? --Takeel 21:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, well, the criticism is a POV problem, the rest is not as much, but it still reads as if it already expects you to be interested in joining. On a somewhat unrelated note, would the non-violence part exclude communists for their support of revolution? More precisely, would your political ideology have to support non-violence or just your actions? If the former, that would be my criticism.--Fasterthanyou 04:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, this is interesting.  Takeel and i just had a friendly and satisfying conversation about cleaning up the vanity aspects of the entry on me.  Now we get to work together (hopefully as effectively) on cleaning up the Twin Oaks entry - which i did have some involvement with, but not that much.  So i will make cuts and changes soon to reduce the POV and Ad-like aspects of the article.  And then, hopefully, i can get some specific pointers on what remains weak.  The first part of the conversation on this page, while interesting (and with some wonderful people i know), is not appropriate for this page.  Paxuscalta 00:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've done some minor cleanup of the first two paragraphs, and I've also added some inline citations.  Since I don't usually do major edits, I'm rather wary and I hope that others will also contribute.  Citations and tightening are needed more than anything. --Takeel 03:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hrm...I'm feeling inspired tonight.  I think I'm going to be bold and hack the hell out of this article.  Please feel free to revert or counter-edit as desired because these will probably be very drastic changes and I don't doubt that there will be objections. --Takeel 04:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Paxuscalta, I was of the understanding that we at Wikipedia were prohibited from editing articles that related to ourselves. Jeff Vollmer, 12/24/09 (sorry about the ID, I'm new here)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.112.32 (talk) 03:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, that's definitely an important item to note because it was a large part of the inspiration of Twin Oaks. --Takeel 22:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advert and POV nightmare 

message: Hey guys, think we can add any more citation needed tags? I think there might be room! Oddly, sentences like "Twin Oaks' commitments to absolute nonviolence and near-absolute equality are obviously unappealing to some people of some political persuasions" don't demand citation, despite the fact that they are completely without meaning.
Just to make my point clearly, for this article and all others: Sticking "citation needed" all over the place makes an article unreadable and is tantamount to vandalism as far as I'm concerned. If an article is lacking citations on the whole, there exists boilerplate for that. It is unnecessary to make the article illegible in the name of comprehensiveness. Ipsenaut (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Last Paragraph

message: I couldn't find how many people are at TO.  The article is kind of long, so it's possible I missed it (reading a screen is not easy).  So, please, either add it, or  -- if the number is already given -- make it easier to see. Kdammers (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the number on the TO home-page and inserted it.Kdammers (talk) 04:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

text: In an effort to start using non Twin Oaks sources for information I have changed this reference to the Voice of America documentary on the community. Saratansey (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Population

message: What happened to the "Criticisms of Twin Oaks" section?  This whole article seems to have a very pro-Twin-Oaks bias in it's present form, which is not an accurate representation of the wide range of opinion people have, regarding the community.  It's as though it was edited into it's current form as a recruiting tactic or an attempt at advertising.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.216.227.186 (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this article needs much work on references that don't come from Twin Oaks itself.  It is unacceptable promotional material and contains too many trivial details from their own literature.  Needs major revision.  Eroberer (talk) 12:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms?

message: Great work you folks have been doing on the article lately!  Thanks for putting the time and effort into trying to bring this article up to WP standards.
I'm going to remain neutral myself for now as to whether the tags should come down yet or not.  Since ResidentAnthropologist put up most of those tags last December (diff), I'd recommend asking that editor for feedback as to how necessary they may still seem to be, and/or what else needs to be done before they can be removed without objection.
Regards, WikiDao  ☯ 20:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  When you think it's ready 

message: This text was removed recently by Janelmarie:That statement is an excellent example of a WP:SYNTH violation.  It independently made a connection between separately-published pieces of information to arrive at a conclusion that was not published in either source.  That is WP:OR, and all violations of that policy should be removed on sight.  Good removal, Janelmarie – and note that that sort of thing ought to be removed even if it's true. WikiDao  ☯ 17:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note about removal of a [[WP:SYNTH]] violation 

message: I took down some tags, please comment or discuss objections to that here. WikiDao  ☯ 04:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think these changes are fair and reasonable, and i live at Twin Oaks and can not see my home especially objectively. Paxuscalta (talk) 05:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags removed 

message: Another applicable policy, in addition to WP:PRIMARY mentioned above, is WP:SELFPUB, which says that self-published material may be permissibly cited in articles so long as:
# the material is not unduly self-serving;
# it does not involve claims about third parties;
# it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; 
# there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
# the article is not based primarily on such sources.
All of which conditions I think are met for the self-published material cited in this article right now.  Until I or someone else without a COI can go through and make sure that all citations of self-published material meet all five of those criteria -- then the  tag should stay up. WikiDao  ☯ 16:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Kinkade, the community avoided the problems stereotypically associated with communes (particularly laziness, freeloading, and excessive lack of structure) by adopting a structured, but flexible, labor system.[10] 
I think we make all 5 criteria listed above, except possibly this is unduly self serving.  My question is, if we pulled this last reference out, could we get out form under the Self-published tag, since there are no other self published references that are making claims that can be disputed? Paxuscalta (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, the Kinkade cites all seem good enough to me as-is.  [13] and [14] also look ok per the above criteria.  And I think that's it as far as self-pubs, right?  Let me have a quick look over it again and if that's it then I'll take the tag down... :) WikiDao  ☯ 11:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

text: OK, I took the  tag down.  Kinkade's Walden Two Experiment does not seem to have been self-published, so only WP:PRIMARY applies to that one (both Primary and Self-pub pertain to Is It Utopia Yet? since its publisher is given as "Twin Oaks Publishing").  I'm not sure what category Spalding's paper belongs in, but in any case I don't see a problem with how it is being used.  I think there could be still fewer multiple-cites of the same source.  But otherwise the article looks pretty good! Cheers, WikiDao  ☯ 22:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: WikiDao, thanks for all your help and guidance.  This is the first time in 4 years that this article is problem tag free.  That feels like something of an accomplishment. Paxuscalta (talk) 08:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Self-pub policy 

message: Any interest in covering this? With some current discussion in the world at large about these matters in relation to gender, few seem to know about how Twin Oaks experimented with the use of gender-neutral pronouns among community members. I read an article about this in 1980 or '81, and I think it was in a newsletter published by the community;  it may have also received some coverage in other alternative periodicals in the 1970s. IIRC, they tried "co" and "cos" as the pronouns, but it never took. I don't *think* I have the requisite sourcing materials at hand. But if there's sufficient interest I'm sure someone could dig some up. - CorbieV☊ 21:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, it did "take", at least for several decades. I first visited in 1975, and lived at T.O. 1978-79 and 1986-1990. In those years, we all used "co". We did think it somewhat awkward at times, but we embraced the usage as promoting our dedication to a non-patriarchal (some could argue even anti-patriarchal) society. Paulmlieberman (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Someone with a citable source, please add this topic to the article. 199.127.133.181 (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender-Neutral pronouns experiment at Twin Oaks 

message: Does anyone have sources on the longest-lived non-religious communes? See Talk:Icarians#Longest-lived non-religious communes Sondra.kinsey (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longest-lived non-religious communes 

message: Hello, I'm old and not so great with computers, so I thought I'd mention this here and leave it for the experts to decide if it's worth including. The PBS show, Nova, Season 6, Episode 3 ("A World of Difference") which originally aired January 18, 1979 covers Twin Oaks extensively, including while B.F. Skinner was touring the community.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.146.216 (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additonal info for the "Media Coverage Section" 

message: Much of this article seems to have neutrality problems. The entire article just feels like it has a bit of a slant in the way in which it is written.
AllTheMegahertz (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sundayclose will not let me publish the warning from a Twin Oaks member: Understanding Utopia. Reasons: Not a reliable source, Single opinion piece, but this is not one person's opinion. People who are interested in moving to Twin Oaks deserve to know how tricky and abusive these people are. Why is The Anarchist Library an unreliable source? Frenzyface (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's written by one person, Wortley Clutterbuck, and originally published on his blog. Regardless of whether the article has neutrality problems, self-published opinion pieces are not reliable sources. It's not me who "will not let you publish"; it's Wikipedia's policies. As for whether Wikipedia should be telling people that Twin Oaks is "tricky and abusive", Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. If there are problems at Twin Oaks, find reliable sources from mainstream media, not opinionated blogs written by one person. Sundayclose (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia’s lamentable practice of emphasizing corporate media verification of ‘facts’ over first-person witness enables the ruling elite of Twin Oaks to control its narrative and reputation. Most corporate journalists visit Twin Oaks for one afternoon and receive complete supervision; hence the unerring similarity of every (glowing) article for the last 50 years. The Clutterbuck statement required over a decades’ research — yet, predictably enough, gets quashed like every criticism within and outside Twin Oaks. Paxus’ presence on this page is brazen evidence of bias; he has managed TO recruitment for almost 20 years.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wortley H. Clutterbuck (talk • contribs) 21:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Dispute 

message: This information: "The BBC Four television series Utopia: In Search of the Dream, broadcast on August 15, 2017, devoted an 11-minute segment to Twin Oaks. Members and one former member (the founders' daughter), interviewed by Professor Richard Clay, expressed concerns about the inability to build savings, complex interpersonal relationships, limited privacy, and lack of autonomy. Clay observed that 20 percent of the membership turned over annually."  is given twice in the article. it needs to be cut down. 199.127.133.181 (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: . Thanks! There was a slight difference, so I combined the two and removed the redundancy. Sundayclose (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  redundant 

message: I don't know anything about the group, but I found myself wishing for some information about how group decisions are made.  There are a few hints that there are some rules, e.g., waiting list and expected work.  So how are those rules modified or prevented from modification?  Benevolent dictatorship?  Constitution with amendment procedure (like the USA version that all political parties ignore when they can get away with it)? 伟思礼 (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government