Talk:Bruderhof Communities

Attribution and Verifiability

Hello all. First, I've moved this discussion to the top of the talk page so that new editors coming to this page don't miss it.

This article can certainly be improved and anyone is welcome to help. However, editors should bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a place to promote your group or disparage others. Wikipedia articles should contain verifiable facts attributable to a reliable, published source.

The following passage from the official Wikipedia policy page on verifiability applies here:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. Quotations should also be attributed. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.\

Changes and discussion 2016

Hi, I am making some changes to try to improve the article, as some parts are quite outdated, and others parts are poorly cited. I don't have much time but will try to work on it bit by bit. I can see that there are been quite a few battles over neutrality in the past (common to many Wikipedia pages!) so I will be attempting to make this neutral and encyclopedic. Happy to discuss any changes! Grec man (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I hope people like the photos I added. I thought it would help readers visualize the content a bit better. Grec man (talk) 12:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Just noticed that the page has a links section. This is not really necessary, and goes against Wikipedia policy. So I will delete it. If someone feels really strongly against that, do say, but I don't think it really adds. I also deleted the bibliography. I don't think having lists of books improves the article. The Bruderhof has hundreds of books it has published, and there are many others - it will get exhausting to list them all. If someone disagrees, go ahead and restore it. I can't find a specific guidance on bibliographies, but most pages don't have them. Books should rather be listed on an author page. Grec man (talk) 12:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I see the links section was reintroduced, but with less links. Fine I guess, but hopefully it doesn't grow into another link directory. --Grec man (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Trimming it down was good, in my opinion, but a link to the official website of the subject of the article is well within the guidelines of Wikipedia, and (in my opinion) very worthwhile.Mikeatnip (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Great - agreed! --Grec man (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

In that case the link section should be kept as a reference to the official website. LarryRJones (talk) 08:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The hyperlinks to the various locations have been removed again, which I don't feel strongly about, but I don't understand why the links are against the MOS. Can someone explain? Just trying to learn... Also, when the links were removed, parts of the community names were removed as well, so I had to restore them.--Grec man (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

They're inline external links and should not be present. They are only acceptable in the external links sections. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I have found that part in the MOS now - completely my fault. Grec man (talk) 07:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The arcane rules and guidelines can be daunting at first. I'm glad you're contributing and learning them as you go. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

External links and criticism section

See the Wikipedia policy on external links. Here's a relevant quote "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to...chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups)...Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites...Websites of organizations mentioned in an article". I have limited the external links to sites meeting these criteria.

If you wish to add links, please note that " Disputed links should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them." LarryRJones (talk) 09:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

This matter of the KIT Critics link section has been discussed at length these last many years. I thought it had been resolved many years ago and that those links are to remain. The links themselves are not disputed. It is the fact of the criticism that causes a problem. The Bruderhof are famously adverse to criticism and especially from KIT sources. The links are properly placed in the External Links section and should remain. The critics section adds the counter view to the Bruderhof comprising the reflections and arguments of the hundreds of people who have left/been expelled from the Bruderhof for various but fervent reasons. It is a witness to the darker side of this "cult" like organisation and should be maintained. It completes the factual balance of the Wikipedia entry by including a counter view to the encyclopaedic entry for the Bruderhof. Readers who are searching can thus be lead to the counter view and come to their own conclusions. Raphaelbm (talk) 10:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I now propose leaving the page without the critics section to allow a discussion to take place again and in particular because of LarryRJones insistence on removing the links for strict Wikipedia guidelines reasons. I hope this matter can be agreed in a month when I propose to replace the Critics section. We do not need to get in to the wasteful habit of just reverting a change again and again. Let me hear what your real objection is. Raphaelbm (talk) 10:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I probably started this by removing the external links section, because Wikipedia is not meant to be a link farm, and there are hundreds of sites that could be added. I think the page is fine without any external links, since Google is the correct tool for bringing up websites on a certain topic. However, if people insist on having a section, so be it. Raphaelbm (talk) said that he proposes to replace the critics section. I have rather added the link to the main critic website back as a footnote in the criticism section. But if other uses want a link farm, then go ahead. It will just get really long and tiresome to maintain. Grec man (talk) 10:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

No one is questioning a well-referenced section on criticism in the article. Links to websites which are collections of opinion on the topic or related organizations like Plough Publishing House are superfluous. Recent changes to this page have made it much more encyclopedic and less promotional of personal viewpoints. Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this process. LarryRJones (talk) 12:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

As I understand Wikipedia guidelines for external links, only highly valuable links that are beyond personal opinions are to be used. Obviously this would allow a link to an official website. I would say that Plough Publishing, as the official publishing arm of the Bruderhof, could be in that category as well. But whether we like it or not, a Yahoo Group, critical or supportive, is not really considered a valuable link because it is too often personal, unverifiable opinions that are often one-sided (for example, someone was kicked out of an organization, and they have an axe to grind. But they only tell the bad part of how they were treated, and skip over how their own attitudes and actions led to their expulsion). Every major religious, political, and business group will have detractors. For example, Ford Motor Company probably has an anti-Ford group[s] out there, either disgruntled employees who think they deserve a raise, people who have had bad experiences with a Ford product (when the vast majority are good), or just have a negative attitude for no real reason than besides the fact they just decided they don't like a Ford). Because of the highly subjective opinions, such groups do not provide solid facts. Thus they are to be avoided. A critics section within the article could be useful in some cases, but we need to remember that the article is about the topic, not about the anti-topic, and should not dominate the article. In the case of this particular article, a sentence or two mentioning that the Bruderhof have critics could be admissible, with a link in a footnote. The article is not about whether the subject of the article is right or wrong, good or bad, but rather what the topic is about. I want to say here that I am just laying out my understanding of Wikipedia guidelines, and stand to be corrected if shown better. Thanks!Mikeatnip (talk) 12:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the discussion. I'm not opposed to removing the various ELs, but I have a problem when the edit summary says that there was a discussion about it and there wasn't.

A criticism section is not appropriate and valid criticism should be incorporated into the sections that are criticized. That idea is expanded at Wikipedia:Criticism. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Interesting point Walter. I think it is clear that the external links section shouldn't link to discussion forums etc, and shouldn't have a separate critics section. I am more reluctant to remove the whole "Criticism" section in the main article, even though you are right about that according to Wikipedia:Criticism. It seems that a inherent part of religious groups is criticism, so maybe it is appropriate here? Grec man (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I am rethinking the criticism section. Most of the criticism about the Bruderhof appears to come from a specific time in their history (around 1960). Perhaps I will try to expand that section, research more about the cause of the problems, then move the criticism to the relevant history section. Other bits of criticism can easily go in the appropriate place. I will have a go at this, but it might take a few weeks. Grec man (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Walter, for that link. I wasn't aware of that page. Concerning the "Critics" section of the Bruderhof, I have felt for a long time that it was overweighted, and that KIT link was not a valid Wikipedia link because of it being a discussion board type of thing. As I understand Wikipedia:Criticism, the KIT group mainly critical of the Bruderhof should only be referred to in the article if other independent sources reference the event/group as having relevance. I have not specifically researched this personally, but my somewhat limited knowledge of the history of the Bruderhof tells me that the KIT group is not exactly a significant event/spinoff that would merit mention in the article. My understanding of that KIT is that is composed of former disgruntled individuals who left or were put out of the Bruderhof for various reasons, of which every religious and political entity will have some. I stand to be corrected on this, but would like to see some sources indicating that the critical "group" consists of more than some individuals, o whom third party historians would hardly give weight. Mikeatnip (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, based on the feedback above, I have integrated the criticism into the main page, mostly into the history section. It is quite hard to explain the history in a concise way. I have made sure to mention that there is a group of ex-members still whose stories make up Rubin's book. That way, those interested can buy the book.Grec man (talk) 09:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Based on the comments by Mikeatnip and Walter Görlitz, I have been doing some reading, and it is notable that pages like Mormon and Church of England have very little about their critics. Or course, both groups have thousands of critics for many different reasons, but they don't get much mention. We should probably aim to move in that direction here, making it more "What is the Bruderhof" as opposed to "What do some people think about the Bruderhof". Hopefully my history edit covers that, but perhaps I have given it too much focus.Grec man (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistent language

The language used in the article is inconsistent. I see both American and "International" spellings. By early 2004, I see major additions of American spellings (for instance, "neighbor" rather than "neighbour") and so would argue that we should use that format as the International spellings were grafted-in later. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, I watched the show on the BBC, just read through the article then edited a little, but I think it should be best to stick to Anglo-English dictionary, British English, considering it started in Germany I thought it might be best. Govvy (talk) 11:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

What you think is immaterial. Germany is no more British than it is Turkish. We will rely on the language preference used by the editors who started the article as that is what MOS:RETAIN states. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Formatting the article.

I had a look again and noticed at the top {{Use American English|date=July 2019}} and {{Use mdy dates|date=July 2019}}. I really don't think it's a good idea to establish this article as American. Govvy (talk) 11:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I strongly suggest we continue to use American English in this article. While the Bruderhof are international, it is in the U.S. where the group has found most of its growth and membership. I suspect most editors of the English-language wiki about the Bruderhof are based in America. I believe the Bruderhof's publishing house itself uses American English.SONORAMA (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I hardly think the growth and size merits that assessment. I fail to see an established logic towards that assessment either. Govvy (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Point is that their own publishing house is based in the U.S. they use U.S. English in their printed materials (with exception of the word Plough.) Therefore, we will use U.S. English in the article as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SONORAMA (talk • contribs) 23:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

MOS:RETAIN. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Removal

I made this edit [1] for these reasons:

1. The publication in Huffingtonpost does not say that "Young people [in general] who choose to leave the community are not cut-off from their families within the Bruderhof".
2. All claims in this paragraph were made in WP voice, without explicit attribution to sources. This is especially unacceptable when using a self-published source like http://www.bruderhof.com in this paragraph.
3. I think that all self-published sources should be avoided on this page per WP:SELFPUB if they were used to make "unduly self-serving" claims, as the policy tells. My very best wishes (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Now, speaking about "Technology" section [2], I did follow the source [3], but it does not support the statement. Author tells about her experience of learning as a student in a high school that belongs to Bruderhof Communities: "It’s a four-year high school and has no technology except for a computer lab where seniors take typing. I don’t have a phone or a computer, so I’m never really online. I do my homework with a pen, paper, and calculator. I’ve never seen social media.". OK, that can be included. My very best wishes (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

In the order that they appear in the article, WP:ABOUTSELF is clear: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" and that is what is being done here. The claims being made, 1) youth do not automatically become members, 2) many are encouraged to leave the community and live elsewhere before deciding by themselves whether or not to join the community is supported in the Post–High School section of the supplied source. It's not a controversial statement and so SELFPUB is not an issue. At worst, a {{better source}} template should be applied, with the "reason" indicating that a more general source should be found, and the content left in-place.

What the HuffPost article reads is "Rhodes was raised in the deeply Christian, Mennonite-like Bruderhof community in Rifton … He left the enclave at age 18, seeking a more socially liberal atmosphere, but he remains close with his family". It's a single example. What this is comparing Bruderhof community to is conservative Mennonite and some other Anabaptist culture, where if you leave the community, you are not welcome to return. There would not be a closeness with anyone who left. Your point is that this is a single case and may or may not represent all those in the community. However, removing it is unnecessary when re-wording would suffice. A secondary source is probably better though.

So in short, SELFPUB is acceptable based on ABOUTSELF and the HuffPost reference could be more general, but does not need to be removed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

So... (1) If we want to include a story of one person, this must be clearly stated as a story of a single person and attributed to that single person who is not an expert on the subject and who may not be a representative case. Do you think such stories are "due" on the page? Perhaps just a few of them? (2) If you want to include self-published sources, the statements must clearly attributed, i.e. "According to website of the organization...". Yes, such sources may be used, but only if they are not "unduly self-serving", do "not involve claims about third parties", and "the article is not based primarily on such sources" (per the policy), but at lest some of that seem to apply here. Also, "may" does not mean we "should". To the contrary, the less we are using self-published sources, the better. My very best wishes (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

So... did you read what the guidelines state?

No, we do not need to clearly stated that it is the story of a single person, but it would not hurt to make it clear.

No, SPSs are clearly an exception when they are ABOUTSELF. If you want to make it clear that the group is making a statement about themselves, that's fine. It's clear that the article is not based primarily on those sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Not only I read WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:SELFPUB, but I just cited it above. If you insist such sources should be used on the page, that's fine. It means one should also use sources like that, which is apparently a posting by John A. Hostetler, who is apparently a scholar of Amish and Hutterite societies. That was posted here, which looks to me as a websites of a human rights organization. OK, will use it. My very best wishes (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

English is not your first language. I never stated they should be used, only that they may be used. I also stated that if you wanted to correct content, it would be acceptable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure, let's fix rather than remove. But simply looking at the "Education" section, for example, I simply do not see where this source makes a general claim that "Young people..." and so on. Perhaps I am missing something? The previous phrase makes statement that "young people are encouraged..." - in WP voice and essentially as a matter of fact. Yes, this is a claim by the official site of the organization. However, if to follow various claims linked here, they tell a different story. We need to use sources independent on the organization, rather than repeat their advertisements. My very best wishes (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Now, speaking about the template, I do not see this page/organization included to the temple. Hence the template does not belong to this page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

this your edit. Can you quote directly please where this source tells "Young people who choose to leave the community are not cut-off from their families within the Bruderhof". I did not find it. Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

How to address the source is discussed above.

The source itself was switched by No Maybe Yes (talk · contribs) after you removed a perfectly valid source. I have restored that source and it is tagged.

The content is verifiable, but the source is poor. WP:V vs WP:RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the source is probably poor, but this is not the point. The point is that in your edit [4] (this is your edit, not edit by NoMaybeYes) you probably misrepresented the source, as I explained here. Perhaps I am mistaken? That should be easy to show by citing the source under discussion here. I can see that in your next edit [5] you replaced the source to support very same statement. But my question remains: where exactly this new source makes such general statement? My very best wishes (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I see your point, and I have a talk page stalker who is siding with you. I suggest you both discuss what you actually know and what can be proven with sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

This has been restored by another contributor, but I still do not see it in the source. My very best wishes (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Not a new religious movement?

Why this revert? It is included and sourced in the List of new religious movements, and indeed this is claimed in sources like here. My very best wishes (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Because its roots are in Anabaptism. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Not a new religious movement? Said who? Sources tell it is. Among them are Encyclopedia cited on page List of new religious movements. Julius H.Rubin (seems to be a notable author on such subject [6] wrote this "A Case Study of the Conflict between a New Religious Movement [Bruderhof and its Critics"]. My very best wishes (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The definition there, "relatively modern origins", is both vague and subjective at the same time. They list the Shakers there, and they're older than the U.S. The list misses many, if not all, recent denominational off-shoots. I'm not sure it belongs in the lede because it is unnecessarily confusing. Listing it in the section on their relationship with the Hutterites might make more sense. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Look, I provided a couple of sources/links above (not only those cited in our list) that tell directly it is a new religious movement. Which sources tell it is not? So far you provided none. My very best wishes (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Nor will I. It has no subjective criteria for inclusion and it misses vast swaths of religious movements. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Was it described in RS as a "cult"?

Reply to this comment on my talk page.

• Speaking about any specific religious movement/organization (not necessarily that one), should it be described as a "cult"? Whatever sources say. For example, according to this NYT article, "those who have departed from the Bruderhof -- either on their own or through banishment -- have become increasingly outspoken about the religious sect that many of them now consider a cult.... The newsletter's publisher, Ramon Sender... said he was kept from seeing his daughter after he left, and wasn't even told of her death years later at age 33. "I definitely view the Bruderhof as a cult," said Mr. Sender.... Hence the article noticed the following:

1. "The Bruderhof children's rights are not adequately protected..."
2. Many former members say they were forced to leave without explanation ... they are abandoned with little or no money, no job skills or training, and often cut off from their entire families."
3. "They describe being severely punished or shunned for expressing even the mildest forms of rebellion or sexual curiosity. They also claim that the commune's public posture of equality for all its members is a facade, with different sets of rules for leaders and followers."
4. "They say that when they tried to set up a toll-free hot line a few years ago for former members seeking counseling, they were harassed with thousands of calls from Bruderhof members, who also distributed the number as an adult hot line number that led to hundreds of phony calls. Bruderhof leaders don't deny the charge..."
5. "said 18-year-old Susie Zumpe, the youngest of 11 children who has been banned from the Bruderhof and disowned by her parents for being defiant and challenging what she considers the commune's rigid hierarchy. There's no individual expression allowed at home or in school, she said, and it's ironic that they're so obsessed with sexual purity because there's all kinds of abuse that goes on."
6. "Ms. Arnold said the community does a good job of presenting a positive public image -- having even hired a Manhattan public relations firm, the Weiser Walek Group, to promote its business interests and fend off negative questions about the community."
7. "Bruderhof leaders say young people are free to leave, but that such leaving is undertaken at very high cost: losing contact with your family, and being forced into the outside world with no money or earning power."
8. "Christoph Arnold has become a controversial figure in recent years for aggressively expanding the commune's businesses, as well as for approving the stocking of guns and attack dogs at several Bruderhof sites."

Of course "Bruderhof leaders strongly deny there is rampant abuse, though they acknowledge there have been instances of abuse".

• That source tells something similar.

• According to WSJ, "Members live in spartan dormitories, and even top managers in the Bruderhof's businesses draw no salaries. Everything from clothing to boxes of cereal is distributed according to need. People who join give their possessions to the community and are assigned tasks -- either in the businesses or in the community... The Bruderhof's enterprises had combined revenue of over $20 million last year, with profit of about $9 million."

Indeed, according to the page, this organization actively enroll new people (unlike Amish or Hutterite), and it requires them to sell everything they have and give all their money to the community. This is called "Christian communism." in WSJ.

• Even grand-daughter of the Founder of the organization called it a cult [7], [8].

• The bottom line. I do not know if this is a cult, but many people claim it is, according to the publications in RS (NYT, Guardian, WSJ, etc.) My very best wishes (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

You want to make it appear as one, but that's your issue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, this is an important and well sourced content, and it must be included on the page per WP:NPOV to improve the page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

So, do you have objections to including any of this? If not, I can do it. My very best wishes (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to add WP:BALANCE. As there are reliable sources that call it a cult, we should broach the topic. They're clearly not, but they do have traits that make it appear as though they are a cult, but these are also judgments that can be applied to many intentional communities in the light of traditional western, capitalist culture. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, maybe later. Obviously, all this info (except revenue data by WSJ) should be explicitly attributed and probably placed to a separate sub-section (not sure at this point). From what I read, it appears this organization is very different from let's say Hutterites, not in terms of their religious beliefs, but in terms of their practices. This needs to be said. My very best wishes (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

No, they aren't that much different from Hutterites. Where they do differ is in the extremity of their actions. Both have a requirement for youth involvement, sharing of common goods, etc. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, I am not an expert, but saw this. Possibly not an RS per se, but that one can be used since the author is an expert, and we have a page about him. This is apparently a part of the story described in NYT article above. Is it all lie? Or maybe Huttereites do the same? My impression was that they do not. My very best wishes (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Your expert is not consistent. I was looking for some clear signs of being a cult (as opposed to being a community that operates differently than societal norms) and ran into the section labelled A Closed Society where he states, "In our initial contacts with Hutterites, they invited us to attend their most sacred holidays and ceremonies including the baptismal service. We were free to walk anywhere on the property and talk with any person, observe the work and ask questions, or assist them. We were received as participants rather than guests. The leaders were not threatened by our presence or inquiries." There is no indication that they are a closed society as that is what the Hutterites are, but he simply states, "The Society of Brothers warn visitors at the outset not to write about their community". The does not make them a closed society. There are closed Plymouth Brethren. The expert doesn't understand the terms and just does not understand community life. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

He is not "my expert". I just saw a page about him, John A. Hostetler. Are you saying he is wrong about everything in the link above? My very best wishes (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, or even a member of the group, and can't claim he's right or wrong about anything, but it seems to be mis-characterizations of the group based on those who have left it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Here is a better source on this (pages 25-28, for example). So, the former members of the Bruderhof apparently created an organization, KIT ("Keep In Touch"). It seems they simply know what they are talking about (because they lived there) and they are now free to speak, after no longer be the members of the organization. Informally speaking, they should know this much better than journalists who only briefly visited a site and could see only what "elders" wanted to show them. But even in such journalistic publications [9] I can see this wording at the top of the publication: This heaven-on-earthly documentary about the radical Christian sect. Sect. Here is what I mean by saying about the difference. The traditional communities like Amish and Hutterites are simply living as they lived for centuries, without inviting new people. Unlike them, Bruderhof invites a lot of new members and demand them to sell all their property and give all proceeds to the organization, which looks pretty much as a business, in addition to other large-scale businesses they do. And this is only one of many aspects. My very best wishes (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

More sources. This is a scholarly book [10] and it tells (page 164) that the movement can be regarded as totalitarian. Another scholarly book (page 199-201) tells the same. Here (third scholarly book) tells Louis Dumont argued it is totalitarian. Author of third book also published this. My very best wishes (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

And just reading their own vows [11], "Are you willing, for the sake of Christ, to put yourself completely at the disposal of the church community to the end of your life – all your faculties, the entire strength of your body and soul, and all your property, both that which you now possess and that which you may later inherit or earn?. This reminds me something ... My very best wishes (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes. It too reminds me of the early church as described in Acts 2 and the subsequent writings such as the Didache. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, but the Bible and other such writings are primary sources, and frequently open to different interpretations. Yes, early Churches lived like that. However, when I read the Bible, it seems to me that while Christ did preach a lot to help other people, including giving them gifts (such as your possessions), nowhere he advocated living in Communes, such as Bruderhof. Am I wrong? Also, the Acts are something that Apostles said, and there are different interpretations of the Acts. In any event, we need secondary sources by 3rd party scholars to make an interpretation for including it anywhere. My very best wishes (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I was commenting on what it was similar to. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Not to be included on this page, but this reminds me books on "Property and freedom", all that appear on the top here. One of the ideas in these books (not my idea of course) is that to enslave people one must take away their property and the right to have the property (among other things). But of course even in the worst totalitarian societies, such as Nazi Germany, USSR and North Korea, people did have some property, excluding only prisoners in death camps. My very best wishes (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

And in scripture, and the Didache, it's clear that the giving up of property is voluntary, not forced.

In Nazi Germany, property was expropriated from "enemies of the state". Those whose property was expropriated were no longer part of the community.

In those totalitarian regimes, people were not free to leave, and those who left were 1) persecuted, some to the point of extermination and 2) not welcome to communicate with those who were still in the regimes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, sure. Of course giving gifts is voluntarily in scripture. That is what all Christian confessions do. Regardless, if I include anything here, this will be based on books and other RS linked above (not "Property and freedom"). My very best wishes (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

You've missed the point of what actually transpired in the passage in Acts where they sold what they had. It's not gifts, it's holding all things in common. Feel free to read the passage. No interpretation required. This is not cult-like behaviour, it was Christian behaviour—until Constantine made "Christianity" the state religion and syncratism with Roman culture ensued. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

This is not a matter of Acts (or claims by their own propagandists that can be patently false), but a matter of claims by sources that are independent on the subject/organization and produced by people who really know the organization, rather than just visited it once. All such claims are critical (see above). Here is yet another accusation of abuse documented by Amanda Akass, a BBC reporter [12]. My very best wishes (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Not the point. When the abuse claims result in criminal charges and are proven, then we have something from RSes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

You are probably thinking about WP:CRIME or Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#People_accused_of_crime? That does not apply here because these are not BLP materials, and not necessarily a crime. In particular, the well sourced criticism of organizations normally belong to pages about these organizations. My very best wishes (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't, but yes, there are living people involved here. They are all sourced to the original complainants. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The link/source above is a secondary RS published by a BBC journalist. Yes, it is based on claims by eyewitnesses, and the journalist has disclosed her sources. This is something very much common, and just a valid source/reference for the page. My very best wishes (talk) 02:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

But not reviewed by said journalist's editors at BBC, so not a RS. Sorry. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure, no one said this is a publication by the BBC. This is just a publication on "MP's Newswatch" by a known journalist who works for the BBC. But I still believe this is valid source per WP:RS for this page. My very best wishes (talk) 02:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

As source for what exactly? If you can explain it succinctly to WP:RSN and they agree, then by all means, add it here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

If you do not like this journalistic source (it is just very recent), one can easily find others, for example this book, "Encyclopedia of Community" tells that "Accusations of child abuse [in the Bruderhof], including sexual abuse and mental and physical coercion, abound" (page 107). At the very least, we should include a "Controversies" section to this page, exactly as in the book, where a chapter is dedicated specifically to the Bruderhof. For example, book Misunderstanding Cults tells the same: here. The sourcing is not a problem. And yes, the Bruderhof appears in this book as a "cult". My very best wishes (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Please do not change indenting formatting during a conversation. Lots of MoSes and guidelines state it.

Again, what are you trying to prove now? That they're a cult or that abuse occurs in the community(ies)?

Again, there should be no controversies section as it's against norms and community consensus is generally against it. Wikipedia:Criticism details this. While not a policy or guideline, it's uncommon and many experienced editors advise against such sections as it places WP:UNDUE weight on the topic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The "Controversy" is simply a subtitle from the article about Bruderhof in the "Encyclopedia of Community" (link above). You are linking to an essay, not a policy. But I agree: this essay makes a good point. Perhaps the content and sources from this thread must be "integrated throughout the article" or entitled differently. I will think about it. This content is certainly "due" on the page as a part of the history of this organization. A justification? The "Encyclopedia of Community" dedicated these controversies a significant part of coverage on their very brief article about the Bruderhof. My very best wishes (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

So, as described in the book "No Heavenly Delusion?: A Comparative Study of Three Communal Movements" by Mike Tyldesley, Michael Tyldesley (page 167), for example [13], this is a totalitarian community because it "wishes to create a society without a private sphere at all". I should include some well sourced info from this discussion to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Governance

Strange that this article doesn't tell us about governance. I've just watched a documentary on a Bruderhof Community which included the statement that it is not a democracy but then failed to follow this up and explore their internal politics. Who are the decision makers?Richwil (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

They apparently hide it. There is usually only a vague reference to "leadership" who decide whether to allow dating and everything else. My very best wishes (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Recent edit

This edit is clearly problematic, because it: (a) makes two identical links to website of the organization (one was in the infobox), (b) restore claims in WP voice, even though they are sourced to self-published materials by B., (c) removes sourced classification of B. (see also discussion above). My very best wishes (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

No, its addition is clearly problematic. MOS:LEAD states "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." Summary, not introduction of new information. As I stated when I removed this WP:POINTy addition, I checked a few entries at list of new religious movements such as 3HO, Adonai-Shomo, Adonism, The African Church and Association of Vineyard Churches and none mention being a "new religious movement" in the lede. You have taken an interest in this subject and have tried to raise as many negative elements bout them as you can. Please stop. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Further, it provides WP:UNDUE weight on the concept by stating this so early in the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

OK, no objections with this. As about "negative elements", no, I only checked RS on the subject, such as Misunderstanding Cults by Benjamin Zablocki and Thomas Robbins and published by University of Toronto Press. They say that's a cult which takes all personal property from new members along with all their personal freedom, just as many other religious cults. Yes, people enroll voluntarily, apparently after some brainwashing.My very best wishes (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

You have not addressed UNDUE, and not all are "brainwashed", that's biased. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

It's best just to describe the Bruderhof Communities as Anabaptist Christian, given that's how reliable sources label them, as do themselves. I have edited the article to reflect this. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, sure. However, your first source is just a nice personal essay by a photographer, while the second one was self-published. Much better sources are books. There are many. For example, "The Palgrave Companion to North American Utopias" by J. Friesen covers it [14], see page 194 and especially 199-201 which tell about KIT, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Translation of the name

Bruderhof translates to farm of brothers, not place of brothers. Place of brothers would be Bruderplatz in German. Farm - Hof Place - Platz 2A02:810A:9C0:63C:6C33:8170:A979:68C5 (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)