Talk:Bruderhof Communities/Archive 1

If you wish to make changes to the article it is best to first spell out your reasoning on the talk page as the editor below has done. LarryRJones 09:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

In keeping with Wikipedia's No original research policy, I removed entries based on individual experiences. From a neutral point of view it is fair to note that there are detractors and to link to their websites, but including their claims in the article is not encyclopedic. I also removed statistics that had no references and referred to the current state of the community which is subject to change. LarryRJones (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

@LarryRJones: While I understand the Wikipedia NPOV and original research policy I would submit, then the entire article should be removed. --Lighthart2000 (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

@LarryRJones: This article is highly pro-Bruderhof biased and I don't agree that Bruderhof critics would support without serious edits the PR job the Bruderhof has presented. The edits I posted are verifiable, but your burden of cites given the Bruderhof proclivity for suing its critics (including me) stifles (indeed makes impossible) 'free speech' from the critic perspective. In the history section there is not mention of Eberhard dissolving the early Bruderhof movement shortly before his death, then forcing the membership to re-apply (a number of members left). No mention is given to nearly 600 members being excommunicated (and left without means to support themselves in South America) or any real negative information relative to this movements history. The article is really a commercial for this "high demand" group. I have spent countless hours speaking and communicating with ex-members and adult children of this movement that can no longer have access to family members within the Bruderhof. When my parents (members of the Bruderhof) passed away I was informed of their deaths after the funeral... a heartless, cruel 'artifact' of this organization. I have meet with Bruderhof leadership to resolve issues ex-memembers/critics have with this group where the concerns of ex-members/critics were either summarily dismissed or not acknowledged. --Lighthart2000 (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Lighthart2000: It is not LarryRJones who is placing the “burden of cites” – it is Wikipedia whose integrity as an encyclopedia is obviously compromised without complete and cite-able sources for each article. Also, although I appreciate that you seem to have had a difficult history with the Bruderhof, I think you are being a little paranoid in this context as far as allegations of stifling free speech etc in response to the simple Wikipedia requirement to cite sources. As far as the article being a "commercial", to me it is over long (one of the suggestions from an editor sometime ago was to greatly abbreviate this article which seems like a good idea to me) but all things considered relatively unbiased with the “Controversy and Criticism” section adding balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.151.250 (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

@unsigned (From Newpaltz, NY, where several Bruderhofs reside) Sorry but removal of this information from an unsigned source leads me to believe bias on the side of the Bruderhof. There is absolutely no balance in this article. It remains as promotional material by the Bruderhof about itself. That the Bruderhof can not tolerate any critical views leads many observers to believe what critics are saying about the cultic nature of the organization. No verification is needed for the Bruderhof claims but it is required for the critics? The Bruderhof article is filled with claims about itself that are unsubstantiated (including numbers).. Wikipedia does not appear to lend itself well to controversial articles... --Lighthart2000 23:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that wikipedia is not the place to promote your group, which is why it is inapproriate to have an article that is in large part simply the Bruderhof's own promotion of itself. It is unfair to put the "burden of evidence" on an editor, and to allow the author of the existing content to make statements without citation. Perhaps sources should be required for major edits, but then all of the existing content for which there is no source should also be removed. There is no encyclopaedic value in allowing a particular group to determine the content of an article about that group. Note that I did not remove or edit historical facts, only certain wholly unsupported and unsupportable statements. If this entry, and indeed this entire website, are to be of any use, there need to be some standards. Now I am going to do my best to edit the article in a fair way.

I concur with Larry Jones' undo of John C. Archer's changes to the Bruderhof article, and Larry's comment about the need to cite sources for major edits. The current article could be seen as overly positive of the Bruderhof, but the tone and content is at least striving to be encyclopedic - Mr. Archer's changes are clearly negatively biased and not encyclopedic in tone at all. It's also not helpful to insert "(What is the source for this statement)" throughout the article (as Mr. Archer has done) wherever you disagree with something. If every Wikipedia article editor did that, most articles would become cluttered and useless. If you have a problem with a specific statement, rather delete it from the article - but again as Larry Jones said if the deletion is major you should justify it according to Wikipedia policy. Many of the statements Mr. Archer is questioning have been made in multiple credible publications over the Bruderhof's 80 year history (i.e. "No Bruderhof member receives a salary or has a bank account. Income from all businesses is pooled and used for the care for all members, and for various communal outreach efforts.") and probably because they are generally accepted they haven't been cited. Mr. Archer also comments that parts of the article appear to have been written by the Bruderhof - I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing if other non-Bruderhof editors are involved, as the Bruderhof obviously has in depth knowledge of who they are and are actually a valuable resource here. In general, the article can certainly be improved, but the goal should be a neutral article, not one spun in either direction. 4/30/07

24.105.151.107 (from New Paltz, NY). The subject of verifiability is a difficult one for an article such as this one on the Bruderhof. Most people that would be interested in editing this article have a vested interest in its tone and content. There is also a dearth of online sources on the Bruderhof, especially since the Bruderhof websites went offline. More certainly needs to be done in attempting to cite sources or at least represent opposing views in a neutral way if sources are not available. According to the quotation above: "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." a case could certainly be made for having no page on the Bruderhof on Wikipedia or a severely abbreviated one. As others have said on this talk page, the majority of the current page (which was written primarily by JoeHine in September 2005) reads like a sales pitch. A first step toward increased neutrality would be to edit nonfactual claims on the current page to reflect that status. For instance:

"The Bruderhof is a peace church whose members do not serve in the armed forces of any country. Rather, they model a way of life that removes the social and economic divisions that bring about war. The goal of the Bruderhof is to create a new society where self-interest is yielded for the sake of the common good."

The first statement is factual and easily verifiable. The latter part is less verifiable and without a specific source should be edited for more tentativeness. Such as:

"The Bruderhof is a peace church whose members do not serve in the armed forces of any country. Rather, they attempt to model a way of life that removes the social and economic divisions that bring about war. The Bruderhof claim their goal is to create a new society where self-interest is yielded for the sake of the common good."

While this does not address the lack of sources for this article, it does increase the neutral tone of unverified statements. It would also be useful to add in "citation needed" references according to Wikipedia policy (not as JohnCArcher did). There is an established method for doing this that will not clutter the article unnecessarily. In the long run a more comprehensive, better sourced edit is needed but this could be a first step. What do others think? - Mogk 1 May, 2007.

I think the key to understanding Wikipedia's verifiability policy is that "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source". Many statements in the article can probably be accepted without challenge by both Bruderhof supporters and critics. Most of the History section, for instance. I suggest any promotional, opinion-based, or otherwise controversial statements should either be reworded as Mogk suggests or removed until an editor finds a reliable source. LarryRJones 09:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)