Talk:Bruderhof Communities

message: Hi, I am making some changes to try to improve the article, as some parts are quite outdated, and others parts are poorly cited.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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Great - agreed! --Grec man (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case the link section should be kept as a reference to the official website. LarryRJones (talk) 08:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Inconsistent language 

message: I had a look again and noticed at the top  and . I really don't think it's a good idea to establish this article as American. Govvy (talk) 11:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  :MOS:RETAIN. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting the article. 

message: 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)
replies: text: Because its roots are in Anabaptism. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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   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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Not a new religious movement?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Governance 

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

text: 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 , see page 194 and especially 199-201 which tell about KIT, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edit

message: 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)
thread_title:  Translation of the name