Talk:Donald Kraybill/Archive 1

Archive 1

POV and conflict of interest check

I added some general statements about Mr Kraybill's connections to and possible conflicts of interest with his subjects. His books often seem to pander somewhat to positive POV about the Plain people and ignore negative realities. In addition I never see the mass media mention or his books state his background which is rumored to be connected somehow with the subjects of his books. In the interest of scholarship and representation to the mass media these connections need to be stated and known IMHO. Therefore, I am going to POV check this article until this is discussed here or addressed completely in the article.

I'm looking for simple statements that show all associations with Anabaptists that Mr. Kraybill might have so that all people can judge for themselves the possible conflicts of interest in his scholarship and writing. I make no judgements or assumptions here. I just want to see who each source is and where they come from because it can make a big difference in POV, perspective and possible bias vi a vi scholarship/reporting on these closed communities. Anacapa 08:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If you can find verifiable sources indicating a controversy over Dr. Kraybill's scholarship, credentials, or integrity, it would be quite reasonable to include a paragraph indicating such a controvery exists. However, it is an abuse of the "no original research" rule to label this article as failing to be NPOV because it does not mention a controversy that does not exist.

I note that there's no NPOV flag on the Jamie Lee Curtis article because it fails to mention rumor and innuendo about hermaphroditism. There's no NPOV flag on the Richard Gere article because it doesn't mention rumor and innuendo about gerbils and a trip to the emergency room. Both of those stories are easy to find, and it might be reasonable to include discussion in the articles. However, in googling for "Donald Kraybill bias", nothing suggests that Dr. Kraybill is disreputable. ClairSamoht 14:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Clair, I made NO allegations of fraud or anything disreputable here other than possible unstated connections/conflicts of interest that could affect the POV of Kraybill's accounts. Scott was honest enought to state in his book on conservative Mennonites that he is an Old Order Mennonite. That is all I am looking for here. I will go get the facts now. Please do not misrepresent this as 'abuse' in any way. A professional scholar has a responsibility to disclose his connections to his subject so others know his possible biases especially when taking it upon himself to be a mass media spokesman. Anacapa 00:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

One final thought as I wonder how much more pain all this official silence will bring to Anabaptist children and their parents. Today, in South Africa, a top leader of the African National Congress is being tried for the rape of a 31 year old woman. (South Africa has the highest reported rate of rapes in the world.) Says a South African woman from People Opposing Women Abuse: "If you speak out particularly against someone within the party or somebody who's considered to have contributed a great deal to the political struggle in the country, then that's considered a betrayal. So a woman's sexual integrity is less significant than overall political ideals." How much is a child's scream, a child's soul, and and a child's sex worth in the hell that is the Anabaptist ban or the shame that is Anabaptist domestic abuse, child abuse and incest? Who the h___ is ClairSamoht anyway??? (no personal offense..just used that for emphasis...no need to know a name...just need to see a same.). Why am I fighting these stupid little battles about Richard Gere and gerbils with you when we both know this is no gerbil joke...this is about little human beings who no one will listen to... much less take to the emergency room. Anacapa 03:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Official silence? What credible evidence do you have that Donald Kraybill is participating in domenstic abuse, child abuse, or incest? It's only a short drive to E-town from here; I was in the college bookstore just last week. If you have evidence, I would gladly deliver copies to the Lancaster County prosecutor, to the Lancaster County Sheriff, to the lancaster county Child Protective Services, to the E-town police, to my friend on the Intelligencer-Journal, to another friend at WGAL-TV, and to the dean at E-town. And with a police report to quote, we could put that fact in the article about Dr. Kraybill.

Clair, I mean NO OFFENSE to you or personal offense to Prof Kraybill here. I made no such accusations about P Kraybill personally although I did imply his general silence about well known cases of Amish and Mennonite abuse. When the news media is covering stories about horrible covered up crimes inside Mennonite and Amish (see Amish law link which I had nothing to do with except to clarify title) congregrations one has to wonder why a so-called neutral sociologist would choose to ignore these hidden scandals and focus instead on how the Amish can 'enlighten' us all. My point here is those who silence or knowingly ignore the dark ugly side of Anabaptist worship are colluding in the kind of silencing that is occuring in that South Africa rape case right now. I thought that, as a woman, this might matter enough to you to insist that P Kraybill's pander-to-positive POV be shown here so that people know where he comes from as a so-called NPOV social science researcher. My issue is with his PROFESSIONAL silence and his obvious biases toward presenting a predominantly positive but false picture of Anabaptists at the expense of all those Anabaptist children and adults who are Silenced by Shame but Hidden in Plain Sight

Anacapa 05:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't take abuse lightly. I was raped and sexually mutilated about a month before I turned five. No plain people involved in that one; in fact, the crowd included a leading lawyer, Presbyterian, the president of the Lions, Methodist, and a deputy sheriff, Baptist. That deputy assaulted and killed a pre-teen girl when I was eight, and he was never charged with a crime; the sheriff didn't even give him a day off from work. It's been almost half a century since my torture, and I'm still incurring substantial medical bills because of the damage they did.

I am glad I know who you little better now and I hate to hear how bad you were hurt. I hate, loath and detest child sexual abuse be it by man or woman, by plain people or non-plain people or by mothers or fathers. To me, all those so-called 'people' who raped and sexually mutilated you must be held accountable somehow so it stops. Had I known about those crimes (from gossip or whatever) it would have been my responsibility AS A HUMAN BEING to make D___ sure that they were charged. Terri Hatcher (see latest Vanity Fair) did the right thing...and that's all I expect from so-called researchers and editors of Anabaptists or whoever. Anacapa 05:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any reason to suspect that Dr. Kraybill is a predator or a pervert. He's writing about religious practice. Abuse is not a sacrament, and unlike some sects in the US, pater familias is not commonly practiced. Does abuse occur among the Plain? Yes. Does it occur more frequently than in the general population? That's not clear. One girl in four, one boy in seven, will be sexually abused before they become teenagers. Do you think that the articles on prosecutors, the lions club, and sheriff's deputies, and the articles on Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists oughta have warnings that these people aren't just baby rapers, but engage in ritual sexual mutilation as well?

Nor do I. My issue with P Kraybill is that he knowingly ignores the TOTALITARIAN culture inside Anabaptist congregations that covers up ALL abuse be it religious (shunning etc) in nature or the all to common crimes that you mentioned above. As for the groups your perps belonged to there is a free press that can by law ask questions of these groups but as you know quite well it almost impossible to penetrate plain groups to ask the same questions. And yes I would love to see warnings about prosecutors and law enforcement because they also often resemble totalitarition groups who use secrecy to coverup their crimes. I say again silence kills. Anacapa 06:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia, Anacapa. Articles need to pretty much stick to the topic. The topic of this article is Dr. Kraybill, who has (AFAIK) never been publicly accused nor charged with abuse or sexual impropriety. Wikipedia articles need to be NPOV, even when they discuss such people are Rupert Murdoch, David Duke, Bill O'Reilly and Geraldo Rivera, who achieve their celebrity by being dramatically non-neutral in their own point of view. ClairSamoht 07:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Claire please refrain from lecturing me about sticking to the topic which so far you have monopolized here. (I have refrained from making bold edits so far out of respect for you and the process but that will soon change as I bring in the sources) I have been quite clear in all my comments above that Kraybill's PERSONAL life is not my issue here except that he might have personal ANABAPTIST conflicts of interest that might affect his ability to be professional and credible when he writes about Anabaptists (The content you added about him selling tourist books is evidence in that direction). I insist that you stick to the topic here or begin your own topics without continuing to accuse me of things I haven't accused him of anywhere.

Also please stop lecturing me about POV here. I edit many articles including controversial bio articles such as Camille Paglia where there are intense POV battles about how to show the public figure. Now Kraybill is definitely NO Paglia but does call himself a scientist and he is a public figure so he is fair game for NPOV statements about his POV's here. To imagine I am going to settle for you or any other editor writing just one side of Kraybill's article is absurd and quite POV itself. My intent here is to have complete balanced NPOV content. I hope to do that without engaging in go nowhere edit wars with you or anyone else who panders to positive POV about Anabaptists or their mouthpieces. I will note that I have no problem with all the positive things you wrote about Kraybill. It's just that you seem to have a problem with anything which might not be so positive that I ask you to consider. Anacapa 00:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

POV Checks from Amazon reviewers of On the Backroad to Heaven

The following reviews from 2 Amazon book reviewers loosely, sometimes unfairly reflect some of my concerns with POV in Kraybill's so-called sociological research:

"Donald B. Kraybill has either written or been a co-author to about 22 books at last count. Most have been about the Old Order Amish and I wonder why? It's always the same old thing, they're misunderstood and they want to be left alone (except when they need a phone or van to ride in). They won't serve in the military because of their beliefs and shy away from the English (everyone not Amish) law because maybe they have something to hide. They ban, excommunicate and shun anyone who leaves this backward, traditional cult to find a better life. Why so many books on the same old subject? I was hoping for something more realistic because newspapers have confirmed they have problems and there's no way that these people can all be so good. I want to read the truth, the facts, the real story, not the HOLLYWOOD version of the Amish. Please, tell it like it is and don't tell any more stories on the so-called 'American Heritage'. I gave this book 3 stars because it is informative and educational and I believe D.B. Kraybill is a good writer, but just excludes certain facts. Whatever the reason, he might believe he is their protector. 'oagjr' (Kentucky, USA) June 17, 2002.

and

Having an advanced degree in Sociology and also having personal relationships with members of Old Order Groups does not make me an unbiased reviewer of this work. As it stands, I believe it takes a very conservative and functional perspective on the dynamic groups of these people and does not even begin to address the integration of change and conflict within these groups in anything ut (SIC) a very superficial way. A shame, as I was hoping for a more dynamic read than a functionalist perspective of very diverse and dynamic subgroups. As it stands, I found the work not truly willing or able to explore deviance, social control, conflict or the realism of the daily lives of these peoples as they struggle with their religious lifestyle and the world around them. As stated, it was a descriptive work from a functionalist perspective. Too bad as the subject and the persons are far more interesting than the authors would have left one to believe, especially when living among those people in communities and thier (SIC) true impact on the larger secular society around them as I have seen. MariAnne E. Skodney (Jeffersonville VT USA) June 3, 2001.

Since Kraybill is often quoted as an 'authoritative' expert on, 'one that nation's leading scholars of or as a 'sociologist' researcher of Anabaptists (which implies NPOV scientific rather than POV religious-based research) in the mass media I want to see his POV's included in this article so independent NPOV assessment is possible here. I don't personally agree with all that is said above but I found it much more genuine than what the mainstream press allows him to state with no checks of his possible POV there. He obviously is a concerned Christian (and maybe also an Anabapist too) being paid by a small Christian college with deep Anabaptist roots so I wonder how NPOV social science about Anabaptist societies is possible with such conflicts of interest. At a minimum these fact(s?) need to be clearly stated. The Sociologist reviewer above stated her possible bias very clearly, right up front. I want to see something similar in this article (preferably from Prof. Kraybill himself) so there is no confusion about who he is and where he is coming from. Anacapa 21:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of his books are published by Johns Hopkins University. Since when are they "a small Christian college with deep Anabaptist roots"? His current research is funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities. Are they a "small Christian college with deep Anabaptist roots"? It is a FACT that Krayball is often quoted as an 'authoritative' expert in the mass media. If you can find Wikipedia:Reliable sources showing that Kraybill is perpetrating a fraud upon his readers, that definitely belongs in this article.

Claire please be real here. John's Hopkins Univ PRESS is his PRESS rather than his UNIV. You cannot claim he is publishing as a John Hopkin's prof. Kraybill is a Prof at a small Christian Univ with Anabaptist roots...and his last posting was at another even smaller Anabaptist rooted Christian college. You can prop up his authority here with facts and I will take no issue with you but please spare us these stretches. It is indeed a fact that Kraybill is quoted as an 'authoritative' expert by the increasingly sloppy mass media so I take no issue with that fact either. I just want to show wiki readers that he is a bit less authoritative than he pretends to be WITH FACTS. My facts will be no less real than the facts you stated here.Anacapa 01:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You're asserting that the article needs to indicate that Kraybill is biased? That calls for a stub tag, not an NPOV tag. I realize that Kraybill seems to rub you raw, but if you want to ream Kraybill here, you will need to do it elsewhere first, so that this article can report that thousands of newspapers call him the foremost expert on the plain sects, and one lonely voice in the wilderness disagres. ClairSamoht 15:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Claire I am asserting that it is POV to write an article about a public figure without mentioning all sides of his professional or public career. Please refrain from lecturing me about stubs as it is POV that I take issue with. KRAYBILL'S POV about his research subjects definitely belongs in this article as well as all the other facts you have added here to prop up his authority. Many other bio articles include balanced POV by all sides. I have to wonder why Anabapists and their friends fight so hard to hide other POV's. Is there something hidden here that we should see? To use nasty language like 'ream' when I have been quite clear about my intent to respect Kraybill's reputation by not adding anything 'bad' in this article prior to discussion seems like an attempt to ream me. Please stick to the topic and refrain from making these mean personal insinuations. You have no right to read my mind sight unseen. I welcome genuine questions and I have worked hard to work with you despite how loaded this is.

Claire, Prof. Kraybill makes me laugh (and cry) as I see this kind of cunning (pander to a POV) so-called 'scientific' research' from politically correct academia all over the US (See Camille Paglia's commments on this]]. The silencing and coverup of crimes/abuse within Anabaptist congregrations with such sophisticated social 'science' does indeed rub me raw. I have no intention of reaming anyone anywhere and a man's reputation is not something I take lightly. I am not one lonely voice in the wilderness, I resent that characterization and I suggest you read [1] for what one lonely voice in the wilderness can accomplish in conditions far worse than ours. I had hoped for better from you. You are forcing me to go out now and get the other voices who know P Kraybill's work better than I to make this article NPOV which I will do. I know a father whose son was raped by Catholic priests and who was ONCE a lonely voice in the wilderness as he fought for justice on that issue. We laugh together when he talks about how the Catholic cardinals lie and cover up that scandal and I talk about how Anabaptists bishops use exactly the same tactics to cover up similar scandals. P Kraybill has taken upon himself to be a mouthpiece for and a so-called objective authority on the Amish and other Anabaptists groups. All I expect is that he own his conflicts of interest and his biases here so all readers can make their own judgements about who he is and the POV his work obviously comes from...I say 'obviously' as an insider but as you and I know well few outsiders know the secret Anabaptist codes of conduct so P Kraybill's pander-to-positive POV bias is far from obvious to those press people who go around quoting P Kraybills as an objective authority on Anabaptists. I will now come back with sources and do the work neccessary to balance and complete this article since you seem to care more about making this article conform to positive POV rather than NPOV. Anacapa 21:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Anacapa, I've been suggesting that you find Reliable Sources all along. I do NOT object to reporting the facts, however they lie, but you keep referring to Kraybill as a conspirator in rape and abuse, and though I have looked amd looked, I have been unable to find ANYTHING that supports your assertions that he's corrupt and evil. ClairSamoht 22:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Claire the idea that I SAID Kraybill is personally corrupt and evil is absolutely false. You are referring to Kraybill that way NOT ME. Please read my edits above. NO WHERE DID I ATTACK THIS MAN PERSONALLY as an evil criminal. I do believe he panders to positive POV which is quite unprofessional for a so-called objective scientist. I also have good cause to believe that he knows much more about the dark ugly secret sides of Anabaptist culture than he lets on in his books. He would be immediately shunned by his research subjects if he started telling the WHOLE truth about what really goes on inside Amish and Conservative Mennonite communities as you probably already know. Most researchers I read who do tell the whole truth about Anabaptists choose to LIE to get access into their communities which gives me some idea of how ridiculous it is to take Kraybill's research seriously as the WHOLE story about the Amish or other Anabaptists. The Amazon reviewers above (who I have no connection to) make similar points so before you accuse me of making a tempest in a teapot I suggest you read their comments closely again. I also plan to use them as one form of perfectly valid POV to balance POV I see in this article.

Last as a way to clear up what might be a genuine misunderstanding you seem to have about my POV, I will try to show you why I have an issue with POV here. In whatever ugly form abuse takes in most totalitarian organizations, the first step is to blame the victim, the second is to coverup the scandal, and the third is have authority figures put a fine but false face on the perps and those who collude with the perps. My issue is that Kraybill seems to be an academic authority figure (for Anabaptist peoples who refuse to speak for themselves) to show a nice but false face here. The consequence is that Anabaptist child-victims die in silence inside the system with no one to hear their cries (See the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal's Silenced by Shame; Hidden in Plain Sight series on Amish/Mennonite domestic crimes/church coverups.) Similar things happened and continue to happen in the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases because some people seem to care more about some idea of religion or god than the basic human rights of children just as in South Africa today some people seem to care more about politics than one woman's possible rape by a prominent politician. I am interested in where you stand on such issues so I can hopefully cooperate with you here in the interest of balanced NPOV. Silence is no good for me. Is silence good for you? Do you have a single standard for how to handle such horrors or are Anabaptists somehow a 'special' people to whom 'special' standards apply? Please glance at the other edits I added to your points above and please comment on whether it is possible to cooperate with you on this content. Anacapa 01:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Sources for POV check on this article

This subsection is intended to show sources that show POV's that are missing in this article for later inclusion or failing that to form the basis for a POV check template on the article. The basic POV issues I have with the article are the following:

• In his books, Kraybill calls his research social 'science' yet he panders to positive POV by suggesting NON-Anabaptists should be 'enlightened' by his Anabaptist research subjects. In his books he rarely mentions the dark, ugly, secret sides of Anabaptist culture that are beginning at long last to be exposed by the mass media. Yet he calls his research social 'science' with no genuine mention of his obvious attachments to his subjects, the obvious conflicts of interest that could call the credibility of his science into question, or the fact that he is a Christian scientist from small Christian colleges with deep Anabaptist roots.
• Kraybill is a political advocate (sources to follow) for the Amish and other Anabaptist people who refuse to speak for themselves to the mass media or to participate in politics. This makes one wonder how credible and objective his scientific research on these people is. He seems to see himself as 'protector' of the Amish (sources to follow) another POV that calls into question his willingness to show us all both sides of the Amish with unbiased science yet his advocacy is not shown in his books except by reading between the lines.
• Kraybill is a moderator at Amish functions (sources to follow). Anyone who knows Anabaptists well knows that NO ONE would be allowed much less asked to moderate most Anabaptist functions should they have anything 'unbecoming' to say about the Anabaptists, a people who are deeply concerned about how they look to the 'world' despite public protestations otherwise. Again this potential conflict of interest is not, to my knowledge, shown in his books so that readers can judge Kraybill's attachments to his research subjects for themselves.
• Since Anabaptist culture is so shrouded in secrecy, the mass media has a very difficult time doing due diligence to check the POV of so-called 'objective' experts/authorities like Kraybill when they quote him. Most people outside the culture wouldn't even know the right questions to ask much less what the real answers are about who is objective here. Therefore, these conflict of interest/POV issues need to be shown here with complete, balanced NPOV so people can check Kraybill's POV for themselves, here, without reliance on the mass media to decide for them.

I will add sources as I find them here for inclusion of NPOV content in the article later. Anacapa 02:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• 1. The following reviews from 2 Amazon book reviewers on Kraybill's Backroad to Heaven reflect others' POV about Kraybill's POV:

     "Donald B. Kraybill has either written or been a co-author to about 22 books at last count. Most have been about the Old Order Amish and I wonder why? It's always the same old thing, they're misunderstood and they want to be left alone (except when they need a phone or van to ride in). They won't serve in the military because of their beliefs and shy away from the English (everyone not Amish) law because maybe they have something to hide. They ban, excommunicate and shun anyone who leaves this backward, traditional cult to find a better life. Why so many books on the same old subject? I was hoping for something more realistic because newspapers have confirmed they have problems and there's no way that these people can all be so good. I want to read the truth, the facts, the real story, not the HOLLYWOOD version of the Amish. Please, tell it like it is and don't tell any more stories on the so-called 'American Heritage'. I gave this book 3 stars because it is informative and educational and I believe D.B. Kraybill is a good writer, but just excludes certain facts. Whatever the reason, he might believe he is their protector. 'oagjr' (Kentucky, USA) June 17, 2002.

  2. Having an advanced degree in Sociology and also having personal relationships with members of Old Order Groups does not make me an unbiased reviewer of this work. As it stands, I believe it takes a very conservative and functional perspective on the dynamic groups of these people and does not even begin to address the integration of change and conflict within these groups in anything ut (SIC) a very superficial way. A shame, as I was hoping for a more dynamic read than a functionalist perspective of very diverse and dynamic subgroups. As it stands, I found the work not truly willing or able to explore deviance, social control, conflict or the realism of the daily lives of these peoples as they struggle with their religious lifestyle and the world around them. As stated, it was a descriptive work from a functionalist perspective. Too bad as the subject and the persons are far more interesting than the authors would have left one to believe, especially when living among those people in communities and thier (SIC) true impact on the larger secular society around them as I have seen. MariAnne E. Skodney (Jeffersonville VT USA) June 3, 2001.

Anacapa 02:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)