Talk:Bruno Gröning

Speculation

Added speculation template, since there are no verifiable references for the healings given. ChristianR (talk) 03:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Many (probably well over 10,000) healings from 1949 to the present day are documented and archived with :

• a prior doctors diagnosis
• a witness statement from the person healed
• a doctors diagnosis from after the healing took place - if possible, this from several doctors including the doctort giving the original diagnosis
• a statement by another doctor as to the likelihood of this event given their normal expectation of prognosis for this kind of condition.

As far as I know, no proper organisation has actually asked for these documents, and if a suitable research organisation were prepared to do a proper study, they would be very welcome to contact the MWF (medical and scientific cricle) at http://www.bruno-groening.org/

Meanwhile, there are quoted sworn eye witness reports in many of the biographies, and also references to historic press articles from the period 1949-59

Dictostelium (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Original research

Added original research template because of "As far as I know, no proper organisation has actually asked for these documents". Added weasel template because of wordings like "some people" and "the others", unverifiable information such as "where many mass and distant healings occurred" and an overall bias that makes this whole thing look like pure propaganda. --84.60.151.1 (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Updated

Updated with a more academic approach and fixed spelling mistakes. Corrected grammatical problemos due to cryptic translation Feb 16, 2015.

Removed direct claims also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.45.100 (talk) 16:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda

This looks entirely like propaganda. The whole section is basically written like a pamphlet. To be honest, I'm disappointed to see that such obvious propaganda is still online, and not being at the very least redesigned. Sorry if I'm being too harsh, but that's just my impression. 84.108.64.253 (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur, the whole article reads like a pro-Gröning pamphlet and needs a NPOV rewrite. OttoMäkelä (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

And also, what's with all the clear advertising that has been getting added at the end of the article? OttoMäkelä (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, that was a rather drastic way to clean up the article, but of course if it was all copypasta from an adherent site… OttoMäkelä (talk) 08:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Corrections

I dont know if there are moderators who check these articles out, but there is a serious problem here. Why can people who know absolutely nothing about this subject make major edits and remove content, just because they have a biased opinion?

The final article stub you left was rather odd - there were no links to the "Bruno Groening Circle of Friends" website - which is now linked - this should remain a permanent link from this page, since it is the main source of information on the www, represents some 60,000 people in maybe 3000 local groups and exists in about 60 countries.

The second organisation mentioned "Friends of Bruno LLC" does not come up for me in the first few Google search pages, and should probably be removed. I left it in temporarily because it might actually exist.... (?) If someone posts a link to it, then that will be a useful verification.

A Second item I did not change (yet) was the title "faith healer" - it doesn't convey properly what Bruno Groening did or how he described what he did. Dictostelium (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

After considering the page a bit more, I have made further more substantial edits. In particular. I removed the following : In 2008, a non-profit organization based upon Bruno Gröning's teaching was founded in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania under the name Bruno and Friends, LLC". The name was U.S. trademarked in 2009. After carrying out a more extensive web search, this so-called non-profit organisation turned out to be run by a Multilevel Marketing organisation. Dictostelium (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Citations

Under "Death" -- "physicians treating him confirmed that his insides were burned up, like nothing they'd ever seen. Forced to issue a certificate indicating cause of death, they opted to write stomach cancer." - is there a citation available? Certificate of Death? Statements by attending physicians? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelStraus (talk • contribs) 03:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources

I will slowly be adding sources to this article. Thetruemovie (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Removed healing claims

Removed the claims of healings while in prison, we need solid sources for such a statement. Thetruemovie (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

"Greatest" Organization

I believe this statement violates wikipedia's WP:NPOV, one of the foundations of Wiki. Thetruemovie (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Groups split

I believe this statement is inaccurate. My understanding is that some of these organizations were never part of the Circle of Friends, and just started on their own.

According to this link, [[1]] the Circle of Friends was not founded until 1979. It appears many of the groups listed here actually existed before the Circle of Friends.

I do not want an edit war, WP:CON, I believe, makes it clear that working towards an article we can both be happy with is essential for wikipidea.

I welcome your input. Thetruemovie (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for dialogue for user 121.73

I have begun the process of combining some of my old ideas with the cuts you have made. You removed about 75% of what was there. I re-inserted about 20%.

I'm curious to hear your thoughts or feelings about this. Thetruemovie (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The Documentary film as evidence of healing

I removed refference to the movie, wiki has some very (somewhat strict) guidelines for what can be used to make medical claims.... you can look at them here [2] blessings, Thetruemovie (talk) 04:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Grete Hausler & a Circle of Friends ... foundation

• Bruno-Gröning-Freundeskreis, iw. to the German wikipedia (it's the only lang, today) -- Bruno Groening Circle of Friends.
  • Grete Häusler, Grete Hausler (1922–2007).

--PLA y Grande Covián (talk) 09:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Article needs a rewrite

It appears Gröning is notable, though we need to demonstrate his notability better. After most of the sources were removed as being unreliable, we need to find more and better sources and rewrite the article from them. I did some quick searching, and it looks like any high-quality academic references to him are going to be difficult to find. We're likely going to have to rely upon lesser sources. We'll also need to add some material per WP:FRINGE to put his beliefs in context of science and encyclopedic knowledge. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Pardon, I did not see that you had added this hear.

Please see my response below.Thetruemovie (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Potential references

• http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/667597?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Black, Monica. 2012. “Miracles in the Shadow of the Economic Miracle: The “supernatural '50s” in West Germany”. The Journal of Modern History 84 (4). University of Chicago Press: 833–60. doi:10.1086/667597.

  I don't have access, but it at least mentions Groening in an historical context. --Ronz (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of almost every references

I undid the removal of unexplained multiple references.

I was a bit confused by the phrase "obvious unreliable sources."

Obvious how?

Most of the links are to direct quotes of Groening.

?

The Circle of Life website was created by Thomas Busse, the author of multiple books on Groening.

Most of the links to "Help and Healing Sessions" are translations of original talks given by Groening.

The "reliability" of a source is also relative to the fact it is sourcing. Why isn't for example the Circle of friends, a large organization that spreads his teachings reliable enough source to back up that Groening's said his teachings were not something new, but wisdom that humanity had lost.

I agree the spiritcrane source is pretty weak, I will take that out.

Maybe a little dialogue would serve here, vs a 5,000 character undiscussed stripping of the article? Thetruemovie (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It was explained, just not in detail. The sources are not reliable. See WP:V and WP:RS. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality concern

Since someone thought this article had neutrality problems, here is a place to discuss.Thetruemovie (talk) 02:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The article has been written from unreliable, unencycopedic, biased sources. As such, we shouldn't expect anything to meet WP:POV. --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Noting that Thetruemovie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has, in a little over three years, edited only this article, is probably the author of most of the current content, and many prior edits are by other WP:SPAs, I think we know the source of the problem. Guy (Help!) 17:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing

The article made extensive use of a small number of sources that do not meet our sourcing guidelines. Specifically, www.help-and-healing-sessions.com, www.bruno-groening.net, www.bruno-groening.org. These sources lack evidence of independence, editorial review and neutrality. Importantly, virtually the entire article (itself essentially a monograph by a user with no other contributions to Wikipedia) was drawn from these three fansites. There is an obvious and strong suspicion that this user is connected tot he websites in some way. There is actiuve discussion as to whether Groening counts as a notable crank or not, if he is then we need reliable independent sources to show this, otherwise the article may be deleted. Reinserting the unreliable sources does not help and if it continues it may lead to the sites being blacklisted. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I found an accessible version of the source mentioned above that we can use as the basis of a rewrite: http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=utk_histpubs --Ronz (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

As for as potential refs go that are independent of the various Gröning fans and followers, all I'm finding are versions of Black's work. I'm wondering if looking through her citations might uncover other high-quality refs. --Hipal (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

A lot of the available RS about this topic will (somewhat unsurprisingly) be in German. I just expanded the article a bit based on this Süddeutsche Zeitung article. The dewiki article cites a few other sources that may be useful. Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Goiter

The first thing I noticed when researching Mr. Groning is the large goiter on his neck in many photos. The man himself said this was somehow related to his healing powers. However there is no mention of that here and am wondering if it is something that could be included on this page. There seems to be a number of papers and articles online with mention of it and his assertion that it was related to his healing abilities. I do not feel confident editing here, but a search of the man's name and 'goiter' online will provide sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.134.144.164 (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Article requires attention from German-speaking users

I have done some cleanup on this article in the past, however, most media coverage of Gröning is written in German, with reliable English-language sources few and far between - most English sources on him are run by his followers, which are obviously not WP:RS, or the writings of historian Monica Black, who is reliable, but primarily referencing just a single author isn't ideal.

If any German speakers would like to contribute to this article, a number of contemporary newspaper articles on Gröning are available here, and I've found this journal article that may be another useful lead. Any assistance would be much appreciated :) Ethmostigmus (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Well he was an esoteric quack in the 1950s. But anyhow, the German page has some quite recent sources, like Spiegel in 2023. I keep having an eye on this page. U. from MunichNillurcheier (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Final paragraph

I have begun to work on the final paragraph. First change was minor- removed the name of the brand of the cigarettes- not seeing the relevance. Next- to clarify that the drinking in question was during the time in Hertford. Sethie (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Much appreciated :) Ethmostigmus (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Removal of shortened footnotes and page numbers

Hello, @Aklunaj. A recent contribution to this article has shown that you removed the shortened footnotes that an editor, @Ethmostigmus, had added to help with verifiability by adding page numbers. I want to let you know that you should not remove or revert to your past edit in order to edit war to change the shortened footnotes to a single book reference because this blocks the chance for proper verifiability of the statements in the text. I am not here to discuss the removal of the statements that the editor has put in but you can discuss about it in this thread with the other editor or make a new thread. Thank you, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 04:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Cowboygilbert and @Ethmostigmus

the reason I deleted the footnotes with specific pages is because I have read the book being referenced and there is no mention of what was being referenced in this article.

As you say, proper verifiability in the text should be paramount. In the case of the previously “cited” references - these were incorrect so they should not be there. I don’t imagine that making something up and adding a reference to specific page numbers of a book (which doesn’t actually contain the made up information) is ok. Is it?

If adding pages is to help with verifiability then someone needs to actually look at the book and the pages cited and verify the information is correct. In this case, it wasn’t.

This was my first time editing an article and I don’t know all the technicalities - I tried to add specific page numbers to other sections I have added (which I took from the same book referenced incorrectly before), but I couldn’t work out how. Sorry. I can look into it later.

I do not wish to start an edit war, however, the previously cited sentences were made up and couldn’t be verified.

What happens now? Aklunaj (talk) 08:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I have A Demon-Haunted Land by Monica Black open right now. The content and footnotes you removed were not "made up" - you appear to have removed or altered content in the interest of laundering Gröning's image, not reflecting reliable sources. Gröning's membership with the Nazi Party is mentioned on pages 44 ("Bruno Gröning was a former soldier and POW. He had also been a Nazi Party member"), 52 ("In Danzig, Gröning had been a member of the Nazi Party"), and 53 ("not only Bruno but also his father, August, and brother Georg, joined the party. While it is not clear from extant sources exactly when they joined, they did so in 1936 at the latest") of A Demon-Haunted Land, yet you removed this. You also removed content using Black's exact verbiage on Gröning's drinking ("He liked to take a drink; he caroused." on page 131) among other things. Ethmostigmus (talk) 08:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, those direct citations you are mentioning here are in the book.

however, they are taken out of context and not in keeping with the picture Black portrayed of Groning.

she says “In Danzig, Gröning had been a member of the Nazi Party. This too was not unusual”

She goes on to explain how and why people in that era joined the nazi party, well before WWII and well before being nazi was a symbol for genocide etc. None of this is mentioned. Only the worst sounding part has been taken out of context and cited.

Another citation you’re mentioning continues:

”not only Bruno but also his father, August, and brother Georg, joined the party. While it is not clear from extant sources exactly when they joined, they did so in 1936 at the latest, years before Germany invaded Poland and reclaimed Danzig for the Reich” - without the last part, the purpose of the citation is to point out the connection to Nazi party, without giving any background which would be necessary to portray a neutral point of view.

She repeats this again shortly after: “Again, the timing is notable: they made the change in 1936, long before Germany invaded Poland and seized Danzig for the Reich in 1939”.

Groning himself never became more than a small-time party member”

And just a few sentences later, she mentions “And it so hapenned that the man at the center of the story was a former Nazi who talked about…” - why aren’t we mentioning that he was not a member anymore later? Only informing people of his affiliation with the party but purposefully omitting the fact that he had nothing to do with the later nazi ideology?

I don’t know what “other things” you are referring to.

How about “He was known to sexually harass women at times; members of his inner circle found it necessary to control his access to them to prevent scandal.” [14] - it is not in the book I’m looking at and yet it is currently referenced to pages 131-32.

I, (and others who tried in the past) wouldn’t need to be “laundering” his image if this article reflected a neutral point of view, and didn’t serve as a place to dump the biggest dirt found and taken out of context.

why aren’t the medically verified and documented healings being referenced, for example? Aklunaj (talk) 09:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

You are clearly not here in the interest of providing neutral and accurate information on Gröning. I would suggest you read Wikipedia's guidelines on neutral point-of-view, verifiability, and fringe theories. The current version of this article accurately reflects Gröning's involvement in the Nazi Party as stated in reliable sources, and I will fight you tooth and nail on any further POV pushing. Please feel free to add a citation to back up your claim of "verified" faith healings with a reliable source. Ethmostigmus (talk) 10:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

No comment on having a neutral POV. Clearly not worth a discussion here.

Once again, where in the book does it say “He was known to sexually harass women at times; members of his inner circle found it necessary to control his access to them to prevent scandal.” [14] ??

And link to some healings - https://www.bruno-groening.org/en/healings/physical-healings Aklunaj (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Off the top of my head: Page 132 states "Both Meckelburgs suggested in statements to police that Groning was a womanizer, and they were not the only ones who made such claims. Press secretary Ernst Heuner went so far as to describe Groning as "lacking in any ethical connection." There was even an accusation of rape, lodged against Groning by a young woman who had served as Dieter Hiilsmann’s nurse", while page 133 states "the Meckelburgs described a number of occasions on which they seemed to think that "getting women" for Gröning was important lest he "fall on" unsuspecting women "like an animal." Meckelburg at one point claimed that only his "deft intervention" had hindered Gröning from behaving in an "indecent way" with women among the cure-seekers."

Please read Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources. bruno-groening.org is not an independent source. Ethmostigmus (talk) 10:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

1) Ok, so please explain to me how the current wording is citing the book..? The book does NOT say that he was known to sexually harass women at times or that members of his inner circle found it necessary to control his access to them to prevent scandal.

2) Has anyone done their diligence and actually checked the sources that Black uses in her book? How can you be sure that these are true and not just a writer’s story to keep the reader interested? Has someone cross-checked her references? Or is she considered trustworthy because she is a historian?

3) once again, if only one side is cited and not the other, how is this neutral POV?? There is a sentence you left out - “There were also those among Groning’s circle who vigorously denied any such unseemlimess” Aklunaj (talk) 10:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The quote from page 133 clearly reflects the fact that the Meckelburgs felt the need to control Gröning's access to women for fear of sexual impropriety - "lest he "fall on" unsuspecting women" "[Meckelburg claimed that he had to prevent Gröning] from behaving in an "indecent way" with women". I will add fact that some of Gröning's supporters denied accusations of sexual misconduct to the article.

On Wikipedia, we follow reliable sources. Monica Black's works are considered a reliable source - her work is reputably published and there is no reason to think that she is anything but an independent and reliable scholar. Again, I suggest you refer to Wikipedia policy on this matter. If you know of any reliable sources that dispute her research, please feel free to cite them in the article. Until then, this article will reflect the available reliable sources. Ethmostigmus (talk) 11:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Cowboygilbert

what is the proper procedure for correcting incorrect citations please?

For example (on top of Monika Black’s book citations), Number [8] in the article is another incorrect one - if you click on the link and read the referenced article, there is nothing about what’s being referenced.

Thank you Aklunaj (talk) 08:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

This is because someone has removed the original citation that was supposed to accompany that text. The intended citation is visible at Special:Diff/929344735, I will attempt to recover it. I am unsure who placed the current citation. Ethmostigmus (talk) 08:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The senate report referenced in the text is now directly cited. Ethmostigmus (talk) 09:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you.

I’ve looked through the notice cited. It is a “notice for information - about so-called youth religions, youth sects, psycho cults and pseudo-therapeutic groups.

The Senate Department for Schools, Youth and Sport is submitting the following communication to the House of Representatives for discussion”

Bruno Groning and the Circle of Friends are referenced under 7.4.1 - with some very good facts listed. However, nowhere does it says what is being quoted here, i.e. that the Berlin Senate Committee listed the Circle of Friends as a commercial sect.

If I am mistaken, could someone point out where that information is please? And if I’m not mistaken, then this should be removed. Aklunaj (talk) 10:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The report is a list of sects and cults active in Germany at the time, hence the title "Sekten - Risiken und Nebenwirkungen: Informationen zu ausgewählten neuen religiösen und weltanschaulichen Bewegungen und Psychoangeboten" (approximately translated, "Cults/sects - risks and side effects: Information on selected new religious and ideological movements and psychotherapy offers"). The Circle of Friends' inclusion in such a report (with the section on the group listed as "kommerziell", commercial) is self evident. Ethmostigmus (talk) 10:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. For one, there are three question marks on either side of the word “???”Sekten”???” in the report itself. One would think that a question mark would indicate uncertainty, a question, something unanswered? Not a statement of a fact.

There is not 1, not 2, not 3… but 6 question marks used for the word Sekten.

This is a report with a list of, as you translated, selected new religious and ideological movements and psychotherapy offers. It does NOT include any proof or wording to suggest that the Bruno Groning Circle of Friends is a sekt. Aklunaj (talk) 10:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest actually reading the report and its preceding notice. The notice before the report notes that the report was requested by Berlin's House of Representatives to report on the "spread, activities and effects of so-called youth religions, youth sects, psycho cults and pseudo-therapeutic groups". The report itself discusses the use of the term sect, which it uses largely interchangeably with other terms like "ideological movement". \

If you seriously think the Circle of Friends' inclusion in this report is somehow unrelated, feel free to take it to the neutral point-of-view noticeboard. Ethmostigmus (talk) 10:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Why not call the Circle of Friends an ideological movement then instead of a sect? Or both? Or even include all the different terms you say they use interchangeably?

I would also suggest reading the notice in its entirety and the information it shares on Bruno Groning and the Circle of Friends. Also I’d suggest reading the publications referenced in the notice.

It is incorrect to be singeling out the word sect based on your arguments and based on the wording of the notice. Furthermore, the Circle of Friends doesn’t fit wikipedia’s and any other definitions of a sect.

Bruno Groning as well as the Circle of Friends didn’t / don’t try to convert anyone or pull people out of their spiritual and religious beliefs. Bruno Groning encouraged people to become stronger in their own beliefs and the Circle of Friends continues in this ideology. He didn’t talk about anything new that hasn’t been around before. Members of the Circle of Friends don’t worship Bruno Groening, but their own spiritual leaders, may they be hindu, christian, islamic, buddhist, etc. Also neither Groning nor the Circle of Friends go against any of the worldly systems, i.e. social, political, medical, educational, etc.

And so on.

This is all from Black’s book and sources quoted in the notice.

So as far as sources for these information, you can use the books referenced in the notice we are talking about here, i.e. Thomas Busse’s publication, Walter-Wilhelm Busam’s and the others.

Also the following

Thomas Eich - ISBN 978-3-86769-059-1

Thomas Eich / Grete Hausler - ISBN 978-3-933344-90-8

Are these sources reliable? Aklunaj (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The text of the report clearly indicates that the writers considered the organisations listed to be sects. If you take issue with this, you may open a request for comment or start a discussion at the neutral point-of-view noticeboard. Until then, in the absence of a reliable source that says otherwise, I will follow the report's lead on the usage of this term.

I must again advise you to review Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources. For a source to be considered reliable, it must be independent of its subject and published by a reputable publisher (ie. not self published). As followers of Gröning and proponents of his teachings, Thomas Eich and Grete Häusler cannot be considered independent and reliable. Their works on Gröning appear to be mostly (if not entirely) published by a company owned by Häusler, who is obviously very biased in Gröning's favour. The work by Walter-Wilhelm Busam's referenced in the report appears to be a collection of Gröning's own lectures or writings merely edited and compiled by Busam, so again, not independent. Similarly, Thomas Busse's work appears to also be a collection of quotes from Gröning regarding Christianity with commentary by Busse - which is also published by Häusler's company. So, no, I would not consider any of those to be reliable sources. Ethmostigmus (talk) 06:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)