Talk:Camphill Movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Cooperatives (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cooperatives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cooperatives on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Religion / New religious movements (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by New religious movements work group (marked as Mid-importance).

Moved first-person account here from artile[edit]

Moving the following here:

etc etc. (Dcaplin501 11:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)) I personaly work in Botton VIllage, which is situated in North Yorkshire, I am a Co-Worker child, which means my parents help the "Adults With Learning Disabilities"

--BinaryTed 22:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Article is in violation of arbitration rulings[edit]

This article has no references at all. It is in violation of the arbitration rulings concerning anthroposophy-related articles and has been so for months. If adequate, non-anthroposophical sources are not cited in the next week or so, I will propose it for deletion.DianaW 03:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If you wish this article to be next for cleanup according to the arbitration guidelines, propose this and give it enough months - as were required with other articles - for this to be done properly. By the way, A. sources are permitted for non-controversial aspects of a subject.Hgilbert 11:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I *am* proposing it, and you've already had months. The arbitration was back in January and applied to the entire "family" of Steiner/Waldorf/anthroposophy articles on wikipedia. Fred Bauder was clear that the basic problem is using only or mainly anthroposophical sources to "document" that anthroposophy is the greatest thing since sliced bread. There are a couple dozen such articles that are exactly that - little mini-brochures that function to suggest anthroposophy does so many wonderful things for mankind. Like I say, the arbitration was in January, and it is clearly quite all right with the anthropsophists who have written all these articles that they sit forever and ever like this if no one hollers. I'm saying, either get to work fixing them or they should be deleted. Wikipedia isn't free advertising.DianaW 12:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The article is now well-referenced and stands in accordance with arbitration rulings. Hgilbert 17:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Individual villages[edit]

Rather than including detailed information on individual Camphill villages here, it would be better to start individual articles on each. This article should focus on common elements. hgilbert (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


@EPadmirateur: could you please explain why you think the edits you just de facto reverted were bad? They met WP:CONCISE, they had the same ideas, and they followed WP:MOS.--Shibbolethink ( ) 03:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

De facto reverts? Sorry, they are wording improvements. --EPadmirateur (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Directly to the wordings previously? Which were neither WP:Concise nor WP:MOS worthy? AGF. Don't de facto revert my edits because you disagree with them, work with me towards a better wording between our edits.--Shibbolethink ( ) 04:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I would like to work this out. First, Camphill communities are residential communities, so taking that out for conciseness makes the article inaccurate and misleading. Adding "("learning disabilities" in the UK)" makes the article clearer to non-US readers. Finally, "special needs" is a term of art in the Camphill movement that is referred to in the Camphill movement#History section and various of the references (Holistic Special Education: Camphill Principles and Practice), and ought to be included in the lead.
If your aim is to improve these articles, rather than denigrate them by using WP:concise etc., then these improvements ought to sound reasonable to you. --EPadmirateur (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I have no intention to denigrate anything. I want to improve these articles so that they read well to the layman, and explain all aspects of the discipline as described from all sides. I think your partial reversions are acceptable, but I'd like to start working on the rest of the article itself. Holler if you think my changes are improper, and we can talk about it.--Shibbolethink ( ) 15:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)