Talk:Camphill Movement

Moved first-person account here from artile

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

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

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

@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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Camphill Movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090107010130/http://www.hmie.gov.uk/documents/inspection/CamphillRudolfSteinerSchools.html to http://www.hmie.gov.uk/documents/inspection/CamphillRudolfSteinerSchools.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)