Talk:Anthroposophical Society in America

This page shouldn't be merged with the Anthroposophical Society because it has a list of information which is not for the GENERAL Anthroposophical Society which is in Switzerland, worldwide headquarters. This article pertains to the Societal Branch which is in America. Headquarters in Ann Arbor, Michigan. This is an entirely different roster of officials from the General ANthroposophical Society. This has links to the General Society being an extremely large branch but also being totally different from the General. This is a particular branch and information pertaining to this branch and the different regions that are within the USA. This should have its own article and not be merged. --Theosopher7 (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue is whether this branch conforms to Wikipedia's notability requirements for companies and organizations, not its distinctiveness from the main organization. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This article has had ample other sources added and more are to be coming. There are going to be many references made to the Society in America as an organization and its important that this be distinguished from the General Society because it would be a lot of information and activity which is relevant to the organization in America, such as Camphills, Biodynamic Farms, CSAs, Waldorf Schools that relate to the Society in America that don't necessarily concern the movement all over the world but pertain to the society as it is in America and those cultural references, members and persons that are members and part of the Society as it is in America and not in Switzerland, i.e. Torin Finser being important to American Anthroposophy but not as relevant to the worldwide movement asides his role in America. There are other sources and more links and sources to come so I think it meets the notability requirement for Wikipedia articles. --Theosopher7 (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * IN that case focus should be steered away from such trivial facts as the non-notable individual governing members, non-notable individual chapters, and mission statements, and focus on the differences from the main General society and how those differences are viewed as significant from verifiable, reliable sources that are independent of the organization and not closely related. All of the sources provided thusfar are too closely related, or are actual branches of the subject organization, and do not meet our source requirements. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk


 * Not all the sources are branches of the American organization. The members that are officers in the American branch are different than those which govern the International branch as I already stated. These are not highlighted as to give them their own biography as notable figures which is sufficient to include them as relevant to the society, shows how its different from theinternational as being part of the distinction that differentiates Michigan headquarters from Dornach. Just as Michigan distinguishes from Pasadena, Los Angeles, Seattle and various other branches apart from Michigan. I'm working on a list of all American branches that is linked right now and will be available soon, hopefully some time today. Just as Pepperidge Farm bread started out as its own company, has a story, was independent and still operated in a way independent of the umbrella corporation, they are not related through stock acquisition to Campbell Soup who owns Pepperidge Farm. This is a sub-branch of Campbell Soup. Are you saying that according to this logic that we shouldn't include stories, officers, managers and information relevant to understanding Pepperidge Farm Bread company because we should only include them as a subcategory on the Campbell Soup page that has similar information but is just bigger and more international in scope? This is why its important to include the sub-branch apart from the international. I'm working to find Encyclopedia articles and other publications, but for subjects that aren't inside mainstream journals and academia its rather difficult to find varied sources outside of those that are interested in the movement. The State and Regional branches that are in the movement and related other organizations like the International might offer lots of very good information on the National branch, but because they are too closely related you're saying we can't use that as a viable source? What would be an acceptable source for you? Look at the information sources for the three branches of the Theosophical Society, why do they not have such variegated sources independent of their own movement and yet can break down information relevant to their branches? I'm still working on building the sources, I think the officers are relevant in order to distinguish it from state and international branches just as information on past presidents of a corporation, university or the like would be important, informative and notable. --Theosopher7 (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

We're talking about notability, not notability. Wikipedia has specific standards for notability, part of which state: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.


 * "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.
 * "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
 * "Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.
 * "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.
 * "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not.

A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.

- CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)