Talk:Anthroposophical view of the human being

This article needs to be deleted also. Has no references at all except anthroposophical sources (disallowed in arbitration ruling on the Steiner/anthroposophy/Waldorf family of articles on wikipedia).DianaW 20:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrong again, Diana. The Aritration ruling stated that for information that is not controversial, anthroposophical sources are allowed. See the ruling. Thanks, Thebee 13:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that you made contributions here, Hgilbert, well after the arbitration rulings. Yet you did not make any move to clean this up, did you?DianaW 20:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Not quite; I created this article as a depository for existing material from the anthroposophy article that, it was agreed, was too detailed for the general article. I did no further work as we were going article by article in the clean-up. No one had suggested we turn to this one, yet, which also needs references. Time to work on it! Hgilbert 11:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that isn't an excuse. Wikipedia is not a place for you to "deposit" unsourced, random items of personal interest to you that you don't plan to make into a real article for months, years, or ever (unless forced to deal with it). If you moved it out of the main article because it didn't belong there, by group consensus, even less does it belong somewhere else on the site, untended for months at a time. It's past time for you to remove all this material you've "deposited" here as if this site was your personal filing cabinet - and without acting like I'm being unreasonable to request that the arbitration rulings finally be put into effect, months later. Numerous little pieces spun off from the main articles; often when something was disputed, you created a whole new article rather than deal with the issues raised about the material! This is a bit of a trick, yes? Then you can just hope no one notices it for awhile; meanwhile, it's just more saturation of wikipedia with anthroposophy. At the moment I am the only thorn in your side, but I'm sure you are as certain as I am that this project of yours is an abuse of wikipedia.DianaW 01:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, rocksanddirt, this is a tad silly. Any rational person can see that ALL these articles need the NPOV tag - it hardly requires a PeteK to point this out, even people completely unfamiliar with the topic can see that the anthro-related articles have all been written by partisans. It isn't rocket science, a reasonably alert 5th grader would read these and understand they are advertising copy. Pete Karaiskos is not the only person who lives in southern California and ever looks at wikipedia who could conceivably hold such an opinion. Isn't there supposed to be discussion about this on the discussion page, rather than just removing the tag? Again, procedures are definitely not being followed. There is no evidence that the person who put this npov tag on was Pete or using Pete's computer or any connection to Pete. None - anywhere. Nada. The level of irrationality here is simply stunning. It's as if an entire section of the population has gone mad. People involved in these pages honestly believe it could only be Pete K, like there aren't millions of people who could actually have done it. Christ even Pete's CHILDREN could have done it. (I'm not saying they did as I haven't the slightest idea.) Have you forgotten he lives near, um, a Waldorf school, that lots of people have attended over many decades?DianaW (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability
In an objective article correct definition should be stated first and not in the last section. Correct anthroposophical view of the human being is a sevenfold and well known fourfold view, and not the body soul and spirit thing, which is only a modern interpretation of profound spiritual truths given by Steiner. There should be remark saying that Steiner's view is much more complex that possibly couldn't fit into a short encyclopedic article. This article has little to do both with true spirit of anthroposophy and wikipedia for that matter. No wonder only English Wikipedia has this particular article.

--Gdje je nestala duša svijeta (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Tags
I placed the secondary sources and refimprove tag on this article because the vast vast vast majority of sources are in-universe. If these views of Steiner's philosophy don't have enough secondary-source coverage from not anthroposophists, then they aren't notable enough. If those secondary sources exist, they should be placed in this article. Also, the material itself is entirely drawn from these primary sources. It has no critical evaluation of the material. There are no critical views presented of Anthroposophic theory. I'd like to help fix that.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 20:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)