Talk:Findhorn Foundation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Death of a member[edit]

In 1999 one of the foundation's long-term members, Verity Linn, died of exposure on a Scottish mountain while following the teachings of the Australian guru Jasmuheen, who teaches that human beings can "live on light" alone.

Exactly. "living from light" is the teachings of the Australian guru Jasmuheen, neither Jasmuheen nor her teachings are part of the community. Simply Mrs. Linn was coincidentally a member of the community and a follower of these teachings. The community consists of people of different beliefs, and if one member decides to make an experience of exposure on a Scottish mountain, it shouldn't be pointed out in this umbigious way. Readers might get the impression, that these teachings are part of the Findhorn lifestyle. So I suggest to remove this point. --Landover(g) (talk) 03:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since no disagreement, and since the citations did not even mention Findhorn, I've deleted it. Also deleted the mention on Grof's holotropic breathwork, as that is about Grof, not Findhorn, and it didn't even have a checkable citation. Softlavender (talk) 08:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reworking[edit]

I did a larger reformulation and extension, esp. adding a History and a Self-conception-segment, adding External Links that are reffered to in the (new) text, re-ordering and tidying up the whole thing etc, but still interweaving many segments of the current article. Sources are the stated books and Websites. Could someone please check it and look for mistakes. Thanks a lot. LLAP, --Landover(g) (talk) 03:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Landover, you have done excellent work adding new material; and I'm happy to help copy-edit the new text; but I notice that you have deleted many of the inline citations (links to newspaper articles, etc) that Wikipedia relies upon to establish notability (and protect the article from people who'd like to delete all or parts of it). Could we have these links back, if not the text that they supported? I also note that some images have been cut, and quite a bit of history which was useful and interesting. Again, it isn't exactly clear why these good things have had to go? All the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Chiswick Chap, thanks for you note. I did not intend to remove important things, just to increase readability. I just can't see your points.
"I notice that you have deleted many of the inline citations": The citations are still the same. There were 14 inline citations in the former article. One of them (Braid, Mary, "The Magic Kingdom", The Independent), just can't be found, so I removed it. All of the other 13 citations are still there (though I didn't check them).
"I also note that some images have been cut": No, not really. There were four pictures in the former article. Two of them showing a barrel house, which was misleading by putting too much emphasis (in the context of a whole ecovillage) on them, I think. So I removed one of them. The other three pictures are still there. Plus one that I added, showing a modern ecohouse from the ecovillage.
"quite a bit of history": Most of that is still there. I just wanted to increase readability between the timeline and the topic-related content. Anyway tried to merge much of the former part into the history, while others is in a section "The Founders" as well as "UN-Relations" at the bottom. Still, this can be edited.
I'd be glad to merge in all that you might find useful from the former version, just point out what it is, that you have in mind, what's missing. --Landover(g) (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Landover, interesting changes. But too much of your material is inaccurate, you need to do an edit. For example, Caddy's and MacLean went from the Trossachs to the caravan park. They were not sacked from Cluny. They went from Cluny to the Trossachs. The 'community' was not founded in 1962. It was never their intention to form a community. They were not guided to go the Caravan Park. All of this is clear in Eileen's autobiography. There are many more points that are similarly inaccurate. And you have to source material. So YOU need to edit this new material so that it is accurate. Chiswick Chap's points are relevant here. There is just too much to correct for anyone else to help your additions at this stage. It is useful to have such an historical summary as you have started but it needs a lot more work and you have to have all sources stated. Therefore I have reverted to the old form until you get more time to do this. When you have done so I am happy to help it be accurateDavdevalle (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Hello Davdevalle, thanks for your note.
"Caddy's and MacLean went from the Trossachs to the caravan park": If it sounded as if they moved directly to the park, ok. I just wanted to cut it down and not mention sidewalks. But I reworked it anyway to the former text (which didn't mention the Trossachs, too, btw).
"The 'community' was not founded in 1962.": Well, I think your intention is to point out, that the community was not intentionally founded. But the history starts in 1962 as is stated as the beginning on their own Findhorn Foundation History Website. So, I think it's accurate to say that the community was started in 1962. They prepare for their 50th anniversary celebration next year. Maybe they are wrong because they weren't founded in 1962.
"It is useful to have such an historical summary as you have started", so I started it, "but it needs a lot more work". It still needs some workaround. But that's how Wikipedia started. Start it, and let different people contribute. "and you have to have all sources stated". I added a list of external Weblinks to the webpages, where I found information. I added much to the references list, like books and articles, that I did read, not just listed. So there are my sources.
So, if these examples lead to your remark that my material is inaccurate, I disagree. But I'm ready to improve rather than discard by reverting to a former form. --Landover(g) (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Landover, sure Wikipedia works about collaborative editing but there are still too many inaccuracies in your contribution, and not just the ones I listed. On the forming of 'Findhorn' the 'Community', Foundation and the Findhorn Trust and the matter of intentionality you need to be accurate especially at the start of the article. It is your POV that the Community started in 1962, but the community is not the Foundation and Dorothy, Eileen and Peter all explicitly stated that they did not start a 'an intentional community'. This needs to be accurate to be clear as there are many intentional communities. The Findhorn Foundation is not one of these. It is an accidental community. It wasn't that it should or shouldn't mention Trossachs but that the way you had written it read like they were sacked whilst at the Cluny Hotel when they weren't 'sacked' there. But it isn't just the history on Peter Eileen and Dorothy and 'sidewalks' but many of your other points. For example your material on Spangler:- Spangler did not take over 'organisation', he was co-director of Education with Peter Caddy. You mention him leaving but don't cite the Lorian Association. If you are listing things like Erraid, then why do you not mention the acquisition of Traigh Bahn on Iona. You mention New Findhorn Directions when you do the history of other offshots of the Foundation but don't clarify how it operates properly. You have made a start with some aim in mind but you have not protected the old structure you have introduced a whole new structure so it is now up to you to edit it properly. You haven't summarised the sources according to Wikipedia criteria and with the actual material. Summarising thus can become POV. As it stands I am not able to contribute by editing as you have effectively made a summary according to your reading. This is how some pages on Wikipedia can become useless and beyond improving. As I said you have made a start but you need to clean up the inaccuracies and sources. If I got involved with your material I would probably cut out a lot of your stuff and this would make working together unrewarding. I am not sure what kind of history you are trying to do with your selection of events, organisations and narrative. As I say I do think it is a start on the road to getting better but it needs a lot of work. I am happy to help but not sure just how I can help you at the momentDavdevalle (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the way this is being done is very worrying, and we are rapidly getting into a tangle which will take a huge effort to straighten out. The issues are:
  • accuracy - every new fact really must come with a cited source, I mean a <ref>Source defined here</ref>.
  • not losing existing sources and story without justification
  • balance - we really ought to discuss changes here first, and plan out the shape (new subsections, points to be made...) - there is a place for 'being bold' on WP but when attempting a rewrite of a long-established article, planning and co-operation would be helpful.
  • Finally, it would be much nicer, on a topic like Findhorn, to do this by agreement. Could we do this together, please?
  • All in all I am wondering whether simply to revert to a known state so we can start this rework over, and do the job elegantly, intelligently, collaboratively. Davdevalle, what do you think? Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chiswick Chap. I agree completely with your summary and solution. Landover is willing to improve and so I hope he can come on board given his recent efforts and energy. It is important to get it right now so that it can evolve and then others can contribute to the page easily in the future. There are some pages on Wikipedia, in topics I know quite a bit about, that become so confusing they are beyond editing collaboratively and so you cannot make any contribution. The way to do it is by collaboration as you suggest in the discussion page and get some agreement as how to work together on this. Davdevalle (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reworking the article[edit]

OK, I have reverted the doubtful changes as discussed so we have an understandable place to begin. All are welcome to collaborate in what will be quite a large task to update the article, and in particular to check facts and supply inline citations for everything, please.

I have been wondering too about Landover's material which seemed a sketch of the last 50 years. Now this could be a big section. Should it have its own page? The History of FF? Findhorn Ecovillage has a page and there is extensive information there about its evolution. Thus making the main page an overview of initial history, founders and different sections? This is more about the structure of the page. A long history would be too much, as the Landover material revealed. But maybe this be worked up independently and then be summarised for main page. The history could then give the evolution of the various themes and matters relevant for a summary on main page. Davdevalle (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An obvious place to begin is by listing the books, websites, newspaper and magazine articles we intend to use (at the end of the article): we can move them to inline citations as we go. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is a good start as then we can work out how to cite what is said in the article. Davdevalle (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Split booklist into subsections?[edit]

Should we have sections of the references for, say, Practical books (gardening, green housebuilding etc); Books on FF itself; ...? Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good suggestion. I will think about the different titles for the sub-sections. Davdevalle (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ecological Footprint[edit]

"its residents have the lowest recorded ecological footprint of any community in the industrialised or the developed world, and also half of the UK average."

Is a very specific claim to make that should probably be supported by more than a link to a news paper article. The link is now broken and a search for the "Sunday Herald Findhorn footprint" actually turns up an article from a year earlier

http://www.heraldscotland.com/findhorn-eco-footprint-is-world-s-smallest-1.827780

The study was carried out by

Sustainable Development Research Centre in Forres - which has no gone

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_Development_Research_Centre

I can't find the study on line but it should be linked to directly.

Best course of action would probably be to replace this claim with a general statement that the intention is to live with a small footprint and to link to ecovilliage entry. Findhorn_Ecovillage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.32.15 (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found the report here:

http://www.ecovillagefindhorn.com/docs/FF%20Footprint.pdf

On the findhorn ecovilliage site. I don't think this is authoritative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.32.15 (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Channelers"?[edit]

Why put this in quotes? This suggests that there are real channelers and there are fake "channelers", but in reality they all call themselves the same. Seems like editorializing. Kortoso (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The use of single quotes ('...') is problematic:
    • Since single quotes introduce more ambiguities than double, our MOS calls for double quotes, except for quoted material nested one level deep (and any odd number of levels deep!) inside double-quotes.
    • Especially since double quotes ("...") are used later on, it requires readers users to guess how their meaning differs from the double ones.
    • In fact, readers are likely to infer the single quotes are distinguished by being intended as scare quotes. (BTW, contrary to my former impression, it is not WP:MOS that addresses them, but WP:INDCRIT, within our guidelines for communication among editors. While it thus cannot be dispositive here, IMO -- as i note below -- its assertions are worth attention here.)
  2. Quote marks indicate quoted material, and are appropriate not only when the exact syntax was chosen by the person who spoke multiple words in succession, but also when the meaning of a single word is not clear.
    • IMO, scare quotes in WP are PoV and unhelpful when they surround wording not linked to relevant articles (or Dab pages!) that embrace the range of credible meanings
    • IMO, esp. scare quotes that are typographically distinguished from quoted sentences (and partially-quoted, partially paraphrased sentences) are
      • on one hand POV and stigmatizing, and
      • on the other obscure the fact that identifying ambiguous or vague language as problematic is not per se POV or stigmatizing.
  3. IMO, the advice abt confusing use of scare quotes in our "internal" discussions is salutary in the context of article content, with the emphasis belonging (usually implicitly) on clarity about why the quote marks are helpful, and the nature of the ambiguity or vagueness. For instance, a Dab entry at Channeling hints to me that
Caddy and other "channelers"
is a suitable way of clarifying that our research has (so far) not produced consensus among editors that one clear use of the term discussed in our article was intended by Caddy et al. when they described themselves as such (or by their disciples when they applied it to them).
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerzy (talk • contribs) 13:22, 18 December 2014
For what it's worth, I think we should in general avoid most kinds of quote marks (except direct, cited quotations) where it's conveniently possible to do so, for instance by saying who uses a term in a special way. I'll root a few of 'em out now, see what you think. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •    I doubt that's as tough as you're making it sound. Journalists seem to quite routinely use phrases like "applying unspecified measures that he called 'the least we can do in good conscience'". What i'm talking about is going beyond that, since we have hypertext at our disposal, and linking to discussion of the ambiguity that the speaker being reported on has not acknowledged (or not noticed), let alone dealt with.
    --Jerzy•t 22:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you have reliable sources, just go right ahead and boldly add them to substantiate the claims; obviously, if these are other people's opinions about things, you will have to say "John Doe claims that X" and "Mary Smith argues that Y". Be aware that blogs, forums and social media are generally not considered WP:RS, however. All the best for Christmas. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Findhorn Foundation. 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:

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) 23:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Findhorn Foundation. 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:

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) 06:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Findhorn Foundation. 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:

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) 14:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Findhorn_Foundation&oldid=1207226547"