Talk:Q184719
Autodescription — anthroposophy (Q184719)
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “anthroposophy” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
- Parent classes (classes of items which contain this one item)
- anthroposophy (Q184719)
- group action (Q3533467) (@)→
- pseudoscience (Q483677)
- pseudo-scholarship (Q7254446)
- social issue (Q1920219)
- non-science (Q28954762)
- misinformation (Q13579947)
- occultism (Q178934)
- esotericism (Q131505)
- religious movement (Q1826286)
- social movement (Q49773)
- →(@) group action (Q3533467)
- collective behavior (Q2548752)
- social behavior (Q921513)
- →(●) social process (Q2305441)
- social change (Q1510761)
- social movement (Q49773)
- anthroposophy (Q184719)
- Subclasses (classes which contain special kinds of items of this class)
- ⟨
anthroposophy
⟩ on wikidata tree visualisation (external tool)(depth=1) - Generic queries for classes
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}
.
Unsigned
editThe IP is me. Sorry, Firefox forgot to sign me in.
Anyway, I have provided mainstream academic sources instead of polemical sources and original research. I'm not saying that Waldorf Watch is not reliable, but it is a polemical source, which is shunned on many Wikipedias.
It is very easy to depict Waldorf Watch as a biased source, but it is extremely hard to shoot down mainstream academic sources, published by full professors.
And about the Swiss website: we don't know how much the author understood from Anthroposophy, or whether they were officially representing Anthroposophy. So, that, again, is a source which can be easily shoot down.
And I'm not saying that MIVILUDES would be unreliable, but again, that is a source whose reputation is subject to controversy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Again, the IP is me. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)