This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
value-laden editorializing: "Max Heindel was able to perform a valuable work for the Brothers of the Rose Cross" --- The neutrality of this article is disputed because of expressions like the following:
Besides, no controversial or "difficult" aspects of Heindel's personality are explained. The whole article sounds more like hagiography than objective information. -- Jdemarcos 20:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The flowery language is npov and un-encyclopedic and the reason the prose reads so purplish is that much of this is cut and pasted from Manly P. Hall's fawning introduction to "Blavatsky and the Secret Doctrine." Early Infancy, for example, is the same, down to punctuation. It needs a major overhaul. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Typing monkey ( talk • contribs) 17:23, August 21, 2007 (UTC).
Aside from noted issues of NPOV, the article is in dire need of basic grammatical editing.
Estéban ( talk) 12:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I've tagged this article because of the NPOV dispute that has been around since 2006 (it takes this guy's word at face value and almost reads like an advertisement for his books/philosophy).
I've also added another notice because it has a long list of websites and books, but only four in-text citations, which would make it hard to correct the sentences (mostly pointed out above) that are really biased. — Mike J B 14:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with with the tone of this talk page that the article seems written by a true unquestioning believer in Mr. Heindel's clairvoyance and that it would be best if someone with interest in his history wrote an objective account instead. I have no knowledge on Mr. Heindel. All I was able to add to that effort was the text at the end of the section on the Magnum Opus, where I point out very serious shortcomings of said Opus, morally and scientifically, based on my own limited look through it. Adynotsuzz ( talk) 17:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 18:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
How is it that there is a picture of Heindel in Argentina, and in the entry is no mention of journeys abroad? -- Manfariel ( talk) 16:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
value-laden editorializing: "Max Heindel was able to perform a valuable work for the Brothers of the Rose Cross" --- The neutrality of this article is disputed because of expressions like the following:
Besides, no controversial or "difficult" aspects of Heindel's personality are explained. The whole article sounds more like hagiography than objective information. -- Jdemarcos 20:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The flowery language is npov and un-encyclopedic and the reason the prose reads so purplish is that much of this is cut and pasted from Manly P. Hall's fawning introduction to "Blavatsky and the Secret Doctrine." Early Infancy, for example, is the same, down to punctuation. It needs a major overhaul. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Typing monkey ( talk • contribs) 17:23, August 21, 2007 (UTC).
Aside from noted issues of NPOV, the article is in dire need of basic grammatical editing.
Estéban ( talk) 12:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I've tagged this article because of the NPOV dispute that has been around since 2006 (it takes this guy's word at face value and almost reads like an advertisement for his books/philosophy).
I've also added another notice because it has a long list of websites and books, but only four in-text citations, which would make it hard to correct the sentences (mostly pointed out above) that are really biased. — Mike J B 14:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with with the tone of this talk page that the article seems written by a true unquestioning believer in Mr. Heindel's clairvoyance and that it would be best if someone with interest in his history wrote an objective account instead. I have no knowledge on Mr. Heindel. All I was able to add to that effort was the text at the end of the section on the Magnum Opus, where I point out very serious shortcomings of said Opus, morally and scientifically, based on my own limited look through it. Adynotsuzz ( talk) 17:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 18:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
How is it that there is a picture of Heindel in Argentina, and in the entry is no mention of journeys abroad? -- Manfariel ( talk) 16:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)