User talk:Hgilbert/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Is Anthroposophy a Science? 2 Pseudoscience article 3 Please help on Mathematics 4 Steiner and Theosophy 5 Reincarnation 6 steiner 7 Hahnemann 8 Unneeded pages 9 Potentization expts 10 Prescientific system 11 Butterworth/Origen Quote in Reincarnation Article 12 edit summary steiner 13 Request 14 Rudolf Steiner edit warring 15 Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity 16 Foreign language citation 17 Waldorf Edits

[edit] Is Anthroposophy a Science?

You emailed me with the following:-

Over the last century, there has been serious debate over whether the 'social sciences', and especially psychology, can be considered sciences. The issue has been precisely the same as that for anthroposophy: can non-verifiable (because non-physical) events - and all psychological events qualify here - be the subject of a science?

In both cases, proponents believe in the objective and independent reality of psychological or spiritual levels of reality, and in the possibility of approaching these with scientific methodology. Critics deny either or both of these. There are in fact strong analogies between the two situations. There are also obvious differences, of course, especially in terms of the relative acceptance of psychological ideas at this moment (in contrast to 50 or 100 years ago) and that of spiritual ideas. But merely because one situation is 50 - 100 years behind the other in terms of general acceptance is insufficient reason to deny the evident parallels.

I will put the edits back in, with a note including the above. I hope this meets with your approval.

H Gilbert

You are correct that many subjects in the areas of psychology and "social science" which once claimed to be sciences do not nowadays stand up to scrutiny and have given up such claims. Psychoanalysis and Marxism to name two. I believe Anthroposophy also would not pass the modern description of a science which comes down to it conducting a continuous attempts to criticise and disprove its current best theories. Lumos3 17:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoscience article

Thank you for those well considered edits in the pseudoscience article-- it is much better for it. The previous attempt had to do with the common tendency of pseudosciences to draw on the accumulated credibility of science by holding forth that they too have benefits to offer, but without the requisite offering of transparency. Your edits are an improvement, without losing the needed points...Kenosis 16:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please help on Mathematics

Posted by Pruneau 21:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC), on behalf of the AID Maintenance Team

[edit] Steiner and Theosophy

Well feel free to modify the article with cited quotations to back up your claims. And I will do the same. Wjhonson 17:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reincarnation

Thankyou for your edits on the Reincarnation page - I believe it reads better now with the extra paragraph you created. If I have time in future I may have a detailed look through the other sections. Nice to work with you. Regards, GourangaUK 20:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] steiner

i actually did not do any edits i think, apart from taking an e out off fiechte... but say is the first quote really from encyclopedia Brittanica? isn't that a copyright violation? greetings --trueblood 19:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No. It is perfectly legitimate to quote passages with citations. This is not a copyright violation. Wjhonson 20:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hahnemann

Thanks for the extra bio stuff on Hahnemann which is great and improves the article. Maybe some citations can next be incorporated into your fine text. cheers Peter morrell 11:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unneeded pages

I saw you have marked a few pages as unneeded and emptied them (Rudolf Steiner/Steiner's views on races and Anthroposophy/Steiner's views on races). It is however customary to put a speedy deletion tag on them instead of just clearing the page. - Dammit 10:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Potentization expts

If you have not already seen this site, then please check it out [1] cuz it covers some decent studies of the type you referred to in the homeopathy article. Peter morrell 09:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

here also is the link [2] to the Nature paper cited in the article. Can you get full text, or do you want me to send you the Pdf? --TimVickers 19:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prescientific system

In case you hadn't noticed, Prescientific system has been proposed for deletion. NickelShoe (Talk) 16:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Butterworth/Origen Quote in Reincarnation Article

Hgilbert--If I read the history of the article correctly, it appears you are the person who added the quotation in Early Christian views attributed to Gregory of Nyssa concerning Origen as translated by Butterworth. I have several reasons to believe this citation is incorrect. Would you please indicate whether you have seen this passage in Butterworth firsthand, or, if not, where you got the citation from? Your assistance is appreciated, as it may save me the necessity of buying a copy of the Butterworth translation just to check this reference. Thank you. Practical123 21:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hgilbert - Thank you very much for your prompt reply! You said, "I am not sure which Wikipedia article you are referring to." I apologize for not being more specific. I had thought that the reference in my previous message title to "Reincarnation Article" would have been enough to identify the article, but no doubt there are many Wikipedia articles that discuss reincarnation. I refer to the article Reincarnation in the section, Christianity. The specific quotation is as follows:

However, Gregory of Nyssa cites Origen: By some inclination toward evil, certain souls ... come into bodies, first of men; then through their association with the irrational passions, after the allotted span of human life, they are changed into beasts, from which they sink to the level of plants. From this condition they rise again through the same stages and are restored to their heavenly place. (B.W. Butterworth, On First Principles, Book I, Chapter VIII (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), p. 73).

Again, if you placed this text in the article, I would be grateful of you could tell me the source. I checked the article you mentioned, which was previously known to me, but found nothing there related to the quotation in question.

Please forgive me as I learn to use the Wikipedia messaging system. If I'm not following the usual procedure, kindly let me know. Practical123 09:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hgilbert - Thank you again for your prompt reply! I have consulted the web page you mentioned (which, I had previously seen). Note that the source for the quotation is given there as a geocities webpage. Further, the author in question is G. W. Butterworth (which you can verify here, but the geocities webpage says B.W. Butterworth; this error suggests that even the author of the geocities page did not see the passage firsthand. This implies we are dealing with third-hand information, at best, (which scarecly seems appropriate for an encyclopedia!).

I also just noticed that the geocities webpage attributes the quote directly to Origen, not Gregory of Nyssa citing Origen, which is what the near-death.com webpage states--so this further calls into question the quote and the citation.

Now, if we may, let us consider what is generally accepted as an authoratitive source: the multi-volume Ante-Nicene Fathers edition of Roberts and Donaldson. This work is online.

In the precise section of Origen's 'On First Principles', (Book 1, Ch. 8), in question, (near bottom of page) we find this passage:

We think that those views are by no means to be admitted, which some are wont unnecessarily to advance and maintain, viz., that souls descend to such a pitch of abasement that they forget their rational nature and dignity, and sink into the condition of irrational animals, either large or small; and in support of these assertions they generally quote some pretended statements of Scripture, such as, that a beast, to which a woman has unnaturally prostituted herself, shall be deemed equally guilty with the woman, and shall be ordered to be stoned; or that a bull which strikes with its horn, shall be put to death in the same way; or even the speaking of Balaam's ass, when God opened its mouth, and the dumb beast of burden, answering with human voice, reproved the madness of the prophet. All of which assertions we not only do not receive, but, as being contrary to our belief, we refute and reject. After the refutation and rejection of such perverse opinions, we shall show, at the proper time and place, how those passages which they quote from the sacred Scriptures ought to be understood.'

Whatever else Origen believed, he did not believe that a human soul could ever become a plant or nonrational creature, because, in his system, it is only on the basis of rational choice and free will that a person could earn merit. This is evident not only in First Principles, but in Origen's other works as well.

I have further evidence, too, that the quote in question is incorrect, but to save ourselves futher bother on this matter, would you kindly consent to my deleting the quotation? Practical123 11:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hgilbert - Thanks for your reply. I have deleted the quotation. Practical123 18:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] edit summary steiner

i noted that you deleted the recently introduced steiner quote with this edit summary: Complex topic treated in sub-article, however you did not move the quote to the article. i am not sure if i would really want this quote, but i think your edit summary was not exactly truthful.trueblood 20:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved two quotes to the sub-article, but the user who had put it in then replaced both in the original article. They should certainly not be in both places. I have retained one in the sub-article (in a footnote to the appropriate section). We need to sort out the whole issue of how we handle quotes here - when a summary is appropriate and when an extensive quotation. It is an important issue, and one where balance of POV will need to be maintained. Hgilbert 21:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Since I'm the user in question here, I should respond. The statement about how Steiner's remarks might sound uncomfortable to "modern ears" is not completely truthful. Steiner's racist remarks were racist remarks in his day just as they are now. Most philosophers didn't talk about races at all and people who said things similar to Steiner, Hitler for example, are clearly seen as racists. I'm not just saying this for dramatic effect, some of Steiner's remarks are almost indistinguishable from Hitler's. I don't think whitewashing Steiner's commentary on the races is a good thing and I don't think Wikipedia should be a place for revisionists. That's why I put an example of his remarks there (twice now) and that's why revisionists have been editing them out. As to "extensive" quotation, this is necessary because while we can certainly get to the nitty gritty of what Steiner was saying, revisionists claim short quotes are taken out of context and use that as a criteria to delete them. So which is it going to be - a longer quotation or a shorter one? Or is a whitewash of Steiner's racism in the works here? --Pete K 02:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no whitewash, friend; there is a complete treatment in detail on a page dedicated to this subject. Hitler objected to Steiner's ideas as being anti-racist. Talking about races is not the same as being racist; careful with your vocabulary here. Steiner's comments about race and ethnicity fall into three broad categories:

1. General comments about race and ethnicity - all indicating that this should not be an issue in judging people, that in the modern world especially, and increasingly into the future, individual characteristics are far more important than racial ones.
2. Comments about particular races or ethnic groups which are clearly anti-racist, as when Steiner disparages anti-Semitism
3. Comments about particular races or ethnic groups which delineate supposed characteristics of the groups, sometimes in a way that can sound demeaning.

All these aspects need treatment, and the complexity of the issue cannot be done justice to without a detailed treatment. There is no way to fit this into the main article, and it can be done properly in a sub-article. Why don't we work together to find an adequate summary and sub-article that encompasses all aspects here?

Note that Wikipedia NPOV policy precludes putting quotes from only one of these categories in the main article; a representative selection would require at least 6 or 7 quotes, plus expository text...it's just too much for the article length. This is why the sub-article was created (see the Talk:Anthroposophy page). Hgilbert 11:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC) me i was not going to start an edit war, don't worry. but i stick to it, that you are not completely honest here. you deleted this quote, without saying why. again i don't know if these kind of quotes really have to be on wikipedia. but when refering to them we always get vague rather language: may sound denigrating to some modern ears, sometimes in a way that can sound demeaning. come on, we are talking about quotes that are highly offensive to modern ears and as the dutch comission found could get you into trouble with the authorities for racism. trueblood 17:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough before. I moved the quote from the main article to the sub-article because the topic is treated in an in-depth and hopefully neutral fashion in the subarticle, and we have already found that this is not possible in the main article (see past discussions). I told the user who had put the quote in that I had moved it to the sub-article. He then replaced it in the main article and left it in the sub-article as well, so I deleted it from the sub-article. The issue of quotes and context needs to be dealt with in a comprehensive way.

If you look at the sub-article Rudolf Steiner's views on races you will see that there is no vague language; rather, the subject is presented in great detail, with a prolific use of either quotes or precise summaries. Please contribute to this if you feel there is more that could be done. Hgilbert 20:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Hi - I have left a note for PeteK. Mediation is not really my thing and perhaps you need to seek some assistance from a couple of the mediators around the place - Wikipedia:Mediation for further info. I made some annotations on your diffs page. You will see that I felt quite a few of the diffs were within the scope of Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Examples that are not personal attacks - It is important not to personalize comments that are directed at content and actions, but it is equally important not to interpret such comments as personal attacks. I think improtant to assume good faith and work together with all editors on the best possible articles on Waldorf edcations - these articles will be neutral, not reflect any particular perspective, for or against Waldorf education, and be well sourced. They won't be written overnight. They will be written collaboratively. Good luck with it.--Golden Wattle ^talk 21:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I have started mediation. I don't know if Pete's personal attacks belong to the mediation process? Hgilbert 09:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that would be difficult to mediate. Sometimes, even I can't control them <G>... --Pete K 18:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rudolf Steiner edit warring

This edit warring has to stop. I am warning all three parties involved, yourself, Pete K and Thebee. I am also not going to be a mediator in this content dispute. But I am warning all three of you, if anymore diffs I see are revert warring on this article or any other related article, all three of you will be reported for 3RR vioations. Please don't put yourself and others in conflicts which result in edit warring. Please discuss this until resolved and then make the appropriate change, ok? — The Future 19:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity

I've provided a reply to the conversation. Pushing a POV without waiting for others to consider the edits is not on [3]. -- Longhair\^talk 02:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I was pretty surprised that Pete only gave one day for discussion of a very controversial subject. Hgilbert 09:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Removal of Dutch Anthroposophic Section, I reverted back one edit whilst the article is locked to remove potentially defamatory information in the article. If other content has been removed by accident, then I apologise. If the content you wish to see restored has consensus on the talk page, let me know and I'll reinsert it. -- Longhair\^talk 03:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I applaud your decision to take the Steiner matter to mediation. Let's hope this provides a suitable outcome to all involved. -- Longhair\^talk 02:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope that the articles come back on track, and that everyone learns from the experience!! Hgilbert 09:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Mediation, "Any disputant may refuse or withdraw from the mediation process at will. No party is required to participate in mediation, though refusal to do so may result in the dispute escalating to binding resolution through the Arbitration Committee.". You could however try rewording the mediation request to see if that will garner the interest of the refusing parties. -- Longhair\^talk 13:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

At least one administrator has suggesed one day is enough warning for controversial topics. I can't remember where I saw this - but I believe it was either Trueblood or Golden Wattle who made this comment. With regard to mediation - so far nobody has refused to mediate - it is the language on the mediation request that has raised a few eyebrows and I'm pretty sure I can speak for Diana when I say neither she nor I want to mediate based on that language. The mediation request has a discussion page where I have copied my comments and Diana's. If we can settle on what needs to be mediated we may have some progress here. --Pete K 19:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the talk page in question, you will see that the administrator who commented there - Longhair - specifically suggested waiting longer. Do you have a record of the suggestion you remember seeing? I'd be delighted to see what you are referring to. Hgilbert 21:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I've spent half an hour looking in all the usual places - can't find it. It may have been on someone's talk page, or in some recently archived sections. I'm sure I saw it as I remember thinking it refuted what you have suggested here. I'll keep looking if you will be patient. --Pete K 00:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Here you are, hand delivered even [4] :) -- Longhair\^talk 00:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Longhair - I think we are both aware of this one. There was a comment by another administrator (somewhere) who said that in these heated (heavily debated) articles, waiting 24 hours is adequate. I can't remember where I saw it, but I'm sure I'll stumble onto it again. --Pete K 01:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Eureka... here it is - on TheBee's talk page of all places:

Allow 24 hours for a response to the tag and in the mean time think how to phrase more neutrally if possible rather than remove altogether. Replace with more neutral text after 24 hours (some will say 24 hours isn't long enough but on a volatile article I think it is) - perhaps having allowed discussion on proposed replacement text on talk page first. If you had placed what others deemed controversial text, how would you like it to be dealt with? - how would good faith be demonstrated? The end state needs to be neutral though, so its not only about being nice.--Arktos talk 10:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

--Pete K 02:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Good work. Note that the advice suggests replacing with a neutral phrasing rather than removing altogether; I can go along with that. Hgilbert 03:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, "neutral" is apparently subjective <G>. I normally try to take a stab at making a passage read more neutral (in my view) and that doesn't seem to be satisfactory with some people, so they take a stab, then I take another stab, and before you know it, the thing has been stabbed to death and gangrene has set in. Sometimes, at that point, it's best to amputate. --Pete K 03:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to work on your approach to healing. Stabbing and amputation, extreme surgery generally, should be a last resort; gentler treatments that support the body you are working on, not attack it, would be a better start. Then you might not trigger such strong allergic reactions! Hgilbert 12:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think we're well beyond lemon and onion wraps here - aren't we? The patient is comatose, and needs a quadruple bypass. I don't think Rescue Remedy will get us there, do you? --Pete K 16:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign language citation

All external links should be in the English language for the English Wikipedia. I know if I came across an article with external links in German, I'd delete them. -- Longhair\^talk 21:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This is also not in question. However, citations (footnotes) to articles in foreign languages are acceptable, however, as far as I understand, when the work has not been translated? Hgilbert 10:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a good question. Perhaps you could use one of the online translation tools that translate texts on the fly assuming the translation results are accurate. One such tool is Google. For the benefit of those readers of Wikipedia who only read English you could then link directly to the translated output. I hope this helps answer your question. -- Longhair\^talk 10:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The texts are, by and large, not available on-line. The citation is to the published version.Hgilbert 11:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Harlan, this makes them pretty obscure - especially when they are the only (apparent) support you have for Steiner being an opponent to antisemitism. I have tried to get copies of the texts and to have them translated - so far no success. Do you have a source for the actual texts? Have you actually read them - or are you assuming they are something based on the magazines they appeared in? I suspect they are in support of assimilation - which is, of course, antisemitism. Can you at least confirm or deny this for us? Thanks! Pete K 14:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I have read them, of course, and will put extensive quotes from them on the Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity page for you and other curious readers. They are mostly combative articles critiquing writings by anti-Semitical writers in the most vehement terms. Assimilation is mentioned only once, when referring to historical anti-Jewish laws; Steiner says that, were it not for these laws' influence, the Jews would have long since formed a completely integrated part of European culture, comparable to the position of any ethnic group in an area dominated by another ethnic group (e.g. Slavs in Germany). I will put this quote in, too, of course. Hgilbert 21:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

They are by no means the only quotes supporting this position; a number of others, from other sources, already appear in the sub-article. I am surprised you haven't read this yet, or noticed them there.Hgilbert 21:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Harlan. I've noticed you've been putting some fresh stuff in. Ah, so many articles, so little time. I hope to devote some time to the articles soon - and I'm having the articles I posted on the talk page translated - but it looks like they may not be suitable references now as they don't translate well under the Google translator. Did you have a look at them in German? I'm told they are pretty tough on Steiner. Pete K 21:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Which articles are tough on Steiner? Hgilbert 01:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

These: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

Pete K 03:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Waldorf Edits

Harlan - I'm going out for dinner - so I can't take care of it - but if you've got some time, you might want to keep an eye on the Waldorf article tonight. Somebody is enthusiastically editing it and you will, I suspect, want to undo many of his edits. Pete K 01:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I caught a few of these! Hgilbert 18:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)