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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks. 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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

Hi HGilbert! Please do not remove the advert tag from the Waldorf Education page until a consensus has been reached that this is OK. As you are aware, a project has been set up with the aim of making the article less brochure-like- I suggest you await the outcome.--Fergie 10:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to identify specific problems with the text; you did not do so. The project is apparently inactive, in part due to the refusal of two users to participate in the mediation process. Please identify specific sentences/sections, at least as examples of the "brochure-like" quality. Hgilbert 13:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - please don't remove the tag. The WHOLE article is a brochure. The mediation process, like the Waldorf project, was set up unfairly - with extreme bias. Are you saying the Waldorf project has been officially terminated? If not, could you please let us know the status of the project? Pete K 15:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is largely objectively descriptive; nevertheless, it can be improved. Bias meaning that two single-issue editors who are active in a prominent anti-Waldorf organization are not able to dominate a process in which 9 or 10 other users drawn from a wide spectrum of experienced Wikipedia editors were agreeing to mediation? Hmmm...

I am trying to determine the state of mediation and project. Hgilbert 02:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO - "wide spectrum of experienced Wikipedia editors"? Um... I don't think so. You, HGilbert, are a Waldorf teacher. Wonderactivist runs a Waldorf homeschool. Vindenheim is a Waldorf parent. TheBee is a Waldorf activist/extremist. Professor marginalia is another Waldorf activist/extrimist - both TheBee and Professor marginalia represent AWE - an extremist group that makes false claims of "hate group" and use their own organization to substantiate them. Who else have you got on the project? A lot of Waldorf people hiding behind aliases. The brochure language has got to go - everybody agrees on this. I begged you to produce a reasonable mediation request, BTW, and you didn't care to. You derailed the process before it began. Pete K 04:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list of editors that signed on is:

• Hgilbert (talk · contribs)
• Wonderactivist (talk · contribs)
• Goethean (talk · contribs)
• Thebee (talk · contribs)
• Fergie (talk · contribs)
• Professor marginalia (talk · contribs)
• Vindheim (talk · contribs)
• Trueblood (talk · contribs)
• Lumos3 (talk · contribs)

There are four experienced editors there that are unconnected with Waldorf; all signed on. So much for the reasonableness of the mediation request. In addition, at least two of those you listed edit widely outside Waldorf articles and are also experienced. You and DianaW, on the other hand, are single-issue editors with strong POVs and without much Wikipedia experience. You could have added issues to the mediation request; to remove all the ones to which 9 editors had already agreed is not constructive. Hgilbert 14:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which four editors are you suggesting aren't connected to Waldorf (and I assume you mean Anthroposophy as well here)? BTW, I edit other articles as well. Re: the advert tag - I'm not the only editor on the list that has insisted it should stay (I think it was Fergie who replaced it last time). AGAIN, please stop removing it until there is agreement. We're a LONG ways from removing the brochure talk. It would be better if you didn't continulally reverse the edits that are getting away from the brochure language. Then it would be possible to actually remove the tag. Pete K 16:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you're back Harlan. I think you forgot to answer my question above. It asked "Which four editors are you suggesting aren't connected to Waldorf (and I assume you mean Anthroposophy as well here)?" Pete K 00:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are five that I believe have no such connection. I might be wrong about one of them, but I doubt more than one.

• Fergie (talk · contribs)
• Vindheim (talk · contribs)
• Trueblood (talk · contribs)
• Lumos3 (talk · contribs)
• Goethean (talk · contribs)

Hgilbert 01:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are wrong. Pete K 01:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but you provide no evidence, and I am afraid I await this to be convinced. Hgilbert 01:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one of these five, at least, has a child or children in Waldorf (Vindheim, I believe). Another, (Lumos3 I believe) has indicated that he has, at least, researched Waldorf education and visited Waldorf schools first-hand (more than one). Without speculating about personal details about persons who haven't mentioned their affiliations, at least these two people have indicated they are connected to Waldorf through their statements here. Pete K 01:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here, this is from Lumos3's talk page - in a discussion with YOU.

Your original statement was that the editors were just "a lot of Waldorf people hiding behind aliases". The above statement by Lumos3 (and his edits) indicate that he is not a "Waldorf person", though he may have encountered schools (it's not clear how); similarly, Vindheim may have a child in a Waldorf school, but is clearly independent of and often critical of Waldorf (based upon his edits). The five stand as independent editors who were willing to enter mediation. Hgilbert 09:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am far from a single-issue editor, and my wikipedia experience is significantly broader than yours.DianaW 02:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Up to Oct. 27, 2006, all of your edits were to very closely related articles (Waldorf/PLANS), definitely around a narrowly defined single issue. Since that time, i.e. the last 3 weeks, you have spread out a bit. I have a long history of contributing to a very wide spread of articles, however much reduced recently given the edit wars here. Hgilbert 23:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm looking to spread out more. There's an article on "White People" that is locked up right now. I can't wait to get Steiner's views into it when it is available for editing. Maybe, Harlan, we can diversify our editing together... Pete K 18:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't sound like spreading out; it sounds like a single-issue editor promulgating the issue from article to article. Hgilbert 23:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually write about many, many issues - in Wikipedia and outside it. Try it sometime, it'll refresh your outlook!Hgilbert 01:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do too... I'm a published author... how about you? Pete K 01:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am too. What have you published (I'm genuinely curious, Pete)? Hgilbert 01:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google my name if you want to know what I've published. Pete K 04:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Googled Peter K which is all you show, and got nowhere, found nothing. I'm trying to understand better where all participants are coming from. For how can disputes be resolved without going back - and back - and back - to basics? It seems you draw heavily on Peter Staudenmaier. Can you tell me on my own User Talk page please? Lucy Skywalker 23:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that both sides are right, and that the basic points of both sides should stay in the article. Once there is a valid criticism documented, you don't get to try to disprove it. And you can't disprove it with any number of quotes, so please let the other side's position stand as well as your own. —Hanuman Das 01:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section on Steiner's stance on assimilation can stand, and no one is trying to remove or disprove this. The opening line, however, is clearly inaccurate as it stands, and no documentation has been presented for its present formulation. On the contrary, extensive documentation exists for Steiner's general (and harsh) criticism of anti-Semitism. Hgilbert 01:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harlan, this "extensive documentation" that Steiner criticized anti-Semitism is from Anthroposophists who *don't get* that anti-Semitism includes assimilation. That's really NO point at all. Pete K 13:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? On the talk page I have provided extensive documentation that you have been clearly seen, as you have deleted it from the article itself. That is in the form of direct quotes of Steiner's criticism of anti-Semitism in the most general terms possible. You are falsifying these critiques and inserting your own POV for which you have provided no documentation, only your own assertion. Hgilbert 19:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steiner's criticism of "anti-Semitism" doesn't include his OWN anti-Semitism. Are you suggesting he was opposed to assimilation? The evidence that he supported assimilation is absolutely there in the article and has been referenced by his own words. It is only YOUR contention that assimilation and that the wiping out of the culture of the Jews *isn't* anti-Semitism which is in question here. My POV is not in any of this. Your POV, that assimilation is not anti-Semitism is at the basis of your complaint. And that, friend, is only your own assertion. Pete K 19:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's your assertion: I never said anything like this. Let's put the direct quotes in from Steiner and resolve the issue...you have always said that Steiner's own words are best in a disputed case like this. Hgilbert 00:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know you're not supposed to be voting on the decision page - right? It's for arbitrators only. Pete K 17:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked both Pete K (talk · contribs) and Hgilbert (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for edit warring at Waldorf education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) between Jan 10 and 11. I haven't added up the diffs to determine if the the 3RR rule was violated in letter; it was clearly violated in spirit. Edit warring is not permitted, and both users have been on warning that continued disruption at Anthroposophy-related articles will result in sanctions. (This block is not due to any specific violation of the arbitration case unique to these articles, but based on the general prohibition against edit warring that governs all editors. Thatcher131 02:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pete K says

Hi Thatcher131, I think if you have another look, please notice that we arrived at a compromise. We each battled for our own language and ended up combining terms and including each other's sources. It was a good compromise and I don't think we should be banned for it. Pete K 03:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It's still edit warring, but if you agree that you reached a compromise then I'll unblock you both, as a block would no longer be needed as a preventative measure. Thatcher131 07:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you didn't know, when you are blocked you can still edit your own talk page. Thatcher131 07:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate Pete's attempt at a compromise. Nevertheless, sources that do not meet Wikipedia's verifiability standards should simply not be included in this article. As far as I can see, this includes all of the references given for the term "religious" philosophy: old newspaper articles quoting members of Pete's PLANS organization which has since lost their case in court claiming that anthroposophy was a religion, This rather ridiculous citation and original research websites. The present references should absolutely be dropped. If Pete can find a verfiable source to support the "religious" claim - and this should have a high standard given the California court's rejection of the term as applied to anthroposophy - the compromise phrasing could then stand; otherwise, there is no basis for it. Hgilbert 11:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration case specifically mentioned the issue of sources, and it did seem, on a quick skim of recent edits, that Pete is still using sources that do not meet policy. It's hard to be more precise without getting even more deeply involved myself, and I spent 2+ hours last night dealing with past arbitration cases including this one. I suggest that when the block expires, you discuss the source issue on the talk page. You might try using the talk page of reliable source policy as a resource for an outside opinion. Thatcher131 12:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harlan, re-inserting this stuff with Anthroposophical sources is a bit off isn't it? In one breath you accuse me of using Anthroposophical sources (I didn't) and then you introduce them yourself. We have all agreed we can't use KOW or other Steiner books or lectures as sources. If you think changing the rules suddenly is a good idea, please explain why. Nothing personal here, I'm just trying to do whatever I can to help these articles along before leaving or being banned (whichever comes first). The uncited material was there for months and needed to come out. If you can source it properly, please do - otherwise you should leave it out until you can. Feel free to solicit other opinions (in a neutral way of course). Thanks! Pete K 19:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steiner's books and lectures are acceptable as primary sources for referencing what he said in specific instances (this is a fact); secondary sources would be preferable for statements about the general tenor of his thought (this is an evaluation). See the arbitration; Fred Bauder has made it clear repeatedly. Hgilbert 20:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of this, but it isn't appropriate to now word everything is this way. If it is, then I've got a lot of stuff to add to the racism section that can be sourced to Steiner's own words. You decide how you want to approach this. The material I removed was not Steiner's words, but YOUR words. If you want to add it back in Steiner's own words, that's fine, but I think the ArbCom made it clear that Steiner could not be used for the entire article. Choose wisely Grasshopper. Pete K 21:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Fred's comments above ("New citations"). Hgilbert 23:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've read it... so? Are you suggesting we make the entire Anthroposophy article quotes from Steiner? So I can say, for example, that Steiner believed that the fact that Jews are around today is a mistake and cite:

"It can certainly not be denied, that today Jewry still appears as a closed totality, and as such many times has intervened in the development of the present situation in a way that has been less than positive for Western cultural ideas. But Jewry as such has long since outlived itself, and has no justification any more within modern life of the peoples, and that it nevertheless has preserved itself is a mistake of world history, whose consequences have been inevitable."

Rudolf Steiner, from his review of "Homunculus" by Hammerling (1888) published in the German Weekly

Right? Or is the content and tone of this article going to be left up to Fred to decide? Isn't Fred the guy who said there can't be anti-Semitism in Anthroposophy because if there was Anthroposophists would be attending neo-Nazi rallies? I think you and I can probably come up with a better way of handling the complexities of this topic, Harlan, in a way that follows the rules and doesn't make a mockery of Anthroposophy. I'm not opposed to describing what Anthroposophy is, I'm opposed to "selectively" presenting material that disguises what it is. But again, I'll leave it up to you to decide how you want to approach this - cooperatively or through a series of experimental edits and reverts. Pete K 02:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, as an arbitrator of these articles, has provided clear and, to me, sensible guidelines. These include the use of Steiner quotations for "non-controversial" areas. The above would clearly be a controversial area, as the selective use of quotations from Steiner could prove him to be extremely pro-, extremely anti-, or neutral vis a vis this and other ethnic/racial categories. Here a neutral third-party would be needed to evaluate the whole. Other areas are not controversial.

Fred is right about the lack of anti-Semitism in anthroposophy. This does not exclude individuals in the movement holding their own personal beliefs - this is impossible to control (freedom of thought). I believe you know that individuals have been thrown out of the Anthroposophical Society for spreading such beliefs, however; no one can stop them from believing something, but if they begin propagating such beliefs, they are out of the movement. Hgilbert 11:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your assessment of controversial. Quotes provided that are taken out of context, selectively cropped or misapplied would show some controversy here - especially with the misunderstanding you have promoted about what constitutes an "individual". Taken in proper context, no quotes you can provide introduce anything that says Steiner was not a racist. None. YOU, in other words, have created the controversy where none exists. Fred does not understand the material well enough to make such decisions on content or even what is controversial. So everything is controversial - and that's how we have been proceeding. Again, it's going to be up to you how we handle this (and it's only up to Fred to decide if I'm allowed to be involved). Regarding anti-Semitism, I don't agree with you that Fred is correct. Did the members you are describing attend neo-Nazi rallies? No, they didn't. Their error was to draw too much attention to the darker side of Anthroposophy. Anthroposophy and the Anthroposophical Society still has plenty of halocaust deniers among other things - and you know this. The connection Fred is trying to make to neo-Nazism is absurd. But the truth is, and you know this too, Anthroposophists continue to believe the things Steiner said about the Jews - it's part of the doctrine of Anthroposophy. They believe Jews to be lost souls that need to be assimilated - as much today as 100 years ago. Anthroposophy teaches these things and Anthroposophists don't dispute their value. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd love to hear it. Pete K 16:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know of no Holocaust deniers within the anthroposophical movement or society - I know of 2 who were expelled, however, which makes the stance of the society pretty clear. The above characterization is ridiculous. Steiner believed that Judaism was outdated - but he also believed that of Catholicism and every other established religion - and said so explicitly. (Is that a surprise?) Steiner also believed that Anthroposophy was outdated as soon as it was established (and said so); he simply believed that human beings evolved faster than institutionalized anything. Hgilbert 23:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you don't know any doesn't mean there aren't any. Who designated you omnipotent? And thanks for the original research commentary - more nonsense from you. You can't support any of it. Pete K 00:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm not aware of what the policy happens to be regarding how long those things are supposed to stay up on the page, but I felt like deleting it was the right thing to do because of that individual's abuse of his ban. As I understand this, that particular user was banned some time ago from editing anything on those pages or discussion pages because his editing is not up to the standards that Wikipedia wants to promote. If I understand correctly, he had a long history of corrupting those articles with a highly biased point of view.

Currently, on this individual's discussion and user page, there is an great deal of the type of material that Wikipedia did not want on any of the articles he was banned from. But he has free reign to do whatever he wants on his user and discussion pages, including making wild unsupported claims about Waldorf or Steiner that would have gotten reverted in ten seconds had they ever appeared on those articles. The problem I saw was that a link, in the form of his name, was being provided on the discussion page.

Two weeks ago, this would not have been a problem. Anyone who wanted to click on his name and see these outrageous, unsupported allegations was free to do so. And they could weigh those arguments in the light that that individual had been banned for making such statements, which, of course, is a good thing.

However, the reason I decided that the banned message needed to be removed was due to another development. Another user posted on the banned user's page, offering to be a meatpuppet:

Let me know which sections should be changed and how in my talk page. The current state of the article is very poor.

To which the banned user replied:

Hi..Thanks for asking for my input. I'll try to get a list of changes that can be implemented in the Waldorf, Steiner and Anthroposophy articles for you by next week - I'll need the weekend to work on it. You've got your hands full, I see, with HGilbert - he's not about to let you change HIS articles without a fight......"

This, of course, would circumvent Wikipedia's original intentions in banning this user.

I became concerned that the banned user would continue editing his talk page, adding more content, and soliciting users to do what he cannot. So I removed the links, which were old notices anyways.

I don't know if I violated policy or not. Perhaps I should notify the administrators of the banned user using his user page as a solicitation for meatpuppets as well. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 20:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my response on Erdanion's talk page.--Pete K 15:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That reminds me of the way some public figures "clarify" their comments when they want to rescind sub rosa something too truthfully said. Why privilege Mackay's anarchism over his pederasty, and why so diplomatically? Haiduc 01:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because he was primarily known and active as an anarchist; I have never heard of the other side of his activity (is it really true?), and Steiner certainly emphasized his interest in MacKay's individualist-anarchist philosophy. It's like Einstein siring an illegitimate daughter and leaving her with the grandmother; not the main emphasis of his life for most people (other than the daughter, no doubt). Hgilbert 23:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The cross-reference is headed "See also". Their philosophies share some similarities, worthy of comparison. For example: both talk of integrated learning; "Head, hands and heart" (Intellectual, emotional, physical); both move from oral to written expression at seven years of age (though Kodaly has a narrower focus). --Design 15:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment on the talk page. --Rocksanddirt 18:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just finished a rewrite draft of the Homeopathy article. The article has major problems and I'm trying to turn it into a featured article and I noticed you were a major contributor to it so I thought you might want to help. The draft is a rough approximation of what it should be like. It obviously has some flaws in it's format and wording right now but they will be kinked out within the next couple of days. Right now what I want is for you, if you're interested in helping to improve the article, to come to the articles talk page. I'm trying to get all of the articles major contributors to discuss the rough draft and hack out a consensus so that we can replace it with the current article. There we will all discuss the article and how it could be improved before we replace the current homeopathy article with it. In order for this to work we need to follow a few rules. The first rule, the most important rule, is that no one but me can edit the rough draft. Do not edit the rough draft. This precaution is used to prevent edit warring and loss or addition of information that might not be up to consensus. Don't worry, It's just a draft and you'll have all the time you want to make changes after we've replaced it with the current article. The second rule is that all proposed changes in the rough draft must be made on the talk page of the rough draft and must be clear and concise. At that point anyone involved will discuss the proposed changes and if agreed by consensus they will be implemented. We will do that until there is no disputes or disagreements. After all disputes are hammered out, we will replace the homeopathy article with the rough draft. At that point there shouldn't be anyone needing to make huge edits, and if you do see an edit that you want to make, be sure to add a note on the talk page PRIOR to making the edit so that consensus can be reached and then you should make the edit. If you have any questions you can leave me a message on my talk page. Here is the link to the rough draft Link to rough draft. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take another look at the draft and tell me if you think anything else should be changed. I think it's about done. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is fairly well established that none of the waldorf method charter schools are accredited by WASC, however, almost no elementary schools are accredited, so it's a bogus arguement by the ip anyway. --Rocksanddirt 22:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this established through original research or by citation to some verifiable source? The point of citations, of course, is that well-informed sources will know what to compare this to (e.g. other elementary schools) - as you suggest, this might make all the difference. Hgilbert 00:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Which is why it's important for the edit summaries to also pointing at the direction the research would go, if the ip was going to do any. (namely that only 1400 or so schools are acredited by WASC, and almost none are elementary schools).

Also, were you able to make any sense of the comment from the ip that I sectioned of into the statement? I did that because I had no idea what was meant, and didn't want to be rude and delete it (which is what was likely expected by whomever put it in). --Rocksanddirt 19:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the impression that it was meant to make sense. It certainly could be removed without loss to the discussion! Hgilbert 19:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well...if we leave the section be, in a few days it will get automatically archived, and then we've not censored anyone either. --Rocksanddirt 22:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always grateful for those who carry away the rubbish! Hgilbert 01:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waldorf Methods/Social Justice High School. Opening Fall 08. --Rocksanddirt 20:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks impressive.Hgilbert 00:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hgilbert, I want to ask you this question: if I prove with quotes from Rudolf Steiner's own works that he was (philosophically seen) an egoist, does that count as original research? May I then posit that he was an egoist inside the Wikipedia article about him? E.g., for me, writing in total good faith, it is a fact (not a value judgment) that he was an egoist. My only question is if this could be seen as vandalism inside Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu 16:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E.g. http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA018/English/AP1973/GA018_p01c09.html;mark=1650,22,29#WN_mark (the whole paragraph and the following paragraph). Steiner's views expressed therein fit the meaning 1.a. from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/egoism . In general, see http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA018/English/AP1973/search=context?query=stirner and http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA018/English/AP1973/search=context?query=nietzsche . Tgeorgescu 17:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that Steiner said that egoism will be a cause of big trouble for mankind, cf. http://www.gnosticteachings.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=893 . But, it is hard to see his Philosophy of Freedom any other way than expressing ethical egoism, meaning that the impulses for the free action flow from the ego (see 1.a. above). If the ego feels love for action, then his actions will be noble. I think you perceive egoism as bearing a stygma. This could be due to Steiner's association with the Theosophical Society, wherein the ego was seen as an aberation (and that ego-less state was seen as the ideal). Steiner, as a member for such Society, could not challenge the official dogma and still remain a member of the Society. Tgeorgescu 17:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, I think, more accurate than meaning 1.a. is the description of the realistic, idealistic and egoistic stages of human development, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/max-stirner/ . In this perspective, Steiner fully expresses the egoistic stage of human development, i.e. the self-expression of the ego, beyond limitations arising from material and social nature and beyond limitations arising from abstract moral commandments. But, perhaps, a better word for it would be individualism. Tgeorgescu 17:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The common argument is: "Everything bad comes from the ego, so egoism is bad." Steiner and Stirner would answer: "And so does everything good, so egoism is beyond good and evil." Tgeorgescu 17:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for reverting your edits at Talk:Waldorf education as "vandalism". They were immediately restored. The reverts were completely inadvertent on my part. I was preparing to edit the talk page must have pushed a wrong button.Professor marginalia 23:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It took me by surprise (twinkle). Hgilbert 23:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, you only discussed this with two other editors, one of whom asked for more time on a specific point. That's not enough to establish consensus. Realize that your attempt to get visibility for the subject was quite unsuccessful. I suggest starting an RfC or trying to get a third opinion. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? The discussion was on the talk page; a number of editors have joined in agreeing that this policy was necessary and no one has disagreed. The discussion has gone on for many weeks, if not months already. Your reverting now without any discussion on the talk page is acting against the consensus there, without any visible support. Howdy, cowboy. Hgilbert (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like you're getting much support for your opinion. Gaining visibility and outside opinions will help. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Gilbert -

Your previous steers have been utilized! I have added an image to Wikipedia. Thank you again. But, I have two more questions:

1. Is it possible to modify text on Wikipedia beyond bold and italics - size or color, perhaps?
2. in the welcome message you left me on my user page, a curious strand of text did not appear when you saved it: {{#if:|, especially what you did for [[{{{art}}}]]|}}. (after thanking me for my contributions.) It is only embedded in the code form of the message, typed when editing. What did I do for art?

Thank you for your time. Also, if you would rather I not use your user page as a means of recieving help, please let me know. Many of your messages are more serious and relevant, and I hate to pester you and your page readers with my questions.

- Noah

Thank you

Hgilbert,

This is Noah Kaplan, (user: kaplanoah). I just joined wikipedia. (I was introduced to wikipedia by "thecatintheshoe", who asked to remain anonymous out of embarrassment for their recent contributions to Green Meadow Waldorf School (???)). I was hooked, and joined soon after. I have browsed the help pages wikipedia directed me to at the establishment of my account, and found some other pages, such as the Wikipedia:Cheatsheet. I also did some work under the guidance and account of "thecatintheshoe", but am having some further difficulties. I was told you were a "wikipedian" and had offered "thecatintheshoe" some help already. If you could give me some advice, or direct me to some pages that could help me further, I would greatly appreciate it. Right now, in addition to some minor and major flaws in my overall wikipedic knowledge, I cannot figure out how to insert a picture.

As I continue to edit, I solve obstacles using the help already available on wikipedia, but also arrive at more.

Thank you for your help and time, I will definitely need it in the near future. Kaplanoah (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, we are currently seeking additional participation in a WikiProject that been launched on the subject of alternative education. I have noticed that you seem to have an interest and/or some experience in this area. I would like to invite you to join this effort. If you are interested, please visit the WikiProject page. Several of our participants are helping on a daily basis, some weekly, and a few only have a little time to contribute sporadically. Any level of participation is helpful and welcome. We hope you will consider joining our team. Thanks, Master Scott Hall | Talk 01:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on recent events (however amorphous such events may be – a bunch of arranged bytes on someone else's screen ), I appreciate your tenacity and quest for reasonable accuracy in extremely difficult areas of analysis. Good regards to you. ... Kenosis 03:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hgilbert, I had my doubts whether the edits you made to the intro of science would hold. But they have. Nice work. ... Kenosis 04:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The Cat pseudoscience is a member of its own group" – so should WP be restricted to only having categories that aren't members of their own group? (Sorry, couldn't resist.) --Wclark 18:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to commend you for your brilliant solution to fixing the problem in the final sentence of the section, with "warm praise." Boogafish 01:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you ever need any help with any of these issues related to waldorf education let me know. I think you've done a great job-- wikipedia can suck the life out of you. Keep up the good work. futurebird 06:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a difference between someone who is a generalist/critic and someone who subscribes to a particular belief. I welcome your input on helping to define and explain anthroposophy, but in external categorization of the subject can only be made reliably by third parties. That's all I'm saying. I don't mean to offend. ScienceApologist 16:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing "sources at their own level" is a good idea. My primary objection to a lot of the sources you included in the article is that they didn't deal with the question of demarcation per se but rather were simply studies about the way people reacted to anthroposophy. I think such studies may warrant an inclusion somewhere in the encyclopedia, but they have no bearing on whether something is pseudoscience or not. I have no doubt that many people take comfort in both scientific and pseudoscientific ideas and that there is a lot of positive (and negative) effects associated with both types of ideas. That's why I am of the opinion that you were probably too close to the subject and seemed to feel like somehow the label applied to anthroposophy was an "attack" and wanted to include some citations to "defend" it. An understandable urge, but it was inappropriate since the citations were actually defenses against a wholly separate accusation. ScienceApologist 19:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A classification of a field as pseudoscience is by definition a way someone is reacting to the field rather than a study of the field itself. The sources I included directly spoke about the question of demarcation, and the various demarcations that have been proposed. The very fact that there is disagreement here shows that it is a matter of an individual reaction rather than a scientific classification: when discussing the boundaries of science and the scientific method, we are speaking philosophically, not scientifically in the narrow sense of studying phenomena of nature. (In that sense, the "science of pseudoscience" is itself a pseudoscience, and by its own definition.) Hgilbert 10:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just updated the Anthroposophical Medicine entry at the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, and would like particularly to solicit your opinion regarding accuracy and balance. Discussion may ensue at the talk page, but I wanted to notify you personally as I recall that you seemed interested in the topic. Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 03:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post a request on Requests for clarification section of WP:RFAR.Hgilbert (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Clean Copy!

I noticed you were a member of WikiProject Alternative Education, and thought you might be interested in WikiProject Homeschooling. In this "WikiProject," we have been together working on the collaboration of Homeschooling-related articles. As a member, I really hope you can join, and let me know if you need any help signing up or with anything else. If you have any questions about the project you can ask at the project's talk page. Cheers! RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 23:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Harlan

I am not yet quite sure how Wikipedia works and whether this is the only way to communicate with you...

I have been an anthroposophical librarian and bookseller for 22 years; I would bow to your superior knowledge of Steiner/Waldorf education and hope you might return the compliment and give me credit for knowing my anthroposophical publishers!

Greetings to Sam Betts when you see him.

Best, David —Preceding unsigned comment added by Da nurky (talk • contribs) 00:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a proposal brought forward [11] regarding a merger of WikiProject Alternative Education, and as you are member of that project, I am notifying you. Thanks. Twenty Years 13:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

18:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. At your discretion you may ask an administrator to block the IP address or semi-protect the page again. I think you can manage without semi-protection for now. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that it is likely the ip of a topic banned user, can we please try to refrain from calling the ip that, and instead refer to the fact that the user has not tried to engage the perceived npov violations in discussion with other users? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double trouble; sure. Note that the WP admins have named and shamed this particular wraith! Hgilbert (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]