Talk:Anthroposophy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice: Pete K is indefinitely banned from editing this article.
The user specified has been banned by the Arbitration committee from editing this article.

Posted by Penwhale for the Arbitration committee. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review.
The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. Editors of this are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications. It is anticipated that this process may result in deletion or merger of some articles due to failure of verification by third party peer reviewed sources. If it is found, upon review by the Arbitration Committee, that any of the principals in this arbitration continue to edit in an inappropriate and disruptive way editing restrictions may be imposed. Review may be at the initiative of any member of the Arbitration Committee on their own motion or upon petition by any user to them. For further information see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 23:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Archive
Archives
*/Archive 1.


Contents


[edit] Reduce the bias please

I've come to this article after having read this news article: Parents see red over school's green-suited santa

I must say that as a neutral 3rd party (as far as this Arbitration is concerned that is) this article seems to be awash with a positive bias. I don't know where to even start but the most obvious thing would be a complete rewrite of the "Anthroposophy in brief" section. How can you say something as nonsensical "bring the clarity of the scientific method into spiritual endeavors" without following up with an explanation of how they believe such an oxymoron could be acheived?

It also seems that every possible inclusion of critisim has been tempered with some sort of "clarification" or excuse (ie Steiner's statements on race). Perhaps it would be easier if the article was simply filed under "religion" along with all the other types of "revealed" (ie. meaningless) knowledge. 82.144.224.90 (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hilarious article about Santa's red suit and Coca Cola.
I've tried to provide somewhat more information about anthroposophy's path to overcome the evident oxymoron.
Steiner's statements about race are split between affirmations of the unity of all races and peoples and statements that are highly evaluative and judgemental about individual races; both aspects are covered in the article. Wikipedia standards for Criticism are to include all aspects of a discussion. Hgilbert (talk) 11:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind posting an example of the first case please? When you say "affirmations of the unity of all races" - I think you may have misunderstood the context of what Steiner said. Thank you in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.23.210 (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biodynamics

I have replaced text that had multiple citations to support it. Steiner is considered one of the two founders of organic farming, not merely an advocate of an existing system (there was no such system to advocate before he and Howard began their work). Hgilbert (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Race

I appreciate the desire to put criticism first in the race section. But:

  1. the section loses its coherence when the chronology is disrupted. It was clearer when in chronological sequence (1930s, present-day critiques, reply by A.S.) instead of (present-day critiques, 1930s, reply by A.S.)
  2. the Nazis were also critiquing anthroposophy (though from an extreme-right position) when they stated it was incompatible with a racist ideology. Hgilbert (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality of descriptions

A recent change has reopened the question of how to describe a subject such as this. The earlier wording emphasized that matters described here were "Steiner's view" of reality; the present version tends to drop these clarifications. Presumably one can assume that in a article about anthroposophy the point of view is clear. But I am not sure that it is a bad idea to emphasize this periodically. Hgilbert (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, it looks like someone undertook a major cleanup. Thanks.

A technical detail vis a vis some of the edits of book publishers; are not some of these books co-published by an American and a British publishing house? If so, it's not really important which one is listed here. Just a thought. Hgilbert (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spiritual Science

redirects to this page. Ideally it should be an article unto itself, referring to the category of religious movements which includes Anthroposophy, Christian Science, Mesmerism, Spiritualism, etc, ad nauseum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.182.107.3 (talk) 10:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] quote

I wonder if the quote added to the introduction wouldn't be better as the opening to the "Anthroposophy in brief" section? It seems like it doesn't fit the encyclopedic tone of the present intro, anyway...perhaps something has to change. Hgilbert (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)