Talk:Anthroposophy/Archive5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Minority subject page

It's not the same thing to write a minority subject page than it is to write a majority subject page. Even though Wikipedia generally encourages usage of secondary sources, it is not wrong to use minority publications on a page about themselves. When writing a minority subject page there is a risk ending up to write it only as some majorities see them. That is not in accordance with the NPOV policy. It sais on Wikipedia:Attribution that secondary sources should be used wherever possible, however, in many cases on a page like this it is not possible. I've been going through policy pages and arbitration decisions and I don't think there is any reason why anthroposophical publications couldn't be used to state views of anthroposophists here. If an anthroposophical book says something which majority people find controversial, it is still not (usually) controversial that the author thinks that way. It can be put in as the author's view, or sometimes as a view of anthroposophists, depending on a book. I hope a peaceful solution can be found to this. I don't insist that pages should be written with brochure language or that there couldn't be majority views on it. I hope there will be a way of writing some fair descriptions of anthroposophical views, using anthroposophical sources, to make sure that these pages go along with the NPOV policy. Erdanion 14:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary revert

User:RookZERO has made a seemingly arbitrary revert of several editors' edits. The history of his/her talk page shows a pattern of intrusive edits. I will revert and ask that edits will be addressed individually, with discussion on the talk page if there are larger issues here. Hgilbert 13:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

"UNESCO" edit

One user keeps putting in UNESCO in the text of the introductory paragraph. UNESCO has made no such claim (about the practical influence of anthroposophical ideas). Three authors are cited, one of whom was published in a UNESCO-published magazine about education. This is not the same as UNESCO making a claim. In addition, all three authors concur and no verifiable source disputes this. We need to find accurate wording here. Sourcing the claim to UNESCO is clearly inaccurate. Hgilbert 19:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If the claim is not from UNESCO, the the authors who are making the statement or the journal in which they are writing should be cited by name rather than simply stating their research as fact. (RookZERO 20:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

As I believe I have mentioned several times before, three independent sources are cited, not just one. I have added a fourth, as well. None of these are anthroposophical sources.

I believe that on this basis, and considering that no publication disputes this, it could be considered as an accepted fact. Nevertheless, we can state that "a wide range of authors concur that...." What wording would fit? Let's find a solution here and then introduce it into the article. Hgilbert 08:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not write the all of authors' names in your three or four or ten or however many links followed by a direct quote about the impact of Anthroposophy from at least one of them? (Incidentally, 4 does not constitute a "wide range"). (RookZERO 19:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC))

An editor has removed the practical impact emphasis. Though all four cited authors mention the extent of this impact, it seems easier to drop the point than to battle over how to formulate this. Hgilbert 00:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Over Sourcing

I've only skimmed some of this but dose 8 pages being referenced 18 times (^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Robert McDermott, The Essential Steiner, ISBN 0-06-065345-0, pp. 3-11) seem excessive & questionable, as if one offline source is being used to avoid fact tags? I've only just come across the article but it seems unusual to have such a small reference referred to so many times, if it is legitimate then some explanation is needed to avoid these comments being repeated. It calls into question if some of the areas referenced should be combined.--Nate 18:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

A reason why this book has been used many times could also be, that it includes quite much non-disputable kind of general information. There are over 60 notes on this page as a whole. If there are particular places you don't like they could be discussed and maybe improved. Erdanion 10:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The point was that I have seen a similar tactic used to add POV info to articles before, I haven't had a chance to even see if my local library has it to fact check but the comment asking about it was reasonable, as to specifics I intent to have a look when I get the time --Nate 12:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty rare for a page to have 60 footnotes, as well. It was requested that pretty much everything in the article be explicitly sourced, and various editors put fact tags everywhere (even for generally known information). At the same time, the range of sources was narrowed down severely in arbitration (for an article about Waldorf education, no sources connected to Waldorf education!!!) Thus the excessive citation to a single book. We probably could combine citations for a given section (when they all refer to the same book), if people are all right with this (and fact tags don't go up again as a result). Hgilbert 10:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

How to work with the text

Someone made reductions which I think were not necessary. If you want to reduce, it would be a could idea to discuss about it. With a reduction important meanings might change as well, and I think that at least in one place that happened. Erdanion 10:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You need to realize that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Description of an idea is fine. Trying to promote by means of "nuanced wording" is inappropriate. Realize your bias, start from the current wording and move forward. ScienceApologist 00:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
With nuances I meant meanings. I will change it some. Maybe you are right that some sentences could be improved. But I do think that fair description means using good language and it shouldn't be a problem to state details either. If you don't like my new try please specify which part. Erdanion 17:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your willingness to compromise. I will be the first to admit that I have only limited familiarity with anthroposophy, but in this case I think that this is an advantage. My goal is to make the prose as clear as possible, following the precepts of clarity of thought, if you will. I have reworded some of the paragraphs to remove some redundancies (such as overuse of the word "clarity") and to fix some of the jargon. I understand that wording is very important since anthroposophy has its own agreed upon language. I hope that we can work as an editting team: I'll let you dictate the important concepts that need to be outlined and I'll edit them for clarity and avoidance of unintentional POV. Deal? --ScienceApologist 00:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think we are making progress and I appreciate it very much. One thing still needs to be fixed. You took away a term "clarity" from some places as being jargon. However, I think it's important because "a scientific method" usually refers to a very specified methodology used in sciences at the moment. Anthroposophists think that it's main idea needs to be taken and developed further, not just to use it as it is now. That is why it is better to say "the clarity of..." or something like that. There might be other and better ways to describe it, but there is a risk starting to invent them here, so I suggest that we would stay with the word clarity. Erdanion 07:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, but it's really poor form to use the word "clarity" over and over again. Coming up with synonyms may be appropriate or maybe there is a term that is used by anthroposophists that's a little less cumbersome than "clarity gained through application of the scientific method"? Also, you seem to want to emphasize "individual freedom", but the text as written emphasizes freedom from spiritual authorities which is a slightly different concept. Individual freedom is a fairly loaded term, as you may or may not be aware. --ScienceApologist 13:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok. But. You were changing some meanings again. I will keep some of your changes which I thought were good but I will also have to revert some. Please if you change it again do think is it absolutely necessery. I don't think neither of us wants to go on this forever. Bye, Erdanion 13:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer that if instead of reverting you would try to modify the language so it reads to you like something that is closer to what your intended meaning is. I have made these changes for a reason: avoidance of unintentional POV-promotion, removing strings of prepositional phrases that confuse the text, etc. Instead of looking back in the edit history, if you would just open an edit window and try to take the prose and change it so that it reads something satisfying to you. I do believe we are making progress and it may take a couple of tries, but hopefully we're almost there. --ScienceApologist 13:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I tried to modify. I have every time taken both old and new texts side by side and compared them. Remember that I can't just write what I want to say, I must respect the meaning in the text as well since it has been taken from a source. Erdanion 13:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks so much for being understanding and accomodating. This latest edit I made was the smallest yet. We'll see how it squares with your interpretation. --ScienceApologist 14:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
It's fine to me. Thank you, too, the text is better now. Erdanion 14:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sven Ove Hansson

This reference is cited in the introduction of the article. It is an authoritative statement by a respected academic scientist on Anthroposophy. A copy is available on line. Yet HGilbert and theBee refuse to link to it. The Arbcom decision makes no mention of the avoidance of this host site in its ruling. The paper should be fully linked from this article, both in the citation and in the articles list. It is a key document for anyone researching the subject. Lumos3 07:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hansson is not a scientist but professor of philosophy and the history of technology. Arbitrators did say at the time that waldorfcritics could not be used for source in controversial claims and not waldorfanswers or anthroposophic published sources either. This article falls in the gray zone, and in similar cases in the past months for articles on waldorf websites, where independent published article is reprinted on waldorf website, editors were told they couldnt link to the waldorf websites for those reprints. Hansson article is an interesting position but exageration to call it "key document on the subject". I personally think it is splittin g hairs that we cant go to those POV websites, pro or con, just for links to the web reprints for ok source there if we can tell it is reprinted with permission. This article says it has the permission (also others reprints on that website dont have copyright permission). But that was not the consensus interpretation when this questions came before. The consensus interpretation was not to link to waldorfcritics or any polemical type web sites for published sources to statements of controversy, pro Steiner or con Steiner. I think to go back on it now and argue about it again is not good for the progress of improving the articles. I think it is better to adjust to the earlier decisions instad of trying to overturn them. because otherwise editors just argue about rules instead of finding better sources, and the articles have benefited overall by editors abiding those decisions.Venado 00:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
We would be hard pushed to find a more credible or relevant study authored by a more credible or relevant academic. If all the referances were as good as this, the article and discussion around it would be raised to a much more intelligent level.--Fergie 08:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
There is certainly no reason not to use the study, nor has there been any suggestion that it should not be used. Not every citation need include an online link, however, and as Venado pointed out, the rules set for us exclude this particular link. Hgilbert 19:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no policy or guideline on wikipedia that precludes inclusion of links to waldorfcritics.org. There is however a gentlemens agreement in place not to link to waldorfcritics.org (in order to pacify those who kicked up a fuss about the exclusion of the dreadful and clearly unsuitable waldorfanswers.com and thebee.se websites, who, for the record were mainly the owner/contributers of said websites). The grown-up course of action is to make a good faith effort to include the study, rehousing it on wikisource if needs be.--Fergie 15:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Respectfully this is not true. Administrators who were not previously involved editors judged publications at waldorfcritics or any Steiner related website or publisher unsuitable for verification of controversial claims. This is not a gentlemen agreement. it is a small wikistyle progress that curtailed revert wars and anarchism and most editors started to more effectively work together like wikpedians. Even when they didnt agree with every single decision. In the similar case I spoke of in the Waldorf article editors decided even linking to the Waldorf Research Library for a web reprint of acceptables article would not be permissible for controversial claims. and the editors had to find other sources for the article. Waldorf Research Library is not waldorfanswers or thebee.se. This article does not need to be on wikisource, and it is not in public domain. There is no need to link the article anyway. It is not necessary.Venado 17:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Venado, you seem to misunderstand how Wikipedia policies, guidelines and arbitration decisions work. Nothing wrong with that, everybody has to start somewhere, but you might want to go a little easier on the Wikilawyering until you get to grips with the system. Long story short: if individual editors want to link to the paper in question, there is no consensus, policy, arbitration decision, or guideline that precludes this, provided the paper is hosted on a domain seen to be neutral--Fergie 06:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
It is not wikilawyering to explain to you how are mistaken about why that website link was judged unsuitable and removed. On the basis your own claim that linking can be precluded if the domain is not seen to be neutral then the link to waldorfcritics can justifiably be removed. Waldorfcritics is obviously not NPOV.Venado 16:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
You are going around in circles here- see my previous posts in this thread.--Fergie 05:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the several reasons the article by Hansson is not acceptible as a source on anthroposophy at wikipedia is that it is pseudoscientific discussion of the subject it purports to discuss, as documented by among other things an analysis of it in relation to the sources it refers to, see "Is Anthroposophy Science? - Commented. This has been discussed extensively earlier, in a way that still is documented above at this page, with all its non-relevant ad hominem personal attacks by a later banned editor. Thebee 20:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but how does the annotated commentary on Hansson's article show that Hansson's article is pseudoscience? What makes this web-based diatribe a reliable source? I think that Hansson's article is perfectly fine to cite in this article as it seems to be a critique at the level of a parity of sources. We wouldn't expect to find Hansson's critique in a scientific journal because anthroposophy is not considered mainstream science, so it is perfectly reasonable to use him as a source of criticism. --ScienceApologist 20:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Hansson's article is acceptable as source the way it is done here. But waldorfcritics was not acceptable for link to English translated webpage copy of the article. It is a logic error to say one must use strict scientific analysis to give opinion whether some methodology is really science. That argument is another red herring because it does nt matter what the basis of Hanssons opinion. The article he published is acceptable as a source, that is not the issue. Pro Steiner websites are also not allowed as links in such cases or anti Steiner websites. In all articles involved in the probation editors were prevented from linking to pro Steiner domains for any webpage copies posted there of sources used in the WP articles related to Steiner. In both cases this is limited to sources used for controversial claims. Venado 00:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
What is the reason for not being able to link to the text of the article? I don't understand why linking to a particular domain is as problematic as everyone is contending as long as the webpage in question is simply providing the text of an article published elsewhere. --ScienceApologist 00:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
If you look at those who are dong the complaining you will see that they are all single-issue editors who are devoted to advocating Steiner and Anthroposophy on wikipedia (check out the user contributions). In actual fact every single real/regular wikipedian who has expressed an opinion think it is fine to include this link.--Fergie 05:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
In fact, if you go back to the origin of this decision, you will see that there were both pro- and anti-Waldorf websites that were considered unacceptable (as excessively polemical). It was the moderates (including the arbitrators) who came down against polemical websites of any stripe. Hgilbert 15:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Article cleanup

Just to be clear, my recent revisions (as well as future ones), are meant to improve the readability of the article, and certainly not intended to introduce new or remove relevant information. If I have incorrectly reworded something, please be bold and revert it or fix it and don't be shy to bring it up here. However, I ask you not bite my head off either. (I do understand that this article and related ones were the subject of an ArbCom ruling.) Otheus 11:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Is Anthroposophy Science?

Lately there seems to have been a number of references that have been deemed controversial because they suggest that anthroposphy is not a science or scientific discipline. It would be good for this article to determine whether this is actually a controversial standpoint. Does there exist a body of people who regard anthroposphy as an actual science rather that say a spiritual path or a philosophy? Can we say that anthroposophy is not a science without being controversial?--Fergie 06:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting question you posed. If one looks at the wiki definitions of science it describes three different types of science:

  • Natural Science
  • Social Science
  • Formal Science

It definitely wouldn't fall under the definition of the first two. But it could possibly fall under the definition of the third which defines the science of Mathematics and Logic as a priori. I haven't been able to find any external sources looking at this more closely, i'll keep looking. Lkleinjans 10:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The article should not determine one or other but only report various opinions on this. Many such as Hansson argue to redefine science much more stictly than in the past. Everywhere the redefinitions are controversial. It is not just spiritual science where it is an issue. Also political science, social science, primatology, psychology are other examples where this is controversy and I think all the articles at wikipedia talk some about this controversy but not all do a good job. (weasel words, no sources given, ect) And some disciplines aim to be scientific but others can say it did not succeed as science, for example studying behavior in the wild whcih some argue is not true science.Venado 17:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me repeat the question more simply- who are these people who regard anthroposophy as a science? Is this an opinion which actually exists?--Fergie 06:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
To answer first the second question in a simple way, as the existence of an article on the subject of Spiritual science, later seemingly removed by user ScienceApologist, that contributed with a context for understanding anthroposophy as an effort to contribute to the understanding of man and the world from a spiritual perspective, seems to have passed unnoticed by the questioner: yes.
For a short article on the subject of Spiritual science/Geisteswissenschaft at the German version of Wikipedia, see the article. For more on the subject, see What is Anthroposophy? and on the subject as cultivated at Goetheanum. Some central contributors to it early in Western history have been Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Aquinas. One later contributor to it is Wilhelm Dilthey. Steiner made a substantial contribution to it, taking his starting point in Goethe, the central figure in German culture during the 19th century.
For more on the concept of Science from a historical, epistemological and ontological perspective, see What is science? Thebee 19:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Neither Dilthey, Aristotle, Plato or Aquinas have ever suggested that Anthroposophy is a science. I ask the question again: Who thinks anthroposophy is a science (apart from Thebee)--Fergie 07:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I found that scienceapologist argued for a redirect from spiritual science direct to anthroposophy only. Anthroposophy is not a synonym for spiritual science. Anthroposophy is a sub set. It is one of many theoretical and practical disciplines in the bigger category of spiritual science that are very different from each other. In the 19th century different figures like Henry James, Sr worked in spiritual science and that had nothing to do with anthroposophy. There are many others going back to. Also I know I saw a good description given in one of the sources I found to use in the Waldorf article. It is now an unorthodox view that there can be such thing as a "science of spirit" like there is "science of physics" or "science of chemistry". I will try to find good sources to describe the history of the clash. Venado 16:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
We need to find a source that talks about spiritual science indpendent of anthroposophy in order to proceed with that idea. --ScienceApologist 20:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
There are a number of good quality independent sources that describe Anthroposophy's relationship to science in a fair and balanced way. The question is discussed in the opening section of Willman's "Waldorfpãdogogik" and in Schneider's "Einfũhrung in die Waldorfpãdogogik"; both are published by first-rate publishing houses. They both take seriously the scientific nature of anthroposophy while considering critical objections, and take a differentiated perspective - anthroposophy is not a natural science but may well be considered an "Erkenntniswissenschaft" (the field to which logic belongs).
There are few - if any - independent works about anthroposophy in English published by publishers of this quality - or by anybody - , unfortunately. Hgilbert 15:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
If there is no independent study placing Anthroposophy as a science, then it is completely uncontroversial to say that Anthroposophy is not a science for the purposes of wikipedia.--Fergie 05:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The books I mention above are independent studies seriously discussing Anthroposophy as a science. They present both sides of the question. If a question has two sides, then asserting that one side is the sole truth is definitely controversial. Hgilbert 20:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Not really- there needs to be at least two valid and well supported arguments in opposition with each other in order for a subject to be controversial. In the case of Anthroposophy, the argument that it is a Science simply has not been made. I ask the question again: who, in english, with some modicum of credibility/credentials, has made the claim that Anthroposophy is a Science?--Fergie 20:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Hgilbert writes: "The question is discussed in the opening section of Willman's 'Waldorfpãdogogik' and in Schneider's 'Einfũhrung in die Waldorfpãdogogik'; both are published by first-rate publishing houses." Perhaps Hgilbert could identify these first-rate publishing houses, and provide the full citations for these books.DianaW 02:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The former is published by Klett-Cotta Press, one of the most respected in Germany. The latter is volume 27 of a series on the history of religion published by the Interdisciplinary Institute for the History of Religion. For citations see below. Hgilbert 19:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I guess you missed my question. It wasn't whether, within the source you've been telling us about (Willmann's book on Waldorf education), a non-anthroposophical source is cited. It is whether the source itself (Willmann's book) is anthroposophical. The name of the first-rate publishing company that you refer to is what we need to know now.DianaW 01:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

How about: 'Anthroposophy claims to follow scientific methods (those of logic) in 'spiritual regions', such as thought, feeling and thinking of thinking (which it claims derive from the spiritual). But replication of spiritual research is difficult if not impossible; this is because thinking and feeling belong to the inner world of an individual while natural science belongs to the outer world of everyone'. How Steiner describes the spiritual in his writings is using the methodology of logic, just like a mathematical formula you either understand it or you don't from the evidence given; it uses a priori. Lkleinjans 21:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but who claims that Anthroposophy follows scientific method? You appear to be falling into the trap of legitimising a controversy that does not exist. (Digression: Logic in itself is no indicator of science as a logical deduction may be based on contrived premises as is the case with most world religions. In actual fact the forefront of science has always been characterised by observations that defy rational logical explanations. Todays examples include quantum mechanics, the theory of relativity and the distribution of prime numbers, which are all things that we can empirically observe yet cannot logically explain.)--Fergie 09:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Well I assume it's the Anthroposophists that claim Anthroposophy follows a scientific method. I don't understand what you mean with legitimising a controversy that does not exist. With your comment I think you mean 'logic in itself is no indicator of natural science'. I know this argument is basic but: creationism is considered science in parts of the U.S. but not so in most of Europe. It just depends which assumptions (or as you call it 'contrived premises') one starts of with. Crudely, creationism: the bible is fact; evolution: the natural/physical world and the rules we derive from it are fact.
The point I'm trying to make is that we cannot decide for anthroposophists or for anyone else if Anthroposophy is a science, all we can do is state why it might be and why it might not be. Lkleinjans 15:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
What I mean by 'Legitimising a controversy that does not exist' is that you are speaking about the 'anthroposophy=science?' controversy as if it exists, when in fact this controversy does not appear to exist anywhere outside of the anthroposophy article on wikipedia. I am really trying to determine if anybody actually has this point of view rather than examining why they might have such a point of view.--Fergie 20:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I can see now that we have been talking past each other. I agree it can be stated that Anthroposophy is not a science without being controversial; as no one (that I know of) claims it to be a science. Lkleinjans 11:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
This should clear it up: the very first sentence of the first chapter of Willmann's book on Waldorf education is "The question of whether Anthroposophy is justified in its claim to be a science is controversial." [Zu den umstrittenen Aspeketen der Anthroposophie gehoert die Frage, ob sie den Anspruch, Wissenschaft zu sein, zu Recht erhebt oder nicht.] See ISBN 3-412-16700-2, p. 5. The rest of the section discusses this, citing both sides of the issue, and giving a non-anthroposophical source, G. Altner, Die Wahrheitsfrage als Herausforderung, as one of the primary authorities affirming the possibility. Hgilbert 19:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
This obscure German text merely states that a controversy exists, it does not identify a group of people who actually think that anthroposophy is a science which is what we are after. Who are they? Where are they? Do they actually exist?--Fergie 05:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
In what way is this text any more obscure than the article by Hannson? Incidentally, we have already had discussions about the use of texts in foreign languages; the arbitrators have made it clear that this is perfectly acceptable. 1) The book does identify a number of people who think that anthroposophy is plausibly a science, including the one I already cited above, Altner, as well as several authors connected to anthroposophy. 2) It distinguishes between empirical natural science and the non-empirical, logical and mathematical sciences - a fundamental distinction for this discussion. 3) It is a source of high quality stating that the question is indeed controversial - this could be cited directly.
Schneider's book discusses the problem in similar terms; he also concludes that anthroposophy may be considered to be a science in the expanded sense of the term by which logic and mathematics also fit. Hgilbert 20:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
If these are the best 2 citations that we can come up with, then we cannot show that any respected thinker regards anthroposophy as a science.--Fergie 06:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the question whether it is controversial inside mainstream science? I have not heard of a group of people within the university world to consider anthroposophy as science (or if they do they do it privately). A sentence like anthroposophy is not a field of science in universities would probably be ok. But it is not possible to say as an objective truth that it isn't science, because some people (for example the anthroposophists) think it is. Anthroposophists seem to think it as a new paradigm of science, with new methods and new areas where they believe a research can go. Erdanion 12:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No one is trying to put in a statement that anthroposophy is widely regarded as a science. There is also no justification for a statement that it is widely rejected as a science, however.
There are very, very few "respected thinkers" who consider the problem at all. The few citations we have in this regard - Hannson, Schneider, Willmann - are decidedly mixed (Hannson decisively against, Schneider and Willmann mildly for). I'm trying to give a fair summary here - please add anything substantial I've missed. Hgilbert 17:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Since there are many questioning on the "legitimacy" of the discoverings of psicology, filosophy, theology, pedagogy, ethics, cosmology, law, semiology, linguistics, etc, should we consider them as pseudosciences?! Why? What for? Of course they are very useful sciences that have always helped people to live better in this strange and surprising world, as any good science has to do. The article fails only because it doesn't mention Helena Petrovna Blawatsky (the famous Madame Blawatsky, from Russia)the real founder of the Theosophy, a science that was trying to unify the principles of all religions of the world, and that afterwards was troubled by the strange behavior of Annie Besant about Krishnamurti. It is a known fact that Albert Einstein was a great reader of Blawatsky's books, that he would always regard as an inspiration. Just this would be enough to totally justify and legitimate the existence of Theosophy. And don't forget that Enistein himself was many times accused of pseudoscientist during his lifetime. In sum: the questionig is the main part of a science. Without questioning no science should be considered a science.(User: Dourado) 02:45, May 2007.
Your poorly edited rant makes little sense. Are you saying that you believe anthroposophy to be a science? Are you aware of any respected thinkers who think that anthroposophy is a science? That is what we are trying to find out in this thread.--Fergie 08:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it is not controversial that universities do not see anthroposophy as science. I think it would be a good idea to write that on the page. However, to use "rejected" means that the universities would have explicitly made statements that it isn't science, which they have not bothered to do. That's why I think it should be "is not considered as". I will also shorten the sentence a little because I think that Steiner saw so much more in anthroposophy than only natural science, that I'm not sure if it gives the right picture. Erdanion 11:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Nice article edit Erdanion- snappy, neutral, informative, and to-the-point--Fergie 11:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Why do we keep seeing this problem with Steiner related articles. It just causing more revert wars. The Hansson article does not confirm: "Although Steiner himself tried to position anthroposophy as a branch of science, academia does not consider it as such." Hansson wrote his own reasoning and did not speak for all of academia. Hansson used for his own reasoning what Hansson said is Steiner's own criteria to judge if Steiners claims from anthrposophy are reproducable or validat ed by natural sciences (exception on the idea of the problem of critical thinking). It is wrong to say Hansson verifies that sentence now in the article as it is wrong, it is projecting a new claim onto the source which is not written. And I do not believe this is accurate restatement: "tried to position it as a branch of science". Hansson said Steiner was writing to convince that scientific methods could be applied to spirit world as well as natural world, and that the right results in one would corroborate the other. This does not mean "positioning it as a branch of science" to me. We need another source to say if the article here says this. Now the same approach Hansson as described is also taken to other "geisteswissenschaft" like sociology or education. Also the source used to define "geisteswissenschaft" (philolex) is another self publish website. Which is it not allowed at wikipedia? Exactness from sources is required on all sides.Venado 02:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
So you agree that anthroposophy is not a science and that it is uncontrovesial to say so? --Fergie 19:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that there was a lively debate going on about "Anthroposophy-as-a-science" and figured I might be able to help. Let me first say that nobody believes Anthroposophy to be a so called "natural science," or as Steiner referred to it a "materialistic science." But to not call it a science, which is systematic knowledge of the world gained through observation and experimentation, would be wrong. It is a systematic study of the non-material world through observation and experimentation, and that is why it is distinguished from natural, or materialistic science. Someone might be able to think of it like this: If you are studying colors, you could study the wavelength, the light refraction, the sensitivity of various types of cone cells in the retina, etc. and this would give you an idea of how natural science studies color. If, on the other hand, you were to study color the way that Goethe did when he said "Yellow is a light which has been dampened by darkness; Blue is a darkness weakened by the light," this would be a crude form of Anthroposophy. The reason being that Goethe used his past observations of light but then had to go beyond mere observation and actually use his imagination to introduce the varied degrees of darkness into light. There were no tools in Goethe's time to introduce "darkness" into light, so he had to use his powers of thinking to conduct the observation. This shows the power of Anthroposophy: it can go far beyond what can be studied from the senses; one can use their mind to study something when it cannot be physically studied and observed. Anthroposophy, from its method, can study a great deal more than natural science can since it is not limited to the physical, sense-perceptible world. The other benefit from it is that, if the observer wants to build upon some knowledge that has been attained through Anthroposophic Science, he or she increases their flexibility of thought, concentration, openness and receptivity, etc. Take the Goethe example again. If Goethe wanted to take "dampened light" or yellow, and introduce more darkness, he would have to imagine it clearly, and, if he did, he'd see all the varying shades of color that comes into being from mentally protracting the darkness. Obviously, this would increase his mental capacities.

As for the question as to whether or not there are any respected thinkers who think Anthroposophy is a science--Yes, there are; quite a few, in fact. Richard Tarnas, Ken Wilber, Robert McDermott, Arthur Zajonc, the late Owen Barfield, to name just a few. That's just in the realm of science and philosophy; one might also say that Anthroposophy can be called an "artistic science" since it can be used to study the forms, such as colors and sounds. Many famous artists and authors, even Nobel and Pulitzer prize winning, have used Anthroposophy as a science to further their art. And as a "religious science" it has even been famously used by a "unknown" writer whose posthumous book, "Meditations on the Tarot" made Harper's "Top 100 Spiritual Books of the Century" and significantly influenced many of the top Catholic leaders and theologians. So the answer is that there are, without a doubt, some very prominent thinkers and academics who, not only believe Anthroposophy to be a science, but actually use Anthroposophy as a science. So I do not believe we can say that the broad term of "academia" does not recognize Anthroposophy as a science, as there are clearly very notable examples who believe it to be. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 01:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If Richard Tarnas, Ken Wilber, Robert McDermott, Arthur Zajonc and the late Owen Barfield argued that anthroposophy was a science then we would need to see some citations to where they made these arguments. --Fergie 17:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll continue of this down there. Erdanion 19:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The point is that to "sense" anything is necessary to read (at least in this case) the article on Stein and on Anthroposophy. I am not trying to say it would be enough to understand Anthroposophy, but at least it would be useful to make sense in this discussion. The article's second paragraph explains that Anthoposophy develops from Blawatsky's Theosophy, and why it becames Stein's alternative to it. Without reading the article, is very complicated to accept as qualified, neutral or whatever, any evaluation, principally if it is supposedly based on an old and sterile pseudoacademic mambojambo on experimentalism, materialism, legitimacy, estatistcs, etc, all that universe that would make very happy Allan Sokal. I thought (in my poor foreigner english speaker way of thinking) it wouldn't be necessary to explain, because it should be just suggested, that as long as Einstein supported Theosophy, as I mentioned, he supposedly would also support Anthroposophy. It was a bit of humor and a bit of inmagination, not casually two important qualities of science nowadays. Im sum: of course I think that Anthroposophy is a specific science, a human (anthropo)science, but always a science, absolutely in line with sub-atomics particles studies, ecology, economy, astronomy, etc. If Einstein and that cat of quantic physics are considered science, why not Anthroposophy? Having that in mind, what is the point in saying no? Dourado - 23:50h, 17 May 2007

Hi Dourado, I get the feeling that you are new to wikipedia. You need to check out WP:ATT--Fergie 17:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The way I wrote the sentence is obviously present in Hansson's article, it's the context of this all, and he practically says so. The way sentence is written now ("some") doesn't sound right. It should sound that anthroposophy is not generally considered as science, and then there are some exceptions. It would be possible to write more about those exceptions in the article. Erdanion 06:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Fergie, I didn't quite understand your edit summary. I don't think there is anything controversial that anthroposophists see anthroposophy as science. Of course they do, that's the very main idea of anthroposophy. They think it as an extended science which goes beyond what the universities are doing at the moment. Erdanion 18:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Except they don't- they make vague allusions to a 'controversy', whilst saying that they themselves regard anthroposophy as more of a 'spiritual path' or 'philosophy' than a 'science'. Even the hardcore anthroposophical evangelists on this article have shyed away from saying that they themselves believe anthroposophy to be a science. So the question remains- who says anthroposophy is a science? Apparently not even anthroposophists (although they are fond of fostering the idea that other people do)--Fergie 20:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia editors you refered to probably think it's science, but just have not said it here. I have read enough about anthroposophy to know that anthroposophists in general think that anthroposophy is science, and a spiritual path also. And they even call it "spiritual science". Erdanion 20:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

To Fergie's comment which was up there: You said that we would need to see citations of arguments from people who consider anthroposophy as science. But that is not what we need. We don't need any arguments, because we are not here to decide whether anthroposophy is science or not. We only need to know what certain people think and citations to that to state their views. One can think that anthroposophy is science without arguing for it. Arguing means that you are trying to convince someone else, and you can think something without trying to convince anyone else of it. Erdanion 19:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I use the word 'argue' in this context to mean 'propose'. There exists a group of thinkers known as the Flat Earth Society, yet this does not mean that it is controversial to say that the globe is roughly spherical. We need evidence of sensible academics regarding anthroposophy as a science- this could be in the form of literature, it could be the existance of an Anthroposophy department in a Science faculty, or it could be indirect references in scientific literature.--Fergie 19:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't bother to read the page of the Flat Earth Society, but if they think that the Earth is flat, then inside a Wikipedia article of them you shouldn't say as an objective truth that it isn't. Of course you can say that just about everyone else thinks so, and what scientific research has to say about the matter. Erdanion 20:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Erdanion you asked for a link to a site that gave reference to Anthroposophists considering Anthroposophy Science. I am not sure how relevant this is but it is a link to Steiner's book 'Occult Science'; [1]. Where he specifically describes the 'Spiritual-scientific' realm. Steiner comparing spiritual against natural science: "There is however an important difference, the moment we enter the spiritual-scientific realm, as compared with natural-scientific study. In Natural Science the facts lie spread out before us within the sense-perceptible world. Not so the facts of Spiritual Science. They only enter the realm of man's perception by dint of the soul's activity."

This is not a quote saying 'Anthroposophists consider Anthroposophy science', but it compares natural science and spiritual science both as a science from the opinion of the founder of Anthroposophy. Is this link good enough to go in as a confirmation that Anthroposophists consider Anthroposophy as a science? If not, why not just write an email to one of the Anthroposophical Societies and ask for a statement? Lkleinjans 22:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Fergie- No Anthroposophist believes that Anthroposophy is classified as "Natural Science" but they definately believe that it is a science.

Here's where these academics have argued that Anthroposophy is a science:

Owen Barfield: "Romanticism Comes of Age," "The Case for Anthroposophy" "The Great War" (which is the letters which C.S. Lewis and Owen Barfield wrote back and forth to each other regarding the question of Anthroposophy as a science. It is compiled by Lionel Addey)

Arthur Zajonc: "Catching the Light," argues this somewhat in "The New Physics and Cosmology Dialogues with the Dalai Lama" and very vividly in "Goethe's Way of Science: A Phenomenology of Nature "

Robert McDermott: "The Essential Steiner"

Richard Tarnas: I actually have this book on my desk, so I can quote from it. It is "The Passion for the Western Mind": "Steiner's epistemology along with Goethe and Hegel, and outlined in The Philosophy of Freedom (aka Intuitive Thinking as a Path of Knowledge), is the answer to the dilemma of the Descartian-Hegelian paradigm. It bridges the gap between the rational scientific outlook and the spiritual, putting body, mind and spirit back together." |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 00:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for all these, I'm sure they are helpful. I hope we can little by little build how to write about this topic into the article. But Bellowed, I'm asking you something: It seems we have a small edit fight with the article, you and I. We keep writing that one sentence in the introduction differently. Would it be possible that we changed emails and had some more conversation that way? To email me you have to enter your email address into Wikipedia, but no one sees it and you don't have to allow email from other users. Then go to my user page and click the email link down at the left. I will of course tell nothing about you to anyone. If you find this possible please do so. Erdanion 06:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually the authors named are almost all anthroposophists (not sure about Tamas), hence disallowed sources here as experts on anthroposophy. They cannot be cited in the article, so this opinion that some people would like to insert has not yet found wikipedia-appropriate justification.DianaW 02:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Richard Tarnas is an astrologer. I think this should clear it up on where we'd have to go to find "experts" to say that anthroposophy is a science. Anthroposophy is a "science" to the exact same extent that astrology is one. Anthroposophists are free to believe what they believe, as are astrologers. To try to insert disinformation like this into a supposedly objective article is against the purpose of wikipedia. There are no scientists or credible objective experts who can be cited as saying that anthroposophy is a science. Why, anyway, do anthroposophists want to insert such disinformation here, when talking among themselves they are actually full of disdain for science? They present a public front, i.e., in the wikipedia article, that does not reflect their true beliefs.DianaW 03:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the part from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which is important for this topic: "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them... But on such pages, ... it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint..." Views of the anthroposophists are important here, and since they think it's science, that should be on the page. But I don't think anthroposophical academics can represent scientific community on this topic, because they have not been able to convince scientists in general that anthroposophy would be science. We will have to spell out the majority viewpoint as well. This time my sentence was reverted by IP address. I'm going to put it back, and I hope that the IP user will read this talk page, and if there is something wrong with my sentence, make a suggestion how to write about the majority viewpoint. Erdanion 07:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Fergie asked originally: "Does there exist a body of people who regard anthroposphy as an actual science rather that say a spiritual path or a philosophy?" The answer is a simple no - unless we count anthroposophists and/or a few other New Age proponents, who don't, per the arbitration ruling, have the credibility as objective sources on anthroposophy to be cited as experts on the matter.
Erdanion writes above: "Here is the part from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which is important for this topic: "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them..." This is not a page devoted to a minority view on anything; this is the main article on anthroposophy.
"Views of the anthroposophists are important here, and since they think it's science, that should be on the page." The article can state that Steiner, and anthroposophists, also call anthroposophy "spiritual science." There is no need to debate a far-fetched claim for which no evidence at all has been provided. Of course the article can reference what anthroposophists believe; that's what the article's about. What the article cannot do is muse over the question "Is anthroposophy a science?" Fergie established early on in this discussion, and no one has provided acceptable evidence to the contrary, that no one thinks so, except anthroposophists. We can describe their *beliefs*, we cannot sit around for instance musing over whether there's "evidence" that humans will some day live on Jupiter (as Steiner also stated and anthroposophists also believe).

"But I don't think anthroposophical academics can represent scientific community on this topic," - Exactly.

"We will have to spell out the majority viewpoint as well." No. We aren't obliged to "spell out the majority viewpoint" that a ridiculous claim is a ridiculous claim; otherwise anyone could insert into any article on wikipedia that the moon is made of green cheese, and expect a lengthy discussion on Talk pages to ensue as to where the "scientific community" stands on this question? "We'll have to spell out the majority viewpoint that the moon is not made of green cheese." The majority viewpoint here is the default viewpoint that something isn't a "science" just because it claims to be, and there is no need to "spell this out." The solution is simple, don't address (and thereboy confer legitimacy to) bogus claims in the first place.DianaW 11:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I am happy with the introduction as it stands "Although Steiner saw anthroposophy as a science, it is not generally considered to be such by the scientific community." It doesn't claim Anthroposophy to be a science it just states the facts.

I don't understand what point you are trying to make DianaW, there is no bogus claim, it just states what Steiner believed according to our sources and what the scientific community believes. Lkleinjans 12:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


I'm happy with this sentence as well: "Although Steiner saw anthroposophy as a science, it is not generally considered to be such by the scientific community." I am attempting to block the proposal that Owen Barfield, Arthur Zajonc, and Robert McDermott be added as sources to support the notion that some experts do consider it a science. They cannot be cited in this regard, as they are anthroposophists and the arbitration ruling (correctly) disallows this. Tarnas is also not credible as a source for the "some people think anthroposophy is a science" claim, because he is an astrologer, and astrology is also a pseudoscience. (This is as if you want to add to the article "2 + 2 = 5," and while you admit most people don't believe this, you've found some other guy who believes that "2 + 2 = 7," and you've got a quote from this fruitcake saying that it is not unreasonable to believe that 2 + 2 = 5 . . . sorry, doesn't help your case.)
What happens in these articles is that anthroposophists and their apologists propose sources like this hoping others working on the page will not be informed enough to recognize the sources being proposed (and almost certainly that most readers of the article, new to the topic, would not recognize them as biased sources). Bellowed proposed adding these authors with the comment "Here's where these academics have argued that Anthroposophy is a science." Erdanion then replied, "Thank you for these, I'm sure they are helpful." Nope, they are not helpful.151.197.22.23 16:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC) (sorry that's me Diana 151.197.22.23 16:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC))
Well, I'm also happy with the sentence. But what comes to these anthroposophical academics who consider anthroposophy as science, there isn't any reason why their views couldn't be stated on the page, as long as they are stated as the views of some anthroposophists. The arbitration ruling does not say that there couldn't be views of anthrosophists here. But I agree that they shouldn't be stated as experts who consider anthroposophy as science. What they think about anthroposophy as science is not something that the scientific community in general would see as science. Erdanion 17:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0024-094X(1998)31%3A1%3C21%3ACTSITA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-S http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/brill/arie/2006/00000006/00000001/art00002 http://www.jungianstudies.org/publications/mainr1.pdf http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/Joap/JOAP119.pdf http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=GodzjIfO7e8C&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=anthroposophy+science%3F&ots=BUk0C8g49E&sig=_oN8uXPexsqWcQ8Y4P0VsWGrUj0 http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/bridging/papers/rist.stephan.2.pdf http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a713780865~db=all http://www.paed-work.unizh.ch:8950/ap/downloads/oelkers/Vortraege/234_Geneva.pdf all links found via google scholar searching on: anthroposophy science?

This discussion has some problems. A necessary starting point is to define "science". Without such a definition it is pretty hard to determine if anthroposophy falls within or without the boundaries thereof. In addition, there is no agreement on who the boundary keepers are. Scientists? How do you define scientist? Are physicists equal to sociologists? Hard sciences only? Where do you draw the line on which sciences are hard?

I'd like to make a couple of suggestions. Instead of trying to define science, which is, I think we'll all agree, a pretty major project, or trying to agree on what science is without defining it, a pursuit which will have everyone going in circles indefinitely, why not look to the authorities on the subject: the philosophers and historians of science?

And then, instead of concluding that anthroposophy is not science because the current academic world hasn't defined it as science or concluding that anthroposophy is science because the majority of the current academic world hasn't defined it as not science, because they have never considered the question, having better things to do, undoubtedly, why not just say something simple. Example: Anthroposophy uses the following terminology: "spiritual science" which is defined as follows--choose a standard anthroposophical definition--however, spiritual science does not currently fit within the boundaries of what is generally considered science--link to a quote defining these boundaries--end of statement.MinorityView 00:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that for the purposes of this discussion anthroposophists appear to be employing a rather unlikely definition of science which seems to cover the arts, religion and philosophy. Even using this definition, actual proponents of the 'anthroposophy as a science' idea are still somewhat thin on the ground--Fergie 05:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried to think about this and maybe "saw" could be changed back into "tried to position". It would be better to write later in the article in what way Steiner or the anthroposophists see anthroposophy as science, if someone wants to write more about that. Erdanion 12:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"Position" sounds like a PR attempt. Steiner obviously genuinely believed that science could be extended into spiritual realms. I have tried to bring this nuance without changing the wording about the general attitude to anth. as a science. Hgilbert 14:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Took the time to look at an actual definition of the word science. In the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary, there is a clear division between science in general and natural science. Steiner's idea of spiritual science easily fits into the science in general definition and does not, clearly fall into the natural science definition. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/science So, who, exactly, decided that science is natural science only? MinorityView 23:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Diana, I think I need to respond to the allegations you made here:

Actually the authors named are almost all anthroposophists (not sure about Tamas), hence disallowed sources here as experts on anthroposophy. They cannot be cited in the article, so this opinion that some people would like to insert has not yet found wikipedia-appropriate justification.DianaW 02:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC) Richard Tarnas is an astrologer. I think this should clear it up on where we'd have to go to find "experts" to say that anthroposophy is a science. Anthroposophy is a "science" to the exact same extent that astrology is one. Anthroposophists are free to believe what they believe, as are astrologers. To try to insert disinformation like this into a supposedly objective article is against the purpose of wikipedia. There are no scientists or credible objective experts who can be cited as saying that anthroposophy is a science. Why, anyway, do anthroposophists want to insert such disinformation here, when talking among themselves they are actually full of disdain for science? They present a public front, i.e., in the wikipedia article, that does not reflect their true beliefs.DianaW 03:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Richard Tarnas is not an astrologer. He is a PhD professor of philosophy and psychology who wrote a philosophy book that's actually a required text at many universities. But you shove him aside as an astrologer. He did write a book on astrology and the effects it has on psyche, but, hey, so did that famous astrologer named Carl Jung.

If Ken Wilber is an Anthroposophist, that's news to me.

Zajonc is an Anthroposophist. However, he was an academic first and he still is, and held in high esteem. Same with McDermott. So was Barfield. He was a noted academic before he was an Anthroposophist, and held in grand esteem (C.S. Lewis said about him that "Barfield is the wisest of my unofficial teachers" and comparing Barfield to the likes of Tolkien and himself, Lewis said "he towers above us all.") But hey, he studied Steiner, let's throw him out.

How about Saul Bellow? Oh wait, he loved Steiner so much that he wrote an introduction to a lecture series of Steiner's. We have to throw him out. What about Andrei Bely? The writer that Nabokov called the greatest of the Russian writers? Oh yeah, he was an Anthroposophist and a close friend of Steiner's. So he was warped too.

See, what you have here Diana, is an ideal situation. You can hide behind your ludicrous claim that "there are no scientists or credible objective experts who can be cited as saying that anthroposophy is a science" and then object to anyone who is a scientist or noteworthy, rational mind who believes that Anthroposophy is a science simply because they read Steiner and like it and therefore must be Anthroposophists. Some of them are, but they are also held in high regard in the scientific and academic community. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 15:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's some ancient stuff I apparently never followed up on. It is full of nonsense that would take most of my waking hours to effectively refute. Yes, Richard Tarnas *is* an astrologer. No, I will not be providing "diffs." Go google the man. No, Saul Bellow is not a neutral source - Saul Bellow was indeed an anthroposophist. Sorry but if you want to stick to the arbitration rulings, Saul Bellow was an anthroposophist and thus a disallowed source. This too you can confirm via google in 30 seconds if you doubt me. (I know that you don't actually doubt it, of course; all this is just endless strategizing.)DianaW 02:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Bellow is not cited as a source. Richard Tarnas is a recognized philosopher with a PhD; his works are published by mainstream presses. Hgilbert 11:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience category

I have removed this category as it appears to be purely WP:Original research; in the Reception section under "scientific basis", there is no material that even remotely support this category. The category should not be replaced without substantial third-party reviewed confirmation of this, as per the arbitration. Hgilbert 19:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The argument for anthroposophy as a pseudoscience is extremely well established. Do not repeat this edit unless you have the backing of editors who are not involved in the promotion of anthroposophy or waldorf education.--Fergie 20:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; the arbitration ruling says that you must have third-party reviewed sources for anything relating to this article. WP:OR says that original research applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." I have seen no citations of sources that relate anthroposophy to pseudoscience, only "syntheses that appear to advance a position". Hgilbert 00:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Also see WP:Categorization: "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." This is not uncontroversial.Hgilbert 00:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If the argument that anthroposophy is pseudoscience is extremely well established, then there should be a number of WP:NPOV sources on pseudoscience with specific analysis of anthroposophy and these sources need to be included in this article. Surely these sources are not hard to find. Otherwise we are dealing with WP:OR and the pseudoscience category should be removed, in my opinion. --EPadmirateur 03:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
There are- some of them even in the article as it stands. In fact citations in support of anthroposophy as a pseudoscience have been provided to this page time and time again as the owners well know. If wikipedia is really going to promote anthroposophy as a proper science then it is broken, and I am going to walk calmly away and find something more sensible to spend my limited time on. --Fergie 07:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. There are not any sources that say that anthroposophy is a pseudoscience in the article as it presently stands, nor have any ever been presented here. There are queries as to whether anthroposophy is a science, with various stances represented; in any case, many things are neither sciences nor pseudosciences. (It is certainly not one of the natural sciences, but no one ever claimed it was.)
  2. For a category, you have to establish, not just that one person has said it, but that it is self-evident and uncontroversial (see quote above from WP:Categorization. This it clearly is not. Do you claim that this is an uncontroversial position? Hgilbert 12:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Anthroposophy conforms to the definition of a pseudoscience. Hansson has done an excellent job of describing the way in which anthroposophy not only does not adhere to scientific method, but actually fails to meet Steiner's own criteria for definition as a science. I am afraid that this is the only reasonable npov stance to adopt--Fergie 17:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
After all discussions, I can't quite believe that you still/again(?) refer to the mentioned article by Hansson as some sort of serious truth witness with regard to the issue if anthroposophy can be considered to be a science or not. A simple comparison of what Hanson writes (in the article published in 1991, probably when he still was a PhD student) with the works by Steiner that he quotes immediately shows that he seriously misrepresents anthroposophy as developed separate from theosophy, and distorts the argumentation in the context from which quotes from works by Steiner are taken. Trying to stand out as "scientific" in this way in his analysis while failing to stand up to even the simplest criticism of the way he misuses published sources is one criterion of pseudoscience. And he's the best you've got? Also (not yet shown in the analysis of his article), the discussion of the three examples he uses to argue against the reliability of alleged predictions by Steiner partly is based on careless mistranslation, non-consideration of the social, conceptual and historical context from which the examples are taken and superficial to the extent of bordering on pure rhetoric. Both factors deprive the discussion in a large part of the article by Hansson of its possible scientific value regarding the subject it purports to be a discussion of. Not good enough, Fergie.
Thebee 18:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
You have repeatedly been corrected on this point Thebee, most recently here, and I must caution you that you are now sailing close to the wind as a result of your ongoing incivility. Several users and administrators have urged you to stop backing up your arguments with 'citations' to your own original research website- maybe now is the time to heed this advice.--Fergie 21:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Hansson is a very viable source. But he says nothing about pseudoscience, merely that Anthroposophy is not a science. It is a clear case of WP:OR to derive from something not being a science that it is a pseudoscience. Hansson is already cited in the discussion over the scientific basis; this could be filled out if desired. The category still 1) has no support that is not original research, and 2) is controversial and thus against category guidelines. Hgilbert 22:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Fergie:
"You have repeatedly been corrected on this point Thebee, ..."
"Corrected"? Wrong as pointed out by Venado, followed by a loose and sweeping assertion. Any administrator referring to the in full documented source criticism of the article in this case, in full quoting the article by Hansson it comments on and quoting and linking to the published sources sources it uses as basis for its argumentation, showing the extent of the unreliable superficiality of Hansson's argumentation? I can't believe the Austrian journal published it, and am considering contacting them about publishing a rebuttal of the piece by Hansson. Thebee 22:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think bee this is just what you should do. Once your rebuttal has been published, it will become just as citable as Hansson.DianaW 00:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hansson is not citable as a source on anthrop. with regard to controversial issues. See below. Thebee 01:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Further critique of it: http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/pseudo/anthropos.html Surely, this belongs to pseudoscience. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deleet (talk • contribs) 21:17, 15 August 2007.

Sorry, the page itself is not an acceptable source (self-published, polemical). The article does reference other sources, but only lists them: doesn't even say what they say and how that supports the contention of pseudoscience. One source (Hannson) has been deemed unacceptable. The other referenced sources (Blomqvist, Jan G. Bruhn, Poul Fersling, Gardner, or Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics) might have something more substantive, something that says "Anthroposophy is pseudoscientific because ...", but they need to be cited, not this page. --EPadmirateur 23:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, no, that source has not been deemed unacceptable. The link you give to supposedly support such a claim is to thebee opining that it is unacceptable! Hello?DianaW 00:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I only wrote my comment on the source in question after EPadmirateur wrote his. Don't think he wrote what he did based on precognition. What you refer to as "Thebee opining ..." is not my view. It's the opinion of the main WP arbitrator. Thanks, Thebee 01:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. It is indeed your view only. The arbitrator you refer to has never once given an opinion on whether Hansson is an acceptable source - nor has any other arbitrator said this. Don't bluff. If an arbitrator had said this, you'd link to *that* rather than continuing to repeatedly cite *yourself* as the substantiation of this claim. You don't even seem embarrassed to be caught at this over and over.DianaW 12:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

And like the Swedish friend in Gothenburg, who also I think has missed signing one or more postings with a signature, the user "Deleet" behind the ref to Bendz does not do this either. I have commented on the superficial and pseudoscientific page mentioned. For those reading Swedish, maybe "Deleet"? too, it can be found at http://www.thebee.se/comments/artiklar/FredrikBendz.html Thanks, Thebee 23:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do you continue to post stuff saying basically "I have commented on this" as if some comment you've made about it settles it?DianaW 00:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It does ;-)) That's why I write it. (Kidding... The "I have commented ..." was just an introduction to my comments). Thebee 01:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
But it does settle the issue of Bendz' unreliability on this issue. If you read Swedish, you'd see that. Thebee 01:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think you are kidding, it's obvious that you do believe that citing yourself and your own self-published web sites settles various official matters here. The number of times you have done this should be embarrassing you by now. We should start counting. You have referred to yourself as an acceptable source on wikipedia probably pushing a thousand times by now, if we trawled through the Steiner-related articles to count. You miss no opportunity to refer readers to your own web sites, which are propaganda sites. This is why I suggested to you that you try to get your "rebuttal" of Hansson's article published. It would then become citable. Of course, you should probably think this through first. If they did decide to publish your article, I think we'd see you pretty quickly give up the claim that other articles in the same publication couldn't be cited.DianaW 12:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hansson disallowed citation for controversial issues

As for the use of Hansson as citation in the article on Anthroposophy, including as "evidence" of the pseudoscientific nature of anthroposophy: During the arbitration, Mr. Bauder answered "of course when I suggested that

"authors, who have worked actively in a public capacity in organizations, on an ideological basis strongly critical of Waldorf education and anthroposophy, be considered as unreliable sources with regard to controversial issues in relation to Waldorf education and anthroposophy."

Hansson was the probably main founder of the Swedish "skeptics" group "Vetenskap och Folkbildning" in 1982. He was for many years its chair person and still sits on the board of the group. The analysis of his article on anthroposophy confirms what Mr. Bauder described as applicable editorial Wiki principle for such writings as Hansson's - that they are to be considered to be unreliable sources on controversial issues in relation to Waldorf education and anthroposophy. Thebee 22:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Repeated removal of citation

Please explain your repeated removal of a citation. Do not remove it again until after I have been able to respond to your explanation. There is no hurry. Repeatedly reverting precipitates edit wars. Since the sentence is cited, the burden of explanation falls on the person who wishes to remove it. Please allow a consensus to develop about it. Your editing seems rather aggressive. IPSOS (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The citation you insist on reinserting is used as citation for the assertion:
"Concerns have been raised that latent racism in anthroposophy exists today due to the unreserved adherence to the teachings of Rudolf Steiner by some followers of anthroposophy"
The pseudoscientific source, documented as such here, used as citation for this assertion, does not state this.
This morning I explained this in my description of my motivation for the deletion of the citation as citation:
"Citation used does not state what is stated in the sentence it is used as reference for"
After my explanation of why the citation is invalid as citation for the assertion it is used as citation for, you reinsert it again, imply that I have not explained the motive for my removal of the citation by requiring that I do it (again), instead of showing that the motive I have explained for removing it is invalid. Please do.
Thanks, Thebee 16:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Um, you can't use your own self-published opinions from your own website as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Hanssen seems much more reliable than your opinions about him. It is not the place of the Wikipedia editor to judge the writer, merely to ensure that his or her work has been published by a reliable publisher (check for Hanssen, no for you) and to qualify statements as to the source via direct mention or citation and let the reader decide. IPSOS (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

After a quick scan of the Hansson document I have not found any evidence that this citation supports the claim made in the article, i.e. The Hansson article does not talk about racism. If it does please correct me. So I have to agree with Thebee that the Hansson citation should be removed from the end of this sentence as it does not support it. Isn't it just an introductory sentence to the Ray McDermott et al quote anyway? Cheers Lkleinjans 20:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting choice of words, had to look up idiosyncratic. I am happy with the sentence, it is just the citation that doesn't work. I haven't found anything in the Hansson article that talks about unreserved adherence to Steiner's teachings and therefore also not about concerns raised with regards to this. I know this is quite petty but the Hansson article is not related to this sentence as far as I can see; and therefore should not be there as a citation! I am looking at the article 'Is Anthroposophy Science' on the waldorfcritics website.

If you have read the Hansson article could you please let me know which part you are talking about? Cheers Lkleinjans 09:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hansson's article doesn't mention racism, so it doesn't seem to fit the racism part. I'll try to make an introductory sentence which would fit the quotation so well that it doesn't need another source. Erdanion 15:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Citation

The Hansson article applies to this sentence, he is part of the scientific community as he is a Professor at a University as I understand it and he posed the question 'Is Anthroposophy Science' and concluded that it is not. Therefore it is perfectly valid to use his article as a reference. I agree it doesn't represent all scientists but it is the best we got and I say we keep it until we find something better. Lkleinjans 11:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an acceptable reference for one philosopher's point of view, and should be used as such (given the paucity of references on the subject)! Hgilbert 13:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
At my talks page, you have written, Lkleinjans:
I undid your revision of anthroposophy, your removal of the Hansson citation; and mentioned on the talk page for what reason. If you can find a better one please replace it, but don't remove it until there is an agreement to do so on the talk page. Lkleinjans 11:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem is very simple.
If a used citation for a statement does not state what is used as citation for, it cannot be used as citation for that specific statement, even if the statement were to be true. Hansson is not the "scientific community", he himself does not neither give a reference for a statement by an authoritative organisation, representing the scientific community, stating what is said in the sentence you insist on using it as citation for, or some sort of empirical study demonstrating what you use it as citation for.
Later in the article, the Hansson reference is used in a somewhat more proper way. I'll come back to that. But you can't use the citation as basis for the broad statement "Although he tried to develop anthroposophy as an extension of science, it is not generally considered to be such by the scientific community." for the reason I describe. Specific statements must be specifically, not just loosely and indirectly sourced, if questioned.
If you have such a source, give it, if you don't provide such a reliable source. If you can't, I'll remove the citation and the statement it is used as citation for, tomorrow. Thanks,
Thebee 12:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I recommend an rfc as this is just wasting everybody's time.--Fergie 15:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the RfC. I also believe that the citation is fine. IPSOS (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I think a RfC is taking it a bit far for the moment. It appears that most editors here agree on keeping the citation; if a better reference is found we can use that instead. The sentence is quite important and a lot of time has gone into it already; it is probably better if it is not changed until better reference material is found. So could an agreement be achieved on keeping the current edit until other reference material, regarding this subject, is found? Lkleinjans 21:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
The reason there is wasting time is because editors are still thinking every dissagreement is POV of editor bias and thinking to much about "whose side am I against" instead of to content. So Hansson article was used inaccurately in this article many times. He is not a scientist-that was false to call him one. His article did not say all scientists claim anthroposophy is not one. that was another false attribution to it. And race claim was a third. three claims falsely cited to one article does not need rfc. Why need to repeat this so much to the same articles talk pages? This article is under probation from arbitration where this issue given emphasis do to pattern of misrepresentation of sources. Anyone can make mistakes but when the mistake is explained it is stubornness to revert and call for rfc. From arbitration: "Proper Use of Sources: The information used from a source in an article should accurately reflect the information contained in the source". And also "Information may be included in articles if they can be verified by reference to reliable sources." And "Editors of these articles are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information". So do not make statements in the article that are not accurately verifiable to the source. do not be lazy to find good sources and apply source that does not say the claims. Hansson was used inaccurately like generic quick fix bandaid to avoid the work of researching to source fact tags.Venado 17:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
At least one serious editor. Thanks Venado. Thebee 21:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Well someone came along and solved it. I am sorry for being stubborn Thebee; Venado did clarify it a bit better. So I guess we can take this problem as solved. Onto the NPOV tag! Lkleinjans 21:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks to the IP user! Erdanion 13:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I'd like to have everyone take a look at the article and see if there are any remaining NPOV issues. Let's get them cleaned up now. Hgilbert 14:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Overall I am happy with the article (it's pretty big!); it is quite well balanced in my opinion. Just one minor problem with the statement anthroposophical families under the heading Anthroposophical medicine. What is an anthroposophical family?Lkleinjans 14:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The 'Anthroposophical medicine' section is problematic, and should be heavily qualified with disclaimers or cut out entirely. The 'Architecture' section is about Steiners skill as an architect and nothing to do with anthroposophy. Little space is given to the Camphill movement which is perhaps one of the most commendable and noteable aspects of anthroposophy. A section on the disagreements/differences to Theosophy is also needed. If everybody is in agreement I could make these edits myself--Fergie 15:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Your suggestions seem fine to me. IPSOS (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the Camphill movement section could do with more information, if you know about this please go ahead Fergie. The general disagreements/differences with Theosophy are covered in 'History'. I don't know much about the Anthroposophy/Theosophy split, if there is a lot to be said maybe it needs another article because this one is already of substantial size. Lkleinjans 17:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
There exists an article Rudolf Steiner and the Theosophical Society, I made a link to it from this page. The architecture style which Steiner started is one important part of anthroposophical movement, and there are a lot of those buildings in many countries. It's not a bad idea to write more about the Camphill movement, could also be inserted into it's own article. Erdanion 19:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Do, please, add something more about Camphill if you like; I haven't found good sources here.

The anthroposophic medicine section's first paragraph is very brief and largely serves to lead people to the main article on the subject. This should clearly stay as this is one of the most prominent aspects of anthroposophy in practice. I expect that you are focusing on the second paragraph, about mistletoe. This section really could be part of the anthroposophic medicine article; if you want to combine it in there, that's fine.

The architecture section begins with Steiner but continues on about the work of more recent anthroposophical architects. I don't see a problem here. Once again, this is a place where anthroposophy has been applied, here in the arts. Hgilbert 17:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, I'm very happy with the current state of the "science" sentence. It's accurate: it reflects the attitudes of the majority of scientists while allowing Steiner's thought to be accepted by some scientists--which is the case. Anthroposophy is accepted by some scientists, even though Diana W and Fergie won't admit it, yet most scientists do reject it and that's why the current sentence it the best we've come up with.

So now I don't really have any major issues with the neutrality of the article.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 14:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to propose removing the tag, then, assuming Fergie's concerns are adequately met (Fergie?). Hgilbert 15:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I cannot say that I agree with the removal of the NPOV tag. The 'applications' section is particularly problematic as it gives anthroposophy credit for several things that are more correctly attributed to Steiner or others. We could reasonably attribute eurythmy, camphill, biodynamic farming, and Waldorf education to anthroposophy, however banking, architecture and medicine are all problematic.--Fergie 09:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Such errors should be addressed. So if some activity is not correctly anthroposophy then it should be resolved, but it sounds like you raise fact and/or relevance disputes now rather than NPOV dispute. To help clean up I put relevance tag in article and will start a talk section wto work through these problems.Venado 13:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
We are both right: these sections are included on dubious grounds to 'sell' anthroposophy as a socially relevant movement. In POV pushing fact and relevance are normally stretched in this way.--Fergie 20:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
To get the heart of disputes it helpes to get specific about parts are disputed and why it is disputed. fact tags are clearer than NPOV tag if statements are disputed as not accurate, or if claim that something is anthroposophy is disputed. Then the disputes need references for verificaition, and need to be clear why subject is notable.
"Banking" relevence to anthroposophy was explained already, and I should not have included it under relevance tag. But in "banking" section are claims that don't have references yet. It not hard to say it is anthroposophy but it needs independent refs to verify facts given and notability. I now found flowforms references and update talk section for revelence below. Venado 00:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

As usual: those whose present themselves as being here to "improve" these articles will not address or even acknowledge the point that Fergie made. We saw this just a week ago with the points that Antelan made here - almost 100% ignored. The replies are politely irrelevant. You give these guys just half an hour, and they will be back with a bulldozer to bury the discussion that any neutral party tries to start. I would suggest that this behavior is enormously, exquisitely uncivil.DianaW 03:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I will take the liberty of repeating what Fergie said - which I consider to be the civil response when something someone has said is rudely ignored. Fergie said: "these sections are included on dubious grounds to 'sell' anthroposophy as a socially relevant movement. In POV pushing fact and relevance are normally stretched in this way."DianaW 03:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

That's why we have the rule that only independent, nonpolemical, peer-reviewed authors should be cited to support the relevance of such matters. Fergie has a right to a personal opinion, of course, but those who qualify as verifiable sources for Wikipedia articulate a very different consensus: that these are relevant and important cultural phenomena. It is such sources that the article must reflect. Hgilbert 14:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Two of the three sources in the Banking section are anthroposophical. I'm sorry, but a link to the GLS bank's own web page is not an adequate way to source a notion such as "these are relevant and important cultural phenomena." We get that they, and you, think they are an important cultural phenomenon; there are no sources provided that suggest anyone else does. In fairness I think you do get yourself mixed up as to what you are trying to document. If you just want to document that GLS is an anthroposophical bank, I guess you can use their web site. But nobody's disputing they're an anthroposohical bank. If you want to actually get at the heart of what Fergie originally criticized here - that the article at present is bloated with stuff that's supposed to make anthroposophy look very socially responsible and productive and busy, but which, outside the ranks of anthroposophists, few people have even heard of, let alone consider to be notable cultural contributions - you'd have quite a bit more work to do.DianaW 02:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The third source, the Green Money Journal, gives a link to this journal's web site. Could someone point me to where the specific laudatory quote about RSF is to be found there? It's very interesting that there's as yet no article on wikipeida on the Rudolf Steiner Foundation. Nobody's had time yet, or is there some reason?DianaW 02:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

From perusing their web site, I'm guessing the answer to this is that "RSF" wishes to downplay the connection to Steiner, much the way Kentucky Fried Chicken started calling themselves "KFC" to direct people's attention away from a word that had a bad connotation ("fried").DianaW 03:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Links to the GLS site document the basic facts about the bank only. You are correct that the Green Money Journal quote is not correctly cited; the correct citation has been re-added.

You think that the Rudolf Steiner Foundation is trying to avoid being associated with Rudolf Steiner? Boy, they must be dumb, then; their name is cited prominently in all their publicity material and all the articles about them. Send them an email to point this out...or is this the old Scarlet Letter trick?? Hgilbert 11:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's exactly what I think. The web site buries the actual name "Rudolf Steiner" on an internal page, several paragraphs into their mission statement. It is the acronym "RSF" that features prominently on their materials, not the name "Rudolf Steiner."DianaW 13:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"their name is cited prominently in all their publicity material and all the articles about them." All *what* articles about them? That was my point. It seems a strange omission on wikipedia, given the thoroughness with which other anthroposophical projects have been advertised here. I'm guessing someone at the foundation asked you not to put them on wikipedia - the association hurts rather than helps them raise money.DianaW 13:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL Hgilbert 08:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You've got reason to laugh, I know, as long as you keep getting away with promoting your movement by stealth. The fact is that the name "Rudolf Steiner" does NOT feature prominently on the Rudolf Steiner Foundation's publicity materials. Isn't that interesting? Skeptics should ask why.DianaW 12:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I urge readers to visit that site.

http://wwwrsfsocialfinance.org

I would love to hear or be shown a page on that site where the name Rudolf Steiner figures prominently. I see it in tiny, grayed out letters at the bottom of the pages; I see him described as a "social philosopher" on the mission page in paragraph 4. I see no explanation of the connection of his movement or his ideas to the foundation. I see no mention of anthroposophy or threefolding. This very small example sums up the way this movement is working today and summarizes the gray areas in their ethics. The nonsense over at the "right livelihood" page is a similar situation. The connection to Steiner is buried. The song and dance can go on late into the night with the vigilant Steiner watchdogs here, making sure the controversial stuff stays buried.DianaW 12:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Every single page of the site states clearly "Inspired by the work of Rudolf Steiner" at the bottom. The text is clear to read, it's just not in your face. In addition, the website includes a mission statement that clearly states "RSF is inspired by the insights of Rudolf Steiner, an innovative and far-reaching social philosopher of the early 20th century. He encouraged human beings to practice self-knowledge in order to rise above materialism and to take responsibility for the condition of the world."
You may wish that they made a huge deal about this - then you could call it promotion and adulation of Steiner. They are an independent organization, clearly not hiding the fact that they have been inspired by Steiner's ideas about social finance and social responsibility, as well as his larger philosophy. Hgilbert 13:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hgilbert: "Every single page of the site states clearly "Inspired by the work of Rudolf Steiner" at the bottom." LOL! Horsesh** Hgilbert. It is in the tiniest possible letters, grayed out. You do not operate under good faith here; you understand as well as I do that his name and his beliefs are deliberately downplayed at that web site. It is, indeed, the same reason Kentucky Fried Chicken started calling itself KFC.DianaW 17:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Following debates here is enlightening. Went and looked over the RSF web-site. This is an organization that may have started in Anthroposophy, but isn't stuck in it. Examples: board members include "Diane Bourdo has been a trustee since 2001. She is president of The Humphreys Group, a wealth management firm that she joined in 1989." and "Sara Ellis Conant became a trustee in 2006. She is a senior consultant with Deloitte Consulting and specializes in assisting clients to identify their core values and make them operational" and "Mark Retzloff became a trustee in 2006. He is the co-founder, President, Chief Organic Officer and board member for Aurora Organic Dairy, an organic company, which initiated production in 2004. In 1969, while a student at the University of Michigan, he co-founded Eden Foods" and "Jessica Crolick Rolph became a trustee in 2006. She is founding partner and COO of HAPPYBABY, a start-up company that produces and markets fresh-frozen, all organic baby and toddler meals" of course some members of the Board have waldorf school connections, but these are very successful, people, alternative, yes. In addition, of the organizations that RSF is helping out with either loans, or grants, many are clearly not anthroposophical at all, not even slightly. Here are a few: American Friends Service Committee, Anna Lappé for Grub Campaign, CARE, Co-op America, Cross Cultural Journeys Foundation, Doctors Without Borders. Certainly, many grant recipients and/or loan recipients are anthroposophical organizations, but RSF isn't pretending anything as far as I can see. They walk their talk quite impressively! MinorityView 00:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The size and coloring are similar for basic links or information that appears at the bottom of many institutions' websites, e.g. CNN, where they are, I suppose, being disappointingly "hush-hush" about the fact that their material is copyrighted, and about their connection to the Time-Warner company. Or Empire Blue Cross, who are, I guess, "deliberately downplaying" the nature of their services. Etc., etc. Hgilbert 15:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
DianaW it seems to me that you are straining on this one to find something negative to say. MinorityView 20:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Source?

One sentence in the article says:

"He wrote that he had direct experience of the Akashic Records (sometimes called the "Akasha Chronicle"), ..."

While RS wrote about the AC as if he could experience it, I don't remember ever reading that he stated or wrote something like "hey guys, I have direct experiece of the AC". So, can anyone provide a source for the quoted statement in the article? Otherwise it needs to be corrected in accordance with a source (Steiner himself needed). Thanks, Thebee 11:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

believed and demonstrated

RookZERO: An attribution to a source should be faithful to that source. Schneider states that Steiner demonstrated this, not that he believed this. Please read the source before modifying! Also: when Lindenberg states something, it is inaccurate to say that Steiner says this. Hgilbert 00:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Relevance tag in applications section

I have marked questionable sections in Applications with a relevance tag. This includes 3.7 Organizational development and biography work; 3.8 Banking; 3.9 Speech and drama 3.10 and Other areas. I did not move medicine or architecture under relevance dispute because I think the tie to anthroposophy is made clear in the article.

  1. I do not even understand what application 3.7 "Organizational/biographical development" is. In order for it to be notable at wp it needs references. What kind work it means needs to be described if it stays.
  2. 3.8 Banking needs a reference to claim. Also if it is relevant to anthroposophy the article needs to say how.
  3. 3.9 Speech and drama - has a source of tie of M Chekov to anthroposophy but this article does not explain what is characteristic or significant about anthroposophoc styled speech and drama.
  4. 3.10 Other - Flow forms references do not give relevance to anthroposophy.significance of others listed not clear (phenomona of science, painting and sculture). Better referances needed to show relevance, and relevance should be described if it stays in article. Other wise it is just a list without information about relevance of the items in the list.Venado 14:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the "other" sections are extremely brief (that's why they are grouped under other!). However, citations are already provided demonstrating their relevance and connection with anthroposophy. We could and should aim to expand these sections (and speech and drama) somewhat, as sources allow, but this has nothing to do with their neutrality of point of view. The sections on banking and organizational/biographical development have been modified to clarify; is this sufficient? A full account of any of these would require a small article of its own. Hgilbert 13:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Flowform/Society for Cancer Research

I have found several independent referances showing Flowform tie to anthroposophy and will use them to try to improve that discussion. It is not a problem about NPOV because the refs show it is anthroposophy and notable, just the article here did not say this well. Venado 00:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You guys are to be congratulated for the dirty war you fought getting rid of Pete (and believe me, I know I'd be in your sights next if I were stupid enough to try to take you on again). You are a phenomenon. I can't help but say I admire your determination, and it is amazing to see just where your zeal will carry you. Just glancing through this article shows all manner of tricks going on. I merely glanced at the "Flowforms" information. Ref. 36 is a completely bogus reference, completely unacceptable by any wikipedia standard. Then my eye was caught by the confused mishmash that is presented in regard to mistletoe therapy. You have actually included a reference (26) that describes Rudolf Steiner as "founder of the Society for Cancer Research"!DianaW 03:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The sections are clearly aspects of anthroposophical work. This needs to be clarified in the article in some cases. The flowform source is of excellent quality in terms of its content, but it's not apparent who authored it or if its been published, etc. I would go for keeping due to the exceptional nature (video clips of flowforms in action, academic-quality text)...what do others think?
Is there a reason to think that Steiner did not found a Society for Cancer Research? The source for this is a Canadian provincial governmental health agency for cancer. Hgilbert 11:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Hgilbert, forgive me if this is too personal, but is it your belief that Rudolf Steiner founded a Society for Cancer Research? Again, I will have nothing further to say on this point. You and I both know that Rudolf Steiner never founded nor participated in research on cancer in the sense that an encyclopedia reader will take such copy to refer. We are not writing the Akashic Record here Hgilbert -the information is not supposed to be coded for esotericists but for the average reader of an encyclopedia. You are clearly quite aware on reading such material that the source contains an error, probably just someone's misunderstanding, but of course you are now going to insist that because it is apparently a Canadian government web site, there is no reason we need worry about this slight discrepancy in fact. I merely feel the need periodically to point out here for the benefit of others who can see that this material is contentious, that they should view your participation here with a certain skepticism.DianaW 11:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Hgilbert: "The flowform source is of excellent quality in terms of its content, but it's not apparent who authored it or if its been published, etc." You don't say. "I would go for keeping due to the exceptional nature (video clips of flowforms in action, academic-quality text)...what do others think?" I think the rules change frequently around here, don't they? Suddenly "academic-quality text" is your standard LOL. Don't I recall an argument with you here that Peter Staudenmaier's writing can't be included because "he doesn't have a PhD" and because on some forum somewhere, he signed "peter" without a capital letter?DianaW 11:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I never complained about his non-standard name-signature; ee cummings is one of my favorite poets. Controversial material needs nonpolemical, independent sources. Non-controversial material should be of as high quality, of course, but there are fewer restrictions on its provenance. In any case, I have discovered the author of what I claimed to be an "academic-quality text"; it is co-written by (and appears on the website of) a professor who "received [his] Ph.D. in Computer Science from Imperial College London, and served as a senior and then principal scientist of the Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Unit of the Royal Brompton Hospital prior to assuming his current full-time academic post and becoming head of the Visual Information Processing (VIP) Group, Department of Computing, Imperial College in 1999." The second author is a doctor at Imperial College, London and a specialist in Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance at the National Heart and Lung Institute. This qualifies them by any standard, and I have added the authors' names to the reference. Hgilbert 13:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Hgilbert, I'll play ball. "No, I never complained about his non-standard name-signature; ee cummings is one of my favorite poets." So maybe you'd prefer Peter confined himself to poetry. Either you or Venado stated that his signature "peter" on some internet forum disqualified him as a source here. (It was probably a typo, as I think he usually does use a capital "P," but whatever.) The situation was exactly analogous to what is going on here with the flow-forms: you were trying to show that, despite the probable excellent academic qualifications and academic-quality text of the author in question, the nature of the web site where the material we were discussing was posted made the material itself, and the author himself, unacceptable as a wiki-source. You are now trying to claim the precise opposite for a source you would like to include here: that the fact that the author(s) of the page (according to you; not clear how you determined this) have demonstrably excellent professional qualifications means we should overlook the fact that the material you would like to cite is not, by any means, an academic article. Nor is it, by the way, "academic quality." It is a page describing their personal interests in flow-forms. In other words, it is stuff they're apparently interested in. There are no academic papers, cited here or elsewhere, showing any effects or uses of "flow forms" other than as pretty fountains - which I agree that they are, by the way. Something is not an "academic quality text" just because its author is an academic; academics write all kinds of things that aren't academic. If Kilner and whatever the other guy's name is had written academic papers on flow forms, I'm sure you'd be citing them here. (I looked quickly and don't find any.)
And Steiner's contributions as a "cancer researcher"? We're going to drop that question and hope it goes away?
By the way, you need to check into the meaning of "polemical." You use it without understanding, as a stick to beat someone with.DianaW 01:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the two authors wrote a book on the subject of the heart, including a section correlating its form and function with flow-forms. If we ever write an article on flow-forms, it will surely be cited. The efficacy of mistletoe therapy, Steiner's chief contribution to cancer prevention, is documented in many medical journals; I have cited these elsewhere.Hgilbert 12:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to ask you again, by the way, Hgilbert. Is it your belief that Rudolf Steiner founded a Society for Cancer Research?DianaW 01:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
In (Feb.) 2004, Peter S., that you seem to argue for as a reliable source on anthroposophy, in a public discussion commented on his writings on anthroposophy:
"I am very critical of the academic realm and the stultifying conception of objectivity that is so often associated with it. That is one of the main reasons I have avoided an academic career so far and remained an independent scholar (...); one of my goals is to move historical discussions out of the academic realm so that non-academics can participate in them. My published work on anthroposophy is not objective in the sense I think you mean, and no competent reader could mistake it for such."
Not a very good source, even in his own words. Thebee 09:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
And in (May) 2001, again in his own words:
"My articles on anthroposophy are indeed polemical".
According to the main arbitrator, Mr. Bauder, polemical sources are to be considered unreliable. A closer check of P.S.' writings against the sources he claims to describe repeatedly also reveal what he writes to be unreliable. As such he's not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles on or related to anthroposophy. Thebee 09:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem is you aren't the "competent reader" to whom he refers, and don't understand the passage you like quoting so much. A few tiny hints: There are many academics who are critical of the academic realm, and it doesn't make them not academics. (It doesn't work like anthroposophy, where you can't criticize it and still be part of it.) There are people who avoid academic careers only to later pursue them, and vice versa. Quite a substantial number of academics pursue academic careers at the same time as a variety of other interests, or publish in other venues or write for other audiences. Nor is academic writing always objective nor intended to be, but that's another matter. Peter Staudenmaier has indeed obviously "moved historical discussions out of the academic realm" on many occasions. Nothing about this is relevant to our discussion here or to whether any of his writings are appropriate wikipedia sources. And though I've tried to explain this to the AWE squad a number of times, with little hope of you understanding, quoting the passage above does not convey the negative impression fo Peter Staudenmaier that you apparently think it does. It seems you think these remarks cast him somehow in a poor light, but many thinking readers will take something quite different from them than you do. (It may be that what confuses you is that I think he really means them.)DianaW 10:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Hgilbert wrote: "Actually, the two authors wrote a book on the subject of the heart, including a section correlating its form and function with flow-forms. If we ever write an article on flow-forms, it will surely be cited. The efficacy of mistletoe therapy, Steiner's chief contribution to cancer prevention, is documented in many medical journals; I have cited these elsewhere." Hm, missed this. You wandered into irrelevancies, of course, and ignored the larger point. It is very interesting that a certain two authors wrote a book on the subject of the heart, including a section "correlating" its form and function with flow-forms: or it might be if you had the slightest idea what you are talking about. I guess I could ask you to cite the book, but it is not the point. The original reference you cited was thoroughly bogus. The fact is these authors have a web site with pictures of some fountains on it. If you do indeed have a source that is "academic quality" for the flow-forms material, I suggest you add it. Mistletoe? You continue to deliberately mislead people. You are well aware that mistletoe is not a proven effective cancer remedy. You and I discussed this thoroughly on the critics list a couple of years ago. You accused me of "misquoting" medical literature. When I asked you to demonstrate what I had misquoted, you ceased replying, and were not heard from again. This is documented with great thoroughness in the archives there: a substantial and very detailed analysis of material that you misunderstood was provided. Yet you are here citing the same misinformation, deliberately, surely aware now that it is wrong. It is *extremely* morally wrong to suggest to people that mistletoe will cure their cancer. And anytime you'd like to comment on the notion that Rudolf Steiner founded a "society for cancer research," and how you can defend keeping a source containing this falsehood in the article - I'm still listening.DianaW 02:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Material published on websites of academics who have published in their field is considered verifiable. Mistletoe research is well-documented in established medical journals; I gave about 10 citations previously. A Canadian governmental health source is acceptable by any standard. Ita Wegman founded the society; this is irrelevant to the article, which does not refer to this question at all (red herring). Hgilbert 11:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
"Material published on websites of academics who have published in their field is considered verifiable." No, that is not always the case. It depends on what the material is and what you are attempting to document by it. The flow form pictures on that web site document nothing other than the fact that these two authors are interested in this. Fergie was correct that you are just throwing stuff out that is supposed to make anthroposophy look cool and productive and all good stuff - the citations document nothing other than the fact that flow forms exist and some anthroposophists are interested in them (which I'd have to agree with you isn't disputed). "Mistletoe research is well-documented in established medical journals; I gave about 10 citations previously." Weasel words, "mistletoe research is well documented." Of course it has been researched, but the findings are not good. It is a fact some people have researched it, but there are absolutely no results of research showing it to be an effective cancer treatment - none. Your misunderstandings were long since explained to you - and there have been no findings in the I think 2 years that have elapsed since then. Your argumentation is disingenuous. MISTLETOE DOESN'T CURE CANCER, or probably even help - there is no citation that would show this. There are even some findings connecting it to earlier relapse in those with incurable cancers! We could have an edit war about it, but I don't have time. In this particular area, I think what you are doing is despicable, and there's no excuse.DianaW 13:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Banking

I am blamed for causing more confusion about dispute of this banking section. Is Rudolf Steiner Foundation self evident anthroposophy or is that disputed. The Triodos Bank and GLS needs reference that it is anthroposophic. The GLS sentence reference shows self claim to be first anthroposopic bank. Is that disputed? If it is dispute to it needs independent reference. Also the quote "one of 10 best" now is given to both Co-Op america and Social Investment Forum Foundation. Even though quote is from independent source (but probably not said by two agencies) is it to promotional to quote for encyclopedia?Venado 14:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Not every single statement in an encyclopedia article needs a citation. It would be possible to provide these for generally accepted and readily checkable information, such as that Triodos Bank is an anthroposophic bank; I would discourage this and reserve citations for when they are really useful and needed. Compare usage in other articles, and in other encyclopedias or reference works. Hgilbert 16:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree the Steiner articles are already more full than average WP of citations but a citation is usually the only resolution for when there is this kind of dispute. Items in "Applications" were disputed as having not anything to do with anthroposophy and that was given as a reason to keep NPOV tag. All tagged articles need to be echecked out and the tags removed.that's the purpose of the tag, a notice for cleanup.Venado 16:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Stealthy editing and censoring of talk page

I added the following comments to this talk page on May 19. They seem to have been removed. Material that is much older than May 19 remains, so there was no call to remove my comments, other than, as I suggest below, careful image management on the part of anthroposophists. Gentle hint: this is the same point Fergie is making. —The preceding comment is by DianaW (talk • contribs) 03:31, 23 June 2007 : Please sign your posts!

Karma and Reincarnation . . . are central topics in anthroposophy. Why has all mention of two central beliefs in anthroposophy been removed from this article? The only mention of reincarnation is a derisive reference to Annie Besant which reads as if Steiner would have had no use for such nonsense LOL. Why don't the anthroposophists who control this article want to explain their belief system fully and clearly?DianaW 02:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I added a short description including reincarnation and karma on this page. Erdanion 06:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Big improvement. Who'd like to take bets on whether it'll be there a month from now? (Anthroposophists control this page and fought determined battles to keep it that way.)DianaW 11:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The karma section has not been changed. This talk topic was resolved. Venado 13:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

False accusation of censorship of talk page

Some facts On 19 May, Diana W in violation of the rules for contributions to discussions at talks pages, as part of her and Pete's anti-Waldorf and anti-anthroposophy jihad here at Wikipedia since last year, added the comments she mentions, not in its proper place at the bottom of the talks page, but at the top of the page.

When the discussion from the period 8 December 2006 - 20 March 2007 was archived on 25 May 2007 as Archive 4 by Lkleinjans, he does not seem to have noticed the irregular out of order postings by Diana, put by her at the top of the page instead at the bottom of it on 19 May, and they got archived together with the earlier discussion.

No malintent or intent of censorship was probably involved on the part of Lkleinjans in this removal of what Diana W wrote on 19 May, just her own irregular positioning of her POV pushing by putting it at the top of the discussion instead of - like mostly everyone else - putting it at the bottom of the discussion. In a second step, this then now makes her describe this standard way of archiving discussions as "censoring of talk page".

Have the addition on the issue or reincarnation and karma as part of the section "Human being: body, soul and spirit" been removed as part of a by Diana implied control and general "censorship" of the article by "anthroposophists"? No. Thebee 11:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL - then how come even older material that was similarly located didn't get archived at the same time? Oh, you had to quickly take care of "jihadists" posting here I guess. Jihad Mr. Bee, really now, you ought to watch this sort of thing if you are truly concerned about anthroposophy's reputation, accusing your critics of "jihad" is just slightly over the top, no?DianaW 11:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Jihadists at Wikipedia. No good. Personally, with regard to critics in one or other form of WE and anthrop, I'd reserve the term for you and Pete. Take it as a compliment to your 100% dedication to your self chosen task. Thebee 10:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
And, once again, you are very concerned about "position" on the talk page, and "violation" of rules (rules as to what to post where on the talk page!!), but you have little to say about substantive criticisms. Just busy compiling "violations" on other people as usual.DianaW 11:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
There is an automatic archive bot for sections that have not been changed recently; check with the bot-master to find out how this works, or in the article history to see its actions. Unfortunately, there is no automatic removal bot for personal attacks. Please avoid these. Hgilbert 11:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Drop it Hgilbert. Your attitude toward critics here is abominable, and nobody's fooled by your scolding other people about their manners.DianaW 11:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I suppose accusing people who disagree with you of "jihad" won't count as a "personal attack"? My complaining about material moving around on the talk page is a "personal attack," though yes?DianaW 12:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
This talk page is for issues users have about the article not attacks about each other. Venado 13:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience and Paranormal categories

I have not seen any sources put forward to support the placement of the anthroposophy article in the Pseudoscience or Paranormal categories. The latter category was just placed on this article. Perhaps I have missed the sources that were proposed?? The one proposed source, the Hansson article does not pass the stricter requirements from the arbitration that "authors, who have worked actively in a public capacity in organizations, on an ideological basis strongly critical of Waldorf education and anthroposophy, be considered as unreliable sources with regard to controversial issues in relation to Waldorf education and anthroposophy." I earlier suggested there might be sources to support the Pseudoscience category but none has been proposed, and now I would like to ask also for a source that supports the Paranormal category, an authoritative source that states that anthroposophy is either pseudoscience or paranormal. Otherwise putting this article in either category is original research. Until such a source is provided, I think it is appropriate to remove these categories. Perhaps User:Northmeister can cite a source that supports adding the Paranormal category. Merci bien, EPadmirateur 02:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC).

I agree. My mistake. Regards - --Northmeister 03:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

By unknown person proposed deletion of article

Someone, not easy to identify, has proposed the deletion of the article. The proposition, found in the section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthroposophy#The_Christ_as_the_center_of_earthly_evolution cites a quote from a lecture by Steiner, found here on the internet, and put in the article by someone. Except for this quote from the lecture, by the main founder of anthroposophy, the proposal does not give any other specific motivation for the proposed deletion. It would be easier to understand this if the one proposing it identified him- or herself, and referred to a more specific policy violation, that would motivate the proposed deletion. If that is not given here in a day or two by the one who has suggested the deletion, I'll remove the proposal. Thanks, Thebee 13:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone, not identified by the article history, put the proposal into the article earlier today. Now, someone (probably) else, also not identified by the page history, has removed the proposal. Anyone knows how to trace the people taking the different actions? Thanks, Thebee 15:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you still go to the page that shows the delete message? Only with administrator privileges can edits be bloocked from sight in history. It was maybe something else that you think you saw. Venado 16:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
You mean you don't believe what I write above in this section, because you don't see it for yourself any more, and do not find (neither any addition registration at the history page, nor) any delete message either telling about what I describe ;-? Thebee 21:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record, I happened to still have the page in one Firefox window, though it was deleted at Wikipedia. I made a Print Scrn of the screen, and have put it as a picture here. I've also put the htm-version of the article, as it was saved by Firefox to my HD here. It contains a number of interwiki links, that did not tell much about the originator of the suggestion for deletion. Thebee 16:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Counsellors

An anon. user has added a particular path of counselling based upon anthroposophy. Do we want to include such particulars? Is this one notable? Hgilbert 16:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I have shortened the counseling section; training centers should not be listed individually in the article's body, just main approaches, and these briefly. Notability should also be established through citations to third-party sources. We should create a sub-article on "anthroposophic counseling" if we want to include more detail.Hgilbert 17:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the Sophia College of Counselling in Australia is extensive in their course offerings and trained counsellors, so I have added mention of their "holistic counselling" approach and a link. EPadmirateur 19:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Mistletoe

Hgilbert, let's try this one more time. Research on mistletoe is largely negative. The American Cancer Society says:

"A number of laboratory experiments suggest mistletoe may have the potential to treat cancer, but these results have not yet been reflected in clinical trials. Available evidence from well-designed clinical trials that have studied mistletoe did not support claims that mistletoe could improve length or quality of life." http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Mistletoe.asp

The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine says:

"Laboratory studies have found that mistletoe kills cancer cells and stimulates the immune system. The use of mistletoe to treat cancer has been studied in Europe in more than 30 clinical trials. Although improvements in survival or quality of life have been reported, almost all of the trials had major weaknesses in their design that raise doubts about the findings. For example, many of the studies had a small number of participants or did not have a control group. NCCAM is sponsoring a clinical trial of mistletoe, given in combination with the drug gemcitabine, for cancer. The study will look at toxicity, safety, and immune system effects of mistletoe extract when combined with this chemotherapy drug."

http://nccam.nih.gov/health/eurmistletoe/

I am guessing you don't understand what a laboratory study is versus a clinical trial. Something that "kills cancer cells" in the laboratory is not a proven cancer treatment or even necessarily a promising thing to test - in *most* cases it is not. Something that stimulates the immune system can as well cause growth of cancer cells as kill them. The NCCAM is your best bet - these are folks who really do want to find a clinical effect if there is one, and they have not. Indeed they are sponsoring a clinical trial, but I am guessing you do not understand what the trial is testing (even though I have explained this to you in detail on other occasions). It is not looking at mistletoe's efficacy as a cancer treatment. The study is confined to "toxicity, safety and immune system effects" of mistletoe WHEN COMBINED with an already proven effective actual cancer drug (gemcitabine). In other words, they are trying to determine if it is worthwhile or actually downright dangerous for patients on gemcitabine to take mistletoe on top of it. There is no expectation there that the mistletoe will turn out to cure the cancer. (It would probably be unethical to run such a trial, for conditions that do have remedies of proven efficacy.) These trials are often designed in the hopes of finding clear contraindications to use of an alternative remedy, so that patients can be dissuaded from taking things that may be actually hurting them rather than helping (diluting the effectiveness of the pharmaceutical, increasing its toxicity etc.)DianaW 14:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Guess away. In Europe, especially Germany, there have been extensive clinical trials of mistletoe and it has become a widely accepted therapy. The USA is still conducting first trials. See the list of references I posted last time this came up for more information. Hgilbert 19:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Cite some of those trial here then - the ones that show efficacy of mistletoe as human cancer treatment. Any language will do, but it needs to be a trial that shows efficacy of mistletoe in treating human cancers. Also, please give the details of the trial (you use the plural, but just one would be nice) that you state is being conducted in the USA - the trial(s) that test(s) mistletoe as *human cancer treatment* - not the one trial that is apparently testing the safety, toxicity etc. of mistletoe administered in conjunction with gemcitabine.DianaW 20:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
What needs to happen here is not that you refer me for "more information." I don't need more information. You need to get honest about the fact that there aren't any trials showing efficacy; what you're doing here is deeply unethical.DianaW 20:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd still be interested in seeing even one of these supposed "extensive clinical trials" cited here, Hgilbert. You've had the better part of a month and have not provided a citation. My guess is you still haven't actually figured out what a clinical trial is.DianaW 15:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
DianaW to HGilbert:
"My guess is you still haven't actually figured out what a clinical trial is"
Looks like something intended as an insult. Right?
Thebee 16:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

So you have the citation, then Bee?DianaW 19:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There are extensive citations in the article Anthroposophic medicine in the mistletoe section, and have been for a long time:Mistletoe studies: PMID 3409209, 1990 study, PMID 8067703, PMID 9179366, 1981 study, PMID 9042260, PMID 16101142, and for background: PMID 10550903. - for a start. An editor chopped up the article, making it difficult to realize that the citations so applied. Hgilbert 13:38, 29 July 2007

There are not extensive citations showing the efficacy of mistletoe in human cancer treatment - there are none. Not a single one you cite above shows that. What is this, smoke and mirrors?DianaW 01:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not letting you off the hook here. Please tell us which of the above studies shows efficacy (or even tests efficacy) of mistletoe in human cancer treatment, and give the quote(s) from the article or the abstract that say what the effect was in human cancer treatment.DianaW 22:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the section is now at Anthroposophic medicine and the discussion belongs there.
Second of all, the National Cancer Institute says the following, which is accurately summarized in the article:

"Have any clinical trials (research studies with people) been conducted using mistletoe?

Clinical trials using mistletoe to treat cancer have been done in Europe with unclear results. Most study results have been published in German. Although many of these trials have reported mistletoe to be effective, there are major weaknesses in almost all that raise doubts about their findings. Weaknesses have included small numbers of patients, incomplete patient data, lack of information about mistletoe dose, and problems with study design.

Much research about using mistletoe to treat cancer has focused on its effects on the immune system. Although there is evidence that mistletoe can boost the immune system, there is no evidence that this enhanced immunity helps the body to fight cancer cells.

The National Cancer Institute's PDQ clinical trials database contains protocol abstracts for clinical studies of mistletoe as a treatment for cancer.[1] " Hgilbert 15:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an improvement, though we apparently have to be satisfied with an implicit admission that you do not have a clinical trial showing efficacy of mistletoe in human cancer treatment. It took a few weeks to get you to even implicitly acknowledge this, didn't it? this is what we are up against here - disingenuousness and fanaticism. "See the NCI web site for more information" - how many weeks did you go on repeating evasive stuff like this before admitting I was right? ANYTHING to suggest to the public that anthroposophy is benevolent, useful, productive, beneficial to society, perhaps even full of miracles. Unfortunately there are no studies showing efficacy of mistletoe in human cancer treatment. The last sentence above is still disingenuous; Hgilbert fails to note that abstracts for all these studies that one can go read about on the NCI's web site . . . don't show any efficacy. He's hoping to at least still convey the impression that all kinds of exciting research is going on here which will perhaps bear wonderful fruit any day. The entire effort is dishonest. It reeks. It is wrong to mislead cancer sufferers out of the vain hope it will bring more new believers to your movement. Have you had a family member or loved one suffer cancer? Anthroposophy has no cancer remedy.DianaW 02:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I requested citations for the alleged "extensive clinical trials" showing efficacy of this anthroposophical remedy in human cancer treatment on 2 July, 30 July, and 17 August. As of 29 September there has been no reply. I repeat that to mislead cancer patients in this way, in order to promote a cult and a guru, is wrong, and one of many things this cult should be held answerable for to the public.DianaW 19:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the article, you'll find that there is no reference to these; in fact, the whole mistletoe section has been relegated to the Anthroposophic Medicine page, where relevant studies are cited. Hgilbert 20:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Automatic archiving of talk page

Would folks here like that? the miszabot can archive sections that have been idle for a set number of days (users discretion, I would suggest 30 days). There are a number of old discussion here that seem to be mostly either settled or not relevant to the article. any objections? --Rocksanddirt 18:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. Hgilbert 21:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I set it up. The miszabot leaves 5 sections on the talk page, to give a flavor to those who come to check it out. The latest stuff is in archive5. --Rocksanddirt 19:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Science and spirit

This subsection needs a bit more content.Hgilbert 10:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarification needed

In the third paragraph of the History section, Besant is introduced abruptly; her presence needs explaining, and her name linked. Rosa Lichtenstein 11:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Done Hgilbert 13:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ing bank buildings in Amsterdam: there are two

Two remarkable Ing bank buildings are located in Amsterdam. There is one in the Bijlmer suburb and one south of the centre. Which one is meant? Andries (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The Bijlmer building.Hgilbert (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments by sock puppet of banned user PeteK; saved for historical interest

Steiner's ideas were RACIST. Even Anthroposophists agreed in the famous Dutch Commission Report. Any indication of that here? What NONSENSE this article is. Have you people no SHAME? This article is a WHITEwash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.28.97.170 (talk • contribs)

Oddly enough, critics of Steiner fought against the inclusion of this report, which - though it didn't actually say that his ideas were racist - did say that a number of his statements were tendentious enough to be prosecutable under present-day Dutch law. (Of course, the report also pointed out that he made many statements criticizing ethnic and racial prejudices and promoting egalitarian ideas. The reality is complex enough.)
In any case, Wikipedia arbitrators laid out clear rules for citable material in this regard; it must be unpolemical and peer-reviewed. If you have such sources, we can make use them here. Hgilbert (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The idea that he wasn't as much of a racist as Hitler somehow excuses him from his own racism is just silly. Why twist his views in this way for the article. It's obviously a whitewash. Why? Have you actually read any Steiner. If you have, you can't deny this article is blatant in its pro-Steiner slant. He wanted Jewish culture extinguished - and for Jews to give up even their way of thinking. Why not mention that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.28.155.148 (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
BTW, what is this about "critics of Steiner". Just print the TRUTH. Why divide into camps. Geez... how immature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.28.155.148 (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


The above comments, curiously, are from two IP addresses located in the same geographical area as banned user PeteK, and read much like his contributions. Perhaps that's just a coincidence. In any case, dear Defender of the Truth, please review Wikipedia's policies on verification and sourcing and provide references to back up your surely significant view. Hgilbert (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, what's the procedure for checking whether a banned user is posting anonymously? Can WP stop someone posting anonymously? Or under a different user name? --EPadmirateur (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
See sock puppetry, which includes any use of an alternate access name/IP address in order to contribute without being recognized or "to avoid scrutiny". Hgilbert (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I guess the procedure is detailed at WP:Suspected_sock_puppets#Reporting_suspected_sock_puppets -- looks pretty complicated to make a case. The first rule is to assume good faith. Merci, EPadmirateur (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
If the IP's stick to the talk page with complaints, I'd rather WP:AGF than bother with a sockpuppert or checkuser investigation. And if the IP's know of some sort of reliable source to back up the hitler claims....that would likely get these articles the sort of mileage the hundreds and thousands of myspace bands filling up wp's deleted articles cache would kill for. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, way to change the subject guys! Feels like Waldorf kindergarten. Steiner's own words aren't a "reliable" source? WAKE UP! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.65.53 (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

These IPs are confirmed to be Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Pete_K socks of User:Pete_K who is topic-banned from both the article space and talk space. Article talk pages aren't for soapboxing about the topic, so feel free to delete or strike-thru comments which fit that description. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)