User talk:Geneisner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Image:Tom Paxton.jpg

Update:

I got a message from Tom Paxton, and he said that it was OK for Wiki to use the picture of him. Here's the message:

"Tell the Wikipedia guys the use of the picture is fine. They should credit Irene Young. Tom"

Geneisner 06:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sri Poopy-Poopy

I'm still kinda ticked off that Wiki censored the Cult of Sri Poopy-Poopy article. It's not the only absurdist religion out there, ya know. Haha! Heck, it's probably one of the truest ones of them all.

http://www.angelfire.com/indie/sripoopypoopy/

[edit] Work of Rudolf Steiner

Hi! I noticed you had a number of questions about Steiner articles and the tone of them. Due to this bit of unpleasantess anything involving the work of Steiner is subject to some more stern sourcing requirements than the general encyclopedia. Don't be scared off the subject, most of the involved editors have learned and settled down. If you have questions, suggestions, or improvements please helpout! --Rocksanddirt 15:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Howdy, and thanks for writing. Well, I certainly don't want to get involved in any Wiki fights, I know how nasty those can get. I really have nothing against Steiner personally, or any of his followers, I just saw some of the articles on him and thought, "gee, there needs to be some more mention of his controversial views." The articles seemed either bland, or to gloss over some of the controversial things. I read a couple of books of his a number of years ago, "How to Know Higher Worlds" and another one, and there were things I remember him saying that made me think, "huh?" I'm a rationalist and a skeptic mostly, but this fellow seemed rational only up to a point and then he stepped beyond that, in my opinion, and wound up in the realm of the "mystical" metaphysical. The person who originally told me about Rudolf Steiner and his views was a nice man to me, but this man was also a bit of a racist too, and he put people of other races down and believed they were inferior, and I think he unfortunately used some of Steiner's racialist views to support his own foolishly outdated concepts and theories.

Nevertheless, I'm at least a little bit interested in funky dudes likes Steiner. Some people think he was a quack and a charlatan who promoted pseudoscience, and some people think he was a wild-eyed believer. Some people think all the above. There are certain things that Steiner says that remind me of the things I've read about the Harmony Society founded by George Rapp (which lasted from around 1805 to 1905, and came from Iptingen, Germany, and settled in the United States with their 700 followers that lived together as a religious community). Rapp was a wild-eyed believer that wanted to create a peaceful religious society on earth. Rapp, and later Steiner, seemingly talked about mystical concepts, such as Sophia (Greek for "wisdom").

Geneisner 20:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No problems! the fighting is pretty much over. There were a few editors who had a very hard time hearing anyone else, but they are mostly not about any longer. Stiener was an odd duck, no doubt. One challenge of working with philosophers (and stiener certainly was one) is that they want people to think, generally. So a lot of his writing was intentionally dense, in addition it is all translated from german. He was also a very prolific writer and speaker, when 6,000 odd lectures and a couple of dozen books on every subject under the sun are produced....of course some of it will be crap. As far as the esoteric stuff...he was all over that stuff.

As far as the articles go, due to the arbitration, lots of potential sources are out of bounds. Both supportive and negative about stiener and his works. And as far as education goes, the controvertial stuff is really minor to the function of a school. --Rocksanddirt 19:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see how the controversial mystical stuff is probably minor to the way that Waldorf schools run today, but I think that the article should still mention the basic esoteric and spiritual fundamentals that Steiner based his ideas upon. As controversial as some of those views might be to some people, they are still an important part of the basis that he used for his views on education (and numerous other things).

You said that "due to the arbitration, lots of potential sources are out of bounds. Both supportive and negative about Steiner and his works." Well, I don't see why his own writings and the accurately documented commentary of others (especially modern day PhDs who have written things on Steiner) would be "out of bounds" for a Wikipedia article. Certainly if someone finds information directly from Steiner's own works, those views expressed accurately in the articles would not be "out of bounds" for Wiki. There's plenty of proof that Steiner believed in mystical and esoteric spirituality, and that he used unproven and unprovable theories to try and justify his views on all types of things, ranging from the unknown paranormal (or, as some might call, pseudoscience), to other things like medicine and education. One needs only to pick up some of Steiner's books and look through them briefly to see that some of his views are "different" and "controversial", to put it mildly; or, as some might even say, "out of left field" (to quote an old baseball saying). From what I can tell, most professional scientists, physicians, educators, scholars, and philosophers these days don't seem to give Steiner's views much notice, importance, or attention. Other than being regarded highly by his small group of current followers, it seems Steiner is mainly regarded as another peculiar and eccentric curio from an earlier era. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, therefore one would hope that it would have accurate information on the topics that it covers. That's all I'm trying to say. Geneisner 21:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the "anti-waldorf" folks from before objected to anything that was published by an "anthroposophical" publisher (books, magazines, journals, websites, everything). As a source for the educational program, much of Stieners actual writings are not terribly relevant. Sure he had lots of beliefs and thoughts about stuff (many of which are mystical in nature), but as far as what he said about the process of running a school, and the nature and education of children....it's pretty much all referenced and used in the article. As far as PhD theses written more recently on waldorf education, they are either published by an anthroposphical press, not in english (though folks have worked with translations), or so full of poor research and misatribution of what the education is about as to be worthless. There is a real potential for the work of stiener to become a wikipedia WP:walled garden and not relate to the outside world much. In a similar vein, Maria Montessori's educational philosophy is a bit weak on her motivations and unprovable theories as well, but I don't know enough (or really have time enough) to research that and fix it up.

I fully hear that an encyclopedia should be as complete as possible, but we are constrained by policies and guidelines (no original research, reliable sources, neutral point of view). --Rocksanddirt 18:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. Well, this issue came up on the Anthroposophical medicine talk page, and when I stated exactly what I said to you above regarding sources, Hgilbert replied, "Steiner's work is complex enough that he may be quoted for support by both sides." Not only that, but if you read the talk page and the article there, you will see there are included a number of the documented issues that I brought up, and we seem to agree they are from accurate and documented sources and should thus be included in the article. That being said, I'm sure such things, regarding Steiner's mystical beliefs regarding education, can and probably should be included in the article regarding his views on education and thus the Waldorf education article. There's no reason why accurate and documented quotes from Steiner can't be used in the Waldorf education article if they can be used in the Steiner article, the Anthroposophy article, and the Anthroposophical medicine article. Why would it be fine to use quotes from Steiner in all those articles, but not in the Waldorf education article? That seems absurd. Geneisner 21:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)