Talk:SEKEM/Archive 1

Sources

This article has no references at all. It is in violation of the arbitration rulings concerning anthroposophy-related articles and has been so for months. If adequate, non-anthroposophical sources are not cited in the next week or so, I will propose it for deletion.DianaW 14:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References have been provided. Hgilbert 00:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but for the most part they violate the arbitration guidelines because they are anthroposophic-internal sources. I know you think most people won't recognize what they are, you forget you're talking to people who do know that "right livelihood," for instance, is an anthroposophical organization. One of the other references is to what appears to be just a talk forum, generally disallowed under wikipedia guidelines (even if it didn't look suspiciously like an anthroposophical talk forum) - it's just a web site where some people are saying that SEKEM is cool. Whatever that organization is, it's founded by the same guy who founded SEKEM. Conveniently, he has a web site praising SEKEM? The business journal reference is the only one that looks potentially legitimate. If you think this article is now well sourced you are seriously kidding yourself.DianaW 02:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge, none of the sources are anthroposophical, with the obvious exception of the book by SEKEM's founder, cited to support a single fact about the organization's structure, and as a source for the organization's motto; I believe that there can be no controversy about either of these, and that this is an appropriate use of such a source! The other five citations are from non-anthroposophical sources, in any case.

Right livelihood's board consists of people drawn from a broad selection of mainstream areas. Why do you believe it is anthroposophical? Hgilbert 16:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"To the best of my knowledge, one of the sources are anthroposophical" - stop right there. Anthroposophical sources are not allowed to source information on the anthroposophical movement - or did you forget? We can dispute the other 3 if you like, but it is just a delaying tactic on your part before I propose deletion of this article and various others. It is not hard to show that the right livelihood thing is an anthroposophical project, and your web of urls that refer back to each other is transparent to people familiar with anthroposophical projects. You obviously hoped this would not be apparent to casual readers who are unfamiliar with the way this group operates - promoting its efforts often without identifying themselves to the public as anthroposophical, giving each other awards, and then writing press releases saying "We've named so-and-so to our board, he's a recipient of the XX award" - an award they gave him! etc. It is really comical, but it isn't going to save this article, it can all be disentangled with a few minutes of googling if you need me to do it. You cite a web site of an organization founded by the same guy who founded SEKEM - praising SEKEM, and this you want to use to reference your article on SEKEM. Hello? You have literally dozens of articles on your hands here, do you want to fight me on every one? Your only hope here is that I have too much else to do with my time.DianaW 17:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article under arbitration? Is it placed under an anthroposophy-related stub? Does Sekem subscribe to all of Steiner's Anthroposophical teachings and tenets? For example, is the school at Sekem a purely- Waldorf system? Does the founder believe that Egypt is a post-Atlantean society (One of Steiner's beliefs)? Does the school teach reincarnation? Or is Abouleish's philosophy influenced by SOME Anthro teachings, ALONG with other Egyptian and even Islamic principles, forming an altogether unique synthesis? Does such a synthesis thereby constitute Anthroposophy? Or is it "Anthroposophical-derived? Does that mean that any publications or literature referencing Sekem are necessarily "Anthroposophical-internal" sources as you've implied?Jemiljan (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only one source here is from an anthroposophical publisher, a book by the founder of SEKEM;
Anthroposophically-published sources are anyway considered reliable sources except in the case of controversial content (in which case third-party reviewed material is preferred); the material here is in no way under dispute.
The above claims that other sites and organizations cited here are somehow tied in with anthroposophy is neither true nor have they been supported by any evidence whatsoever. Hgilbert (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. There is virtually no way I can fight this. Your activities here are safe. But how do you live with yourself? You are well aware that the other sites and organizations cited here are tied with anthroposophy. You are aware that I am aware that you are aware. Have a good evening!DianaW (talk) 02:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diana, Do you have some kind of problem with SEKEM? Or something else? In general, you seem to be perpetrating what is called a "guilt by association" logical fallacy, derived from what I perceive to be your criticisms of perhaps Waldorf, Steiner, and Anthro philosophy. Your criticisms may be viewed as cogent with regard to those areas, but are they really relevant in this particular case?

First off, for the record, I am not, nor have I ever been an Anthroposophist or follower of Steiner. That said, I have lived in Egypt and am very aware from my personal experiences there of the contribution that SEKEM has made as a Social Entrepreneurship enterprise to bringing awareness to, and creatively addressing environmental practices, problems within the prevailing educational system, much less establishing an economic model that has proven very beneficial to Egyptian society in general. Are all social entrepreneurs somehow followers of Steiner? So what if Abouleish has cherry-picked elements of Anthroposophical ideas, together with those of Goethe, Ancient Egypt culture, and even Islam to bring about this model?

If anything, you might be more careful to distinguish these activities as "neo-anthroposophical", or "anthro-derived", but even so, such labels are really very limiting. Then again, why use those labels and not "Neo Egyptian" or "Neo-Islamic"? The fact that Egyptian Muslim Shaykhs scrutinized SEKEM's activities and pronounced them to be in accordance with Islam is hardly something that Anthro organizations, or even Waldorf Schools, are known to seek (at least that I am aware of- perhaps I am wrong?). Hence, I wonder to what extent your comments are really valid with regard to this particular context. Of course, I do wonder if some radical Islamists have attacked them for their ecumenical efforts (I'll have to search in Arabic to find that though).

Finally, rather than criticize the content of the article, much less the contributors, wouldn't it be a far better tactic to find sources that are DIRECTLY pertinent to SEKEM, either supportive or critical, to further enhance this article?Jemiljan (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources cited are:

CSR Europe; their website says:
"CSR Europe is the leading European business network for corporate social responsibility with around 70 multinational corporations and 25 national partner organisations as members. CSR Europe is a platform for: Connecting companies to share best practice on CSR ; Innovating new projects between business and stakeholders; Shaping the modern day business and political agenda on sustainability and competitiveness. The organisation was founded in 1995 by senior European business leaders in response to an appeal by the European Commission President Jacques Delors. It has since grown to become an inspiring network of business people working at the very forefront of CSR across Europe and globally.
IESE Business School
Right Livelihood Award Organization
Journal of World Business
World Future Council

Are you seriously claiming that these are all somehow anthroposophically-based? I know of no basis for this for any of them, and it sounds highly improbable in every case. If you are unable to provide proof, and no one else knows about this connection, how are we to give credence to it? Hgilbert (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hgilbert, is Abouleish's book really an "Anthro" source? Is he really an Anthro? Or Anthro-Inspired, derived, etc? I agree with your reply about the Right Livelihood Award, and I can find nothing to indicate that the founder Jakob von Uexkull is a Steiner follower. On the other hand, it would enhance the article on him , just why the Nobel board rejected his proposals for prizes related to ecology and poverty? Clearly Diana bears the burden of proving that her comments are valid- but that is a discussion for that entry, not here on the SEKEM talk page.

So far, the only criticism of SEKEM that I have found was on the archives of an email list for the website for the organization PLANS dating to 2001, most of which is no longer posted. Furthermore, I would also add that I wonder if it is appropriate to call the SEKEM school a "Waldorf" school, as they do meet the criteria for the Egyptian Ministry of Education, and it would seem do not necessarily teach everything you find a Waldorf School. While I find Waldorf sources that claim that they are a Waldorf School, I am not finding anything so far to indicate that they are anything official so. Is it "Waldorf" per se, or "Waldorf-inspired" or "derived"? Do such derivations still merit the same level of criticism as made of "Waldorf"? One article that I cited from Al-Ahram Weekly mentions the practice of "Eurythmy" in a dramatic production, though I am not certain to what extent this is part of the curriculum, or of it is taught in the same manner as most Waldorf Schools. Is this pure "eurythmy" in the same sense or "Eurythmy-derived"?Jemiljan (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good questions. As for the Abouleish book, the arbitration ruling is based upon whether the publisher has an independent peer review system; the assumption is that anthroposophical publishers do not. At least the English edition of the book was published by an anthroposophical publisher, and based upon the presumption of not being peer-reviewed would not be considered a reliable source for controversial material. It is perfectly acceptable as a source for matters of fact, which is what it is used for here.

I am not sure about the school - to what extent it is Waldorf-inspired, Waldorf, or Waldorf-influenced. You are right that it cultivates a synthesis with Egyptian traditions. Hgilbert (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]