User talk:Clean Copy/Archive3

User talk:Hgilbert

edits to Bee article

Hi. It's important to note that when including a source (be it primary or secondary), that one does not misrepresent the content. The Guardian report you refer to does not, in fact, present ANY claims or statement (at least, not by anyone other that Michael Leidig, the reporter who wrote the article) that indicates that anyone is worried about honey bee extinction in the US or Britain. It is little more than a sensationalist headline; one that is not even supported in the report's own content! As such, this reference DOES NOT support the claim that CCD has stimulated "worries that the honey bee may become extinct in the USA and Britain" - no such claim appears in the report, despite the spoooky title. The only worried person is Mr. Leidig himself, based on that report. You'll note that I still allowed the citation, but instead use it as a source for the phrase "great concern over the nature and extent of the losses." The report DOES show that people are concerned, but it doesn't show that anyone thinks honey bees are facing extinction. I believe you won't find any biologists who actually believe that, because any biologist can tell you that you can't cause extinction in a species which is introduced, and actively being imported every year - Mr. Leidig has no idea, evidently, what the word "extinction" means. He might want to look up the term "extirpation" instead - and even that doesn't apply when there is a steady stream of replacements to take the place of every colony that dies.

Note also that this report's author has further demonstrated incompetence by referring to a statement that Einstein never made, and which has been refuted in numerous sources. Part of being a responsible editor in Wikipedia is understanding WHY there is a Wikipedia policy to stick with reliable sources - not just fulfilling the technical definition, but also understanding that there are elements in the media who are not trustworthy - and Mr. Leidig certainly does not appear to be a trustworthy reporter if he can't even tell a made-up quote from a real one. Allow me to cite the WP:RS policy: Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process. Another relevant quote is Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact. - and Mr. Leidig essentially wrote an opinion piece, drawing his own conclusions based on his personal interpretation of what people were saying. He is not qualified to render such opinions, and citing those opinions is not appropriate. The latter applies also to the interpretation of imidacloprid seed coat studies; saying "have also been shown to negatively impact honey bee populations." is citing a statement of opinion, because there are no studies which have SHOWN such an effect. The authorities are worried that these chemicals MIGHT negatively impact honey bee populations, and I changed the wording of the statement to reflect this, because that is a legitimate representation. Note that this is all discussed in gruesome detail in the Colony Collapse Disorder article, where it is more appropriate. The phrasing there is an accurate representation of the available evidence: "In 2005, a team of scientists led by the National Institute of Beekeeping in Bologna, Italy, found that pollen obtained from seeds dressed with imidacloprid contains significant levels of the insecticide, and suggested that the polluted pollen might cause honey bee colony death." In other words, the only thing they found was insecticide in pollen. They did not SHOW that insecticide in pollen was having any effect on bees, they SUGGESTED that it MIGHT. When you're acting as an editor, it's crucial that no extrapolation takes place; report what was shown and what was said, and allow the readers to decide whether they accept the implied connection. Do I think pesticides might be getting into honey bee colonies this way AND causing problems in those colonies? Yes, they certainly MIGHT be, but until someone actually shows that it's happening, it isn't appropriate to say in Wikipedia that it has been shown. Dyanega (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the complete analysis; I appreciate the revisions you've made to ensure accuracy here. But you are confusing the Guardian report, which says UK farming minister Lord Rooker, however, warned last year that honeybees are in acute danger: "If nothing is done about it, the honeybee population could be wiped out in 10 years," with the Telegraph report by Leidig, which quotes Professor Joergen Tautz from Wurzburg University as saying: It is not a sudden problem, I has been happening for a few years now. Five years ago in Germany there were a million hives, now there are less than 800,000. If that continues there will eventually be no bees. These are quotes from responsible authorities, not merely journalists' sensationalism. Hgilbert (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you did not include the Guardian report - I don't know why I typed "Guardian" above when I meant to write "Telegraph". The quote from Dr. Tautz - an excellent and prominent honey bee researcher - refers to managed honey bee hives, for one, and does not say anything about extinction, for another. We could lose every managed honey bee hive in the world, and Apis mellifera would still not be extinct. There are plenty of wild A. mellifera that no one is counting in the equation, and - as I said elsewhere - I've yet to see any proof that the wild populations (in either the Old World or the new) are suffering the same fate as the managed colonies. Bear in mind also that the loss of beehives is not solely due to a loss of bees. When a beekeeper retires, then that's X number of colonies that disappear not from disease or disaster, but because someone simply decided to stop keeping bees! It's a SOCIAL and ECONOMIC phenomenon, and failing to take those factors into account is a grievous mistake, leading to grievous misinterpretations of the statistics. Look at it this way: what if 100,000 of those 200,000 lost hives were due to retirement of the beekeepers? How dire would a 10% reduction over 5 years seem then? As for Lord Rooker, there's no evidence that his statement is any different - he's worried about beekeepers and agriculturally managed colonies, not wild bees. Making any assumptions that these comments refer to all bees, or natural declines, is definitely taking them out of context. Dyanega (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Steiner and theosophy revisited

hello again. I added a couple of page numbers and even rewrote the sentence, probably to your liking. Now, this evaluation is based on academic thinking as to the history of ideas. From an esoteric viewpoint it would, of course, be perfectly possibly for two thinkers to receive similar or identical impressions from nonphysical sources. --Vindheim (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the page citations. The sentence looks reasonable - and an improvement, though something in between the two would also work... Personally, I tend to agree with the apparently obvious conclusion that Steiner's sources for much of his (at least early) Theosophical work were entirely exoteric, Blavatsky, Besant and even (unfortunately) Leadbeater being central amongst these. Hgilbert (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Leadbeater certainly has a lot to answer for, not least through his influence on Annie Besant. --Vindheim (talk) 04:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Transferring between Waldorf and non-Waldorf schools

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Transferring between Waldorf and non-Waldorf schools, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Hgilbert (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Transferring between Waldorf and non-Waldorf schools

I have nominated Transferring between Waldorf and non-Waldorf schools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Hgilbert (talk) 12:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Request to stop editing anthroposophy-related articles

Hello. I was informed that you are an active consultant on Waldorf Schools and are employed as such. I hope you are aware of Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest policy which specifies my cause for concern. In particular, your activity at anthroposophy-related pages is not measured and can clearly be seen to be promotional. Since you have a conflict-of-interest, I'm wondering if you will voluntarily submit yourself to an editing-restriction on such articles. If not, I shall have to take the matter up with the appropriate noticeboard. Cheers. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not a consultant for Waldorf schools. I am a teacher. Just as chemists can - and should - edit articles on their area of special expertise, so should teachers. There is no imaginable financial or other gain that can result from my editing activity. Hgilbert (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you stand to gain financially from the positive treatment of the subject of your school as it is displayed on Wikipedia. Just as we would not allow the person working in a charter school to censor or promote their charter school so we will not allow you to censor or promote material about Steiner-inspired movements. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

As regards the school I work at: if you look at my contributions you will see that they have been of neutral information, or toning down excesses of other editors who added too much in praise of the school (see this and this). My emphasis has been to reduce the positive POV material here, not increase it.

The relevant passage of the conflict of interest policy: "If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias." Examination of the citations for the relevant articles should reassure you of their firm foundation on reliable sources. If you know of any reliable sources that provide information that is not fairly represented, please let me know or add them yourself; please make yourself familiar with the arbitration guidelines for this article that emphasize that any controversial statements must be cited to independent, non-polemical sources - neither anthroposophic nor "anti-anthroposophic" sources are viable here for supporting controversial positions.

Please bring up any particular issues on the relevant article talk-pages and they will be addressed. I am concerned that the articles be fair and honest. Hgilbert (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I am preparing a case. I do not think your contributions have been wholly neutral. I will bring them up as requested. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

scienceapologist bullying instead of proving point with factual evidence

i have only been reading discussion on velikovsky, but i have seen a pattern that he says others are wrong without using any evidence to back up his beliefs, accusing people of lying and of being aligned with a particular group when they are just saying to provide nuetral info in the article, if u could look into this that would be niceGundamMerc (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

In this particular article (Velikovsky), editors including SA merely made a request to verify a statement that looked like an editor's own conclusions. While the tone may not be very friendly, the content is, as far as I can see, perfectly unobjectionable in this case. Hgilbert (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

ok, just wanted second opinionGundamMerc (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Rudolf Steiner's exercises for spiritual development

I have nominated Rudolf Steiner's exercises for spiritual development, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rudolf Steiner's exercises for spiritual development. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It certainly needs cleanup (I've done a bit just now), but probably doesn't need deletion. By the way, I didn't create this article's content originally, but just moved an already extant section of another article (probably Rudolf Steiner or Anthroposophy) out to clean up the article this material came from. It needs more work, that's for sure. Hgilbert (talk) 01:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I agree with you. I just started to contribute to Wikipedia yesterday, and I've learned what kind of responsibility and seriousness this requires. Especially when editing something about Rudolf Steiner. DrKaoliN (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Waldorf School of San Diego

Were you aware of this article and its current state? It was not listed among Waldorf schools and looks to be a complete copy of the school's web site. --EPadmirateur (talk) 02:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been replaced by a notice page. Hgilbert (talk) 12:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

whole medical systems

Is a start of a duplicate of Category:Alternative medical systems which is the exact same content only has more in it due to being older, I know how difficult it is to spot all the categories so I appreciate your effort but it's a duplicate category. Sticky Parkin 17:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Except that the Wikipedia categories seem to be based upon NCCAM categories (see for example Template:alternative medicine, and NCCAM uses "whole medical systems", not "alternative medical systems". Maybe the old category should be renamed. Hgilbert (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Some of them are based on NCCAM, some not, if you can prove with a ref that it's the same I have no probs moving it, however I suppose that's not NPOV as it's saying the systems are complete medical systems when in the eyes of medical consensus they are alternative or complementary medical systems if you see what I mean. Either way, your current page would have to be deleted so that we could move the existing page if we decide to- otherwise as non-admins we can't. Sticky Parkin 17:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

See Complementary_and_alternative_medicine#NCCAM_classifications; this appears to be the basis for the classification. The citations in this article supposedly supporting the usage "alternative medical systems" do not use this term, but rather "whole medical systems". Looking further on the web, both usages seem common; a merger and redirect might be appropriate. Hgilbert (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Unfortunately, the acrimony at that page is related to a consistent campaign (that you have participated in) where people with obvious agendas relating to their support for various alternative medicine systems are attempting to "define away" the notable and prominent criticisms that the claims of those systems are pseudoscientific. Hans Adler is, for whatever reason, a supporter of this type of behavior as are you, Levine2112, Jim Butler, etc. If you want to make your critique of my actions stick, I suggest you find an outside voice. We could use people who aren't connected to fantasies like anthroposophy to help edit that page.

ScienceApologist (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see you are focusing on avoiding personal attacks. hgilbert (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Source?

Hiya, spotted this on your user page

"Bernard is right; the pathogen is nothing; the terrain is everything." -- Louis Pasteur's deathbed words

And I was wondering if you have a RS for it? The only reason why I ask is that I have seen it across the Internet, but so far nobody can actually provide a RS to source it. So I'm after one - especially that such a fundatmental quote you would think would appear in Louis Pasteur? Ta Shot info (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I have it from Oliver Sacks, Awakenings (Vintage 1990 p.228), but he doesn't give his source. hgilbert (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This one Awakenings_(book)? Shot info (talk) 02:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That's it. hgilbert (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ta Shot info (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Alternative medical systems template

Re this change: could you please follow up at Template talk:Alternative medical systems #Anthroposophic medicine? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Donehgilbert (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

IP hopper

Hi I saw your requests at WP:RFPP. I recommend removing them for now. See this AN thread for more details. The rascal is slowed down at the moment.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Your request for rollback has been granted. You may also find this this page helpful. Y. Ichiro (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Verbal chat 15:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV/N

I just updated the section link in your comment to WP:NPOV/N since I renamed the discussion to Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts#Anthroposophical medicine. I believe that this is within the bounds of WP:TALK, but feel it polite to notify you in any case. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Balancing info in Pseudoscience list

Hi Hgilbert -- just wanted to know that I read and belatedly replied to a thread including you and ScienceApologist regarding the inclusion of balancing scientific info for alleged pseudosciences (which on our list are known as "pseudosciences" due to inclusion drift). I agree with your position, more or less. There is some similar discussion under Talk:List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts#Version_1.3 regarding TCM. I also want to say that I appreciate your level-headed talk-page comments. The label-pushers have pushed the article about as far as it can go, and lately ScienceApologist and a couple of sympathetic editors have basically, by brute force, edit-warred chiro and acu on to the page. It doesn't look like anthroposophic medicine should be there either, unless I'm missing some group consensus statement. Anyway, I'll be taking this to ArbCom for clarification of WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE soon; I'll notify you and all others who have contributed, and we'll all get our chance to weigh in. regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 11:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I don't know much about Steiner's medical ideas, but his educational ideas seem pretty good. Like any visionary, he's not gonna get it right all the time; the key is finding the pearls and giving them their due. --Backin72 (n.b.) 11:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and good luck. I don't know what chance this will have in Arbcom; historically, skeptics have been supported there. hgilbert (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom request for clarification: WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE

A request has been made for clarification of the ArbCom case WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE as it relates to List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. I'm leaving this notification with all editors who have recently edited the article or participated in discussion. For now, the pending request, where you are free to comment, may be found here. regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 13:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

organic farming

hi, i requested a move of organic farming to organic agriculture, as i proposed on the talk page, which i consider uncontroversial. since you edited the article recently, if you think this is not the case, could you respond to my proposal on the talk page? thanksTruetom (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

About Zeno

Hi, I am new and not sure how to communicate in wikipedia environment. Please tolerate if I have made some disturbance to you. It will be great if you can give me some tips for the way of communicating in this environment.

I see some wikipedia rules are not easy to follow: exclusion of original research (idea?) and to be neutral. I have made a text about Zeno's paradox. In the text I indicate that quantum Zeno effect does not exist. I also answered philosophers' question: Zeno's mental endless processes have no physical correspondent, which is my idea then no reference. The part of text is given at the end of this message.

Your comments and suggestions are much appreciated!

--- Text ---

If we today ask how to find the time moment when Achilles catches the tortoises, we will find that Zeno’s process is in fact a suitable one to reach the solution. This is an endless process while mentally designed. As indicated by Aristotle, Zeno mistakenly understood that any endless process would take infinite time to go, which is unfortunately not correct because a mentally designed process may not correspond to a physical event. Only an endless physical process, if it exists, will take infinite time. For example, our universe would always be expanding. In addition, we find that, following Zeno’s method, any normal physical process can mentally be divided into two parts: one part is of the feature of Zeno’s paradox and the other is still of normal sense. That is to say, if quantum Zeno effect would exist, it would exist everywhere. We must realize that Zeno’s process, a mental limit process, should NOT have any physical consequence.

XuetaoSweden (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Phil of ed

Thanks for your help on the philosophy of education page! --Lhakthong (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Camphill Svetlana

A tag has been placed on Camphill Svetlana requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. JCutter (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I moved the text from an existing article, Camphill movement; it had been placed there by another user, User:Theosopher7. I have notified him/her. hgilbert (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime, I rewrote the article. It's acceptable now. Copyright violations are deleted very quickly (less than 1/2 hour). Cheers, EPadmirateur (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Dengue

Hi there, I can't find any paper published by Lapolla on a link between Dengue and GM soybeans. (search), has this research ever been published? I've removed it from the GM food article for now, until we can find a reliable source. I'm skeptical about this, since if my German is correct (I'm pretty rusty) this article describes glyphosate as a "pesticide", while this chemical is in fact a herbicide. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It is technically a herbicide, and the article was faulty in this respect; it is extremely lethal to amphibians and fish, however. I agree that we should have a published academic source. hgilbert (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I had another look and I think the purported author was Alberto Lapolla, but I still can't find anything reliable linking glyphosate use to Dengue. Perhaps it was some kind of mistake in that German source. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Here are some of the original writings by Alberto J. Lapolla and those that reference them. Apparently the issue is more than the herbicide glyphosate because the soy cultivation regimen includes several additional chemicals which are pesticides. "Sojización" is probably "soyification".

* Sojización, toxicity and environmental pollution by pesticides apparently the primary article by Lapolla. translation

* Sojización and Dengue, an interesting document to read contains informal commentary by Lapolla. translation

* Dengue epidemic in the crops of soybeans from Monsanto article by Alfredo Embid which is a good overview of the broader questions of GM soy cultivation and environmental effects, with many additional references. translation

* The scandalous case of transgenic soybeans Summary of introduction of GM soy into Argentina and the effects by Horacio Verbitsky. translation

Cheers! EPadmirateur (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you EPadmirateur, but I still can't work out if this research has ever been published or if it is just an idea Lapolla has written about - http://www.monocultivos.com can't be the original source for a serious study on the ecological impact of a new crop. I doubt if any of the above selection of sources pass WP:V. I agree that they do seem to deal with pesticide use in general, rather than GM technology, so even if we could find a reliable source, this idea's relevance to GM food is dubious. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice edits

I always like to see sharp and accurate distinctions made. First rate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Breach of WP:3RR

Hi, you appear to have breached WP:3RR on Waldorf education. You may be blocked for edit-warring. Personally, I won't make a report, but you've made 12 edits, most of which revert my editing of placing tags. Even though most have been consecutive, many admins will still block. Be aware is all. --HighKing (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip; after my initial reversion, the edits were adding material to individual sections to meet the demands/requests of tags/talk pages, but they did remove the tags as well...probably a questionable situation. hgilbert (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Be aware, that today you have most definitely broken WP:3RR. Be careful. I sincerely believe that you are trying to improve the article, and you must believe that I am too, but if you get reported you'll get blocked. I'm very happy to discuss the references in depth and detail on the article Talk page, and I'm entitled to place tags (better than the alternative of removing text) at the places in question. I believe that others will find my reading and interpretation of the relevant policies is fair and accurate, even if you disagree. But removing the tags from the article is not appropriate, they first need to be discussed on the Talk page. Sometimes after contributing to an article you can feel some ownership and resent other editors butting in, but so long as we both WP:AGF, I see no reason why this needs turn into an edit war. --HighKing (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I have reread the 3RR text, and you are quite right; I had believed that more than 3 reversions of the same material were in question, whereas it explicitly says 3 reversions of any type of a single page. My apologies, and thanks for your forbearance!!! Let's try to sort these things out. hgilbert (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No probs. We'll get there! It's OK to disagree, we don't have to make it personal and nasty, etc. A little passion is good, you'd have to have it to contribute here in the first place.... Peace. --HighKing (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Abuse Report Notice: IP 220.225.140.98

Hey, I've rejected your recent abuse report because it did not meet the guideline of having been blocked at least 5 times. Please understand that this guideline is necessary, because contacting an ISP takes a considerable amount of time and should only be done as a last resort. You may message me on my talk page if you have any questions. Thanks. Netalarm 08:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but blocks are what determine if a report is necessary. I've reviewed the logs on the IP, and no blocks were ever placed on this IP address. I understand that this IP has been vandalizing Wikipedia a lot, but only those with multiple blocks are processed through the Abuse Report system. But there's no need to worry about this, as there exists a place for IP editors such as this, Wikipedia:AIV. If this IP vandalizes Wikipedia again, you can add an alert to the AIV page, where an administrator will block the IP from editing Wikipedia. Feel free to message me on my talk page if you have any questions! Happy editing, and thanks for fighting the vandals! Netalarm 15:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Look, think, act

• You honestly think that this sentence makes Sense: "Anthroposophic medicine has created a broad range of anthroposophical medicines"?
• Please sign your posts using four tildes. --91.55.196.83 (talk) 11:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it makes more sense than what you put in its place. But I see your point. I have clarified the meaning now. hgilbert (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No, actually it doesn't. It's a non-statement. Take a closer look next time before you include such rubbish into Wikipedia. --91.55.213.151 (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely that it was poorly worded, and I doubt I was the one who wrote it. But it did mean something. If you parse it, what it means is that a particular medical approach, known as anthroposophical medicine, has created a number of medications, known as anthroposophical medicines. But I understand why it was hard for you to understand. hgilbert (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Steffen quote on your user page

Hello Hgilbert: Compliments on your userpage! I suggest a little spelling fix on the Steffen quote: Der Herr des Schicklas...should be: Der Herr des Schicksals....Rembertbiemond (talk) 07:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Stimmt, natürlich! Dankeschön. hgilbert (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually Schickals should still be altered to Schicksals. Cheers and Happy Holidays! EPadmirateur (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you...pretty careless...it's fixed finally. hgilbert (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

looks RST Page

Forgive me for bringing up the "looks" of the RST Page again.. Do you have a possebility to look with internbet explorer as browser? then you will see immedeatly what i mean. ....Rembertbiemond (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks OK to me now, after the formatting was restored...how is it for you? hgilbert (talk) 02:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

oh absolutly -- much better without the white !! --

But the other problem :The looks of the Anthroposophy box in relation to the text left of the box and the picture under the box it is not really nice i think...But i have no idea how to do something about it and it is not sooooo important i think. Rembertbiemond (talk) 12:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a difficult thing to resolve, as every screen-width and every browser will display the result differently. Generally, something like this should be discussed on the article's talk page, as someone might know a solution there. I'll post the problem there for now. hgilbert (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You are so right -we will tackle the problem there - I have tried now something - --Rembertbiemond (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Changes to the article reincarnation

Hi Hgilbert,

I removed the paragraph because the theory of attributing reincarnation to the aboriginal non vedic culture is entirely speculative. The earliest written evidence containing precise definitions of karma and moksha can be found in Brihadaranyaka by Yagnavalkya. The idea of rebirth can be traced to Rigveda (egs in mandala eleven, there is a description of how a persion is repeatedly put into a mother's womb). The idea might have evolved (probably independently) in the Shramanic culture (having its roots in the non orthodox Sankhya school). One of the references that was referred, suggests that Yagnavalkya was reluctant to teach the concepts of reincarnation to Janaka, and based on this, concludes that reincarnation was previously unknown. In Brihadaranyaka, Janaka is eager to learn the concept of Brahman (not reincarnation) and Yagnavalkya tests the eagerness of his possible student. In the upanishads, lot of such stories have been told (egs: there is a story about a son who tries to learn the concept of Brahman from his father). What should be noted is that the concept of reincarnation was primarily born from the experiences of the seers ( both vedic and non-orthodox ).

Regards, Suthambhara N —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.207.12 (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your interesting observations. It is always difficult to trace the historical roots of an idea to such an early part of history - or prehistory! Nevertheless, the section of the article you removed was quite well cited. If you would like to add dissenting points of view using the same or other references, this would make for a more interesting and full presentation of the question. Please do ensure that the present, quite good citation standard is upheld in this process (and you might want to see Wikipedia's standard for research citations).

In short: better to add something complementary than remove something of value. hgilbert (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Charles Webster Leadbeater

FYI, an edit you made[1] on Charles Webster Leadbeater has been challenged. [2] [3]. Dlabtot (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. 00:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Encounter with Christ

Hello Hgilbert! I would like to know are there any web sources where I could read more on Steiner's encounter with Christ? Thanks.

--Gdje je nestala duša svijeta (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Try searching the Rudolf Steiner Archive. hgilbert (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Minor correction

Steiner was born in Austrian Empire not Austria-Hungary. Please check the year.

--Gdje je nestala duša svijeta (talk) 13:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Igaza van. Sie haben Recht. Imati pravo. You're quite right. hgilbert (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do not be insulting

Your statement on my talk page that my edit to the Mistletoe article constituted "vandalism" is insulting and offensive. My edit simply stated a traditional custom more accurately than did the earlier version.173.16.252.154 (talk) 02:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it was well-meant. Perhaps you should check the guidelines for original research as a number of your edits seem to be being reverted. hgilbert (talk) 11:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Actually I'm very familiar with the guidelines. I think I've had very few reversions in relation to the number of contributions I have made - and if I may say so, these came as often as not from officious pests who didn't know what THEY were talking about! Now I think I will add a quotation from Washington Irving to the mistletoe article. That should satisfy anybody's guidelines. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.252.154 (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice quote from Irving. BTW - please remember to sign your posts! hgilbert (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

A question and proposal re. Waldorf

Hi Hgilbert. I added the link to the Rudolf Steiner School in 2 articles last night and received this morning the explanation for their removal. I would propose that being The First Waldorf School in North America does make the Rudolf Steiner School somewhat exceptional, and therefore worthy of particular mention, but I understand the position provided. Could a link to the school be put in the caption of the photograph of the school's building, which exists on the Waldorf education page, under "U.S Waldorf Schools Survey"? Separately, is it safe to proceed to build a page for The Rudolf Steiner School, or would that categorically be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newyorkerbynature (talk • contribs) 12:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC) Newyorkerbynature (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

See your talk page for my answer. hgilbert (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

short response

I don't get it. Who cares so much about the minutia of the theosophocal society v. the german section (which he seemed to have gotten expelled from the society)? It's also back to the artbitration restrictions on sourcing, imo. If we start letting Steiner's autobiography in, then pretty soon we have all the crackpot-mistranslated-nonreliable source-crazy talk quotes that the anti-waldorf school people like to present. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. hgilbert (talk) 02:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

3RR complaint about you

Hello Hgilbert. Please see WP:AN3#User:Hgilbert reported by User:Masteryorlando (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to bring this further forward, but please remember that rollback is to be used only for reverting vandalism, not to edit war, like you did here. Minimac (talk) 09:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I had forgotten (or never quite realized) that. Oops. Thanks for letting me know. hgilbert (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You again persist in reverting bona-fide edits without cause. Are you willing to accept mediation?Masteryorlando (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

See your talk page, where User:EdJohnston suggests a process forward: convince the other editors of the article that you're right or open a request for comments. hgilbert (talk) 01:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

quesations on 'self'

re; Discussion-'self'. Expansion needed. 28/1/2011 I agree, the article is cursory. But there are many more important topics to be discussed before the 'self' can be more fully and easily understood. I propose that you ask questions of interest to you relating to the 'self' and I shall try to unswer them. KK (78.146.59.142 (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC))

Mistletoe

Hi Hgilbert--I was looking at recent reviews on the use of mistletoe extracts in AP and it seems as though the section in the main article might be a bit too negative. I do find positive results in survival, although the usual caveats apply: poor studies, investigator bias, etc. Still, the authors conclude a positive effect and not just in quality of life. My question to you is how is "Anthroposophical" mistletoe treatment defined? Is it, as the article implies, only for "homeopathic" dilutions? If so, do you have any idea what the limits for such dilutions might be? Thanks, Desoto10 (talk) 03:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

So far as I know, any use of mistletoe extracts derives from Steiner's original indications and the further exploration of these, originally through anthroposophic doctors. I would say that such evidence - both positive and negative - belongs in the article; it would be helpful to clarify the various dilutions used, of course. hgilbert (talk) 03:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I've clarified this on the talk page - there are also phytotherapeutic extracts. hgilbert (talk) 12:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Detail on registered birth

Hello, there is one unknown detail on Steiner's birth I think you should know of. In a register of birth in a village of Draškovec where he was actually baptised, his name is written as Adolphus Josephus Laurentius Steiner, not Rudolphus. This is shown on a documentary in Croatian at you tube in 26th minute. It says this is probably an error since he was never addressed by this name.--Gdje je nestala duša svijeta (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. hgilbert (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

POV fork

I am so bad at these wikipedia rules. It feels like a combination between being a soldier and a lawyer. Clearly, neither is my vocational path. Anyway, since I'm so inexperienced in this, I have to ask: are you arguing that POV fork is created between the AM article and the "List of topics..."? Couldn't that backfire into changes at the AM article, which has managed such nice balance?Asinthior (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I like your analogy. But no, I'm rather suggesting that the pseudoscience article would be creating a POV fork if it only allowed argument on one side of the issue, whether the various topics are or are not pseudosciences. This would be very much against Wikipedia principles - I can't create an article detailing arguments for a 9/11 conspiracy theory, for example, without allowing other points of view to be represented. If the article is about various themes' status as pseudosciences, it must allow points of view that relate to both sides of this question.

The AM article, similarly, must allow both qualified supportive research and critiques of AM - this is completely independent of what's going on in the PS article, however. I'd be surprised if there are any critiques in the pseudoscience article that aren't already represented in the AM article, but if this were to be the case, they should be duplicated in the latter as well. It should be comprehensive, the PS section only representative. hgilbert (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I totally support this idea. Furthermore, BRangifer pointed me to this arbitration to argue that as by that ruling, we should stay away from trying to proof whether something IS pseudoscience and just document if it is/has been characterized as pseudoscience. However that same arbitration establishes:

Neutral point of view as applied to science

1a) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.

Passed 7-0 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Further more, if the article documents the characterization of the topic as pseudoscience, it would only be fair to document sources that characterize it as science. My only question is whether this last statement would also apply to a List, as apparently they have some special rules for such articles. Still, I think we have some arguments to use here. Asinthior (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I just found something more. From WP:Lists,

Listed items

Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others.

Difficult or contentious subjects for which the definition of the topic itself is disputed should be discussed on the talk page in order to attain consensus and to ensure that each item to be included on the list is adequately referenced and that the page on which the list appears as a whole represents a neutral point of view.

The principle of Neutral Point of View requires that we describe competing views without endorsing any one in particular. Wikipedia:No original research applies equally to a list of like things as it does for the content article on each individual thing listed.

The verifiability policy states that if material is challenged or likely to be challenged, it is the responsibility of the editor who adds or restores the material to an article to cite sources for that material. Inclusion of material on a list should be based on what reliable sources say, not on what the editor interprets the source to be saying. In lists that involve living persons, the Biographies of living persons policy applies.

The way I read this, is that we must definitely include sources that characterize AM as science. Any ideas on what would it take? I can find the information, but I would rather have you add it to the article as I am less of an editor. Maybe we could collaborate in this way? If so, let me know what kind of information you need. Asinthior (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a reasonable interpretation. Anything of this sort published by mainstream, preferably academic presses or journals would pass muster. I'm happy to coordinate/funnel things. hgilbert (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, just point me in the right direction and I'll start digging up sources useful to the point. Also, I'll give BRangifer the heads up. Asinthior (talk) 03:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Steiner and "Humanistic education"

I looked up the humanistic education article this morning, and was surprised to find Rudolf Steiner included in the definition. My understanding is that "humanistic education" in the contemporary sense usually refers to the application of the "humanistic psychology" of Maslow and Rogers and their followers to education. While it's not hard to find some similarities between Steiner's work, well-documented under Waldorf education, and that of Maslow and Rogers, it doesn't strike me as accurate to present them as co-founders of a unified approach.

If Maslow or Rogers acknowledged Steiner as an influence on their educational theories, I'd like to see that established by citations. Otherwise, if the relationship between the "humanistic education" of Maslow and Rogers and the educational theories of Steiner is a synthesis of later observers, that secondary relationship should be explicit. If there are reliable sources to establish an argument that Maslow and Rogers in fact owe a debt to Steiner, that contemporary Waldorf practitioners have incorporated the ideas of Maslow and Rogers, or that followers of Maslow and Rogers have integrated Steiner into their curricula, I think they could also be helpful. -- Shunpiker (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

So far as I know, the origins of humanistic psychology and Waldorf are largely independent. There are many parallels, and I've put in a citation that characterizes various educational directions (including Waldorf) not primarily oriented around Maslow/Rogers work as nevertheless humanistic in orientation. It would be valuable to look further into this. hgilbert (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I have the same impression -- that Waldorf and "humanistic education" as an application of humanistic psychology are independent. Because of this, if the article is to include both the Maslow/Rogers school of thought, for which "humanistic" is a reference to the specific psychological approach, and the Steiner tradition, in which case the adjective "humanistic" is used by third parties in its dictionary sense, this distinction should be clarified. Based on the citations you added, it seems to me that the discussion of Steiner might make more sense in the context of the holistic education article, where there is not the same confusion between a specific movement and a general approach. It might also be worth considering moving the discussion of Maslow and Rogers to a humanistic education movement article and converting the current humanistic education article into a disambiguation page that either directs to the article about the movement started by Maslow and Rogers or to the holistic education page discussing various "whole person" approaches to education, or to humanism/humanities/liberal arts to cover the original use of the term. Thoughts? Thanks, --Shunpiker (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Steiner and Jesuism

Further to your query on my user page, Tom O'Golo cites Rudolf Steiner as an example of someone who "returned to Jesuan values" and exemplified "a feint echo of what Jesus really taught." Source: Christ? No! Jesus? Yes! (2011) Nirvana2013 (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Published by Zimbo Press, I see. I think we should wait for some more substantial basis for this claim, especially given the arbitration ruling on this article, which requires high quality (e.g. academic press) sources for controversial claims.hgilbert (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Obliterated?!?

Can you tell me where it says Mahmoud Darwish's town was obliterated? Modinyr (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. The citation to the source article in The Guardian appears clearly in the appropriate location in the Darwish article. The exact paragraph of the original reads (my bolding): "When, the following year, the family returned to their occupied homeland, their village had been obliterated: two settlements had been erected on the land, and they settled in Deir al-Asad in Galilee. There were no books in Darwish's own home and his first exposure to poetry was through listening to an itinerant singer on the run from the Israeli army. He was encouraged to write poetry by an elder brother." It is the 3rd paragraph of the newspaper article, not counting the prefacing poem. hgilbert (talk) 08:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. But I must still contest your use of this word in the article. The Guardian article says the family fled after forces assualted the village. A year later, after they returned, the village had been obliterated.

The way you made the article, the Jews attacked and obliterated the village, so the Darwish family had to flee. Not true, the village seems to have been obliterated after its residents fled. Modinyr (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I've adjusted the wording so this sequence is not implied. hgilbert (talk) 02:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You are still making implications. The village was obliterated, but there is no reason to say that the Israelis purposefully demolished the village. I know its hard not to make logical jumps, but we have to try to be NPOV. Modinyr (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

(The guy is suggesting the Israelis obliterated the village by accident????)PiCo (talk) 12:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

King James Soul

Be careful or the KJV - in fact avoid it. The people who produced did the best that could be done in their time, but that was 400~500 years ago and scholarship has moved on.

As for the wording of Genesis 2:7 (is that what we're talking about?) here's a modern scholar discussing the verse (it's Barry Bandstra, Genesis 1-11, A Handbook of the Hebrew Text). He gives a transliteration/translations as follows: "And YHWH-divinity formed the human using dust from the ground, and he breathed in his nostrils a living breath." That's pretty standard, though of course it has to be made a little more English-ish for normal bibles (you can't talk about Yhwh-divinity to the ordinary reader).

The real point is, the concept of "soul" developed over time. The authors of the Hebrew bible certainly had a concept of something that endured after death, but it wasn't quite like our modern idea of a soul - every Old Testament "soul", no matter how evil or righteous, went to Sheol, which was where Saul found the shade of Samuel. Later, in the Hellenistic period, something like a modern soul began to develop, but it's quite incorrect to read that back into Genesis - what God is doing in Genesis 2:7 is breathing life (a divine attribute - only the gods have life) into his clay creation (all living things are essentially clay, but have life as a gift of the gods), not putting a soul into it. PiCo (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but there is no Wikipedia policy suggesting that the KJV be avoided. The interpretation of such passages is such a fascinating subject! Fortunately or unfortunately, that's not our job, however. hgilbert (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

PoF

Hello H Gilbert. I am fraffly. I have been editing the PoF page. Should we talk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.24.229 (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. (?fraffly??) But first I urge you to read the WP:Original research guidelines.

You can contact me here or, for more privacy, via email using this link. hgilbert (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Anthroposophy

Hi, yes the evolutionary ideas in Anthroposophy are very hard to find references for, some of them appear to be similar to Theosophy, Theosophy is tad more mainstream it appears on this issue, there was a Theosophical book on evolution released in the 1970s called Man in evolution there is a chapter in there called man the repertory of all types, it seems to be saying the same things as Steiner. I recently recieved 220 books on Anthroposophy and I have been going through some of them atleast 80 of these books are from Steiner, most of this is new to me, I probably could help out on many of the Anthroposophical articles but this subject is quite complex and most of it does not interest me. If you have seen the planes of existence article, it would be interesting if we could have some views on there of Steiner or Anthroposophy? From what I have seen so far Steiner and other followers of his teachings have not mentioned anything to do with many of these planes apart from the astral? I used to have quite a high respect for Theosophy but recently I have began to see that much of it is untrustworthy. Planes such as the Logoic or Buddhic plane seems to be inventions of Charles Leadbeater, I highly doubt these planes even exist apart from the astral (which has been well documented by people such as Hereward Carrington and Robert Crookall etc. Would you be able to help out with this article? I have alot of books to read through, but If I see anything then I will probably put it on the talk page first and collect some references there. GreenUniverse (talk) 12:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion

Could we get your opinion on the ethereal being article?, lots of original research going on, much of it is dishonest as it does not match up with the references, I have suggested a redirect, but some others disagree. GreenUniverse (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

source

Did you see the source? He says the archtype was a fish like being. GreenUniverse (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Rudolf Steiner:

"So we go back to an age when there was neither the present form nor the present elephants, nor rhinoceroses, nor lions, nor cows, nor oxen, nor bulls, nor kangaroos-none of these were yet there. On the other we can say there were fishlike creatures – not like present-day fish but already manlike – beings half human, half fish, that one could, after all, call man. There were all these. But there were still none of the animal forms today.

Then the earth gradually changed into the form it has today. The floor of the Atlantic Ocean sank ever more and more; the boggy, slimy, albumen-like condition gradually changed into the present water and gradually brought about a change in these fish-men. But the most diverse forms arose. The more imperfect of these fish-men became kangaroos, those a little more advanced became deer and cattle, and the most perfect became apes or men. You see from this that man did not descend from apes; man was there, and all the mammals really descended from him, from these human forms in which man remained imperfect. So we must say that the ape descended from man, not that man descended from the ape. That is so, and we must be quite clear about it."

GreenUniverse (talk) 06:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes...the arbitration proceedings over Steiner-related articles concluded that any controversial material should be sourced to scholarly, independent sources (rather than Steiner's own works, which are often contradictory and fragmentary.) (Exact text: Information may be included in articles if they can be verified by reference to reliable sources. As applied to this matter, except with respect to information which is not controversial, material published in Anthroposophy related publications, especially by persons deeply involved in the movement such as teachers or theoreticians, are considered self published and thus not reliable sources.)

This is a good example: a lecture to workman, in which he often simplified ideas to the point where they almost become caricatures of the original. Can we not find a more balanced source? hgilbert (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Sadly no better sources I have been looking everywhere. I have been reading 100s of Steiners lecture notes and other books. Steiner obviously was hallucinating when he made all of this stuff up apparently he would enter deep trance sessions, I have read everything from angels, to fairies that he says is driving evolution. Not many people are going to take this stuff seriously, that explains why not many have covered it outside of anthroposophy. We have third party reliable references for his Atlantis theories and root races etc - this may be used as a new section on the article perhaps a history section, but nothing to very little about his evolutionary views. You might want to read this, was taken from The Golden Blade magazine. Wont be able to be used on the article but is an interesting read anyway. 1

GreenUniverse (talk) 12:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Davy's article is actually a much better source; it presents the ideas quite coherently. We could use this so long as no one finds it a controversial presentation of Steiner's ideas; I would be surprised if it were contested. hgilbert (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Who takes Steiners views on evolution seriously today? Is there any advocates left? Theosophy seems to be doing some kind of intelligent design, and they have published alot of books on it and recieved great criticism but when it comes to Anthroposophy nobody has covered the evolutionary ideas, is it worth mentioning Atlantis? Heres another article, this is very deep! There is too much to get my head around here, theres no way that I would be able to summarise any of it. You would have to be an expert on this topic, apparently this stuff takes ages to learn, notice the Atlantean and Lemurian epochs. 2 GreenUniverse (talk) 13:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

it all been explained here steiners evolution GreenUniverse (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

What is your response to this?? link GreenUniverse (talk) 12:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Steiner emphasized that cultures, not races, were the driving forces of human evolution today, and that we live in a time in which the races would be mixing so much that they would relatively soon cease to have any meaning. Both of these ideas seem to me to be both true and probably virtually indisputable.

Of course, to suggest that one culture is progressive, another less progressive is an equally sensitive topic! All evaluative judgments aside, it seems pretty clear that while certain cultural trends are dominating the world today, especially American culture (and I'm not a big fan of certain aspects of this), other cultures are losing much of their traditional substance -- consider how many languages disappear each decade!! So, whether it's good, bad, or mixed (I'd choose the latter), we do see considerable cultural evolution today. hgilbert (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

well i wasnt complaining, just wanted to see what you thought about it, the waldorf watch website seems like these folk have far too much time on their hands! If I happen to find anymore sources about his evolutionary views I will send them to you, it is a very deep topic and I don't think I can get my head round any of it. Let me ask you this though - Steiner claimed he was clairvoyantly contacing the spiritual world or akashic records where he was personally observing the history of the earth, he claimed you could personally view it, - ie atlantis, the earth used to be softer substance, spirits devolving into matter, the achetype turning into fishlike men, angels, fairies, nature spirits guiding evolution, the old saturn period, the moon being joined to the earth?, all animals coming from this fishlike man creature etc etc etc - but all this is in complete contradiction to what mainstream material science teaches... so who is right steiner or material science? Of course most would go with material science, but why did then Steiner claim he was correct and that he had personally seen all this in the akashic records?? All I can say is was Steiner hallucinating? If one wants to be an Anthroposohist then would would have to claim the whole of science wrong? GreenUniverse (talk) 06:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Science doesn't treat spiritual aspects of reality; it simply has no vocabulary or tools for this. Whether spirits or something else caused the Big Bang is not a question science can answer; the origin of space and time are beyond the limit of the science of space and time. Other than this, there's not so much a difference in content, as descriptive quality. Human beings did evolve from fishlike beings, and insofar as those beings were evolutionary precursors of human beings, they could be said to be an early stage of (prehominid) human evolution. It's not how Darwinians describe it, but it is as valid a way of looking at it as any other... just as balls of gas can be early stages of a star, for example.

Where there are real differences, I would simply describe them. Science is constantly changing -- it wasn't so long ago that wave theories of light and epigenetic theories of evolution were mocked as false or even hopelessly unscientific, yet they are integrated into modern scientific thought. It's pretty effective to say "that doesn't conform to our present scientific understanding of the subject". hgilbert (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion

If you have the time, it would be interesting to get your opinion on this article: Morya (Theosophy), I consider it one of the worst articles on wikipedia, I believe articles should be improved but this article is not worth working on. It is filled with original research from top to bottom, no third party reliable references at all, nothing. Last month or so I submitted it to be deleted, but at the last minute a Theosophist entered the debate and it was two votes to one, so I lost out. This user agreed he would try and help the article but as predicted he has since not logged in. The article is mostly copy and paste from two Theosophist books not notable at all, absolute wild claims and crank talk, it is hard to even understand what the article is saying, you would have to be an experienced Theosophist to understand it all. Most of the articles content is already found on the Ascended Master article, so I do not see why we need the article at all, as it is mostly original research and fringe pushing from the Theosophist crowd and copied material. GreenUniverse (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks ok to me, but I'm not an expert on the subject. hgilbert (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Gestalt therapy - Gestalt psychology

Hello Hgilbert! I see that you worked on the paragraph about the difference between Gestalt therapy and Gestalt psychology, and I appreciate that. I added Barlow's criticism of Henle which I find correct and well founded. There is no dispute among Gestalt therapists that Gestalt therapy is not Gestalt psychology. That is obvious. But there is much more than a historical connection. Gestalt psychology itself and especially Goldstein's application of Gestalt psychology principles to the functioning of the organism deeply influenced the formation of Gestalt therapy. You find a lot of information on these issues in Barlow's article. Your remark "Laura Perls preferred not to use the term 'Gestalt' to describe their work." may be misleading. Laura Perls had objections against using the term "Gestalt" as a term to name the new therapy, not as a characterization of their work in general. Laura Perls was a Gestalt psychologist before she started her training as a psychoanalyst, and she had a doctorate in Gestalt psychology. Fritz Perls was assistant to Goldstein, and Laura and Fritz Perls both went to lectures of Goldstein at Frankfurt University. So Goldstein's influence on the formation of Gestalt therapy came through both of them: Laura and Fritz, and as Laura Perls said later, probably more through her contributions. Maybe you can rewrite the paragraph a little, taking this into account. You are an English native speaker, I am not. Friedhelm, Germany - --79.228.23.227 (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know much about the subject, and am trying to go with what the sources say. Barlow affirms some sides of Henle's comments and critiques other sides; I've tried to reflect both aspects in the paragraph. Perhaps someone more competent in the subject would be of more assistance. hgilbert (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, one important point is that nobody claims that Gestalt therapy is "identical" with Gestalt psychology. Nevertheless a lot of people seem to mix it up. Gestalt therapy is a psychotherapy and Gestalt psychology is a psychology of perception. Henle's article is outdated. She has only a limited view on Gestalt therapy, influenced much by the Fritz Perls at Esalen at the end of the 1960s. Which is neither representative for Fritz Perls himself nor for Gestalt therapy in general. I have added some lines to the article text. Can you check my English, and see if you can agree? Friedhelm, Germany --79.228.31.158 (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Q's misplacings

Apology for error, thanks for tip, hope this one works properly. Qexigator (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Theosophy

Hi Hgilbert, your edits on the Theosophy article have been noted and appreciated. I think it would be useful if you could help us discuss how to move forward with the article on the talk page. Best regards, DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Glad to have been of help. I'll have a look at the discussion there. hgilbert (talk) 02:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Quick Question

regarding this edit....I know that is current practice, but does it jive with what the reference says? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Good; I've revised the section to separate the contemporary changes from the referenced material. hgilbert (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Gift as verb

What you say may well be true about the 16th century - but people who write that way now have not suddenly been imbued with a love of Early Modern prose. They're just being simpleminded, monkey-see-monkey-do writers. They are also scared to death of any past participle or preterit that doesn't end in "ed" - because at least two generations of English teachers now have told them grammar and verb forms and all that stuff is useless crap, not worth learning or remembering. But I appreciate your comment. Textorus (talk) 12:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Back in the 16th century, people tended to generalize wildly, as well. Crazy time. hgilbert (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Whole medical systems for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Whole medical systems is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whole medical systems until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Anthroposophical medicine

Please remember that adding in-text attribution is just a form of watering down the statement. I've never heard of this topic before today, but it looks like most of it falls under category 1 in WP:FRINGE. Even stuff like the mistletoe is unproven, and while more evidence might show that it works, it is wishful thinking to claim that we know it does.

Also a note that you're at 3RR on the article (4RR if you count your attempt to add "some"). Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting idea, that citations water down a statement. I've never heard that suggested before! "Stuff like the mistletoe" is supported by research; we call that evidence-based medicine. hgilbert (talk) 10:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

While that may be interesting, it isn't what was said. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I shouldn't have said "watered down." The point is that in-text attribution (i.e. saying "X said...") implies that something is an opinion, and leaving out that attribution implies that it's a fact. There is a place for both; for example, in general, the scientific consensus is presented as a fact, while the proponents of fringe science are attributed.

About mistletoe, according to the article the support is not all that extensive. Besides which, you can't claim that any treatment works until you carry out one or more properly run phase III clinical trials. Even treatments for which it is widely thought they will be effective often fail at that stage. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

We differ as to whether Quackwatch and Bob Carroll are definitive sources for scientific consensus. They are skeptics, not scientists. I would look to the scientific literature for evidence of the scientific consensus.

Vis a vis mistletoe: The article should only report the research results to this point, which I think it does. As you say, these allow no definitive conclusion at this point. hgilbert (talk) 08:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

If you still think the statement is not reliably sourced, then take it to WP:RSN. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Stop canvassing

While the above template covers user space canvassing, I dropped by to let you know that it's inappropriate for you to spam an AFD across talk pages simply because you think they will attract people sympathetic to your cause. Deletion discussions are listed at WP:AFD and generally attract neutral established editors who understand deletion criteria. Please also note that WP:CONSENSUS is note a vote and increasing the traffic to the page will have little effect on the outcome if the rationals aren't policy based. If the rationals are policy based then you don't need to worry about numbers, just the strength of the arguments. Sædon^talk 09:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing covers user talk pages. A notification on the talk page of closely related topics is normal practice in my experience. hgilbert (talk) 09:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing covers more than user talk pages, it even includes off wiki canvassing. IRWolfie- (talk)

Perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Neutral notifications on talk pages are not canvassing.

You seem very interested in off wiki canvassing. I do not engage in it. I sometimes wonder about certain groups of skeptics that flock to articles together, however. hgilbert (talk) 10:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you making a specific allegation? Either substantiate it or drop it. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

How would one substantiate off-wiki canvassing? Hard thing to demonstrate. I assume, however, that you would never engage in such a thing. hgilbert (talk) 10:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

"a place for both"

Hgilbert, may I intrude a comment here on the issue implicit in the above remark from another editor: "...in general, the scientific consensus is presented as a fact, while the proponents of fringe science are attributed." (04:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC) )

• That would be fair enough as an editing convention if it were sufficiently obvious to ordinary readers and they are not being short-changed in respect of the value of the information being offered to them. Is that not an acknowledged Wikipedia principle?
• In this respect, there is a tendency for such a usage to obscure the actual fact of the larger (epistemological?) question: at what stage and subject to what provisoes or reservations is a point of view (not excluding anything spoken of as "mainstream") to be held as the current "consensus" in academic, professional, official and public discourse, given the fact that often part of today's consensus could have been yesterday's heresy and may be to-morrow's footnote in history?
• And is that not part of the reason why Wikipedia guidelines enjoin careful editing to avoid letting such conventions be used as if they have the validity of eternal truth, whose proponents have the priviilege of using loaded language against others?
• In consequence, editors need to be aware that terms such as "mainstream" and "fringe", while part of everyday speech, are in themselves unavaoidably tendentious and normally unsuited to the stricter methods of scientific inquiry, exposition and apologetics.
• If the lead paragraphs of the articles on "Mainstream science", Criticism of science and "Fringe science" allow "a place for both" and were to be written with sufficient neutrality, would it not be good editing practice in articles where such terms are used to make the link to the articles by way of further explanation at the reader's option?

---This comes from a mere novice in Wikipedia editing, of but 5 months standing, namely...Qexigator (talk) 09:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

And may I intrude again, after seeing IRWolfie's "tweak" to Rudolf Steiner at 09:02, 5 October 2012 [[4]] to read "...Steiner thought he saw the spirit of an aunt.." Often in so many different contexts one has to think twice (as one says) about choosing between "claimed" or "thought" or something else, but in Steiner's case (more than most others) perhaps (for an English language readership) "thought" would be the truest to the man who in adult life, both as practitioner and exemplar, was so energetic in the cause of "pure thinking"? And consistent with that other article which states, in contrast to pure thinking: "In Steiner's view, conventional sensory-material knowledge is achieved through relating perception and concepts." But in any context, there is usually some difficulty in enabling a reader to become aware of the difference.Qexigator (talk) 10:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)