User talk:Hgilbert

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

--Archive --Archive2 --Archive--Hgilbert/Archive Waldorf project

Contents 1 WikiProject: Alternative education 2 Appreciation of your recent contributions 3 Science 4 Pseudoscience Category 5 Racism 6 "Clarification" 7 Hey! 8 See also Kodaly method 9 Waldorf Education NPOV tag 10 Homeopathy rewrite 11 Regarding accreditation at Waldorf education 12 Your thoughts?.... 13 Personal identities 14 Question about Rudolf Steiner 15 Inadvertent revert 16 Sorry, there is no consensus 17 To do 18 Anthroposophical Medicine 19 Wikiproject homeschooling 20 anthroposophy article 21 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative education 22 WikiProject Alternative Education merger 23 Re: Pete K sockpuppet?

[edit] WikiProject: Alternative education

Hello, we are currently seeking additional participation in a WikiProject that been launched on the subject of alternative education. I have noticed that you seem to have an interest and/or some experience in this area. I would like to invite you to join this effort. If you are interested, please visit the WikiProject page. Several of our participants are helping on a daily basis, some weekly, and a few only have a little time to contribute sporadically. Any level of participation is helpful and welcome. We hope you will consider joining our team. Thanks, Master Scott Hall | Talk 01:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appreciation of your recent contributions

Based on recent events (however amorphous such events may be – a bunch of arranged bytes on someone else's screen ), I appreciate your tenacity and quest for reasonable accuracy in extremely difficult areas of analysis. Good regards to you. ... Kenosis 03:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Science

Hgilbert, I had my doubts whether the edits you made to the intro of science would hold. But they have. Nice work. ... Kenosis 04:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoscience Category

"The Cat pseudoscience is a member of its own group" – so should WP be restricted to only having categories that aren't members of their own group? (Sorry, couldn't resist.) --Wclark 18:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Racism

I want to commend you for your brilliant solution to fixing the problem in the final sentence of the section, with "warm praise." Boogafish 01:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Clarification"

That reminds me of the way some public figures "clarify" their comments when they want to rescind sub rosa something too truthfully said. Why privilege Mackay's anarchism over his pederasty, and why so diplomatically? Haiduc 01:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Because he was primarily known and active as an anarchist; I have never heard of the other side of his activity (is it really true?), and Steiner certainly emphasized his interest in MacKay's individualist-anarchist philosophy. It's like Einstein siring an illegitimate daughter and leaving her with the grandmother; not the main emphasis of his life for most people (other than the daughter, no doubt). Hgilbert 23:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey!

If you ever need any help with any of these issues related to waldorf education let me know. I think you've done a great job-- wikipedia can suck the life out of you. Keep up the good work. futurebird 06:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See also Kodaly method

The cross-reference is headed "See also". Their philosophies share some similarities, worthy of comparison. For example: both talk of integrated learning; "Head, hands and heart" (Intellectual, emotional, physical); both move from oral to written expression at seven years of age (though Kodaly has a narrower focus). --Design 15:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Waldorf Education NPOV tag

See my comment on the talk page. --Rocksanddirt 18:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Homeopathy rewrite

Hey, I just finished a rewrite draft of the Homeopathy article. The article has major problems and I'm trying to turn it into a featured article and I noticed you were a major contributor to it so I thought you might want to help. The draft is a rough approximation of what it should be like. It obviously has some flaws in it's format and wording right now but they will be kinked out within the next couple of days. Right now what I want is for you, if you're interested in helping to improve the article, to come to the articles talk page. I'm trying to get all of the articles major contributors to discuss the rough draft and hack out a consensus so that we can replace it with the current article. There we will all discuss the article and how it could be improved before we replace the current homeopathy article with it. In order for this to work we need to follow a few rules. The first rule, the most important rule, is that no one but me can edit the rough draft. Do not edit the rough draft. This precaution is used to prevent edit warring and loss or addition of information that might not be up to consensus. Don't worry, It's just a draft and you'll have all the time you want to make changes after we've replaced it with the current article. The second rule is that all proposed changes in the rough draft must be made on the talk page of the rough draft and must be clear and concise. At that point anyone involved will discuss the proposed changes and if agreed by consensus they will be implemented. We will do that until there is no disputes or disagreements. After all disputes are hammered out, we will replace the homeopathy article with the rough draft. At that point there shouldn't be anyone needing to make huge edits, and if you do see an edit that you want to make, be sure to add a note on the talk page PRIOR to making the edit so that consensus can be reached and then you should make the edit. If you have any questions you can leave me a message on my talk page. Here is the link to the rough draft Link to rough draft. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Please take another look at the draft and tell me if you think anything else should be changed. I think it's about done. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding accreditation at Waldorf education

It is fairly well established that none of the waldorf method charter schools are accredited by WASC, however, almost no elementary schools are accredited, so it's a bogus arguement by the ip anyway. --Rocksanddirt 22:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this established through original research or by citation to some verifiable source? The point of citations, of course, is that well-informed sources will know what to compare this to (e.g. other elementary schools) - as you suggest, this might make all the difference. Hgilbert 00:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Which is why it's important for the edit summaries to also pointing at the direction the research would go, if the ip was going to do any. (namely that only 1400 or so schools are acredited by WASC, and almost none are elementary schools).

Also, were you able to make any sense of the comment from the ip that I sectioned of into the statement? I did that because I had no idea what was meant, and didn't want to be rude and delete it (which is what was likely expected by whomever put it in). --Rocksanddirt 19:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the impression that it was meant to make sense. It certainly could be removed without loss to the discussion! Hgilbert 19:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

well...if we leave the section be, in a few days it will get automatically archived, and then we've not censored anyone either. --Rocksanddirt 22:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm always grateful for those who carry away the rubbish! Hgilbert 01:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your thoughts?....

Waldorf Methods/Social Justice High School. Opening Fall 08. --Rocksanddirt 20:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks impressive.Hgilbert 00:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal identities

I think there is a difference between someone who is a generalist/critic and someone who subscribes to a particular belief. I welcome your input on helping to define and explain anthroposophy, but in external categorization of the subject can only be made reliably by third parties. That's all I'm saying. I don't mean to offend. ScienceApologist 16:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussing "sources at their own level" is a good idea. My primary objection to a lot of the sources you included in the article is that they didn't deal with the question of demarcation per se but rather were simply studies about the way people reacted to anthroposophy. I think such studies may warrant an inclusion somewhere in the encyclopedia, but they have no bearing on whether something is pseudoscience or not. I have no doubt that many people take comfort in both scientific and pseudoscientific ideas and that there is a lot of positive (and negative) effects associated with both types of ideas. That's why I am of the opinion that you were probably too close to the subject and seemed to feel like somehow the label applied to anthroposophy was an "attack" and wanted to include some citations to "defend" it. An understandable urge, but it was inappropriate since the citations were actually defenses against a wholly separate accusation. ScienceApologist 19:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

A classification of a field as pseudoscience is by definition a way someone is reacting to the field rather than a study of the field itself. The sources I included directly spoke about the question of demarcation, and the various demarcations that have been proposed. The very fact that there is disagreement here shows that it is a matter of an individual reaction rather than a scientific classification: when discussing the boundaries of science and the scientific method, we are speaking philosophically, not scientifically in the narrow sense of studying phenomena of nature. (In that sense, the "science of pseudoscience" is itself a pseudoscience, and by its own definition.) Hgilbert 10:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about Rudolf Steiner

Dear Hgilbert, I want to ask you this question: if I prove with quotes from Rudolf Steiner's own works that he was (philosophically seen) an egoist, does that count as original research? May I then posit that he was an egoist inside the Wikipedia article about him? E.g., for me, writing in total good faith, it is a fact (not a value judgment) that he was an egoist. My only question is if this could be seen as vandalism inside Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu 16:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

E.g. http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA018/English/AP1973/GA018_p01c09.html;mark=1650,22,29#WN_mark (the whole paragraph and the following paragraph). Steiner's views expressed therein fit the meaning 1.a. from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/egoism . In general, see http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA018/English/AP1973/search=context?query=stirner and http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA018/English/AP1973/search=context?query=nietzsche . Tgeorgescu 17:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It is true that Steiner said that egoism will be a cause of big trouble for mankind, cf. http://www.gnosticteachings.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=893 . But, it is hard to see his Philosophy of Freedom any other way than expressing ethical egoism, meaning that the impulses for the free action flow from the ego (see 1.a. above). If the ego feels love for action, then his actions will be noble. I think you perceive egoism as bearing a stygma. This could be due to Steiner's association with the Theosophical Society, wherein the ego was seen as an aberation (and that ego-less state was seen as the ideal). Steiner, as a member for such Society, could not challenge the official dogma and still remain a member of the Society. Tgeorgescu 17:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

And, I think, more accurate than meaning 1.a. is the description of the realistic, idealistic and egoistic stages of human development, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/max-stirner/ . In this perspective, Steiner fully expresses the egoistic stage of human development, i.e. the self-expression of the ego, beyond limitations arising from material and social nature and beyond limitations arising from abstract moral commandments. But, perhaps, a better word for it would be individualism. Tgeorgescu 17:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The common argument is: "Everything bad comes from the ego, so egoism is bad." Steiner and Stirner would answer: "And so does everything good, so egoism is beyond good and evil." Tgeorgescu 17:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inadvertent revert

I apologize for reverting your edits at Talk:Waldorf education as "vandalism". They were immediately restored. The reverts were completely inadvertent on my part. I was preparing to edit the talk page must have pushed a wrong button.Professor marginalia 23:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It took me by surprise (twinkle). Hgilbert 23:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry, there is no consensus

As far as I can see, you only discussed this with two other editors, one of whom asked for more time on a specific point. That's not enough to establish consensus. Realize that your attempt to get visibility for the subject was quite unsuccessful. I suggest starting an RfC or trying to get a third opinion. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry? The discussion was on the talk page; a number of editors have joined in agreeing that this policy was necessary and no one has disagreed. The discussion has gone on for many weeks, if not months already. Your reverting now without any discussion on the talk page is acting against the consensus there, without any visible support. Howdy, cowboy. Hgilbert (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't look like you're getting much support for your opinion. Gaining visibility and outside opinions will help. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To do

Post a request on Requests for clarification section of WP:RFAR.Hgilbert (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anthroposophical Medicine

I just updated the Anthroposophical Medicine entry at the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, and would like particularly to solicit your opinion regarding accuracy and balance. Discussion may ensue at the talk page, but I wanted to notify you personally as I recall that you seemed interested in the topic. Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 03:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject homeschooling

Hi Hgilbert!

I noticed you were a member of WikiProject Alternative Education, and thought you might be interested in WikiProject Homeschooling. In this "WikiProject," we have been together working on the collaboration of Homeschooling-related articles. As a member, I really hope you can join, and let me know if you need any help signing up or with anything else. If you have any questions about the project you can ask at the project's talk page. Cheers! RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 23:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] anthroposophy article

Dear Harlan

I am not yet quite sure how Wikipedia works and whether this is the only way to communicate with you...

I have been an anthroposophical librarian and bookseller for 22 years; I would bow to your superior knowledge of Steiner/Waldorf education and hope you might return the compliment and give me credit for knowing my anthroposophical publishers!

Greetings to Sam Betts when you see him.

Best, David —Preceding unsigned comment added by Da nurky (talk • contribs) 00:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative education

There has been a proposal brought forward [1] regarding a merger of WikiProject Alternative Education, and as you are member of that project, I am notifying you. Thanks. Twenty Years 13:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Alternative Education merger

18:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Pete K sockpuppet?

I'm not an admin. At your discretion you may ask an administrator to block the IP address or semi-protect the page again. I think you can manage without semi-protection for now. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)