EdJohnston (talk | contribs) →short response: Fix spacing in M's previous comment |
Comment |
||
Line 179: | Line 179: | ||
Hello Hgilbert. Please see [[WP:AN3#User:Hgilbert reported by User:Masteryorlando (Result: )]]. You may respond there if you wish. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 05:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC) |
Hello Hgilbert. Please see [[WP:AN3#User:Hgilbert reported by User:Masteryorlando (Result: )]]. You may respond there if you wish. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudolf_Steiner&action=historysubmit&diff=412184047&oldid=412183742 here]. [[User:Minimac|<font color="#0645AD">Minima</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Minimac|<font color="#0645AD">c</font>]]<font color="#0645AD"></font> ([[User talk:Minimac|<font color="#0645AD">talk</font>]]) 09:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:06, 6 February 2011
--/Archive --/Archive2 --/Archive3 --/Archive Waldorf project
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)
- Actually Schickals should still be altered to Schicksals. Cheers and Happy Holidays! EPadmirateur (talk) 19:05, 20 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)
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)
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)
I care about it.
I believe if the truth is suppressed - that Steiner for 13 years was General Secretary of the Theosophical Society in Germany - in order to prevent "all the crackpot-mistranslated-nonreliable source" "anti-Waldorf" people from having their say, then this is fundamentally dishonest.
This is not a sourcing issue at all.
There are plenty of third party sources available that back up all of these issue as Hgilbert knows.
This is about making a balanced presentation of Steiner's life - warts and all.
For Steiner's Rosicrucianism and Theosophy (anti-Materialism)
Gnosis and Hermeticism, R van den Broek, Wouter Hanegraff State University of New York (SUNY) Press 1998 p 332 - 346 (Schure Ibid)
James Webb Ibid Esoteric Underground and Esoteric Establishment
Lachman, Rudolf Steiner, Penguin 2007
Sun at Midnight, Ahern Ibid pp.141 - 160 (from Ahern's Phd for London School of Economics, Sociology of Religion concerning The Rudolf Steiner Movement)
Theosophy: History of a Pseudo-religion, Rene Guenon, Alvin Moore on Rudolf Steiner pp 194-208 (especially pp 199 et seq on Steiner and Heindl)
Controversial New Religions, James R. Lewis Oxford University Press p.259 - 295 on Theosophy
Journal Article "Anthroposophy" by Carl Clemen, University of Bonn Publ. in Chicago University Press. Publ. The Journal of Religion 1925 pp 281 et seq
MR Bezděk, Antroposofie a její vliv na spiritualitu v českém prostředí, [Anthroposophy and its influence on the spirituality of the Czech environment] Masaryk University, Brno, Department of Religious Studies
The western esoteric traditions: a historical introduction Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke Oxford University Press 2008
Western Esotericism and Rituals of Initiation Hennrik Bogdan SUNY Press
Western Esoteric Schools in the Nineteenth Century , Egmond
For biodynamic farming and astrology http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/biodynamic.html#plan
For Waldorf education and child's incarnating soul http://www.waldorfearlychildhood.org/articles.asp?id=3 I believe it acceptable to quote this as a "reliable source" of what Waldorf currently promotes.
For reliable source of what Steiner says about Lucifer and Ahriman: http://books.google.com/books?id=nE-7QgAACAAJ&dq=0060653450&hl=en&ei=23tNTa2cEIa8lQfpprQP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA I believe it acceptable to quote this as a "reliable source" of what Steiner said.
For Anthroposophy 101
http://www.whywaldorfworks.org/07_Community/documents/Anthroposophy101_000.pdf
I believe it acceptable to quote this as a "reliable source" of how Anthroposophy has been described within the Waldorf movement.
For Steiner clairvoyance and occultism
A science for the soul: occultism and the genesis of the German modern By Professor Corinna Treitel Johns Hopkins University Press pp.97-101
(Peer reviewed at http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/content/120/485/256.full?sid=ed3ab5ed-d0e8-4f97-8bf9-3e76b7dc44c1 )
also Geoffrey Ahern, Sun at Midnight: The Rudolf Steiner Movement and the Western Esoteric Tradition
For akasha and claims to supersensible clairvoyance - spiritual perception provided him with information about the occult. See for Steiner' description of these - Steiner books: Cosmic memory, Theosophy and Occult For third party description - see Bogdan Ibid, Clemen Ibid, Ahern Ibid
For Racial degeneracy Race and Redemption: Schure Ibid)
Racial and Ethnic Evolution in Rudolf Steiner's Anthroposophy P Staudenmaier, Univ California Press
For Steiner's role within Ariosophy and the German Occult movement
The Ariosophists of Austria and Germany 1890-1935: Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke University of Oxford press 1982 Treitel Ibid
For Aryan/Semitic controversy as a backbone of Theosophy See Webb Ibid
For Steiner the German nationalist Staudenmaier Ibid, Webb Ibid
For neo-pagan elements, Lucifer or Ahriman Ahern Ibid
For Waldorf schools are often attacked for encouraging paganism or even Satanism. This may be because they emphasize the relation of human beings to Nature and natural rhythms, including an emphasis on festivals, myths, ancient cultures, and various non-Christian celebrations.
See Waldorf critics websites 'Are Waldorf Schools Non-Sectarian", Steiner Meetings with Faculty
I suggest Hgilbert rather than blanket reverting 28 edits on the grounds that the 100 or so factual assertions made in those edits "violate the arbitration", that it would be more reasonable to enter into discussion about these. As you well know from my earlier discussions every one of my edits does have a verifiable source independent of the Anthroposophy movement. Indeed this is precisely what I am asking for in these edits - a more balanced independent article - precisely independent of the Anthroposophical movement which you clearly stand for. My edits therefore not only do not violate the arbitration they are precisely in the spirit of it.
I would be happy to add further independent references to any sources you are not entirely happy with if you let me know.
With regard to the Lead: I have strived to correct the inbalance in the previous lead which ignores Steiner's 13 year role as General Secretary of the Theosophical Society, ignores Steiner's role as leader of an occult movement, and ignores that Anthroposophy is a path to the supersensible - to clarvoyance, presents Spiritual Science as Scientia and not Episteme (which Jung called "concealment" of the truth.) This bias presented in Hgilbert's revrsion of my edits i clearly in pursuit of the Anthroposophical movement's desire to conceal the esoteric and occult from Steiner's biography.
In making those corrections I have strived to leave as much as possible from previous edits - although the use of R. Bruce Elder quote from "Harmony and dissent" that Steiner "attempted to find a synthesis between science and mysticism" without the remaining context that he did this by "applying scientific strategies to induce spiritual visions" is simply, in my view, dishonest, so I did add that.
If you find the result a little stilted in the lead because of the previous edits then I am happy for you to correct that without removing the substance of my additions since it seems to me essential to leave in the Theosophical Society information. Just look at the History Section in wikipedia's Anthroposophy article - over half of it deals with the Theosophical Society history and with Steiner's role as a spiritual teacher, occultist and clairvoyant yet Hgilbert's edit here - in his biography - presents him solely as a philosopher and artist. That entirely distorts the truth. Masteryorlando (talk) 16:57, 5 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)