Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:02, 12 January 2006

First, people get upset for me removing non-NPOV criticism from this page, and now an anthroposophist sent me a long and lingering sob-letter for removing his redesign of the same page into ouright anthroposophical evangelism.

Please, if you do not like the Misplaced Pages NPOV policy (and read it!), then don't contribute. Start your own wiki instead.

To all others that have helped out in making this entry great, thanks for your tireless work. Nixdorf 19:34, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I didn't write that Anthroposophy is a cult, but that Critics have called it a cult. Which is a fact, see for example http://www.waldorfcritics.org. So where do I break NPOV?

Linards Ticmanis, not a registered Misplaced Pages member as of yet.

The current wording is more nuanced. What I want to see is:

1. Names. Who are these critics? If you use the plural form critics you must name atleast two people or organizations by name or simply write "The Site Waldorfcritics.com claim that..."

2. Criteria these people or organizations have used for defining "cult" and "New Age". These are blanket terms and not informative as such. The part about uncritical praise of Steiners person looks good though.

A heading with collected critical views would also be nice. Nixdorf 13:46, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The following was removed by me from the article page for breaking the NPOV:

Critics have called Athroposphy an occultist cult within the larger New Age scene, which uncritically elevates Steiner's personal opinions to the level of absolute truth.

Nixdorf 21:10, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

VWS, would you mind correcting the original article? Wesley

I'm sorry for not having been in touch - as Dreamshade correctly said below, I'm not a regular Wikipedian. On a first reading, I find the new entry on Anthroposophy quite all right. I'm going to have it printed and study it carefully. I also don't object leaving below my comments to the early version; I think they add additional information to the new entry; moreover, it's good to have some comments on what Anthroposophy _is not_. For this, please look at the section Anthroposophy on http://www.sab.org.br. Please write directly to me at vwsetzer@ime.usp.br. Valdemar W. Setzer (male...), on April 21, 2005.

I don't think she's a regular Wikipedian: should we try to contact her (vwsetzer at ime.usp) and ask her if she wants to? Or wait for someone else to do it? -- Dreamyshade

Either way. I don't know anything about the subject, but it looks like VWS at the least has a well-researched view. But it should be presented as straightforward statements. In its current form, it would be more appropriate for this page. Unfortunately, I'm not volunteering, just offering a suggestion. :-/ Wesley

The following text was moved from the article page olivier 04:10 Dec 17, 2002 (UTC)

Contribution by Valdemar W. Setzer, http://www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer , based upon an early version of the entry above (as it was changed, some of the observations do not apply to its present version):

1. Anthroposophy is NOT based on Theosophy. Its creator, Rudolf Steiner, was a philosopher and editor of Goethe's scientific works until the beginning of the 20th century. Then on request of a group of Theosophists in Berlin, he began to give public lectures on spiritual subjects. In his autobiography, he said that Theosophists were the only people that were opened to hear the results of his spiritual research. He eventually joined the German Theosophical Society, and lead lead it for ten years, but had always stressed that his ideas were original, and were not based on previous writings by other authors. He repeatedly said that, after having done some of his own research, he would check to see how much his findings were in accordance with other texts, as for instance the Bible. In 1913, due to differences in opinions, he left the Theosophical Society and founded the Anthroposophic Society, which has its headquarters at the Goetheanum, in Dornach, Switzerland.

The reader is urged to read some of his writings to verify these statements. For those with no inclination to spiritualism, start with a book that he considered his most important one, and which was a development of his Doctoral Thesis at the University of Rostock: _The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity_. Some translations have used a titled which is a transliteration of the original German: _The Philosophy of Freedom_. It contains a very important and original analysis of perception, thinking and consciousness.

2. The statement "reality is essentially spiritual" should be clarified. In Anthroposophic terms, a more precise formulation could be "behind any reality there is something spiritual." Physical reality is absolutely essential from the Anthroposophic point of view.

3. The subdivision of the human being in body, soul and spirit is just one of the human structures used in Anthroposophy. There are others, which help e.g. to understand why developed plants are different from minerals, why animals are different from plants and why humans are so different from animals. Obviously, there are concepts connecting each possible structure to others. Steiner gave clear concepts on the various constituents of the human being, e.g. clearly separating what he meant by "soul" and what by "spirit."

4. The aim of Anthroposophy is NOT to reach higher levels of consciousness. In a lecture of Nov. 13, 1909 (he gave more than 6,000 lectures, all published, and wrote almost 30 books - Anthroposophy has absolutely nothing secret or sectarian) he said that understanding the spiritual word was more important than observing it. He was absolutely against observing the spiritual word through mystic visions, which are characterized by lack of conscious thinking accompanying the observations. In general, mystics direct themselves to feelings, and not to reasoning, and do not transmit their observations through clear concepts, as Steiner did.

5. The phrase "The movement is adverse to earthly pleasures - if the spirit enjoys earthly pleasures it will be reincarnated in a new body and will not reach the higher spirit world." is absolutely wrong from the Anthroposophical point of view. According to the latter, reincarnation does not depend on "earthly pleasures." I challenge the anonymous author of the text to cite one of Steiner's passages - or of any of the thousands of works written by Anthroposophists - where such an absurdity is found. This phrase reveals that the author has at best "heard" about Anthroposophy, and has not studied it.

6. Steiner inaugurated a new form of Medicine, called Anthroposophical Medicine, which he insisted to call an "Erweiterung," an extension of academic medicine. Among others, it uses homeopathic drugs, but their preparation differs from classical Homeopathy. The statement of a part of a plant looking similar to an organ is not correct. Furthermore, in the Anthroposohic terminology, plants do no have what it calls "astral body." Only humans and animals have it. This is one further demonstration that the author of the text is not familiar with the basics of Anthroposophy.

7. Besides a new form of medicine, Steiner renewed many other fields: Waldorf Education, now with more than 100 schools in the USA, and more than 800 in the world; Biodynamic Farming; Organic Architecture; and social renewal, the so-called "Threefold Social Organization." He also introduced two new forms of art, Eurithmy and Speech Formation. A new kind of curative education was developed following his ideas, of which the most popular initiative is the Camphill Movement.

For further information on Anthroposophy, please visit the site of the General Anthroposophic Society, http://www.goetheanum.ch . I am the webmaster of the Anthroposophic Society in Brazil; its site contains some material in English, including a chronological biography of Rudolf Steiner, at http://www.sab.org.br ; maybe it would be interesting for the reader to give a look at its section "Anthroposophy."

End of VWS's contribution.

I don't understand the relevancy of the external link on "Audio McCarthyism" to the subject of antroposophy. Is it just a lame attempt at discrediting a critical voice? -Emanuel Landeholm

Not a Science

Anthroposophy is not considered a science by any scientific authority whilst psychology is. Also it does not fit any modern model of what science is. To compare the two is to try to give anthroposophy a level of acceptance and authority it does not have and is misleading to the reader. This is an attempt to promote Anthroposophy rather than fairly report on it. Lumos3 13:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Outright slander

One of the primary links on the Stelling page has outright slander on it (reference to the O.T.O.). I am removing the link to this page. Hgilbert 02:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The SIMPOS page contains over 100 links to articles which comment on Anthroposophy. You claim that one of these onwardly links to a page which you say contains a slander. This is a poor argument for removing the link to a sober and useful resource and feels like censorship. You cannot protect the reader from accessing sites you disapprove of. Lumos3 11:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The link is the second on the list. It is to a discredited source (there have been law suits over these matters; it is not a matter of opinion but of established fact). Neither false information nor links to false information belong in an encyclopedia. It is not censorship but honest standards; would you wish false information about you to appear in or be linked to by the Misplaced Pages? Hgilbert 02:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

A secondary link, not the one in Misplaced Pages but an onward link leads to a page which you say contains slanderous remarks. I don’t believe this is sufficient grounds for removing the link to the intermediate page. The SIMPOS page is not itself a problem. We cannot prevent a reader exploring the www by trying to close doors. Which court cases are you referring to can you give details? Lumos3 21:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes to the latter; a book was published in Germany called the Schwarzbuch Anthroposophie with the claim about the OTO (amongst other claims that appear on the SIMPOS page/links) and a court case was brought against it due to the libelous contents. The case was successful and the book was withdrawn from sales. For a reference to this case see an article which was originally printed in an official Swiss government journal, Bulletin der Eidgenössischen Kommission gegen Rassismus EKR, Bern: the link is http://www.infosekta.ch/is5/gruppen/anthroposophie1999.html

The SIMPOS page is a problem if it does not ensure that its links are respectable; in the last month, Science magazine has publicized heavily problems with reports on cloning it had published that turned out to be falsified, though it was the authors of this journal, not the magazine, that had falsified material. A page that does not work to ensure accuracy should not be linked to, plain and simple. If they want to ensure that they have accurate material on their site, a bare minimum for scientific (or encyclopediac) respectability, they can be linked to. Misplaced Pages is implicitly recommending its links for their accuracy.

Please, can we stop the revert war. I agree the link following the link is of dubious nature, but that disputed article () in turn also links its own critics ( by Peter-R. Koenig) at the bottom. I think that the link can stand since Misplaced Pages readers are highly capable of critical thinking and can evaluate facts and slander alike themselves. Nixdorf 23:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you give examples where other Misplaced Pages articles link to pages with links to slanderous, or simply false, information? I think of Holocaust deniers, for example, are they given a chance to make their voice known? The Flat Earth society? People can obviously evaluate these facts and slanders equally well. Are there any examples at all to establish that this is Misplaced Pages policy?

Are you trying to argue that Wikipidia can only link to sites which are 100% bone fide , because there is no such thing. All sites contain errors and omissions. The Science (journal) site still has credibility and is linked to in articles, its up to the reader to treat any information with caution. Lumos3 13:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hgilbert, there are several such links actually. For example see entries for Majestic 12 or Flat Earth Society which you mentioned yourself. Readers obviously have to evaluate all information, even that which is on Misplaced Pages, linked from Misplaced Pages, or linked 2 degrees away from Misplaced Pages or whatever. Please turn down your belligerent tone, it does not add to the discussion. Nixdorf 11:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I apologize for any mis-tones.

The Science journal (and its site) have credibility because they have immediately reacted to the accusations of falsifications; the top headline on their site is South Korean team's claim demolished. I looked at the links from Flat Earth Society; they are well-balanced discussions not entirely sympathetic to the idea of a Flat Earth, not polemical supports of this. In a second section titled 'External Links' there is a link to the Flat Earth Forum, which is a discussion group, and as such does not pretend to be anything but obviously personal opinions of not necessarily qualified participants. I would personally say that this is a radically different solution; the PLANS web-site has this character, for example.

OK, I understand your concern, but can you be precise on the demarcation line between "highly critical" and "slanderous"? I would be inclined to say that sites spreading verified lies are "slanderous", and if that article about the Ordo Templi Orientis was linked directly, I could understand if it was removed. However, I think it's still a bit of a special case since they link their critics (Mr. Koenig), this means they recognize the need for debate and critical thinking. But I don't think that unlinking a portal resource can be supported by this fact, I think it's too weak. I think we need more voices than just the three of us so we can reach some broader consensus before this is resolved. Nixdorf 19:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would say there are several distinct stages that might help: neutral, critical, polemical and slanderous. Under neutral I would include simply informative sites, as well as discussions that include positive and negative aspects, pro and contra reasons and stances. This would be my preferred category for anything under general links. Critical approaches would be unsympathetic but relatively objective discussions; both sides of issues should be included, but a critical bias might be apparent. Polemical discussions simply ignore positive features and seek out negative ones; they may distort facts, are clearly unbalanced and should really only appear when there's room for a rebuttal as well (this is what journals do with such contributions; they ask for a response from the original author or a representative of the other side -- the Swiss governmental site I mention on this discussion page does exactly this). Polemics are not normally included in encyclopedia links; they might be referenced by researchers who already have a background in the subject and can see through the polemic while looking for any valuable nuggets buried in the bias. Slander (or simply erroneous information) is found when there are provably false statements made. These do not belong anywhere near a respectable site, or if they creep on, they are corrected immediately.

That would be my off-the-cuff suggestion for a nuanced policy; I would welcome others help here, as I am sure that I've left out important aspects. I do think it important that Misplaced Pages finds a clear and consistent approach (and perhaps all this has already been worked through somewhere). Hgilbert 19:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Should the SIMPOS site entitled "Anthroposophy, Rudolf Steiner, Waldorf schools; and their critics" be linked

The SIMPOS site is a resource containing links to (mainly critical) information on occult tendencies. User Hgilbert is arguing that because this site's Antroposophy page contains 1 link out of 100 that onwardly links to another site that contains material of dubious quality the whole SIMPOS site should be excluded from this articles external links section. SIMPOS is merely a collection of links. It is a key resource for those wishing to find views on Anthoposophy that don't originate from inside the movement. The SIMPOS site is http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/anthroposophy.htm , for those wishing to follow this conversation but without the benefit of a link on the article page. Lumos3 13:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the link is placed in the highly prominent position of being second in the list, not buried somewhere amongst the 60 or so actual links. Second of all, it is not just dubious; it is slanderous. Third of all, there are other problematic links on the site; I mentioned only the one that contains verifiably slanderous material (because there has been a court case over this, the evidence is clear). Many or most of the other links are written by polemicists (as opposed to historians, objective journalists, or experts in any field) and several of them have also been described publicly as false or slanderous; there are published, hot discussions about this. Above and beyond this, many of the respectable-appearing links are actually dead; they no longer function. To have contentious or highly-debated material is one thing; to have outright slanderous material is another. Having both gives credence to the accusations of slander or error against the 'only' dubious material, as well. There are surely balanced discussions and expert opinions that would better serve an encylopedia. I will try to find something that gives the questions that are being publicly debated without themselves entering problematic territory! Hgilbert 01:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The discussion here is should we link to a Portal site which links uncritically to a range of material on this subject. I think we should.

I don’t think we should directly link to sites which tell lies, but all the others are fair to use as references if they illustrate a point of view or serve as a resource. It is the Misplaced Pages article which allows the reader to make sense of the range of sites by putting them in a broader context. Its part of Misplaced Pages’s scope to tell the whole story about a subject including all sides of arguments past and present and to report on the untruths which might have circulated and how these were repudiated.

NPOV means a reader gets a look at all points of view in circulation. Libel cases are just another part of the story to be reported in the article. Lumos3 20:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Critical views

I have tried to rewrite the 'critical views' section that incorporates the suggestions above (giving an overview to put the linked pages in context). Please extend this as appropriate!