User talk:Clean Copy

--/Archive --/Archive2 --/Archive3 --/Archive Waldorf project

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please consider reverting

This edit places a value-judgment into the text of Wikipedia (that there exist influences between science and spirituality which were mutually positive). This is an opinion, and, as such, needs to be either cited to the person who holds that opinion or changed so it is not an opinion and simply a fact. I'd prefer the latter, but I would point out that the source you claims supports your revert does not, in fact, declare it to be a fact that the influences were mutually "positive". 128.59.169.46 (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the reference's placing is ambiguous; the text actually supports the whole sentence - that some influences were positive, others antagonistic, others complementary. hgilbert (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the text says that some people think that influences were positive, others think the influences were antagonistic, but most take a somewhat complementary view. Please stop misrepresenting sources. You did it again with re-inclusion of quantum flapdoodle on the same page.128.59.169.46 (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]