Talk:Eurythmy

Other meanings of eurythmy
Regarding this edit I feel I should explain my rationale for calling on Wiktionary here for disambiguation. While I am aware that Wikipedia is not a dictionary I always feel uncomfortable when a term referring to a specific concept is only covered in Wikipedia by particular entities, such as schools and bands. To my knowledge, Wikipedia currently contains no information regarding the aesthetic concept of "eurythmie", as alluded to in the second paragraph of this section of the William-Adolphe Bouguereau page ("the eurythmie of the human body preoccupies him"). The pertinent definition cited in the OED of "a graceful proportion and carriage of the body" dates back at least to 1706 (in The New World of English Words). Given that Bouguereau died in 1905, and Steiner's discipline was "born in 1911", this usage must not be confused with the main subject of the present page (even though it is reasonable to suspect that it may have been this particular concept that Steiner was primarily referencing ). Although all the main definitions listed in the OED (and Wiktionary) invariably recall the Ancient Greek etymology, the information that "the term was used by [Ancient] Greek and Roman architects to refer to the harmonious proportions of a design or building" does not really cover the concept.

81.147.162.97 (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Since the term is currently used essentially exclusively to describe the current article's subject, a disambiguation page seems unnecessary. But the fact that the term was previously known and used in English is worth noting within the article itself. HGilbert (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that a disambiguation page would not be appropriate. However, if you look at my edit you'll see that it actually added the Wiktionary page within the current dab header. Fwiw, I believe use of Wiktionary to disambiguate is accepted, and that this option could be useful here to some readers. While Steiner's appropriation is almost certainly the most commonly recognized usage of the term today, some Wikipedia readers may come to this page in search of information in no way directly connected with him (and hence with the main subject of the page). That's what actually happened to me, and I felt the Wiktionary dab could be helpful for other readers. Cheers, 81.147.162.97 (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm curious what you were looking for, if not this topic and not a dictionary definition. HGilbert (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, having stumbled on Bouguereau's preoccupation for "the eurythmie of the human body", I wanted to see what Wikipedia might be able to tell me about eurythmy as an aesthetic concept, Steiner apart and beyond the etymology. Since the eurythmy page didn't really answer my question I thought of providing a dab link to Wiktionary for the benefit of others. Actually, Wikipedia seems barely to mention aesthetic concepts of eurythmy prior to Steiner's appropriation of the term. Ultimately, I think it could usefully do so (beyond the provision of dictionary definitions). It turns out that "eurythmia" is one of the main aesthetic ingredients singled out by Vitruvius in his treatise De architectura  (although there currently seems to be no mention of this on WP). It also appears that the French art critic Charles Blanc's "1882 Grammaire defines ornament according to two fundamental 'laws': eurythmy (harmony/sequence), and complication (infinite perception of figures)".  While I do feel that such information may be considered genuinely encyclopedic I wouldn't go so far as to argue for further "eurythmy" pages. Ideally, I think dabs with pertinent redirects could be appropriate. However, I feel somewhat out of my depth here... And, fwiw, I'm still not sure quite which aesthetic concept of eurythmie was being referred to in the citation on the Bouguereau page! 81.147.165.192 (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC) [previously 81.147.162.97]


 * Vitruvius' Latin term is usually translated into English as shapeliness or the like. The article on Blanc's work you refer to is quoting the French edition of his work. So as an English term, eurythmy seems to exclusively be used for the movement art. I would not think we need an disambiguation link or article for terms that have other meanings in other languages. HGilbert (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Lost in translation...? Omnis traductor traditor. So why the need to defend any one particular terminological/conceptual monopoly? I can see no historical justification for this here. From the OED entry cited above (where, btw, Steiner's usage was added only in 1993): Forms: eurythmie, eurithmy, eurythmy, eurhythmy. Also in Latin form eurythmia. Imo, a well sourced Eurythmy (aesthetics) page could potentially be a useful addition to the English-language Wikipedia. Although not prepared to write it, I would certainly be interested to consult it—though of course I'd quite understand if others, like yourself, had no interest in it (no-one would expect us all to share the same degree of interest across the millions of pages on en:wp). 81.147.165.192 (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources
I agree that we have to be careful about selecting reliable sources -- the Weil source may indeed be doubtful -- but where material is sourced to peer-reviewed, mainstream academic presses, we should also report these without artificial qualifications. HGilbert (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It will depend on the content of course. Fringe medical claims shouldn't be plainly asserted in Wikipedia's voice ... If it was a conclusion from (say) a systematic review in a top-tier medical journal, then okay; something surprising from a family medical book - not so much. Alexbrn talk 12:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I had never heard of Andrew Weil before, but looked into the Integrative Oncology book further on your recommendation above...it is published by Oxford University Press. RS states clearly that such presses are sufficient to establish reliability. What is the problem? HGilbert (talk) 12:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * By WP:Truth, the fringiness of medical claims should be judged by the reliability of the sources (here mainstream, peer-reviewed presses), not by any editor's assertions or beliefs. If there are countervailing views, they should also be represented, of course. HGilbert (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OUP publishes shedloads of stuff that is not WP:MEDRS. Are you seriously saying the quackery in a book on "Integrative oncology" can be asserted as biomedical information on Wikipedia? Alexbrn talk 12:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * MEDRS specifically mentions that "Books published by university presses...tend to be well-researched and useful for most purposes." Oxford University Press is one of the most reputable university presses worldwide. The policy seems clear, regardless of your (or my) opinion on the subject of integrative medicine. HGilbert (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * MEDRS is not "policy"; WP:PSCI is. While OUP might "tend to" publish good sources, in this particular case due caution needs to be exercised to prevent inclusion of quackery on Wikipedia. I have raised a query at WP:FT/N ... Alexbrn talk 18:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear here: Weil is the canonical unreliable source per WP:MEDRS. Anything stated or supported by Weil should be viewed with the greatest possible skepticism. "Integrative" medicine is to alternative medicine what intelligent design is to creationism. Medicine is the field guided by medical science, "integrative" medicine is the field guided by medical science "integrated" with the bollocks that medical science rejects as unsupported by good evidence. A good analogy: integrative baking seeks to improve apple pie by integrating it with cow pie. As Minchin's Law states, the name for alternative medicine that has been proven to work is: medicine. No, we do not include sources specialising in "integrative" oncology as sources with any relevance to oncology. Integrative medicine will not be accepted as valid unless and until it unambiguously rejects provable quackery such as homeopathy, the chiropractic subluxation, acupuncture / acupressure points and the like. Any field which actively seeks to include the empirically unverifiable, is not to be asserted as fact on Wikipedia per WP:FRINGE and others policies. See Lunatic charlatans for a recent forceful statement from Jimbo on this. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * ^^^^^^^^ applauds ^^^^^^^^ -Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * For all the deniers, skeptics, quackery-thugs, et al: you have to read the material with an open mind. Steiner has said over and ever, do NOT believe anything I say ... find out for yourself, and unless you have read the material, you have nothing to say (my own words describing Steiner's thoughts). If someone like myself has to prove something Steiner has said exists, then the deniers need to prove that it doesn't! This is sorely lacking, here. Bringing spiritual concepts into the physical plane is difficult, at best ... that's why you need to read the material. The elibrarian (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If I opened my mind that far, my brain would dribble out of my ears. - Roxy the dog 12:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Influences
There are obvious influences from ballet and Tai Chi, although no mention of those in the article. Doing a search I found that QuackWatch mentions those influences too, but is that considered a realiable source? 76.10.128.192 (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eurythmy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120313232919/http://www.sfwaldorf.org/high-school/arts/eurythmy-troupe to http://www.sfwaldorf.org/high-school/arts/eurythmy-troupe

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)