Talk:Rudolf Steiner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice: Pete K is indefinitely banned from editing this article.

The user specified has been banned by the Arbitration committee from editing this article. Posted by Penwhale for the Arbitration committee. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review.

The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. Editors of this are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications. It is anticipated that this process may result in deletion or merger of some articles due to failure of verification by third party peer reviewed sources. If it is found, upon review by the Arbitration Committee, that any of the principals in this arbitration continue to edit in an inappropriate and disruptive way editing restrictions may be imposed. Review may be at the initiative of any member of the Arbitration Committee on their own motion or upon petition by any user to them. For further information see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 23:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rudolf Steiner article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Architecture Portal This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Castle.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the assessment scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

Archives
Steiner and theosophy, Archive 1, Prior to October 8, 2006, Archive 2, Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Last chance 2 Disputes over racism discussion sources 2.1 Social Ecology 2.2 Dutch commission 3 Steiner quotes 4 Rules for citations in this article 5 Peter Nasselstein 6 Identify hidden comment 7 Reception

Last chance

See discussion and comment on this at Talk page of another article.

Thebee 16:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hold section "Last Chance" Venado 00:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Disputes over racism discussion sources

I'd like to separate the discussions on each reference so the talk is less confused. Please focus on issues, not each other. Please do not fill the discussion with inflammatory exaggerations. It just wastes time and page space, and increase odds of edit conflicts.Venado 15:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure you would like to separate the discussions. THEY'RE RELATED. On the one hand, you want to exclude a source that has the complete text of the article referenced, and is posted on an unbiased site hosted by scholars on the exact subject of the article. On the other hand, you want to include a report for which the text is unavailable for review, written by authors who are KNOWN to be biased and that is from a biased website that is clearly not allowed. There's no question why you would want to separate these two issues - because the treatment of these issues together demonstrates clearly a bias to your POV. This CLEARLY demonstrates exactly what I have been talking about - an organized effort to distort the truth. Don't separate the issues - deal with them and the issue of intentionally introduced bias in these articles. Pete K 17:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Social Ecology

Please resume discussion about "Janus" article here.Venado 15:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The Institute for Social Ecology had a journal publication called "Harbinger".[1] Doesn't look like they still do. (Vol.3 No.1 appears to be the last, published in 2003). The website says that the Institute no longer has a campus or teaches classes, and that anew revised Institute is in process. They offered degrees in one area, "Social Ecology", which the site defined "a coherent radical critique of current social, political, and anti-ecological trends". The staff said its philosophy is a strain of the eco-anarchism movement. The staff called it an activist organization. These are probably some of the factors involved in the editor disputes over "polemical" source.

The "Janus" article was uploaded on the website by a user who only gave the name "peter". Pete_K says "peter" is "Peter Staudenmaier" who was one of the staff at the Institute, and considers the link [2] a "peer reviewed publication". But in every way, this article is different than the articles in the Institute's real publication, "Harbinger". It looks like a self-published message board upload. The author's name isn't given. It isn't professionally formatted. I couldn't find any signs the Institute's journal, Harbinger, published it. There is no evidence this was a peer reviewed published article. No details at all of the publication were given in Steiner article except the weblink, to the message board upload.

Full bibliographic description of it should be given if it was really published. All I found was note on another self publish website that a "much shortened version" was published in Norwegian "Humanist". But I can't find it online. I think this should be confirmed and read by somebody who reads Norwegian, because it probably is different than the longer English self published article. Then this article can probably use it as source if the article uses it accurate to the Humanist publishing. But wikipedia does not allow and it is not good quality in this kind of research to link to self published message board articles.

If this isn't possible, it shouldn't be that hard to find other publications to use instead. We are just causing more work for everybody to be so lazy to do work and find the right references. Adding bad ones because they are easy and fast to find wastes time in the long run.Venado 17:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Peter Staudenmaier's name appears on the article in several other places on the internet. I have provided the article with Mr. Staudenmaier's name on it for you to examine. Your position as to who wrote the article is not well taken. Neither is your guess as to what content may or may not have been removed in the condensed version. The Dutch Commission report isn't searchable on the internet either, BTW. None of your points make any sense. Pete K 18:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not disputing with you that he wrote it. I am disputing that any real "peer reviewed" publisher would publish an article giving nothing but the author's "first name" (in all lower case letters) to identify authorship. No legitimate peer review publication would publish like that. Thats one big clue right there, which you are playing down as "deciding if a source is good on how it looks". Well, yah, thats one reason it does not look right. Peer reviewed publications dont expect readers to guess the name who wrote the article they are publishing. The link you are giving is not a peer review publication, it was uploaded to a message board by its author, ie self published. Editors do not "guess" what references say, thats why we can not add this without any one here even reading it. This is basic,you don't bluff by adding rumored published references you have not even read. I am starting to feel duped into explaining because it now seems I am taken played. This is not a published peer reviewed article, I should not have to explain ten times, it is so obvious. [3] Venado 19:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The article has been published at other sites. That's a fact. Whether it is referenced at this site or another site is irrelevant to me. It's a real work by a real author. A search will show an extensive effort by Anthroposophists to dispute its content (Daniel Hindes most notably). Nobody disputes the author, or the publication of the article. This just happened to be the only "neutral" source where the text was available. It appears on both Anthroposophical and Critical websites and neither its legitimacy nor its content, nor its authorship, for that matter, is in dispute. For these reasons, the article should not be rejected - in its current form (nobody needs to guess what it says - they just need to read it). It exists, it was written by Staudenmaier, an expert in this field, and is a very valid source for the information it produces. Your "explanations" don't hold any water because you keep missing the point. The point is - this is good AS IS. Pete K 19:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Google finds there are only copies in two different places. Social-ecology, where it is not a suitable publishing for reasons listed many times, and waldorfcritics, which is both not allowed for these articles and not any kind of real publisher either. This article on Google only hits 6 or 7 different websites, and all the rest are just link farms which link directly to those first two we know are not wikipedia qualified publishings. It might have been published in some much shortened form in a Norwegian publication, thats all we have to go on so far. Is this subject not note worthy enough for wikipedia in the first place? Or else there should be better reference sources we can find to use besides this. We should not have to scrape the bottom of the bowl to find something to use, and should find some wikipedia worthy published source for this.Venado 20:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure you're even looking at the right article. You seem to have it confused with the "Janus Face of Anthroposophy" article (also by Staudenmaier). Regarding the subject here are more sources but you probably won't like any of them:

• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• Here is Mr. Staudenmaier himself pointing to sources - historians who have published on this subject. BTW, Mr. Staudenmaier's article contains over 50 references other historians to support his statements and conclusions (as one would expect of any scholarly work). BTW, your characterization that the inclusion of this material is "scraping the bottom of the bowl" is insulting to intelligent people. Pete K 20:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am looking at the right article. Footnote 47 has this link [10] to "Janus Face of Anthroposophy". you reverted several times to keep it.[11] [12] We have talked in circles for days, on 2 talk pages, and you do not even know what the article is that you have been reverting over. You are just wasting our time with sources you know are not allowed. Waldorfcritics is not allowed.Venado 21:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Just jumping in a bit here:

1. ISE appears to currently offer an MA degree in conjuction with Prescott College.
2. While the format is similar to a blog, I believe the ISE online library simply gives their faculty a place to upload essays and articles. See here for a long list of essays by numerous faculty members.
3. While it is unusual in scholarly publications for the full name of the author to be missing, there is a page on the website here which lists "peter" clearly as Peter Staudenmaier. It seems to me that faculty are using usernames on the site, not hiding their identities.
4. Even if we decide to call this self-published, WP:SPS states "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by reliable, third-party publications." Peter Staudenmaier is a PhD candidate (I would say therefore a professional researcher), is well-known within the Waldorf critics world, and certainly this topic is within his area of expertise. He has been published by a third-party publisher.
5. Harbinger appears no longer to be in publication. That may be because ISE is in a state of transition, or simply has chosen to publish on the web instead. Just because it looks "unprofessional" doesn't mean it is.
6. Social ecology, as defined by ISE, is perhaps a more activist version of what is offered at more mainstream universities, such as the University of California, Irvine's School of Social Ecology, here. (I took classes in social ecology at UCI, I know of what I speak.) ISE might be a bit polemical in their radicalism, but are we saying there aren't Marxists or ex-Black Panthers at big universities? Are we saying that authors who toe the cultural line are the only reputable sources? I think not. Also ISE is not itself polemical about Waldorf or anthroposophy.

I'm not a proponent of ISE, or Staudenmaier or his assertions. I just want us to be clear about citations. Henitsirk 20:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not remember points in the earlier discussions about if the source is polemical, I did not pay close attention and that is not why I say this is not a proper source. That was a dispute I was not involved in so that was the reason given by other editors to exclude the source. My reason is that it is not properly published. I do not understand why the PhD candidacy of the author would mean that his work does not need to be published. This special exception at wikipedia is intended for people like the surgeon general of the United States or a scientist awarded the Nobel prize for mapping the genome, not a graduate student still in college or only well known to waldorf critics. Normally graduate students are not considered "well known professional researchers". What I am asking is for a well known researcher with so much expertise in the field and so many experts on his side, why do we need to use this where he uploaded his own work on his college website to be published? What kind of well known professional researcher would just be self publishing his own stuff or published on waldorfcritics and no place else? If he is well known expert on this same subject then use what he published where the other well known experts publish. If he is well known in "waldorf critics world" that is not enough, he needs to be published.Venado 21:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You DO get that he's been published right? Pete K 22:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

So who was the publisher and was the published material related to our discussion? Lkleinjans 23:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Then please just find this published work so we dont keep arguing why we really need to even in his case? Here is a published article that talks about the critics of Steiners race views[13]. It can be used somewhere in that discussion. If it needs more discussion on that source we should start another section. Long sections with several seperate issues mixing together are harder to follow or resolve.Venado 23:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Henitsirk provided a link to the published works above. No, I don't care about articles that talk about critics of Steiner and what they think - I'm interested in what scholars think - and Mr. Staudenmaier is a scholar, not a critic. Producing an article that states what critics think is no better than producing an article that says what the Dutch Commission thinks. The position of scholars (who are not Anthroposophists) is that Steiner's views were indeed racist. That's what should go in the article. Pete K 01:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Venado, it may well be better to find a different citation, or the essay in question in a more acceptable venue. All I was trying to point out was that some of the arguments against using the Staudenmaier essay don't make sense to me. For example, you said that the ISE site looks like a blog or a message board. I disagree: the ISE site is not formatted at all like a blog (the essays each have a posting date and a view counter, but that's not a blog), and an online library of essays is not a message board (there's no way to comment on the essays and there are no threaded discussions). It appears to me that ISE is using web publishing in a more informal way than they did with Harbinger, but that doesn't necessarily discount it as a source. You seem to be knowledgable about academic publishing, I seem to know about web publishing. I'm not arguing, I'm just trying to combine our knowledge.

I'm not invested in using this citation or any other, I'm just trying to point out that we have to be very clear about what we say, and that we try to reach consensus as editors using facts, not suppositions. As you've said, we can't rely on arbitrators for every little thing. Henitsirk 01:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

To PeteK.Henitsirk's link was to a book store selling 2 books that are different than the Janus article used as reference here. One of the books I found in an online library and see that the book is 2 essays written by 2 authors. The one by Staudenmier does not say anything about Steiners racism. But the one by Janet Bierl does. I will use that link to the book instead of the self publish by Staudenmier. I do not know if it is just careless or what it is but lot of wrong information kept coming back in this whole discussion creating arguments that go no where. The reference linked in this article by Staudenmier was misidentified to 3 totally different writings of his, and he didnt even write about Steiner's racism in his essay in the published reference finally found by tracing Henitsirks link to the publishers online book store. But somebody else wrote about Steiner there. Shortest distance between to points is a straight line not a treasure hunt. This publisher is also a radical anarchist press, so the polemical dispute might still be unresolved. But I do not have the whole facts on the decision admins made when this question came up before.Venado 02:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious to me that you want to find any excuse to exclude Staudenmaier as a possible source. The Janus article was acceptable, as is the Anthroposophy and Ecofacism article. I may add Staudenmaier's article back in ANYWAY because it's a valid source and he is a valid historian and scholar. You may think the shortest distance between point A and point B is to claim point C is just as good, but I don't agree. I didn't say, BTW, that that particular article was listed in the link Henitsirk provided - I said that it shows Staudenmaier is published on the same topic - which it does. Staudenmaier is an EXPERT on Steiner and I intend to challenge any removal of his material here - as long as I am here (another reason to push for my banishment). Here he absolutely discusses Steiner's racism AND Waldorf schools. This is the article that should be used as a source here, and the one I repeatedly pointed you to - not the Janus article. Pete K 05:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is not a for racking author trophies. It is an article about Steiner. I found a published source to verify the article statement, the Steiner article was not changed one inch to accomadate it. But thats not good enough, and now 4th Staudenmier web article is merchandised like all of them are the same. Like equally interchangable tires on a car. There were several days trying to confuse editors tp interchange one self publish Staudenmier with another. Why? Is this the idea of his publishing agent? I dont know if it is spamming or wikilaywering or what the name is but this is not constructive editing given the task at hand. It is creatomg unnecessary conflicts. And takes time from the project. Is that the intention? Because this is a needless conflict, and does not impact article content. But only impacts potentially the face time of slighted authors who want a citation at wikipedia for themselves. If this is about one source face time on wikipedia, it just detracts from the project. It is not a place to pad the CV. Why rewind and go through it all again to battle about a source that didnt pass before? This went to dead ends for so long, and is a redundant source that wont even affect article content. When an end-run victory has been found, why refight old battles that were lost? Venado 07:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're confused here. I don't have time to mess with this but as I said above, point C doesn't represent a faster or straighter route to point B. Peter Staudenmaier is an expert in this field, he's not a critic nor an anthroposophist, his material is peer-reviewed, and his credentials are impeccable. There's no valid reason to exclude his work with an "end run". Pete K 15:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Henitisirk, I am sorry I was not more clear in my message. I did not mean that the whole Institute website was a blog or messageboard, just the section of the website where the article linked here was found which also had "upcoming events" notices and other kinds of non articles. I described the radical anarchist activist mission because the original deletion gave the reason "judged a polemical source", not that it was not published which was my reason.Venado 02:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Right simple solution to this problem - I suggest you take it. If Peter Staudenmaier is truly a expert in the area of Anthroposophy then he will either have peer reviewed journal articles (can not find any) or published works (only thing I can find is [14] and I do not think this is particularly relevant). This suggests to me that he is not really a notable expert to work from (great to use his work to find other sources that we can use). Using his work, would be like using by 1st PhD year report (which had 80+ references) as a source - no one in the scientific community would take it seriously (and certainly not quote it) until it was published (though they would take an interest). Hence I suggest that until P.Staudenmaier is shown to be an expert in the area, his unpublished works/comments/opinions should not be used as references in these topics. Cheers Lethaniol 16:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I added that published book you found on amazon as a reference because at least it was published and the Biehl essay of it was relevant, not the Staudenmier essay though because it did not talk about Steiner and racism. But Pete_K has added a new link with a self published Staudemier article Pete_K has mistitled. He has edit warred with me to keep it, so I will leave this for somebody else to sort out. I have already complained about the time wasted by interchanging titles of the articles and it did no good. This interchanging of different Staudenmier titles and publications has happened to many times in this dispute. I hope it is not deliberate but at the least it is total carelessness to keep happening after I pointed the problem out already. The reference should come out anyway. Pete_K has not shown it to be properly published, and the editor who adds sources is responsible for making sure it is properly published and not pass that job to some one else.Venado 17:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Dutch commission

Please resume discussion about the anthroposophist report here.Venado 15:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The info3 is an anthroposophist publication, not allowed under arbitration. Do not edit war to keep unallowed sources. After two scathing arbitration reviews to remind you all, why am I still repeating this. Research to find other sources. Just look for other published sources, including Dutch newspapers because they might have written about it. Probably there was more mainstream published attention in the Netherlands since the report dealt with compliance to Dutch law.Venado 17:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the sources found, the report is a biased report produced by biased individuals. It's relevance, other than to show the absurdity of the efforts of the Dutch Anthroposophical Society to clear their well-deserved reputation has not been demonstrated here. It does not excuse Steiner of racism or racist speech. It has no value here and was only introduced with the intention of confusing the readers. Pete K 18:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Steiner quotes

I removed most Steiner references except quotes which still need discussion. I think we need to assess how they are used in this article. I say Steiner quotes may be o.k. in some places but only when they are used as example or illustration of a point which has been made by a secondary source. We can not use Steiner quotes to make other wise unverified claims. We can not use Steiner quotes to stand alone either. They must be used only in context of sourced claims surrounding written text in the article. Your thoughts please.Venado 20:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree, ideally should only use Steiner refs for quotes (also agree those quotes should not be stand alone but relevant and proportional to the article content), and possibly for occasions where we might want to say Steiner thought X, or said Y, though again ideally secondary neutral sources preferred. Cheers Lethaniol 20:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What would be the basis (policy) for only allowing Steiner references as citation for quotes? This does not seem to be supported by the arbitration ruling as such. Thebee 00:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a primary source which can only be used in very limited ways on wikipedia, especially autobiography which is even more limited how to use as a source in any article. Admins have pointed out in comments in involved articles that second and third party sources must be used. The editors have misused primary sources in the involved articles by taking it to synthesize or represent interpretations of concepts in statements made in the involved articles which is not allowed in any article at wikipedia. Under probation there is extra concern due to controversial issues and the extreme POV pushing from all sides. So though Steiner can be quoted I want the guidelines made clear so everyone understands how they can and cant be used. One common misuse of Steiner happened often in the race discussion. Quotes are used to stand by themselves (not allowed) and are also used like this: "Steiner was opponent of racism. 'One should not view people of different races as ...', quote page 6 Lecture 7 by Rudolf Steiner." Editors cant do this. They are required to use second and third party sources who have made this conclusion. It can not be said relying on primary source reference only at wikipedia.Venado 02:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree with Venado - especially that primary sources of autobiographical nature should be used with extreme care. This has nothing to do with the article probation or ArbCom, but the standard policies in place see WP:BIO and WP:RS. Cheers Lethaniol 02:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would be appropriate to use Steiner's own works as sources for the information here either. He said a lot of things about himself that simply weren't true. Let's please be careful how we source this material. OTOH, if it's OK to use Steiner quotes directly, I've got a few I'd like to add. Pete K 03:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Rules for citations in this article

I think this needs some sorting out. Three types of guidelines are referred to in the above discussion. One is Wikipedia policies. Another is the arbitration ruling. A third is expressed opinion of admin/s.

Venado, when you refer to the last, writing "Admins have pointed out in comments in involved articles that second and third party sources must be used.", does this refer to the expressed opinion of Thatcher131 above, and/or do you refer to other comments? Thanks, Thebee 10:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ha, welcome to the world of Wikipedia, where you have to balance and interpret multiple policies in relation to each quite frequently. The ArbCom decision is in addition to the requirements of Wikipedia policy (in fact the ArbCom have really only made an interpretive decision of the policies in the specific case on Anthroposophical sources). Any opinion of any Admin, though likely to be helpful, does not overrule either Wikipedia policy or the ArbCom decision. Cheers Lethaniol 10:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There were many comments, I dont have them without looking. Most admin comments attempt to explain and arent only new rules as they are sometimes thought by editors here. The only new rules in effect here are new extra restrictions from arbitration on sources from anthroposophic publishers and waldorfcritics and other sources with strong bias, and that the articles are on probation to make sure the problems get fixed. I think editors have been wasting to much time on sources that fall in the gray area because then no work gets done while editors argue for days about it is o.k. or not o.k. Steiner is not much in the gray anyway in this article. It is about him so the ways he can be used as a source are not very many by normal wikipedia rules. The way Steiner quotes are used is taking it over the edge at this point. More independent sources will have to be found to support the use of some of the quotes that are there right now and need more verification of the claim. Quotes cant make or prove claims by themselves. Only can be used, like a photo, to illustrate analysis verified with second and third party sources.Venado 20:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Peter Nasselstein

Can someone tell me how Peter Nasselstein is notable/neutral/expert enough for his website to be used as a WP:RS. Again simple answer, if he is not all of these then we can not use his website as a source and the revert war over [15] can stop. Cheers Lethaniol 15:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Also Pete K - have you read Flensburger Hefte 3/91, Heft 32: "Anthroposophen und Nationalsozialismus," Flensburg 1991, or have you just cut and pasted it from [16]. If so - it needs to be removed, as it is difficult to trust a partisan website, even more so if you wish to reference without reading its sources. Cheers Lethaniol 15:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It is another self publish on a personal website. This and many other questionable sources in the revert wars recently come from list found on waldorfcritics not the library or scholar journals.Venado 15:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If editors use a reference they have to read it first, not take it from a footnote. Besides it must be read directly to see context, also Flensburger Hefte is not allowed per arbitration. It is anthroposophic publisher.Venado 15:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The same information shows up everywhere. [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] Pete K 16:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all I do not understand German so maybe someone who can, can comment on these sources. Also this looks all very weak Pete K. Cheers Lethaniol 16:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed Pete K additions of the two references mentioned above, Pete K's reply does nothing to assert the expertise of Peter Nasselstein, and Venado has noted that Flensburger Hefte is an Antroposophical source. If new sources/information comes forward then maybe the info removed had be reinstated. Cheers Lethaniol 16:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Use your translator on Google or another translator - that's what I did. Fact - Lippert was an Anthroposophist and biodynamic gardner working in the concentration camp. Fact - Lippert was an SS officer with special privledges (didn't have to wear a uniform). Fact - Lippert was connected to Weleda. None of this is disputed. Several sources say he conducted experiments to test Weleda products - even wine magazines that I haven't listed make this claim. I'd like to see something that disputes any of this before the information is removed. Again, it's the content that we are troubled by and the sources are being attacked. When we make ridiculous statements about child development stages, nobody seems to mind if we use flimsy sources. The sources I have provided all confirm the source in the article. Pete K 16:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Neither does Pete_K speak German, he said he did not on talk pages. What does Lippert have to do with Rudolf Steiner article anyway. Rudolf Steiner was dead 15 years before Dachau. This is just soapbox, not worth time on this article.Venado 16:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You have it the wrong way Pete K, you have to back up the facts with appropraite sources, not add a statement with poor sources, and ask for sources to dispute your statement. Cheers Lethaniol 16:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

i can read german, some of pete's other links directly contradict this nasselstein article. why should anyone be interested what another weirdo (wilhelm reich) had to say about steiner? that link should stay out of the article.trueblood 12:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

it just contains the same mixture of halftruth and oversimplifications as all these articles by staudenmeyer e.a.

for example: that haverbeck, the anthronazi, was converted to anthropospophy at the home of rudolf hess, i would like some proof for that, so far i did not even had hess down as an anthroposophist. also, himmler to my knowledge never supported biodynamics, he had connections to the chemical industry, and was more for intensive farming. stories about plans for the reich being farmed biodynamicly and the east chemically, or even agricultural trials conducted at auschwitz. it's getting more ridiculous. trueblood 12:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There are more real published historical books and scholar work available on World War II, the Third Reich, and Nazism than any other era in history. So much excellent sources available and why hasnt any of it used and just self publishings? Some very bad judgement has been used bringing some obvious unsuitable sources, including this one, a self publish website. It is not going into the article, and I am going to be bold and archive some of the real long discussions on the talk page that are wasting space and our time beating a dead horse.Venado 15:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Identify hidden comment

The following was lost in an invisible comment in the article. Does anyone know the story on this?

• "In May of 1891 Iduna (literature society), which had the descriptive subtitle of "Free German Society for Literature", was founded by a circle of writers around Fritz Lemmermayer. Lemmermayer acted as a sort of "middle man" between an older generation of authors (which included Fercher von Steinwand, Joseph Tandler, Auguste Hyrtl, Ludwig von Mertens, and Josephone von Knorr) and a group of younger writers and thinkers (which included Rudolf Steiner, Marie Eugenie delle Grazie, and Karl Maria Heidt). The name Iduna was provided by List himself and is that of a North Germanic goddess of eternal youth and renewal. Richard von Kralik and Joseph Kalasanz Poestion, authors with specifically neo-Germanic leanings, where also involved in the circle. The other organisation List was involved with was the 'Literarische Donaugesellschaft' (Danubian Literary Society), which was founded by List and Fanny Wschiansky the year the Iduna was dissolved in 1893. At this time Guido von List met Rudolf Steiner."

I have removed it to here to be identified.Venado 20:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Reception

The reception section appears randomly chosen and unhelpful. Should we scrap it? Revise it? How? All suggestions are welcome. Hgilbert 14:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

In any case, Geoffrey Falk should not be cited. His book is self-published on the web and no more a reliable source than a weblog. — goethean ॐ 21:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)