Talk:Rudolf Steiner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 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)
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.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rudolf Steiner article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
Archive
Archives

Steiner and theosophy, Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3

Contents

[edit] general criticisms of Steiner's work and views

The articles on Rudolf Steiner and on anthroposophy in the German Wikipedia devote substantial space to criticisms of Steiner, which are broader in focus than the discussion of a few particular controversies mentioned here. I believe the English-language Wikipedia article on Steiner would profit from a similar section, even a translation of the section labeled Kritik and other sections in the German article. In particular, light remains to be shed on Steiner's claims that his research was scientific. The English-language Anthroposophy article does treat this question but in such a way as may give the impression that only a few researchers have disputed the scientific standing of Steiner's methodology, and that their criticisms are easily dismissed on a priori grounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstarli (talk • contribs) 04:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC) Mstarli (talk) 04:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The articles related to anthroposophy at the English Wikipedia differ from the ones at the German Wikipedia, in being limited - through arbitration - to sticking to articles in peer reviewed sources for description of controversial issues, or published by non-anthroposophical publishers, with the added limitation of not as source allowing material by authors who have held positions in organisations, that on ideological grounds criticize anthroposophy. This holds for example for an article by Sven Ove Hansson on the issue "Is Anthroposophy Science". It also holds for material by a Peter Staudenmaier, who has held (and still in principle possibly holds) the position of faculty/staff member at an Institute for Social Ecology that on ideological grounds criticizes anthroposophy.
These limits do not hold for the German Wikipedia. This just as one comment on the issue.
On a more principal level, to discuss the issue of anthroposophy from a scientific perspective, one needs to understand that Steiner worked in the idealistic philosophical tradition much rooted in the works of Aristotle and his way of developing scientific research as systematic human observation and thinking, and then focussing on developing both as part of science as induction, while what mostly is called science today (since some centuries) focusses on developing it as a hypothetic-deductive process, based on a mistrust of human observation and thinking as such, and on replacing human observations with registrations by instruments, and "thinking" by computers using mathematical models. For some comments on the background for this, see "What is Science?"
Regards, Thebee (talk) 09:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll have a look to see if anything can be brought over. Hgilbert (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
All of the citations questioning his scientific basis (in both the Rudolf Steiner Kritik section and the Anthroposophie article) seem to be unpublished lectures from a single conference; unpublished and thus not peer-reviewed. If you have other sources, I also think this is one of the most serious criticisms of Steiner and anthroposophy today. Hgilbert (talk) 14:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is a bloody disgrace!

Boo! I see that the Steiner Gestapo has removed a lot of material from this article. You people love to remove material, even well documented material, that shows Steiner in a negative light (and there's plenty of it out there). Shame on you all (Steiner Gestapo) for not representing Herr Steiner's views in a more truthful way.

First of all, the fact that Steiner was a bloody racist (or at the very least a bloody racialist) has been so watered-down in this article that it's frickin' pathetic! What happened to this whole part of the article:

"Steiner's comments about race are inconsistent in a way typical of the German Theosophical movement of his time: he "often claimed that white Europeans had achieved a higher level of spiritual perfection than the African, Asian or Jewish races. Sometimes, he even went so far as to claim that in the grand cycle of spiritual evolution, the Germanic race had advanced the furthest. At other times and with comparable frequency, however, Steiner reiterated the core spiritual unity of all the world's peoples."[1] He incorporated the predominant anthropological thinking of his time in making use of phenotypic and geographic attributes to reflect on mankind as a whole through various models and theories, including linking Africa's black race psychologically with the will and historically with the childhood of humanity; Asia's yellow-brown race psychologically with feeling and historically with the youth of humanity; Europe's white race psychologically with sense perception and thinking and historically with the maturity of humanity (though he described European humanity today as centered on overly abstract intellectuality which will need in future to become spiritualized); and America's red race with the old age of humanity.[2]

Some of Steiner's characterizations of racial, national, and ethnic character have been termed racist by critics.[3][4][2] Viewed in the historical context of the times, however, Steiner is more accurately regarded a racialist and not a racist in making use of race-like categories. Steiner sincerely believed that one should have no racial prejudice,[5] and emphasized that individuals should not be treated on the basis of their racial, ethnic or other group affiliation..."

What the heck happened to it? Are you into book burning or what?

Oh, and the health section: To Steiner, bad health often reflected the working out of one's "karmic destiny." Did he not write of such things? And the whole idea that we should not inoculate people for things because it might get in the way of their "karma"? In 1910, Steiner said, "We also understand why, among the best minds of our period, there exists a kind of aversion to vaccination. . . . [By giving inoculations, w]e are merely accomplishing something to which the person in question will himself have to produce a counterpart in a later incarnation. If we destroy the susceptibility to smallpox, we are concentrating only on the external side of karmic activity." (Steiner, Rudolf Karma of the Higher Beings in Manifestations of Karma Lecture 8, May 25th, 1910.) Well, I just think some of these things are important to the topic at hand and should be represented in the article. Your feeble attempts to hide what Herr Steiner really stood for are silly, trite, and laughable. Go ahead though, keep believing your lies, but it seems crappy that many of you try to cover up a lot of the quackery the old fart once spoke of, and then try to represent it (or misrepresent it) as something else while you goose-step along, farting to your own propaganda. You jerks can't hide the truth though! If such pseudoscience chicanery as an Astral body really exists, then your whole shady, goose-stepping Steiner Gestapo lot must be in a really sorry state of affairs! As Christopher Hitchens once said about another charlatan huckster quack, "I think it's a pity there isn't a hell for him to go to." So, put that in your pipe and smoke it! Fartbucket (talk) 07:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The material that was removed was neither drawn from a book nor from any other third-party reviewed source, as required by the arbitration proceedings. Both non-peer reviewed material and original Steiner references were excluded by Wikipedia arbitrators; see Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education/Review. The article references peer-reviewed, largely academic sources, the opposite of propaganda. If there is truth not represented here, it will surely be able to be found in a source that meets Wikipedia standards. Help find such sources! There are surprisingly many out there (see the reference list of the article already!) Hgilbert (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] stray question

Why is this article listed under the freemasonry wikiproject? I was unaware of steiners importance to that group. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Silent Attack on Steiner Page?

I found a comment on my page from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hgilbert. He removed my sourcing from this page. He told me that quotes from steiner can not be used on this page. He listed a arbitration for me to look at. I looked at it and not only did the arbitration not have to do with this page, but it also did not say that quotes from steiner were forbidden, or even discouraged... Like Really, a page about a person.... But only third person opinions can be used?... You are forbidden to quote from the horses mouth... Ya, what a "reasonable" way to write an article. Enough of that. What I did find in the arbitration is his name listed as a problematic poster. Could someone who knows the processes of wiki check up on him. It really stinks on this end. To be fair, I am sure I don't have the whole picture. Nothing would make me more happy than for someone to point out that this is really a misunderstanding and everything is above board. Knightt (talk) 23:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not a misunderstanding. The long ugly story of the arbitration regarding these articles is too much to go into for me tonight. But no, the arbitration did not say we could not quote Steiner on these pages. It said we could not quote Steiner as a source to document something controversial, in other words, we can't say here that Waldorf education is the best kind of education there is because Rudolf Steiner said so. Obviously, they did not mean to suggest we could not ever quote Steiner in articles about Steiner. Hgilbert tried to play it that way for awhile, but eventually acknowledged that this was not so. Now, he'll just ignore this discussion if he can get away with it. I put a comment about this on his talk page not long ago but of course he didn't, and won't, reply unless forced to. Go for it!DianaW (talk) 02:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ask him to show you where on that page it says we can't quote Steiner in these articles, or failing that, where *anywhere* an arbitrator said we couldn't quote Steiner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education/Review DianaW (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

See, this is your problem - you think you're in charge. You don't have some kind of role *enforcing* policies here, Hgilbert. That is when you cross the line. I know it is the anthroposophical mentality that all rightness and virtue is on your side, and others need you to police them, but that isn't the way wikipedia works.DianaW (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


We've been strongly encouraged to use peer-reviewed outside sources: "I also notice that these articles, despite the article probation, rely heavily on anthroposophy-published documents as sources, in spite of the arbitration ruling determining that they should be removed. Documents originating with anthroposophy, the Waldorf foundation, or Rudolph Steiner are not acceptable as sources either for claims that Waldorf is good, or for claims that Waldorf is bad. Things ranging from the complex (whether Steiner was racist) to the simple (whether Waldorf schools discourage parental communication) can not be sourced to primary documents. They are not considered reliable sources for several reasons. Generally if you are using Waldorf materials to describe the benefits etc., you run afoul of the self-serving limits of the reliable source policy, and if you are citing Waldorf documents to "prove" they have problems, you are violating the "interpreting primary sources to draw a conclusion is original research" limitation." Last chances
The quotes Knight added probably are acceptable, however, as they are not tendentious in either direction. We have been taking the comment "Things ranging from the complex...to the simple...cannot be sourced to primary documents." very seriously here; if you want to re-add your quotes and see how people react, go ahead. They are probably acceptable within the narrow terms of the above.
Please keep the tone of these discussions objective; this had been one of the worst problems here - people seem to go into personal attack mode at the drop of a hat. For a long time now, we have been able to avoid this apparently contagious illness - let's not sink back. Hgilbert (talk) 11:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I have removed a posting here that contravened the policy on No personal attacks, which states: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia."
Note that the arbitration specifically frowns on using "documents originating with...Rudolf Steiner" for claims of worth and that "things ranging from the complex...to the simple...can not be sourced to primary documents." We have to interpret what is what here.

Hgilbert (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, Hgilbert. Do not remove my comments from this talk page again. If you have a problem with something I post here, you either disucss it with me, or take it to an admin. If you remove my or anyone else's comments without discussion here again, I will take it to an admin. I'm putting it back below. And don't prove my point by sending me advice on my talk page, either - you're showing exactly the behavior I point out below, and it is *your* behavior that violates the guidelines here. Nobody appointed you guardian of manners and morals here.DianaW (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no worries, I'm sure if you try, you can behave properly, Hgilbert, we're willing to forget your past difficulties avoiding being smug and hypocritical and sanctimonious, and I'm sure you can learn to avoid the supercilious and paternalistic tone you have customarily used with other editors if you try.

Thank you for agreeing that the arbitration did not say we cannot quote Steiner on these pages.

It did say the following about you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education

5) Hgilbert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is a teacher in a Waldorf school and a writer regarding the educational theories used at the Waldorf schools [17] [18]. His edits are strongly supportive of the Waldorf schools and their philosophy of education, see an early edit. He has also edited Anthroposophy, Rudolf Steiner and other related articles with a strong positive bias. He has made some edits to Homeopathy and related articles, but very few to other articles outside those related to Rudolf Steiner and the Waldorf schools. DianaW (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rudolf_Steiner"

Um, shall we get back to discussing the article, and not the editors? Merci, EPadmirateur (talk) 04:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I was not expecting that much a response! Hgilbert re-posted on my page with the results of the arbitration. DianaW, you were right. My post was acceptable. Not only was it unrelated to waldorf but it also would have been acceptable even if it was a waldorf posting. The quote was simply to show how in biodynamic agriculture it is thought that inorganic fertilizers harm the soil.... Thanks for clearing this issue up with myself and hopefully the rest of the forum. Steiner is allowed to be quoted on a steiner page; one can not however use a steiner quote of him saying his education is the best in the world, to show how good the education is. Likewise, one can not quote anthroposophical sources to show how its the best in the world. This just makes sense and should be followed regardless of the arbitration. Although it was not arbitrated, likewise, other sources should not be quoted to show how bad the education is, like citing skeptic literature to show how f*cked up your children will become when falling into the cult of waldorf! I presume though that one could quote steiner to say how he thought his education to be the best.... But really... who cares what a founder thinks of this works.... They all think they are the best... right? Thanks for the clarification. Knightt (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I am happier than anyone that Steiner quotes can be used in this article for non-controversial areas, and that I appear to have overly strictly interpreted the rather drastic comments from the arbitrators about removing these. Thank you all for helping to clarify this! Hgilbert (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quote Re-Added

I have re-added that quote. Please pear review me. (in biodynamic agriculture section)

The section needs some work on the flow. It appears to have been edited by many people. Perhaps I will do this later.Knightt (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be best to find a third-party source for Steiner's claim that mineral fertilizers will cause the loss of nutritive value. Per the "Last Chance" ruling: "Rely on what independent third parties have published in reliable sources, and if they haven't published anything about a topic, take it out." A source that says: "Rudolf Steiner claimed that mineral fertilizers will cause the loss of nutritive value" would be best. However, since your wording includes that this was Steiner's belief, including the quotation is OK with me. --EPadmirateur (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. This quote was not intended to prove or disprove what actually happens to the soil with chemical or organic fertilizers. The thought was to help people to understand what the biodynamic practices are. This is after all what the article is about. It does not really seem to be the place to go into such specifics of if this or that specific aspect is backed by proof. Its a disputed topic on both sides. Not really sure I want to get into the argument. Besides, even if one side was able to "win" the debate, the more important thing can be told by farmers... Does it really work when followed... As far as I am concerned, this is the most important thing, and it can not really be reliably provided here anyhow. Wiki needs to be left to what it is good at. It might not be the whole story, but thats something we need to come to terms with. my own opinion Knightt (talk) 03:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] heart

I have moved the description of Steiner's views on the heart being a dynamic regulator rather than a mechanical pump from the controversies to the medicine section as there is no citation that relates this to any controversy.Hgilbert (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)