Talk:Rudolf Steiner/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Restarting the clean-up 2 Last chance 3 Reception by non-anthroposophists 4 and racism again 5 "Race" issue minor in Steiner's works 6 Fresh Start at Steiner + Racism 7 Disputes over racism discussion sources 7.1 Social Ecology 7.2 Dutch commission 8 Steiner quotes 9 Rules for citations in this article 10 Peter Nasselstein 11 Identify hidden comment 12 Last chance 13 Reception 14 Christ being 15 Deletions of sourced text taken from Steiner's lectures by user TheBee 16 Racial theories 17 Suggestion 18 Look at this! 19 date of birth 20 race section 21 Medical views 22 The racism section 23 Innoculations 24 assimilationist views

[edit] Restarting the clean-up

Thatcher131's guidelines are clear and resolve some of the confusions about allowed sources and how they can be used here. So I think the next step is to remove all footnotes to Steiner companies' publishers. ALL. And replace them with fact tags. No more junk references should be added. No original research. And only add a source if it is used accurately. By that I mean no more sources added to verify a claim here that reads the moon is made of cheese if the source actually says the moon is a white onion. Sound like a plan? I also think we need more consensus before editing text, and not trial-by-fire edits in the article itself by brute forcing them through an edit war. Venado 21:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite agree with the description by Thatcher131 of the meaning of the Arbitration decision:

"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."

The point describing the principle to be applied for Verifiability in the Final decision, that in the main seems to be written with regard to the artcle on Waldorf education, says:

"Information may be included in articles if they can be verified by reference to reliable sources. As applied to this matter, except with respect to information which is not controversial, material published in Anthroposophy related publications, especially by persons deeply involved in the movement such as teachers or theoreticians, are considered self published and thus not reliable sources."

As far as I see, that means that for information that (on some unspecified ground) is to be considered controversial, material published in Anthroposophy related publications are to be considered self published, and thus not reliable. But as far as I see, it also says that

with respect to information which is not controversial in the Waldorf and Anthroposophy related articles, material published in Anthroposophy or Waldorf related publications are to be considered reliable.

The not clearified issue is what is to be considered "controversial" in the article. This, as far as I see, is a complex issue, not easy to immediately sort out, and cannot be considered to be determined by one person simply stating "this is controversial", or that a fact tag on one or other point would make it controversial, in the sense that it cannot be cited using a Waldorf related source. Much can and is not controversial in any other sense than that it is not yet referenced with a citation.

There are two points that I think can be considered controversial in the articles. One is the alleged "racism" issue. The other is whether anthroposophy should be described as a spiritual or a religious philosophy.

On the second point, ideologically based sources, like ideological atheist and ideological skeptical sources are not to be considered reliable and acceptible, for a similar reason that articles published by people who have held or hold offices in such organizations, on an ideological basis opposed to anthroposophy are not to be considered reliable sources. See Arbitration Workshop on the issue:

I:

"In a similar way as for works on controversial issues with regard to Waldorf education, published by anthroposophical or Waldorf publishers, I would also suggest that authors, who have worked actively in a public capacity in organizations, on an ideological basis strongly critical of Waldorf education and anthroposophy, be considered as unreliable sources with regard to controversial issues in relation to Waldorf education and anthroposophy. Thebee 23:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Bauder:

"Of course Fred Bauder 18:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)"

Also, as far as I understand, nothing in the Arbitration decision indicates that that part of the WP:NOR policy should not be applied in this case, that says:

"... research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."

As far as I see, that would mean that with regard to works by Rudolf Steiner (many of them published on the net), they constitute a primary source on him, and descriptions of what he wrote, based on them, constitutes "source-based research", fundamental to writing an encyclopedia, as long as it does not violate one of the seven specific criteria with which Wikipedia describes and defines "original research".

According to WP:NOR, an edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:

• It introduces a theory or method of solution;
• It introduces original ideas;
• It defines new terms;
• It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
• It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
• It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
• It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

Only if source-based research describing Steiner's views of something violates one of these seven criteria does it constitute Original Research in a sense prohibited to publish in articles.

How to attain that reasonable goal?

And does anything in the arbitration contradicts the above analysis?

Thathcher131 makes some comments on this in a discussion. He writes on one specific point in the WP:NOR policy:

"Well, this part of WP:NOR also applies. There is some tension between "source-based research" and "drawing novel conclusions from primary sources." When in doubt, use reliable secondary sources. So for example, claims regarding racism being controversial, you can't use Waldorf sources to show that Waldorf is/was racist/anti-racist."

I think this points to that the problem is more complex that indicated with Thatcher's first description above.

With regard to the McDermott article in the Waldorf Research Bulletin, it was an article, originating in a talk for some minutes at the school with some visitors from Europe, possibly Holland, that has colonial tradition in Africa, in a way different from many other European countries, in a way that also is reflected in part in the Waldorf movement there. Based on that discussion for some minutes, McDermott and Ida Oberman then wrote an article, containing some reflexions about the potential danger of using some Steiner material in a sweeping way, that does not penetrate the issue as discussed both in that specific and in other works beynd the surface. It also gives a short, not penetrated quote from one lecture, and an article published in a Dutch magazine.

To raise that article, published in a Waldorf journal to the level of a "Waldorf study", having the character of an independent "Research Bulletin", based on a misunderstanding of its description here, that tells that the article was published IN "Research Bulletin, The Research Institute for Waldorf Education, 1(2): June 1996.", not that it IS a research bulletin, stands out as pushing its description far beyond ita actual nature, to distance the article as much as possible from its source and raise it to a level of an "independent study", that it does not have, to be able to use and quote it extensively not only in this article, but also, as a duplicate in the article on Waldorf education (while on the other hand working to reduce and delete material found in this article, that is also found in other articles, something that stands out as an application of different, double standards by Pete K for what he wants to push for, and what he does not like.)

Thebee 22:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

After writing the above, I see that I already wrote part of it a week ago, but not all of it. With regard to what is to be considered controversial with regard to Steiner's own works, that is a probably much more complicated problem to judge, than with regard to Waldorf education, that is a practical activity, being a new level of reality, that needs other, external sources to describe as such. With regard to Waldorf education, how it actually is practiced cannot only be described using theoretical works. That needs empirical descriptions, as systematical as possible, preferably non-anthroposophical sources, and only such sources can be used with regard to controversial issues.

With regard to Steiner's own works, they are a reality in themselves, directly accessible in large part to everyone on the net. To state that they only should be possible to describe as such using secondary sources, is untrue. The problem is how to decide if directly source-based research describing them constitutes original research in one of the seven senses defined by Wikipedia. How to handle this in a reasonable way, true to the spirit of Wikipedia? And do there exist developed procedures to handle this type of problem at Wikipedia? Thebee 22:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, as valid as your points may be, it's still not workable when there are two opposing camps of inflexible editors. Here's why.

1. 1. Editors here will continue to "shop" advice from arbitrators until they get the answer their looking for on a case-by-case basis, or will refuse to concede to decisions offered, like this above, when the answer given isn't what they were looking for.
   2. Editors will not agree about what is or isn't a controversy. This has already happened we know from all the fact tags added on facts that may not be controversial to some editors but other editors disagree. A source is need if it is questioned. Anything that is fact tagged in this article automatically becomes a controversy, so anything with a reference tag automatically falls under the scope. If it isn't disputed, don't give a reference. If somebody disputes it afterwards, get one that's independently published.

Both problems will lead to more warring. We need to take a path that ends this warring. If the fact is noteworthy enough for mention in the articles at wikipedia, then some secondary source, somewhere, will have written about it too. Just find those sources. Let them do the assessment from the primary material, and use it as verification. Mostly we don't need the Steiner publishers. This article will just have to leave behind the more obscure facts that are only addressed in Steiner publishers, concentrate on the more commonly written about facts. Venado 01:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Venado. I have taken the risky step of removing ALL Anthroposophical references from the Waldorf Education article (including ones that support my views). We should have started like this from the beginning as it was a directive from the ArbCom. Now, it is up to us all to support what is being said, or change it according to the what the actual references say. This should make life easier, I hope. I would like to also say that I would love it if we could make some extra effort to locate souces that are searchable on-line, if possible (I understand that won't always be possible) to assist others in verification. The wilder the claim, the better (and the more available) the source should be. Pete K 16:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last chance

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

Thebee 16:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reception by non-anthroposophists

Checking the citations here, I found that the quotes were drawn from a single source (Falk), but that there were actually quotes about Steiner from four different people. Oddly enough, the two negative ones had been included in the article but not the two positive ones. All four are now included for a balanced representation Hgilbert 11:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we'll have to discuss how to format this section; it could grow pretty extensive, as many prominent figures have commented on Steiner. Hgilbert 14:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

How about leaving it at two positive and two negative and deleting the larger "Reception of Steiner" section which is basically reception by Anthroposophists anyway? We all know Anthroposophists received Steiner - otherwise they would have chosen a different religion. Pete K 17:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, the majority of the "Reception of Steiner" section remains unreferenced. I think the two and two quote idea is a good one. Shall I make the change? Pete K 02:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Thebee 10:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from someone who ISN'T pushing a POV. In the mean time, I think the section is at least more balanced without the two new additional quotes. It would be fine with me if we delete those. The uncited sections need to come out anyway so that's a good place to start. I'll go ahead and do this. Pete K 12:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The citation "Uwe Werner, Anthroposophen in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus, Munich 1999, p. 8" is another one of those obscure citations that supports unbelievable claims that are refuted by other evidence (including Steiner's own words). Does anyone have access to this material that can verify 1) it's existence and 2) the claims made by it? This article seems to reference the article and refutes what is claimed in Werner's article. In any case, this Anthroposophical source is not a valid source to support the mysterious claim made in the Wikipedia article: "Given Steiner's clear statements about political democracy being the proper kind of State for humanity, his consistent and emphatic support for liberty and pluralism in education, religion, scientific opinion, the arts, and in the press, not to mention his rejection of the idea that the State should take over economic life - one cannot justly link Steiner or his movement with a totalitarian intent;[41] rather the reverse, for his whole philosophy is based upon individual freedom." I'll be removing that claim until some non-Antrhoposophical source is found that supports it. Pete K 13:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] and racism again

guys, you can't be left alone, we had this so much clearer, why do we have to go through this again: from the article:

When Steiner described what he believed to be the particular characteristics of races, ethnic groups, nations and other groupings of human beings, some of his characterizations are difficult to reconcile with his more general statements about the subordinate role race and ethnicity play in present-day humanity. Reactions to these characterizations vary widely: They have been termed racist by critics.[47][48][49][50][51] Other supporters see in Steiner's anthroposophy the "one viable path to overcoming racism" and, in the light of his larger views, relativize his particular characterizations as more or less successful attempts at anthropological distinctions.[52][53][54] In the 1930s and 40s, Nazi ideologues repeatedly investigated Steiner's ideas and found them absolutely incompatible with racist ideology.[55]

this makes it sound as if these characterisations ( for example africans are more emotional, whites are more intelectual) are seen by some as racist and by some as "one viable path to overcoming racism", and that the nazis looked at these found them not racist enough for them, but really, the only direct reactions to these characterisations mentioned here are the ones that say it is racist. everything else is refering to other things the doc said, or his general philosophy. i propose we move the supporter thing further up to the part where it said what a tough antiracist he was and leave the rest more clearly, he said some things that sound problematic and a lot of people find them racist. period trueblood 22:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Amen! Problem is, it does no good to correct this because someone else will come along and "soften" it again - forever. As it stands, there is no way ANYBODY can make sense of it - and I think that's intentional on the part of some editors. I support putting this material into some very plain terms. We lost the entire "Rudolf Steiner's Views on Race and Ethnicity" article some time ago, so now we are obligated to be clear here. Pete K 23:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I think what is written in the article at the moment is quite clear and most importantly concise. It doesn't state that 'these characterizations' are seen by some as "one viable path to overcoming racism" but that Steiner's anthroposophy is seen by some as "one viable path to overcoming racism". This article should not be turned into an essay about Steiner's characterizations about different races and peoples responses to it; because respectively this is only a very small part of Steiner's work. Lkleinjans 15:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, it isn't a small part of Steiner's work, it is the foundation of Steiner's work which is basically an essay on the "evolution" of man and human consciousness in relation to the world of spirit. And no, you don't overcome racism by scaring pregnant mothers or through promoting ridiculous stereotypes and espousing pure racist nonsense that you attribute to spiritual truths - but hey, if some people like that path, that's fine. The word "viable" seems absurd here, BTW, but again, if that's someone's bag, fine. The section is about RACISM, however, not about how Steiner's ideas can be misconstrued to be something other than racism - so those kinds of discussions belong elsewhere. Pete K 17:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

um, i quote again: "Reactions to these characterizations vary widely:", and then three examples of reactions are given, two are actually not reactions to these particular steiner quotes, but to anthropop in general. this perceived or real racism has caused considerable stir at least in germany and holland, maybe also other countries, so it is notable. i don't want an essay, not even add much, but rather, um repeat myself just see above.

also i seriously doubt that the nazis found steiner's ideas incompatible with racist ideology in general, but rather assume that they found it incompatible with their particular racist ideology. to me equation nazis don't like steiner, therefore steiner=antiracist does not work. so can we delete that part; In the 1930s and 40s, Nazi ideologues repeatedly investigated Steiner's ideas and found them absolutely incompatible with racist ideology.[55] trueblood 18:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry Trueblood I see what you mean now. I agree with you. I would like to see the second bullet point stay though, but as a sentence separate from the statement "Reactions to these characterizations vary widely:". I also agree with deleting the Nazi statement. Lkleinjans 19:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

and i am sorry to have opened this can worms again, i did not even want to stir up this discussion below, i am happy with the changes made by Lkleinjans.

trueblood 11:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Race" issue minor in Steiner's works

Is "race" at it was understood 100 years ago central in the published works of Steiner?

No.

Steiner developed his main work during the beginning of a period, from the end of the 19th century up to 1924 in a culture permeated with discussions of "race" and "races" in nature and in human contexts, as part of the developing understanding of evolution.

In spite of this dominance of thinking in terms of "race" at the time, only five of the approximately 3,000 published lectures he held during the period, on almost every imaginable issue, have the issue of what at the time was understood to be "the human races" as their main theme.

Following allegations of racism by a teacher at one Waldorf school in Holland some 10 years ago, a Dutch commission was initiated by the Anthroposophical Society in the Netherlands to investigate fully this issue. The commission reviewed in detail the 89,000 pages comprising Steiner's published works, mostly transcripts of lectures, and found in total 245 comments on the issue. The comments in question constitute on the order of 0.2% of his collected works.

The central focus of the commission was whether the publication of anything in the printed works by Steiner was in violation of present-day, sensitive Dutch legislation on discrimination.

While the commission came to the conclusion that that probably was not the case, it also concluded that 16 of the 245 comments by Steiner, if made today by someone in Holland as isolated statements in public, some 80-100 years after they actually were made and outside their original cultural and social context, would probably be deemed discriminatory according to present-day Dutch legislation. (Five of these 16 comments were made in 1923 during one ad hoc morning lecture to construction workers in answer to a question by one of the workers).

That's the totality of it.

Thebee 21:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

One would have to be incredibly naive to swallow this. Pete K 01:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that I'm turning my attention to this section again - I've deleted the following:

Supporters see in Steiner's anthroposophy the "one viable path to overcoming racism" and, in the light of his larger views, relativize his particular characterizations as more or less successful attempts at anthropological distinctions.

ref: Archiati, Pietro, Die Überwindung des Rassismus durch die Geisteswissenschaft Rudolf Steiners, ISBN 3-7235-0999-1

Source is unsearchable.

“Pietro Archiati was born in 1944 in Brescia, Italy. He studied philosophy and theology and worked for many years as a Catholic priest. Following a decisive encounter with the work of Rudolf Steiner in 1977, he worked as a teacher in a seminary in South Africa. Since 1987 he has worked independently as a freelance lecturer and author for a regeneration of humanity through a modern scientific awareness of spiritual beings and realities.”

[This] and [this] suggests he is an author excluded by the ArbCom anyway.

Info3 news report Rudolf Steiner recognized as opponent of anti-Semitism and nationalism April 1, 2000,

Source is unreliable - doesn't identify the make-up of the commission (e.g. ALL were members of the Anthroposophical Society). This commission's findings are NOT a valid source to support this controversial claim.

[Comments by independent reviewers cited in Peter Normann Waage, Humanism and Polemical Populism, 'Humanist' 3/2000 (organ of the Norwegian Human-Ethical Union)

Source is unreliable - and in fact laughable. It is easily refuted and we have plowed this field too many times already. These are not sources that can support a claim that Steiner's racism was somehow insignificant. Pete K 01:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is one response to Peter Normann Waage's article. Pete K 01:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important that this bit of the article stays as balanced as possible. Currently there is only links to views supporting that Steiner's teachings are racist. I agree with Pete K removing the first two references as I cannot verify those either. The third one which talks about the dutch commission is at least as valid those references describing Steiner and his teachings as racist. I checked out all the references and this is what I found:

No. 47 is a link to an article which was written by an unnamed person it appears as if anyone could add articles to this website. The arguments in this article are supported by bad or no evidence. I do not consider this a proper reference for Wikipedia

No. 48 is a link to a Swedish site

No. 49 is quite an interesting piece of research, it has not been published as far a I can see. I don't think it is accredited research.

No. 50 and 51 I don't understand how a transcription of a television program can be a reference, or validly support an argument.

I don't wish to start an edit war, so can the other editors please confirm with me that those references I listed are unacceptable and must therefore be removed. Lkleinjans 17:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The Dutch Commission report is not usable as a reference. It is a report produced by Anthroposophists. It might be good to check out the archives for discussion about this one. It is not a valid source. With regard to keeping this section of the article "balanced", I see no reason that balance should be sought on issues that have support for a "balanced" view. We could have "balance" by presenting two sets of opinions about whether the halocaust actually occurred, but that wouldn't be very responsible. In this case, we simply have Steiner's documented racist speech and Anthroposophists making excuses about why it shouldn't be considered racist, or that it wasn't racist because he said other things that weren't racist, or that he didn't know a stenographer was hiding behind the curtain, or he was talking to workers so that doesn't count, other nonsense that doesn't refute anything Steiner said or more importantly what he actually produced in Anthroposophy which is racist. We have nothing to refute Steiner's racism, only a lot of excuses. Like the halocaust, Steiner's racism is a fact, and excusing it (as the Dutch Commission tried to do) is no different than halocaust denial. It's simply people pushing an agenda that doesn't represent "balance" but rather a whitewash of the facts. Pete K 20:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not wish to go into this discussion, I do want to see proper references though and as mentioned above I don't think that the references given are appropriate for an encyclopedia. Do you understand my reasoning for wanting to remove those references? Lkleinjans 00:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't use reasoning here. They're either approved sources or disapproved sources. These are approved sources. Pete K 01:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

me i just want some mention in some form that steiner said some things that are considered by most people as racist, it does not matter if they were a 'minor issue' in his work, for example if someone is famous for being an actor, it makes an antisemitic or racist statement in public today, it causes a stir, makes headlines thus is notable, even if the person is actually famous for being or doing something completely unrelated.

i also don't quite understand why the dutch commission was removed, it said that they were commissioned by the anthroprosophical society, and came to the conclusion, that steiner in general was not a racist, but said things that would have brought him in conflict with dutch antidiscrimination laws if he'd say them today. i think that is balanced and by itself a notable fact. there is no reason it should not be included.

trueblood 22:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

and lkleinjans just because you cannot read a ref does not mean you can remove it, i can read the german ones a i tell you they are correctly quoted, as for the ray dermott, would be a pity to remove that one. i don't follow your reasoning and don't agree to removing the sources, also the section spends 8 lines explaining how steiner could not possibly be a racist and then 3 lines that he said some things that people generally consider racist so what is your deal?trueblood 22:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The objection to the Dutch Commission reference is that while it says they were "commissioned" by the AS, it doesn't inform the reader of the fact that the commission was composed entirely of Anthroposophists. There's a big difference between commissioning someone independent to do a study and conducting the study themselves. Huge! Pete K 15:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

well, then put that in too...trueblood 21:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I added the Dutch commission back in. I noted that it was commissioned by the Dutch AS. As far as I am aware it was carried out by professional lawyers (Dr. Th. A. Baarda and others), I don't know if he is an Anthroposophist. I have contacted him to try and find out what people were included in carrying out the research.

I withdraw my earlier request for removal of references 47-51. Lkleinjans 23:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but we've already established that all the members of the committee were Anthroposophists. Is there some reason we need to keep plowing the same field? Please read through the archives before you insist on undoing what has already been agreed to. Thanks. Pete K 23:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Trueblood - the source, as such, is not acceptable. No reason to put it in AT ALL. It's no different than all the other Anthroposophical sources we are required to exclude. Pete K 23:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

We obviously have to plow through these references to ensure that they are acceptable according to the arbitration standards. On a controversial topic, the arbitrators have established a policy that neither anthroposophical nor polemical sources are acceptable. We need to hold to this. Hgilbert 23:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

They should make those decisions then - as a group. There's nothing polemical about pointing out that Steiner was a racist. The only polemical part is you insisting that he wasn't. Even your Dutch commission found racism. Why hide the truth? Pete K 00:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That looks like a blog. The authors name is just "peter", and peter is not even capitalized. This is not a publication. Why are you still trying to ad back sources for controversial claims which were found on a blog? It has been made clear so many times that users can not use them. WP:Reliable_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources Venado 01:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The author is Peter Staudenmaier. Look him up if you don't know who he is. He's an expert in this field and this particular article article can be found in several places on the web. He is already referenced in the article (unless HGilbert has removed any mention of him again). Pete K 01:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The only copies I found of this were to other unallowed publishers. One of them said that only a "much shortened version" was published, which probably means that this long one wasnt ever published anywhere. Always this is the rule, not just for polemical sources: only references which have been published can be used, and no blogs. We have to remove this, it doesnt meet verifiability.Venado 01:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Here, let me help you... Three links to the article:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

Related is his book:

• [4]

And more works by Mr. Staudenmaier are listed here. The man is an expert in this field. Pete K 01:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The same information regarding Steiner is found in the other sources as well. Do whatever you like - I really don't care at this point. The truth about Steiner will not be permitted here anyway. Pete K 01:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and here is the staff of the "blog" as you call it. Pretty much all PhD's, but sadly, no Waldorf teachers. Not a polemical group at all, wouldn't you agree? It is incredible how this seems to work with you guys... really incredible. Pete K 01:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

None of those sites will be allowed either. They are considered self-published websites and these you show arent even the same article involved in this dispute. This is causing a lot of wasted time. I will take it out because it doesnt meet Wikipedia:Attribution#Using_questionable_or_self-published_sources. Venado 01:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, and don't forget to find reasons to remove the other citations so you can remove the content. Pete K 02:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Who put them there? This one looks like it is just a message board, not any published article. [5] This one, you know, was taken out of the Waldorf article because it is a waldorf publisher. [6] And Rick Ross website is another self published website. [7]. This article was left to the side while every body was fixing the Waldorf article so a lot of work still needs to be done. But its time to stop edit warring to keep unallowed references in.Venado 02:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No, YOU, I believe, made the point that Waldorflibrary is a library, not a publisher, and that the source doesn't automatically excude the article. Now, because you don't like the content, the sources that were acceptable before are no longer acceptable. I'll allow you guys to distort the truth when you guys pry the mouse out of my cold, dead hand... (or ban me). Until that moment, I'll keep fighting for what I know is the truth and against what I know is nonsense. Steiner was a racist. Everything he ever said supports this if you go to the trouble of understanding it. Nothing will ever change this - and the only thing that can be done for people who support his ideology is to try to disguise it as best they can. It didn't work for the Dutch Commission, but if you guys get me kicked off Wikipedia, it may indeed work here for you for a short time. In the mean time, the sources you are excluding are PhD's that are experts on this subject - and there is NOTHING to suggest that Steiner wasn't a racist - NOTHING. So, knock yourself out - I'll keep at it until I'm gone (and it looks like you won't have too long to wait). Pete K 02:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This article was published by a Waldorf publisher, not just housed in a Waldorf library. [8]. This is a list of articles published on social-ecology: [9]. It looks like a message board, not a publisher. And wikipedia is not a soapbox.Venado 03:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be a good source for information either if the PhD's that are experts on a subject are excluded (just because you don't like the look of their website) while we allow the editors of neighborhood newspapers (with NO knowledge on the subject) to be "legitimate" sources. If I need a soapbox, or a megaphone to make this point clear, then that's what I'll use. Nonsense is nonsense and YOU are the one making the wrong call here - and I'm not going to allow it if I can prevent it. Pete K 05:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fresh Start at Steiner + Racism

I think the five references that are there now should stay. As mentioned by Trueblood above there is 8 lines arguing Steiner couldn't have been racist and 3 giving criticism on his characterizations. The reader who is willing to investigate the references can make up his/her own mind what he/she views as a valid reference. I hope you guys agree.

I also think that the dutch commission is a valid reference as long as it is stated that it was commissioned by and carried out by Anthroposophists (I had a reply from Dr Th. A. Baarda and he confirmed the research was carried out by Anthroposophists). Again readers can make up their own mind as to the validity of this report/reference. Cheers Lkleinjans 09:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If everyone agrees, I'll ask Shadowbot to allow the dutch commission as a reference again. Lkleinjans 09:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't agree that the Dutch Commission should be used as a reference, just like halocaust deniers aren't allowed to state that the halocaust didn't happen. This is supposed to be a representation of the truth - not every twisted angle to obfuscate the truth. The Dutch Commission report is indeed a twisted angle and it's a 245 page report. If you're going to expect to include a summary, who gets to harvest the conclusion of that information? "The report concluded that Steiner unmistakably made racist statements that would have had him IMPRISONED if he made them today." Do you intend to word it that way? "Even a commission of Anthroposophists who excused hundreds of comments non-Anthroposophists would consider racist couldn't deny Steiner's racism." How about that wording? Is this going to be a truthful reference or is it going to be a smokescreen of an even bigger smokescreen? I've never experienced any group so intent on hiding the truth. Pete K 15:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Here, by comparison, is how Wikipedia treats halocaust denial:

Holocaust denial is the assertion that the Holocaust did not occur, or that far fewer than six million Jews were killed by the Nazis; that there never was a centrally planned attempt to exterminate the Jews; or that there were no mass killings at the extermination camps. Those who hold this position often claim that Jews or Zionists know that the Holocaust did not occur and are engaged in a conspiracy to further their political agenda. As the Holocaust is considered by historians to be one of the most documented events in recent history, these views are not accepted as credible, with organizations such as the American Historical Association stating that Holocaust denial is "at best, a form of academic fraud."[100] Public espousal of Holocaust denial is a crime in ten European countries, including France, Poland, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, Romania, and Germany.

There's no reason not to treat this subject in the same way. Steiner's position on race is just as obvious. Even the Dutch Commission of Anthroposophists couldn't excuse his statements. Pete K 15:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

i want the dutch commission mentioned not as a reference that steiner was not a racist but mention the fact that it was formed and to which conclusions it came (that some of steiner's remarks would bring him into conlict with dutch law but overall the commission did not detect racism). i find the commission notable, thus worth mentioning. if it is mentioned that it was an anthroposophical commission, everybody can make up his mind. stop hitler or holocaust comparisions pete, it's tasteless and pointless and we've been through it before, it does nothing than devalue your other arguments. it's propaganda. and please no sermon in response to this. let's keep it short.trueblood 16:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the edit history - I started with a Christianity comparison, but people seem to find those tasteless when they come from me too <G>. It is not propaganda, in my view - simply a comparison. How would you propose adding the Dutch Commission report then? It is, indeed, a piece of history that should be revealed for it's absurdity. Even Anthroposophists are embarassed by this blatent attempt by the Dutch Anthroposophical Society to produce a biased report. I don't disagree that the report should be mentioned, but the findings need to be shown for what they are - a smokescreen. Wording this as if it were a valid study of Steiner's racism isn't going to work here. Showing it for what it was will. Pete K 16:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There were (are) two rounds of arbitration on the anthropsophy related articles in the last few months. It is a rule at wikipedia always and also a ruling of the arbitration that, "Information may be included in articles if they can be verified by reference to reliable sources." The arbitration added a rule about anthroposophic sources: "Related articles contain large amounts of original research and information gathered from Anthroposophical related sources which are for verification purposes properly considered self-published by the Anthroposophy movement." And also this,"Editors of these articles are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications." At one point an arbitrator explained "any polemical source is considered unreliable" which is true but calls for objective judgement whether a source is polemical or not and I dont think the involved and strongly divided editors are able to do that objectively.

This article has a long way to go to conform to these rules, but "views on race and ethnicity" section is just one starting place. And it does not conform at all. The first paragraph is completely conclusions drawn from primary sources which cannot be used in this fashion at wikipedia, especially in these articles after arbitration. It will not work to quote Steiner to get around this problem. All of that paragraph needs good second party sources. The Steiner sources have to be deleted. The second paragraph has five sources, and only one of them comes close to necessary criteria. One is anthroposophically published, two are message boards, and one is from a self-publish website. The transcript of any television show, which one of the sources is, isnt usually a good reference either, in my opinion. Television or radio on the whole are very unreliable. But I think it is o.k. in this case because it isnt a source of specific claims except it does show the existence of these critics.

So we cannot ad bad sources just to give balance or to give equal time. The articles at wikipedia are supposed to be encyclopedic, and need mostly sound, independent academic sources. I would like to know more background on this Dutch commission report. Who commissioned it? Who published it? Venado 16:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The Dutch commission report was commissioned by the Dutch Anthroposophical Society after large publicity in the Netherlands regarding Steiner and racism. The research was carried out by anthroposophists, but was chaired by an experienced lawyer, Dr. Th. A. Baarda (also an Anthroposophist), Phd in international law I believe. Please see Info3 news report. Basically the commission compared quotes of steiner against current Dutch law to find if any of that material, if published today, would be in breach of the dutch law and could therefore be taken to court. Lkleinjans 16:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Lkleinjans, you have added this back in and I dont think we are ready to accept it. Info3 is called an anthroposphy publication, and I suspect this is true because there is so much about Steiner on it. Am I wrong? If not, I repeat, the policies have to be followed strictly, we cannot decide amongst ourselves to ignore them on a case by case basis. The report is anthroposophy commissioned, written, published and prepared for anthroposophy audience. The conclusions of the report in info3 appear to me to be anthroposophy written and published also. It does not matter the qualifications of the people doing the investigation, it clearly doesnt qualify under the arbitration rules. We need Independent/not anthroposophy Published Sources. Venado 17:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the Dutch Commission Report is quite important as a reference, because it is the response of the Dutch Anthroposophical Society to claims of extreme racism in its society. In this rapport it admits that some of the things its founder said are racist under the Dutch laws but that the general views of Steiner cannot be claimed to be Racist. This is the most in depth study of 'racism in Steiner's quotes' that I know of and therefore I think it should be included.

However I also agree that the policies laid down should be followed. Even though not using any anthroposophical sources while explaining anthroposophy and also discussing serious issues regarding anthroposophy gives a serious handicap. Lkleinjans 17:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

We have worked hard under these constraints and it has taken a month to get just one article in pretty good shape with independent sources. It is much harder, because there are a lot of anthropsophy published sources but they cant be used, and fewer independent sources especially for side issues like this. But the arbitrators have laid down the law and look like they will ban editors who refuse to follow it. These articles are on probation for this problem, and new editors are at a disadvantage. If you werent here while all this went down, its harder to catch up and understand the constraints in effect now on sources .Venado 18:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The Dutch Commission report is the EXACT equivalent of a Neo-Nazi party commissioning Neo-Nazis to study the halocaust - and that group of Neo-Nazis reporting back that yes, the halocaust happened but only 16 people were killed. Sorry to use this example again, but it's exactly what has happened here. A group of Steiner's own followers commissioning a group of Steiner's own followers to produce a report that draws outrageous conclusions. It is what it is. Pete K 23:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

i put back the dutch comission, it is not source on anything, surely not whether steiner was a racist or not, but a fact that is reported. bring better arguments than comparing anthroposophy to a neo-nazi party, and then afterwards talk about arbitration this and arbitration that. using cheap propaganda or talking mysteriously about the arbitration process to keep out newbies does just show that you have not changed anything. i thought one of the conclusion was that more new people should be brought into the articles. you still have not really said why the dutch comission should not be mentioned in the article.. don't tell we can't use anthro sources, it is not used as a source. okay info3 is an anthroposophical source, but is the fact that the comission was formed really disputed?

trueblood 07:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll take it out again. It is absolutely INSANE to suggest that only critics would question the validity of this report. The sentence tries to make the report sound legitimate - it was NOT. I'm sorry you don't care for my analogies, but that's not a reason to hide the nature of this material. It was Anthroposophists clearing their guru. Unless you have wording to that effect, expect me to remove it again. Pete K 15:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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".[10] 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 [11] 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. [12] 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:

• [13]
• [14]
• [15]
• [16]
• [17]
• [18]
• 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 [19] to "Janus Face of Anthroposophy". you reverted several times to keep it.[20] [21] 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[22]. 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 [23] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [24] 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 [25]. 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. [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

I have put it here: Talk:Rudolf Steiner/Reception for further editing. Hgilbert 15:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is useful for people to know who Steiner influenced. Perhaps there's a better way of presenting this information. On the pages of other philosophers there is usually a box of information underneath the picture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes Descartes is a good example of this. I think it gives quick information about whom Steiner influenced, it is easily formatted, and we can put in a bunch of quick facts like DOB and death, etc. Bellowed 00:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christ being

the term christ being is not really a generally used one, can we replace it by jc or something, at least in the section heading?trueblood 16:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is awkward. Unfortunately Steiner regards Jesus Christ as a particular incarnation of a being that has accompanied all of human evolution, so JC is probably not so helpful. What about simply Christ? Hgilbert 17:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

yep; trueblood 16:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

wanted to change but realized that i don't know what the first sentence is supposed to mean, leave to someone emse...trueblood 16:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed it in the heading, that might be enough. Erdanion 17:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions of sourced text taken from Steiner's lectures by user TheBee

Wihtout any valid explanation, user TheBee deleted citation from Steiner's lecture. Please next time discuss your reverts here on the talk page without going straight to edit warring.

According to Steiner, spiritual characteristics are tied to skin colour and non-white skin colour is a sign of spiritual defects that would be expunged in a future race war. [31] Rudolf Steiner, Die geistigen Hintergründe des Ersten Weltkrieges, Dornach, 1974 (GA 174b) pp. 30-54 The lecture was without any critical comments published as late as 1978 in Antropos, the official organ of the Swedish anthroposophical society. See Rudolf Steiner ,"Den andliga bakgrunden till motsättningar mellan folkgrupper" in: Antropos. Tidskrift för antroposofi. Volume 24, #1 (January 1978).

The source given in general is repeatedly unreliable in his description of sources. For some typical examples, see [32], [33], [34], and [35]. This holds also for this case. Steiner does not say in the lecture that non-white skin colour is a sign of spiritual defects that will be expunged in a future race war. This is one of the reasons the site used in general is impermissible as a source site. See also earlier discussion of it. I will therefore remove the statement and source given. Thebee 11:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Your personal website allegations cannot be used here. Moreover your links do not disprove the fact that such lecture was given by Steiner in 1915 and do not disprove that publication in which Steiner lecture was published is a forgery. Moreover simple Google search shows more sources referring to that Steiner's citation.

Your source says nothing about Rudolf Steiner, Die geistigen Hintergründe des Ersten Weltkrieges, Dornach, 1974 (GA 174b) pp. 30-54.

Let me also add that I do not acuse Steiner of anything, I just cite him. Therefore your link to the previous debate with someone who accused Steiner of racism is not relevant here. If you would delete the citation, I would put disputed tag on the article.

I can understand your desire to put sourced material in this article. However, in the arbitration proceedings and review, polemical sources (and Staudenmaier was specifically mentioned) from either side were excluded, especially as regards controversial material. Academic publications of neutral parties are preferred. Check with the administrator who directed the arbitration, User:Fred Bauder, if you want confirmation of this. Hgilbert 12:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You say "Staudenmaier was specifically mentioned" but a search of both pages you've linked does not confirm this. Care to try again? IPSOS (talk) 12:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I join the above question.Mister Krubbs 14:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Staudenmaier is not mentioned in the arbitration of the Rudolf Steiner article; however it has been mentioned in the arbitration discussion of the Waldorf education article [36]. Lkleinjans 16:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The more specific discussion would be this, during which Mr. Bauder, main arbitrator commented on the writings of Staudenmaier

Sounds like a good example of an unreliable source. There is no need to specifically mention such sources; any polemical source is considered unreliable. Fred Bauder 16:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

S's unreliability is repeatedly demonstrated by his writings. Thebee 17:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is the one I meant. (Same as the bee's). Note that there are several comments by Fred Bauder (not just the one mentioned above) that indicate that Staudenmaier is not a proper source; for example, he replied "of course" to the suggestion that anyone who "worked actively in a public capacity in organizations, on an ideological basis strongly critical of Waldorf education and anthroposophy, be considered as unreliable sources" (as ipso facto polemical). Staudenmaier has done so.

Sorry that this link was not in the original comment; there are about 15 different pages that relate to the arbitration, and I only mentioned the primary ones originally (from which one can find all the subsidiary discussions). Hgilbert 18:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Racial theories

The source recently added, Husmann-Kastein, is non-polemical in character. I have added some flesh to the racial characterizations section through citations to this source. Hgilbert 01:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

The reference for the Lindenberg biography (Lindenberg, Christoph Andreas, Rudolf Steiner: Eine Biographie (2 vols.). Stuttgart, 1997, ISBN 3-7725-1551-7) lists the wrong Lindenberg: it's Christoph Lindenberg, not Christoph Andreas Lindenberg. The latter is a lyrist and music therapist in the U.S. EPadmirateur 19:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

. . . Um . . . hello Hgilbert? I see you dashed off to quickly fix this. Going to pretend you don't know the fellow is an anthroposophist? There is no good faith here - none. You will do what you think you can get away with.DianaW 01:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There are two works in question here. The work cited in the body of the article is published by Rowohlt Verlag, one of the most distinguished publishing houses in Germany, not by an anthroposophical ("in-house") publisher. It is thus subject to third-party review, the standard of the arbitration, which said to avoid works "self-published by the Anthroposophy movement". Rowohlt Verlag clearly does not fall under this category.

The work listed in the bibliography, like many others there, is published by an anthroposophical publishing house. As far as I know, there is no reason not to have such books in the bibliography. Hgilbert 13:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Look at this!

The section on Steiner's antisemitism has been reduced to this:

"Steiner and Antisemitism Beginning around the turn of the century, Steiner wrote a series of seven articles for the Mitteilungen aus dem Verein zur Abwehr des Antisemitismus, a magazine devoted to combatting anti-Semitism, in which he attacked the anti-Semitism of the era. [53]"

This is a disgrace. This is what the anthroposophists who manage this article have achieved here in the wake of the arbitration that effectively stifled critical perspectives on this page. Steiner was an anti-Semite himself - not an opponent of anti-Semitism.DianaW 14:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any verifiable sources for this? You have been a great one for emphasizing the value of the arbitration's requirement for citation sources ... Hgilbert 11:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

To quote thebee on another anthroposophy-related article: "The Aritration ruling stated that for information that is not controversial, anthroposophical sources are allowed. See the ruling. Thanks, Thebee 13:40, 16 July 2007." So then it is all right with you guys if we quote Steiner's own words, declaring that it is a mistake of world history that Judaism still exists? It's not "controversial" to claim that Steiner actually said this, is it? Which way do you want to play this? Any way but honest, I guess? DianaW 02:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

As you probably know, I have looked at the historical context for what you refer to. It indicates that just quoting it without taking this into account and describing it and giving a full account of his complex views on Jewry, see for example this, would be highly controversial. That's the reason it isn't quoted in the article. And "Look at this!" is not a very descriptive/informative header, as you're probably aware of. Thanks, Thebee 07:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You're playing a game. It's not controversial that he *said* what I note above about Jews and their being a mistake of world history. That's just a quote from Steiner. Clearly, you couldn't and wouldn't deny that he said it. Anthroposophists don't dispute that Steiner said the fact that Judaism still exists is a mistake of world history. It's the meaning, significance, historical context etc. of this unfortunate remark that you dispute. But on other articles, you want to claim you can stick in your favorite Steiner web sites as long as it's only to source something factual and straightforward. By "owning" these articles, you've managed to have your cake and eat it too playing games like this - acting hurt and offended when something simple like an official list of Waldorf schools worldwide is disputed because after all it's just a list of facts isn't it? Well it's also a simple fact that Steiner wrote blatantly offensive things about Jews.DianaW 10:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a fact that that's your reaction to what he wrote. We have been asked to cite authoritative sources, however. Please find these and add them; I agree that the section should be improved. Hgilbert 13:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

To Diana: If you have got sources, other than quoting Steiner (original research, right?), please produce them. At the moment, all you are saying is that your interpretation of various things you've read have convinced you that Steiner was an anti-Semite. This is fine, but it doesn't meet encyclopedia standards. One problem is that Steiner was not seen as an anti-Semite by his contemporaries. The recent biography by Lachman (not an anthroposophist) (Rudolf Steiner: an introduction to his life and work by Gary Lachman, Penguin 2007) has two entries under anti-Semitism in the index, neither describes Steiner as an anti-Semite. MinorityView 02:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] date of birth

is the 27th Feb. --89.56.208.13 16:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Steiner's autobiography gives the date 27 February 1861. However, there is an undated autobiographical fragment written by Steiner (referred to in a footnote in his autobiography in German, GA 28) that says, "My birth fell on the 25th of February 1861. Two days later I was baptized." --EPadmirateur 23:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There are several incorrect statements regarding the following sections from a historical point of view:

"Childhood and education

..., then part of Hungary (present-day Donji Kraljevec, Međimurje region, northernmost Croatia). When he was two years old, the family moved into Burgenland, Austria, in the foothills of the eastern Alps."

There was no Hungarian state in 1861 as the text appears to imply. At that time, Hungary was part of the Austrian Empire, which became the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1867. Hungary belonged to the Austrian Empire and Austro-Hungarian Empire from the 16th/17th centuries until 1918. Burgenland did not exist in 1861, but was created in 1921 after the break-up of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1918 and is nowadays indeed a "county"/"state" of the Republic of Austria. There was never a territory called "Burgenland" before 1921, but the region that forms Burgenland today was actually part of several (Hungarian) Comitats in "Transleithanien" (= Hungarian part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, 1867-1918). There was a similar administrative situation also before 1867.

Since English is not my mother tongue I leave it up to English native speakers to introduce the necessary corrections in the text.

Cheers, Ulrich —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.218.3.188 (talk) 05:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I've corrected the section accordingly. Hgilbert 01:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] race section

This section seems not to have been cleaned up according to the arbitration standards, astonishingly enough; citations to Steiner were still hanging around. It also was poorly organized. Look at the rewrite, which begins with the critique, but tries to give reasonable space to both sides, and see what you think. Hgilbert 12:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It is okay, but feels sort of superficial in both the criticism and the explanation. If someone actually followed up the references do you think they would get a fair picture? I guess it is okay for an encyclopedia article, which is basically meant to give a brief overview.MinorityView 01:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

-Would it not make sense to just remove what the opposing sides think from the section and place what Steiner did think-say here? The section is about Stiners views after all. Maybe at the end of the section one can say that the skeptics find the above to be racist and the supporters find nothing raciest about the above. The article is on what Rudolf Steiners views on race, it is not a debate about if he was/was not raciest. It would be important to mention that different people understand what he said differently, the skeptics see a racist man and the supports see a non-racist man. Ether way, it is not good for the article to be a debate, as it looks to be now, and at the same time people need to make up there own minds about things, while getting all the information. Does this sound reasonable? Knightt 18:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Some of this has been hashed through in previous discussions and the arbitration process. Excerpting bits of Steiner ends up equalling original research. How do you choose which bits? How do you judge whether the bits chosen are typical or not of his body of work? How much background do you provide on each quote? And supporters are not a uniform group. Saying that "supporters" find nothing racist about the quotes would end up misrepresenting the opinions of some followers, to put it mildly. It is perfectly possible to admire much of Steiner's work and disagree with some statements or feel that they are outdated and irrelevant.

Read through some of the archived discussions or have a look at the arbitration conclusions. MinorityView 01:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, we were asked to use peer-reviewed studies rather than original sources for any controversial areas, for the reasons detailed above. Please help find more material of this kind! Hgilbert 03:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medical views

In Foundations of Human Experience, Steiner calls the brain the organ of thinking (p. 116 in the German). I have removed the section stating that this is not so. I have also taken away the term "vital force", which seems not to stem from Steiner. Hgilbert 08:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The "heart is not a mechanical pump" section does not fit into controversies as now worded; there is no documented controversy over this. On the other hand, I don't know where we'd put this rather minor point; it is only here because people have taken umbrage over it - but not in any documentable fashion. Does it belong at all? Where? Hgilbert (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The racism section

I have studied Steiner's work for over 15 years, and while I see the necessity of including the controversy about his racial ideas, I also think that the presentation of these ideas in this entry could be a bit misleading. These views about the different races were expressed in some of his most profoundly esoteric lectures, and they do not bear such glib extraction. On the other hand, to present these ideas in an accurate context would necessitate including a web of related ideas that don't belong in a simple article. Might it be best at least to point out the gravity and complexity of these ideas, as they relate to his entire cosmology?

It's late and I'm not expressing myself too well, but this seems like it needs further attention. Feel free to write to me directly at herrneilson@yahoo.com

Best wishes, Neil Martinson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.169.231 (talk) 07:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

All material here must be referenced to verifiable sources; on controversial themes, preferably to peer-reviewed sources. If you know of such sources that are not included here, please let us know or add them directly. Hgilbert (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have tried to rebalance the presentation and have removed the specific example that was extracted from a larger presentation. Can someone have a look and see if this is an improvement? Hgilbert (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I can understand removing the quote from Knowledge of Higher Worlds, but don't understand the justification for removing the characterizations of the 4 or 5 different races from Husmann-Kastein in this change. Not scholarly? Not peer reviewed? Too superficial? Incorrect characterization? --EPadmirateur (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Not peer-reviewed. I was the one who originally put this in; I realize now, reviewing the section in response to Neil's comment above, that it does not qualify by arbitration standards. I thought the article was fairly balanced, considering the intensely critical attitude of the author, but an individual editor's judgment should not override arbitration criteria. Hgilbert (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

i removed this part:

On the other hand, Steiner emphasized the core spiritual unity of all the world's peoples and sharply criticized racial prejudice, stating his beliefs that:

• The individual nature of any person stands higher than any racial, ethnic, national or religious affiliation,^[1][2]
• Race and ethnicity are transient, not essential aspects of the individual, especially since in Steiner's view each individual incarnates in many different peoples and races over successive lives, thus bearing within him- or herself a range of races and peoples.^[3][4]
• Race is rapidly losing any remaining significance for humanity.^[4]

since we do not allow anthropop quotations anymore, i suppose we cannot use christoph lindenberg and propably also not this blume guy. also do kindly explain to me how the text could remain the same although the reference was changed to zander. i thought we had a balanced section with some of quotations that were racist and some that were anti racist. now you are spinning things around again to mellow it down, pity that.trueblood (talk) 10:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think your objections all center around the choice of references. Christoph Lindenberg's book is a scholarly work published by a mainstream source (Rowohlt) and so is acceptable. Same for Blume's chapter on Beuys in the Kugler and Baur book Rudolf Steiner in Art and Architecture, published by DuMont in Cologne. The text that remained the same even though the citation changed from Husmann to Zander was, I believe, "Race is rapidly losing any remaining significance for humanity". This is something Steiner said very emphatically a number of times and (most likely) was cited by both authors, since they are being scholarly in their analyses of Steiner, although by no means uncritical, either of them. I think this little section that you removed needs to be restored to maintain neutrality. What else needs to be added to regain balance and not mellow the article down? --EPadmirateur (talk) 05:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed a source, Husmann-Kastein, from which the majority of the text had been drawn (I had put this in originally but in checking the online text found that it is not peer reviewed, as required by the arbitration). I found the now-cited article by Zander, who is a fairly prominent historian and far and away the most objective source. Some of his conclusions overlap with Husmann-Kastein's, for example, the one you cite. I can look back at Zander's article; I'm sure there are more critical sides represented there I've not yet brought in, as well. Otherwise: sources, sources, sources! Hgilbert (talk) 12:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

my objections center around my impression that hgilbert uses the arbitration results to remove anything remotely critical. we had a nice little version of this section where some of the crasser racist remarks were mentioned and some of the anitracist stuff; hgilbert removed the racist stuff, i removed the anti racist stuff. at the same time he pretends that all he wants is a fair and balanced article. i am sort of tired of that.trueblood (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not the way it works: rather than remove valid material, you need to find properly sourced material that reflects the criticism of racism. There must be such statements, particularly from Zander and similar scholars. Can you find some? In the meantime, the deleted material needs to be restored. --EPadmirateur (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually added a critique of Steiner's "extreme assimilationist views" that was challenged by another editor as being unsourced. I think this accurately represents Steiner's views but must find a peer-reviewed source before I can include it. The same holds for any other controversial analysis on his works. FIND PEER-REVIEWED SOURCES!!! Zander has written a lot on the subject, for example; I have gone through a small fraction of his work. Hgilbert (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to balance the section again with material from Zander. Hgilbert (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Innoculations

I have removed what I hope is the last non-peer reviewed claim from the article, about Steiner's view of inoculations. The quote was more ambiguous than the claim, in any case. If we find any peer-reviewed analyses of Steiner's views on the subject, we should include the topic again. Hgilbert (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this "controversy" needs to be kept in the article: "One of Steiner's controversial medical doctrines concerns the notion that Anthroposophical doctors should generally avoid giving inoculations." There is this statement and reference in Anthroposophical medicine: "Anthroposophical doctors generally restrict the use of antibiotics, antipyretics, and vaccinations.^[5]" This statement from the Lancet paper itself refers to a book: Goebel W, Glöckler M. A guide to child health. Edinburgh: Floris Books; 1990. I think this same reference can be used to justify the deleted statement. --EPadmirateur (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The Lancet citation could be used for the anthroposophy or anthroposophic medicine articles, but is not relevant here; the claim that anthroposophic doctors restrict the use of vaccinations says nothing about Steiner's medical advice (or "doctrine" [sic]). The Steiner quote I removed could perhaps be used here if accurately summarized and if considered uncontroversial (per arbitration), though we have been asked by that arbitration proceeding to avoid direct quotes. Hgilbert (talk) 02:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, how about this formulation:

One of Steiner's controversial medical indications was that Anthroposophical doctors should generally avoid giving inoculations and Anthroposophical doctors typically follow this.^[6]

I don't think you can get an allowable direct citation referring to what Steiner indicated. This provides an indirect citation and states a fact that derives from Steiner's indication. (Note that the word "generally" as in "generally restrict" is not present in the Lancet article.) --EPadmirateur (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

We could also include the next sentence in the text of the reference, thus: "Anthroposophical doctors restrict the use of antibiotics, antipyretics, and vaccinations. Most children are vaccinated only against tetanus and polio, and most vaccinations are given later than recommended by the Swedish health authorities." --EPadmirateur (talk) 02:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If this passage is to remain it needs a citation that demonstrates that Steiner himself, not just anthroposophical doctors today, advised against vaccination: this is the claim made in (and the only relevance for) this article. I can provide a citation: GA120 p. 170, where he recommends vaccinations outright. I see no source claiming he suggested they not be used. This is WP:OR and untrue to boot. I have removed the passage again. Hgilbert (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] assimilationist views

"Steiner held extreme assimilationist views, which have been criticised." Is this directly related to, and better placved in, the next paragraph? If not please supply source and ID who critisised him. SmithBlue (talk) 03:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The sub section "Steiner's stance against Antisemitism" is in a section named "Controversies" - why is a stance against Antisemitism being included as a contoversy? If this is the correct location for this sub-section then it needs to be made clear why it is in the controversies section. SmithBlue (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversies include:

1. over his stance against Antisemitism (around the turn of the 19th-20th century a controversial stance)
2. in the 1920s-1940s, attacks by right-wing nationalists (especially Nazi ideologues) over his (and anthroposophy's) links to prominent Jews
3. in more recent times, controversy over his views on Jewish assimilation .

I have added a reference for the assimilationist question Hgilbert (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)