Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:27, 31 October 2006

Template:RFMF

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

RfC

The issues on this page are:

The inclusion of published evaluations of Steiner's views on race and ethnicity.

Only one, evaluation, negative to Steiner is presently included:

• an article reviewing Steiner's views on race by Swen Hansson, a professor of philosophy and founding chairperson of the Swedish Skeptics.

This is because inclusion of the following is repeatedly reverted:

• a 750 page published report in which the Dutch Anthroposophical Society appointed a team comprised exclusively of Anthroposophists that examined every one of Steiner's statements on race and racism that THEY felt were relevant and evaluated these according to both Dutch law and present ideas of racism. The report was authored by a commission led by a renowned human rights authority who was, indeed, an Anthroposophist himself; the members of the commission were all familiar with and/or connected with anthroposophy and Steiner's work - again they were ALL Anthroposophists.

Inclusion of this evaluation is contested on the basis that all of the report's authors were Anthroposophists - i.e. Steiner was their guru and Steiner's works, whether they are considered racist or not by the general public, represent their belief system. Furthermore, the inclusion of this article, if it is allowed, MUST clearly identify the extreme bias of the participants of this commission - something which the pro-Steiner editors here are attempting to disguise. The evaluation is therefore contested because of an attempt to dishonestly portray the facts in order to advance a particular POV.

Inclusion is supported because the report meets every Misplaced Pages criteria for verifiability; the authors' connection to or interest in anthroposophy is a) unverified and b) irrelevant; by Misplaced Pages standards, authors are not disqualified because of their affiliations or interests or points of view.

Inclusion of commentary on the evaluations, and use of quotation marks to make implicit commentary

The following are examples drawn from a particular user's edits:

• 'The commission "investigated" every one of Steiner's comments in the over 350 published volumes of his writings, lectures and letters which they "believed to be relevant". Their (not surprising) conclusions...'
• 'These controversial (to say the least) findings have been refuted by Steiner's own words.'
• 'As to Waldorf education, the Commission (again, not surprisingly) concluded'

The user justifies such commentary and use of quotation marks by saying that the commission's investigations require such commentary to be rightly understood.

It is contested on the grounds that it is Misplaced Pages policy to objectively report various points of view without editorializing or insertion of negative commentary. Hgilbert 00:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the article that discusses the Dutch Commission of Anthroposophists and their report. To include the Anthroposophical commission's report would require the inclusion of a healthy portion of this article to put their report in perspective. We are already pressed for space here and, again, the Anthroposophical commission's report on Steiner has nothing to do with Steiner's views on race and ethnicity, it only has to do with a very biased Anthroposophical commission's interpretation of those views. If anything, this should be broken out into a sub-article, as I have suggested, and both sides could be adequately presented. This would leave room in THIS article for Steiner's own views - which is, indeed, what this article is supposed to be about. --Pete K 15:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

For a perspective on the credibility of the author Peter Staudenmaier as author on anthroposophy, do a search on his name at http://www.google.com. It shows he is a highly questionable and highly biased source on anything with regard to anthroposophy. For an introducing clarification of the three main senses, in which Steiner used the concept of "race" at different times, see http://www.waldorfanswers.org/ARacistMyth.htm -> http://www.waldorfanswers.org/ThreeConcepts.htm

On "the Anthroposophical commission's report on Steiner has nothing to do with Steiner's views on race and ethnicity, ...":

This the complete opposite of the truth. The Report by the Commission contains all 245 quotes from the 90,000 pages of Steiner's collected works, that refer to race as it was understood at Steiner's time. Every quote is commented on, and judged in relation to present day Dutch legislation on discrimination, more than 80 years after they were made, in a culture where "race" was an issue that dominated all thinking ad debate of social issues. The intermediary (350 pages in German translation) report gives among other things a 60 page historical perspective on Steiner in relation to his time, including his relation to among other things the evolutionary theory of Darwin and Haeckel, on biology and racism, and the central concepts of his work. The report (720 pages in the final version) is the MOST thorough, extensive and detailed report published ever on Steiner's views on race and ethnicity. --Thebee 20:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

So basically, you are saying you want to continue the edit wars here. Please, stop referencing your original research on own websites in order to discredit legitimate sources. What you have demonstated in the past few weeks here is that your websites have no credibility, and the information contained in them is often fabricated. Steiner's views can be easily discerned by simply reading his own words. That's what we should be doing here. Please cease your defamation campaign against anyone and everyone who disagrees with your POV. Thanks! Pete K 20:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Identification of authors' affiliations.

Note: this section of the talk page has been revised to acknowledge that verification has been given of the Dutch report's authors' institutional connection to anthroposophy and to focus on the remaining issues.Hgilbert 10:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Is identification of authorities by their philosophical and/or institutional affiliations Misplaced Pages policy? If so, it should be mentioned that the author of the Dutch report are anthroposophists and that Hansson is a Skeptical Humanist, (see Sven Ove Hansson). If not, neither should be mentioned.

Diana says: quoting Hgilbert: "If so, it should be mentioned that Hansson is a Skeptical Humanist, as well (see Sven Ove Hansson)."

Nope. The fact that Hansson is a skeptical humanist, if this is true, is totally irrelevant. Hansson can be a Buddhist, Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, Hindu, Druid - it makes no difference. It doesn't matter what he eats for breakfast, either. It is outside the category of relevant information about this source. What Hansson is not is an anthroposophist - that is what makes him a neutral source, and that is why it is useful to include his views. His credentials do not have to be described in detail in the body of the paper. I'm a professional editor and I can tell you that the ideological affiliations of every source cited are never discussed in the body of an academic paper, unless in some unusual circumstance there is some reason they impact the discussion in a unique way. Hansson's do not. (Yes, we know that anthroposophists believe that anyone who is not "spiritual" is not capable of saying anything intelligent about anthroposophy. This is an academic paper, however, and anthroposophists' personal opinions in this regard are irrelevant.)

Anyone who's interested in reading what Hansson said directly, or has some personal interest in finding out who this man is, will check the reference list, and find the article. That's what a reference list is for. The Dutch commission is a different case entirely. If their views are to be included it must be within the context of *explaining anthroposophical response to criticism of anthroposophy*. That is why the anthroposophical affiliations of the authors would need to be noted. They cannot be *disguised* within the article as neutral sources when they are not; that does not meet academic standards, and it is not ethical.DianaW 12:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Why in the world would Hansson's Skeptical Humanist standing be relevant? Should everyone who publishes a document be categorized by their religious or political persuasions? The reason it is important that this commission was comprised of Anthroposophists is because STEINER CREATED ANTHROPOSOPHY. This is incredibly simple - I don't understand why it is an issue. --Pete K 02:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The commission was COMPRISED of Anthroposophists. They were ALL Anthroposophists. Steiner was the founder of their religion. For some reason, you couldn't even bring yourself to describe the make-up of this commission honestly when you produced this request. It is very, very clear that there is something wrong with this Harlan, otherwise you wouldn't continually seek to disguise the make-up of the commission - in the article AND in these discussions. It is equivalent to a cult finding their cult leader free of wrongdoing. I respectfully request that whoever is evaluating this issue, please read the discussion here in its entirety and please consider allowing Steiner's own words to speak for themselves. The findings of a court of his own followers is a waste of precious space here that can be better used by demonstrating DIRECTLY what Steiner had to say on this topic. --Pete K 02:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have seen no evidence that they were anthroposophists other than your assertion. Anthroposophy is not a religion, as you just discovered (in a California court case); nor is it generally considered one by others. I am not disguising anything; if - and only if - you can provide evidence of this, it should be included in the article. The leader of the commission is a notable authority in his field; the others were also competent authorities.

Pete: if you believe STeiner's words should speak for themselves, why have you added the Hansson commentary? Hgilbert 10:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Anthroposophy is INDEED a religion. The California case didn't decide anything and is in appeals court. I was married to an Anthroposophist for 15 years. One of my children was baptised in their church. I think I know what it is... but your denial doesn't surprise me in the least. I don't believe the Hansson commentary was added by me... it may have been, but I'm pretty sure it was here before me and repeatedly deleted by revisionists. --Pete K 14:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Anthroposophy is not a religion; the Christian Community, to which you refer when you say "their church", is not connected to the Anthroposophical Society, and was founded independently of this. The Christian Community is a religion influenced by anthroposophy, but that does not work backwards; anthroposophy does not become a religion because it has influenced one. I think you know all this and are purposely avoiding naming the C.C. and mixing them up to support a spurious claim.

First of all, the Anthroposophical Society does not comprise all of Anthroposohy. So saying the Christian Community isn't connected to the society doesn't mean anything (I suspect you know this). It is part of Anthroposophy just as much as Anthroposophical medicine, Waldorf education, biodynamic agriculture, eurythmy, Camphill, etc. All the things you say have sprung out of Anthroposophy. But more specifically, looking at the written works that constitute Anthroposophy, it is plain to see that at Anthroposophy's core is esoteric Christianity - there's no denying this. It is a religious philosophy - there's no denying this either. Anthroposophists observe religious events, have religious rituals, read Steiner's religious texts, go to Christian Community church on Sundays, pray the prayers Steiner himself wrote. You're barking up the wrong tree trying to argue with me about this - but go ahead if you feel you have a point somewhere in here. Anthroposophy is a religion. Anthroposophists don't like to admit it. --Pete K 02:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

So here we have what you are seeking - that the "commission" were all members of the Anthroposophical Society. Here's a quote from this text:

"The Dutch report simply asserts that those anthroposophists who have interpreted Steiner's teachings in a racist fashion have misunderstood Steiner — a convenient excuse which sheds no light whatsoever on the underlying reasons for the ongoing racism within organized anthroposophy. Aside from the irrelevant sections on contemporary discrimination law, the commission's methodology is purely esoteric, and its annotations of the quotes from Steiner demand of the reader a suspension of critical faculties. Steiner's supposed clairvoyance and his ideas about karma and reincarnation play an overwhelming part in their appraisal. This should come as no surprise, since all of the members of the commission belong to the Dutch Anthroposophical Society.

What is more seriously troubling is the commission's insistence on purveying a race theory of their own. According to the Dutch final report there are different human races with different physical, mental, cultural and spiritual capacities. The authors posit "great differences between the human races" (p. 206) and state that "people of below average development" must incarnate in "lower races" (p. 207). They also claim, for example, that technology was developed by the "Caucasian race" (p. 210). Moreover, the commission declares more than once that non-anthroposophists and people who do not share a spiritual conception of reality ("materialists" in their vocabulary) are simply incapable of judging Steiner's work. This absurd stance obviously cancels whatever worth the study might have had for those outside the cult of Rudolf Steiner.

The commission's own epistemological framework is astonishingly primitive, even by anthroposophist standards. In an effort to turn Steiner's frequent unintelligibility into a virtue, they inform us that when Steiner contradicted himself over and over again he was simply trying to get at the truth from different angles. This is a ludicrous pretext for the commission's failure to do any hermeneutic work of its own. A sympathetic reading of Steiner's work is one thing, willful ignorance quite another — especially in light of the commission's notorious 'argument' (really a mere assumption) that Steiner's scattered anti-racist comments both absolve and negate his much more numerous racist remarks. To make this implausible claim stick, they would need to advance some interpretive agenda, some explanatory model for making sense of Steiner's incoherence. But they never do so, leaving the Janus face entirely intact while simply avoiding one of its two sides."

Note the "this should come as no surprise" language - because IT SHOULD COME AS NO SURPRISE. The commission is a bogus whitewash of Steiner's racism - just as this article has been.--Pete K 14:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Since Steiner himself said that he was trying to approach things from radically different angles at different times, it would be a hermeneutic reading of his work to examine such apparent contradictions from this perspective. Does it worry you that some physicists talk about light as a wave and others as if it were a particle? These are "obviously" contradictory, yet both valid aspects of light.

What you are quoting is not a reliable source by Misplaced Pages standards. — goethean ॐ 15:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I missed this earlier. This is definitely a reliable source by Misplaced Pages standards. It's a published author (not self-published) in a perfectly acceptable publication, the journal "Humanist."70.20.159.19 03:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC) - that was DianaDianaW 03:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not Misplaced Pages's approach. If it will not come as a suprise, let the reader be not suprised. Editorializing is unacceptable.

I'm not quoting it for insertion in the article - I'm quoting it to demonstrate the make-up of the "commission". And I believe it is a reliable source by Misplaced Pages standards. BTW, I've quoted Steiner many times here - is there any question that he was a racist? Maybe for you - but not for a free-thinking individual. --Pete K 17:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You should consider abiding by Misplaced Pages policy and stopping attacking editors personally. — goethean ॐ 17:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

My comment about it not being a reliable source may be incorrect, at least in regard to the form in which the article was published in Humanist. I'm not familiar with the publication and don't know if it qualifies as a reliable source. — goethean ॐ 17:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, so now we have established that the commission was indeed comprised exclusively of Anthroposophists... Right? Now that I have wasted half a day proving the obvious, and you guys have wasted three days arguing against the obvious - where are we going to go with this discussion? Do you boys and girls still want to argue that the commission's conclusions should be admissible here? --Pete K 19:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course; they are experts on the subject; why should this disqualify them? Is Hansson disqualified for being a declared Skeptic, thus not objective? I keep referring you to the Misplaced Pages POV policy, which explicitly says that:

"At Misplaced Pages, points of view (POV) are often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects.

In Thought du Jour Harold Geneen has stated:

"The reliability of the person giving you the facts is as important as the facts themselves. Keep in mind that facts are seldom facts, but what people think are facts, heavily tinged with assumptions." Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POV's). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Misplaced Pages are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Misplaced Pages's official "Neutral Point of View" policy.

Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know:

Who advocates the point of view What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)"

This is clearly a major point of view, since it can be taken to represent the majority view of those who deal with Steiner's work most closely. Hgilbert 00:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

ROFL!!! You are either incredibly dense, or you think everyone else here is (or maybe you just think I am). You have argued here that the people who are on this Anthroposophical commission aren't Anthroposophists. Now, having been proven wrong about this, you say it doesn't matter - that their point of view about Steiner's racism is "major" because it is "the majority view of those who deal with Steiner's work more closely." This is absurd. There are something like 50,000 Anthroposophists in the world - give or take a couple of thousand. That's IT! Now how can you suggest that you know the point of view of the majority of people who have examined Steiner's work closely? Indeed even many Anthroposophists agree that Steiner's views were racist. I get that Anthroposophists aren't supposed to think freely about these things, but still - how can you suppose that this ridiculous commission represents the "major point of view" of anything with your own numbers so miniscule? It is almost pointless to argue this with you because you are so obviously mixed up. This is an encyclopedia for everybody - not just for Anthroposophists. People coming here don't want to hear what has been chewed and digested for Anthroposophists. You and others here have gone to tremendous effort to whitewash Steiner's point of view already. We already get to read the Anthoposophist's point of view on these apologetic pages. That Anthroposophists agree with their own point of view is... well... expected. That a commission was formed to confirm this is... well... STUPID! It isn't worth half a sentence in this article. --Pete K 02:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing... let's not forget that this commission was working according to Dutch law. So out of the 50,000 Anthropops worldwide, how many Dutch Anthroposophists are there, and why in the world does this tiny fraction of the population represent a major point of view? I'm still laughing as I write this. Incredible. --Pete K 02:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It remains a significant view and should stand as such in the encyclopedia. Note that Hansson's views are his as an individual who has much less standing in the world of human rights than the head of the Dutch commission. Hgilbert 11:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for YOUR OPINION. It's this ridiculous view that has caused this article to be locked. The Dutch commission of ANTHROPOSOPHISTS (you conveniently forget to mention their affiliation) has no standing in the world when they are reviewing the work of THEIR LEADER. Your position - that an extremely BIASED POV has a place of significance here is causing these edit wars. This is (I'm tired of repeating this) "Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity", not YOUR views about Rudolf Steiner's views, not the Anthroposophical commission's views, or any other Anthroposophist's views, but Rudolf Steiner's. Misrepresenting his views is not acceptable here. Producing information that misrepresents his views by biased individuals or groups that are immersed in Anthroposophy isn't going to make your case - especially when you insist in hiding the fact that they are biased. You have fought tooth and nail to keep Steiner's own racist views out of the Steiner article, and now you're trying to keep them out of this article which is specifically devoted to the topic. That you would work so hard and pretend to be so naive about racism in order to hide the truth (change history) about Steiner perhaps reveals to everyone here what was going on within the Dutch Commission of Anthroposophists. --Pete K 14:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Pete K, you are being incredibly aggressive. Please stop attacking editors. Disagreements are normal. Accusing someone of playing naive to do harm is, in my opinion, very inappropriate and demeaning. I cannot comment on the article because I know very little about it. But I can say that you are way out of line regarding Misplaced Pages’s policies in handling disputes.--Connor K. 22:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I know the editor in question knew the commission was comprised completely of Anthroposohists - it has been brought to his attention before. So I'm not unjustified in suggesting he is pretending to be naive about the situation. Nonetheless, I will take your point. Thanks! --Pete K 01:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Diana adds: Let me back this up. It may appear aggressive if you don't know the context. Pete is definitely not unjustified in suggesting that these folks all knew what the authorship of the Dutch report was. A number of these individuals have discussed it elsewhere for *years on end*. It's not like the Dutch report came out a month ago. There is simply no doubt they were playing naive and attempting to waste other editors' time asking them to "prove" information that they could not have been in doubt about themselves. Let's put it this way - if HGilbert, for instance, who certainly presents himself here as in a knowledgeable enough position to write an article on Rudolf Steiner's racial views, was *not* aware of what was in that report, including who wrote it, this would be an extremely strange situation. If they did not know, and were completely incapable of determining, who was the author(s) of a source they were insisting be included, what in the world is going on here?DianaW 12:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Bias

User:Pete K has followed the following extremely biased editorial policies:

• Complaining aggressively that any deletion of quotations by Rudolf Steiner that cast a negative light on Steiner's views on race/ethnicity is "suppression" while himself deleting (suppressing) quotations that show that Steiner opposed racism and racial biases.
• Complaining aggressively that any inclusion of authorities that speak positively about Steiner's work is inappropriate as "we should let Steiner's statements speak for themselves" while inconsistently demanding that authorities (Hansson) that speak negatively about Steiner's work should be included -- this has occurred repeatedly both here and in the main article Rudolf Steiner.
• Demands that authors' philosophical orientation and organizational affiliations be identified in the article when these suggest a presumptive prejudice in favor of anthroposophy/Steiner (Dutch commission/anthroposophical affiliation), and equally aggressively seeking to suppress identification of authors' orientation/affiliation when these suggest a presumptive prejudice against anthroposophy/Steiner/spiritual movements generally (Hansson/Skeptical Humanism) (Posted by HGilbert, 01:24, 6 October 2006)

Diana adds: Regarding this last point this is a false parallel. These two situations are not analogous. Misplaced Pages, as best I understand, asks for academic standards to be followed in terms of what kind of source can be cited for what purpose, and an attempt to maintain a neutral point of view as befits an encyclopedia, not taking a position on controversies. Obviously this is very difficult with partisans of various points of view editing the articles. Pete is right here. The way it works in academia and in scientific research is that to evaluate a controversial topic, a neutral source is considered much more credible. "Insiders" to a controversy don't have the neutral status to evaluate it. Hansson is a neutral source precisely because he is an outsider to the controversy. He is not an anthroposophist. An anthroposophist is not a neutral source to evaluate anthroposophy. Hansson does not need to be accused of "bias" or "prejudice" against anthroposophy. There is no reason to think he is biased or prejudiced against anybody. You go *outside* anthroposophy to find a neutral unbiased source on anthroposophy. Insiders to anthroposophy are not in the same position. The fact that anthroposophists reporting on anthroposophists do not meet the scholarly criteria for presumed lack of bias is the issue here. The anthroposophists here seem to think it is "fair" if their guy gets excluded, the other guy gets excluded too; or at least as I understand it, this is what the argument about "including Hansson's affiliation" is about. They're wrong about how scholarship works, if so.DianaW 11:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Diana again: Regarding the following: *Complaining aggressively that any inclusion of authorities that speak positively about Steiner's work is inappropriate as "we should let Steiner's statements speak for themselves" while inconsistently demanding that authorities (Hansson) that speak negatively about Steiner's work should be included -- this has occurred repeatedly both here and in the main article Rudolf Steiner:

This is again a misunderstanding. The issue is not whether they speak positively or negatively. If you guys have a legitimately neutral source, with all the requisite qualifications (a published academic commentator who is *not* an anthroposophical insider), who speaks positively of Steiner's racial doctrines, then please add this source to the article. Once you understand what the criteria are for including a source, Pete's "demands" are not inconsistent nor "aggressive." You're calling it aggressive just because he insists, and he is bloody well right to insist and keep on insisting. (We might even call it "raving" and as long as it is civil it is quite appropriate to go on raving.) I agree that "We should let Steiner's words speak for themselves" may not quite identify the issue, and perhaps that is the confusion. The issue is the neutrality of the sources. An article on Steiner's racial views should indeed consist of a substantial sampling of Steiner's own statements on the subject. Neutral outside authorities with comments on Steiner's racial views are also desirable - and whether they are positive or negative is NOT how we determine this. Anthroposophical commentary on Steiner's racial views is BY DEFINITION not appropriate to the standards of an encyclopedia, because . . . drum roll . . . the guy was an anthroposophist. For one thing, by academic standards, it is simply unnecessary. Anthroposophists can be *assumed* to be generally sympathetic to Steiner's writings; it is stating the obvious. There may of course be a few insider controversies; but this is not within the purview of an encyclopedia entry.DianaW 12:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me address these:

"Complaining aggressively that any deletion of quotations by Rudolf Steiner that cast a negative light on Steiner's views on race/ethnicity is "suppression" while himself deleting (suppressing) quotations that show that Steiner opposed racism and racial biases." Not true. You guys are forcing me to complain because you are deleting everything Steiner said that you don't like. I, on the other hand, have been leaving the quotes you provide and putting in additional quotes. I have been supporting the inclusion of quotes - any quotes - from Steiner. On the rare occasion when a quote has been snipped and grafted to another quote to produce the opposite of what Steiner was saying, or in cases when the opposite of the truth has been presented here (as with the "French" quote), I have deleted false information and replaced it with correct information and cited it correctly.

"Demands that authors' philosophical orientation and organizational affiliations be identified in the article when these suggest a presumptive prejudice in favor of anthroposophy/Steiner (Dutch commission/anthroposophical affiliation), and equally aggressively seeking to suppress identification of authors' orientation/affiliation when these suggest a presumptive prejudice against anthroposophy/Steiner/spiritual movements generally (Hansson/Skeptical Humanism)" We have discussed this. When a commission of Anthroposophists excuses Steiner's racism, it is important to note that the commission was made up of Anthroposophists. When an professor points out Steiner's racism, it makes no difference what his affiliation is. Your imagined "presumptive prejudice against Anthroposophy/Steiner/spiritual movements" is nonsense. How would someone's prejudice against Anthroposophy, even if it existed, put words in Steiner's mouth? This is nonsense. Do you really think that explaining that someone critical of Steiner is a skeptic is the same as a commission of Anthroposophists excusing his racism? The concepts are miles apart. --Pete K 01:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops, missed one: "Complaining aggressively that any inclusion of authorities that speak positively about Steiner's work is inappropriate as "we should let Steiner's statements speak for themselves" while inconsistently demanding that authorities (Hansson) that speak negatively about Steiner's work should be included -- this has occurred repeatedly both here and in the main article Rudolf Steiner." Hansson is a legitimate source. I'm happy to include any authorities that speak positively about Steiner who aren't Anthroposophists. In fact, most of the article that supports Steiner is by authorities who ARE Anthroposophists. But they are legitimate in what they are claiming. The fact that you guys are hiding the fact that the Dutch Anthroposophical Society's Commission of Biased Anthroposophists is indeed ALL ANTHROPOSOPHISTS, makes it difficult to consider allowing this at all. And again, when you provide this source, the article explaining who they are must also be sourced... and you guys won't like that either. --Pete K 01:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Pete wrote: "In fact, most of the article that supports Steiner is by authorities who ARE Anthroposophists." Well, then we get into "what is wrong with wikipedia." If the person who wrote the article is an insider to a controversy, and the very purpose of putting the entry in wikipedia in the first place is to strike a blow in an ongoing propaganda war against the folks on the other side of the controversy, the chances of an unbiased, academic-quality article coming out of that mess are pretty slim.DianaW 12:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree, Diana. Watching what goes on here has been quite an experience for me. I've told my kid NEVER to trust an article in Misplaced Pages. It is indeed the fanatics who are interested in pushing their agenda and revising history that are providing the majority of the content here (for some reason, they seem to have plenty of time on their hands too). The more fanatical the editors are (on controversial articles) the less accurate the information contained in the articles is. And the assumption of "good faith" is often misplaced as we have seen here often enough. People come here and misrepresent what they KNOW to be true (we've seen this right here in this article), in order to push their POV - and waste the time of editors who are actually interested in producing a good article. More and more, Misplaced Pages is becoming a microcosm of the internet - some good information mixed in with mostly bad information. When people who actually have the ability to produce a respectable article (I'm a professional writer, you're a professional editor, so I think you and I know the difference) put their efforts here, they are thwarted by POV-pushers. It really is a shame that it has to be this way. --Pete K 23:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Note on Pete moving to another article for his anti-anthroposophical campaign

After the article on RS' views on race and ethnicity, and the article on Rudolf Steiner have been blocked against further editing, Pete now indicates in three postings the last hours on the Talks page on anthroposophy, first (Revision as of 23:11, 7 October 2006), second (Revision as of 23:19, 7 October 2006) and third (erroneous dating: Current revision (17:41, 8 October 2006)) posting, that he is moving to the article on anthroposophy for a new edit war on the articles related to anthroposophy, during a preparation period for a mediation process regarding three earlier articles, related to anthroposophy. Longhair, would you have any advice on handling this? Maybe locking the article on anthroposophy before it even starts, and reverting anything he adds to the article, if he does it before you lock it? Thanks, --Thebee 20:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I have done no such thing. I'm simply moving to articles where I can do some good editing while these articles are locked and while dispute are being settled. I mentioned that I would be eventually getting to ALL the articles over a month ago. Are you suggesting Longhair should lock up the Anthroposophy article before anyone challenges your POV? This is amazing to me. You are simply insisting that your POV is the only legitimate POV available on Misplaced Pages. How incredibly arrogant is this? You believe that because you have invited people to mediate some contested articles, this means their hands should be tied and they should be prevented from editing other articles? EVERY article will be addressed and reviewed and edited freely - unless, of course, you insist on behaving in a way that causes them to be locked. I don't think whining about what you suspect an editor might introduce into an article sometime in the future will lock it up - but, hey, give you your best shot, my friend. --Pete K 22:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Restoring from archive - this needs to be accessible for mediation. Pete K 15:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

merging

User:Centrx has placed a merge template on this article. My understand was that this article had followed Misplaced Pages:Summary_style and that the split was due to article size. Thus the articles should not be merged. Please also see Misplaced Pages:Content_forking#Article_spinouts_-_.22Summary_style.22_articles, which says:

Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others. Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View.

— goethean ॐ 19:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think merging the articles is a great idea and I support this action. The only reason this article was split off in the first place was to remove the subject from the original article. Regarding article size, there have been very good recommendations about how the Rudolf Steiner article can be reduced in size - removing some of the biography and material that is not essential to a good understanding of Steiner. If somebody wants a complete biography of Steiner, they should, of course, invest in a book. The current Steiner article goes into too much detail about his life and while verbosity may have been Steiner's trademark, it needn't be part of these articles. There are more than a dozen offshoot articles referencing Steiner's ideas, initiatives, philosophies, architecture. He wasn't all that interesting except to Anthroposophists. With regard to this article, it is basically an apology for Steiner's racism. This particular topic is an important part of who Steiner was and is a relevant issue today in regards to Waldorf education - so it can and should be covered in the Steiner article when we remove some of the other stuff. Pete K 20:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding article size, there have been very good recommendations about how the Rudolf Steiner article can be reduced in size - removing some of the biography and material that is not essential to a good understanding of Steiner.

No. These were risable suggestions, contending that his philosophical and literary works do not merit mention in his own biography, and which were explicitly motivated by a desire to put more quotations that showcase a particular POV (the POV that Steiner was a racist) in the article. No Steiner quotations are needed in an encyclopedic biography. They belong at wikiquote. — goethean ॐ 21:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps one of us is confused about what an article about Steiner should entail. It is not, in my view, a biography, although a small portion of it should be devoted to his biography. The reason Steiner is noteworthy at all is because of his contributions to the world, not whether or not he met a gardener who impacted his world view. Stuff like his personal sculptures or plays he wrote or even the Goetheanum (which was burned down) are of marginal interest to someone reading about Steiner. What is of interest is his philosophical views (because more than anything, he was a philosopher) and his initiatives that have survived him and are around today. Steiner's views on race and ethnicity are part of the foundation of Anthroposophy and the initiatives derived from it. They are clearly described BY STEINER as relevant ideas when dealing with and assessing children in Waldorf schools in particular. Directly quoting Steiner's own words is not only reasonable in these articles, it is expected. As for your feelings that it is a POV to suggest Steiner said things that were racist, it's really a matter of fact that he did. You cannot change this by blocking attempts to quote Steiner. He will be quoted here. Pete K 21:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The only thing that will definitely happen here is that Misplaced Pages policy will be followed. We are not discussing the article on Rudolf Steiner's philosophy. Rudolf Steiner is a biographical encyclopedia article, which, however, should include information on Steiner's teachings. Steiner quotations belong at Wikiquote. Please see Misplaced Pages:Quotations. — goethean ॐ 21:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Misplaced Pages:Quotations is obsolete. — goethean ॐ 22:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting not following Misplaced Pages policy. Merging the articles is well within Misplaced Pages policy. So is quoting Steiner within the articles. Steiner's teachings INCLUDE racism. Sorry to be so blunt, but this is not getting through for some reason. Pete K 01:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting not following Misplaced Pages policy.

You claimed that Rudolf Steiner is not a biographical article. It is. This is an important point. — goethean ॐ 14:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Why? Let's just take the biographical article tag off - then it's not a biographical article. This seems like a pretty silly point to me. Actually reading what the article is about should give you a better idea of what it is - a puff piece on Steiner. In any case, this has NO bearing on the proposed merger of the two articles. Steiner's racist views are part of his biography and the merger of the two articles should move forward. Pete K 16:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

All Misplaced Pages articles on non-fictional human beings are biographical. This is a central point which dictates what should and what should not be included. Regarding the merger, I would like to hear from editors who know something about Misplaced Pages policy before continuing. The Steiner article is long, and merging will eventually necessitate splitting off subarticles, a well-recognized practice. If the racism section should not be split off, which sections should be? — goethean ॐ 16:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, the length of the article is not an issue as it should be edited extensively - even as a biography, most of this stuff is almost laughable in its irrelevance. When we discuss Einstein, we might say, as part of his biography, that he was a patent clerk. We don't need to talk about which patents he processed. The Steiner article goes into great detail about stuff that is of no interest to anyone interested in Steiner as a person - and only of marginal interest to someone who is interested in Steiner as a spiritual leader. The administrator who suggested the merger of the articles, I would suspect, knows about Misplaced Pages policy. Pete K 16:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Your analogy is inapt. Your and DianeW's suggestions, which included deleting mention of Steiner's notable literary and architectural works, were explicitly motivated by a desire to fill the article with more text on Steiner's writings on race, a minor aspect of his thought. — goethean ॐ 17:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, there are already over a dozen split-off articles including articles about Anthroposophy, Anthroposophical medicine, Eurythmy, Biodynamic agriculture, the Goethenaum, Waldorf education and lots more. There has to be a reasonable limit to the proliferation of articles based on Steiner - it's just unreasonable not to merge some of these. The recent removal of the "Waldorf Schools" article is a good example. Why have a Waldorf education AND a Waldorf schools article? Some people here are just trying to fill the pages of Misplaced Pages with as much Anthroposophical references as possible. Here's an idea - since we have a Goetheanum article that shows both the original and replacement Goetheanum pictures, let's start by getting rid of the picture of the Goetheanum. And how about, since Steiner wasn't a sculptor, let's get rid of the picture of the wood sculpture - maybe move it to the Goetheanum page. Since there are separate articles on many of these Steiner initiatives, we dont' need to talk about them extensively here. So let's just reference them. That way, we can make room for the information about who Steiner was and what his views were. This is important information for the Steiner page. Pete K 17:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

So your plan is to move everything about Steiner's accomplishments to other articles, and to fill the Rudolf Steiner article with a discussion of his views on race. That is neutral? — goethean ॐ 17:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... now there's a "History of Waldorf Schools" article. Any chance that could be merged with the Waldorf education article? Pete K 17:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I just took a peek at the Albert Einstein article. It should be a template for the Steiner article. It has a section on Biography, and other sections on his works. It's not a biography article, it's an encyclopedia article that included a section of his biography. Why? Because his biography doesn't define who the person is - his achievements, his works, his views do. Have a look Goethean, and see what I'm talking about. Pete K 17:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Google searches on the Goetheanum (134,000 hits) and on Steiner and racism (202,000 hits) indicate that there are comparable levels of interest in the two topics. This can be a guide to how much room various topics should be given in the article. — goethean ॐ 17:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Um... Oh, I see. This is teriffic logic. By that logic, we should devote 3/4 of Misplaced Pages to PORN. Pete K 18:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is already long by Misplaced Pages standards. How would it be merged into another, yet longer article without substantially cutting it? The suggestions to eliminate the biographical material from an article about a historical figure are rather curious. The Einstein article could indeed be used as a template; it has a huge biographical section - much longer than the Steiner article - followed by a "views" (corresponding to the 2nd, "philosophical development" section of the Steiner article - and (after a citizenship section) a "popularity and cultural impact section" corresponding to the "Practical initiatives", "influences" and "reception of Steiner" sections of the Steiner article. In fact, the two articles are very parallel, except for the much longer biographical section of the Einstein article. Hgilbert 18:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Goethean wrote: "Your and DianeW's suggestions, which included deleting mention of Steiner's notable literary and architectural works, were explicitly motivated . . . " Goethean, Steiner doesn't have any notable literary or architectural works. The comparisons to Einstein are similarly, er, flawed. I hate to break it to you guys, but Steiner is not like Einstein. It is appropriate that the biographical material on Albert Einstein is longer than on Rudolf Steiner. Get a grip.DianaW 19:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It was your fellow Steiner-basher who compared RS to Einstein, not I. WP:Civility is a Misplaced Pages policy. You need to begin following it. — goethean ॐ 20:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The material that could be cut from the Race and Ethnicity article could be the apologetic stuff that tries to imply that Steiner's views about race weren't really about race. People have added all kids of twisted pretzel logic here to imply that Steiner wasn't a racist - up to and including the report by a commission of Anthroposophists that excused him on most counts (and still found 16 counts of racist speech that would have had Steiner imprisoned according to Dutch law had he said them today). So that's one place to start - cutting out the tapdancing that tries to spin the obvious.

Again, the Einstein article handles much more than Einstein's biography - so let's get away from the idea that Steiner's is a biography article. It should contain basic biography of Steiner, so much of the Steiner article could be cut as I said above and as Diana went into detail to discuss on the Steiner article. Some of the pictures could be moved to other articles. It makes perfect sense to have a "views" section describing his political views which included his views on racism and ethnicity.

Goethean, if you will read (I keep begging you to try this), you will see that I did not compare Steiner to Einstein - I compared the Steiner article to the Einstein article. I have to laugh - you call me a "Steiner-basher" and follow it up with a link to the Misplaced Pages Civility policy. That was rich... Pete K 20:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Goethean wrote: "It was your fellow Steiner-basher who compared RS to Einstein," So? I don't care who suggested it. I don't think he he "compared Steiner to Einstein" anyway (sorry I don't follow the preferred respectful usage of calling Steiner "RS" that anthroposophists do among themselves). The point is Steiner's "biography" is not worth the same treatment on Misplaced Pages that analogous information on Albert Einstein would be! Try to keep perspective on who Steiner was. He didn't make contributions of the same scope or nature of someone like Einstein. (Can't believe I'm explaining this to you.) And just a tip: Scoldings to me about various wikipedia policies really don't interest or deter me, if you haven't noticed by now. Actually, scolding other adults in this manner is itself uncivil.DianaW 22:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit Waring

Can't keep this up Goethean. You either have to accept both or neither. The whitewash commission must be identified and shown for what it is. Sorry. Pete K 21:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Goethean's last edit summary said "please discuss on talk" - I'm here trying to discuss it and he's nowhere to be found. Not that this issue needs discussing AGAIN - it has been discussed to death. Anthroposophists / Steiner supporters here want to clear Steiner of racism by suggesting that a committee of Anthroposophists have excused him... only they want to hide the fact that these were Anthroposophists. It's dishonest and it will not fly here. If you want to leave in the conclusions of the Dutch committee, you have to make it clear that they were Anthroposophists and also permit the detailed and cited quote explaining the report and how it was produced. If you have a document to refute the conclusions of the quote, please present it. Otherwise, the introduction of the Dutch Commission report opens the door for the admission of the properly cited report that refutes it. Pete K 03:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who edit wars will be blocked. It is not a big deal if either version of the page remains for a few days while you discuss the issue. —Centrx→talk • 05:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Centrx, the issue has been discussed for weeks in great detail - much of this discussion has been archived by the archive-bots. Please have a look. It was only important for the Steiner defenders to discuss this issue while the articles were locked in a form that didn't include the report they're trying to insert. As soon as the articles were unlocked, they have started the edit-waring again by inserting this controversial report and insisting that the affiliation of the participants must be disguised. The only thing that seems to bring them to the table is locking the articles WITHOUT their biased material. Notice, nobody is trying to discuss the issues except me. They are working in teams to revert edits and game the 3RR rule. That was their strategy before the articles were locked up - and it's what they are doing now. Pete K 13:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Qualified experts

Peter Zegers and Staudenmaier have no qualifications as historians, or as academics generally. I am removing the reference to their article. Hgilbert 01:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Neither does Steiner - so I'm removing the references to HIS articles. Pete K 03:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is citable - and not every reference must be to a qualified historian. There are references everywhere in Misplaced Pages to all kinds of articles. Your edit was ridiculous. Pete K 03:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Steiner had a PhD in philosophy. Beyond that, his articles are obviously relevant to his own page.
2. Another user, not myself, brought up this criterion of only using articles by professional historians. That user was named "Pete K". Talk to him and sort this out. Hgilbert 00:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

AntiWiki comments by PeteK

In response to the removal by Hgilbert of a long quote from an article by two unreliable authors on Rudolf Steiner in this article, PeteK writes that he is removing references to articles by Rudolf Steiner in this article abut Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity, based on the argument that Steiner had no qualification as a historian or academic.

The statement and argument, if implemented, would violate the guideline Misplaced Pages:Gaming_the_system#State_your_point.3B_don.27t_prove_it_experimentally. The article is not an article on history, but on Steiner's view of a specific subject, and of course anything Steiner wrote or said on the subject of the article in general qualifies for quotation in the article, within the frames of Misplaced Pages policies on quotes.

And, as PeteK knows, Steiner had a PhD in philosophy, and as such qualifies as an academic.

Also the comment "Your edit was ridiculous" stands out as a violation of Misplaced Pages:Civility#Examples

Thebee 14:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You might want to take my advice above, again, and quit while you're behind. Your relentless stalking of me for every comment that you have misunderstood is a waste of pagespace. Why not give it a rest. It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. Pete K 14:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not stalking you. I'm interested in the same anthroposophy- and Waldorf-related articles as you are, and comment on them, as also on the edits by other editors, as you do. Why should you and not I do it? Thebee 14:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Right... that's why practically every header, and every edit summary and every post you produce has PeteK in it. If you would get your head out of my ass, you might not think everything that emanates from me must necessarily be offensive. This is a standard trick for you - annoying everyone and using me as the bait to attempt to get us both kicked off the list. This is what you did at Mothering.com when I brought my Waldorf experiences to the Waldorf section there. It's a great trade-off for you, especially now that you have been shown to have no credibility - it's a pawn for a rook sacrifice. I'm not playing your game again Sune. And it seems the administrators are wise to what you are trying to do. Pete K 15:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

On the Staudenmaier/Zegers quote

You come to Misplaced Pages from the most defamatory and disinformative anti-Waldorf and anti-Anthroposophy context on the net, the PLANS context and bring their main defamation, arguments and material into the articles related to anthroposophy and Waldorf education. I have almost ten years of experience of the group, and have for a number of years tried to penetrate the basis for the things they write and publish at their defamatory site, and contributed to building a description of and answers to it at different sites, in cooperation with others. Maybe that's a reason I address what you write, that comes from that group. Nobody brings their defamation here to Misplaced Pages the way you, and DianaW do.

This is not an argument that what you write is wrong because you are, as you have written, loosely associated with that group. I have never made such an argument, and have never come to think of doing it. I'm just extensively acquainted with most of what you write here, and have checked the published sources the defamation refers to. That's why I know the extent the writings of for example Staudenmaier are repeatedly unreliable in relation to the sources he refers to, in a way that has made me lose confidence in everything he writes on anthroposophy, down to the last comma, until I have checked the sources myself.

Already with regard to his consciously sensational very first article on the subject of anthroposophy, this extensive unreliability showed up when I checked it against the source he refers to. Checking further, this unreliability and his way of repeatedly giving a twisted desription of the sources he refers to, and at one point in a public discussion lying people straight in th face about a published source anyone for themselves could read on the net, and he himself had bought in the original during a trip to Germany (see linked to article) then turned out to be a repeated characteristic of what he has continued to write on the subject. See for example the pages here, here and here, that document both what he writes and the sources he alleged describes. Anyone can check both at the pages mentioned. EVERYTHING I have checked that he has written against the sources he refers to points to the repeated unreliability of what he writes on anthroposophy, in relation to the sources and subjects he refers to. That's a general reason why his part in the comment on the report by the Dutch Commissison lacks credibility. (I'll try to come back to the specific points at what he writes is unreliable.)

As for Peter Zegers, the other author of what you quote from one of their articles, he for example in other discussions standing out as a somewhat extreme defender of Zionism, to an extent even commented on by Noam Chomsky as surpassing absurdity. It indicates that he maybe in general is not THAT reliable as author related to a percieved anti-Semitism.

But I have to run for a meeting with some old pals. Will try to be back later. Thebee 17:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Part of your problem, my friend, is that you have associated me with your sworn enemy - PLANS. I am neither associated with them nor in contact with them. I post on their discussion list. That's ALL. Also, as far as I know, DianaW does not belong to PLANS either. Please get a grip. With regard to your version of what constitutes "defamation" - you the guy who calls PLANS a "hate group", I can hardly think of a person less reliable to make such a claim. I'm not interested in following YOUR links to YOUR websites for YOUR explanations of why YOU think nothing that questions Steiner is reliable. I have read Steiner for a decade and a half. I know what his position is, I know what he has said - not because I have read Peter S or Peter Z or your website for that matter, but because I have read STEINER. I don't need the Dutch Commission's report to satisfy me that Steiner wasn't a racist - I've read STEINER so I KNOW he was a racist. So, forget your grandstanding, and your repeated appeals for people to read your crap - if anyone wants to know what Steiner wrote, they should READ STEINER. The references that have been applied here are absolutely valid, the points the authors make are well cited and AGREE with what Steiner actually presented in his own writings. I'm sorry you don't like how it sounds - but Steiner was a racist and an antisemitic assimilationist. And your friend Harlan is busy building a case against what he knows is coming next. So you guys have fun. Stop trying to defame the legitimate sources of valid information and start filling sandbags - the flood is coming soon. Pete K 17:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

sometimes, pete, i'd like to pinch you, trueblood 19:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Trueblood... I haven't been pinched in a while. So whatcha wearin'... Pete K 00:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not know what to think abut Staudenmaier at first. So I checked what he wrote against the sources he referred to. Then I knew. It was very simple. Only you have to get the sources first. That was the only problematic thing. Most people don't. If you have them, you know who is telling the truth about wht they say, and who doesn't. At my pages on his writings, I tell what he writes, and as far as possible try to document the sources he refers to and writes that he describes to make it possible for people to chek for themselves. If you don't want to do that because you don't like me, Pete, it's OK with me. Only don't tell that you know what the sources that P.S. allegedly refers to tell, until you have read them and know. Then argue about them, not your feelings about me. Thebee 21:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The source I'm going by is Steiner himself. If he wrote it, then there's no denying he meant it. Peter Staudenmaier isn't the only person that noticed these things about Steiner's writings - not by a longshot. But most important for me is that I have seen them myself in sources I have at my home in my library - books written by Steiner. Now, you may not like what Peter Staudenmaier writes, and you may think you have some problems with his sources (something I find very easy to believe because you have done nothing but misunderstood practically everything I and others have posted) and that's fine. But as a source of information on Steiner and the Anthroposophists who inherited Anthroposophy from him, Peter Staudenmaier has been incredibly thorough in his research and diligent in his citations. Steiner defenders have been trying to discredit him or throw doubt on his material for almost a decade - without success. And really, as one looks on the internet at this issue, practically all of that defamation links back to your personal websites. It is amazing to me that you seem to be responsible for all of this ridiculous commentary - and apparently nobody else is able to find the problems with his research that you seem to do. It makes me wonder if you have a vendetta against him like you have against me. Pete K 00:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

"The source I'm going by is Steiner himself. If he wrote it, then there's no denying he meant it. Peter Staudenmaier isn't the only person that noticed these things about Steiner's writings - not by a longshot. But most important for me is that I have seen them myself in sources I have at my home in my library - books written by Steiner."

That's a loose, sweeping and non-specific answer, that does not address this, this, this and this, all quoting what P.S. writes, and the sources he allegedly describes, or giving a direct link to it. Thebee 07:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That you characterize my answer as "a loose, sweeping and non-specific answer" is amazing. This is a talk page. When I put Steiner's own words in the article, and I will, they will be specific and referenced. I'm not following any links back to your websites Sune - especially to sub-sections called "comments", they're a waste of time and you never provide any actual information - only speculation and BS. Get it - I refuse to even look at your nonsense. If you think your argument is real, bring it to the article (but not from your website - it must be from the actual sources). Pete K 13:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sune writes, regarding PLANS: "have almost ten years of experience of the group, and have for a number of years tried to penetrate the basis for the things they write and publish at their defamatory site" - then WHY is it impossible for you to quote or link to the things they've done that show what you claim? Why can't you document a single one of your claims against them in a straightforward manner - links to PLANS' statements or descriptions (objective descriptions; not your own web sites) of things they've done that show what you claim?DianaW 14:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sune: "Nobody brings their defamation here to Misplaced Pages the way you, and DianaW do." I have written NOTHING defamatory on wikipedia, ever, at any time, about any person, place or thing. I ask you to either document this claim - with a link to my "defamatory" statements - or retract this claim, and apologize.DianaW 14:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to make the same request. Pete K 14:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Please remember that web-published texts count as original research; also, that original research sites are excluded as references here. Hgilbert 01:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Say what? It's like talking to a wall. I was accused, above, of writing something defamatory here. I would like to know what it was. I am confused as to why there is only silence in response, and endless parroting of irrelevant policies. I would like the person - Sune - who states above that I have written defamation at wikipedia to point to the defamation. If I have written something defamatory here, I would like to apologize for it. If there is nothing of this nature that Sune can point to, I suggest the accusation be retracted and an apology offered. I believe suggesting I am guilty of defaming somebody or something when this is not the case is a violation of various wikipedia policies. You seem to have most of them memorized, yes Harlan? "Assume good faith." "Be civil." etc.DianaW 02:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

And of course, we've been over this about a hundred times now too. Peter Staudenmaier's writing has been published in scholarly journals and in book form by reputable publishers - he is not self-published, or published only on the web. Sune Nordwall's web sites, conversely, are entirely web-published/self-published. If Nordwall has any published writing on anything anywhere, other than his own web sites, I'm not aware of it.DianaW 02:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If a particular document has only been published on the web, it is not considered citable for Misplaced Pages. It does not matter what else the author has published in print editions. This is Misplaced Pages policy.

According to an agreement we have been following in these articles, if a site has significant amounts of original research, it should not be used as a reference even if to an otherwise citable article. This is a principle that Pete pushed strongly; if we wish to allow such citations (to citable works on sites that contain original research), we can do so - it is not completely against Misplaced Pages policy - but then it should be generally applicable, not just to sites that conform to Pete and your POV. Do you understand the principle of WP:NPOV? Hgilbert 10:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

There is too much to keep up with here for me at the moment, so pardon me if I am picking up the wrong end of the stick. Is the article under dispute "Janus Face of Anthroposophy"? If so, it is not published only on the web but was published in a publication called "Humanist" in Oslo and is fully citable. That is what you took out on 24 October if I'm not mistaken, and sparked this latest round of hoo-ha trying to claim Staudenmaier is not a source acceptable for wikipedia. Why don't you forget this? You know it is not true, and if it's worth it to you folks to take it out every few days for the next decade, it's worth it to us to put it back in. You know it's not a case you could win if you took it to admin.DianaW 11:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You're correct that you are picking up the wrong end of the stick. That is not the article under dispute. Hgilbert 13:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be very civil of you then to specify for me which article is under discussion here. I'm sure you can understand that after a few days away these discussions are very difficult to follow. There are 16 paragraphs above this and best I can determine the discussion began on 24 October, and resulted from your removing mention of the "Janus Face" article. Which article please?DianaW 13:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Commentators commenting on commentators commenting on Steiner's works

It is perhaps a little stretching things to include commentators commenting on Ullmann and Rüsen commenting on the Dutch commission commenting on Steiner's comments about race. (Or we will start including commentators commenting on Hannson as well, and no doubt commentators commenting on the commentators commenting on Hannson...) In addition, the website of the reference does not meet the standards we are following here (let's have some unbiased application of these so forcefully expressed standards)! Finally, the material does not seem to be published; use of unpublished material, or material only published on a website, does not meet Misplaced Pages's standards Hgilbert 02:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's the bottom line Harlan. AGAIN, you are trying to disguise the affiliations of the people you call neutral. First, you tried to pretend that the Dutch Commission wasn't comprised completely of Anthroposophists, then you try to disguise that Ullmann and Rusen are ALSO Anthroposophists and claim them to be neutral. I think the best way to approach this issue of consistant LYING about who is saying what is to delete the entire Anthroposophical Dutch Commission's report - as, again, it was produced by Anthroposophists and irrelevant. If you insist on trying to hide the truth about who is saying what, then I'll remove the report completely. It is full disclosure or none. YOU made the claim that Ullmann and Rusen are "neutral". That's a lie. If you don't want me to reference the source that points that out, don't make the claim. It's not rocket science Harlan. If you insist in inserting dishonesty into these articles, be prepared to have them challenged. If you don't like the nature of the challenges, be prepared to have the dishonest material removed.

This brings me to the next issue, BTW, which is that I notice you are adding a lot of material supporting the Steiner=champion against antisemitism idea. Please don't think that when I present rebuttals to each and every one of these statements and quotes that you will claim we have no room in the article for them. I expect to present detailed material to refute each of these claims and if we run out of room, I'll start removing your claims - not my rebuttals. So in case that's what you are trying to do with this truckload of material, rest assured, the truth of the matter will take precedance over the POV you are pushing. Pete K 15:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

They are not anthroposophists. One serves on the board of the Novalis Institute, however.

You are using a web-published document, here. Please replace it with a different citation.Hgilbert 19:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

For the moment, I'll remove the Dutch Commission's report completely. We've never settled this issue anyway - it's a waste of space. If you can't be up front about the fact that ONLY ANTHROPOSOPHISTS deny Steiner's racism, then I'll have to make that decision for you. Sorry. Pete K 22:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added a description of the Dutch Report, corrected and made more detailed on some points, like the year it was appointed, and the specific questions the report tried to answer, as documented on p.18 of the intermediary report from 1998. Thebee 22:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The Dutch Report and The Hansson article

On 8 Oct, I posted the comments below on the talks page of the Mediation page, in answer to Diana Winters. Interspersed comments by her and Pete cut it into seventeen parts, making it unreadable. I therefore draw the seventeen parts together below again here. To be on the safe side against renewed chop-chop, I've also put a slightly more developed version of the comments at http://www.thebee.se/comments/OnHanssonArticleFrom2004.htm

Both the Dutch investigation, documentation and commenting of all comments by Steiner on the issue of race as it was understood during his time, and Hansson's article were undertaken/written in response to criticism.

In Holland, this had the form of one or more articles in the press, alleging racism in Waldorf education and anthroposophy. In Sweden (where Hansson lives), this had the form of criticism of an anthology on anthroposophy in 2003, published by the Swedish branch of CSICOP, founded in 1982. Anthroposophy is one of the main targets of ideological criticism from the group since its foundation. Hansson was one of its central founders of the group, its first chairperson, and has published a number of articles on anthroposophy from a secular humanist perspective since its foundation.

Harlan Gilbert, again, removed the critique of the Dutch Commission's report. This is a well referenced and published article that belongs here as long as the Dutch Commission's report is here. I have added it back in. Please stop removing it. Pete K 16:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hansson's reliability as author on anthroposophy and science

One of the articles published in the anthology was a somewhat shortened version of a paper by Hansson from 1991. A closer look at it and comparison of what he writes with the original sources he uses, shows that Hansson's way of using quotes from different works by Rudolf Steiner seriously misrepresent anthroposophy as developed separate from theosophy, and distorts the argumentation in the context from which quotes from works by Steiner are taken. It also shows that the discussion of the three examples used by Hansson to argue against the reliability of alleged predictions by Steiner partly is based on careless mistranslation, non-consideration of the social, conceptual and historical context from which the examples are taken and superficial to the extent of bordering on pure rhetoric. Both factors deprive the discussion in a large part of the article by Hansson of its possible scientific value regarding the subject it purports to be a discussion of.

His longstanding position and work in the ideological anti-Waldorf and anti-anthroposophical organization, that published his article in 2004, later translated into English, makes him into a highly partisan, not neutral writer on anthroposophy.

His paper in 1991 also indicates that he is an unreliable author on anthroposophy. That it was republished in 2003 in a shortened form in the anthology on anthroposophy shows that little has changed with regard to this since 1991. It indicates that his article in 2004, mentioned in the Wiki article not can be taken as a reliable, objective paper either on the issue of Steiner's view of race.

Hansson's reliability as author on Steiner's view on the issue of race

This is also shown by the description of it in the Misplaced Pages article. It says

"This is an important part of his writings on the progress and development of humanity."

This is not correct. Only appr. five of the published 3,000 lectures by Steiner have race as it was understood during his time as their main there, and the in total 245 comments on the issue represent probably less than 1% of his total works. If the issue had been important to him, he reasonably would have dedicated more of his works to it.

The article, according to the description of it at the Wiki page also says:

"Steiner, did not believe in biological Evolution"

This is untrue. Steiner praised Haeckel (one of the earliest writers on biological evolution) and spoke of the importance of the principle of biological evolution frequently. (See for example Steiner: GA262, p. 49)The article, also according to the description of it in the Wiki article, writes: Stiner's "spiritual science showed that 'historically, the racial characteristics came from where people were born'." This refers to Cenozoic time, today dated as starting appr. 65 Million years ago, that in Steiner's view corresponds to what in the esoteric tradition is called "Atlantean" time.

The Wiki article also writes: "Steiner, tought that it was only recent that the racial characteristics became hereditary." This is untrue. In his view, what we experience as fading 'racial characteristics of humans, that Blumenbach referred to as the five main varieties of humans, and that in Steiner's view came into being during Cenozoic time, became hereditary from the beginning of Cenozoic (Atlantean) time, not "recently".

And just to mention one more thing: According to the Misplaced Pages article

"Elsewhere, he stated that 'the most mature characteristics are found in the European area. It is simply (a natural) law."

This is an untrue description of the source. What the source refers as a 'natural law' is not the "characteristics of people found in the European area", but the global pattern of the distribution of people, when the differentiation into the 'five main varieties' of humanity took place with regard to bodily characteristics of man in Steiner's view far in the past. The source also shows that what seemingly is described in the present tense repeatedly refers not to the present, but to the time far in the past, when what he describes took place in his view.

All points indicate that the article by Hansson, described in the Misplaced Pages article is as unreliable as source on Steiner's view on the issue of race, as his 1991 article was on the question of whether anthroposophy meets present day criteria of what constitutes "science".

The description of the Dutch report describes its background, the affiliation of the Commission members, and the (Dutch) criteria it used to find anthroposophy not to be racist in relation to Dutch legislation on discrimination, and as such it in full meets Misplaced Pages criteria for reliable sources.

As documented about, this is not the case with the Hansson report. Thebee 22:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for yet another conclusion based on your own previous conclusions and referencing your own original research. I wonder whether you ever get tired of pushing your pre-packaged and relatively unbelievable POV. ""This is an important part of his writings on the progress and development of humanity." This is not correct. Only appr. five of the published 3,000 lectures by Steiner have race as it was understood during his time as their main there, and the in total 245 comments on the issue represent probably less than 1% of his total works. If the issue had been important to him, he reasonably would have dedicated more of his works to it." This is probably the most unbelievable of your claims. Steiner introduced the concept of race in almost everything from education (which students should be seated near the window - according to race), to health and medicine, to reincarnation and karma. To suggest Steiner only spoke of race in five lectures demonstrates dishonesty or a very shallow understanding of Steiner's written works and the significance race played in them. Racial differences are the foundation of much of Anthroposophy and a very large part of Steiner's work. I have 25 pages of racist remarks personally stored on my computer - so your suggestion that there are only 245 "comments" seems pretty ridiculous to me. I think Anthroposophists would be more credible if they would actually come clean and acknowledge Steiner's racism rather than continuing to suggest that it didn't exist - which is contrary to mountains of evidence. Pete K 23:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics